Delta variant not considered a local problem
Pop-up boutique on State Street More than 20 local businesses and artists sell products - B1
Officials point to high vaccination rate - A3
Our 166th Year
75¢
T H U R S DAY, J U N E 2 4 , 2 0 21
County responds to water authority’s suit By GRAYCE MCCORMICK
Santa Barbara County’s 2nd District Supervisor Gregg Hart told the News-Press that “unfortunately,” the phrase “still rings true today.” The county leader referenced the so-called Twain quote in light of the lawsuit the county now faces from eight county water districts. They are alleging that Supervisor Hart and his
NEWS-PRESS STAFF WRITER
“Whiskey is for drinking; water is for fighting over.” This ages-old adage — which many attribute to Mark Twain, even though it’s never been proven to be said by the author — is typically used to describe how the Western world views water.
board are unlawfully inserting themselves into the decisionmaking process of how to manage state water supplies. The lawsuit was announced Monday. The suit — filed on behalf of the Central Coast Water Authority, which is made up of the cities of Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, Buellton and Guadalupe,
along with the water districts including Montecito, Carpinteria, Goleta and Santa Ynez (which contracts a portion of its State Water Project supply to Solvang) — argues that because the county does not deliver state water or pay any portion of it, it cannot interfere with purchases or sales under the State Water Contract. However, according to
Supervisor Hart, the county holds the contract for the CCWA, and “the County of Santa Barbara holds the State Water Contract with the state of California.” “The state of California recognizes the important role the county holds in representing the regional interests of all county residents that the cumulative selfinterest of the individual water
Hope for Alzheimer’s?
districts in the county does not represent,” Supervisor Hart told the News-Press. The reason behind the lawsuit, according to CCWA, was because when the water agency asked the board to buy and sell water for what the market would bear (state Amendment 21), the county Please see SUIT on B4
City denies appeal of De la Vina Street development Council says its hands are tied By GRAYCE MCCORMICK NEWS-PRESS STAFF WRITER
RAFAEL MALDONADO/NEWS-PRESS
Dr. DeWayne Nash of Santa Barbara was diagnosed with early mild cognitive impairment, a precursor to Alzheimer’s. He was among the participants in a trial for the new drug aduhelm.
New drug stirs FDA controversy By MARILYN MCMAHON NEWS-PRESS STAFF WRITER
For the first time in 20 years, the Food and Drug Administration has approved a first-of-its-kind drug for Alzheimer’s that treats the disease and slows its progression. Alzheimer’s is a form of dementia, which is a disease that attacks brain cells. Dementia is a more general term, and some people who have cognitive loss from dementia do not have Alzheimer’s. First named aducanumab and now called aduhelm, the drug is not a cure for Alzheimer’s. But it is the first new drug that could be
effective at slowing the progression “The FDA did the right thing of the disease that robs people of by approving it for use in early their brain function. Alzheimer’s since it shows that it That’s the good news. may decrease cognitive decline in The bad news is that it has these patients by 22%,” Dr. Nash generated controversy over told the News-Press. “I’ve read all whether it should have been the negative reviews. I have elected approved by the FDA. The flare-up to turn them off. The decision is has prompted three made. members of an FDA “Now let’s see To see streaming video advisory board to how well it works,” GO TO resign in protest. said. “The drug newspress.com he The board aduhelm gives us members said the in the Alzheimer’s approval sets a poor precedent for world one thing — some hope.” giving other drugs the greenlight. The retired family physician They also point to the drug’s high was diagnosed with early mild cost and its potential impact on cognitive impairment, a precursor healthcare costs. to Alzheimer’s, in December 2010. Dr. DeWayne Nash of Santa He was in the aduhelm study Barbara is keenly aware of the conducted by Biogen for about controversy, and there is no 25 weeks, receiving 18 months ambiguity as to where he stands on of placebo and seven months of the issue. aduhelm at UCLA.
FOLLOW US ON
6
66833 00050
3
Please see NASH on A4
Please see PROJECT on A4
L O T T E RY RESULTS
INSIDE Classified.............. B4 Life.................... B 1-2 Obituaries............. A4
“It was supposed to be continued a year ago, but it was delayed by the pandemic. I restarted the infusions this summer,” he said. Agreeing with Dr. Nash about the efficacy of the drug is Kathryn Croskrey, executive director of the Alzheimer’s Association, SanDiego/ Imperial Chapter. “Aduhelm may not be a perfect drug, but it’s the first step, and just like other diseases, the first step leads to other steps that will focus on newer and better therapies,” she told the News-Press. One of the issues in the controversy is side effects, which may include headache, dizziness, nausea, confusion and vision changes. “All drugs have side effects,” said Ms. Croskrey. “In the FDA label, the most common side
The Santa Barbara City Council has denied an appeal that would have revoked approval for a proposed fourstory development on De la Vina Street. The denial means the project can move forward, and council members said their hands are tied for procedural reasons. In the city’s quasi-judicial process, council members heard the appeal by resident Donna Mrotek, who objected to the Architectural Board of Review’s final approval of a 21-unit, fourstory, mixed-use development at 825 De la Vina St. The concerns listed by the appellant (and approximately 40 neighbors standing behind her in a protest on Monday) included neighborhood compatibility, inadequate setback distances, potential construction noise/vibration impacts and inconsistency with design guidelines. However, these concerns were not ultimately what made the decision for the council, despite whether the council members agreed with the concerns. Instead, the council was tasked with determining whether the ABR’s final approval — the decision being appealed — matched the ABR’s previous project design approval, during which size, bulk and scale were OK’d. Ms. Mrotek and her neighbors were concerned about those details. Council members said they could not make the finding that the two approvals did not match up. After hearing out the appellant and her neighbors who spoke up in public comment, council members said that the appeal came a little over two months too late, after the ABR had already issued project design approval. If the City Council would have tried to go outside its purview and challenge the project’s design approval, the city would likely face litigation and the subsequent financial risks, according to the city attorney’s office. In her presentation, Ms. Mrotek cited several instances in which she argued the city misinformed the public about how to participate in meetings and voice their opposition before the project design was approved. She noted the public was not notified about the project as a whole until after the ABR’s meeting on Jan. 29, when the
project was granted project design approval. That decision solidified all of the details with which Ms. Mrotek and her neighbors had concerns. The appellant pointed out that the minutes from that meeting did not indicate anywhere that there would be a 10-day appeal period after the ABR granted the project design approval. “I was unable to appeal at any of the appropriate times because of lack of notification I should have gotten about the meetings,” Ms. Mrotek said. Besides her general concerns with the property, Ms. Mrotek voiced concerns that story poles (preliminary poles to show the structure’s height) would have made a difference in notifying the public. She said the criteria was met to use story poles in this situation, but the ABR waived that requirement. Furthermore, the appellant took issue with the fact that ABR members referred to two singlestory homes near the property — one of which is her own — as “just sheds.” She also noted a mistake in Tuesday’s meeting notice, which said that the City Council meeting would take place “Thursday, June 22, 2021.” June 22 was Tuesday. “The fact remains: We did not receive notifications of meetings; notifications that we did get were wrong; and the lack of story poles held back information to the public,” Ms. Mrotek said. “As one who is in close proximity and shares a property line, I have the right to stay informed, and I followed the directions I was asked to make that happen. “For this reason, I feel the approval of 825 De la Vina is not valid, as we were denied our right to speak,” she continued. “Therefore, approval should be revoked, new meetings set so we as citizens can attend and actually voice our needs for size, bulk and scale compatibility in the neighborhood, and keeping skyline and mountain views and ensuring our rights for privacy.” Numerous speakers during public comments agreed with Ms. Mrotek. They cited their own instances of lack of notifications or difficulties accessing information on city documents and its website, www. santabarbaraca.gov. As the City Council deliberated its next moves, members all agreed that the fault was on behalf of the city’s procedures as they currently
Sudoku................. B3 Weather................ A4
Wednesday’s SUPER LOTTO: 4-7-8-19-36 Meganumber: 3
Wednesday’s DAILY 4: 8-4-0-4
Tuesday’s MEGA MILLIONS: 1-26-48-51-59 Meganumber: 25
Wednesday’s FANTASY 5: 4-12-26-29-33
Wednesday’s DAILY DERBY: 06-11-08 Time: 1:42.79
Wednesday’s POWERBALL: 13-20-40-51-63 Meganumber: 1
Wednesday’s DAILY 3: 5-6-2 / Wednesday’s Midday 9-9-9