BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

Approval of Minutes

• The board reviewed the minutes from the March 5, 2013 meeting.
• A motion was made to approve the recorded minutes.
• The motion passed unanimously.

Housing Authority Appointment

• Supervisor Lavinino requested to pull the appointment item from the agenda.
• The board recognized Robert Doyle for his service to the Housing Authority and transition to the Planning Commission.
• No vote was taken as the item was removed for recognition purposes.

Arts Commission Grant Application

• The board considered the Santa Barbara County Arts Commission’s application for the California Arts Council State Local Partnership Program.
• Staff explained the grant is funded by license plate sales and requires no general fund match.
• The board approved the administrative calendar item unanimously.

Naples Coalition Appeal

• The board considered the Naples Coalition’s appeal regarding the Schulte-Dos Pueblos lot line adjustment.
• A motion was made to continue the item to the April 9 meeting.
• The motion to continue passed unanimously.

Air Support Unit Status

• The Sheriff’s Office and Fire Department presented a status update on the combined County Air Support Unit.
• Staff reported the unit is operating approximately $225,000 over budget due to unanticipated repairs.
• A budget request of $298,000 for a deferred maintenance fund was proposed for the 2013-2014 fiscal year.
• The board approved the status report and budget considerations unanimously.

Verizon Wireless Facility Appeal

• The board heard arguments regarding the Montecito Planning Commission’s approval of a Verizon wireless facility.
• Parties agreed to replace rooftop antennas with a "faux tree" design to address community concerns.
• Staff recommended continuing the hearing to prepare findings of approval for the alternative design.
• The board voted unanimously to continue the item to the March 19 meeting.

Montecito Land Use Code Amendment

• Staff presented an ordinance amendment allowing a second time extension for reconstructing non-conforming structures.
• The extension applies when substantial off-site infrastructure improvements are required before reconstruction can commence.
• The board approved the ordinance amendment to address delays caused by private road improvements.

Climate Action Strategy Phase Two

• Staff presented five options for greenhouse gas reduction targets and implementation methods.
• The board discussed the feasibility of Community Choice Aggregation and the impact of mandatory measures on residents.
• Supervisor Carvajal moved to proceed with the staff recommendation for Option 4, including a CCA feasibility study.
• The board voted 3-2 to conduct an Environmental Impact Review for Option 4 with specific conditions.

Countywide Fee Adjustments

• The Community Services Department proposed fee modifications for parks, special events, and aquatics programs.
• The proposal includes new rates for lifeguard services, pool rentals, and increased camping fees.
• Supervisor Wolf moved to approve the fees with a no-fee charge for students at beaches during school hours.
• The board approved the fee adjustments unanimously.

Cottage Food Operations Fee Schedule

• The Public Health Department presented a resolution to amend fees for the California Homemade Food Act.
• Staff proposed no fee for Class A operations and an annual fee of $292 for Class B operations.
• The board clarified that Class B operations are limited to one routine inspection per year.
• The board approved the fee schedule amendment unanimously.

Opening and Roll Call

• The board meeting was called to order, and roll call confirmed all members were present. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

Approval of Minutes

• Item: Approval of the minutes for March 5, 2013.
• Action: A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes.
• Decision: The motion passed unanimously.

Public Comment

• Six individuals provided public comment on various topics: 1. Building Permits: A painting contractor and a construction business owner expressed concerns regarding delays in the building permit process, stating that these delays have negatively impacted their businesses, led to layoffs, and contributed to an increase in unpermitted work. 2. Jail Mail Policy: Multiple speakers addressed the Santa Barbara County Jail’s new "postcard-only" mail policy. They argued that the policy violates First Amendment rights, hinders rehabilitation and family support, and disproportionately affects North County residents. Speakers cited the ACLU’s involvement, the Prison Policy Initiative’s opposition, and the American Correctional Association’s stance on inmate correspondence. They requested that the Board use its influence to urge the Sheriff to reconsider the policy. 3. Public Health: Jeff Bard discussed a tuberculosis outbreak in Los Angeles, noting media sensationalism and the need for policy changes regarding vulnerable populations. 4. Conservatorship: Flora West spoke on behalf of seniors' rights, stating she is under a conservatorship she believes is unnecessary and that she cannot afford legal representation to challenge it. 5. Community Goals: Judith Everett discussed the importance of small groups collaborating on community goals, including mental health treatment for prisoners and education. 6. Fire Prevention Fee: Ted Sands inquired about a letter sent to the state regarding a fire prevention fee. The Board confirmed a letter had been sent and offered to provide a copy to the speaker. 7. Planning Department Performance: Mark Lloyd stated that the Planning and Development Department has been responsive but warned that recent staff cuts may lead to longer permit wait times as the economy recovers. 8. Conference Invitation: Sam Cohen, representing the San Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, invited the Board to the 36th Annual California Conference on American Indian Education, scheduled for March 17–19.

Administrative Items

• Item A14 (Housing Authority Appointment): Supervisor Lavinino requested to pull this item. He recognized Robert Doyle for his service to the Housing Authority and his subsequent move to the Planning Commission. No vote was taken as the item was pulled for recognition purposes.
• Item A4 (Arts Commission Grant Application): The Board considered the Santa Barbara County Arts Commission’s application for the California Arts Council State Local Partnership Program.
• Discussion: The Executive Director of the County Arts Commission explained that the grant is funded entirely by California Arts License Plate sales and requires no general fund match. The funds are used to leverage existing city and county funding to provide arts services and technical support to nonprofits.
• Action: A motion was made and seconded to approve the administrative calendar, which included this item.
• Decision: The motion passed unanimously.

Departmental Agenda

Item 1: Naples Coalition Appeal

• Discussion: The Board considered the Naples Coalition’s appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the Schulte-Dos Pueblos lot line adjustment.
• Action: A motion was made and seconded to continue the item to the April 9 meeting.
• Decision: The motion passed unanimously.

Item 2: Air Support Unit Status

• Discussion: The Sheriff’s Office and Fire Department presented a status update on the County Air Support Unit (ASU). Under Sheriff Jim Peterson and Fire Chief Michael Dyer, the unit’s mission, staffing, and asset status were presented. Key points included:
• The unit consists of nine full-time employees, reducing costs compared to the previous separate units.
• Copter 3 (Type 2 heavy lift) is in service and "carded" for firefighting operations.
• Copters 1 and 2 (Type 3 observation) are in service but awaiting "carding" status.
• Copter 4 (Type 2) is out of service for engine inspection; Copter 308 is out of service for maintenance; Copter 309 is mothballed; and Air 50 (fixed-wing) is undergoing annual inspection.
• Since July 2012, the unit responded to 18 fire calls, 180 law enforcement missions, and 23 search-and-rescue calls.
• The combined operations manual is in final review.
• The unit anticipates coming in approximately $225,000 over its adopted budget due to unanticipated repairs.
• A budget request of $298,000 for a deferred maintenance fund was proposed for the 2013-2014 fiscal year to cover unplanned expenses. The total estimated budget for 2013-2014, including this fund, is approximately $2.35 million.
• Discussions included the methodology for calculating maintenance costs (based on industry-standard hourly rates per aircraft type) and the lack of current appraisals for the aircraft.
• The Board noted that Lieutenant Bob Mott, the ASU manager, has indicated plans to retire within six months.
• Mark Ciotillo, representing the Oak Park Neighborhood Association, raised concerns regarding noise and vibration impacts from helicopter operations at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital. He noted that while CalSTAR (a medical transport provider) has adopted quieter equipment, the Sheriff’s Department aircraft are older, louder, and represent the second highest volume of traffic to the hospital. Ciotillo requested that the Board consider noise and community impact criteria in the oversight of the Sheriff’s Air Support Unit, similar to standards applied in the Department of Health Services agreement.
• Sheriff’s Department representatives stated that they follow standard flight routes and that landings at Cottage Hospital are infrequent (estimated 4–6 times since July, including training). They emphasized that flight paths are dictated by wind conditions for safety, requiring upwind approaches and departures.
• Supervisor Carbajal suggested exploring grant funding for lower-noise technology and understanding flight volumes. Supervisor Wolf requested an update on the completion of the joint operations manual and expressed appreciation for the progress made in integrating the two units.
• Action: A motion was made and seconded to approve the item.
• Decision: The motion passed unanimously.

Item 3: Planning and Development – Goolsbee and Goolsbee-K Appeal (Verizon Wireless Facility)

• Discussion: The Board heard from parties regarding an appeal of the Montecito Planning Commission’s approval of a Verizon wireless facility at the Montecito switch station. The original proposal involved rooftop antennas. After six months of negotiation, the parties reached an agreement to replace the rooftop antennas with a "faux tree" (tree pole) design, which received preliminary approval from the Montecito Board of Architectural Review (BAR).
• Appellant Position: Mark Ciotillo, representing the appellants, stated they support the tree pole alternative over the rooftop option, citing improved service coverage and reduced ground-level radio frequency (RF) emissions. They noted that a preschool across the street threatened to withdraw children if the rooftop antennas were installed, citing economic impact.
• Applicant Position: Jay Higgins, representing Verizon Wireless, detailed the extensive search for alternative sites (19 properties evaluated) which yielded no suitable locations. He confirmed that the tree pole design improves coverage and lowers emissions at grade. He noted that the design allows for future AT&T upgrades and that Verizon is willing to accept conditions for ongoing maintenance.
• Legal Counsel: Paul Albritton, Verizon’s outside counsel, reminded the Board that under federal law (Telecommunications Act), RF emissions are not a permissible basis for denial. He noted the Board is eight months past the federal deadline for decision and urged timely approval.
• Public Comment: Jeffrey Young, a wireless site development expert, opposed the tree pole solution, arguing that a 75-foot tree is aesthetically inconsistent with the semi-rural neighborhood and that the rooftop option would have been better masked. He stated that RF emissions are not a valid basis for denial under the Telecommunications Act.
• Ex Parte Disclosures: Board members disclosed various contacts, including emails, site visits, and meetings with parties involved.
• Action: Staff recommended continuing the hearing for one week to allow time for staff to prepare findings of approval for the faux tree alternative. A motion was made and seconded to continue the hearing to the March 19th meeting and direct staff to return with findings for the faux tree.
• Decision: The motion passed unanimously.

Item 4: Planning and Development – Montecito Land Use and Development Code Amendment (Non-Conforming Structures)

• Discussion: Staff presented an ordinance amendment to the Montecito Land Use and Development Code. The amendment would grant the Planning Director discretion to grant a second time extension (up to 36 months) for the reconstruction of non-conforming structures damaged by natural disasters, specifically when substantial off-site infrastructure improvements (such as roadway upgrades to meet fire protection standards) are required before reconstruction can commence. This addresses cases in the Montecito area where homeowners have been unable to rebuild due to private road improvements required by the Montecito Fire Protection District.
• Supervisor Adam asked for clarification on why permits had not been issued within the standard timeframe, learning that private road widening/grade changes were the barrier. He raised concerns about potential county liability for denying permits to rebuild pre-existing structures. Supervisor Wolf asked if the extension was limited only to off-site improvement cases; staff confirmed it was limited to situations where the homeowner lacks control over the delay, such as required infrastructure work.
• Action: A motion was made and seconded to approve the ordinance amendment.
• Decision: The motion passed.

Item 5: Planning and Development – Climate Action Strategy Phase Two (Energy and Climate Action Plan)

• Discussion: Staff presented the Energy and Climate Action Plan (ECAP), the second phase of the county’s climate action strategy. The Board was asked to select a project description for environmental review (CEQA). Staff outlined five options for greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets and implementation methods:
• Option 1: 10% reduction via voluntary measures only. Does not meet the 15% threshold required for programmatic CEQA tiering.
• Option 2: 15% reduction via voluntary measures plus Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) and Community Choice Aggregation (CCA). Unlikely to allow CEQA tiering due to lack of mandatory standards.
• Option 3: Phased measures (voluntary then mandatory after 2015) plus CCA. Feasibility of CCA is unknown.
• Option 4 (Staff Recommendation): 15% reduction via voluntary, phased, and mandatory measures (including renewable energy requirements for new buildings). Includes SCS implementation. Does not include CCA. Likely allows for CEQA tiering.
• Option 5: Achieving over a 20% GHG reduction through six reduction measures, a zero net waste goal, mandatory energy audits and retrofits for all residential and non-residential properties to reduce energy by 30%, and mandatory energy audits for residential properties older than 10 years. Staff noted that Option 5 would allow for CEQA programmatic tiering but was not recommended due to high implementation costs.
• Supervisor Questions and Staff Responses:
• Supervisor Lavagnino noted that cost evaluations for the options are not yet finalized and will be presented with the final plan.
• Supervisor Wolf asked about the downsides of including CCA, noting the City of Santa Barbara is pursuing it. Staff explained that CCA requires a feasibility study and has unknown costs and timelines, making it a distinct risk compared to other measures.
• Supervisor Farr clarified that voluntary measures listed in Option 1 are carried forward into subsequent options unless modified.
• Supervisor Wolf requested that if SCS is included, the Board specify that it applies to the SCS and not other specific streets (referencing Hollister Avenue).
• Supervisor Wolf asked if county buildings were included in the inventory. Staff clarified that county facilities are included in a separate municipal operations inventory, distinct from the community-wide inventory, because many facilities are located in incorporated cities. The Chair noted that a separate county sustainability plan addressing internal operations is expected to be presented in a few weeks.
• Supervisor Ford asked why the plan requires participation in the state CSI thermal rebate program (solar thermal) rather than allowing tankless water heaters. Staff explained that solar thermal reduces energy use more significantly than tankless units and that funding is available to support solar thermal energy use.
• Supervisor Lavinino asked about livestock emissions, which constitute a significant portion of the inventory. Staff identified these as methane generation from cattle and other livestock. Staff noted limited ability to reduce these emissions, though methane digesters are an option for non-range land animals, which is not included in the current plan.
• Public Comment:
• 1. Robert Jeffers: Requested the Board reject staff’s recommendations, citing assumptions, lack of mandates from the state, and the use of qualitative rather than quantitative measures. He argued the county cannot control emissions from Los Padres National Forest, Vandenberg Air Force Base, UCSB, Highway 101, and natural biogenic sources. 2. Joe Armendariz (Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association): Urged the Board to reject the plan, citing high regulatory costs, potential negative impacts on the economy and employment, and a lack of accountability to taxpayers. He suggested the Board focus on economic vitality. 3. Robin Hayhurst (Santa Maria Valley Contractors Association): Opposed mandatory measures in Options 3 and 4, arguing they are unfair to the construction industry and difficult to monitor. She suggested Option 2 (voluntary) or Option 5 (if costs are manageable), but ultimately advocated for voluntary measures and public awareness. 4. Andy Caldwell: Urged the Board to adopt voluntary Options 1 or 2, arguing that state measures (AB 32, SB 375, cap-and-trade) and economic downturns have already reduced emissions. He criticized the staff’s math and the creation of an uneven playing field for unincorporated areas. 5. Jeff Bard (Alliance to Teach Everywhere about Community Health): Supported climate change action, citing scientific consensus and national security reports. He addressed climate denialism and highlighted the vulnerability of Santa Barbara to flooding and food shortages. 6. Bruce Allen (SOS California): Recommended Options 1 or 2, arguing the report omits significant GHG sources from offshore seeps. He cited studies estimating that offshore seeps contribute approximately 400,000 tons of GHG equivalent and that offshore oil production reduces these seeps. He suggested that royalties from offshore production could fund renewable energy. 7. Megan Burney (Community Environmental Council): Supported Option 5 in concept but expressed willingness to support Option 4 if it includes a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) feasibility study. She highlighted the economic and environmental benefits of CCA and energy efficiency. 8. Nathan Alley (Environmental Defense Center): Supported the initiative and the leadership of the Board. He argued that as a coastal county, Santa Barbara is vulnerable to climate change effects and should maintain a leadership position. He supported the reductions target in Option 5 or a combination of Options 4 and 5, and supported a CCA feasibility study. 9. Toad Plow (Santa Barbara Technology and Industry Association): Urged the adoption of voluntary plans, arguing that goals will be met through natural gas substitution and consumer choices. He emphasized the impact of offshore seeps on the economy and health, suggesting that oil production is a method to reduce these emissions. 10. Jefferson Linton: Supported the staff recommendation of Option 4, citing its feasibility and lower cost compared to Option 5. He requested the inclusion of a CCA feasibility study to allow homeowners and businesses to capture renewable energy benefits. 11. Robert Doyle (Allen Associates): Spoke in favor of Option 4, citing his company’s success in energy efficiency. He noted that energy assessments cost less than $200 and provide a high return on investment. He argued that industry opposition to energy codes has decreased over time as benefits became apparent. 12. Judith Ishkanian (Neighborhood Defense League): Suggested the Board stand back and let SBCAG address the issue first. She expressed concern for residents who may not have the resources to meet mandated requirements immediately and advocated for voluntary measures. 13. Brian Troutwine (Environmental Defense Center): Stated that the threat of climate change outweighs previous conservation efforts. He supported a larger reduction target or a combination of Options 4 and 5 to protect public health and economic well-being. 14. Mark Sciatillo: Endorsed Option 5 as the most aggressive approach, citing the county’s vulnerability due to its coastline and agricultural resources. He acknowledged the political palatability of Option 4 but urged the Board to act as aggressively as possible. 15. Terry Strickland: Opposed the recommendations, arguing that regulations disproportionately impact businesses and residents in the unincorporated area. He suggested waiting for state mandates to take effect and assessing financial consequences before implementing new rules. 16. Ted Sands: Spoke against the recommendations, noting that the Board has direction over less than 60% of the county’s area. He argued that a 15% reduction in the regulated area equates to a 24% reduction for affected residents.
• Board Discussion:
• Supervisor Ford proposed a modified Option 4 that includes a CCA feasibility study. He expressed a preference for mandatory measures on new projects rather than small remodels. He raised concerns about the "point-of-sale" requirements in Option 4 (BE4) and the $10,000 building permit threshold (BE2), asking for clarification on the types of projects covered. He suggested that tankless water heaters should be an alternative to solar thermal.
• Staff indicated they could provide more information on the $10,000 permit threshold. They explained that addressing the existing housing stock is necessary to achieve the 15% reduction target because new construction volumes are low. Staff noted that including a CCA feasibility study in Option 4 would provide flexibility to adjust other requirements while still meeting the target.
• Supervisor Allen asked for confirmation that neither state nor federal law currently mandates a specific GHG reduction target. Staff confirmed that while the county is not mandated to reduce emissions, it is mandated to analyze emissions under CEQA.
• Staff clarified that to utilize the document as a programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for future projects under CEQA tiering, a specific reduction target must be set. Staff noted that the Office of Planning and Research guidance recognizes a 15% reduction as necessary for CEQA tiering, though Supervisor Bard noted this figure is not codified in law.
• Staff explained that the Climate Action Plan covers anthropogenic sources controlled by the county, excluding natural sources such as oil and gas seeps in the Pacific Ocean.
• Staff confirmed that the plan was developed using County General Fund and grant money from Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric, which is currently being spent.
• Supervisor Bard raised concerns that staff had withheld cost estimates for the various options, stating this hindered informed decision-making. Staff acknowledged the estimates were rough and preliminary, offering to share them if the board desired, while noting they were not fully refined.
• Discussion focused on Option 4, which includes energy audits and repairs. Supervisor Wolf and Supervisor Farr discussed the distinction between requiring audits versus mandatory repairs at the point of sale. Staff clarified that BE-4 requires audits and repairs at sale, while BE-2 involves audits for building permits over $10,000. Staff explained the $10,000 threshold was derived from permit history analysis to achieve specific reduction levels, not based on specific project types.
• Supervisor Lavagnino questioned whether the employment forecasts had been updated since 2011 and requested economic impact studies regarding job creation or loss. Staff stated that forecasts were updated based on new data from SB CAG and that only state programs already implemented (e.g., Renewable Portfolio Standard, Title 24) were accounted for in the baseline. Staff confirmed that detailed cost-benefit analyses, including economic impacts, would be conducted during the environmental review process before any commitment is made.
• Supervisor Lavagnino expressed concern about the enforceability of regulations on low-income residents and the lack of public demand for the plan. Supervisor Carvajal countered that the current step is to direct staff to conduct further analysis and refine the options, including addressing the point-of-sale and threshold issues raised by other supervisors.
• Action: Supervisor Carvajal moved to proceed with the staff recommendation to conduct an Environmental Impact Review (EIR) for Option 4, with the condition that staff address the specific concerns regarding point-of-sale requirements and the $10,000 permit threshold, and include Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) in the analysis. The motion was seconded.
• Decision: The motion passed (3-2).

Item 6: Countywide Fee Adjustments for Santa Barbara County Parks and Services

• Discussion: The Community Services Department presented proposed fee modifications for special use, day-use, special events, and camping, as well as new fees for aquatics programs. The proposal includes expanding the special event fee range from $1,000–$5,000 to $500–$5,000, establishing new rates for lifeguard services, pool rentals, swim lessons, and water aerobics, and increasing camping and cabin rental fees. Staff noted the fees were benchmarked against other agencies and are expected to generate approximately $234,000 annually (4% of park revenues).
• Supervisor Farr asked why new fees were not proposed for the Kachuma pool. Staff explained that lessons are not currently taught there due to the lack of a surrounding neighborhood, though public swim is available.
• Supervisor Wolf expressed support for the continuation of the Junior Lifeguard program, noting its success as a pilot.
• Supervisor Wolf and Supervisor Farr discussed the cost barriers for school groups using park facilities. Staff confirmed that while no specific discount was proposed, the county has historically allowed school groups to use facilities during midday hours without fees. Supervisor Wolf suggested formalizing a no-fee policy for schools during school hours to provide reservation assurance.
• Supervisor Bard asked why day-use fees were not proposed for beaches like Goleta and Rincon. Staff noted that entry fees were considered previously but not adopted. Supervisor Wolf stated opposition to beach parking/access fees, citing past public opposition.
• Supervisor Lavagnino requested an update on the Cuyama pool. The Chair agreed to agendize a 10–15 minute report on the status of the Cuyama facility for a future board meeting.
• Public Comment:
• One speaker opposed fee increases at Halama County Park, arguing they would deter low-income residents and that other revenue sources (e.g., mitigation fees, tax increases from land sales) should be utilized instead. The speaker suggested tiered fees based on ability to pay, particularly for RV users.
• Another speaker expressed relief that no daily casual use fees were being proposed, supporting the county’s reputation for park access.
• Action: Supervisor Wolf moved to approve the staff recommendations for fee adjustments, with the addition of a no-fee charge for students at beaches during school hours (reservations still required). The motion was seconded by Supervisor Farr.
• Decision: The motion passed unanimously.

Item 7: Resolution to Amend Environmental Health Services Fee Schedule (Cottage Food Operations)

• Discussion: The Public Health Department presented a resolution to amend the fee schedule to accommodate the new California Homemade Food Act. The Act allows for Class A (direct sales only) and Class B (direct sales and wholesale/third-party distribution) cottage food operations from home kitchens.
• Class A Operations: Staff proposed no fee for Class A registration. This is because oversight is minimal (self-certification checklist, no routine inspections), and the cost of handling registrations is expected to be lower than the cost of investigations if complaints arise. Staff noted that if complaint-driven investigations become frequent, fees may be revisited.
• Class B Operations: Staff proposed an annual fee of $292 for Class B operations. This fee is based on the current fee for "low-risk facilities" selling prepackaged non-potentially hazardous foods, as Class B operations involve food preparation. Staff noted this fee is consistent with benchmark counties.
• Inspection Limits: Staff clarified that for Class B operations, the law limits routine inspections to one per year. Investigative inspections based on credible complaints do not count toward this limit, though staff noted they are working with state legislators to clarify this distinction.
• Other Requirements: Supervisor Farr asked about business licenses and zoning. Staff confirmed that the California Homemade Food Act includes provisions preventing zoning from prohibiting these operations, and that operators are responsible for obtaining necessary business licenses and complying with local zoning rules. The self-certification checklist includes questions regarding coordination with local zoning and building officials.
• A member suggested that the county consider creating a consumer-focused checklist for individuals interested in starting cottage food operations. The proposed checklist would outline necessary steps, including obtaining a business license from the Board of Equalization and acknowledging that home-based operations are subject to business regulations similar to other enterprises.
• Supervisor Bard raised concerns regarding specific language in the proposed text. He questioned a footnote on page 2 referencing "other code violations," asking for clarification on what types of violations this encompasses beyond safe food handling practices. He also noted a reference on page 4 to financial penalties in addition to plan submission, questioning the applicability of plan review requirements to cottage food operations.
• Supervisor Adams responded that the "other code violations" language is derived from existing legislation and refers to public health responsibilities under the Cottage Food Act, excluding unrelated issues such as building code violations. Regarding the plan submission reference, Adams clarified that cottage food operations are not subject to plan submission or plan review, as they operate out of existing residential kitchens. Adams explained that plan review is typically triggered when larger food operations outgrow their facilities, a scenario that does not apply to cottage food operations, which only require a pre-opening inspection.
• Action: A motion was made to approve the item. The motion was seconded.
• Decision: The motion passed unanimously.

Adjournment

• Action: A motion to adjourn the meeting was made and seconded.
• Decision: The motion to adjourn passed.