Meeting Summary
This summary was AI-generated to save you time. It may miss or misstate details, so verify against the official recording and the transcript.
At a glance
Honorary Resolutions
- The board approved three honorary resolutions, including commendations for Alicia Lopez and retiring Superintendent William J. Cerrone.
- Honorees and representatives provided brief remarks thanking the board for the recognition.
Administrative Agenda Items
- A memorandum of understanding for Olive Mill Road and San Ysidro intersection improvements was presented, with a public speaker raising concerns about federal funding.
- Recommendations for amendments to the Casa Pacifica agreement and a new agreement with the Community Action Commission were discussed and approved.
- The board moved the balance of the administrative agenda, withdrawing Item A5 and adding a resolution for Karen Steinwax.
Short-Term Rental Ordinances
- Staff presented options for regulating short-term rentals, noting potential revenue impacts and zoning implications.
- The board voted to prohibit short-term rentals in residential, Ag 1, and specific other zones while allowing them in commercial and mixed-use areas.
- A motion passed to permit homestays in residential and Ag 1 zones with specific permit and occupancy requirements.
- The board directed staff to revise proposed ordinances based on these votes and return for final action.
Hoop Structures Ordinance Amendment
- Staff presented five options for amending the Land Use and Development Code regarding hoop structures in inland areas.
- Public commenters generally supported treating hoop structures as farm equipment to support agricultural viability.
- The board voted to direct the Planning and Development Director to consider issuing an interpretation of hoop structures through the appropriate process.
No decision 0–0
County Park Fees
- The board reviewed recommendations for adjusting special use and camping fees at day-use park facilities.
- Staff explained that fee variations are based on operational costs, staffing levels, and revenue needs for specific locations.
- The board accepted the staff recommendations regarding the proposed park fee adjustments.
Purchases and Contracts
- The board considered administrative measures to improve purchasing processes by allowing the county to utilize other agencies' processes.
- The board accepted the staff recommendations without a full staff presentation.
Extended Producer Responsibility Stewardship Program Fees
- Staff presented an ordinance establishing fees for the safe drug disposal stewardship program.
- The fees cover costs for reviewing stewardship plans, overseeing implementation, and annual compliance.
- The board accepted the recommendations to establish these program fees.
County Service Area 12 (Mission Canyon Sewer District)
- Staff proposed increasing the annual sewer rate from $264 to $289.44 while maintaining the connection fee at $5,633.
- The board accepted the recommendations for the sewer connection fees and service charges.
Benefit Assessments for CSA 3, 31, and North County Lighting District
- Staff reported no changes to assessments for County Service Areas 3 and 31 for fiscal year 2017-18.
- The board recommended not establishing a benefit assessment in the North County Lighting District due to adequate reserves.
Bridge Weight Limits
- The board considered amendments to County Code Section 2310 regarding weight limits on bridges.
- Staff proposed adding a 16-ton weight limit to the Padaro Lane bridge and removing limits from replaced bridges.
- The board accepted the recommendations to amend the bridge weight limits.
Solid Waste Tipping Fees and Collection Rates
- Staff explained that solid waste rates vary by collection zone based on collection and disposal costs.
- A public speaker questioned the lack of a Proposition 218 hearing and urged the board to pause the rate increase.
- Staff clarified that the fee is for services with an opt-out provision, distinguishing it from mandatory fees.
Flood Control Benefit Assessment Program
- Staff presented the annual increase for the flood benefit assessment program, which was previously approved by voters.
- The board approved the item for the fiscal year 2017-18 assessment.
Closed Session
- The board considered existing and anticipated litigation, labor negotiations, and the appointment of a Public Health Director.
- No reportable actions were taken during the closed session.
Full summary
Roll Call and Pledge
- The meeting was called to order, and roll call was taken. The board stood for the Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes
- A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of May 16 and the special meeting of May 30. There was no discussion. The motion passed.
CEO’s Report
- No report was presented.
Honorary Resolutions (Items A47, A48, A49)
- A motion was made and seconded to approve three honorary resolutions. The resolutions passed.
- Item A49: A resolution of commendation honoring Alicia Lopez of the Public Defender’s Office as the June 2017 Employee of the Month. The resolution was read into the record. Ms. Lopez and a representative from the Public Defender’s Office provided brief remarks thanking the board.
- Item A48: A resolution of commendation honoring William J. Cerrone upon his retirement as Santa Barbara County Superintendent of Schools after 34 years of service. The resolution was read into the record. Mr. Cerrone provided remarks thanking the board and the community.
Administrative Agenda Items
- Item A28 (Public Works): A memorandum of understanding for the Olive Mill Road and San Ysidro intersection improvements projects was presented. A public speaker addressed the board regarding a federal review of the project and concerns about federal funding. Outside counsel was noted as available by telephone for the board if needed.
- Item A30 (Social Services): A recommendation regarding the first amendments to the agreement with Casa Pacifica Centers for Children and Families for Child Welfare Services was presented. A board member asked about the program's long-term viability and the leverage of general fund money. The responding board member explained that the spending would otherwise be required for higher levels of care.
- Item A34 (Social Services): An agreement for enhanced family reunification support services with the Community Action Commission of Santa Barbara was presented. A board member requested a roll-call vote. A motion was made and seconded. The item passed by a vote of 4-1.
- Agenda Changes: A memo to withdraw Item A5 (Behavioral Wellness, regarding the transfer of California Health Facilities Financing Authority funds) was noted. Item A50 (a resolution of commendation for Karen Steinwax) was added to the agenda. A motion was made and seconded to move the balance of the administrative agenda, excluding A5 and including A50. The motion passed.
Public Comment (Non-Agenda Items)
- Two speakers addressed the board on non-agenda items:
- One speaker discussed a dispute with the Board of Architectural Review regarding a second-story structure over a garage, alleging they were removed from a previous meeting. A board member stated they had met with the speaker and referred them to planning staff.
- One speaker discussed pending state legislation (Assembly Bill 352) regarding accessory dwelling units and requested the board monitor Sacramento legislation to protect local control.
Departmental Agenda Item 1: Short-Term Rental Ordinances
- Staff Presentation: Planning and Development staff presented recommendations regarding short-term rental (STR) ordinances. The presentation covered the current status of STRs, the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue impact (noting that 92% of current TOT certificates would be rendered illegal under the Planning Commission’s recommendation, with potential revenue loss up to $1.5 million), zoning distribution, housing element implications, and various regulatory approaches used by other jurisdictions. Staff outlined options for development standards and enforcement measures.
- Board Questions: A board member asked the Tax Collector about the estimated number of operators paying versus not paying TOT. The Tax Collector stated there was no empirical data but suggested that a licensing requirement would improve enforcement.
- Public Comment: Over 50 speakers addressed the board.
- Support for Regulation/Allowance: Speakers representing homeowners, farmers, business owners, and industry groups generally supported allowing STRs, particularly owner-occupied homestays and agricultural properties. They cited economic benefits, TOT revenue, support for small businesses, and the importance of the "shared economy." Many argued that a ban would harm the local economy and that fair regulation was the appropriate solution.
- Support for Ban/Restriction: Speakers representing residents, the County Housing Authority, and conservation groups generally supported restricting or banning STRs in residential and agricultural zones. They cited concerns about neighborhood character, noise, traffic, parking, loss of affordable housing stock, and the impact on long-term residents. Some argued that STRs are not compatible with agricultural zoning or Williamson Act lands.
- Mixed/Other: Some speakers expressed frustration with the process or the length of the hearing. One speaker noted that the city of Goleta’s regulations were not being enforced as intended. Another speaker raised concerns about the fiscal impact of enforcement costs.
- Additional Comments: Speakers presented arguments in favor of and against the ban or restriction of STRs in various zoning areas, including residential zones, Ag-1, Ag-2, and commercial mixed-use zones. Supporters argued that STRs provide necessary supplemental income, support local tourism, and generate significant TOT revenue. They cited examples of well-managed properties and noted that banning STRs would not increase long-term housing supply. Opponents argued that STRs constitute a commercial use incompatible with residential zoning, citing concerns about noise, traffic, parking, security risks, and the displacement of long-term housing stock. Some speakers noted that the City of Santa Barbara had already banned whole-house STRs and homestays. One speaker requested that the Board consider the transition period for existing contracts if a ban is implemented.
- Staff Response: Staff responded to a question regarding complaint data, stating that the Sheriff’s Department does not segregate noise-related complaint calls by tenant type. Therefore, specific numbers comparing STR complaints to total stays are not available.
- Board Deliberation:
- Supervisor Adam stated that he did not have a final position but raised concerns about the security implications of STRs in residential areas and the distinction between commercial agriculture and "snow globe" agriculture. He noted that the new state ADU law may impact housing supply but emphasized the need to address security and neighborhood character.
- Supervisor Wolf stated that he supports maintaining the Planning Commission’s recommendations, which include banning STRs in residential zones and Ag-2 zones (under 40 acres). He cited the County’s Housing Element, which identifies a jobs-housing imbalance and a lack of affordable housing in the South County. He argued that allowing STRs in residential zones contradicts the goals of the Housing Element and community plans. He also referenced a Sonoma County report highlighting the negative impacts of STRs on local housing and quality of life. Supervisor Wolf expressed support for a transition period of approximately 270 days to one year for existing leases.
- Supervisor Williams emphasized housing availability as the primary concern, noting that STRs reduce housing stock and that a ban on non-owner-occupied units is a necessary measure, though he supported a homestay/farmstay program.
- Supervisor Lavagnino raised concerns about enforcement difficulties, distinguishing between STRs and homestays, and advocated for a regulatory approach involving business licenses, an ombudsman for complaints, and proactive enforcement funded by Tourism Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue. He expressed concern that banning STRs would reduce revenue recently secured via Measure B.
- Supervisor Wolf highlighted the concentration of STRs in specific areas (South County, Montecito, Santa Ynez Valley), the impact on residential character and school enrollments, and the reduction of housing inventory. She cited state legislative analyst reports on second homes and supported prohibiting STRs in residential zones while allowing them in commercial/mixed-use areas.
- Staff (Mr. Gazzone) provided legal context, citing Ewing v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea to support the county’s authority to regulate or ban STRs in residential zones. Staff clarified that the current deliberation involves directing staff to revise proposed ordinances rather than adopting final text immediately.
- Motions and Votes:
- 1. Motion on Zone-Specific Prohibitions and Allowances: To prohibit STRs in Resource Protection, Industrial, and Special Purpose zones; allow STRs in Commercial and Mixed-Use zones; prohibit STRs in Residential zones; prohibit STRs in Ag 1; and follow the Gaviota Coast Plan standards for farmstays in Ag 2.
- Outcome: Passed (3-2).
- 2. Motion on Historic Overlay: To direct staff to investigate and provide evidence for a historic overlay in areas where short-term rentals have been a long-established practice, potentially allowing STRs with a permit in those specific zones.
- Outcome: Passed (3-2).
- 3. Motion on Homestays: To permit homestays in Residential and Ag 1 zones, excluding zones where farmstays are already allowed (Ag 2). Homestays would require a permit, proof of TOT payment, and verification of occupancy.
- Outcome: Passed (5-0).
- 4. Development Standards and Enforcement: The Board discussed development standards for homestays/farmstays, including limits on guests per bedroom and total visitor caps. Supervisor Wolf requested higher standards for Ag 1 parcels to protect small agricultural integrity. Staff explained the difference between business licenses and land use permits. The Board directed staff to evaluate whether to require both or just one. The Board discussed the operative date, with staff recommending a delay of approximately one year from the effective date to allow for notice and contract termination. 5. Final Motion on STR/Homestay Project: To receive the item in file and direct staff to revise the proposed short-term rental ordinances based on the Board’s votes and discussions, and to return with the revised ordinances for final action.
- Outcome: Passed (3-2).
Closed Session Report
- Mr. Gazzone reported that the Board considered existing litigation (Santa Barbara Channel Keeper v. County of Santa Barbara), two cases of anticipated litigation, labor negotiations with Service Employees International Union (Locals 620 and 721), and the appointment of a Public Health Director. No reportable actions were taken.
Agenda Item 2: Hoop Structures Ordinance Amendment
- Discussion: Staff (Julie Harris) presented five options for amending the Land Use and Development Code (LUDC) regarding hoop structures in inland areas.
- Option 1: Director interpretation treating hoops ≤20 feet as farm equipment (exempt). Lowest cost, but creates code inconsistencies and is appealable.
- Option 2: LUDC amendment defining hoops ≤20 feet as farm equipment. Requires CEQA review.
- Option 3: LUDC amendment exempting hoops ≤20 feet with development standards. Requires CEQA review.
- Option 4: LUDC amendment clarifying permit requirements for all hoop heights, including development standards and various permit types. Requires EIR. Staff recommended this option for comprehensive resolution of code uncertainties.
- Option 5: Same as Option 4 but including coastal zone amendments. Staff did not recommend this due to existing coastal regulations and past unsuccessful efforts.
- Supervisor Lavagnino asked about the status of development standards, and staff confirmed they have not yet been developed. Chair Hartmann asked for clarification on the distinction between hoop structures and greenhouses. Staff explained that greenhouses are permanent structures with foundations, while hoop structures are temporary, removable, and lack permanent foundations.
- Public Comment:
- Claire Weinman, President of the Grower Shipper Association, urged the Board to proceed with Option 1, arguing that interpreting hoops as farm equipment provides necessary certainty and supports agricultural viability.
- Ana Citrin, representing the Committee for Land, Air, Water and Species, urged the Board to ensure thorough environmental review and public input, noting that Option 1 might not provide adequate opportunities and that CEQA guidelines may preclude exemptions for projects impacting scenic resources.
- Vicki Connor and Steve Pepe, representing the Econ Alliance, advocated for Option 1, citing the economic importance of the agricultural sector, the need for flexibility to stabilize yields against climate risks, and the argument that hoop structures are portable farm equipment rather than permanent structures.
- Willia Hapé, an active farmer, stated that hoop houses are recognized as agricultural tools by the IRS and USDA, are temporary, and should be exempt from permitting to prevent producers from moving out of state.
- John DeFrio supported Option 1, arguing that hoop houses increase yields, reduce water and pesticide use, and are essential for competing with other agricultural regions and international markets.
- Board Deliberation:
- Staff clarified that Options 2, 3, and 4 involve amending the LUDC to create permit exemptions or lower permit levels based on height and square footage, whereas Option 1 relies on a Director’s Determination. Staff noted that Options 2–4 would apply only to inland areas, while Option 5 would address the coastal zone.
- Supervisor Adams moved to adopt Option 1. Supervisor Lavagnino seconded the motion.
- Supervisor Williams questioned the appealability of Option 1 and the distinction between farm equipment and structures in the coastal zone. Staff explained that the Coastal Act treats hoop structures as structures requiring a Coastal Development Permit (CDP), and that Options 1–4 do not change coastal zone regulations.
- Supervisor Wolf asked about the necessity of CEQA review for Option 1; staff indicated that while Director’s Determinations historically have not been subject to environmental review, the current context might make it appealable, potentially causing delays. Supervisor Wolf expressed a preference for Option 4 to establish a clear permitting path and resolve inconsistencies.
- Supervisor Hartmann opposed Option 1, stating that a Director’s Determination conflicting with existing LUDC definitions is a poor path and ripe for challenge, and preferred an LUDC amendment to create a clean definition and permit exemption for structures under 20 feet.
- Supervisor Lavagnino proposed amending the motion to direct the Planning and Development Director to consider issuing an interpretation, rather than directing the interpretation itself, to stay within the Director’s authority. Supervisor Adams accepted the amendment.
- Motion and Vote:
- The motion was amended to direct the Planning and Development Director to consider using an interpretation of the definition of hoop structures through the appropriate planning and development and CEQA process.
- Outcome: Passed (3 ayes, 2 noes).
No decision 0–0
Agenda Item 3: County Park Fees
- Discussion: The Board considered recommendations regarding adjustments to county park fees for special use of day-use park facilities and camping fees. Supervisor Adams moved to accept the item, which was seconded. Supervisor Adams raised concerns about Government Code Section 50402, which requires that charges for similar uses be uniform to the extent feasible, and questioned the justification for varying fees across different parks (e.g., Halama vs. Tucker’s Grove). Staff explained that fees are based on operational costs, staffing levels, and revenue needs to subsidize other parks. Staff clarified that day-use fees are only charged at two camping facilities (Halama and Kachuma) because these locations have full-time staff and gates, unlike other day-use parks. Supervisor Wolf supported the fee structure, noting that Halama and Kachuma are distinct from other parks due to their staffing and usage patterns. Supervisor Lavagnino expressed concern about equity in fees across different districts but acknowledged the operational differences. The Board discussed whether to request further information on costs and revenues for all parks. Staff suggested that this information could be provided as part of the upcoming 2018-19 budget process rather than a separate return to the Board.
- Motion and Vote:
- The Board voted to accept staff’s recommendations regarding the park fees.
- Outcome: Passed (3 ayes, 2 noes).
Agenda Item 4: Purchases and Contracts
- Discussion: The Board considered recommendations regarding Chapter 2, Article 6, Sections 2-38, 29, 40, 43, and 46 of the Santa Barbara County Code, concerning Purchases and Contracts. The item was described as an administrative measure to improve purchasing processes by allowing the county to "piggyback" off other agencies' processes. The Board agreed to dispense with a full staff presentation. The Purchasing Manager, Jodey Lacerda, was introduced.
- Motion and Vote:
- Supervisor Adams moved to accept staff’s recommendations, which was seconded.
- Outcome: Passed (unanimous).
Agenda Item 5: Extended Producer Responsibility Stewardship Program Fees
- Discussion: The Public Health Department presented an ordinance establishing fees for the extended producer responsibility stewardship program for safe drug disposal. Staff explained that the fees cover the costs of reviewing stewardship plans, overseeing implementation, and annual compliance. Proposed fees included an initial plan review fee (higher for plans representing six or more producers), a three-year plan update fee, and an annual fee based on the number of producers. Staff noted that the Santa Barbara County Med Project is currently drafting a plan with approximately 357 producers, which is expected to be submitted in July. Supervisor Lavagnino asked who pays the costs, and staff clarified that producers pay indirectly through the stewardship organization. Supervisor Williams emphasized the importance of the program for public safety, noting that children are at risk from discarded prescription drugs.
- Motion and Vote:
- Supervisor Adams moved to accept staff’s recommendations, which was seconded.
- Outcome: Passed (unanimous).
Agenda Item 6: County Service Area 12 (Mission Canyon Sewer District)
- Discussion: The Board considered recommendations regarding sewer connection fees and service charges for County Service Area 12. Staff proposed increasing the annual rate from $264 to $289.44 and maintaining the connection fee at $5,633 per connection.
- Motion and Vote:
- A motion was made and seconded to accept the recommendations.
- Outcome: Passed (4 ayes, 1 absent).
Agenda Item 7: Benefit Assessments for CSA 3, 31, and North County Lighting District
- Discussion: The Board considered recommendations regarding benefit assessments for County Service Areas 3 and 31 and the North County Lighting District for fiscal year 2017-18. Staff reported no changes to assessments in CSA 3 and 31 and recommended not establishing a benefit assessment in the North County Lighting District due to adequate reserves.
- Motion and Vote:
- A motion was made and seconded to accept the recommendations.
- Outcome: Passed (unanimous).
Agenda Item 8: Bridge Weight Limits
- Discussion: The Board considered recommendations to amend County Code Section 2310 regarding weight limits on bridges. Staff proposed adding a 16-ton weight limit to the bridge on Padaro Lane and removing weight limits from bridges that have been replaced.
- Motion and Vote:
- Supervisor Adams moved to accept the recommendations, which was seconded.
- Outcome: Passed (unanimous).
Agenda Item 9: Solid Waste Tipping Fees and Collection Rates
- Discussion: The Board considered recommendations regarding solid waste tipping fees, collection rates, and parcel fees for fiscal year 2017-18. Staff explained that rates vary by collection zone based on factors such as collection costs (e.g., density of homes) and disposal location (e.g., landfill costs). Supervisor Wolf asked how the fee ranges are determined, and staff clarified that approximately 50-58% of the rate is tied to collection costs, which vary by location, and the rest is tied to disposal costs.
- Public Comment:
- Ana Citrin, representing the Gaviota Coast Conservancy, questioned why the County did not hold a Proposition 218 hearing for the proposed rate increase, noting that the City of Santa Maria is holding one. She urged the Board to pause the rate increase and direct staff to reevaluate alternatives to the Tahequs Resource Recovery Project (TRRP), citing project delays and uncertainty regarding Coastal Commission permits. She suggested alternatives such as residential food collection, increased recycling frequency, and utilizing new regional landfill technologies.
- Staff responded that the fee is for services with an opt-out provision under County Code Section 17-6, distinguishing it from a mandatory fee that would trigger Proposition 218 requirements.
- Supervisor Williams stated that shipping waste to North County for burial is morally indefensible compared to processing it locally with better technologies.
- A motion was made and seconded to close public comment on this item. The motion passed.
Agenda Item 10: Flood Control Benefit Assessment Program for Fiscal Year 2017-18
- Discussion: Staff presented the annual increase for the flood benefit assessment program, noting it was previously approved by voters. Tom Fairham was available to answer questions.
- Public Comment: No public comments were requested.
- Motion and Vote:
- A motion was made and seconded to approve the item.
- Outcome: Passed.
Announcements and Adjournment
- Announcements: Supervisor Wolf introduced an intern from the University of Paris. Supervisor Lavagnino offered a moment of remembrance for Fidenzio Bruno Brunello, a longtime Santa Maria educator and community member who recently passed away. He also announced the Santa Maria Saints' first CIF baseball championship in 57 years.
- Adjournment: Chair Hartman adjourned the meeting, noting the next session is scheduled for June 12 for budget hearings.