Board of Supervisors — 2018-03-20

Cannabis Business License Ordinance (Chapter 50) and Uniform Rules Amendments

• Staff presented licensing frameworks and options for cannabis cultivation on Williamson Act lands, including acreage limits and processing restrictions.
• The board directed staff to implement a zero-permit cap for outdoor cultivation in the coastal zone and an 186-acre cap within the CARP overlay.
• Motions passed to define cannabis as an agricultural principal use, limit on-site manufacturing to 49%, and adopt a market-driven cap for cultivation.
• The board directed staff to proceed with the first reading of the ordinance, with a hearing set for April 10 for final adoption.

Appeal of Golden Inn and Village Project (Planning Commission Decision)

• Staff recommended denying the appeal regarding lighting and stormwater revisions, noting the project met photometric standards and water board requirements.
• The board discussed concerns over the timing of condition changes relative to construction and the management of the project's compliance.
• A motion to deny the appeal and approve the project revisions passed with one abstention.
• A subsequent motion for final approval of the Golden Inn and Village was made, though the final vote tally was not recorded in the provided text.

Teague’s Landfill Debris Management (Montecito Debris Flow)

• Staff proposed an urgency ordinance establishing a $55 per ton tip fee for debris disposal and stockpiling at Teague’s Landfill.
• Public comment supported the use of the landfill for debris while expressing concern about potential expansion for municipal solid waste.
• Staff outlined the sorting process for clean fill, rocks, and mulch, noting that petroleum and bacteria levels are expected to reduce during processing.

Emergency Evacuation Orders (Storm/Debris Flow Risk)

• Emergency Management reported that mandatory evacuation orders were issued due to an incoming atmospheric river threatening burn areas.
• The Emergency Operations Center was activated, and resources including National Guard vehicles were staged for potential rescue operations.
• The board acknowledged the emergency situation and the staff’s recommendation to enforce mandatory evacuations without a formal vote.

Public Health Update (Tuberculosis)

• Staff reported a significant decrease in tuberculosis cases in Santa Barbara County over the last three years, particularly among children.
• The reduction was attributed to partnerships with healthcare providers and frontline work by public health nurses treating latent infections.
• Staff noted that vigilance remains necessary as a significant portion of the global population is infected with TB.

Staff Recognition and Retirements

• The outgoing Planning Director and several long-serving staff members shared remarks thanking the board for their support and leadership.
• A representative from the Arts Fund acknowledged the board for an award supporting student college readiness and community engagement.
• Colleagues praised retiring staff members for their contributions to department culture and their ability to connect people.

Closed Session

• The board reported out of closed session after considering litigation involving Martinez v. County of Santa Barbara.
• The board also conferred with County Counsel regarding the initiation of civil litigation and with labor negotiators for all bargaining units.
• No reportable actions were taken during the closed session.

Agenda Item: Cannabis Business License Ordinance (Chapter 50) and Uniform Rules Amendments

Discussion and Staff Presentation

• Staff presented the proposed ordinance to add Chapter 50 to the County Code, establishing a local business licensing framework for cannabis operations. Key features include licensing issued per person, parcel, and operation; non-transferable licenses requiring annual renewal; and a multi-departmental compliance team involving Planning & Development, the Sheriff’s Department, the Agricultural Commissioner, Fire Department, and Public Health. Staff also presented options for amending the Uniform Rules to permit cannabis activities on agricultural preserve lands under the Williamson Act. Two primary options were detailed: 1. APAC Recommendation: Treats cannabis cultivation as a compatible use with acreage limits (5% or 5 acres of the premise; limited to the development envelope for super-prime contracts). Off-site processing is limited to 49% of total processing. 2. P&D Staff Recommendation: Treats cannabis as a compatible use without acreage limits, provided the landowner maintains eligibility for the Williamson Act contract.
• Staff outlined other analyzed alternatives, including prohibiting cannabis, allowing limited cultivation, allowing unlimited activities, or defining cannabis as a principal use. Staff clarified that under state emergency regulations, "mature plant" is defined as a flowering plant, and square footage limits apply only to flowering plants. Staff also noted that the state ceased reimbursements for lands under contract, with the Assessor’s Office estimating the annual reimbursement amount at $650,000 to $700,000.

Public Comment

• Public comment was divided regarding caps on licenses and acreage.
• Support for Caps/Restrictions: Representatives from the Carpinteria Valley Association (CVA), the Cate School, and the county attorney supported limiting the number of cannabis licenses and acreage in the Carpinteria Valley. CVA supported Option 2 for distributing impacts county-wide, recommended no outdoor operations or hoop houses in the coastal zone, Carpinteria Greenhouse Overlay Boundary Area, or Toro Canyon Plan Area, and supported odor abatement plans. The county attorney presented a survey of 58 other counties, noting nearly 75% have banned commercial cultivation, and urged adoption of a cap on licenses with annual monitoring reports. A resident expressed concern that the ordinance is too lenient.
• Opposition to Caps/Support for Market Forces: Representatives for family farms, the Cannabis Business Council, and various industry representatives opposed caps on the number of licenses or acreage. They argued that high barriers to entry and market forces naturally limit new operators, and that caps might encourage out-of-town applicants or lead to unintended consequences such as more farms or supply chain imbalances. Speakers argued that cannabis is an agricultural product and that artificial restrictions contradict the intent of the Williamson Act to preserve agricultural use. They also raised concerns that limiting parcels to a limited amount of cannabis would cause proliferation of small operations, straining staff resources.
• Williamson Act Concerns: A ranch owner in the San Inez Valley stated that leasing property to a cannabis grower is essential for maintaining their Williamson Act contract due to high costs. An industry representative noted that many operators in Carpinteria are on Williamson Act land and argued that acreage limits would prevent consolidation of processing operations.
• Other Comments: A representative for the Cannabis Business Council suggested removing limits for existing infrastructure to allow consolidation and requested consistency with the 10% off-site processing limit adopted in the land use ordinance. A resident of Buelton argued that cannabis is necessary for farm viability and requested that it be considered an agricultural crop to allow vertical integration. A cultivator clarified the distinction between hoop houses and greenhouses regarding light deprivation techniques. A representative from the Assessor’s Office explained the assessment process for Williamson Act land, noting that qualifying agricultural uses are assessed at the lower of Proposition 13 value, fair market value, or economic value, while compatible uses are assessed at the lower of Proposition 13 or fair market value.

Board Discussion

• The board discussed the classification of cannabis under the Williamson Act and Uniform Rules. Members debated whether defining cannabis as an agricultural product would trigger "Right to Farm" protections, potentially limiting the county's ability to enforce nuisance regulations. Concerns were raised that classifying cannabis as agriculture could lead to the cancellation of Williamson Act contracts if property tax subsidies were perceived as insufficient. Staff noted that the impact on the State Right to Farm Act is an unknown without case law, but the county can still enforce nuisance violations for code violations.
• The board discussed limitations on cannabis cultivation to address concentration concerns in the Carpinteria Valley. Members debated various cap mechanisms, including acreage caps, parcel caps, and entity-based caps. Concerns were raised regarding the potential for "rush to the counter" applications if caps were set too low, and the risk of large-scale concentration if caps were too high. It was noted that existing greenhouse infrastructure is limited. A member suggested that a cap based on business entities might be easier to implement and less volatile than an acreage cap due to state law uncertainties. Another member advocated for a cap that is larger than current temporary permit applications but smaller than historical levels in the Carpinteria Valley.
• The board also discussed the Energy Conservation Plan. A member suggested using a non-zero baseline for energy usage to account for odor control equipment and to avoid disincentivizing conservation. Another member proposed changing the compliance language from "and" to "or," allowing businesses to choose between implementing the energy conservation plan or purchasing 100% renewable energy through utility programs. Staff indicated that changing the language to "or" would require deleting specific words rather than simply adding one, and confirmed this was the intent of the proposed motion.

Motions and Decisions

• 1. Motion on Energy Conservation Plan Language: A motion was made and seconded to amend the Energy Conservation Plan language to allow compliance via either the energy reduction plan or participation in renewable energy programs.
• Vote Outcome: Passed (4-1).
• 2. Motion on Outdoor Cultivation and Acreage Cap: A motion was made and seconded to direct staff to:
• Initiate a cap of zero outdoor business license permits for cultivation in the coastal zone.
• Establish an acreage cap of 186 acres for cultivation within the CARP overlay.
• Conduct an annual review with a monitoring report.
• Return the appeals process to the board at a future date.
• Vote Outcome: Passed.
• 3. Motion on Williamson Act Option: A motion was made and seconded to provide conceptual direction to staff to implement "Option Four," which defines cannabis as an agricultural product and allows it as a principal use. The motion included a directive for staff to return with implementation details by a date certain (May 1st).
• Vote Outcome: Passed.
• 4. Motion on Manufacturing Percentage: A separate motion was made and seconded regarding the percentage of manufacturing allowed on Williamson Act parcels. The motion specified a limit of 49% (rather than 50%) for manufacturing activities.
• Vote Outcome: Passed.
• 5. Motion on Cultivation Cap Option: A motion was made to adopt Option 4 (Market-Driven Cap) for cultivation limits, as identified on page 12 of the staff presentation.
• Vote Outcome: Passed.
• 6. Motion on Ordinance Revisions: A motion was made to revise the ordinance to:
• Include "(flowering plant)" in the definition of mature plant in Section 50-2D.
• Clarify that cultivation in Section 50-5 is indoor and residential.
• Add the word "or" in Section 50-10 regarding the energy conservation plan.
• Outcome: The motion was discussed, with staff noting these changes were ministerial. The Board did not immediately vote on the first reading, indicating the item might return for further review or first reading at a later date.

Next Steps

• The Board directed staff to proceed with the first reading of the ordinance. A hearing was set for April 10 to consider the final adoption (second reading) of the ordinance and any related findings. Staff indicated they would return with a transition plan for the state temporary licensing program, potentially recommending that the county remain silent on applications for annual licenses during the transition period rather than issuing affirmative letters.

Agenda Item: Appeal of Golden Inn and Village Project (Planning Commission Decision)

Staff Presentation

• Staff presented an appeal regarding revisions to the Golden Inn and Village project, a senior housing development. The appeal challenged the Planning Commission’s approval of revised lighting and stormwater plans.
• Lighting: The original approval required 44 lights at 8 feet. The revision approved 25 existing lights at 20 feet with dimming requirements. Appellants argued the 20-foot lights violated conditions of approval and caused light trespass. Staff noted the revised plan met photometric standards and included dimming measures.
• Stormwater: Appellants claimed the drainage system was not built as approved and failed to retain offsite runoff. Staff stated that detention basins were constructed to retain onsite runoff and mitigate peak flow, and that the Central Coast Water Board had confirmed the revised plan met performance requirements. Staff noted that the detention basins were constructed before the conditions of approval were changed.
• Recommendation: Staff recommended denying the appeal and granting de novo approval of the project.

Public Comment

• Appellant Concerns: The appellants raised two main issues: light trespass from the project onto their property and inadequate stormwater management. They claimed the project exacerbated existing flooding problems and that the pre-approval process was flawed.
• Lighting Issues: Staff and the Housing Authority explained that the original lighting plan (44 eight-foot poles) was found to be insufficient for safety and uniformity standards by an electrical engineer in 2014. The plan was revised to 25 twenty-foot poles to meet IESNA standards, improve uniformity, and increase energy efficiency. The Housing Authority acknowledged a communication failure where the change in pole height was not explicitly flagged to planning staff during the transition to construction documents, though the plans with the new heights were approved by CBAR and the Planning Commission. Photometric studies showed zero foot-candles at the property line, which the Housing Authority argued does not constitute light trespass under IESNA standards (allowing 0.3 foot-candles). The Housing Authority agreed to implement additional changes: installing a light sensor on the top lot to reduce lighting when unoccupied and exploring screening to block headlights from the parking area.
• Stormwater and Drainage: The Housing Authority stated that the civil engineer advised against mixing off-site stormwater (from north of Highway 246) with on-site water in the detention basins due to uncontrollable flow rates and volumes. Instead, the project detains on-site stormwater for a longer period than required, reducing peak flow rates to downstream properties. The Housing Authority noted that the downstream flooding issues predated the project and were caused by an undersized culvert (16-18 inches) receiving water from a larger upstream culvert (20-24 inches). The project widened the channel and added riprap at culverts to address velocity. Regional Water Quality Control Board identified minor installation errors in bioretention basins, which have been corrected. Flood Control requested two minor tweaks: modifying the outlet structure and increasing freeboard in the basins.
• Process and Compliance: Staff and the Housing Authority stated that all required reports were submitted at the time of application. Subsequent state law changes required additional analysis, which was completed and verified by a third-party firm. The Housing Authority acknowledged breakdowns in internal communication regarding the lighting changes but stated that the project meets all state and county requirements.
• Housing Authority Representative: A representative for the Housing Authority defended the project, stating that the Housing Authority has a good reputation and that the Planning Commission’s 5-0 vote reflects detailed review. They urged the board to approve the project to avoid destroying housing for seniors and families.
• Appellant (Patty Stewart): The co-appellant requested to proceed without counsel due to a change in time allocation from 20 to 10 minutes. She argued that the project as built is 20% larger and taller than approved, with 20-foot lights installed instead of the approved 8-foot lights without proper analysis. She cited a 2017 rain event that caused flooding on Lucky Lane, attributing it to drainage issues. She presented a hydrology review indicating increased flow depth and velocity due to project grading. She argued that the Planning Department acted as a compliance monitor but failed to enforce conditions, specifically regarding drainage detention and lighting height. She requested remediation of lighting and drainage rather than demolition.
• Civil Engineer (Michael Hamilton): A civil engineer representing the applicant addressed inconsistencies in the appellant’s cited hydrology report. He argued that the report used an inappropriate method (rational method) for the drainage area size and failed to account for a 24-inch culvert that limits flow. He stated that peak flows from the site are equal to or less than existing conditions due to detention basins.
• Mark Brooks (Appellant): Presented video excerpts from previous hearings and photographs. Discussed drainage issues, stating that the development of the "Y" (Golden Village Inn) removed a natural detention base. Presented data showing that only two rain events in 20 years crested the road, compared to the current situation. Argued that improvements to the channel have sped up water flow, hitting neighbors faster. Stated that detention basins release at a governed rate and contribute to flow.
• Staff/County Representative: Discussed process improvements following the "catalyst event" of complex plans and communication gaps. Implemented in-house training for site plan review and is exploring software for electronic plan review to highlight changes.
• Engineer: Designed detention basins to accommodate surface drainage and improve downstream issues. Mentioned dark sky lighting to minimize impact on neighborhoods.
• Housing Authority (Bob Havlicek/Lisa Plowman): Presented the project. Lisa Plowman proposed two language changes to the project description: 1) Additional screening adjacent to the parking area along the southern perimeter, and 2) Changes to the sentence regarding the 20-foot tall light pole.
• Supervisor Question: Asked if the applicant’s offer to mitigate upstream flow was embodied in the original conditions approved by the Board.
• Lisa Plowman: Confirmed the proposed language changes were agreed upon by the applicant.

Board Discussion and Questions

• Members questioned the timing of changes to conditions of approval relative to construction. It was established that detention basins were built before the conditions were modified. A member expressed concern about the drainage system's capacity given the roof area and pavement, noting informal drainage channels. Another member noted that while the project was generally supported, conditions of approval should be adhered to, and changes should ideally occur before construction. A Supervisor expressed disappointment regarding the management of the project and the failure to resolve issues early, despite the project being viewed as beneficial for the community (providing 27 low-income family homes and 60 senior homes). A Supervisor questioned the permeability of the parking lots, with staff noting that permeable asphalt can become clogged over time. A Supervisor asked about notice efforts for seniors regarding evacuation procedures, to which staff responded that specific protocols are in place. A Supervisor discussed the county’s debris management challenges, noting that debris disposal is a major issue and that the material is an asset over time.

Motions and Decisions

• 1. Motion on Appeal: A motion was made and seconded to deny the appeal and approve the project revisions.
• Vote Outcome: Passed (with one abstention).
• 2. Motion on Final Approval: A motion was made for final approval of the Golden Inn and Village.
• Vote Outcome: The transcript segment ends immediately after the motion is made. The final vote tally and official adoption of the motion are not recorded in this specific text segment.

Agenda Item: Teague’s Landfill Debris Management (Montecito Debris Flow)

Public Comment

• Gaviota Coast Conservancy (Mark Shatillo): Supported the use of Teague’s Landfill for debris disposal and stockpiling. Expressed concern that this should not lead to an expansion of the landfill for municipal solid waste. Noted assurances from staff that there would be no nighttime operations, no operations during wet periods (to protect red-legged frogs), and no significant new volumes of municipal solid waste.
• Staff/County Representative: Presented an urgency ordinance to establish a tip fee of $55 per ton for debris from the Montecito Debris Flow. Described the process: sorting material into clean fill, rocks, and mulch. Noted that the landfill does not accept cash; vendors must establish accounts. Stated that estimates for remaining debris range from 1 to 2 million cubic yards. Addressed questions regarding soil tests, stating that petroleum products and bacteria levels are expected to be reduced during processing. Discussed the material exchange program to reduce truck traffic.
• John Frye (Flood Control): Clarified that Flood Control is not a party to the offer by the owner/developer to intercept off-site flows and would not impose that as a condition.

Agenda Item: Emergency Evacuation Orders (Storm/Debris Flow Risk)

Staff Presentation

• Emergency Management: Staff reported that evacuation thresholds were met due to an incoming atmospheric river with potential for 10 inches of rain in burn areas (Thomas, Sherp, Whittier, and Alamo fires).
• Actions Taken:
• The Emergency Operations Center (EOC) was activated at 5:00 PM.
• Mandatory evacuation orders were issued, effective at noon, with door-knock compliance checks by 5:00 PM.
• Resources including National Guard vehicles were staged for rescue, though the primary objective is for residents to evacuate voluntarily.
• Public Health and Social Services departments are prepared to assist those needing help, with a call center available via 211.
• Residents were directed to readysbc.org for information and to sign up for Aware and Prepare alerts.

Decision

• The board acknowledged the emergency situation and the staff’s recommendation to enforce mandatory evacuations. No formal vote was recorded in this segment, as the actions were presented as immediate operational responses to a declared emergency.

Agenda Item: Public Health Update (Tuberculosis)

Staff Presentation

• Public Health: Staff reported a significant decrease in tuberculosis cases in Santa Barbara County over the last three years, particularly among children in North County. This was attributed to strong partnerships with healthcare providers and non-profits, and frontline work by public health nurses in treating latent TB infections. Staff noted that while cases have decreased, vigilance remains necessary as a third of the world is infected with TB.

Decision

• No motion or vote was recorded. This was an informational update.

Agenda Item: Staff Recognition and Retirements

Public Comment/Staff Remarks

• Planning Director: The outgoing Planning Director thanked the board and staff, highlighting succession planning and leadership development as key accomplishments. They announced their departure to pursue other opportunities, including archaeology and travel.
• Retiring Staff Member (Diana): A colleague spoke on behalf of a retiring staff member, Diana, praising her ability to connect people and her contribution to the department culture.
• Retiring Staff Member (16-year tenure): A staff member with 16 years of service thanked the board and supervisors for their support and leadership.
• Arts Fund Representative: A representative from the Arts Fund thanked the board for an award, citing the program's impact on students' college readiness and community engagement.
• Long-serving Staff Member (39 years): A staff member with 39 years of service thanked the board and colleagues for the opportunity to serve.

Decision

• No motion or vote was recorded. These were ceremonial remarks and acknowledgments.

Agenda Item: Closed Session

Report from Closed Session

• The board reported out of closed session, having considered three items: 1. Litigation case Martinez v. County of Santa Barbara. 2. Conference with County Counsel regarding the initiation of civil litigation. 3. Conference with labor negotiators for all bargaining units.
• Decision: No reportable actions were taken.

Agenda Item: Emergency Management Briefing

Briefing on Evacuations

• The Director of the Office of Emergency Management provided a briefing on evacuation activities. The County Executive Office clarified its role as a coordinator for multi-department operations, noting that while not a core mission, coordination was necessary due to the involvement of multiple departments.

Adjournment

• The meeting was adjourned to April 3rd.