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
Agenda Modifications and Administrative Approvals
- An addendum was posted to Administrative Item No. 9 to include budget revision request 0006819.
- Administrative Item No. 14 was added to consider recommendations regarding a local health emergency declaration for COVID-19.
- Departmental Items No. 2 and No. 3 were requested to be continued or withdrawn from the current agenda.
- Administrative Items No. 1 and No. 2 were moved from "resolutions to be presented" to "honorary resolutions."
CEO Report: COVID-19 Update
- Public Health officials reported 128 tests conducted as of March 16, with one positive case and a second confirmed case reported later that day.
- A joint triage tool was developed with healthcare partners to prioritize testing for high-risk individuals.
- A policy group is reviewing enhanced community quarantine measures and social distancing enforcement to present recommendations to the Board.
- Efforts are underway to provide guidance to homeless service providers and collaborate with jail personnel on disinfection protocols.
CEO Report: Hospital Updates
- Hospitals reported adequate supplies of masks, equipment, and personal protective equipment (PPE).
- There is currently no local testing capability, with samples sent to Ventura, San Luis Obispo, or commercial labs with 3–5 day turnaround times.
- A public-private partnership is being established to enable local testing within two weeks, pending FDA emergency release kits.
- Patients are advised to call ahead if symptomatic, with screening occurring in ER lobbies and swabbing done in outpatient settings or vehicles.
Brown Act Compliance Update
- Staff explained Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N2520, which clarifies and expands the ability of local governments to hold meetings via teleconferencing.
- The order removes the requirement for the physical presence of supervisors, the CEO, the clerk, or members of the public.
- The order encourages alternate methods of public participation during the state of emergency.
Northern Branch Jail (NBJ) Construction Costs, Contingencies, and Funding Requirements
- Staff presented a status update indicating the project is approximately 98% complete with an estimated total cost increase to $119 million–$121 million.
- Staff requested a $5 million increase in appropriations from the General Fund to address immediate funding needs.
- Staff requested reauthorization to approve additional change orders up to $5 million, bringing total authorization to $10.4 million.
- A motion was made and seconded to move staff’s recommendations, which passed.
Appeals of Busy Bees Organics Inc. (Case Nos. 19APL30 and 19APL31)
- Staff presented the background of a 62-acre cannabis cultivation project west of Buellton, originally approved as a Land Use Permit in May 2019.
- The applicant appealed four conditions regarding hoop acreage, total cannabis acreage, odor abatement, and re-review requirements.
- The appellant appealed on seven issues, including CEQA adequacy, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, and the argument that the project should be a Conditional Use Permit.
- A motion was made to adopt Staff Recommendations A through E on the memo dated March 17, 2020, with a clarification regarding Attachment A.
Amendment to Conditions of Approval (Condition 35)
- A proposal was made to strike the name "Jeff Wilson" from Condition 35 and replace it with a quoted term.
- A motion was made and seconded to approve the amendment to Condition 35.
- The motion passed.
Full summary
Call to Order and Roll Call
- The 17th meeting of 2020 for the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors was called to order. Roll call noted that Supervisor Adam was absent, while Supervisors Hartman and Williams participated remotely. The board recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes (March 10, 2020)
- A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of the March 10, 2020 meeting. No discussion occurred. The motion passed.
Announcements and Agenda Changes
- The Clerk provided announcements regarding agenda modifications:
- An addendum was posted to Administrative Item No. 9 to add budget revision request 0006819.
- Administrative Item No. 14 was added to consider recommendations regarding the ratification of a declaration of local health emergency and a proclamation of local emergency regarding COVID-19.
- It was noted that Administrative Item No. 11 requires a majority vote, not a four-fifths vote.
- Departmental Items No. 2 and No. 3 were requested to be continued.
- Administrative Items No. 1 and No. 2 were requested to be moved from "resolutions to be presented" to "honorary resolutions."
- Public comment could be submitted via phone or email to be read into the record.
Approval of Administrative Agenda
- Staff responded to inquiries regarding the scheduled dates for Departmental Items 2 and 3, stating they hoped to bring the items back in May following community meetings in April. No requests were made to pull items from the administrative agenda. A motion was made and seconded to approve the balance of the administrative agenda. The motion passed.
Public Comment (General/Non-Agenda Items)
- Four members of the public provided comments: 1. One speaker expressed frustration regarding a six-year delay in obtaining approval for a home remodel from the Board of Architectural Review. 2. One speaker expressed concern that Bay Area restrictions on non-essential businesses were unprecedented and potentially harmful to the economy, arguing that economic shutdowns could cause more harm than the disease. 3. One speaker requested immediate action to protect staff and the public at Planning and Development and Building and Safety counters, including installing barriers, providing PPE, allowing remote work, and covering testing costs. Supervisor Williams announced that the Planning and Development public counter was closed as of 8:00 AM, with a drop box established for submissions and electronic processing available. 4. One speaker urged the Board to direct the Public Health Officer to mandate the closure of restaurants (except delivery/takeout), bars, and wineries to flatten the curve.
CEO Report: COVID-19 Update
- Public Health officials provided an update on the county’s response to COVID-19:
- Testing Status: As of March 16, 128 tests had been conducted in the county (31 negative, 96 pending, 1 positive). A second confirmed case was reported late on March 16.
- Testing Protocol: A joint triage tool was developed with healthcare partners to prioritize testing for high-risk individuals.
- Cost Sharing: Commercial and Medi-Cal plans are waiving cost-sharing for COVID-19 testing.
- Public Guidance: The public was advised to contact their healthcare provider if symptomatic rather than going directly to healthcare facilities.
- Policy Group: A policy group consisting of health officers, emergency preparedness, county council, CFO, and EMS Director is reviewing enhanced community quarantine measures and social distancing enforcement. They will return to the Board with recommendations.
- Transmission: The virus is spread via droplets and surfaces, necessitating social distancing, hand washing, and surface disinfection.
- Homelessness and Jail: Efforts are underway to provide guidance to homeless service providers, deploy hand-washing stations, and collaborate with jail personnel on disinfection and exposure protocols.
CEO Report: Hospital Updates
- Hospital representatives provided updates from the hospital perspective:
- Supply Chain: Hospitals have adequate supplies of masks, equipment, and PPE.
- Testing Capacity: There is no local testing capability in Santa Barbara County currently. Testing is being sent to Ventura and San Luis Obispo County public health departments or commercial labs, with turnaround times of 3–5 days.
- Future Capacity: A public-private partnership is being established to enable local testing within two weeks, pending FDA emergency release kits.
- Patient Protocol: Patients are advised to call ahead if symptomatic. Screening is occurring in ER lobbies, and swabbing is being done in outpatient settings or vehicles to protect staff.
- Vulnerable Populations: Testing is prioritized for individuals over 60 with fever and respiratory symptoms.
Public Comment (CEO Report)
- One speaker provided additional comment, citing statistics from the Diamond Princess cruise ship to argue that the fatality rate is low for the general population and expressing concern about economic panic and hoarding. The speaker questioned the plan for supporting businesses and individuals if shutdowns are extended.
Board Response to CEO Report
- One Supervisor asked about the goal of the testing protocol and urged stronger mandatory measures for social distancing.
- Public Health officials stated that the Public Health Department is reviewing enhanced quarantine measures and will bring recommendations to the Board.
- One Supervisor asked about strategies for reaching homeless populations. Staff confirmed that 12 hand-washing stations have been deployed and guidance is being provided to shelters.
- One Supervisor asked about protections for jail inmates. Staff confirmed close collaboration with jail personnel on disinfection and exposure protocols.
- One Supervisor asked about the composition of the policy group. Public Health officials listed the members, noting they are in lockstep with state colleagues.
- One Supervisor asked about county department operations. The CEO stated that departments are implementing continuity of operations plans, providing essential services safely, and using alternative methods for non-essential services. A list of these changes will be published soon.
- One Supervisor requested that the Board relay a message supporting agricultural employees as critical to the food supply chain.
Departmental Agenda: Continuance and Withdrawal
- Departmental Item No. 2 (Cannabis Compliance Enforcement and Taxation Update): A motion was made and seconded to continue this item to the March 24, 2020 administrative agenda. No public comment was received on the continuance. The motion passed.
- Departmental Item No. 3 (Storefront Retail Cannabis Selection Procedures): A motion was made and seconded to withdraw this item from the current agenda, with the understanding that it will return to the Board at a later date. No public comment was received on the withdrawal. The motion passed.
Adjournment for Break
- The Board took a ten-minute break before reconvening for the departmental agenda.
Agenda Item: Brown Act Compliance Update
- Staff explained Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N2520 (March 12), which clarifies and expands the ability of local governments to hold meetings via teleconferencing. The order removes the requirement for the physical presence of supervisors, the CEO, the clerk of the board, or members of the public, and encourages alternate methods of participation. No motion or vote was taken on this informational item.
Agenda Item: Departmental Item No. 1 – Northern Branch Jail (NBJ) Construction Costs, Contingencies, and Funding Requirements
- Staff presented a project history and status update. The project, originally budgeted at $96.1 million and later increased to $110.8 million, is approximately 98% complete. Staff cited delays and cost increases resulting from the departure of the principal architect, subcontractor issues, inclement weather, material procurement delays, and design changes required for regulatory compliance. The estimated total project cost has increased to a range of $119 million to $121 million. Staff requested a $5 million increase in appropriations from the General Fund, authorized from the Jail Operating Fund, to address immediate funding needs. Staff also requested reauthorization to approve additional change orders up to $5 million (bringing total change order authorization to $10.4 million) and a finding that the project is exempt from CEQA. Board members inquired about the likelihood of recovering funds through litigation against the former architect and the impact on the operating fund. Staff indicated that litigation against the former architect is ongoing and that recovery is expected, characterizing the current funding request as a timing issue. A motion was made and seconded to move staff’s recommendations. The motion passed.
Agenda Item: Departmental Item No. 4 – Appeals of Busy Bees Organics Inc. (Case Nos. 19APL30 and 19APL31)
- Procedural Matters: The Clerk noted that several documents, including public comment letters and evidence, were received after the noon deadline. A motion was made and seconded to accept these late documents into the record. The motion passed.
- Staff Presentation: Staff presented the background of the 62-acre cannabis cultivation project located west of Buellton. The project was originally approved as a Land Use Permit (LUP) in May 2019. The Planning Commission subsequently approved the project with conditions, including reducing cannabis acreage from 22 to 18 acres, limiting hoop structures to 5 acres, prohibiting on-site drying, and requiring a two-year re-review.
- Applicant’s Appeal: The applicant appealed four conditions: the reduction in hoop acreage/location, the reduction in total cannabis acreage, odor abatement conditions (specifically the prohibition on on-site drying and strict shipping timelines), and the two-year re-review requirement. The applicant proposed a hybrid version allowing 22 acres of cannabis, 14 acres under hoops, on-site drying in sealed buildings, and three harvests per year.
- Appellant’s Appeal: The appellant appealed on seven issues, including transparency, public involvement, adequacy of CEQA review (specifically regarding terpene and pesticide drift), consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, and the argument that the project should have been processed as a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) due to proximity to an Environmental Designation and Rural Neighborhood (EDRN).
- Ex Parte Disclosures: Board members disclosed communications with project representatives, neighbors, and coalition members.
- Appellant Presentation: Representatives for the appellant argued that the project violates CEQA and Williamson Act requirements. They contended that the project should be treated as a principal use rather than a compatible use, that the Program EIR (PEIR) did not adequately address new impacts such as pesticide drift and land use incompatibility, and that the project should be a CUP due to its proximity to an EDRN. They emphasized the need for conditions to be written into the permit to bind future operators.
- Applicant Presentation: Representatives for the applicant argued that the project has undergone thorough review and is compatible with surrounding uses. They cited existing landscape buffers, odor abatement plans, and support from neighbors and the City of Buellton. They requested the Board to approve their proposed modifications to the Planning Commission’s conditions, specifically regarding hoop acreage, total cannabis acreage, odor handling/drying, and the removal of the two-year re-review requirement, arguing that the original conditions were infeasible or redundant with existing business license reviews.
- Public Comment: Public comment was opened for the hearing. Speakers addressed the board on various issues, including public health concerns related to the coronavirus pandemic, the urgency of the hearing, and the impact of industrial-scale marijuana cultivation on the community.
- Opposition: Several speakers expressed opposition to the project. Comments included concerns about the board’s handling of emergency declarations, the proximity of the grow to residential areas and schools, and reports of respiratory complaints among students. Speakers cited the "Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan" and the "Ag Advisory Committee" recommendations, which advised caution regarding the impact of commercial cannabis terpenes on legacy agriculture. Specific concerns raised included odor affecting tourism and local businesses, the potential for "significant and unavoidable impacts" identified in the Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) being dismissed via "overriding considerations," and the legal status of the operation as a "legal non-conforming use." One speaker argued that the board had nullified PEIR determinations without providing the required list of overriding considerations. Another speaker noted that the APAC (Agricultural Planning and Zoning Commission) was not reviewing projects for compatibility with adjacent agriculture as required by state law.
- Support: Other speakers expressed support for the project. Comments highlighted the operation as a model for the industry, emphasizing its organic practices, regenerative agricultural approach, and economic contributions to the county. Speakers noted that the operators had resolved conflicts with neighbors, including an incident involving pesticide spray, through an MOU (Memorandum of Understanding). One speaker, an attorney, provided a legal argument regarding "legal non-conforming" status, stating that pre-2016 medical marijuana cultivation was considered "cultivated agriculture" under the LUDC (Land Use Development Code), which includes land preparation and infrastructure work. Another speaker, a scientist, disputed a claim that odor control methods merely "mask" odors, explaining the chemical neutralization process used by the applicant’s odor control system. Additional speakers cited the support of local farmers, the city of Buellton, and the economic benefits of the operation, urging the board to vote in favor of the project.
- Rebuttal:
- Appellant’s Rebuttal: The appellant’s representative argued that the project is inconsistent with the General Plan and the San Ynez Valley Community Plan, specifically regarding visual resources and agricultural compatibility. The representative contended that the project jeopardizes the continuation of agriculture as a major viable production industry due to pesticide conflicts and terpene taint. The appellant asserted that the project constitutes an illegal expansion of a non-conforming use, citing photographic evidence showing an increase in hoop houses between 2015 and 2018. The appellant argued that the odor control plan is inadequate, relying on verbal assurances rather than enforceable conditions, and that the project requires project-level environmental review under CEQA due to changed circumstances, including the illegality of defining cannabis as a principal use on Williamson Act contracted lands. The appellant requested that the board deny the project or, if approved, impose the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.
- Applicant’s Rebuttal: The applicant’s representatives argued that the project is an existing farm that has operated responsibly without the alleged negative impacts. They stated that the hoop house issue was extensively reviewed by the CBAR (Coastal Bend Agricultural Review) and that the applicant was prepared to remove hoops from two front fields. The applicant contended that the approval of a Land Use Permit (LUP) is a ministerial act, not a discretionary one, and that no additional environmental review is required because there are no significant new impacts or information. They disputed the claim of pesticide overspray, noting that a single incident was resolved through an MOU and that project conditions, including an agricultural buffer, address potential conflicts. The applicant argued that terpene migration is a "red herring" with no evidence in the record, citing independent studies showing no trace of cannabis terpenes in wine. They also addressed the "legal non-conforming" status, stating that the county’s investigation confirmed the farm’s compliance and that the ordinance prohibiting expansion was adopted after the alleged expansion period. The applicant requested that the board uphold the Planning Commission’s approval and noted that annual business license review provides sufficient oversight.
- Staff Comment: Staff indicated they had no further information to add and were available for questions.
- Board Questions:
- Hoop House Acreage: One Supervisor asked how many acres of hoop structures would remain if areas A and B were removed. Staff responded that removing areas A and B would leave five acres of hoop structures (areas D, E, and F). An applicant representative noted a discrepancy in the hoop acreage figures presented in various documents (22 acres, 14 acres, and 5 acres) and recommended that the board seek clarity on this issue and ensure consistency in the conditions and CEQA checklist before moving forward.
- Odor Control and Permit Duration: One Supervisor asked for a description of the odor control systems and the process for handling complaints, as well as how this would differ if the permit had a shorter duration compared to an annually reviewed business license.
- Discussion and Deliberation:
- Odor Abatement and Compliance: Staff clarified that the odor abatement plan (Condition 15) is triggered by verified complaints and involves steps such as verification, installation of vegetative buffers, and mechanized odor control. Staff noted that this condition stems from consistency with the San Ynez Valley Community Plan rather than the standard ordinance requirements for adjacent EDRNs. Staff explained that ongoing compliance would be monitored through annual business license reviews by Planning & Development (P&D).
- Public Participation: Staff stated that the public does not have a formal role in the business license review process but that complaints are accepted as input.
- Memorandum of Understanding (MOU): The applicant explained that an MOU was established with one neighbor (a broccoli farmer) to absolve liability for pesticide drift if the neighbor was spraying in compliance with state and local laws, including accidental drift. No MOU exists with the other neighbor (Mosby Vineyards) as no issues have arisen in five years, though the applicant stated they would draft one if requested.
- Williamson Act Classification: Staff explained that under current county uniform rules, commercial cannabis cultivation is classified as an "agricultural use." State law (Section 51231) allows counties to classify it as a "compatible use," but the county has discretion to maintain the agricultural classification.
- Permit Conditioning Authority: Staff clarified that the Board has broader discretion to condition a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) than a Land Use Permit (LUP). For an LUP, conditioning is limited to findings regarding public services, comprehensive plan conformity, legal lot status, and local law compliance.
- Hoop Structures: Staff declined to estimate the percentage of county hoop structures used for cannabis versus other crops, citing the variety of crops grown.
- Enforcement History: Staff reported that a complaint was filed with P&D, leading to a preliminary investigation. No Notice of Violation was issued, and the department proceeded with the permit issuance. Staff noted that the Sheriff’s Department’s specific enforcement role was not detailed by P&D staff.
- Future Policy Direction: Staff indicated that the Planning Commission has directed staff to bring odor abatement amendments to the Board. The department is exploring options to address odor abatement through the work program or separate ordinance amendments.
- Cumulative Impact and Nonconforming Status:
- One Supervisor raised concerns about cumulative impacts, estimating proposed cannabis acres in the Santa Rita Hills AVA could represent a significant percentage of the AVA and the county’s cannabis cap.
- Another Supervisor corrected the AVA acreage to approximately 30,000 acres (with 2,700 acres planted in vineyards) and noted that the clustering concern is valid but the math needs verification.
- Supervisors discussed the issue of "legal nonconforming" status, with one Supervisor expressing concern that operations are expanding beyond their 2016 baseline and being "blessed" by permits without penalty. Another Supervisor noted that if law enforcement had found violations, they would have acted, and the Board should not arbitrate nonconforming status if investigations found no violations.
- Supervisors debated the visual impact of hoop structures, with one Supervisor supporting their removal for aesthetic reasons and another arguing hoops are a standard agricultural tool and potentially beneficial for controlling pesticide drift.
- Supervisors discussed the need for broader policy decisions regarding odor control and cannabis regulations, suggesting these issues be addressed through Planning Commission recommendations and ordinance amendments rather than solely through individual project approvals.
- Motion and Decision:
- Initial Motion: A motion was made to trail the item to allow staff time to revise the project description and conditions to align with the Board's direction (22 acres total cultivation, 5 acres under hoops).
- Staff Preparation: During a break, staff prepared a memo with updated findings and conditions. The revised package included:
- 22 acres of cannabis cultivation.
- Maximum of 5 acres under 12-foot tall hoop structures.
- Prohibition of hoop structures in areas A and B.
- Removal of Conditions 3, 4, and 5 from the original conditions of approval, incorporating those limits into the project description.
- Revision to Condition 15 (Odor Abatement) to allow on-site drying and remove a specific two-hour weighing requirement (noted as a state regulation).
- Addition of Condition 35 requiring the applicant to submit a revised site plan conforming to the new project description.
- Applicant and Coalition Comments:
- The applicant accepted the revised package.
- The opposing coalition (Santa Barbara Coalition) objected, stating the decision defied CEQA, improperly relied on the Williamson Act, increased the odor footprint, and lacked environmental analysis for mitigation measures like fans and windscreens. They requested the Board revert to the original 18-acre limit.
- Final Motion: A motion was made to adopt Staff Recommendations A, B, C, D, and E on the memo dated March 17, 2020, with the clarification that Recommendation C references Attachment A (Findings) instead of Attachment B.
- Vote Outcome: The transcript ends with the motion being made and clarified, but no vote outcome (passed or failed) is recorded in this section.
Agenda Item: Amendment to Conditions of Approval (Condition 35)
- Discussion: A proposal was made to strike the name "Jeff Wilson" from Condition 35 of the conditions of approval and replace it with a quoted term. One member expressed a preference to retain the name for memorialization purposes but agreed to proceed with the change if requested by the individual.
- Motion: A motion was made and seconded to approve the amendment to Condition 35.
- Decision: The motion passed.
- Vote Outcome: Passed.
Adjournment
- The meeting was adjourned. The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March 24, 2020, in Santa Barbara.