Board of Supervisors — 2020-06-02

Opening Remarks and Public Statements

• Supervisors addressed racial justice, public safety, and recent protests, with some emphasizing the need for empathy and others distinguishing between peaceful protest and destructive behavior.
• CEO Miyasato announced that the Human Resources Department is rolling out a diversity and inclusion plan for the next fiscal year.
• The plan focuses on training, unconscious bias, and inclusion initiatives.

Santa Maria Levee Corridor Study Grant

• Public commenters raised concerns regarding late notice, potential residency claims on bike routes, and conflicts with agricultural operations.
• Supervisors debated the feasibility of the study, with some supporting it for community access and others requiring prior landowner agreements.
• The board approved the grant for the study by a 3-2 vote.

Memorandum of Understanding with Sacramento County

• The board reviewed an MOU with Sacramento County for the provision of cash assistance programs for immigrants.
• Supervisor Adam requested a roll-call vote on the item.
• The board approved the MOU by a 4-1 vote.

COVID-19 Update

• Public Health Director Dr. DeRinoso reported that the county met most state metrics for reopening, though it missed the target for new cases per 100,000 residents.
• The county launched a new dashboard to track reopening metrics, including test positivity rates and hospital capacity.
• Schools and day camps remain in Stage 2 pending specific guidance from the California Department of Public Health.

RISE Business Activity Update

• Staff presented an update on business reopening activities, including changes to public health orders for retail, salons, and places of worship.
• The presentation covered the RISE Guide, self-certification processes, and specific measures for wineries and tasting rooms.
• The board received and filed the staff recommendation unanimously.

Emergency Rule Number One Confirmation

• Staff presented an urgency ordinance to confirm Emergency Rule Number One, authorizing temporary special encroachment permits for businesses.
• The rule allows for outdoor dining and business expansions in county roadway rights-of-way while maintaining pedestrian access.
• The board accepted the staff recommendation and confirmed the rule unanimously.

Emergency Rule Number Two Confirmation

• Staff presented a hearing to confirm Emergency Rule Number Two, which temporarily suspends zoning regulations for wineries serving food.
• The rule allows wineries and tasting rooms to operate as dine-in restaurants if they comply with state laws and reopening directives.
• The board confirmed the emergency rule unanimously.

Behavioral Wellness Fee Ordinance

• Staff presented the mandatory process for establishing published charges for the Department of Behavioral Wellness for fiscal year 2020-2021.
• The fees cover psychiatric health facilities, crisis stabilization, and outpatient mental health services.
• The board approved the introduction of the ordinance and continued the item to June 16 for adoption.

Flood Control Benefit Assessment Program

• Staff presented the Flood Control Benefit Assessment Program for fiscal year 2020-2021.
• No presentation slides were provided, and staff were available for questions.
• The board accepted staff recommendations A through D unanimously.

Agricultural Employee Dwellings

• Staff presented the California Coastal Commission’s conditional certification of an amendment to the Local Coastal Program.
• The amendment allows agricultural employees to perform the majority of their work on the farm where the dwelling is located.
• The board concurred with the Coastal Commission’s language unanimously.

Commercial Cannabis Activities

• Staff presented ordinances to amend the Land Use and Development Code to implement new development standards for commercial cannabis.
• The Planning Commission recommended requiring Conditional Use Permits for all cultivation and on-site processing to enhance public participation and odor control.
• The board received extensive public comment from both supporters and opponents of the CUP requirement.
• The board continued the hearing to a future date to finish reading remaining letters and conduct deliberations.

Closed Session

• The board recessed to confer with real property negotiators concerning three sets of parcels in Goleta, Orkut Hills, and Santa Maria.
• Staff reported that there were no reportable actions from the closed session.

Opening Remarks and Public Statements

• The meeting was called to order by Chair Hart. Following roll call and the Pledge of Allegiance, supervisors made statements regarding racial justice, public safety, and recent protests.
• Chair Hart acknowledged the impact of structural racism, expressed commitment to reducing incarceration rates and confronting racial disparities in the criminal justice system, and noted that local protests were peaceful. The chair also provided contact information for the community wellness team.
• Supervisor Hartman shared a personal anecdote regarding her grandson’s experience and discussed the need for empathy, education, and active anti-racism. She emphasized that while protests result from systemic issues, violence is not justified.
• Supervisor Williams acknowledged the pain of the local Black community and encouraged young people of color to engage in systemic change. He noted that local law enforcement agencies have made progress in this area and invited community members to collaborate with the Sheriff’s department and his office.
• Supervisor Lavinino expressed concern for his son, who was protesting at the state capitol, and stated that resorting to violence undermines the message of those protesting against police misconduct.
• Supervisor Adam stated that while the video of George Floyd’s death is horrifying, he distinguished between legitimate protesters and those engaging in destructive behavior such as looting and burning. He expressed support for police in dealing severely with those engaging in destruction.
• Supervisor Williams added that persistent inequality affects the local community and that the Black community in Santa Barbara County is historic and active.
• CEO Miyasato noted that the Human Resources Department is rolling out a diversity and inclusion plan for the next fiscal year, focusing on training, unconscious bias, and inclusion.

Approval of Minutes

• Item: Approval of the minutes of May 19, 2020.
• Action: Supervisor Hartman moved to approve the minutes. The motion was seconded.
• Vote Outcome: Passed unanimously.

CEO Report

• Item: CEO Report.
• Action: CEO Miyasato reported there was no report for this morning.

Administrative Agenda

• The board reviewed the administrative agenda. Public comment was taken on Items A-15 and A-21. Supervisor Adam requested a roll-call vote on Item A-32.
• Item A-15: General Services – Amendment for COVID-19 related countywide security services to Triumph Protection Group Board Contract BC 19-102.
• Public Comment: Andy Caldwell, representing COLAB, expressed distress regarding the item, questioning whether food, drugs, or alcohol were being provided to individuals housed in motels, and asked if testing and tracking were being conducted for this population.
• Action: No motion was recorded in this transcript segment for this specific item; it was part of the broader administrative agenda approval process.
• Item A-21: Public Works – Santa Maria Levee Corridor Study Grant.
• Public Comment:
• Vincent Martinez, representing Prescott Ranch LLC, expressed disappointment at the late notice and raised concerns about existing homeless activity, potential residency claims on bike routes, loss of agricultural acreage due to buffer zones, and interference with easements. He urged that property owners and lessees be notified before funds are expended on a study.
• Claire Weinman, President of the Grower Shipper Association, urged the board to consider land use planning implications to avoid conflicts. She cited concerns regarding food safety, liability, off-leash dogs, and vandalism associated with the existing trail, arguing that active recreation is not compatible with high-intensity production agriculture.
• Discussion:
• Supervisor Hartman supported the study, citing its inclusion in multiple adopted plans (Guadalupe Mobility Revitalization Plan, Santa Maria Bikeway Master Plan, Regional Active Transportation Plan). She noted the trail would connect underserved communities to amenities and the beach, and emphasized that the study is designed to engage stakeholders and identify feasible management strategies.
• Supervisor Lavinino expressed support for a trail only if landowner agreements were secured. He cited the complexity of numerous landowners and leases along the seven-mile stretch and the potential financial infeasibility of fencing. He stated he would not support the study in this location without prior landowner sign-off.
• Supervisor Adam asked if the Bureau of Reclamation or Army Corps of Engineers had been consulted regarding the levee structure. Staff (Mr. Sennett) clarified that these agencies had been consulted regarding requirements but needed the study results to determine feasibility. Supervisor Adam also raised concerns about easements and properties outside county control, stating he would not support the item.
• Supervisor Williams supported the study, noting the importance of access to the beach for low-income residents and the potential for a maintained public trail to mitigate issues associated with de facto trails.
• Action: Supervisor Hartman moved to approve Item A-21. The motion was seconded.
• Vote Outcome: Passed 3-2.
• Item A-32: Social Services – Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Sacramento County Department of Human Services for the provision of cash assistance program for immigrants.
• Action: Supervisor Adam requested a roll-call vote. Supervisor Hartman moved to approve Item A-32 per staff recommendation. The motion was seconded.
• Vote Outcome: Passed 4-1.
• Balance of Administrative Agenda
• Action: Supervisor Hartman moved to approve the balance of the administrative agenda. The motion was seconded.
• Vote Outcome: Passed unanimously.

General Public Comment

• Jessica Carr (Salvation Army): Reported on the organization's efforts during the pandemic, including serving over 60,000 hot meals and 13,000 food boxes. She noted that 98% of the 7,000 families assisted at the Santa Barbara location were new to the Salvation Army.
• Andy Caldwell (COLAB): Expressed grief over the death of George Floyd and called for the prosecution of officers involved. He also called for a resolution condemning groups like Antifa and looters, and discussed issues such as school choice, family structure, and abortion rates as factors affecting the Black community.
• Renee O'Neill: Was listed as a speaker but was unavailable.

Departmental Item 1: County Executive Office – COVID-19 Update

• Presentation: Dr. DeRinoso, Public Health Director, presented an update on the county’s status regarding the reopening of business sectors.
• Status: The county had stabilized data and increased preparedness, allowing for the opening of office-based businesses, dine-in restaurants, in-person retailers, hair salons, and places of worship.
• State Metrics: The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) introduced new metrics for monitoring counties. These include test positivity rates, cases per population, testing capacity, and hospital capacity.
• County Data:
• Total cases: 1,649 (as of the previous Friday).
• Active cases: 140 (8% of total); 91% recovered.
• Santa Maria showed an upward trend in cases, prompting a "deep dive" investigation.
• Hospitalization rates were below the 5% target.
• Test positivity rate was 3% (below the 8% target), with prison population data separated from general population data.
• The county did not meet the new state target for new cases per 100,000 residents (174 new cases vs. target of <112), but Dr. DeRinoso stated the county would not be placed on a monitored list unless this metric combined with a test positivity rate above 8%.
• Testing capacity: The county believed it met the target of 1.5 tests per 1,000 residents, though data entry by commercial labs was an issue.
• Hospital capacity: 92% of ICU beds and 77% of ventilators were available.
• Dashboard: A new "Santa Barbara County Reopening Metrics" dashboard was launched on the public health website, providing daily updated data on cases, hospitalizations, testing, and PPE availability.
• Schools and Day Camps: Dr. DeRinoso stated that schools and day camps are in Stage 2, but the county is awaiting specific guidance from CDPH before allowing them to open. CEO Miyasato clarified that licensed daycare centers are allowed to operate, and camps attached to licensed daycares may also be permitted, though there is confusion regarding the classification.
• Discussion:
• Supervisor Williams asked about testing utilization and whether the county should urge more general population testing. Dr. DeRinoso confirmed that testing sites are open to all community members and encouraged utilization.
• Supervisor Williams inquired about the status of schools and day camps, noting that other counties were opening them. Dr. DeRinoso stated the county was awaiting CDPH guidance and was engaging with the state to expedite the release of this guidance.
• Supervisor Hartman asked for clarification on prison testing data, confirming that there were no positive cases in the prison population for the week. She also acknowledged the targeted testing event in Guadalupe and the provision of face coverings by volunteers and inmates.
• Supervisor Hartman noted that the county is coordinating with state and local officials regarding reopening policies and case monitoring.

Departmental Item 1: RISE Business Activity Update

• Staff presented an update on RISE business activities, including recent changes to public health orders regarding places of worship, hair salons, barbershops, and retail shopping. The presentation covered the county’s current status in Stage Two, the availability of the RISE Guide, and metrics for tightening or loosening restrictions. Staff detailed the reopening self-certification process, noting approximately 1,650 business submittals countywide as of the presentation date. Specific measures for wineries and tasting rooms were discussed, including the issuance of Emergency Rule Number Two (temporarily suspending certain zoning regulations), Health Order 2028.2 (allowing wineries/breweries to operate as dine-in restaurants if serving food), and the availability of temporary food permits. The Small Business and Community Partnership Enhancement Program (SBC-PEP) was also introduced, with Phase One allowing expansion into public rights-of-way and Phase Two (private property expansion) pending further review.
• Public comment was received from Andy Caldwell, who argued that lockdown policies were based on flawed models and caused greater economic harm than the virus; Shelby McCaig, who requested clarification on whether estheticians could perform waxing services from the neck down; Laurel Ward (via letter), who criticized face covering mandates and social distancing requirements; and Lee Heller, who supported the face covering order and highlighted the county’s response to animal shelter operations. Staff responded to questions regarding the readiness of gyms and nail salons for Stage Three, the educational role of RISE ambassadors, and the efficacy of face coverings. Supervisor Hartman requested information on prison and jail policies for the next meeting, and Supervisor Adams requested data on the top ten causes of death in the county for context.
• A motion was made by Supervisor Williams and seconded by Supervisor Hartman to receive and file the staff recommendation. The motion passed unanimously.

Departmental Item 2: Public Works – Emergency Rule Number One Confirmation

• Staff presented a hearing to consider the confirmation and supersession of Emergency Rule Number One via an urgency ordinance. This ordinance authorizes the Public Works Director to temporarily issue special encroachment permits for businesses and community entities to operate in county roadway rights-of-way during the COVID-19 pandemic. The ordinance is set to expire on December 16, 2020, or upon termination of the local emergency. Staff discussed the application process, noting that it allows for outdoor dining and other business expansions while maintaining pedestrian access. Questions were raised regarding potential street closures in areas such as Isla Vista and Los Alamos, with staff indicating that collaboration with Caltrans would be required for state-owned roads.
• No public comment was received. A motion was made to accept the staff recommendation and seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

Departmental Item 3: Planning and Development – Emergency Rule Number Two Confirmation

• Staff presented a hearing to consider the confirmation of Emergency Rule Number Two, issued on May 25, 2020. This rule temporarily suspends County Code Chapter 35 zoning regulations and permit restrictions for wineries and wine tasting rooms serving food, provided they comply with state laws and reopening directives.
• Public comment was received from Tyler Thomas, who expressed support for the motion to allow tasting rooms to reopen. A motion was made to confirm the emergency rule and seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Following the vote, Supervisor Lavinino requested clarification on the role of RISE ambassadors, and staff confirmed their primary intent is educational support rather than compliance enforcement.

Departmental Item 4: Behavioral Wellness – Fee Ordinance

• Staff presented the mandatory process for establishing published charges for the Department of Behavioral Wellness for fiscal year 2020-2021. The presentation covered fees for the psychiatric health facility, crisis stabilization unit, outpatient mental health services, and medication-assisted treatment. Staff explained that published charges affect Medi-Cal reimbursement rates and that non-Medi-Cal clients are screened based on a sliding fee schedule. The recommendation was to approve the introduction of the ordinance, read the title, waive further readings, and continue the item to June 16 for adoption.
• No public comment was received. A motion was made by Supervisor Lavinino to accept the published charges and staff recommendation, and seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

Departmental Item 5: Public Works – Flood Control Benefit Assessment Program

• Staff presented the Flood Control Benefit Assessment Program for fiscal year 2020-2021. No presentation slides were provided, and staff were available for questions.
• No public comment was received. A motion was made by Supervisor Hartman to accept staff recommendations A through D, and seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

Departmental Item 6: Planning and Development – Agricultural Employee Dwellings

• Staff presented the California Coastal Commission’s conditional certification of an amendment to the Local Coastal Program regarding the Agricultural Employee Dwellings (AED) coastal zoning ordinance. Staff explained that the Coastal Commission agreed to allow employees to perform the majority of their work on the farm or ranch where the AED is located, with up to 49% of their time spent on other farms or ranches. Staff indicated that this was the final compromise reached with the Coastal Commission, which prioritized the protection of agricultural land.
• Public comment was received from Andy Caldwell, who argued that the compromise was insufficient for small parcels in the Carpinteria Valley and criticized the Coastal Commission’s policies for hindering agricultural viability. Supervisor Williams moved to concur with the Coastal Commission’s language, noting it was a reluctant acceptance of the compromise. The motion was seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

Closed Session

• The board recessed to closed session to confer with real property negotiators concerning three sets of parcels: one adjacent to 14470 Calle Real in Goleta; one in open space land in the Orkut Hills near Oak Hill Drive; and six parcels adjacent to and south of 1950 California 1 in Santa Maria. Upon reconvening, staff reported that there were no reportable actions from the closed session.

Departmental Item 7: Planning and Development – Commercial Cannabis Activities

• Staff began a presentation on ordinances to amend the County Land Use and Development Code (LUDC) and the Article 2 Coastal Zoning Ordinance to implement new development standards and permit requirements for certain commercial cannabis activities. Staff noted that the Planning Commission had provided recommendations and alternatives for the board to consider. The presentation was interrupted by a notice that public comment would close in approximately ten minutes due to the number of registered speakers.

Agenda Item: Cannabis Regulations – Planning Commission Recommendations and Public Comment

Staff Presentation and Planning Commission Recommendations

• Staff presented the results of the Planning Commission’s five public hearings regarding cannabis operations. The Planning Commission reviewed strategies for mitigating odor, addressing conflicts with other agricultural operations, and modifying permitting requirements. The Commission considered various options, including creating new zoning overlays, adjusting permitting requirements based on proximity to urban areas, requiring Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) for outdoor cultivation while allowing Land Use Permits (LUPs) for indoor cultivation, and banning specific odor-generating outdoor processing activities. The Commission also examined development standards, setbacks from sensitive receptors, caps on operation size and number, and odor control requirements.
• The Planning Commission made two primary recommendations to the Board of Supervisors: 1. Permitting Requirements: Require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for all cultivation and on-site processing throughout the county. Staff explained that this would change the current structure where some activities in the Ag-1 and Ag-2 zones require LUPs or Coastal Development Permits (CDPs). Under the recommendation, cultivation would no longer be considered a "principally permitted use" in the coastal zone, making it appealable to the Coastal Commission. Staff noted that this change would shift the initial decision-maker from staff to the Planning Commission, eliminating the staff-level approval step. Staff stated they could not predict the net effect on processing times, noting that while it eliminates one approval step, it increases discretion and appealability, which could increase application development time. 2. Odor Control: Change the odor control standard from a specific requirement that odors not be detectable from a residential zone to a broader standard requiring that operations not be detrimental to the comfort, convenience, general welfare, health, and safety of the neighborhood and must be compatible with the surrounding area. This would allow decision-makers to tailor odor control measures (e.g., sealed carbon filtration systems) based on specific site conditions and sensitive receptors, rather than applying a one-size-fits-all approach.

Board Discussion and Staff Clarifications

• Supervisors asked questions regarding the scope of the Planning Commission’s review and the status of pending applications.
• Scope of Review: Staff confirmed that the Planning Commission considered a broad range of criteria, including odor, urban-rural boundaries, conflicts with agriculture, CUP requirements, size limits, and setbacks. Staff indicated that most policy options the Board might consider today likely fall within the scope of the Commission’s review, allowing the Board to act without returning the item to the Planning Commission. However, if the Board considers options not previously reviewed by the Commission, the item would need to be sent back for further process.
• Business Licensing: Staff clarified that amendments to the business licensing ordinance do not require Planning Commission review, as licensing deals with "users" rather than "uses." The Board could direct staff to investigate licensing-related improvements, such as monitoring odor control systems, separately from the land use ordinance changes.
• Pending Applications: Staff reported that there have been 194 cannabis projects applied for in the county, with 29 approved, 16 permits issued, and 9 under appeal. Approximately 134 applications (LUPs or CDPs) may be affected by the proposed shift to CUPs. Staff explained the concept of vesting rights, noting that applications that have incurred substantial expenditures or liabilities in good faith reliance on the permit may be considered vested. Staff suggested that if the Board wishes to create specific vesting provisions for applications in the pipeline, they should direct staff to draft legally sound language.
• Setbacks and Buffers: Staff advised that if the Board considers setbacks or buffers (e.g., from tasting rooms), the criteria should be objective and not controlled by third parties to avoid legal and administrative difficulties.

Public Comment

• Public comment was limited to two minutes per speaker due to the high volume of registered speakers (168), letters (130), and phone calls (38). Comments were received from individuals and representatives of various organizations, including cannabis growers, wineries, legal representatives, and residents.
• Opposition to CUP Requirement: Several speakers, including representatives of cannabis growers and industry attorneys, argued that requiring CUPs for all cultivation would be discriminatory, increase costs and processing times, and harm the local economy. They stated that the current LUP process is rigorous and sufficient, and that CUPs would create unnecessary burdens, particularly for small businesses and existing applicants with vested rights. Some speakers highlighted the economic contributions of the cannabis industry, including tax revenue and community support during the pandemic.
• Support for CUP Requirement: Other speakers, including residents, winery owners, and planning advocates, supported the Planning Commission’s recommendation to require CUPs. They argued that CUPs provide necessary transparency, public participation, and the ability to impose conditions to mitigate adverse impacts such as odor, pesticide drift, and incompatibility with neighboring uses. Speakers cited specific incidents of odor complaints and concerns about the impact on wine quality due to terpene contamination. They emphasized the need for greater control and flexibility in decision-making to protect community health and existing agricultural operations.
• Specific Concerns: Comments addressed specific issues such as the impact on existing developed rural neighborhoods (EDRNs), the need for objective setback criteria, the adequacy of current odor control standards, and the economic implications of the proposed changes. Some speakers requested that the Board consider exemptions for existing permits or applications in the pipeline to protect vested rights.

Status

• No motion was made, seconded, or voted upon during this segment of the transcript. The Board continued to hear public comment.

Agenda Item: Public Comment on Cannabis Ordinance Amendments (Part 4 of 6)

• This section of the transcript consists entirely of public comments submitted in response to the Planning Commission’s recommendation to amend the Cannabis Land Use Ordinance. No motions were made, seconded, or voted upon by the Board of Supervisors during this segment. The comments were divided into two primary perspectives regarding the proposed shift from Land Use Permits (LUP) to Conditional Use Permits (CUP) for cannabis cultivation and processing.

Comments Supporting the Adoption of Conditional Use Permits (CUPs)

• Several speakers and submitted letters advocated for the Board to adopt the Planning Commission’s recommendation to require CUPs for all cannabis operations. Key arguments included:
• Public Participation and Transparency: Commenters argued that the current LUP process lacks sufficient public input and transparency. They stated that CUPs provide a formal hearing process where neighbors and the public can voice concerns, review staff analysis, and participate before a decision is made, potentially reducing the number of appeals to the Board.
• Site-Specific Compatibility: Speakers emphasized that CUPs allow for case-by-case evaluation of compatibility with surrounding uses, such as vineyards, residences, schools, and sensitive receptors. They argued that the current ordinance does not adequately address cumulative impacts, odor drift, or conflicts with existing agricultural and residential areas.
• Odor and Health Concerns: Multiple residents reported significant odor issues affecting their health, sleep, and quality of life. They requested mandatory odor abatement plans and noted that current mitigation measures were ineffective. Some cited specific incidents of odor affecting schools, senior living facilities, and nearby neighborhoods.
• Protection of Existing Industries: Vineyard owners and agricultural representatives expressed concern that cannabis proximity negatively impacts grape sales and brand reputation. They argued that CUPs would help protect the wine industry’s economic viability and ensure equitable treatment between different agricultural sectors.
• Safety and Enforcement: One letter highlighted safety risks associated with cannabis extraction and storage, citing incidents of explosions and fires. Another commenter suggested that CUPs would provide a better framework for enforcing regulations and ensuring compliance with safety standards.

Comments Opposing the Adoption of Conditional Use Permits (CUPs)

• Other speakers, including cannabis industry representatives, attorneys, and some residents, urged the Board to reject the CUP requirement and maintain the existing LUP process. Key arguments included:
• Economic Impact and Job Creation: Commenters stated that cannabis is a significant source of tax revenue and employment in the county, particularly during the economic downturn caused by the pandemic. They argued that changing the permitting process would delay projects, reduce tax revenue, and negatively impact the local economy.
• Process Delays and Backlog: Industry representatives warned that requiring CUPs would create a significant backlog, potentially taking two to four years to clear existing applications. They argued this would paralyze land-use permitting for other projects and penalize operators who have already made substantial investments and complied with existing regulations.
• Existing Regulatory Framework: Speakers argued that the current LUP process already includes rigorous scrutiny, staff discretion, and requirements for odor control and compatibility. They contended that the existing ordinance is sufficient and that changing it now would introduce unnecessary ambiguity and uncertainty.
• Impact on Small Businesses: Some commenters, including small-scale growers and vineyard owners, argued that the CUP process is costly and time-consuming, making it accessible only to larger, well-funded operators. They suggested that the current process allows small businesses to thrive and that CUPs would disadvantage them.
• Alternative Solutions: Several speakers proposed alternative measures to address concerns without adopting CUPs, such as increasing setbacks from property lines and residential areas, limiting density (e.g., 30% of parcel size), requiring odor abatement plans, and allowing hoop house cultivation to reduce odor and pesticide drift.

Other Comments

• COVID-19 Context: Several speakers referenced the economic challenges posed by the pandemic, arguing that the cannabis industry has been an essential business providing jobs and tax revenue during this period.
• Specific Project Concerns: Some comments addressed specific pending applications or projects, expressing support or opposition based on local impacts.
• General Support for Regulation: A few speakers expressed support for reasonable regulation of the cannabis industry, emphasizing the need for balance between economic benefits and community concerns.

Outcome

• No decision was made, and no vote was taken during this segment of the meeting. The Board continued to receive public comments.

Agenda Item: Public Comment on Cannabis Land Use Regulations and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Recommendations

Discussion and Public Comment

• The Board of Supervisors received written public comments regarding the Planning Commission’s recommendations to amend the cannabis ordinance. The comments were divided into two primary positions: support for requiring Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) for all cannabis cultivation and processing, and opposition to the CUP requirement in favor of maintaining the current Land Use Permit (LUP) process.

Comments Supporting CUP Requirements

• Multiple submitters urged the Board to adopt the Planning Commission’s recommendation to require CUPs for all commercial cannabis cultivation and on-site processing. Key arguments included:
• Compatibility and Odor Control: Submitters from the wine industry (Fess Parker Winery, Coastal Vineyard Care Associates, Grimm’s Bluff Vineyard, Sanford Winery, Miller Family Wine Company, Dragonette Cellars) and residents cited concerns regarding odor impacts on neighboring agricultural operations, tasting rooms, and residential properties. They argued that CUPs would allow for site-specific mitigation measures, including stricter odor abatement plans, to ensure compatibility with existing land uses.
• Public Participation and Transparency: Several residents and organizations (City of Carpinteria, We Watch, Santa Barbara County Farm Bureau, Foothill Cannabis Group) stated that the current LUP process lacks sufficient public input and transparency. They argued that CUPs would provide a formal public hearing process, allowing for greater community oversight and the ability to address cumulative impacts.
• Safety and Health: Residents in areas such as Temecula Canyon, Sabata Canyon, and the Santa Rita Hills expressed concerns about safety risks (including emergency access in remote areas), air quality, and health impacts (asthma, headaches) associated with large-scale cannabis operations.
• Regulatory Authority: Submitters argued that CUPs would grant the County greater authority to customize project conditions, enforce compliance, and deny projects where impacts cannot be mitigated, thereby reducing future appeals and lawsuits.

Comments Opposing CUP Requirements

• Other submitters, primarily cannabis cultivators and industry supporters, urged the Board to reject the CUP requirement and maintain the current LUP process. Key arguments included:
• Economic Impact: Submitters (Sheila Batson, Mike Lazaro, Carmela Beck, Leo Welder, Mark Hyatt, Jessica Clark) emphasized the economic benefits of cannabis farming, including tax revenue (cited as over $10 million annually), job creation, and support for local businesses during the economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. They argued that changing the permitting process would create uncertainty, delay approvals, and potentially eliminate small-scale operations.
• Process Efficiency and Predictability: Cultivators (Valley Crest Farms, Whitney Colley, Sarah Rotman, Busy Bee Organics) stated that the current LUP process is rigorous, involving extensive environmental and regulatory review. They argued that switching to CUPs would add unnecessary cost, time, and unpredictability to projects that are already in the approval pipeline, hindering their ability to operate legally.
• Community Integration: Some submitters (Jason Rodriguez, Mark Hyatt) highlighted the positive contributions of cannabis farmers to the Carpinteria community, including donations and support for local food insecurity during the pandemic. They argued that cannabis farming is a legitimate agricultural activity that should be supported rather than singled out for additional regulatory hurdles.
• Legal and Procedural Concerns: Some opponents argued that the current ordinance provides sufficient regulatory tools and that the CUP process could be used to unfairly target specific operators or create a "moving goalpost" for compliance.

Decision and Vote Outcome

• The Chair stated that the Board would not deliberate on or vote on this item during the current meeting due to the volume of public comment. The Board indicated that it would continue to receive public comment on the matter in subsequent sessions before making a decision. No motion was made, seconded, or voted upon in this portion of the transcript.

Agenda Item: Cannabis Ordinance Amendments (Public Comment and Continuation)

Public Comment

• The board received and read into the record letters from the following individuals, all of whom expressed support for the Planning Commission’s recommendations to amend the Land Use and Development Code (LUDC) to require Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) for all commercial cannabis operations and to adopt stricter odor abatement standards:
• Joe Ellen Watson (Park Highlands Association): Cited concerns regarding negative impacts on adjacent neighborhoods and requested CUPs to ensure transparent evaluation of project impacts.
• Barb Kloss: Argued that current regulations favor the industry and requested CUPs to allow for site-specific evaluation and neighborhood compatibility.
• Joan T. Esposito: Described health impacts, including asthma issues for a grandchild, and odor intrusion into their home, requesting approval of the Planning Commission’s recommendations.
• Catherine Culbertson: Reported health issues such as headaches and eye irritation, and requested CUPs and closed-loop carbon filters for operations adjacent to housing and schools.
• Anna Carrillo: Cited health and quality-of-life issues, noted the lack of a community plan in Carpinteria Valley, and requested CUPs to ensure resident voice and site-specific review.
• Jennifer Fullerton: Described odor impacts from a pending outdoor grow application and requested CUPs for all cannabis applications to ensure neighborhood compatibility.
• Curtis Tunnell: Urged the board to prohibit cannabis grows in Environmental Designation Rural Neighborhoods (EDRNs) due to safety concerns, including limited emergency access and fire hazards, in addition to supporting CUPs.
• Allison Wertz: Cited negative impacts on real estate values, health, and community cohesion, and requested regulation of the industry to protect the community.
• Kelly Rangel: Requested CUPs to allow for closer scrutiny of environmental, visual, and agricultural compatibility issues, citing specific land use policies and goals.

Motion to Continue

• After reading nine letters, Chair Foster Freeze noted that 40 letters remained to be read. To avoid deliberations immediately following a long period of public comment, the Chair proposed continuing the hearing to a future date. The Chair suggested using the previously reserved time for budget workshops on Thursday, June 11, to finish reading the remaining letters and then conduct deliberations. The Chair stated that public comment would not be reopened, as 168 individuals had already commented.
• Supervisor Ghazani clarified that under the Brown Act, the opportunity for public comment on the agenda item had already occurred and would be completed through the reading of the remaining letters at the next meeting.

Vote

• A motion was made to continue the hearing to a future date. The motion was seconded. No public comment was offered on the motion. The roll call vote resulted in a unanimous passage of the motion to continue.

Adjournment

• The board adjourned, with the next board workshop scheduled for Monday, June 9, and the continuation of the cannabis hearing scheduled for June 11.