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
Contract Renewal with PATH
- PATH representative supported the contract renewal for fiscal years 2020–2023.
- Concerns were raised regarding the designation of beds to specific agencies, which has reduced emergency shelter capacity.
- The item was discussed, but no vote was recorded in this section of the transcript.
Response to Grand Jury Report on Detention Facilities
- A speaker requested consideration of home release for nonviolent criminals and improved sanitation and medical access at Lompoc Prison.
- Additional concerns were raised regarding farm worker health and safety, including requests for inspections and mobile testing sites.
- The item was discussed, but no vote was recorded in this section of the transcript.
Sublease Agreement with Ripon Property LLC
- A representative criticized the staff report, arguing the Santa Barbara location was not strategically serving the high-population North County area.
- Staff explained the facility serves as an "insurance policy" for the hospital system and that North County capacity is handled via other arrangements.
- The item was discussed, but no vote was recorded in this section of the transcript.
Urgency Ordinance to Temporarily Prohibit Evictions
- Discussion centered on the potential for increased rent arrears and the specific documentation required for tenants to qualify for protection.
- Staff clarified that the Governor’s Executive Order provides the authority for eviction protection while courts have frozen proceedings.
- The ordinance was passed 4 to 1.
Food Bank of Santa Barbara County COVID-19 Funding Agreement
- The Clerk read a corrected recommendation to approve, ratify, and authorize the execution of a funding agreement for emergency feeding services.
- The item was approved unanimously with the amendment.
COVID-19 Update & CARES Act Fund Allocations
- Staff reported 4,140 total cases with a 43% increase in the past 14 days, noting that the county remains on the state’s monitoring list.
- New statewide orders require the closure of indoor operations for various businesses, with no sunset date.
- The Board approved the allocation of approximately $46.1 million in CARES Act funds, including $2 million for rental assistance, income replacement, and business assistance.
- The Board voted to receive and file the COVID-19 update unanimously.
Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Rate Structure
- Staff proposed a fee structure based on kilowatt-hours and a parking fee for vehicles remaining in charging spots beyond four hours during daytime.
- Overnight parking and charging would be free to accommodate residents, and the installation contract is expected to be re-bid.
- The rate structure was adopted unanimously.
Cannabis Ordinance Amendments
- Staff presented amendments prohibiting commercial cannabis in Existing Rural Neighborhoods (EDRNs) and requiring Conditional Use Permits for cultivation exceeding 51% of Ag-2 lot areas.
- County Counsel determined that Supervisor Hartman’s property ownership did not constitute a conflict of interest under the Political Reform Act.
- The Board voted to ban cannabis cultivation in EDRNs 3 to 2.
- The Board adopted the entire package of staff recommendations 4 to 1.
- The Board directed staff to address odor control monitoring data and business license requirements in a future meeting.
Santa Rita Valley Ag Inc. LUP Application
- Staff recommended denying the appeal and the underlying Land Use Permit due to the lack of current owner authorization and indemnification.
- The property owner’s attorney confirmed the lease termination and requested the denial of the application.
- The Board voted to deny the appeal and the project unanimously.
Closed Session
- The Board recessed to discuss existing litigation and real property negotiations concerning parcels in Goleta, Orchard Hills, Santa Maria, and Old Town.
- Upon reconvening, the County Counsel reported that there were no reportable actions from the closed session.
Full summary
Meeting Opening and Roll Call
- The July 14, 2020, meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors was called to order. The Clerk called the roll, and all five members were present. The Board recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes (July 7, 2020)
- No discussion was requested. A motion to approve the minutes was made and seconded.
- Vote: Passed unanimously.
CEO Report
- The County Executive Officer reported that there was no CEO report for this session.
Announcements
- The Clerk provided announcements regarding public comment procedures, noting that members of the public could comment by phone. The Clerk also announced a correction to Administrative Item A54 (Food Bank of Santa Barbara County COVID-19 funding agreement), clarifying the recommendation to approve, ratify, and authorize the chair to execute a funding agreement for emergency feeding services in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Administrative Agenda Management
- Supervisor Adam requested to pull Item A53. The Clerk noted public requests to pull Items A5, A20, A21, and A32. Supervisor Williams requested that Item A21 be trailed to Departmental Item D1.
Administrative Item A5: Contract Renewal with PATH
- Ben Romo, representing PATH, stated support for the contract renewal for fiscal years 2020–2023. He raised concerns regarding the designation of beds to specific agencies, noting that this practice has reduced emergency shelter capacity. He mentioned that various entities are paying for designated beds, which diminishes available emergency shelter spaces, and suggested collective strategies to restore capacity if emergency beds are lost.
- Decision: The item was discussed; no vote was recorded in this section of the transcript.
Administrative Item A20: Response to 2018-2020 Grand Jury Report on Detention Facilities
- Sherry Higgins spoke regarding Lompoc Prison, requesting consideration of home release for nonviolent criminals, improved sanitation, medical treatment access, and iPad communication for families. She also raised concerns about farm worker health and safety, requesting inspections, mobile testing sites, and education on sick leave.
- Decision: The item was discussed; no vote was recorded in this section of the transcript.
Administrative Item A32: Sublease Agreement with Ripon Property LLC (Sears Santa Barbara)
- Andy Caldwell, representing CoLab, criticized the staff report, arguing that the location in Santa Barbara was not strategically serving the high-population North County area. He cited San Luis Obispo County’s creation of 929 beds at Cal Poly for $3 million as a more cost-effective alternative and questioned the cost-effectiveness and necessity of the 200-bed facility in Santa Barbara.
- Staff explained that the county aimed for 500 total beds countywide. North County capacity is handled via an arrangement with Cal Poly San Luis Obispo and San Luis Obispo County. The South County facility at Sears was selected after reviewing multiple sites for capacity and growth potential. The agreement involves three phases: holding the facility, preparing it, and receiving patients only if the hospital system is overwhelmed. Staff noted that the facility is an "insurance policy" and that tenant improvements would not be made in advance.
- Supervisor Hartman asked about patients from distant counties; staff indicated they would need to check with Public Health. Supervisor Williams asked about due diligence, site readiness, and lease flexibility for other uses. Staff confirmed extensive review by logistics, General Services, and Cottage Hospital, and noted that using federal CARES funds restricts the facility to alternate care sites. Supervisor Lavinino expressed comfort with the regional approach, noting that in a pandemic, physical location is less critical due to visitation restrictions.
- Decision: The item was discussed; no vote was recorded in this section of the transcript.
Administrative Item A53: Urgency Ordinance to Temporarily Prohibit Evictions
- Supervisor Adam expressed concern that prohibiting evictions encourages non-payment of rent, potentially leading to larger arrears and exacerbating foreclosures and evictions later. Supervisor Hartman asked about options for landlords with tenants on fixed income who refuse to pay. Staff explained that the Governor’s Executive Order provides the authority for eviction protection, while courts have frozen eviction proceedings but not necessarily rent collection remedies. Supervisor Williams noted that tenants must provide written notice and documentation of income loss or other specific hardships to qualify for protection under the ordinance. Supervisor Lavinino acknowledged the "day of reckoning" regarding unpaid rent but supported moving the item forward as a crisis measure.
- A motion was made and seconded to pass Item A53.
- Vote: Passed 4 to 1.
Administrative Item A54: Food Bank of Santa Barbara County COVID-19 Funding Agreement
- The Clerk read the corrected recommendation for the item. A motion was made and seconded to approve the item with the amendment.
- Vote: Passed unanimously.
General Public Comment
- The Board heard from several members of the public on items not on the agenda. Due to volume, time was limited to two minutes per speaker.
- Judy Paulson: Requested the Board adopt hemp regulations to protect residences and businesses, citing a hemp operation near her property in Santa Maria and concerns about nuisances and lack of oversight. Supervisor Williams noted that hemp associated with educational institutions may bypass county regulatory authority.
- Jasmine Garcia: Spoke on behalf of CAUSE, expressing concern for farm worker health and safety during the pandemic, requesting increased regulation, testing, and protection against retaliation.
- Sebastian Tello: Also spoke for CAUSE, requesting increased inspections of H-2A housing and field conditions, and more testing for essential workers. Supervisor Adam noted that approximately 20% of countywide cases are among farm workers. The Chair suggested these comments might be more appropriate for the COVID-19 update (Item D1).
- Mark Shatillo: Spoke on two items. First, he acknowledged the Black Lives Matter movement and leadership changes. Second, he addressed a closed session item regarding the potential sale of development rights for Keysight 18 open space, arguing that selling the rights would breach the public trust and the Orchid Community Plan.
- Jeff Chambliss: Spoke regarding the settlement of Murray v. County of Santa Barbara. He urged the Board to examine the settlement language, clarifying that it does not mandate renovation of the South County Jail unless the Board decides to use it as a jail. He suggested that with current jail populations at an all-time low, the Board should consider limiting the number of people in the jail rather than renovating it.
Departmental Item D1: COVID-19 Update & Administrative Item A21: CARES Act Fund Allocations
- Note: These items were discussed together, with votes taken separately later in the meeting.
COVID-19 Update (Item D1)
- Dr. DeRionne Pollard presented countywide data as of July 13, reporting 4,140 total cases, a 43% increase in the past 14 days. 91% of cases were recovered, and 8% were active. There was a discrepancy of approximately 269 cases between county and state data, which is under review. The county has been on the state’s monitoring list for 29 days. Key metrics exceeding state thresholds include elevated disease transmission (case rate of 242 per 100,000 vs. threshold of 25) and testing positivity (approx. 10% vs. threshold of 8%). Hospital capacity remains sufficient, with 34% of medical-surgical beds and 38% of ICU beds available.
- Paige Batson, Deputy Director of Community Health, discussed best practices for preventing and mitigating COVID-19 in congregate settings (shelters, nursing homes, jails, H-2A housing). She emphasized prevention through screening, physical distancing, and face coverings. In congregate settings, a single case is treated as an outbreak, requiring screening of all individuals. Testing is recommended weekly until 14 days of negative results.
- Supervisor Hartman asked about air ventilation, pool testing, and whether community spread is linked to visitors from high-case areas. Staff indicated that pool testing is under consideration for surveillance but not yet implemented, and that it is difficult to identify the source of transmission or link it specifically to visitors. Supervisor Williams asked why active cases are decreasing despite rising new cases. Staff explained that recovery is based on symptom onset dates and that delays in lab reporting affect daily case counts.
- Staff reported that the Environmental Health Services team has transitioned from education to enforcement, issuing notices of violation, permit pull notices, and scheduling hearings for businesses not adhering to safety guidelines. Staff noted that the RISE Ambassador program, originally a short-term deployment, has been popular and is being expanded to help businesses comply with self-certification requirements.
- Staff presented new statewide orders issued the previous day, requiring the closure of indoor operations for dine-in restaurants, wineries, tasting rooms, movie theaters, family entertainment centers, zoos, museums, card rooms, bars, brew pubs, and breweries. Alcohol may only be served with sit-down outdoor dining meals. Unlike previous orders, this new order has no sunset date and is determined by the state health officer.
- Because Santa Barbara County is on the state monitoring list, additional indoor closures are required for fitness centers, worship services, indoor protests, non-essential offices, personal care services (nail salons, body waxing, tattoo parlors, hair salons, barbershops), and malls. A draft county health order to implement these changes was in final review, with an effective date of 5:00 PM that day.
- Staff reported that as of the previous day, 14% of total county cases were attributed to farm workers. In Santa Maria specifically, 20% of cases were attributed to farm workers.
- Staff stated that the county is monitoring telecommuting rates, encouraging departments to work from home, and collecting data to report to the board, though coding issues are being resolved.
- Supervisor Hartman asked for clarification on how community organizations can volunteer for the RISE Ambassador program. Staff directed them to the call center or program lead. She also raised concerns about testing turnaround times, citing a family’s experience waiting seven days for results, and emphasized the need for efficient administration of CARES funds, suggesting partnerships with non-profits to reduce overhead.
- Supervisor Williams inquired about the substantive nature of the RISE Ambassador program in enforcing mask mandates and other guidelines. Staff confirmed the program focuses on compliance assistance rather than code enforcement and is part of a broader enforcement strategic plan.
- Supervisor Adam expressed concern about the public reporting mechanism for violations, questioning the societal implications of encouraging neighbors to report each other. He confirmed that banned indoor activities (such as protests, haircuts, and nail services) are permitted outdoors, but noted that live performances remain closed even outdoors.
- Supervisor Lavinino raised concerns about a swap meet event at the Santa Maria Fair Park, noting close confinement of booths and high attendance, potentially involving agricultural workers. Staff acknowledged the concern and stated it was on their list for jurisdictional review and outreach. He also requested updates on federal assistance (e.g., PPP loans) for local businesses.
- Supervisor Carbajal recommended preserving the record by taking separate votes on the combined items (D1 and A21) later in the meeting.
Public Comment (Items D1 and A21)
- Public comment was limited to two minutes per speaker. 43 speakers were registered. Comments included:
- Farm Worker Safety: Multiple speakers (including representatives from CAWS, CoLab, and individual residents) called for increased inspections, enforcement of Cal OSHA guidelines, clean water and bathroom access, and higher standards for H-2A housing. Several cited specific incidents, including the death of a farm worker in Santa Maria and outbreaks in Ventura County. Speakers requested that safety information be provided in Spanish and Indigenous languages (e.g., Mixteco) and that retaliation against workers reporting safety concerns be prohibited.
- Rental Assistance: Several speakers advocated for a rental assistance program to prevent evictions, citing personal financial hardships and the inability of undocumented workers to access other benefits.
- Business Impact: One speaker criticized the shutdowns as harmful to businesses and argued that healthy individuals should not be restricted, while another speaker (representing the Grower Shipper Association) thanked the county for outreach efforts and requested faster testing turnaround times.
- Healthcare Access: A physician requested Mixteco translation services for prenatal care patients, noting high density housing and low literacy among the patient population.
- Testing and Data: One speaker criticized the county and state for not distinguishing between asymptomatic/mild cases and severe cases in public reporting.
CARES Act Funding Allocation (Item A21)
- Staff presented the allocation of approximately $46.1 million in federal CARES Act funds passed through the state. The board report included a certification filed with the State Department of Finance by July 10, which the board was asked to ratify. Staff outlined six recommended categories for fund allocation.
- Supervisor Williams suggested a rental assistance program to address eviction risks once moratoriums lift. Staff confirmed that a rental assistance program had already been approved in June using CDBG funds, administered through the Housing Authority and Legal Aid, with income qualifications. Staff indicated they could return in August to augment the fund if the board desired, noting timelines for spending CARES funds.
- Staff mentioned plans to use $200,000 of CARES funds for a small business grant program with private matching funds and an income replacement program for individuals required to isolate or quarantine.
- Following public comment, the Board discussed the allocation of CARES Act funds. Supervisor Williams moved for recommendations A through E, adding recommendation F to direct staff to program monies for income replacement, business assistance, and rental assistance using CARES Act funds or replacement funds. Supervisor Lavinino seconded the motion, noting that 30% of Americans missed rent or mortgage payments in June and emphasizing the need for rental assistance. Supervisor Hartman expressed concern about the impact of allocating $2 million for rental assistance on other public health and behavioral health services, asking for clarification on available CDBG funds. Staff explained that the $2 million would come from programmed expenses and that the Board had previously allocated $741,000 plus $150,000 for an existing rental assistance program. Supervisor Adam supported the $2 million allocation, noting the urgency of spending the funds. Supervisor Lavinino agreed, stating that the funds were intended for this purpose. Supervisor Williams argued that a smaller amount would be insufficient to help those in need.
- The motion was to adopt recommendations A through F, including directing staff to program $2 million for rental assistance, income replacement, and business assistance from CARES Act or replacement funds, with the amendment that priorities be accomplished without putting funds at risk based on timing.
- Vote: Passed unanimously.
Departmental Item D1: Receive and File
- Supervisor Hartman moved to accept staff’s recommendation to receive and file the item.
- Vote: Passed unanimously.
Closed Session
- The Board recessed to closed session to discuss existing litigation (Murray v. County of Santa Barbara) and real property negotiations concerning parcels in Goleta, Orchard Hills, Santa Maria, and Old Town. Upon reconvening, the County Counsel reported that there were no reportable actions from the closed session.
Departmental Item 2: Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Rate Structure
- Staff presented a proposed fee and rate structure for public EV charging stations to be installed in county parking lots (Downtown Admin Lot, Public Health and Social Services, Lompoc Social Services). The proposal includes charging by the kilowatt-hour (kWh) to recover electricity costs and a parking fee for vehicles remaining in charging spots beyond four hours during daytime hours (7 AM–9 PM) to prevent "hogging" spots. Overnight parking and charging would be free to accommodate residents. Staff noted that the installation contract would be re-bid due to procedural anomalies, with installation expected in the fall.
- Mark Shatillo supported the item but questioned whether four hours is a standard charging time given variability in charger amperage (12–80 amps). He suggested optimizing pricing to encourage charging during periods of high local solar generation.
- Supervisor Williams asked about time-of-use pricing to encourage off-peak charging and suggested exempting overnight hours (10 PM–8 AM) from the parking fee, as energy costs are lower and grid demand is minimal. Staff indicated they could review the time frame in the resolution. Supervisor Hartman asked about charger specifications; staff explained that amperage depends on the building’s electrical capacity and that they are aiming for the highest feasible amperage.
- Supervisor Williams moved to adopt the staff recommendation for the EV charging rate structure.
- Vote: Passed unanimously.
Departmental Item 3: Cannabis Ordinance Amendments
- The item involves hearing recommendations regarding ordinance amendments to the Land Use and Development Code (LUDC) and Coastal Zoning Ordinance to implement new development standards for commercial cannabis activities. County Counsel addressed a letter from a law firm asserting that Supervisor Hartman had a conflict of interest under the Political Reform Act due to her ownership of an Existing Rural Neighborhood (EDRN) property. County Counsel stated that under FPPC regulations, a zoning decision applicable to all properties in a category is not material, and therefore no conflict of interest exists. Counsel noted that recusal is a personal decision and there is no legal requirement for additional disclosure beyond Form 700s.
- Supervisor Hartman responded to the conflict of interest claim, stating that her homeowner’s association CC&Rs prohibit commercial activities such as cannabis, meaning she cannot grow cannabis on her property.
Staff Presentation
- Mark Shatillo introduced the ordinance amendments developed in response to board direction given on June 11. Dan Clemon, Deputy Director of Long-Range Planning, presented the staff’s response to the board’s directives, which were categorized into five areas: two regarding permitting requirements, two regarding development standards, and one regarding the applicability of the new regulations to pending applications.
- Permitting Requirements:
- EDRN Prohibition: The amendments prohibit commercial cannabis activities within existing developed rural neighborhoods (EDRNs). Staff noted that approximately 25,000 acres are located within EDRNs and that 12 current applications for cultivation or accessory processing would be affected.
- Ag-2 Lot Threshold: For Ag-2 lots, if the proposed cultivation area exceeds 51% of the gross lot area, the project requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) rather than a Land Use Permit. Staff clarified that "gross lot area" was used for administrative ease and that the cultivation area is measured to the perimeter of the planted area, excluding agricultural roads. Eleven current applications exceed this threshold; reducing cultivation areas to meet the 51% limit would result in a reduction of at least 73 acres of post-cultivation area.
- Development Standards:
- Setbacks: Cultivation areas must be set back a minimum of 50 feet from all legal lot lines. Staff noted that 48 current applications include cultivation within 50 feet of property lines, though some applicants may have already revised their applications.
- Odor Control/Processing: On-site drying and processing activities must be located within an enclosed building utilizing best available control technologies for cannabis odors. Alternatively, operators may use other technologies or techniques that achieve an equivalent or greater level of odor control. Staff clarified that this regulation targets extensive processing (e.g., trimming buds for sale) and does not prohibit the initial cutting of buds for off-site transport. Four current applications propose outdoor drying and processing and would be affected.
- Applicability to Pending Applications:
- The new regulations do not apply to projects that have been approved and not appealed.
- The new regulations do not apply to projects that have been approved, appealed, and resulted in a final decision without litigation.
- The new regulations do not apply to projects currently subject to litigation if the county prevails and the approval is upheld. If the county does not prevail, the new regulations apply if the applicant pursues the project.
- Staff distinguished between "approved" permits (conditions of approval must be satisfied) and "issued" permits (conditions satisfied, project may be implemented), noting that issued permits are beyond the final approved stage and are not subject to the new regulations.
- Geographic Scope: The amendments apply only to inland areas governed by the Land Use and Development Code; no changes are proposed to coastal zone regulations.
Board Questions
- Supervisor Lavinino asked how setbacks are measured when a road intervenes between the lot line and the cultivation area. Staff confirmed that the setback is measured from the property line and does not account for intervening features like roads, but Mark Shatillo clarified that the road can count as part of the buffer. Supervisor Lavinino also asked for clarification on the language regarding odor control during harvesting, specifically the reference to freeze-drying. Staff stated that the language provides examples of acceptable technologies and that the specific mention of freeze-drying is not a requirement but an option, and removing it would not materially affect the interpretation of the regulation.
Public Comment
- The Clerk of the Board announced 34 speakers. The following comments were recorded:
- Charlotte Brownlee (Kate’s primary goals): Expressed concern about nuisance odors from two large-scale grows near a school and the density of grows within a mile of the campus. Recommended clarifying the ordinance to prohibit odors leaving property lines, supporting CUPs for cannabis development, and granting the Planning Commission authority to adopt implementing regulations.
- Joe Armendariz (Natural Healing Center): Stated that the company’s farms in the Tepescay Mountains are legal nonconforming uses, generate significant economic value, and utilize best management practices. Argued that the remote location is ideal for cultivation and requested the county work with them as a strategic partner.
- Jeff Strebler, Jordan Hahn, and Chase Peet (Overwatch Aerial/Natural Healing Center): Presented aerial imagery and fire modeling simulations. They argued that the parcels are remote, isolated, and abut national forest land. They presented fire models suggesting that agricultural cultivation slows wildfire spread compared to unmanaged vegetation and proposed the installation of helicopter dip tanks to aid firefighting efforts.
- Nick Andre: Advocated for alternatives to an outright ban in EDRNs, such as larger setbacks (1,000–1,500 feet) from residential homes, arguing that the CUP process already provides project-by-project review and mitigation.
- Stacey Wooten (CalCoast Compliance): Referenced a third-party traffic study in Tepescay Canyon indicating statistically insignificant accident rates and good operational levels of service, noting that not all traffic on the road is related to cannabis cultivation.
- Jake German (Natural Healing Center): Highlighted the economic benefits, including jobs, taxes, and donations to the school district. Stated that banning the operation would foreclose substantial value and be unfair to the company and the county.
- Nick Allen (Natural Healing Center): Described the company’s substrate production techniques, which reduce inputs like water and pesticides. Argued that the remote location in Tepescay is ideal for high-quality production and should not be banned.
- Kenneth Siegfried: A property owner in Tepescay for four years, stated that his land is remote, lacks electricity, and has no visible neighbors. Argued that banning cultivation in such remote areas while allowing it in denser areas like Carpinteria is illogical and harms small businesses.
- Michael Siegfried: Stated his family has owned land in Tepescay since 1979 and grown medical cannabis since 2003. Argued that the remote location provides natural barriers and security, and that banning cultivation in Tepescay while allowing it in areas like Carpinteria and Buelton is inconsistent.
- Luis Gonzalez: Shared his background in agriculture and the cannabis industry. Argued that the remote, pristine environment of the Tepescay Mountains provides natural barriers to sensitive receptors and is a safe location for production.
- Ty Greene (Attorney): Representing several growers in the Tepescay EDRN area, argued that the proposed ban would bankrupt clients who invested millions in reliance on existing rules. Characterized the action as arbitrary, capricious, and a taking requiring damages. Criticized the rush to adopt the amendments and alleged violations of CEQA due to reliance on an outdated EIR without a supplemental review.
- Mark Shatillo: Supported the board moving forward with the amendments but suggested changes: banning grows reliant on roads through EDRNs, reducing the CUP threshold from 51% to 30% of parcel size, adding an objective odor standard, and directing staff to gather more scientific data on wind, meteorology, and terpene generation.
- Lillian Clary: A resident of Tepescay Canyon, provided history of complaints against a specific grower (Helios Dayspring) and supported the ban. Proposed adding language to ban cannabis on parcels that require access via a roadway located within an EDRN, citing safety and traffic concerns.
- Dave Clary: A retired attorney and resident, rebutted claims made by Attorney Greene, alleging misrepresentations regarding the legal status and conduct of the growers. Stated that many clients have violations and questionable affidavits, and that the threat of nine-figure damages is false.
- Steve Januck: A resident of Sabata Canyon, thanked the board for supporting the prohibition of commercial cannabis in EDRNs and requested consideration of a prohibition for activities requiring access to an EDRN, citing safety concerns in Tepescay Canyon.
- Bobby Fedor: A CUP applicant, expressed frustration at the proposed ban after investing hundreds of thousands of dollars in compliance. Argued that the ban is a special interest measure and requested consideration of a nursery option or a compromise to allow his project to proceed.
- Lee Johnson: Read a statement from a FedEx contractor who reported reckless driving, near-collisions, and a security incident involving a handgun in Sabata Canyon, attributing these issues to cannabis-related traffic.
- Nancy Emerson (WeWatch): Supported strengthening the ordinance, particularly regarding odor. Suggested reducing the CUP threshold to 20 acres or 30% of total acreage, adding a roadway ban, considering meteorological conditions, and establishing a one-mile buffer around cities and townships.
- Tom Willis (Upholson Renshaw): Argued that Supervisor Hartman has a disqualifying financial interest requiring recusal because she owns property in an EDRN (Exclusive Development Residential Neighborhood) where the proposed amendment would prohibit cannabis cultivation. Cited California Code of Regulations 18702.285 and FPPC Advice Letter I-16095 to assert that decisions changing permissible land uses for an entire area create a conflict of interest, countering the County Counsel’s position that the regulation applies only to specific parcels.
- Karen Hallenstein (on behalf of Gary and Gwen Hallenstein): Opposed the complete prohibition in inland EDRNs, questioning why Carpinteria (coastal) was exempt. Argued that the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process should apply county-wide. Stated that the family owns over 400 acres in Sabata Canyon (zoned AG-1/AG-2, not residential) and disputed claims regarding traffic and criminal activity in the area.
- Jerry Morrow: Supported the continuation of cannabis cultivation at Tepescay Ranch, citing compliance with state and local standards, lack of neighbor complaints, and the economic benefits of the operation.
- Kelly Rangel: Supported the ban on cannabis in EDRNs and on parcels adjacent to EDRNs. Proposed limiting the percentage of cannabis grown per parcel, requiring CUPs for all commercial projects, and increasing setbacks to miles rather than feet.
- Charles Ledlam (Tepescay AG-1 landowner): Requested that the board allow new and existing applicants to pursue CUPs or postpone the vote. Argued that passing the ordinance would lower real estate values and drive growers to illegal operations, which lack infrastructure and regulatory compliance. Cited tax revenue figures for the county.
- Jim Clancy (CFO, Natural Healing Centers): Opposed the ban, arguing that the company’s operations are economically dynamic and compliant. Stated that the board should make the "right decision" to support the industry.
- Jacob Pickering: Requested that the board set aside action on the matter to allow for proper due process. Stated that he and his wife have invested over $250,000 in compliance efforts for a small-scale cultivation project on a 40-acre lot and that neighbors were supportive of the operation.
- Junior Sat: Supported the industry, stating that he and his team feel safe working at Tepescay Farms and that the area is ideal for agriculture. Urged the board to consider the impact on employees.
- Aaron Smathers: Opposed the ban, arguing that the farms are rural, isolated, and non-disruptive. Also raised a conflict of interest concern regarding Supervisor Hartman.
- Anna Carrillo: Supported requiring processing activities to be in enclosed buildings with best available technology for odor control in both inland and coastal zones. Supported requiring CUPs for AG-2 lots where cultivation exceeds 51% of the lot area, and suggested this standard be applied to the coastal zone as well. Requested that the board not use the temporary nature of coastal permits as an excuse for inadequate regulation.
- Judy Polson: Supported the ban in EDRNs due to safety and liability concerns. Argued that odor and traffic issues require tangible measurement practices rather than anecdotal evidence. Suggested that the board consider the connection between hemp and cannabis regulations.
- Renee O’Neill: Presented a slideshow detailing traffic hazards, including narrow roads, accidents, and fire risks associated with cannabis transport in Tepescay. Stated that growers have operated illegally without permits and that the board should prohibit commercial industry in EDRNs for health and safety reasons.
- Dr. Judy Dean: Opposed the current odor control standards, arguing that vapor phase technology is inadequate. Cited manufacturer statements that the technology mitigates only 90% of odors under ideal conditions. Requested that the board require sealed greenhouses with air filtration and enforce odor abatement requirements on all facilities.
- Thomas Woodrow: Advised the board to consider fiscal responsibility, including the loss of tax revenue and the cost of shutdowns. Argued that it is unfair to shut down operations without recompense for investors who relied on previous ordinances. Suggested a more nuanced approach rather than an overall ban.
Board Discussion
- Supervisor Hartman contextualized the ordinance as an experiment that is difficult to reverse. Acknowledged the good faith of colleagues but noted personal attacks. Highlighted concerns regarding the Santa Rita Hills AVA, where 19 proposed projects involving approximately 720 acres would not trigger a CUP under the current 51% threshold. Cited odor complaints from Buelton and local schools. Requested that the board reconsider the threshold to require a CUP for grows over 20 acres to address site-specific concerns and prevent the area from becoming a "sacrifice area."
- Supervisor Lavinino expressed difficulty in determining the appropriate acreage threshold without detailed map analysis. Stated a preference for sticking with the staff recommendations agreed upon previously. Noted that the 51% threshold affects 11 projects and reduces cultivation by over 73 acres. Indicated willingness to support the staff recommendation but opposed the EDRN ban due to process concerns.
- Mark Shatillo (Staff) suggested that reducing the percentage threshold that triggers a CUP could address concerns in the AVA without triggering CUPs for smaller grows on large parcels.
- Supervisor Adam agreed with Supervisor Lavinino regarding Brown Act constraints on negotiating on the dais. Supported the CUP requirement for grows over 20 acres and the EDRN ban. Noted that the 50-foot setback is minimal but acceptable for a third vote.
- Supervisor Williams expressed frustration with the lack of compromise and the increase in litigation and vitriol. Stated that moving further in one direction without reciprocal movement is not a compromise.
Motions and Votes
- 1. Motion to Accept Staff Recommendations (Excluding EDRN Ban):
- Supervisor Lavinino moved to conceptually accept all staff recommendations except for the ban on cannabis cultivation in EDRNs.
- Supervisor Hartman asked if the 51% threshold could be changed to 30% (as recommended by the Planning Commission) during this session. Staff indicated it was a significant change but feasible. Supervisor Williams stated he would only consider supporting a change if lawsuits were dropped. No specific proposal to change the threshold was made.
- Vote: The motion failed.
- 2. Motion to Ban Cannabis in EDRNs:
- Supervisor Hartman made a motion to ban cannabis cultivation in EDRNs.
- Vote: Passed 3 to 2.
- 3. Motion to Adopt Entire Package:
- Supervisor Lavinino moved to adopt staff's recommended actions as docketed today (including the EDRN ban).
- Supervisor Hartman stated she would not support it due to odor control concerns in the Santa Rita Hills. Supervisor Williams requested direction to staff regarding odor control monitoring data and business license requirements.
- Vote: Passed 4 to 1.
- 4. Motion for Direction to Staff:
- Supervisor Williams moved to direct staff to address odor control monitoring data (outages >1.5-2 hours) and business license requirements in a future meeting. Supervisor Hartman added direction to include illegal non-conforming uses in that discussion.
- Vote: Passed unanimously.
Departmental Item No. 4 – Santa Rita Valley Ag Inc. LUP Application
- Rae Harmon (Planning and Development) presented the appeal of the Santa Rita Valley Ag Inc. application for a Land Use Permit (LUP) for cannabis cultivation on a 42.5-acre parcel (AG-2 zoned) in the 3rd District. The LUP was approved by the Director in May 2019. The Planning Commission denied an appeal and granted de novo approval of a revised project (12.75 acres) in November 2019. The appellant appealed to the Board of Supervisors. The property owner terminated the lease and revoked authorization for the applicant to pursue the permit in May 2020. Staff has not received proof of authorization from the property owner. Staff recommended denying the appeal (19-APL32) and denying the LUP (18-LUP351) due to lack of owner authorization, which is inconsistent with the County Land Use and Development Code. Staff also recommended making required findings for denial and determining the project is exempt from CEQA.
- Mark Shatillo (Attorney for Appellant) supported the denial of the project due to lack of owner authorization/lease. However, requested that the Board approve the appeal (i.e., find that the Planning Commission's decision was erroneous or that the appeal was validly brought) while denying the underlying project, to establish a record that the project was incompatible with the Land Use and Development Code.
- Doug Fell, an attorney representing property owner Sebastiano Sterpa, addressed the board. He stated that Sterpa’s lease with Santa Rita Valley Ag Inc. terminated prior to May 1, 2020. Fell explained that Sterpa’s May 1, 2020, letter to the board and county served to advise them of the lease termination, the lack of rights for Santa Rita to use the property, the termination of all agent authorizations for processing the land use permit, and the termination of all indemnifications, including those regarding the proposed project. Fell requested that the county deny Santa Rita Valley Ag Inc.’s application for a land use permit for cannabis cultivation.
- Supervisor Hartman asked about the significance of denying the project versus upholding the appeal. Staff recommended that the board take action on the project based on the land-use code requirements. Mark Shatillo recommended following staff’s recommendation to deny the project because the applicant lacked the authority to process the application, noting that the board did not support the findings related to the appeal filed by Mr. Sciatillo. Staff clarified that the recommended denial should be based on the presented findings of lack of landowner consent and lack of indemnification.
- Supervisor Hartman moved to deny the appeal and to deny the project, adopting findings A through D in the staff recommended actions. The motion included determining that the project is exempt from CEQA. The motion was seconded.
- Vote: Passed unanimously.
Adjournment
- The board adjourned the meeting, noting that the next special Board of Supervisors meeting regarding reports on criminal justice and racial equity in Santa Barbara County is scheduled for Thursday, July 16, 2020, at 1:00 PM.