UnGovr Words

Board of Supervisors — 2020-08-18

Board of Supervisors — 2020-08-18August 18, 2020

Switch meeting
BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 August 18, 2020

Click any transcript line to jump the video there.

Meeting Summary

  1. PendingQueued for transcription.
  2. AIYou are hereAuto-transcribed and summarized; not yet human-verified.
  3. VerifiedReviewed and corrected by a person.

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

CEO Report: Redistricting and Power Outages

  • Supervisor Lavagnino noted the August 21 deadline for Independent Redistricting Commission applications.
  • Staff reported approximately 23,000 North County customers experienced outages due to lightning and transformer issues.
  • The county implemented energy conservation measures, including turning off air conditioning in facilities during peak hours.

Administrative Item 10: Alcohol and Drug Prevention Services

  • Staff addressed concerns regarding service gaps in Lompoc and confirmed that People Helping People serves the West County area.
  • The board approved contract renewals for Fighting Back Santa Maria Valley, Future Leaders of America, and Santa Ynez Valley People Helping People.

Administrative Item 15: CARES Act Contract

  • The Clerk-Recorder explained security protocols and logistics for the upcoming all-mail election.
  • The board held the item for later consideration to allow for further discussion on ballot return options.

Administrative Item 20: Project Roomkey

  • Staff clarified that providing emergency hotel shelter does not trigger permanent tenancy rights.
  • The board held the item for later consideration after addressing questions about prioritization and North County site availability.

Administrative Item 23: Outside Counsel Contract

  • The board approved the outside counsel contract with the Sutton Law Firm.
  • Supervisor Hartman recused herself from the vote due to a potential conflict of interest.

Administrative Item 31: Probation Headquarters Building

  • Staff explained that the programming process will determine space needs while considering alternative service delivery methods.
  • The board approved the professional services agreement for conceptual design and programming.

Administrative Item 33: County Counsel Salary Adjustment

  • The board approved a 2.5% performance-based salary adjustment for the County Counsel effective August 24, 2020.

Departmental Item 1: COVID-19 Update and School Reopening Waivers

  • Health officials reported significant decreases in new cases in several areas but noted a sharp increase in Isla Vista.
  • The board received staff recommendations regarding the eligibility of elementary schools for waivers to reopen for in-person instruction.

RISE Business Activity Update

  • Staff detailed funding programs including small business grants, rental assistance, and disaster relief payments.
  • The RISE Ambassador program is expanding to include dedicated leads and ambassadors in unincorporated areas.

Administrative Item 67 – Emergency Rental and Disaster Assistance Agreements

  • The board approved agreements with United Way to implement emergency rental and disaster assistance programs using CARES Act funds.

Departmental Item 2 – Laguna County Sanitation District Wastewater Reclamation Plant Phase One Upgrade Financing

  • Staff presented a financing plan involving a $28 million essential service revenue bond with a 20-year maturity.
  • The board approved the financing recommendations for the Phase One upgrade of the wastewater reclamation plant.

Administrative Item 44 – Laguna County Sanitation District Wastewater Reclamation Plant Phase One Upgrade and Fund Balance Policy

  • The board passed staff recommendations regarding the Phase One upgrade and the district's fund balance policy.
No decision 1–0

Departmental Item 3 – Proposed Wine Business Improvement District (BID)

  • Staff and the County Attorney raised concerns about the feasibility of verifying self-reported sales data for assessment collection.
  • The board treated the item as an informational briefing and requested the Vintners Association address administrative concerns before filing a petition.

Department Item Number 4 – Hearing on Storefront Retail Cannabis Selection Procedures

  • Staff outlined a two-phase scoring process for licensing, with Phase 1 acting as a gatekeeper for business operations.
  • The board adopted staff recommendations with modifications to increase the weight of on-site parking and decrease the weight of odor control.

Closed Session

  • County Counsel reported on existing and anticipated litigation matters, as well as real property negotiations in Isla Vista, Goleta, and Lompoc.
  • No reportable actions were taken during the closed session.

Full summary

Meeting Opening and Roll Call

  • The August 18, 2020, meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors was called to order. The clerk called the roll, and all five supervisors were present. The board recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

Approval of Minutes

  • The board considered the approval of the minutes from July 14 and July 16. A motion to approve was made and seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

CEO Report: Redistricting and Power Outages

  • Supervisor Lavagnino reported that the deadline to apply for the Independent Redistricting Commission is August 21 at 5:00 p.m. Assistant County Executive Officer Barney Malakian provided an update on power outages, noting that a significant heat event is projected to continue through Thursday. The California Independent System Operator (CAISO) issued a flex alert requesting reduced energy use. Approximately 23,000 customers in North County experienced outages over the weekend due to lightning strikes and transformer malfunctions, not rolling blackouts. Malakian explained that any scheduled outages would be limited to one hour per area and not exceed 90 minutes, and that critical care patients are expected to have two-hour battery backups. The Fire Department conducted safety checks in North County, and communication efforts included updates on ReadySBC.org and social media. County facilities turned off air conditioning during peak hours, and state messaging was pushed out to large employers.

Administrative Agenda Announcements

  • The clerk announced requests to pull items A11, A20, A23, and A31. The clerk also announced the addition of Administrative Item 67 (Community Services) regarding emergency rental assistance using CARES Act funds, requested to be trailed after Departmental Item 1. Administrative Item 44 (Public Works) regarding the Laguna County Sanitation District wastewater reclamation plant was requested to be trailed after Departmental Item 2. The clerk provided a brief description of Administrative Item 33 (Human Resources) regarding a performance-based salary adjustment for the County Counsel.

Administrative Item 10: Alcohol and Drug Prevention Services

  • The board considered contract renewals for alcohol and drug prevention services with Fighting Back Santa Maria Valley, Future Leaders of America (FLA), and Santa Ynez Valley People Helping People for fiscal years 2020–2022. Supervisor Hartman initially requested to pull the item to allow staff to respond to a public commenter regarding services in Lompoc. John Doyle from County Behavioral Wellness responded to concerns about FLA’s potential lobbying activities, stating that FLA is prohibited from using county funds for politics under the Hatch Act. He addressed concerns about service gaps in Lompoc, noting that People Helping People serves the Lompoc and Santa Ynez areas, and committed to ensuring more services are provided in Lompoc. He also noted that FLA serves South County and that the contracts were awarded through a competitive RFP process. Andy Caldwell, representing COLAB, spoke in public comment, questioning why FLA was the contract provider for the entire South County and noting that Lompoc was not listed in the service areas for FLA or People Helping People. He urged the board to find better organizations for the Lompoc Valley. Supervisor Adams asked for clarification that People Helping People’s contract includes Lompoc; Doyle confirmed that West County includes Lompoc and that he would ensure the contract reflects this if necessary. Supervisor Lavagnino asked how long FLA had held the contract; Doyle stated two years and emphasized the department’s active monitoring of all providers. A motion to approve the item was made and seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

Administrative Item 15: CARES Act Contract

  • The board considered recommendations regarding the CARES Act contract from the Clerk-Recorder-Assessor. Supervisor Lavagnino pulled the item to allow the Clerk-Recorder to explain the security of the all-mail election process. Mr. Holland, the Clerk-Recorder, explained that due to a governor’s executive order, California is moving to an all-mail election for November 3. He stated that Santa Barbara County is prepared to handle the increase in mail ballots securely. He detailed the options for returning ballots, including mail, drop boxes, and in-person voting locations. He noted that 36 in-person voting locations will be open for four days leading up to and including Election Day. He addressed concerns about ballot harvesting, stating that the law allows individuals to deliver ballots for their household, and that each ballot must be signed. He also mentioned that the county is in constant list maintenance of voter rolls. Supervisor Williams asked about the deadline for postmarked ballots; Holland stated that ballots postmarked by Election Day can be received up to 17 days after the election. Supervisor Adams asked about the last time voter rolls were cleaned; Holland stated that list maintenance is done daily. The board did not vote on this item immediately, holding it for later consideration.

Administrative Item 20: Project Roomkey

  • The board considered recommendations regarding the Project Roomkey COVID-19 Homeless Task Force response, including a contract with Santa Barbara Hotel Group and an amendment to a contract with PATH. Andy Caldwell spoke in public comment, asking if providing hotel rooms creates a permanent housing requirement, how prioritization is determined, and why the program is focused on South County rather than North County. He also asked about the services and monitoring provided to residents. Mr. Chapman from Community Services responded, stating that they looked for sites in North County but could not find willing hotel owners. He noted that congregate services are available in North County. He explained that prioritization is based on health orders, such as age and risk factors. He stated that 30 people have been housed through the program and that staff are managing rule violations. He indicated that providing emergency shelter does not trigger permanent tenancy rights. The board did not vote on this item immediately.

Administrative Item 23: Outside Counsel Contract

  • The board considered recommendations regarding an outside counsel contract with the Sutton Law Firm. This item requires a four-fifths vote. Supervisor Hartman recused herself due to a potential conflict of interest. A motion to approve the item was made and seconded. The motion passed 4 to 1 with one abstention.

Administrative Item 31: Probation Headquarters Building

  • The board considered recommendations regarding a new probation headquarters building project and a professional services agreement for conceptual design and programming. Supervisor Adams pulled the item to suggest delaying the project due to evolving workforce patterns and the difficulty of public participation during the pandemic. He suggested waiting a year to reassess space needs. Supervisor Williams expressed support for the project, noting the need for efficient use of taxpayer resources and the importance of the probation department’s work. Patrick Sarosky from General Services stated that the department is considering alternative ways of delivering services and that the programming process will determine space needs. David Fletcher from the Probation Department stated that the department has remained open throughout the pandemic and that co-locating staff is a priority for efficiency. A motion to approve the item was made and seconded. The motion passed 4 to 1.

Administrative Item 33: County Counsel Salary Adjustment

  • The board considered recommendations regarding a performance-based salary adjustment for the County Counsel, proposing a 2.5% increase effective August 24, 2020. The County Counsel recused themselves from the room. Supervisor Williams moved to approve the recommendation. The motion was seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

Balance of Administrative Agenda

  • The board considered the balance of the administrative agenda, with items 44 and 67 to be trailed to Departmental Items 2 and 1, respectively. A motion to approve the balance of the administrative agenda was made and seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

General Public Comment

  • There were no requests for general public comment.

Departmental Item 1: COVID-19 Update and School Reopening Waivers

  • The board heard a COVID-19 update from the County Health Department. Dr. Donenoso reported that as of the previous day, the county had 7,454 total cases and 278 active cases. He noted significant decreases in new cases in Santa Maria (41%), Santa Barbara (25%), and Lompoc (38%) over the past two weeks. However, he reported increases in Goleta (18%) and Isla Vista (255%), attributing the latter to student return and high-density housing. He highlighted that 66% of cases are in the 18–49 age group. The department is launching a focused outreach effort targeting young people to encourage mask-wearing. Dr. Donenoso reviewed the six state monitoring metrics. The county’s testing rate is 213 per 100,000 (above the 150 threshold). The case rate is 159 per 100,000 (above the 25 threshold, which is concerning). Testing positivity is at 8% (at the threshold). Hospitalization rates are decreasing. ICU bed availability is 39% (above the 20% threshold). Ventilator availability is 78% (above the 25% threshold). He noted that the state had backlogged data, but the county verified its numbers with the state.
  • Public Health officials reported that the county’s transmission rate has decreased sufficiently to make elementary schools eligible for waivers to reopen for in-person instruction, per California Department of Public Health (CDPH) guidelines. The local waiver application form is being finalized and will be available on the county website. Requirements for the waiver include evidence of consultation with parents, teachers, and community organizations, as well as a detailed reopening plan covering cleaning, cohort management, health screenings, and contact tracing.
  • A Supervisor asked about the process if transmission rates rise again. Officials stated that waivers would not be rescinded, but monitoring and testing requirements would increase based on individual school profiles. A Supervisor inquired about allocating county testing resources to schools. Officials noted that county-sponsored testing sites are for essential workers, and the Joint Decision Authority would review capacity to ensure essential worker needs are met while accommodating school testing. A Supervisor raised concerns about high transmission rates in the Isla Vista area due to university and college populations. A Supervisor asked about promoting specific mask designs based on recent WHO recommendations. Officials stated they would work with the Joint Incident Command (JIC) team and community groups on mask outreach. A Supervisor offered an alternative analysis of the declining case rates in North County, suggesting it may be due to demographic factors or herd immunity rather than solely public health measures. A Supervisor asked about the reopening of salons and other indoor businesses while the county remains on the state monitoring list. Officials explained that indoor operations for closed sectors cannot resume until a new state health officer order is issued, regardless of the county's status on the monitoring list. They noted that the state is currently revising monitoring list criteria and metrics. A Supervisor asked about the reconciliation of data discrepancies between county and state reporting. Officials confirmed that the county’s epidemiology team has duplicated the state’s methodology and that the state has committed to standing by its published data.
  • Public comment was received. One commenter expressed concern that the county spent over half of state relief funds on its own staff and criticized the publication of a violation reporting tool. They asked if the county would actively monitor Isla Vista for illegal gatherings. Another commenter supported the decision to allow school waivers, citing declining hospitalizations and arguing that case counts are not an accurate measure of community spread. A third commenter supported the letter submitted by previous speakers, questioned whether young people in Isla Vista were being hospitalized, and expressed frustration regarding the closure of hair and nail salons. They also asked for specific numbers regarding the data discrepancy between state and county reports.
  • A motion was made to receive the staff recommendations A through C and the staff report into file. The motion was seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

RISE Business Activity Update

  • Staff provided an update on the RISE (Reopening and Incentivizing Safe Economies) program. Key points included:
  • The current public health order (12.6 2020) aligns with state changes regarding indoor operations, school guidelines, and higher education.
  • As of August 14, nearly 3,900 businesses had submitted self-certifications to reopen, with the top industries being dine-in restaurants, retail, and office workspaces.
  • The RISE Ambassador program, initially run by the Community Wellness Team, has been moved to the Emergency Operations Center. It is expanding to include one program lead, three team leads, and 18 ambassadors in unincorporated areas, with the program lead starting August 24.
  • The county is allowing businesses to use public rights-of-way and private properties (e.g., parking lots) for operations, subject to permitting.
  • Funding Programs:
  • Small Business Grants: Launched in coordination with the Santa Barbara Foundation’s Better Together program. Grants of up to $7,500 (county match of $5,000 plus foundation funds) are available for businesses with gross sales under $2 million, 3–25 employees, and a 25% sales decline due to COVID-19. Applications are open until August 31.
  • Rental Assistance: Coordinated by Community Services and Housing and Community Development with United Way. Provides $1,000 per month for up to three months, anticipated to assist approximately 600 households in unincorporated areas.
  • Disaster Relief Payments: Led by the Department of Social Services with United Way. Provides up to $1,500 per individual or $3,000 per family, anticipated to assist approximately 600 households.
  • A Supervisor asked if the income eligibility threshold for the rental assistance program could be raised to 100% of the Area Median Income (AMI) given the county’s low median income relative to cost of living. Staff indicated they would provide specific numbers regarding the current threshold. No specific motion was recorded for this informational update in this segment; it was part of the broader COVID-19 agenda item voted on previously.

Administrative Item 67 – Emergency Rental and Disaster Assistance Agreements

  • This item, from Community Services, considered agreements with United Way of Santa Barbara County to implement an emergency rental assistance program and a disaster assistance program using CARES Act funds. No requests to speak were received. A motion was made to approve the item. The motion was seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

Departmental Item 2 – Laguna County Sanitation District Wastewater Reclamation Plant Phase One Upgrade Financing

  • Public Works and the Treasurer-Tax Collector presented the financing plan for the Phase One upgrade of the Laguna County Sanitation District wastewater reclamation plant.
  • Project Scope: The plant, built in 1959, will be modernized to treat up to 3.7 million gallons of effluent per day. The upgrade includes replacing obsolete facilities, adding redundancy for maintenance, updating lab and control buildings, and ensuring compatibility with future capacity expansions for the Orca community.
  • Financing Details: The district proposes an essential service revenue bond offering of approximately $28 million. The bond will be fixed-rate, tax-exempt, with a 20-year maturity. The true interest cost is approximately 2.5%. The annual payment amount is estimated at $1.72 million. The district has low existing debt and strong cash balances. A credit rating is expected by Friday, with pricing anticipated for the week of September 1.
  • A Supervisor noted the age of the existing equipment and the lack of public opposition, citing previous tours that helped educate the public. A motion was made to approve the financing recommendations. The motion was seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

Administrative Item 44 – Laguna County Sanitation District Wastewater Reclamation Plant Phase One Upgrade and Fund Balance Policy

  • This item, from the Public Works Board of Directors, considered recommendations regarding the Phase One upgrade and the fund balance policy for the Laguna County Sanitation District. No requests to speak were received. A motion was made to pass the staff recommendations. The motion was seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
No decision 1–0

Departmental Item 3 – Proposed Wine Business Improvement District (BID)

  • The County Executive Office presented a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a proposed Wine Business Improvement District (BID), also referred to as the "Wine Preserve."
  • Ed Price, Assistant Auditor-Controller, outlined challenges:
  • The county has no existing collection process for sales-based assessments (unlike hotel occupancy taxes). A third party would need to be contracted to administer collections.
  • The proposed assessment is based on onsite direct-to-consumer sales (tasting room sales), which are not specifically identified in state sales tax reporting. This requires self-reported data, increasing verification efforts.
  • Weighted voting for the BID petition would rely on self-reported sales data, requiring a defendable methodology to ensure fair weighting.
  • Staff noted that the complexity and costs associated with these challenges may make the sales-based assessment impractical or infeasible.
  • Allison Laslett, CEO of the Santa Barbara Vintners Association, presented the case for the BID:
  • The wine industry generated $167 million in direct consumer sales in 2017.
  • The association currently lacks sufficient and stable funding to meet community and industry goals.
  • A BID would provide sustainable funding for marketing, events, and other initiatives.
  • The association has support from a majority of wineries in the district, including major producers.
  • The BID is seen as a more expedient and local process compared to forming a state-level grape commission.
  • Representatives from the Santa Barbara Vintners Association and Civitas presented a proposal to establish a Wine Business Improvement District (Wine BID), also referred to as a Wine Preserve, under the Property and Business Improvement District law of 1994 (California Streets and Highways Code 36600). The proposal seeks to create a dedicated funding stream through an assessment on winery businesses within Santa Barbara County.
  • Key details of the proposal included:
  • Assessment Rate: 1.5% of gross sales revenue from direct-to-consumer (DTC) tasting room sales only.
  • Exclusions: The assessment does not apply to wine club shipments, event tickets, private event sales, phone/Internet purchases, or wholesale channel sales.
  • Estimated Budget: $1 million to $1.2 million annually.
  • Term: Five-year term.
  • Management: The Santa Barbara Vintners would manage the district through a Management Committee comprised of business owners or their representatives who pay the assessment.
  • Funding Use: Marketing, promotion, sales, communication, advocacy (defined by presenters as education and information sharing rather than lobbying), hospitality training, and events.
  • Transparency: The district would be subject to the California Brown Act and Public Records Act.
  • Collection: A third-party administrator would collect the assessments, with costs built into the district budget.
  • Presenters explained that the assessment structure was chosen via a poll of vintners, who preferred 1.5% on tasting room sales over 1% on all California sales. They cited the need for stable, sustainable funding to compete with other wine regions and to support collective marketing efforts.
  • Six members of the public addressed the Board: 1. David Dalaski (Opposed): Cited lack of majority support, noting that 75% of vintners are not association members and a survey of proposed businesses showed 67% opposition. He argued the assessment would create free riders (wholesale and wine club sales excluded) and raised concerns about the use of funds for political activity and the feasibility of the assessment collection mechanism. 2. Stephen James (Supported): Argued that the wine industry needs professionalization and consistent funding to break the cycle of reliance on membership dues. He stated that the Wine Preserve would allow for sustainable marketing and advocacy efforts. 3. Tyler Thomas (Supported): Contextualized the opposition survey as having a small sample size (62 responses). He compared the proposed assessment to historical dues in Napa County and argued that the low cost ($1.50 per transaction) would not deter customers. He supported funding for staff to engage with county governance. 4. Karen Steinwalt (Supported): Stated that her winery supports the preserve due to limited revenues and the need for collective marketing. She noted that the assessment is comparable to sales tax rates in other regions and would help sustain the industry. 5. Steve Pepe (Opposed): Argued that the timing is inappropriate due to COVID-19 impacts. He cited that the Vintners Association represents a minority of bonded wineries and that excluding wholesale and wine club sales creates free riders. He referenced the Auditor-Controller’s concern that the proposed assessment structure may not be practical or feasible for fair vote weighting. 6. Nicholas Miller (Supported): Stated that his family supports the effort as part of rebuilding the region’s brand. He emphasized the importance of collective marketing to attract visitors and support the local economy.
  • Board members discussed the proposal, noting that this is an informational briefing and that formal Board action would occur later if a petition is filed by a majority of assessed owners.
  • Legal and Administrative Concerns: The County Attorney’s office clarified that the Board has full discretion to approve or deny the petition when it is filed. However, once established, disestablishment is difficult and requires specific conditions (e.g., wrongdoing or request by 50% of payers).
  • Assessment Mechanism: Several Board members raised concerns about the feasibility of verifying self-reported DTC sales and the potential for disputes. The Auditor-Controller’s office noted that the current structure may not accurately create a weighted vote for the petition and suggested that a simpler mechanism might be necessary.
  • Advocacy vs. Lobbying: Board members questioned the distinction between advocacy and lobbying. The Vintners CEO clarified that their definition of advocacy involves educating and informing the public and county staff, not engaging in political campaigns or lobbying.
  • Support and Caution: Several Board members expressed support for the concept of collective marketing and the potential benefits to the region. However, they expressed reservations about the current assessment structure, the exclusion of certain sales channels, and the administrative burden on the county. They suggested that the Vintners Association refine the proposal to address these concerns before proceeding.
  • No motion was made, seconded, or voted upon during this part of the meeting. The item was treated as an informational briefing. The Board indicated that the Vintners Association should address the raised concerns regarding the assessment mechanism and advocacy definitions before the petition process is finalized. The Board did not commit to a specific timeline for future action but noted that the next step would depend on the Vintners Association’s response to the feedback and the subsequent petition process.

Adoption of Staff Recommendations A through C (Informational Report)

  • Staff clarified that the recommendations were for receiving and filing an informational report, not for approving or proceeding with specific actions. The board was gathering information and providing feedback. Supervisor Hartmann moved to adopt staff recommendations A through C. The motion was seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

Closed Session Items (Preview)

  • The County Council outlined eight matters for closed session, including three existing litigation cases (Keller v. County of Santa Barbara, McCrory v. Santa Barbara, Alcox v. City of Lompoc and County of Santa Barbara), two anticipated litigation matters, two groups of real property negotiations (Isla Vista and Goleta/Lompoc properties), and one public employee performance evaluation. Supervisor Hartmann indicated a potential conflict of interest regarding one anticipated litigation item and requested to recuse herself for that specific portion. The board agreed to address that item first to allow her participation in the remainder of the closed session. The board recessed to closed session.

Department Item Number 4 – Hearing on Storefront Retail Cannabis Selection Procedures

  • Staff presented a projected timeline for licensing. Key milestones include the availability of final applications in mid-September, a seven-day submission window in mid-October, and scoring/review in the fall. Applicants scoring 85% or higher in Phase 1 (Business Operations) proceed to Phase 2 (Neighborhood Compatibility). The highest-ranked applicant in each of the six community plan areas will have 90 days to submit a land use entitlement application, with licenses potentially issued by late spring 2021. Staff reported nearly 1,000 responses from virtual community meetings. Top concerns cited by residents were appropriate location (28%), safety (21%), and traffic/parking (17%).
  • Score sheets were detailed:
  • Phase 1 (Business Operations): A technical document scored by a third-party evaluator (75% weight) and internal staff (25% weight). Items such as project description, prior local history, and site security carry higher point values (10 points vs. standard 5).
  • Phase 2 (Neighborhood Compatibility): Scored by an internal committee (Assistant CEO, Planning Director/designee, and a senior staff member). Criteria include Community Involvement Plan (35%), Site Visit (20%), Neighborhood Design Compatibility (15%), Odor Control (10%), On-site Parking (10%), Community Education Plan (5%), and Customer Education Plan (5%).
  • Board questions and staff responses included:
  • Phase 1 Threshold: Staff confirmed that Phase 1 acts as a gatekeeper; applicants must score 85% or higher to advance to Phase 2. Phase 1 scores do not carry over numerically to Phase 2.
  • Odor Control: Staff acknowledged that while odor is a stated public concern, it is less of a practical issue for retail than for cultivation. Staff agreed to review the weighting of odor control versus other factors like parking.
  • Public Health: Supervisor Hartmann emphasized the need for explicit public health warnings regarding adverse reactions, particularly for vulnerable populations. Staff noted that health warnings are included in the scoring criteria and could be emphasized further.
  • Site Size/Compatibility: Staff and Planning Department representative Jeff Wilson confirmed that site compatibility, including size and fit within the neighborhood, is evaluated during the land use entitlement process and the Phase 2 site visit.
  • Parking vs. Odor: Supervisor Lavagnino suggested reducing the weight of odor control and increasing the weight of on-site parking, citing community concerns about parking availability.
  • Selection Process: Supervisor Williams confirmed that the selection process identifies one applicant per community plan area, who must then still pass the land use and business license processes. If the top applicant fails, the next in line is considered.
  • Criminal Background: Staff confirmed that criminal background checks are part of the Sheriff’s security review in the business license process; disqualifying records result in denial of the license.
  • Public comment was received. Multiple speakers expressed strong opposition to cannabis retail stores in Santa Claus Lane (Carpinteria) and Summerland. Concerns included traffic, parking, safety for children, impact on existing businesses, and the character of the neighborhoods. Several speakers requested that these areas be excluded or that the process be halted. Speakers questioned the weighting of the score sheets, specifically arguing that the Community Involvement Plan (35%) was too high compared to site-specific factors like parking and design. Some requested more transparency in the applicant list and scoring process. One speaker supported the process and suggested adding criteria for demonstrated community support. He agreed that odor control points might be better allocated elsewhere.
  • Board discussion included Supervisor Lavagnino noting that while public comment was largely opposed, Prop 64 passed with 70% support in Summerland, indicating mixed community sentiment. He supported the current process as a tool to find the "least worst" option. Supervisor Hartmann asked about operating hours, which staff noted would be determined during the land use and licensing phases. In response to board and public comments, staff recommended adjusting the Phase 2 Neighborhood Compatibility score sheet weights: reducing Odor Control from 10% to 5% and increasing On-site Parking from 10% to 15%. Staff also offered to emphasize public health warnings in the scoring criteria. Staff clarified that the Phase 2 scoring committee consists of the Assistant CEO, the Planning Director (or designee), and a third senior county official.
  • A supervisor discussed the regulatory benefits of fixed dispensary locations over delivery services, citing security oversight and community impact. They expressed doubt regarding community support for dispensaries in the Santa Claus Lane and Summerland areas, noting that recent surveys indicated limited public support. The supervisor suggested that applicants had not sufficiently articulated community benefits, such as grocery stores, to gain local approval.
  • A motion was made to adopt staff recommendations A, B, and C, with the specific modifications of lowering the odor control weight to 5% and increasing the parking weight to 15%, and to adopt recommendation D. The motion was seconded. During the seconding process, a proposal was raised to further adjust the scoring by raising the community involvement plan weight to 40% and lowering the site visit weight to 15%, but the second was formally cast without incorporating these additional changes. The board proceeded to a roll call vote on the motion. The motion passed.

Closed Session Report

  • County Counsel reported on eight separate closed session items, including existing litigation (Keller v. County of Santa Barbara; McCrory v. County of Santa Barbara; Alcox v. City of Lompoc and County of Santa Barbara), anticipated litigation, and real property negotiations. The property negotiations involved locations in Isla Vista (970, 976, and 881 Embarcadero Del Mar), Goleta (6021 Hollister Avenue and 6681 Berkshire Terrace), and Lompoc (117 North B Street). The final item was a public employee performance evaluation for the county executive officer. No reportable actions were taken.

Adjournment

  • The board adjourned, noting the 100th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment. The next meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, August 25, 2020.