UnGovr Words

Board of Supervisors — 2020-09-22

Board of Supervisors — 2020-09-22September 22, 2020

Switch meeting
BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 September 22, 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 and Election Update

  • The CEO’s office highlighted the September 30 U.S. Census deadline and its impact on federal funding formulas.
  • The County Election Official reported that over 2,000 ballots were sent to overseas and military voters.
  • The county is installing 32 secure vote-by-mail drop boxes with daily collection beginning October 5.
  • A delivery of 227,000 vote-by-mail ballots is scheduled for September 28 to facilitate early voting.

Agenda Changes

  • Administrative Item 2 (Resolution honoring Susan Epstein) was continued to the October 20, 2020, meeting.
  • Administrative Item A-12 (Buellton Senior Center lease agreement) was withdrawn at the request of the department.

Administrative Agenda Approval

  • The Board considered the administrative agenda, including a roll-call vote request for Item A-25.
  • Supervisor Williams noted that initial concerns regarding the local vendor preference policy had not materialized as feared.
  • The motion to approve the balance of the administrative agenda passed unanimously.

Vote on Item A-25 (Supervisor Compensation Hearing)

  • A motion was made to set a hearing for the October 6, 2020, meeting to consider an amendment to the Board compensation ordinance.
  • The motion to set the hearing passed 4 to 1.

Departmental Item 1: COVID-19 Update and AB 3088 Overview

  • The county reported 8,930 total cases, 151 active cases, and 110 deaths, with trends showing decreasing cases in some areas.
  • The county received one week of credit toward moving from the Purple tier to the Red tier, with a potential move on September 29.
  • Dr. Smith presented an overview of the COVID-19 Tenant Relief Act, explaining eviction limitations for tenants facing financial hardship.
  • The Board requested that key surveillance metrics be more prominently displayed on the county website.

Departmental Item 2: Appeal of Caltrans Culvert Replacement Project (Gaviota Coast)

  • Appellants argued the project failed to adequately address wildlife-vehicle conflict and public access trails.
  • Caltrans stated the project is a necessary maintenance effort and that the location is unsuitable for a wildlife crossing.
  • Caltrans announced funding for a regional wildlife corridor study but stated it should not be tied to the current project.
  • The Board voted unanimously to reject the appeals and approve the project.

Departmental Item 3: Small Cell Wireless Facilities Fee Ordinance Amendment

  • Staff presented an ordinance amendment to establish a county-wide fee cap of $3,000 for small cell facilities.
  • The fee change is required by a 2018 FCC declaratory order, limiting the county's discretion on cost recovery.
  • The Board voted unanimously to approve the introduction of the ordinance as a first reading.

Departmental Item 4: KPMG Operational and Performance Review for the Public Defender Department

  • KPMG presented a review identifying improvements in strategy, staffing, and systems, including the eDefender case management system.
  • The Public Defender’s Office committed to integrating time tracking and workload studies while developing five-year strategic and IT plans.
  • The Board discussed the need for enterprise-level IT solutions across public safety agencies to avoid silos.
  • The motion to receive and file the KPMG report passed unanimously.

Grand Jury Report on Cannabis (2019–2020)

  • The Board presented its response to the Grand Jury report, disagreeing with several findings regarding environmental review and transparency.
  • The Board stated that most recommendations would not be implemented, citing compliance with state law and existing regulations.
  • Public commenters expressed mixed views, with some criticizing the Board's response and others supporting the regulatory framework.
  • The Board voted unanimously to accept the staff responses as the official response to the Grand Jury report.

Departmental Item 1 (Continued): COVID-19 Update

  • The Board reviewed data on RISE contacts and complaints for District 4, noting that figures exclude violations identified by regulatory agencies.
  • A document listing school waiver requests and their approval status by the California Department of Public Health was presented.
  • The motion to receive and file the COVID-19 report passed with four votes in favor and one member absent.

Closed Session

  • The Board considered a significant exposure to civil litigation involving the Kachuma Project Master Contract.
  • The Board conferred with real property negotiators regarding potential conservation easements for the Straus Wind Energy Project.
  • No reportable actions were taken on either item during the closed session.

Full summary

Meeting Opening and Announcements

  • The September 22, 2020, meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors was called to order. Supervisor Lavinino noted he was participating via Zoom due to a positive coronavirus test among staff, stating he had tested negative.

Approval of Minutes

  • A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes. The motion passed unanimously.

CEO Report and Election Update

  • The CEO’s office reminded residents that the U.S. Census deadline was September 30 and highlighted the impact of census data on federal funding, including CARES Act allocations. Joe Holland, the County Election Official, provided an update on election preparations, noting that over 2,000 ballots had been sent to overseas and military voters. The county was installing 32 secure vote-by-mail drop boxes, with daily collection beginning October 5. A delivery of 227,000 vote-by-mail ballots was scheduled for September 28. Holland encouraged early voting to allow for pre-election tabulation. Supervisor Williams asked about the funding implications of census participation, and the CEO confirmed that census data determines formulas for federal emergency assistance and CDBG funds.

Agenda Changes

  • The Clerk announced two agenda changes: 1. Administrative Item 2 (Resolution honoring Susan Epstein) was continued to the October 20, 2020, meeting. 2. Administrative Item A-12 (Buellton Senior Center lease agreement) was withdrawn at the request of the department.

Administrative Agenda Approval

  • The Board considered the administrative agenda. Supervisor Adam requested a roll-call vote on Item A-25. Supervisor Williams commented on Item A-13, acknowledging that his initial concerns about the local vendor preference policy had not materialized as feared.

Public Comment on Administrative Items

  • Item A-7 (Disposition of property at 117 North B Street, Lompoc): A commenter asked if the City of Lompoc was consulted. The Chair confirmed the city was consulted and concurred.
  • Item A-11 (HDL Board Contract for Cannabis Tax Compliance): A commenter asked how to learn more about the contractor, HDL. The Chair suggested searching online.
  • Item A-13 (Local Vendor Preference Policy): A commenter representing CoLab expressed skepticism about the policy's effectiveness, citing a drop in local vendor spending to 55-56%. Supervisor Williams responded that recent data showed 75% local vendor spending and attributed previous drops to COVID-19 anomalies.
  • Item A-15 (Security Services Contract): A commenter argued the item should be a deliberative item, questioning the need for over $2 million in security for homeless housing facilities and asking for metrics on resident outcomes.
  • Item A-18 (2021 Employee Benefit Insurance): A commenter initially addressed the Sheriff’s Office, but the Chair clarified this was a Human Resources item. The commenter’s remarks were noted for Item A-23.
  • Item A-20 (Agreement with Family Service Agency for Housing for the Harvest and Language Justice Project):
  • A commenter representing CoLab asked for details on the composition of the Latinx and Migrant COVID-19 Task Force and the nature of the Language Justice Project.
  • Dr. Melissa Smith, Interim Coordinator of the Task Force, explained the task force includes over 96 partners and focuses on multilingual health education, coordination among providers, and mental health support for vulnerable farmworkers.
  • Lee Heller supported the program, noting its role in reducing farmworker cases to help the county reopen.
  • Hazel Davalos of CAWS supported the program, citing its provision of culturally competent wellness visits for isolated farmworkers.
  • Lorinda Marshall, a retired public health nurse, supported the program for addressing the vulnerability of farmworkers in crowded housing.
  • Supervisor Adam requested a report from Public Health on the composition of the task force and outreach to growers. The Chair indicated this could be addressed in a future update.
  • Supervisor Hartman expressed support for the program, describing it as path-breaking and culturally competent.
  • Item A-21 (First Amendment to Housing Authority Agreement): A commenter linked this item to A-7 and A-15, asking if security guards would be hired for converted properties and suggesting a full hearing and consultation with local city councils.

Vote on Item A-25 (Supervisor Compensation Hearing)

  • A motion was made and seconded to set a hearing for the October 6, 2020, meeting to consider an amendment to the ordinance setting compensation and benefits for Board members. The motion passed 4 to 1.

Vote on Balance of Administrative Agenda

  • A motion was made and seconded to approve the balance of the administrative agenda, with the noted continuance of Item 2 and withdrawal of Item A-12. The motion passed unanimously.

General Public Comment

  • Eight members of the public spoke on items not on the agenda:
  • One speaker honored the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and discussed her legacy and the timing of her death relative to Rosh Hashanah.
  • Several speakers representing "Safe Technology for Santa Barbara County" (formerly 5G Free Santa Barbara) raised concerns about fire hazards associated with small wireless facilities and 5G technology. They requested that the Fire Department be given oversight authority to approve or disapprove wireless facility applications, require automatic remote power cutoff switches, and investigate fire safety complaints. They cited precedents from other cities like Encinitas and Sebastopol.
  • One speaker discussed hemp regulation, arguing that state and federal plans do not address land use, that the county has the authority to regulate hemp, and that current regulations are insufficient to address the impact of hemp cultivation on neighboring agricultural operations.

Departmental Item 1: COVID-19 Update and AB 3088 Overview

  • Dr. Karissa presented the COVID-19 update. As of the previous day, the county had 8,930 total cases, 8,669 recovered, 151 active cases, 23 hospitalizations, and 110 deaths. The death rate was 1.2%. Trends showed decreasing cases in Santa Maria and Lompoc, with slight upticks in Goleta, Ivy, Santa Ynez, and North County Unincorporated. Hospitalization, med surge, and ICU rates were decreasing.
  • Regarding the "Blueprint for a Safer Economy," the county’s adjusted case rate for the week of September 6–12 was 6.7, and the positivity rate was 4.3%. The county had one week of credit toward moving from the Purple (Widespread) tier to the Red (Substantial) tier. If metrics remained in the Red tier range the following week, the county would move to the Red tier on September 29. K-12 schools could open 14 days after the county is officially assigned to the Red tier, which would be October 13, subject to waiver approvals.
  • Twenty schools had been approved by the local health department and concurred by CDPH. One school was pending CDPH concurrence, and technical assistance was being provided to five other schools. One new submission was received from Los Olivos Elementary School.
  • Dr. Melissa Smith presented an overview of Assembly Bill 3088, specifically the COVID-19 Tenant Relief Act of 2020. She explained that the Act limits evictions for residential tenants who failed to pay rent due to COVID-19 financial hardship, distinguishing between non-payment periods before March 1, 2020, and those between March 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021. She noted that the Act does not relieve tenants of rent obligations but prevents eviction based on unpaid rent resulting from defined financial distress. Smith highlighted resources available through the Legal Aid Foundation of Santa Barbara County and the California Apartment Association for both tenants and landlords.
  • Board members asked questions regarding dispute resolution procedures, the status of small claims courts, and income-based documentation requirements for tenants. Dr. Smith explained that disputes may be adjudicated in small claims court and that higher-income tenants in the later time period may be required to provide additional documentation.
  • Steve Lavagnino requested that key surveillance metrics (case rates and testing positivity) be more prominently displayed on the county website. The Public Health representative agreed to elevate these metrics and launch "rainbow charts."
  • The board discussed the county’s status in the state’s tiered reopening system. The county received its first "red" report card, indicating it is trending toward the red tier. The Public Health representative explained that the county must meet red tier metrics for two consecutive weeks to officially move to the red tier, which would allow for increased capacity in sectors such as houses of worship, movie theaters, and restaurants. If metrics worsen, the county could be moved back to the purple tier after a warning period.
  • Mr. Gazzone requested two lists from Public Health: (1) specific public COVID complaints in the district, including sources and how they were received, and (2) dates of school waiver applications submitted to and approved by the state, along with their current status. The Public Health representative agreed to provide this information by the end of the day. Dr. Smith noted that staff would work with Public Health to determine if any complaint information is confidential before public release.
  • The item was trailed until later in the day to ensure the requested information was provided.

Departmental Item 2: Appeal of Caltrans Culvert Replacement Project (Gaviota Coast)

  • Board members reported communications with Caltrans officials and representatives from the Gaviota Coast Conservancy and Coastal Ranches Conservancy regarding the project and potential wildlife corridor studies.
  • Kiara Stig presented the appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the Caltrans culvert replacement project on Highway 101. Staff outlined the actions required to uphold the appeal (deny the project) and the actions required to reject the appeal (approve the project).
  • Doug Campbell (Coastal Ranches Conservancy) argued that the project failed to consider high rates of wildlife-vehicle conflict, offsite mitigation requirements, and the purchase of state park land. He urged the board to deny the project to allow for a redesign that includes a wildlife crossing.
  • Doug Kern and Ana Citrin (Gaviota Coast Conservancy) stated that Caltrans had not adequately addressed terrestrial wildlife crossing or public access trails. They cited inconsistencies with the Local Coastal Plan and the Gaviota Coast Plan, particularly regarding wildlife corridors and the California Coastal Trail. They requested the board uphold the appeal and deny the project.
  • Mr. Dallas (Caltrans) stated that the existing culvert does not facilitate wildlife movement and that the project is a necessary maintenance effort. He argued that the location is not suitable for a wildlife crossing based on road ecology science and cost ($29.5 million). Caltrans announced it has identified funding for a regional wildlife corridor study in the Gaviota area but stated this study should not be tied to the current maintenance project.
  • Appellants expressed concern that a study might delay action and that the project should be denied to force proper design. They emphasized the need for conditions addressing wildlife crossing and public access. Caltrans reiterated that no trails would be precluded and that the project meets Local Coastal Plan requirements.
  • Joan Hartmann supported the project, citing Caltrans’ willingness to engage and fund a wildlife corridor study. She suggested Caltrans provide regular reports through SBCAG and participate in the county’s recreation master plan. Steve Lavagnino supported Hartmann’s comments. Mr. Gazzone stated that allowing Caltrans to perform maintenance was necessary for public safety. Supervisor Williams expressed unease about the lack of connectivity for wildlife in the area but acknowledged the board’s relationship with Caltrans.
  • A motion was made to reject the appeals and approve the project, in accordance with staff’s recommendation for approval. The motion was seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

Departmental Item 3: Small Cell Wireless Facilities Fee Ordinance Amendment

  • Krista Ryder presented an ordinance amendment to establish a county-wide fee cap of $3,000 for small cell wireless facilities, in response to a 2018 FCC declaratory order. Staff recommended approving the introduction of the ordinance as a first reading and continuing the item to the October 6 administrative agenda.
  • Cassandra Cornish requested that the county adopt protective ordinances regarding fire prevention for small cell towers and use fiber optics to eliminate fire hazards.
  • Supervisor Williams noted that the fee change was required by federal law. Staff explained that the county has limited discretion and will not fully recover costs for these permits. Dr. Smith noted that the county is part of a coalition (CSAC) pushing for corrective action to allow for greater cost recovery.
  • A motion was made to approve staff’s recommendation. The motion was seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

Closed Session

  • The board entered closed session to consider two matters: (1) a significant exposure to civil litigation based on an express threat of litigation involving Kimball Griffith (client of attorney John Dorwin) concerning the Kachuma Project Master Contract; and (2) a conference with real property negotiators concerning potential conservation easements related to the Straus Wind Energy Project.
  • Mr. Gazzone recused himself from the Straus Wind Energy Project matter due to a conflict of interest involving his brother.
  • Upon reconvening, Dr. Smith reported that no reportable actions were taken on either item during the closed session.

Departmental Item 4: KPMG Operational and Performance Review for the Public Defender Department

  • Ms. Miyasato provided context on the "Renew 22" initiative, which involves KPMG conducting operational reviews of county departments to identify best practices and improvements. This is the fifth review completed in year one. The review is not an audit but aims to improve efficiency and outcomes.
  • Bill Zizik and Kiva Thornton from KPMG presented an overview of their review of the Public Defender’s Office. They described their methodology, which included staff interviews, data analysis, and benchmarking against other counties. They noted a 60-day strategic pause due to COVID-19.
  • KPMG representatives presented a review of the Public Defender’s Office, highlighting the office’s ongoing work on the eDefender case management system rebuild and its adoption of innovative initiatives such as the holistic defense program. KPMG identified three primary areas for improvement: strategy (prioritizing and sequencing initiatives), staffing (implementing time tracking and workload studies to align staff levels with duties), and systems (strategically upgrading eDefender to support data tracking and information sharing). Specific recommendations included implementing data-driven workload tracking, realigning responsibilities to appropriate staff levels to increase efficiency, enhancing implementation planning and outcome measurement for new initiatives, increasing eDefender functionality, and enhancing holistic defense and specialty court units to improve recidivism outcomes.
  • Public Defender McCougar and her leadership team responded to the recommendations. They acknowledged the need for data-informed decision-making and committed to integrating time tracking and workload studies, noting that these processes require external partnership for design and analysis. The team emphasized that while seven of the eight recommendations involve IT infrastructure, the office is committed to prioritizing immediate, low-cost improvements while developing a five-year strategic plan and a five-year IT strategic plan, both of which are targeted for finalization by the end of November.
  • Key points from the department’s response included:
  • Performance Metrics: Chief Trial Deputy Ballard stated that an internal workgroup is being formed to define performance metrics for attorneys, investigators, and law office professionals, with plans to consult external resources and other public defender offices to avoid reinventing existing standards.
  • IT and Systems: CFO Bidwani detailed the department’s plan to leverage the case management system for automated processes, such as client text messaging for court date reminders, and to migrate from paper files to a fully paperless system. The department noted that IT support needs have shifted from standard business hours to 24/7 coverage due to virtual hearings and remote work.
  • Data Management: Deputy Villegas explained that the office is converting paper files to electronic format and developing standard operating procedures (SOPs) for data entry, with a goal to complete all SOPs by December 2021. The department also expressed interest in integrating with the Master Naming Index Project and other criminal justice stakeholders to reduce data redundancy.
  • Holistic Defense: The department noted that the Holistic Defense Program and Community Defender Division are currently supported by one-time grants and require general fund support for five advocate positions to become a sustainable part of the departmental model.
  • Supervisors and the Chair discussed the challenges of measuring performance in legal services, noting the difficulty of quantifying qualitative aspects of advocacy. Supervisor Hartmann asked about benchmarks and external assistance for defining metrics. The CEO noted that KPMG’s report includes examples of performance measures and that the firm will compile interagency themes across all public safety departments to identify commonalities and opportunities for collaboration.
  • The discussion shifted to the broader issue of decentralized IT infrastructure across the county. Supervisor Lavagnino asked for clarification on the scope of county IT investments. The CEO explained that the county has allocated over $2 million annually for IT improvements but faces challenges due to decentralized systems. Public Defender McCougar and CFO Bidwani emphasized the need for enterprise-level, integrated solutions across public safety agencies to avoid silos and leverage economies of scale. They noted that probation has led efforts in data integration and urged the Board to authorize strategic, integrated investments rather than department-specific solutions.
  • Supervisor Adam moved to receive and file the KPMG report on the Public Defender’s Office. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Gazzone. The motion passed unanimously.

Agenda Item: Grand Jury Report on Cannabis (2019–2020)

  • The County Executive Office presented the Board’s response to the June 30, 2020, Grand Jury report on cannabis operations in Santa Barbara County. The presentation acknowledged the work of the Planning and Development Department, County Counsel, Agricultural Commissioner, Sheriff, and District Attorney. The County Executive noted that the Board had made policy decisions from a menu of options in a new regulatory area and has since amended ordinances to address community concerns. The County stated that regulatory oversight is spread among several departments and that a restructuring of oversight is likely in the next three to five years.
  • The presentation addressed specific Grand Jury findings and recommendations:
  • Finding 1 (Health and Welfare Impacts): The Grand Jury found that the impact of cannabis production on health and welfare was inadequately considered. The Board disagreed, stating that the Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) evaluated a wide range of impacts, complied with CEQA, and was adopted after over 60 public meetings.
  • Recommendation 1A (Prepare EIRs for each region): The Board stated this recommendation will not be implemented, as the existing ordinance complies with California Planning and Zoning Law and CEQA.
  • Recommendation 1B (Develop project objectives for EIRs): The Board stated this recommendation will not be implemented, as it is not warranted and current regulations are compliant with state law.
  • Finding 2 (Ad Hoc Subcommittee Transparency): The Grand Jury found that a non-Brown Act ad hoc subcommittee led to a lack of transparency. The Board partially disagreed, noting the subcommittee was created in open session, held public outreach meetings, and reported to the full board, which made all final decisions.
  • Recommendation 2 (Require future ad hoc subcommittees to be open to the public): The Board stated this recommendation will not be implemented, as ad hoc committees cannot act on behalf of the county and are used for in-depth analysis, with precedent existing in the county and statewide.
  • Finding 3 (Access to Growers and Lobbyists): The Grand Jury found that the Board granted nearly unfettered access to cannabis growers and lobbyists. The Board partially disagreed, noting that all sides of the issue visited board members and staff, and that some ex parte communications were disclosed during meetings.
  • Recommendation 3 (Develop standards for public disclosure of lobbying access): The Board stated this recommendation will not be implemented, citing case law (Times Mirror v. Superior Court) that holds requiring public disclosure of access would have a chilling effect on the deliberative process.
  • Finding 4 (Conflict with Traditional Agriculture): The Board partially disagreed with the finding that cannabis threatens traditional agriculture. Staff noted that while tensions exist regarding pesticides, a working group developed guidelines for neighborly communication. The Board stated there is no evidence cannabis threatens the existence of traditional agriculture.
  • Recommendation 4A (Require CUP for pending applications): Not implemented as not reasonable; the Board had already amended codes to prohibit cannabis on Ag-1 zoned land of 20 acres or less and in existing developed rural neighborhoods.
  • Recommendation 4B (Declare cannabis compatible on contracted land): Not implemented as not warranted; cannabis is already considered agriculture under the comprehensive plan, and uniform rules were amended to allow it as a primary crop for Williamson Act qualification.
  • Finding 5 (Excessive Production/Over-concentration): The Board wholly disagreed with the finding. Staff cited previous limits set in coastal and inland zones and subsequent amendments introducing greater restrictions.
  • Recommendation 5A (Require proof of legal non-conforming status before Planning Commission): Not implemented as not warranted; legal non-conforming status is being phased out through the permit process, and the CEO’s office reviews cases for falsification.
  • Recommendation 5B (Eradicate grows failing to demonstrate pre-Jan 19, 2016 planting): Not implemented as not reasonable.
  • Finding 6 (Unverified Affidavits): The Board agreed with the finding that the affidavit system did not require proof of prior operations.
  • Recommendation 6 (Require proof of status before Planning Commission): Not implemented as not reasonable; staff are working with the CEO’s office to review cases with compelling evidence of falsified affidavits.
  • Finding 7 (Affidavits do not require proof of prior scope): The Board agreed with this finding.
  • Recommendation 7A (Eradicate grows failing to demonstrate pre-Jan 19, 2016 planting): Not implemented as not reasonable; staff consider scope during permit reviews, and the CEO’s office and Planning & Development are addressing falsified affidavits and scope expansion.
  • Recommendation 7B (Deny permits for grows failing to demonstrate pre-Jan 19, 2016 planting): Not implemented as not warranted. Staff cited Sheriff’s Office enforcement data since November 2018, including 72 enforcement actions, 12 for false affidavits, and the seizure of significant quantities of product and plants.
  • Finding 8 (Taxation Methodology): The Board disagreed with the finding that the gross receipts method is less reliable than the square footage method. Staff noted that both methods are widely used, with a 50-50 split among leading cannabis counties. The gross receipts method was approved by voters in June 2018.
  • Recommendation 8 (Amend ordinance to use square footage method): Not implemented as not reasonable; changing the method would require another election, as the current method was approved by 76% of voters.
  • Finding 9 (Treasurer not included in tax ordinance creation): The Board partially disagreed. Staff acknowledged the CEO’s office led the tax structure development but noted the Board directed the County Treasurer’s participation in December 2017, and the Treasurer concurred with related board letters in early 2018.
  • Recommendation 9 (Require Treasurer involvement in future tax ordinances): To be implemented as future situations arise.
  • Finding 10 (Undue influence on APCD advisory): The Board wholly disagreed. Staff explained that the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) is an independent agency with no oversight over land use. Staff expressed concern about the specificity of a one-mile buffer recommendation lacking new research support. Staff worked cooperatively with APCD, resulting in voluntary adjustments to the advisory.
  • Finding 11 (Ineffective odor control): The Board partially disagreed. Staff acknowledged odor is a challenging issue but noted that legal non-conforming growers in Ag-1 zoned areas (Carpinteria Valley) will be required to comply with stringent odor regulations upon permit issuance. Staff indicated that odor control systems are being implemented and monitored.
  • Recommendation 11 (Suspend unpermitted operations until odor control proof is accepted): Not implemented as not warranted; the Board had previously decided not to require odor control for agriculturally zoned properties of 40 acres or more (Ag-2).
  • Clarification: Supervisor Hartman noted that odor control requirements do not apply to all Ag-2 properties. Staff clarified that requirements exist for Ag-1 properties in the coastal zone and some Ag-2 properties within specific community plans or adjacent to EDRNs. Staff agreed to reword the response to clarify the scope of requirements.
  • Finding 12 (Code of Ethics/Campaign Contributions): The Board wholly disagreed. Staff explained that Santa Barbara County is a general law county subject to the California Political Reform Act, which comprehensively addresses campaign contributions and conflict of interest. The California Supreme Court has held that requiring recusal due to campaign contributions threatens constitutionally protected political speech.
  • Recommendation 12A (Establish independent ethics commission): Not implemented as not warranted; officials are already governed by the Political Reform Act.
  • Recommendation 12B (Develop code of ethics): Not implemented as not warranted; the county already has a conflict of interest code.
  • Recommendation 12C (Public disclosure of campaign contributions): Not implemented as not warranted; contributions are already subject to disclosure under the Political Reform Act.
  • Recommendation 12E (Require recusal or return of contributions): Not implemented; this would conflict with controlling case law from the California Supreme Court.

Public Comment on Grand Jury Report

  • Seven members of the public provided comments:
  • Sharon Merritt urged the Board to reject the blanket rejection of Grand Jury recommendations, citing flaws in the ordinance process, affidavits, and environmental review.
  • Jason Rodriguez stated that cannabis farms have supported the local economy in Carpinteria during the pandemic, keeping businesses like his catering company alive. He supported the county’s regulatory framework.
  • Judy Polson urged the Board to reconsider its response, arguing it failed to protect health, safety, and welfare, and criticized the handling of odor issues and the "overriding consideration" statement.
  • Deborah Eagle expressed frustration with the Board’s disregard for Grand Jury recommendations, describing the regulatory environment as a "wild west" with unverified affidavits and leeway on growth size and odor.
  • Lee Peoples expressed disappointment with the Board’s dismissal of Grand Jury findings, alleging secret dealings with lobbyists and a lack of transparency.
  • Tristan Strauss, representing the Carpinteria Carriers Association, stated that the Grand Jury report did not reflect the public process, which involved diverse stakeholders. He noted that many applicants may miss permits due to stringent caps and costs, but committed to following rules and enhancing odor mitigation.
  • Doug Kern, a resident of Carpinteria, criticized the Board’s response to findings on affidavits, parcel size, and odor control. He requested 24-7 sensor monitoring for odor and questioned the over-concentration of production in the area.
  • Liz Rogan thanked the Board for choosing facts over emotion, citing scientific data showing no adverse air effects. She noted that cannabis revenue helps cover budget deficits and supports essential services.
  • Renee O’Neill commended staff and law enforcement but criticized the Board’s lack of transparency and integrity, alleging they hindered the Grand Jury by denying subpoenas and withholding documents. She called for a formal apology.

Board Discussion on Grand Jury Report

  • Supervisor Lavagnino noted that there are no registered lobbyists in the county and that all sides have access to supervisors. He listed several restrictions implemented in the ordinance, such as acreage caps, bans on specific zones, and odor control requirements. He apologized for prior remarks made in a heated moment and thanked the Grand Jury for their work.
  • Mr. Ghazzani (Staff) clarified that the county does not issue subpoenas; the presiding judge does. He stated that no documents containing legal advice were provided to the Grand Jury due to attorney-client privilege.
  • Supervisor Williams agreed with the staff’s rational response. He emphasized that the status quo on odor is not acceptable and that the Board should use litigation powers selectively and leverage technology improvements. He argued that moving forward with permits and enforcement is better than re-litigating non-conforming status.
  • Supervisor Hartman stated that all supervisors take ethics seriously and that the process was open. She identified outstanding issues, including business licenses, expansion of legal non-conforming uses, and hemp regulation.
  • Chair Hart agreed with staff responses, noting that the Grand Jury report did not reflect subsequent amendments made in response to community concerns.

Motion and Vote on Grand Jury Report

  • Supervisor Lavagnino moved to accept the staff responses as the Board’s response to the Grand Jury report. Supervisor Williams seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

Departmental Item 1 (Continued): COVID-19 Update

  • The board considered a report from the County Executive Office regarding a Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) update. The presentation included two primary documents:
  • 1. RISE Contacts and Complaints: Data covering complaints and educational outreach from August 21 to September 22, 2020, specifically for zip codes associated with District 4. The report detailed complaints received via the web-based recovery complaint form, organized by responsible agency, number of complaints, and business types. The Director of Office of Emergency Management clarified that these figures reflect only complaints submitted to the online portal and do not include violations identified by government or regulatory agencies during field duties, which are tracked separately. 2. School Waiver Requests: A document listing schools that requested waivers, including dates for waiver receipt, department review, submission to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), and CDPH approval status.
  • Supervisor Adam inquired about the classification of complainants to determine how many complaints were self-generated versus those originating from public health or government sources. The Director confirmed that the data excluded complaints or violations identified by government or regulatory agencies during their daily duties or COVID-related field work.
  • A motion was made and seconded to receive and file the COVID-19 report. The motion passed with four votes in favor and one member absent.