Meeting Summary
Present: Williams, 3-Hartmann, 5-Lavagnino, 4-Nelson
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
Announcements
- The County Executive Officer announced upcoming public workshops for the 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan and First Five Santa Barbara grant opportunities.
- Public hearings for the Citizens Independent Redistricting Commission are scheduled for November 3 in Santa Maria and virtually.
- Central Coast Community Energy electric service has begun, with charges appearing on November bills for enrolled customers.
2022 Board of Supervisors Schedule of Meeting Dates and Locations
- The Board continued this item to the November 9 meeting because adjustments were still needed before adoption.
- No final decision was made on the schedule during this session.
Update on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
- The Health Officer reported a case rate of 9 per 100,000 and noted that critical care capacity remains tight.
- Supervisors discussed metrics for lifting the mask mandate, with the Health Officer citing a case rate of 6 per 100,000 for two weeks as a reasonable threshold.
- The Board requested that Public Health outline why county criteria differ from CDC guidelines at the next meeting.
Acquisition of Property at 6549 El Colegio Road for Housing Navigation Services
- The Board approved the purchase of the property, which was completed two months ahead of schedule.
- The facility will be renovated to provide housing navigation services for residents from the Pallett Village.
Appointment of the Director of Behavioral Wellness
- The Board approved the appointment of the Director of Behavioral Wellness effective December 13, 2021.
- The position carries a bi-weekly pay rate of $8,432.64 plus benefits.
Williams Appeal (Accessory Dwelling Units)
- Staff recommended denying the appeal because converting garages to ADUs would eliminate required parking spaces in violation of Coastal Development Permits.
- The appellant withdrew the appeal to pursue a procedural path involving a formal modification application for parking.
- The Board acknowledged the withdrawal, allowing the applicant to proceed with a modification application for review by the Board of Adjustment.
Amendment to Chapter 50 of the County Code (Licensing of Commercial Cannabis Operations)
- The Board adopted amendments to the cannabis licensing ordinance with specific modifications to the proposed text.
- The sunset date for legal nonconforming operators without land use permits was extended from 120 days to June 30, 2022.
- The proposed section regarding harvest notification was struck from the ordinance due to concerns about clarity and practical application.
- The Board directed staff to investigate options for use-it-or-lose-it provisions, processing facility barriers, and change of ownership loopholes.
Closed Session
- The Board discussed two litigation matters and a public employee appointment in closed session.
- County Counsel reported that no reportable action was taken during the closed session.
Full summary
Meeting Start and Roll Call
- The November 2, 2021, 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 (October 19, 2021)
- Motion: Supervisor Hartman moved to approve the minutes from the October 19, 2021, meeting.
- Second: The motion was seconded.
- Vote: Passed unanimously.
Announcements
- Clerk of the Board: Reminded the public that meetings are broadcast live in Spanish via Cox and Comcast cable (SAP channel). Reminded attendees of updated public participation methods, including in-person attendance at Santa Barbara and Santa Maria hearing rooms and virtual attendance via Zoom. Noted that an October 5, 2021, county health officer order requires indoor mask usage for everyone over two years of age, regardless of vaccination status.
- County Executive Officer (Miyasato):
- Announced a public workshop for the 2022 Hazard Mitigation Plan on November 4 at 5:30 p.m.
- Announced grant funding opportunities from First Five Santa Barbara for organizations serving children birth through five, with an informational session on November 4 at 10 a.m.
- Noted that the County’s legislative platform will be presented to the Board next month.
- Announced public hearings for the Citizens Independent Redistricting Commission, with the next meeting on November 3 in Santa Maria and virtually.
- Noted that Central Coast Community Energy (3CE) electric service has begun, with charges appearing on November bills for enrolled customers.
Approval of Administrative Agenda
- Discussion: Chair Nelson noted that Item A6 was pulled by Supervisor Hartman. Chair Nelson pulled Items A4 and A22 to work with the Clerk. Item A5 was noted as being pulled by the public. No other items were pulled.
- Motion: Chair Nelson moved to approve the balance of the agenda with the exception of Items A4, A5, A6, and A22.
- Second: Supervisor Hartman seconded the motion.
- Vote: Passed unanimously.
Item A-4: 2022 Board of Supervisors Schedule of Meeting Dates and Locations
- Discussion: Chair Nelson stated that adjustments were still needed before adoption.
- Motion: Chair Nelson moved to continue Item A-4 to the November 9 meeting.
- Second: The motion was seconded.
- Vote: Passed unanimously.
Item A-5: Update on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
- Public Comment:
- Matthew Strzpek (Zoom): Spoke regarding medical exemptions from the mask mandate, alleging discrimination in access to public and private spaces. Called for the end of the mask mandate.
- Dr. Amy Smith (Zoom): Discussed concerns regarding vaccine mandates, natural immunity versus vaccine-induced immunity, and informed consent.
- Cheryl Trosky (Zoom): Attempted to speak but was disconnected; the Chair moved to the next speaker.
- Maria Kessner (Zoom): Spoke regarding her daughter’s medical exemption from the mask mandate, alleging discrimination by businesses and the Santa Barbara Unified School District.
- Supervisor Williams: Requested accountability for comments made by previous speakers that he characterized as threats.
- Chair Nelson: Explained his intent to maintain a venue for public comment while balancing civility. He deferred to County Counsel regarding limits on comments.
- County Counsel (Clary): Noted Brown Act limitations on public comment, stating it must be limited to the subject matter at issue.
- Supervisor Hartman: Supported the Chair’s approach, noting that without this agenda item, similar comments would occur in general public comment.
- Dr. Ansorg (Health Officer): Provided an update on case rates (9 per 100,000), hospital capacity (critical but with some ICU wiggle room), and vaccination planning for ages 5–11.
- Supervisor Lavinino: Asked about metrics for lifting the mask mandate. Dr. Ansorg cited a case rate of 6 per 100,000 for two weeks as a reasonable metric. Supervisor Lavinino questioned the relevance of case rates as vaccination rates increase.
- Dr. Ansorg: Explained that the 79% vaccination rate of the eligible population does not account for non-eligible populations (children), and that total population susceptibility remains a concern.
- Supervisor Hartman: Provided comparison data for Marin County, which lifted its mask mandate with higher vaccination rates and lower case rates.
- Supervisor Williams: Stated that higher vaccination levels are needed for herd immunity.
- Supervisor Lavinino: Asked for a clear goal or timeline for lifting mandates, noting the difficulty in communicating the path forward.
- Chair Nelson: Requested that Public Health outline why the county’s criteria differ from CDC guidelines at the next meeting.
- CEO Miyasato: Proposed moving the discussion to a departmental item to allow for further discussion.
- County Counsel (Clary): Reiterated Brown Act provisions regarding public criticism and the limited public forum nature of public comment.
- Motion: Supervisor Hartman moved to approve Item A-5.
- Second: The motion was seconded.
- Vote: Passed unanimously.
Item A-6: Acquisition of Property at 6549 El Colegio Road for Housing Navigation Services
- Discussion: Supervisor Hartman highlighted the accomplishment of purchasing the property two months ahead of schedule and renovating it for residents from the Pallett Village. She noted the facility is well-run and supports housing stability.
- Public Comment: None.
- Motion: Supervisor Hartman moved to approve Item A-6.
- Second: Supervisor Lavinino seconded the motion.
- Vote: Passed unanimously.
Item A-22: Appointment of the Director of Behavioral Wellness
- Announcement: The Clerk announced the appointment of the Director of Behavioral Wellness with a bi-weekly pay rate of $8,432.64 plus benefits, effective December 13, 2021.
- Motion: Supervisor Hartman moved to approve Item A-22.
- Second: Supervisor Lavinino seconded the motion.
- Vote: Passed unanimously.
General Public Comment
- Caroline Abate (In Person): Spoke regarding abortion and physician-assisted suicide, urging voters to consider candidates’ positions on these issues.
- Ori Biwanag (In Person): Represented CalPERS Students at UCSB. Discussed student involvement in climate change, voter participation, and college accessibility. Requested a meeting to draft a resolution supporting electrification of the transportation sector.
- Maria Kessner (Zoom): Spoke regarding the Board’s understanding of free speech laws and the "imminent lawless action" standard.
- Kenneth Corbin (In Person): Commended the Board and spoke regarding legal non-conforming uses. The Chair noted this topic was part of Departmental Item 2 and asked him to wait for that item.
- Justin Shores (Zoom): Requested consideration of a single-use mask ban for environmental reasons and commented on party politics and candidate endorsements.
- Dr. Amy Smith (Zoom): Invited the Board to attend a protest at Santa Barbara City Hall regarding mandates and vaccine passports. Discussed concerns about vaccinating children and societal changes.
- Chair Nelson: Closed public comment to proceed with the agenda.
Departmental Item 1: Williams Appeal (Accessory Dwelling Units)
- Ex Parte Communication: No ex parte communications were reported by any supervisor.
- Staff Presentation (Travis Lee, Planner):
- Presented the appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of three ADU projects (Case Nos. 21APL-00024, 025, 026) at 6513, 6515, and 6517 Del Playa Drive.
- The projects involve converting existing garages into ADUs.
- Staff denied the projects because the conversion would eliminate required parking spaces and bicycle parking, violating the Student Residential Medium (SRM-8) zone requirements and existing Coastal Development Permits (CDPs).
- Staff noted that the State Government Code regarding ADUs does not supersede the Coastal Act, and the Coastal Commission has confirmed that parking replacement requirements remain in effect.
- Staff stated that the parcels do not have adequate space to accommodate the required parking without encroaching on the right-of-way setback.
- Staff recommended denying the appeals, making required findings for denial, determining the denial is exempt from CEQA, and denying the proposed projects.
- Appellant Presentation:
- John Williams, representing the Williams Family 2000 Trust, presented a rebuttal regarding the denial of CDPs to convert garages into ADUs.
- Williams argued that the denial violated state law (Government Code Section 6585.2) which preempts local requirements for replacement parking when converting garages to ADUs.
- He contended that the project does not significantly impact coastal access, citing existing parking availability, bus stops, and pedestrian access.
- Williams further argued that if the Board denied the appeal based on public access, the County would be required to pay just compensation for a taking of property rights.
- Staff Response and Clarifications:
- Staff explained that while state ADU laws are in effect, the County’s Coastal Zoning Ordinance (CZO) remains in force until amendments are certified by the California Coastal Commission.
- Staff noted that the current CZO requires replacement parking and that the proposed project’s driveways do not meet the required dimensions without encroaching on the five-foot setback from the right-of-way.
- Staff clarified that approval of the CDPs would be appealable to the Coastal Commission, whereas denial would not.
- Staff estimated the timeline for Coastal Commission certification of CZO amendments at approximately one year.
- Staff indicated that a formal modification application for parking would typically require review by the Board of Adjustment (BAR) and a decision by the Director.
- Board Discussion:
- Supervisor Hartman expressed support for finding a path to approval to address housing needs, while noting concerns about sidewalk encroachment.
- Supervisor Lavinino and Supervisor Williams expressed support for utilizing the opportunity to provide housing.
- Staff proposed a procedural path to resolve the appeal: the appellant would withdraw the appeal, the CDPs would be transferred to new case numbers, and the applicant would submit a formal modification application for parking. This process would involve BAR review and a decision by the Director, allowing the project to proceed in compliance with existing local regulations. The appellant confirmed this process was acceptable.
- Motion 1: Accept late submissions (specifically a replacement PowerPoint presentation received on November 1st).
- Second: Seconded.
- Vote: Passed unanimously.
- Motion 2: Acknowledge the appellant’s withdrawal of the appeal.
- Second: Seconded.
- Vote: Passed unanimously.
Departmental Item 2: Amendment to Chapter 50 of the County Code (Licensing of Commercial Cannabis Operations)
- Staff Presentation:
- Presented the fifth set of amendments to Chapter 50, addressing inefficiencies in the business licensing process and clarifying the post-acreage limit process.
- Key proposed amendments included:
- 1. Definitions: Added definitions for business, financial interest, and financial interest holders. 2. Timeline: Extended the deadline to submit business license applications from 15 to 30 days after permit approval. 3. Legal Nonconforming Operators: Established a 120-day sunset date for operators who have not secured acreage in the eligible business license applicant list. 4. Waitlist: Established a waitlist for applicants with approved land use entitlements to manage the acreage cap. 5. Review Process: Clarified that business license application review only occurs if acreage is available under the cap. 6. Security and Employment: Added explicit requirements for applicants to notify the Sheriff’s Office of changes to site security and employment statuses. 7. API Keys: Codified the requirement for operators to provide an API key for the state’s track-and-trace system. 8. Harvest Notification: Required outdoor cultivation sites to notify properties within a 1,000-foot radius of harvest start dates and duration.
- Staff reported that two new business license specialists began work on October 18 and are currently reviewing new licenses. There are 62 total applications in the inland area, with approximately 15 operators having been issued licenses. Staff expressed confidence in meeting a June 30 deadline for license issuance, contingent on applicants completing the land use permit appeal process.
- Staff presented a request for board direction on defining "cultivation area" and acreage balancing. The county’s current definition includes plants, walkways, and associated processing/drying areas, whereas state law defines cultivation area by canopy only. Staff noted that the county’s broader definition has resulted in few local processing facilities, causing operators to ship product out of county for processing, which negatively impacts county revenue. Staff recommended initiating work on this issue after the initial business license issuance is completed.
- Staff presented information on future amendments, including changes in ownership and business license transferability. Staff noted that the state recently consolidated cannabis regulatory departments and issued new regulations, which complicated efforts to align with state standards. Staff indicated plans to hold listening sessions with industry groups to develop an amendment addressing ownership transfer and license transferability.
- Board Discussion:
- Sunset Dates: Supervisor Lavinino questioned the 120-day sunset for legal nonconforming operators, distinguishing between those who are non-responsive and those with difficult projects still in the permitting process. He expressed concern about shutting down operators who are actively trying to obtain permits and requested that fiscal impact reports be included in future amendments. Supervisor Hartman questioned why the sunset period was 120 days rather than 90 days. Supervisor Williams raised concerns about differentiating between speculative investment applications and active cultivation, suggesting the use of "use it or lose it" discretion.
- Processing and Acreage: Supervisors discussed the fiscal impact of the current definition. One Supervisor expressed concern that waiting eight months to address the processing issue would result in significant revenue loss. Another Supervisor clarified that growers are currently allowed to process within their cultivation area but have chosen not to do so to preserve growing space or due to permitting constraints. Supervisors debated whether to decouple processing from the cultivation acreage cap. One Supervisor suggested removing processing from the cap definition to free up acreage for cultivation. Another Supervisor raised concerns about the environmental impacts of increased processing facilities, such as odor. A third Supervisor emphasized the need for data and careful analysis before making changes.
- Harvest Notification: One Supervisor expressed support for a public notification system, such as a community calendar or website posting, to inform residents of harvest periods and odor impacts. Another Supervisor questioned the practicality of individual site notifications, suggesting that a general seasonal notice might be more effective.
- Prioritization: Staff explained that prioritizing the removal of processing from the cultivation definition in Chapter 35 would require reprioritizing the long-range planning program, potentially delaying the childcare ordinance amendment. Board members expressed frustration with the trade-off, emphasizing the economic importance of processing. Staff recommended that the Board express the importance of processing but not formally reprioritize the long-range planning program at this time.
- Public Comment:
- Kenneth Cordon: Representing legal non-conforming operators, Cordon argued that the proposed 120-day notice period for compliance is a "stunning reversal" for operators who have invested significantly in obtaining state approvals. He suggested that the sunset date for legal non-conforming status should be tied to the issuance of business licenses rather than a fixed date.
- Lil Clary: Questioned how stakeholder input was solicited, noting that residents of Tepescay Canyon and Sabata Canyon, who have been involved in cannabis issues since 2016, were not included in the feedback process.
- Nancy Emerson: Recommended that harvest notification be handled by the county posting information on its website rather than requiring individual growers to notify neighbors. She suggested that growers notify the county of harvest start and completion dates to help residents prepare for odor impacts and report problems.
- David Clary: Criticized the short notice period for the hearing and the lack of public input. He argued that changing the cultivation area definition to match the state’s canopy-based measure would expand the cap by 10-20% and be difficult to enforce. He opposed the change and suggested that legal non-conforming operators should be given only 30 days to cease operations.
- Kayvon Bagby: Noted that only 250 acres out of the 1,575-acre cap have received business licenses. He supported bringing processing back into the county to retain tax revenue and suggested amending Land Use Permits (LUPs) to add processing, noting that appealed LUPs currently cannot be amended.
- Lindsay Coakley: Opposed the harvest notification requirement for outdoor growers, arguing it is unfair compared to greenhouse growers and does not align with the Public Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) findings. She supported aligning the county’s definition of cultivation with state requirements and allowing ownership changes after vetting.
- Benjamin Condren: Explained the tax implications of the current cap, noting that fresh cannabis is taxed at a lower rate than dried flower. He supported removing processing from the cap and exploring industrial zones for processing facilities to avoid an influx of industrial buildings on agricultural land.
- Teddy Cabugos: Described the logistical and fiscal challenges of transporting cannabis out of county for processing. He noted that local cultivators are forced to choose between out-of-county processing or a fresh-frozen model, both of which result in lost revenue for the county. He suggested that there are zones within the county suitable for drying and processing facilities.
- Kapuno Curry: Noted that only about 16.2% of the cap has been issued business licenses. He supported streamlining the process and aligning vocabulary with the state for enforcement purposes. He warned that processing facilities require significant odor mitigation and construction, and that public notification of harvest dates could lead to abuse and security concerns.
- Mark Ciotillo: Representing the Santa Barbara Coalition for Responsible Cannabis, he requested that staff ensure community involvement in the stakeholder process. He supported a careful analysis of the processing issue and the harvest notification requirement, noting that odor impacts are significant in the Buellton area. He suggested a sunset date of March 1 rather than June 30 for legal non-conforming uses to prevent auto-flower cultivation and maintain program integrity.
- Anna Carrillo: The final speaker was called but did not provide a recorded statement in this transcript segment.
- Resident from Carpinteria Valley: Requested a sunset date for legal nonconforming operators who have not received land use permits or are not on the business license applicant list. The speaker noted that 13 sites in Carpinteria Valley remain in nonconforming status without County Development Permits (CDPs). The speaker requested that all operators, regardless of permit status, be required to participate in the state’s track and trace system and provide API keys to the county. The speaker opposed expanding acreage caps, arguing that any cap should include processing, retail, and cultivation acreages proportionately. The speaker expressed disagreement with a proposed section allowing operators to continue operations if they timely file for renewal, citing unresolved odor issues despite promised quarterly inspections. The speaker requested increased transparency in the public business license chart, including approval and renewal dates, and stated that processing licenses should cover the whole parcel rather than separate applications. The speaker also requested that land use permits be final before acreage counts toward limits.
- Board Direction and Resolution:
- The Board discussed the proposed harvest noticing requirement. Staff clarified that harvest schedules vary by project description. Board members expressed concern that the current language was unclear regarding how harvests are staged across acreage and that the requirement might not effectively address odor concerns or provide adequate notice to the public. Several members indicated they were not prepared to support the provision as written due to these ambiguities and the complexity of practical application.
- The Board discussed the sunset date for legal nonconforming operators who do not yet have approved land use permits. Staff clarified that the current ordinance proposal addresses only this subset of six operators, with a proposed 120-day sunset. Board members discussed whether to extend this deadline to June 30, 2022, to allow more time for complex projects to complete permitting. The Board indicated a preference for extending the sunset date for the subset without permits to June 30, 2022.
- The Board provided direction for future amendments to the cannabis ordinance:
- 1. Use-it-or-lose-it Provisions: The Board directed staff to develop options for requiring operators to commence cultivation within a certain timeframe (e.g., six months) after receiving a business license, or to release the acreage from the cap if not utilized. 2. Processing Facilities: The Board directed staff to investigate why processing facilities are not being established, including whether the cap or permitting process is a barrier. The Board requested options for streamlining processing approvals and encouraging on-site processing, rather than immediately limiting the number of facilities. 3. Change of Ownership: The Board directed staff to investigate issues related to change of ownership, including potential loopholes involving LLC changes, and to bring back findings and potential solutions. 4. Cultivation Definition: The Board discussed aligning the county’s definition of cultivation with state law, which would exclude roads, rows, and bathrooms from acreage calculations, potentially freeing up cap space. Staff noted that changing the definition in Chapter 50 would require corresponding changes in Chapter 35 (Planning Code). 5. Compliance and Enforcement: The Board discussed the need for a graduated enforcement structure for minor violations, as current penalties are limited to misdemeanor charges or license revocation.
- Motion: Adopt Recommended Actions A through C, with the following amendments:
- 1. Extend the sunset date for legal nonconforming operators without land use permits from 120 days to June 30, 2022. 2. Strike the proposed Section 50-25A11 regarding harvest noticing.
- Second: The motion was seconded.
- Vote: Passed unanimously.
Closed Session
- The Board entered closed session to discuss two litigation matters (Blanco v. County of Santa Barbara and Kohler v. County of Santa Barbara and Goleta Water District) and a public employee appointment for Director of Behavioral Wellness. Upon returning, the County Counsel reported that no reportable action was taken in closed session.
Closing Remarks and Adjournment
- The Clerk of the Board acknowledged Silvio Mata, CSB TV studio manager, noting his retirement from the county after 32 years of service and that this was his final official Board of Supervisors meeting. The Clerk thanked Mata and his family for their support. A board member extended congratulations to Mata on behalf of the board and announced that the next meeting would be held on November 9 in Santa Maria. The meeting was concluded.