Board of Supervisors

Meeting Summary

Present: Williams, 3-Hartmann, 5-Lavagnino · Absent: 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

Ratification of Local Emergency Proclamation

The Board considered ratifying a local emergency proclamation issued for 2021 Storm 2.
Staff noted that damage assessment on Refugio Road was ongoing and light rain was expected.
The Board unanimously approved the staff recommendation to ratify the proclamation.

Passed 4–0 · unanimous

County Executive Officer’s Report

The report highlighted awards for the Cannabis Retail Storefront Outreach Program and Public Health Department.
Karen Milligan was recognized as the South Region Employee of the Year by Chief Probation Officers of California.
Toni Navarro was introduced as the new Director of Behavioral Wellness.

Encampment Resolution Funding

The Board reviewed a grant application to the State Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council for $2.5 million.
The Chair expressed concern that specific Lompoc sites fitting grant criteria were excluded from the application.
Staff suggested using ARPA funds for additional focus areas to maintain the competitiveness of the state grant.
The Board unanimously authorized the submission of the grant application.

Passed 4–0 · unanimous

Re-ratification of Drought Emergency Proclamation

The Board considered the 60-day renewal of the local emergency proclamation caused by drought conditions.
A requested public comment from Floyd Wicks was noted, but the individual did not join the virtual meeting.
The Board unanimously approved the re-ratification of the proclamation.

State of Emergency Circumstances

The Chair indicated this would be the final approval of the existing state of emergency declaration.
The Chair expressed discomfort with continuing the declaration unless state legislation changes.
The Board unanimously approved the staff recommendation regarding the circumstances of the emergency.

Passed 4–0 · unanimous

CAL FIRE Grant Agreement

The Board reviewed grant agreement number 5GA20114 between CAL FIRE and the Santa Barbara County Fire Department.
Public comment recognized the Fire Department and CAL FIRE for their support of the Tepescay community.
The Chair noted the grant amount was $6.5 million for a vegetation management program.
The Board unanimously approved the grant agreement.

Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary Resolution

Public comment included concerns about regulatory impacts and support for balancing environmental protection with human use.
Supervisor Hartman supported the nomination as the first tribe-led national marine sanctuary nomination.
The Chair requested that the item be tracked in the Legislative Committee to allow for Board comment on the management plan.
The Board unanimously adopted the resolution in support of the sanctuary designation.

Passed 4–0 · unanimous

Resolution of Commendation for Barbara Ann Perez

The Board adopted a resolution honoring Barbara Ann Perez for her retirement after over 35 years of service.
Ms. Perez was unable to attend the meeting due to an emergency.
The resolution was adopted unanimously.

Resolution of Accommodation for Steve Herring

The Board adopted a resolution honoring Steve Herring for his retirement after decades of service.
Mr. Herring expressed gratitude, and Supervisor Hartman noted his community leadership in Vandenberg Village.
The resolution was adopted unanimously.

Resolution of Accommodation for Vandenberg Village Lions Club

The Board adopted a resolution honoring the Vandenberg Village Lions Club for their 40th anniversary.
Rob Glasgow represented the club, and Supervisor Hartman highlighted the importance of civic organizations.
The resolution was adopted unanimously.

Passed 4–0 · unanimous

2022 Juvenile Justice Realignment Plan

Staff presented the plan reflecting the shift of responsibility for certain felony youth from the state to the county.
The "Peak Restoration Program" at the Susan G. Komen Juvenile Justice Center will house 2 to 5 youth per year.
The program utilizes evidence-based interventions and plans to integrate youth with the general population as they age.
The Board unanimously approved staff recommendations A through C.

Passed 4–0 · unanimous

Cannabis Compliance Enforcement and Taxation Update

Staff reported $3.1 million in tax revenue, a 25% decrease from the same quarter last year due to supply glut.
Enforcement actions included seizing 3,253 live plants and over 1,000 pounds of dried product.
The Board discussed the impact of low prices on the black market and the need for strict enforcement.
Staff noted that a Chapter 50 ordinance amendment to remove processing activities from the acreage cap is planned for February.

Cannabis Program Update and Chapter 50 Ordinance Amendment

Staff identified a potential solution to remove processing activities from the current acreage cap.
The Board discussed directing a portion of retail tax revenue to community education and best management practices.
Public comment included requests for faster permitting and concerns about odor complaints on Highway 246.
The Board unanimously voted to receive and file the staff recommendation and the CQA.

Appeal of Santa Barbara Ranch Inland Development Agreement

The Board reviewed an appeal regarding the developer's compliance with creek restoration obligations.
Staff recommended denying the appeal, stating the developer satisfied obligations by funding the plan and offering assistance.
Appellants argued the developer failed to ensure restoration occurred within the seven-year deadline.
The Board voted 3-2 to give the developer notice of failure to perform, allowing time to cure.

Passed 4–0 · unanimous

Bien Nacido Vineyards Appeal of Cannarios LLC Cannabis Project

Staff recommended denying the appeal and granting de novo approval of the modified cannabis cultivation project.
Appellants raised concerns regarding water usage, compost management, and air quality impacts.
The applicant argued the project is compliant and that opposition is based on a desire to delay rather than curable impacts.
The Board voted 4-1 to deny the appeal and approve the revised project.

COVID-19 Update

Staff reported 416 active cases and a case rate of 12.8 per 100,000, with unvaccinated individuals at higher risk.
New CDPH guidance requires universal indoor masking statewide until January 15.
Dr. Ansorg briefed the Board on the Omicron variant, noting it spreads faster than Delta and has more mutations.
The Board accepted the report with four votes in favor and one member absent.

Closed Session

The Board convened to discuss existing and anticipated litigation, including Arlington v. County of Santa Barbara.
The Board reported a unanimous decision to initiate civil litigation.
Details regarding defendants were withheld to protect the agency’s ability to effectuate service or conclude settlements.

Full summary

Meeting Opening and Announcements

The Board of Supervisors called the December 14, 2021, meeting to order. The Clerk announced that meetings are broadcast in Spanish via secondary audio programming and reminded the public of participation methods, including in-person attendance at Santa Barbara and Santa Maria hearing rooms (where indoor masks are required for individuals over two years of age) and virtual participation via Zoom (requiring advance registration). The Clerk noted that an ex-agenda item regarding a local emergency proclamation had been posted, requiring a four-fifths vote.

Approval of Minutes

Item: Approval of minutes from the December 7, 2021, meeting.
Action: A motion to approve was made and seconded.
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Passed 4–0 · unanimous

Passed 3–1 · against: Williams

Ex-Agenda Item: Ratification of Local Emergency Proclamation

Item: Consideration of recommendations regarding the ratification of a proclamation of local emergency caused by the 2021 Storm 2.
Discussion: The County Executive Office requested ratification of the proclamation issued the previous day. Staff noted that damage assessment, particularly on Refugio Road, was ongoing and that light rain was expected. The Clerk noted this item requires a four-fifths vote and that a motion stating the need to act arose after the agenda was posted was required.
Action: A motion to place the item on the agenda was made and seconded. A subsequent motion to approve the staff recommendation was made and seconded.
Outcome: Both motions passed unanimously.

Passed 4–0 · unanimous

County Executive Officer’s Report

Item: Report from the County Executive Office.
Discussion: The report highlighted several recognitions:
The Cannabis Retail Storefront Outreach Program received one of 21 CSAC Challenge Awards.
The Public Health Department received one of 28 CSAC Merit Awards for its Latinx and Indigenous Migrant COVID-19 response.
Karen Milligan, Probation Research and Special Projects Manager, was named South Region Employee of the Year by the Chief Probation Officers of California.
Toni Navarro was introduced as the new Director of Behavioral Wellness, assuming duties from interim director Dr. Pam Fisher.
Action: No formal motion was taken on the report itself; it was presented for information.

Approval of Administrative Agenda

Item: Approval of the administrative agenda.
Discussion: The Chair noted that items A7, A11, A13, A17, and A44 were pulled for individual discussion. Item A46 was initially listed as pulled but was corrected by the Clerk to indicate it was not pulled for public comment, though it was later addressed individually. The motion was to approve the balance of the administrative agenda with the exception of items A7, A11, A13, A17, and A44.
Action: A motion to approve the balance of the administrative agenda (excluding the specified items) was made and seconded.
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Passed 4–0 · unanimous

Administrative Item A7: Encampment Resolution Funding

Item: Consideration of recommendations regarding the submission of an encampment resolution funding ERF application to the State of California Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council.
Discussion: The Chair expressed disappointment that certain sites in Lompoc were not included in the identified sites for the grant, noting these areas fit the grant criteria. Staff explained that the application was a competitive grant and altering it now might reduce competitiveness for the available $2.5 million. Staff suggested using ARPA funds for additional focus areas. The Chair stated they would not hold the item up but expressed concern about the lack of attention to Lompoc.
Action: A motion to authorize the grant application was made and seconded.
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Administrative Item A11: Re-ratification of Drought Emergency Proclamation

Item: Consideration of recommendations regarding the re-ratification of a proclamation of local emergency caused by drought conditions (60-day renewal from October 19, 2021).
Discussion: A public comment request from Floyd Wicks was noted, but the individual did not join the virtual meeting.
Action: A motion to approve the item was made and seconded.
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Administrative Item A13: State of Emergency Circumstances

Item: Consideration of recommendations regarding the circumstances of the existing state of emergency.
Discussion: The Chair stated they were using the Brown Act and state of emergency provisions to pull this item. The Chair indicated this would be the last time they would approve the declaration, expressing discomfort with continuing it in the future unless legislation changes.
Action: A motion to approve the staff recommendation was made and seconded.
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Administrative Item A17: CAL FIRE Grant Agreement

Item: Consideration of recommendations regarding grant agreement number 5GA20114 between CAL FIRE and the Santa Barbara County Fire Department.
Discussion: Public comment was provided by Rene O’Neill, who recognized the Fire Department and CAL FIRE for their support of the Tepescay community and the multi-million dollar vegetation management program grant. Supervisor Hartman praised the team’s work in the Vandenberg Village and Tepescay areas. The Chair noted the grant amount was $6.5 million.
Action: A motion to approve the item was made and seconded.
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Administrative Item A44: Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary Resolution

Item: Adoption of a resolution in support of the designation of the Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary.
Discussion:
Public Comment: Claire Weinmann (Grower Shipper Association) expressed concern about undefined regulatory impacts and the exclusion of the South Coast, urging the Board to reconsider support until more information is available. Sam Cohen (San Dinez Band of Chumash Indians) encouraged participation in the process to balance environmental protection and human use. Linda Kropp (Environmental Defense Center) thanked the Tribal Council and highlighted the benefits of sanctuary protection based on the Channel Islands model. Violet Sage Walker (Northern Chumash Tribal Council) clarified that the nomination was grassroots-led and not top-down, and offered to discuss engagement further.
Board Discussion: Supervisor Hartman supported the nomination, noting it was the first tribe-led national marine sanctuary nomination and would protect culturally significant areas while maintaining access for fishing. The Chair expressed interest in moving forward but emphasized the need for the County to be an engaged stakeholder in the management plan process, particularly regarding commercial and wind energy assets. The Chair requested that the item be tracked in the Legislative Committee to allow for meaningful Board comment on the future management plan.
Action: A motion to adopt the resolution was made and seconded.
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Passed 4–0 · unanimous

Administrative Item A45: Resolution of Commendation for Barbara Ann Perez

Item: Adoption of a resolution of commendation honoring Barbara Ann Perez upon her retirement from the Sheriff’s Office after over 35 years of service.
Discussion: The Clerk read the resolution into the record. Ms. Perez was unable to attend due to an emergency.
Action: The resolution was adopted.
Outcome: Passed.

Administrative Item A46: Resolution of Accommodation for Steve Herring

Item: Adoption of a resolution of accommodation honoring Steve Herring upon his retirement after decades of service in the armed forces and federal civil service.
Discussion: The Clerk read the resolution into the record. Mr. Herring, present in Santa Maria, expressed gratitude. Supervisor Hartman noted his long service and community leadership in Vandenberg Village. A written message from Trish Mogilski was relayed.
Action: The resolution was adopted.
Outcome: Passed.

Administrative Item A47: Resolution of Accommodation for Vandenberg Village Lions Club

Item: Adoption of a resolution of accommodation honoring the Vandenberg Village Lions Club for their 40th anniversary and community service.
Discussion: The Clerk read the resolution into the record. Rob Glasgow, representing the Lions Club, thanked the Board. Supervisor Hartman highlighted the importance of civic organizations in community well-being.
Action: The resolution was adopted.
Outcome: Passed.

General Public Comment

Item: General public comment on items not on the agenda.
Discussion:
Roseanne Crawford praised the redistricting committee for reaching a compromise.
Justin Shores criticized local health policies regarding masking and lockdowns, questioning the logic and data behind them.
Lydia Kessler addressed Supervisor Williams’ previous statements on physical force, arguing that local policies violate constitutional rights and the ADA regarding mask exemptions for medical conditions.
Maria Kessler expressed pride in her daughter’s comments and alleged violations of the Brown Act, First Amendment, and other laws regarding mask exemptions and treatment of disabled individuals. She mentioned plans to file a tort claim.
The Chair reminded the public of guidelines regarding applause and hand-waving.
One speaker expressed opposition to health mandates, citing legal challenges to social media fact-checking and concerns regarding vaccine safety, pilot mortality statistics, and school closures.
Dr. Amy Smith discussed oversight of the public health department, referencing literature on pharmaceutical industry influence on science and media. She highlighted the availability of monoclonal antibodies and vitamin D, and compared U.S. death rates per million to other countries.
Daniel Lindsay questioned the scientific basis for mask mandates, noting a lack of specific studies on mask effectiveness and suggesting that federal funds should be used for such research. He also commented on the seriousness with which the Board treated mask protocols.
Jamie Davin spoke as a parent, expressing concern about the long-term impact of pandemic restrictions on children’s social development, mental health, and freedom.
A member of the public addressed the board, expressing opposition to government mandates and characterizing current policies as authoritarian. The speaker referenced historical figures and corporate entities, alleging a trend toward totalitarianism and the erosion of civil liberties. The speaker concluded by wishing the board a holiday greeting.
Action: The Chair closed public comment before all nine registered speakers had been heard.
Outcome: Public comment session closed.

Departmental Item 1: 2022 Juvenile Justice Realignment Plan (JJRP)

Presentation: Chief Probation Officer Tanya Heitman and Deputy Chief Sheehan presented the 2022 JJRP. The plan reflects the shift of responsibility for certain serious and violent felony youth from the state Department of Juvenile Justice to the county, effective with the passage of Senate Bill 823. The plan is based on eight guiding principles from the Annie E. Casey Foundation, focusing on equity, safe environments, staff development, varied programming, adolescent development, family partnership, community connection, and continuous quality improvement.
Program Details: The "Peak Restoration Program" was named by youth and staff. It is located at the Susan G. Komen Juvenile Justice Center in Santa Maria. The program anticipates housing 2 to 5 youth per year, with a maximum concurrent population of 5 to 6. It utilizes evidence-based interventions, cognitive behavioral programming, and post-secondary education connections. A secure outdoor green space is planned with state grant support.
Discussion:
Supervisor Hartmann inquired about population size, staff ratios, and whether the youth would be segregated. Staff explained that the youth will be integrated with the general population as they age, with a renovated unit planned for older youth.
Supervisor Hart commented on the innovative and humane approach of the plan, noting it moves away from the state prison model.
Supervisor Lavagnino expressed support for the evidence-based approach and the shift away from disconnecting youth from their communities.
Chair Nelson noted the Board’s role in the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council and the need to advocate for state funding to support these county responsibilities.
Supervisor Williams encouraged the department to continue the work, noting that the smaller population allows for more comprehensive services.
Motion and Vote: A motion was made to approve staff recommendations A through C. The motion was seconded. The roll call was taken, and the motion passed unanimously.

Passed 4–0 · unanimous

Departmental Item 2: First Quarter Update on Cannabis Compliance Enforcement and Taxation (FY 2021-2022)

Presentation: Staff from the County Executive Office presented the first-quarter update.
Tax Revenue: $3.1 million in taxes were collected, representing a 25% decrease from the same quarter last year and a 17% decrease from the previous quarter. Staff attributed this to a supply glut and price compression.
Reporting: Of 69 expected operators, 46 reported gross receipts, 16 reported zero, and 7 did not report (one subsequently reported late).
Land Use: Proposed cultivation acreage totaled 3,173 acres in the inland/coastal unincorporated area and 214 acres in the Carpinteria Ag overlay. Approved acreage was 1,860 acres and 122 acres, respectively. Issued entitlements covered 543 acres and 64 acres.
Business Licenses: 159 applications received; 27 issued. 33 pending applications have issued land use entitlements.
Enforcement: The Sheriff’s Department conducted 8 enforcement actions, seizing 3,253 live plants ($1.6 million value) and over 1,000 pounds of dried product ($1.8 million value). Planning and Development opened 4 new cases and responded to 339 odor complaints.
Emerging Issues: Staff discussed processing the backlog of license applications, determining timelines for phasing in acreage, clarifying ownership changes, and addressing inconsistent definitions of cultivation area.
Upcoming Objectives: A Chapter 50 ordinance amendment to remove processing activities from the acreage cap is planned for February. The cannabis update will transition to an appendix in the quarterly budget updates. Enhancements to the online licensing portal (Acela) are ongoing.
Discussion:
Supervisor Hartmann asked about the impact on the black market, noting that low prices might drive illicit sales. Staff explained that the illicit market is thriving due to lower prices, while legal retail prices remain high due to limited retail locations. She also asked about consequences for legal operators selling to the black market; staff noted that investigations are handled by the Sheriff and District Attorney, and license revocation requires a guilty finding. She requested future reports on compliance violations.
Supervisor Williams discussed the "Goldilocks" price point needed to deter both the black market and legal operators from leaking product.
Supervisor Lavagnino questioned the state tax strategy, noting the state’s surplus and the flat tax structure. Staff mentioned that the Board recently adopted a legislative platform plank addressing state tax issues and that the county is coordinating with other counties (Central Coast Cannabis Forum) to push for changes. He also asked about the delay in building permits; staff indicated they are working with Planning and Development to streamline the process.
Supervisor Hart emphasized the need for strict enforcement and clear consequences for non-compliance, while also supporting efforts to help operators navigate the permitting process.
Chair Nelson asked about the status of the six non-reporting operators; staff noted only one was chronic and had received a notice. He also asked about retail tax on delivery; staff confirmed one licensed delivery operator pays the 6% retail tax based on their location.
The discussion regarding the removal of processing activities from the acreage cap was initiated but cut off at the end of the transcript segment.

Agenda Item: Cannabis Program Update and Chapter 50 Ordinance Amendment

Discussion: Staff presented an update regarding the Chapter 50 Ordinance Amendment, noting that internal meetings with Planning and Development and Council have identified a potential solution to remove processing activities from the current acreage cap. Staff indicated that this would allow operators currently in the process to pursue additional land use entitlements for processing facilities, as the inland cap is currently reached. Staff stated they would return in February with a straightforward amendment to change how the cap is defined without altering other LUDC definitions.
Community Benefit Funds: Discussion focused on community benefit funds associated with retail cannabis operations. Staff clarified that businesses are responsible for choosing how to spend these funds, though the county hopes to guide investment toward education and best management practices through the licensing process. Chair Nelson expressed interest in directing a portion of retail tax revenue to stay in the community where it is generated, similar to a municipal tax. Staff offered to return with options for board direction or discretion on how these funds are spent. Supervisor Hartman noted that retail operations present a smaller burden compared to large-scale cultivation sites, such as those on Highway 246.
Public Comment:
Eric Litman, representing a vertically integrated cannabis company, discussed difficulties in obtaining farm approvals due to the acreage cap and delays in electrical permits that resulted in worker reassignments. He requested creative solutions to speed up the permitting process.
Renee O’Neill expressed support for the Santa Barbara Coalition for Responsible Cannabis.
Joe Phil Borja, a constituent, emphasized the equity, economic, and environmental benefits of legalized cannabis and the importance of supporting operators who provide jobs in disadvantaged communities.
Mark Sciatillo, representing the Santa Barbara Coalition for Responsible Cannabis, raised concerns about odor complaints on Highway 246, requested no backdoor expansion of the acreage cap, called for continued departmental hearings on quarterly reports for transparency, requested transparency in the Acela process, and suggested that changes of ownership should trigger comprehensive reviews.
Board Discussion: Chair Nelson noted that the board had previously approved funding for three countywide cannabis education programs using general fund dollars. He emphasized the need for budget resilience given fluctuating industry numbers, advocating for one-time expenses over ongoing projects. Supervisor Lavagnino countered that cannabis remains the second-largest revenue source for the county, citing $3.1 million collected in the current quarter and approximately $15–17 million in the previous year, while acknowledging the need for security improvements and state coordination.
Motion: To receive and file the staff recommendation and the CQA.
Moved by: Chair Nelson
Seconded by: Supervisor Hartman
Vote Outcome: Passed unanimously.

Agenda Item: Closed Session

Discussion: The board convened in closed session to discuss existing and anticipated litigation, including Arlington v. County of Santa Barbara, Boy Scouts of America v. Delaware BSA, and Judith Zetha v. County of Santa Barbara, as well as decisions regarding the initiation of civil litigation.
Report from Closed Session: The board reported that it took one reportable action: a unanimous decision to initiate litigation. Details regarding defendants and other particulars were withheld to protect the agency’s ability to effectuate service process or conclude settlement negotiations.

Agenda Item: Departmental Item No. 3 – Appeal of Santa Barbara Ranch Inland Development Agreement (IDA) Periodic Review

Case Details: Appeal Case No. 21-APL17 by the Environmental Defense Center, Surfrider, and the Gaviota Coast Conservancy of the director’s determination regarding the Santa Barbara Ranch Inland Development Agreement periodic review.
Late Documents: The board admitted into the record several documents received after the deadline, including public comments from Stanley W. Lamport and Janet Co-ed, a Planning and Development memo, and a PowerPoint presentation from the applicant.
Motion: To admit late documents into the record.
Moved by: Supervisor Hartman
Seconded by: Supervisor Lavagnino
Vote Outcome: Passed unanimously.
Ex Parte Communications: Supervisors reported the following ex parte communications:
Supervisor Lavagnino: None.
Supervisor Hartman: Zoom meeting with Linda Kropp, Brian Troutline, and Rachel Condor (EDC).
Supervisor Hart: Separate conversations with Linda Kropp, Mark Sciatillo, and Stanley Lamport.
Supervisor Williams: Phone and Zoom calls with Mark Sciatillo and Linda Kropp.
Chair Nelson: Zoom call with Stanley Lamport.
Staff Presentation: Staff presented the appeal of the director’s determination that the Santa Barbara Ranch developer is in compliance with the IDA. The IDA, approved in 2014, requires the developer to pay $100,000 for a creek restoration plan and $300,000 to a nonprofit for implementation, with an obligation to offer reasonable assistance. Staff stated that the developer satisfied these obligations by depositing funds with qualified nonprofits and providing assistance, including peer reviews and coordination. Staff addressed five appeal issues, arguing that the IDA does not require the developer to obtain approval for or complete an alternative creek restoration project, but only to offer reasonable assistance. Staff recommended denying the appeal and affirming the director’s determination of good faith compliance.
Appellant Presentation: Rachel Condor (Environmental Defense Center) and Anna Citron (Gaviota Coast Conservancy) argued for the termination of the IDA. They contended that the developer failed to ensure creek restoration occurred within the seven-year deadline and did not offer all reasonable assistance for an alternative project. They stated that 90% of the $300,000 was spent on planning, leaving insufficient funds for restoration, and that the developer waited too long to notify the county of infeasibility at Dos Pueblos Creek. They argued that the director’s determination was not supported by substantial evidence and that the board should uphold the appeal to terminate the agreement.
Applicant Presentation: Stanley Lamport, representing the developer, stated that the IDA required the developer to condition payment to the nonprofit for restoration elsewhere, not to perform the restoration itself. He explained that the developer worked with landowners for years until a storm in 2019 altered the creek, leading the landowner to withdraw consent. Lamport argued that the developer satisfied all obligations by funding the plan, conditioning payment as required, and offering assistance, and that the director’s compliance determinations from 2015–2020 were final and unappealed. He stated that the developer’s cooperation obligation ended once the primary plan became infeasible, though they continued to assist in good faith.
Public Comment:
Gregory Carpain, a resident and Gaviota Coast Conservancy board member, stated that the developer had not met its creek restoration obligations and asked the board to enforce the agreement.
Nancy Tubiolo supported the appeal, emphasizing the ecological importance of the Gaviota Coast and creeks, and argued that development without environmental protection is inconsistent with preserving the area.
Marcus Lopez, Chairman of the Barbary Chumash Tribal Council, stated that the project would destroy a sacred area of cultural and historic importance to the Chumash and urged the board to enforce the development agreement.
Phil McKenna, a former Naples Coalition president, stated that the developer did not provide implementation of creek restoration, citing that no physical work was done despite extensions. He noted unanimous public opposition to the development and asked the board to approve the appeal and terminate the IDA.
Rebuttal: Rachel Condor (Appellant) responded to the applicant’s presentation, citing emails indicating the developer knew of the landowner’s non-participation in mid-2019 but did not notify the county until March 2020. She reiterated that the IDA required the completion of an alternative restoration project within seven years and that the developer is ultimately responsible for ensuring the benefit is realized.
Continued Discussion:
Applicant’s Counsel: Argued that the developer fulfilled its obligations by working with the nonprofit implementation partner and that the failure of the specific creek restoration project was due to stakeholder opposition to alternative sites, not a lack of effort by the developer. Counsel stated that the developer acted in good faith and requested the board uphold the Director’s determination.
Appellant’s Counsel: Rebutted by stating the record was incomplete regarding other IDA conditions and that the benefits recited in the IDA related to a project configuration that no longer exists. Counsel argued the developer should have had a more developed contingency plan and noted that only $32,000 in funds remained, which may be insufficient for a meaningful restoration project without additional funding from the developer.
Board Questions: Supervisors asked whether the environmental community prevented performance and if there was still an opportunity to identify a project. Staff clarified that the developer’s obligation was to provide "all reasonable assistance," which is limited by their lack of direct relationships with landowners. Staff noted that the nonprofit had successfully attracted over $200,000 in grant funding, fulfilling the intent to attract other resources.
Staff Recommendation: County Council advised that if the board determines there is a default, the item should be continued to allow staff to prepare findings and a notice of default, triggering a meet-and-confer process. If not cured, the item would return to the board for a termination hearing of the development agreement (not the permit itself).
Motion and Vote
Motion: Supervisor Hartman moved to give the developer notice of failure to perform, allowing time to cure.
Second: Supervisor Hart seconded the motion.
Amendment/Clarification: The motion was clarified to include a direction for staff to prepare findings and evidence, and to return to the board with a notice consistent with the supervisors' outlines. Staff recommended this approach over an indefinite continuance.
Vote Outcome: The motion passed (3-2).

Passed 4–0 · unanimous

Agenda Item: Departmental Item No. 4 – Bien Nacido Vineyards Appeal of Cannarios LLC Cannabis Cultivation Project (Case Nos. 21-APL27 and 19-LUP116)

Preliminary Motion
Motion: Supervisor Lavagnino moved to place several late-submitted documents (including replacement exhibits, memos, and presentations from both parties) into the public record.
Second: Supervisor Hartman seconded the motion.
Vote Outcome: The motion passed (unanimous).
Staff Presentation
Project Description: Staff presented the modified project, a commercial cannabis cultivation operation on a 431-acre property in the Ag 2100 Zone. The project includes 46.29 acres of outdoor mature plant cultivation (with hoop structures), a nursery, a transport staging area, and support structures. The project was revised to include a 1,000-foot setback from the appellant’s wine tasting room and the removal of a flash freezer.
Appeal Issues: Staff addressed six appeal issues raised by the appellant (Bien Nacido Vineyards/Miller family), including consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, CEQA compliance, and compliance with laws regarding river modifications and well usage.
Staff Findings: Staff found the project compliant with the LUDC and Williamson Act. Staff determined that the Programmatic EIR (PEIR) was adequate, no subsequent environmental review was required, and the appellant failed to provide substantial evidence of new or significantly increased impacts. Staff recommended denying the appeal and granting de novo approval of the modified project.
Appellant Presentation (Courtney Taylor)
Key Arguments:
Wells: The applicant changed the proposed water source from Well 1 to Well 2 late in the process, complicating the hydrogeological analysis regarding State Water Board forbearance periods.
Compost/Waste: The project lacks detail on compost management, including a proposed 90-day stockpiling period for drying cannabis waste, raising concerns about odor, VOC emissions, and potential impacts on Steelhead trout in the adjacent river.
Trucking/Emissions: The applicant’s emissions calculations rely on assumptions (e.g., vehicle type, plant density) that should be incorporated into the project approval to ensure accurate operational limits.
Berm/Grading: The appellant argued that a berm diverting the Cuyama River is located primarily in Santa Barbara County and that construction activities related to it are not exempt from grading permit requirements.
Air Quality: The appellant cited new information regarding biogenic VOCs and ozone formation, arguing the PEIR did not adequately address site-specific impacts given nearby NOx/PM emitters.
Request: The appellant requested the board uphold the appeal and deny the project, or at least ensure careful review of the raised issues.
Applicant Presentation (Abel Maldonado)
Key Arguments:
History: The applicant highlighted their history of farming industrial hemp on the property (over 600 acres in recent years) with no reported issues for neighboring vineyards.
Modifications: The applicant stated they made significant concessions, including removing the flash freezer, increasing setbacks, and adding landscaping, in response to Planning Commission feedback.
Compatibility: The applicant argued that the appellant’s opposition is not based on curable impacts but rather a desire to delay or downsize the project, citing the appellant’s previous statements that no changes would satisfy them.
Legal/Procedural: The applicant characterized the appeal as a misuse of CEQA to delay the project and argued that the project is the "best cannabis project in the county" due to its organic nature and scale.
Discussion and Q&A
The applicant’s representative addressed concerns raised by the appellant regarding the project’s location, water usage, composting, and air quality. The applicant stated that the well was moved closer to the project to provide a buffer to a neighboring tasting room and is located over 3,000 feet from the Cuyama River and 2,000 feet from the Sisquah River. The applicant cited expert opinions that the well would not divert surface water. Regarding composting, the applicant explained that the facility was oversized as a precaution and that the process involves drying and tilling plant material back into the soil, rather than hot composting. The applicant noted that three site-specific studies on greenhouse gases, VOCs, and terpene taint showed no impact from the farm.
Supervisor Hartman questioned the size of the compost site and the number of hoops used for cultivation. The applicant explained that the compost area was oversized for caution and located away from neighboring farms. The applicant stated that two-thirds of the cultivation operation is under hoops to protect against overspray and odor drift, citing a previous loss of bee colonies due to suspected spraying activity. The applicant confirmed the permit allows for two harvests per year.
Supervisor Hartman asked about the berm on the property. Staff responded that they reviewed aerial photos dating back to the late 1960s and early 1970s, indicating the berm is a historical feature. Staff contacted the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Fish and Wildlife, and San Luis Obispo County, all of which reported no violations regarding the berm. Staff noted that while the appellant claimed the berm was rebuilt after the 1998 floods without permits, staff did not find substantial evidence to support that claim. Staff confirmed that the Regional Water Quality Control Board has jurisdiction over the well’s interaction with surface water, which is outside the scope of the current land use permit.
Supervisor Williams asked about the plant density mentioned in the DUDEC analysis (1,500 plants per acre) and where this would be controlled in the permitting process. Staff stated that plant density is not a component of the Land Use Development Code or the business license. The applicant stated they would not commit to a specific plant density due to market conditions and flexibility needs but affirmed that their Transportation Demand Plan limits truck trips to two per day. Supervisor Williams expressed concern that accepting the density analysis as evidence without committing to it in the permit conditions sets a bad precedent. The applicant maintained that the truck trip limit is the primary control for transportation impacts.
Public Comment
One public speaker, a council member from the City of Marina, voiced support for the project, citing the applicants’ experience and the project’s potential economic benefits.
Rebuttals
The appellant’s representative rebutted the applicant’s points, stating that odors from previous hemp cultivation were noted by buyers, the well location was changed late in the process, and their expert confirmed the well interacts with subsurface flows. The appellant disputed the characterization of the appeal as an abuse of CEQA, stating the issues were serious for the neighboring family. The appellant also noted that the berm was rebuilt after the 1998 floods.
The applicant’s representative rebutted by stating the berm predates the current owner’s purchase and that no violations have been issued. The applicant reiterated that the well is 600 feet deep and regulated by the Twitchell Management Authority, making surface water impact unlikely. The applicant cited site-specific air quality studies that found no increase in ozone or other impacts.
Staff Comments
Staff confirmed that the well’s interaction with surface water is under the jurisdiction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Staff stated that the composting operations meet required setbacks and that the berm is a historical feature with no reported violations from relevant agencies. Staff noted that the air quality impacts were considered in the Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) as a class one impact.
Deliberations
Supervisor Lavagnino stated that the project has been exhaustively evaluated, is properly zoned, and complies with regulations. He supported staff’s recommendation to deny the appeal.
Supervisor Hartman acknowledged the sensitivity of the site but stated that the issues raised by the appellant were fully vetted and did not find a reason to support the appeal. She supported staff’s recommendation.
Supervisor Williams expressed concern about the applicant’s unwillingness to commit to the plant density used in the analysis, viewing it as a bad precedent. However, she acknowledged the truck trip limit as a control measure.
Supervisor Hart stated that he could not find that staff erred in their findings and supported denying the appeal.
Motion and Vote
Supervisor Lavagnino moved to adopt staff recommendations A, B, C, and D: to deny the appeal, make required CEQA findings, determine the PEIR is adequate, and grant de novo approval of the revised project. Supervisor Hart seconded the motion.
The motion passed 4-1.

Agenda Item: Departmental Item 5 – COVID-19 Update

Presentation
The County Executive Office presented an update on COVID-19 in Santa Barbara County. As of the briefing date, there were 21 new cases, 416 active cases, and a total of 46,655 cases. The current case rate was 12.8 per 100,000. There were 39 patients hospitalized and 554 total deaths. The testing positivity rate was 3.5%.
Data indicated that unvaccinated individuals had a case rate nearly four times higher than fully vaccinated individuals. Hospitalization and death rates were approximately 12.5 to 13 times higher for unvaccinated individuals. Hospitalizations had increased 34% over the past two weeks.
Vaccination data showed that 63.8% of the county population was fully vaccinated, with higher rates in South County. Booster uptake was higher than state and national averages for the 50+ and 65+ age groups. Vaccination rates among 5-11 year olds were lower in communities of color compared to white and Asian American communities.
The briefing covered new CDPH guidance effective December 15, requiring universal indoor masking statewide until January 15. Existing local health orders would continue to apply. Exemptions were maintained for indoor sports, exercise, and performers (with weekly testing). Events with more than 1,000 people required proof of vaccination or negative tests (48 hours for PCR, 24 hours for antigen). Travelers to California were recommended to test within 3-5 days of arrival.
Dr. Ansorg provided a briefing on the Omicron variant, noting it has at least 30 mutations on the spike protein, spreads faster than Delta, and has a higher rate of breakthrough and reinfections. A third vaccine dose is recommended for better protection against severe disease. The UK had the highest number of confirmed Omicron cases, with 40% of new infections attributed to the variant. The US estimated that 3% of new cases were due to Omicron, with higher percentages in some regions. The briefing emphasized the need for layered protections, including vaccination, masking, and testing, to mitigate spread.
Q&A
Chair Nelson asked for clarification on vaccination rates for 5-11 year olds by region, noting a discrepancy between the overall percentage and the regional breakdown. The presenter acknowledged the confusion and stated they would review the raw numbers and provide clarification.
Public Comment
One public speaker was scheduled to comment via Zoom.

Motion to Accept Report

Action: Chair Nelson requested a motion to conclude the meeting. The Clerk of the Board moved to accept the report. Supervisor Williams seconded the motion.
Outcome: The motion passed with four votes in favor and one member absent.

Adjournment and Memorial

Action: Chair Nelson announced the adjournment of the meeting.
Memorial: Chair Nelson dedicated the closing of the session to Harvey Wynn, a longtime Santa Barbara County firefighter and Lompoc resident who passed away on December 4th. Chair Nelson noted that a memorial service for Mr. Wynn is scheduled for the following Sunday at 2 p.m. at Wampanoag Forest Corps Church.