UnGovr Words

Board of Supervisors — 2022-02-15

Board of Supervisors — 2022-02-15February 15, 2022

Switch meeting
BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 February 15, 2022

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.

Present: Williams, 4-Nelson, 5-Lavagnino, 3-Hartmann

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

Planning Commission Appointment

  • Supervisor Lavinino requested to pull the item to provide context regarding the departure of the current commissioner due to redistricting.
  • Vincent Martinez, an attorney with land use expertise, was introduced as the new appointee for the 5th District.
  • The Board approved the administrative agenda, including the appointment, unanimously.

LAFCO Appointments

  • Supervisors discussed the allocation of regular and alternate seats to best represent district-specific interests, particularly regarding recent annexation applications.
  • Supervisor Williams expressed a desire to serve as the regular member to fulfill responsibilities more fully.
  • Supervisor Nelson stated he should serve as the regular member to represent Santa Maria Valley interests but agreed to the alternate role.
  • The Board appointed Supervisor Williams as the regular member and Supervisor Nelson as the alternate member for four-year terms.

Countywide Recreation Master Plan

  • Staff requested funding and contract amendments to expand the scope of work, including drafting zoning and comprehensive plan amendments for recreational facilities.
  • The consultant presented a strategic planning program aimed at creating a unified countywide recreational footprint and identifying priority projects.
  • The Board discussed the "private project with public recreational benefit" concept and the need for a programmatic Environmental Impact Report.
  • The Board adopted staff recommendations to proceed with the expanded scope and funding.

Chapter 50 Cannabis Amendments

  • Staff presented amendments to remove processing activities from acreage caps and establish a deadline for legal non-conforming operators to obtain licenses.
  • The Board debated the sunset date for non-conforming operations, ultimately agreeing to move it to late October 2022 to avoid harvest season.
  • Concerns were raised regarding odor control, traffic impacts, and the capacity of Building and Safety to process applications.
  • The Board adopted the amendments with a modified sunset date of October 31, 2022.
Passed 4–1 · against: Hartmann

Cadwell Cannabis Cultivation Project Appeal

  • Staff recommended denying the appeal and approving the 24.45-acre cultivation project, citing adequate water supply and zoning compliance.
  • The appellant argued the applicant misled the Planning Commission and violated regulations regarding diesel generator use.
  • The Board discussed discrepancies in water supply claims and the applicant's history of violations.
  • The Board approved the project with an additional condition prohibiting the use of generators for cultivation except during emergencies.
Passed 3–1 · against: Hartmann

COVID-19 Update

  • Public health officials reported a significant decrease in new cases and hospitalizations, though deaths increased among individuals aged 70 or older.
  • The local universal indoor masking mandate for vaccinated individuals was rescinded to align with state guidelines, though continued masking is recommended.
  • Officials provided updates on school masking guidance and the availability of testing kits for early childhood care providers.
  • The Board received and filed the public health updates unanimously.

Closed Session

  • The Board entered closed session to discuss existing litigation and confer with labor negotiators.
  • Staff reported that no reportable action was taken during the closed session.

Full summary

Meeting Start and Roll Call

  • The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors meeting for February 15, 2022, was called to order. Roll call confirmed the presence of all five supervisors. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

Approval of Minutes

  • Item: Approval of minutes from the February 8, 2022 meeting.
  • Action: A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes.
  • Decision: The motion passed unanimously.
Passed 3–1 · against: Hartmann

CEO’s Report

  • Item: CEO’s Report.
  • Action: The CEO stated there was no report for this session.

Announcements

  • Item: Clerk’s Announcements.
  • Discussion: The Clerk announced a rearrangement of the departmental agenda order for the day, listing specific times for LAFCO appointments, the Recreation Master Plan, Chapter 50 Cannabis amendments, the Cadwell Cannabis appeal, and the COVID-19 update. The Clerk reminded the public that meetings are broadcast live in Spanish via Cox Cable (South County) and Comcast (North County) using Secondary Audio Programming (SAP). Public participation methods were outlined, including in-person attendance in Santa Barbara and Santa Maria hearing rooms with mandatory mask usage for those over two years old, and virtual participation via Zoom with advance registration. Each speaker is limited to three minutes.

Administrative Agenda

  • Item A16: Appointment of Vincent Martinez to the Planning Commission (5th District), term ending December 31, 2022.
  • Discussion: Supervisor Lavinino requested to pull this item from the agenda to provide context. She noted that the current commissioner, Dan Blau, is leaving due to redistricting after 14 years of service. She introduced Vincent Martinez, an attorney with land use expertise, as the new appointee. Supervisor Hartman commented on her experience working with Commissioner Blau.
  • Action: A motion was made and seconded to approve the administrative agenda (including Item A16).
  • Decision: The motion passed unanimously.
Passed 4–1 · against: Hartmann

General Public Comment

  • Item: General Public Comment.
  • Discussion: Four members of the public provided comments:
  • 1. Maria Kessler (via Zoom) commented on a Department of Homeland Security bulletin regarding domestic terrorism and misinformation, arguing that labeling speech as a threat undermines free speech and scientific debate. 2. Tom Becker (via Zoom) requested that supervisors honor constituent requests to ask specific questions of county departments during agenda items and compel responses, noting that the public lacks the power to compel such responses. 3. Scott Wentz (In Person), representing "Cars are Basic," requested the county implement drone technology for lifeguards and beach patrols to deliver flotation devices, citing that this technology is mature and used in Los Angeles. He noted this request has been made for five years.

Departmental Item 1: LAFCO Appointments

  • Item: Hearing to appoint two members of the Board of Supervisors to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for terms from March 1, 2022, through March 1, 2026 (one regular member, one alternate).
  • Discussion:
  • The Clerk presented the request from the LAFCO Executive Officer. Current appointments (Supervisor Lavinino as regular, Supervisor Williams as alternate) expire March 1, 2022.
  • Supervisor Williams expressed a desire to serve as the regular member to fulfill the responsibility more fully, noting she has only voted on two items in two years as alternate. She offered to step down for issues specific to other districts.
  • Supervisor Lavinino suggested a collaborative approach where the alternate steps aside for district-specific issues.
  • Supervisor Nelson stated that due to recent annexation applications in the Santa Maria Valley, he believes he should serve as the regular member to represent those interests. He expressed willingness to serve as alternate if necessary but preferred the regular position.
  • Supervisor Hartman noted the practice of alternates moving to regular positions and pledged to support Supervisor Nelson’s speaking on Santa Maria Valley issues if he served as alternate.
  • County Counsel noted they are no longer counsel for LAFCO but could review quorum issues.
  • Action: Chair Hartman made a motion to appoint Supervisor Williams as the regular member and Supervisor Nelson as the alternate member for four-year terms. The motion was seconded.
  • Decision: The motion passed unanimously.

Departmental Item 4: Countywide Recreation Master Plan

  • Item: Hearing to consider recommendations regarding the Countywide Recreation Master Plan update and a Consulting Service Agreement Amendment with Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions Inc.
  • Discussion:
  • Staff Presentation: Staff requested the Board to receive and file a status report on the Recreation Master Plan. They requested direction on expanding the scope of work, including amendments to the comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, and community plans to facilitate recreational facility development. Staff requested funding of $490,000 ($40,000 equity set-aside, $450,000 from parks/trails/open space funds) for outreach, drafting amendments, and environmental review. They requested approval of a budget revision of $120,000 and a contract amendment with Wood in the amount of $400,506 for additional outreach and environmental review. Staff requested a determination that the recommended actions are exempt from CEQA under 15262.
  • Consultant Presentation: The consultant described the project as a strategic planning program to improve parks, trails, and recreation facilities countywide. Key objectives included creating a unified countywide recreational footprint, identifying needs and priority projects, targeting funding, and exploring collaborative approaches. Progress reports covered outreach efforts, inventory of existing facilities, and preliminary needs assessment. Five recreation planning areas were identified: Cuyama Valley, Santa Maria Valley, San Ynez Valley, Lompoc Valley, and South Coast. Demographic indicators and preliminary data on parkland acreage per 1,000 residents were presented, noting variations across planning areas. Anticipated projects included Halama Beach improvements, Point Sal Trail system access, and a Guadalupe area campground study. The benefit of a programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to streamline environmental review for future projects was explained.
  • Scope Expansion Details: Staff outlined the next steps for the recreational needs assessment, involving evaluating the level of service by planning area, assessing outreach data, and incorporating known needs from partner agencies. The current recreational planning framework was addressed, noting that the County’s land use element recreation section was last updated in 1980 and that the adopted standard of 4.7 acres per 1,000 people is lower than the typical benchmark of 10.6 acres per 1,000 people. Staff identified limitations in current park acquisition tools in built-out areas.
  • Private Project Concept: Staff proposed expanding the scope to include a "private project with public recreational benefit" concept, allowing private property owners to propose public recreational amenities as part of their development projects. Recommendations included conducting additional public workshops, developing a menu of recreational types, drafting amendments to the County Zoning Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan, and Community Plans, creating an incentive program, and initiating a programmatic EIR.
  • Financial Breakdown: The $490,000 request includes $40,000 from the Equity Set-Aside Fund for expanded outreach and $450,000 for the scope change process (funded by North and South County Set-Asides). The $450,000 covers community services, consultant fees, filing costs, and a ceiling for Planning and Development to process amendments. An economic analysis of the value of recreation is included in the current contract scope. The projected timeline includes finalizing outreach and drafting the Master Plan by summer 2022, beginning the EIR in fall 2022, and completing the project for Board adoption in winter 2022-2023.
  • Board Questions: Inquiries were made regarding the inclusion of the economic impact analysis (confirmed as part of existing scope), the tie-in with the Agricultural Enterprise Ordinance (staff explained complementary roles and potential assimilation into Phase 3 of the Ag Ordinance), the timing of farm stays (moving ahead of the Ag Ordinance), outreach and equity efforts (working with Sustainability Division), additional outreach to agricultural groups, and database integration with the Conservation Blueprint.
  • Public Comment: Thirteen public speakers addressed the Board. Comments included urging the inclusion of private projects in the scope (Chip Wolbrandt); supporting agricultural and experiential tourism (Demetrius Lizidis, Karen Loizidis, Kevin Gleason); urging maintenance of safe equestrian access and exclusive use of certain trails (Pat Fish, Kathy Rosenthal, Sheila Benedict, Karen Luckett); expressing confusion about the plan’s status and concern about broad ordinance amendments conflicting with agriculture (Claire Weinman); supporting the Master Plan and funding while emphasizing coordination and high-quality scoping (Nancy Emerson); supporting expanded scope and collaboration with cities for trail access (Kyle Richards); and expressing support for the Master Plan and trail safety (Dawn Perrine). Suzanne Duca passed on speaking.
  • Board Deliberations: Supervisor Hartman expressed support for the plan, emphasizing the balance between planning and implementation and suggesting expansion to include specific trails and parks. She advocated for flexibility in regulations for private pilot projects. Supervisor Lavinino thanked Councilmember Richards for comments on collaboration with Goleta and viewed the initiative as an investment in youth health, emphasizing connectivity and working with willing landowners while mitigating agricultural impacts. Supervisor Williams expressed satisfaction with progress and interest in incentives for private property owners, noting areas in his district requiring surveys. Supervisor Hartman responded by encouraging colleagues to work with the outreach team for community meetings and highlighting opportunities for agritourism.
  • Action: A motion was made by Supervisor Lavinino to adopt staff recommendations A through F. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Williams.
  • Decision: The motion passed.

Departmental Item 3: Amendment to Chapter 50 (Licensing of Cannabis Operations)

  • Item: Proposed amendments to Chapter 50, adopted in 2018.
  • Discussion:
  • Presentation: Ms. Heaton presented amendments addressing three areas: 1) Removing drying, curing, and trimming from the acreage cap calculation to allow processing-only facilities; 2) Establishing a June 30, 2022, deadline for legal non-conforming operators to obtain business licenses or cease operations, with a six-month grace period; and 3) Allowing ownership transfers exceeding 20% and license transferability to another operator on the same permitted parcel. The Carpinteria Ag Area cap was noted as not yet reached. Future amendments include "use it or lose it" provisions and flailing as an agricultural practice.
  • Board Discussion: Supervisor Hartman asked about streamlining processing facilities and raised concerns about the timeline for legal non-conforming operators, suggesting alignment with state permitting timelines. Supervisor Lavinino expressed concern about treating all non-conforming operators the same and requested a breakdown of likely compliance. Supervisor Nelson asked for clarification on processing requirements. Supervisor Williams supported a sooner sunset date to end the non-conforming regime. Supervisor Hartman questioned acreage used for processing and expressed concern about odor control and traffic impacts on Ag-2 lands, stating she was not comfortable with current regulations. Mr. Frappel suggested a September 30, 2022, deadline. Supervisor Williams suggested bifurcating deadlines. Director Plowman supported the September 30 date.
  • Public Comment: Amy Steinfeld supported amendments but requested extending the sunset date into 2023. Hank Blanco supported removing processing from the cap. Nancy Emerson expressed concern about lack of specific regulations for processing. One commenter opposed amendments, citing concerns about standalone processing and the sunset provision. A representative for Pearl Farms opposed the June 30, 2022, sunset date. A representative for Beta Scientific expressed concern that the deadline was insufficient. A representative for the Santa Barbara Coalition for Responsible Cannabis supported the June 30, 2022, sunset date and opposed increasing the Carpinteria cap.
  • Board Discussion (Continued): The board debated the sunset date, with Supervisor Lavinino proposing October 30, 2022, to avoid harvest season. Supervisor Williams suggested a date between June 30 and December 31. Supervisor Nelson agreed October 30 was reasonable. Supervisor Hartman expressed concern about application volume and Building and Safety capacity. The board generally agreed to move the sunset date to late October 2022. Supervisor Hartman raised concerns about standalone processing facilities without odor mitigation, suggesting a CUP requirement. Supervisor Nielsen suggested a CUP would provide more discretion. Supervisor Hartman stated they were not comfortable voting for the package as drafted due to processing concerns. The board discussed the ownership change reporting threshold increase from 10% to 20%, with Supervisor Hartman expressing concern about manipulation and Supervisor Williams stating openness to further amendments for vetting tools.
  • Action: Supervisor Lavinino moved to adopt staff recommendations A, B, and C, along with CEQA guidelines 1 and 2, with a modification changing the sunset date for legal non-conforming operations from June 30, 2022, to October 31, 2022. Supervisor Hart seconded the motion.
  • Decision: The motion passed 4-1.
  • Closed Session: The board entered closed session to discuss existing litigation (Zissa v. County of Santa Barbara) and confer with labor negotiators. Upon returning, staff reported that no reportable action was taken.
  • Final Motion and Vote: Following the closed session, staff presented revised language for Section 50-7A34 reflecting the board's direction to change the sunset date to October 31, 2022. Supervisor Lavinino moved to adopt staff recommendations A, B, and C, with the underlying change to the sunset date, along with CEQA guidelines sections 1 and 2. Supervisor Hart seconded the motion.
  • Decision: The motion passed 3-1-1 (Supervisor Nelson absent; Chair Hartman voting no).

Departmental Item 2: Cadwell Cannabis Cultivation Project Appeal

  • Item: Appeal by the Santa Barbara Coalition for Responsible Cannabis against the Planning Commission’s approval of the Cadwell Cannabis Cultivation Project (Case No. 19 LUP 480).
  • Record and Ex Parte Communications: The clerk read into the record late-submitted public comments and a replacement PowerPoint presentation. A motion to accept these documents into the formal record was made and seconded, passing unanimously. Supervisors disclosed ex parte communications, including site visits and meetings with the applicant’s team and legal counsel.
  • Staff Presentation: Staff presented the appeal regarding a 24.45-acre cultivation area. Staff addressed zoning compliance, water supply adequacy (citing State Water Resources Control Board determination and lower projected usage), Comprehensive Plan compliance, and CEQA findings. Staff recommended denying the appeal, making findings for approval, determining the PEIR is adequate, and granting de novo approval subject to conditions.
  • Appellant Presentation: Mark Shatillo argued the applicant misled the Planning Commission and violated the Cannabis Ordinance regarding diesel generator use, citing pending APCD notices of violation. Dr. Jim McCord presented technical analysis arguing the applicant’s water supply claims were inaccurate and that pumping would have an adverse impact on connected surface water.
  • Applicant Presentation: Lindsey Coakley stated the project is in an agricultural area with no nearby residential zones. She presented data showing an 82% decrease in water usage since 2015 and stated the backup well has sufficient capacity.
  • Board Discussion: The board discussed discrepancies in water supply claims. Staff clarified the State Water Board’s determination and CEQA thresholds. Supervisor Lavinino asked about diesel generator usage at another project; legal counsel stated the scope was limited to the proposed project. Supervisor Hart noted the APCD executive officer confirmed two generators had been at the site but were removed. Supervisor Williams expressed concern about enforcement of the ordinance’s prohibition on diesel generators and the applicant’s history of violations. Staff explained the code prohibits non-emergency generators and the applicant is upgrading to grid power. Supervisor Hartman noted the ADU setback issue was unresolved.
  • Public Comment: Nancy Emerson requested support for the appeal, citing water issues and misrepresentations. Jordan Keir and Tim Becker supported staff recommendations, arguing the water supply relies on a bedrock well outside delineated basins and that demand estimates were exaggerated. Kevin Walsh raised concerns about water use data accuracy and requested Finding 2.11 be referred back to staff. Colin Dvorak expressed support for the project.
  • Rebuttal: The appellant raised concerns regarding State Water Board jurisdiction and APCD violations. The applicant responded that the State Water Board’s Notice of Applicability is in the record and that water usage data is based on metered well usage. Staff clarified the State Water Board’s review and confirmed generators were removed.
  • Condition of Approval Discussion: The Board discussed a proposed condition prohibiting the use of generators for cultivation, except for temporary use during power outages or emergencies. Staff proposed revised language aligning with the Land Use and Development Code.
  • Action: Supervisor Lavinino moved to adopt revised recommended actions 1, 2, 3, and 4, including the additional condition of approval regarding generators. Supervisor Hart seconded the motion.
  • Decision: The motion passed 3-1.

Departmental Item 5: COVID-19 Update

  • Item: Public health update on COVID-19 statistics and guidance.
  • Discussion:
  • Statistics: Dr. Domenoso reported a decrease in new cases (143, a 53% decrease), active cases (1,186, a 49% decrease), and hospitalizations. Deaths increased, with five new deaths reported, all of individuals aged 70 or older. The case rate was 42.35 per 100,000. Vaccination rates were 71.4% for eligible residents. Pediatric vaccination coverage showed 79% of children ages 5 to 11 had not received their first dose. Hospital capacity showed 35% of beds and 26% of staffed ICU beds available.
  • Masking Mandate: Dr. Ansorg discussed the decision to rescind the local universal indoor masking mandate for vaccinated individuals, aligning with the state mandate. He emphasized that public health strongly recommends continued masking in public indoor settings.
  • School Masking: Dr. Domenoso provided information on upcoming state guidance regarding school masking, noting CDPH will reassess the requirement on February 28. He encouraged a layered approach to protection.
  • Q&A: Public health officials provided updates on case trends and uncertainty regarding Omicron sub-variants. They discussed social distancing guidelines, noting droplet and airborne transmission risks. They highlighted efforts to supplement testing kits for early childhood care providers. They provided case rate data for unvaccinated persons and stated that data for vaccinated persons without boosters was not available due to limited case investigation.
  • Public Comment: One speaker presented arguments against vaccination mandates for young children. Another speaker expressed concern regarding the attribution of case drops to mask usage and criticized the characterization of vaccines as gene therapy. Public health officials responded, stating the claim that vaccines are gene therapy is false and reiterating their recommendation for a layered approach.
  • Action: A motion was made to receive and file the public health updates. The motion was seconded.
  • Decision: The motion passed unanimously.

Adjournment

  • The meeting was adjourned until Tuesday, March 1, 2022.