Meeting Summary
Present: 3-Hartmann, Katz, 4-Nelson, 5-Lavagnino, Williams
This summary was AI-generated to save you time. It may miss or misstate details, so verify against the official recording and the transcript.
At a glance
CEO’s Report and Announcements
- The Community Services Department secured $155 million in funding for the Tri-County Regional Energy Network business plan through 2031.
- The board submitted a letter of support for a CHIPS Act funding application from Teledyne FLIR.
- State budget allocations were noted for the Lompoc Theater Project and the County Fire Department’s Marine Rescue.
Vice-Chair’s Announcement
- A Fifth District Town Hall is scheduled for July 19 to address storm damage, road access, and the Santa Maria River levee trail.
Clerk’s Announcements
- An agenda addendum was posted to include closed session items regarding litigation, labor negotiations, and a performance evaluation.
Agenda Item A7: Amendment to Chapter 50 (Cannabis Licensing)
- Public comment raised concerns that a strict "one minute late" revocation clause would disproportionately harm small cannabis farms.
- Staff recommended extending the tax payment window to 60 days to allow time for financial preparation while keeping the reporting deadline at 30 days.
- The board decided to trail the item to bring back a redlined version with the extended payment window and consistent denial language.
Bundle Vote on A17, A18, A23, and A29
- The board approved the staff recommendations for the Smartsheet agreement, SB CAG Airport Land Use Commission funding, flood control projects, and the rooster ordinance.
- These items were voted on collectively rather than individually.
Agenda Item A28: Residential Eviction Ordinance (Chapter 44)
- Public comment was divided, with some speakers requesting exemptions for single-family dwellings and others urging passage to protect tenants from corporate acquisition.
- Staff clarified that the ordinance generally exempts housing issued a certificate of occupancy within the previous 15 years and specific owner-occupied residences.
- The board passed the motion to support the ordinance, with some members citing enforcement concerns in North County and others citing the need to address displacement.
CAO’s Report: CSAC Challenge Awards
- The county received a CSAC award for the Montecito Neighborhood Trails Partnership, which built ADA-compliant paths at a lower cost than similar projects.
- The county received a second award for its COVID-19 Health and Human Services Recovery and Resiliency Strategies Program, which initiated over 25 projects.
Departmental Item 1: Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreement (Zones 4 and 5)
- Staff recommended a 10-year franchise agreement with Marburg Industries, which scored highest in the RFP and proposed rates 5.3% lower than the current provider.
- Public comment included support for retaining the current provider, Waste Management, and opposition to exclusive zones, while Marburg representatives emphasized local hiring and competitive pricing.
- The board approved the staff recommendation to move forward with the Marburg agreement, citing the RFP results and cost savings.
Closed Session
- The board considered existing litigation involving UDCAL and SEIU Local 620, as well as a public employee performance evaluation.
- The board reported out of closed session and took no reportable action.
Departmental Item No. 2 – Conflict of Interest Code Amendment
- Staff recommended adding the Board of Supervisors Department Chief of Staff position to the County’s Single Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Code under Disclosure Category 1.
- The board discussed the scope of the designation and the need for transparency, noting that comparable counties require similar filings.
- The board passed a motion to consider adding the Chief of Staff and all positions in the Board offices to the code under Disclosure Category 1.
Departmental Item No. 3 – SB 1439 Campaign Contribution Requirements
- Staff presented changes to the Political Reform Act that extend the prohibition period for accepting campaign contributions from parties involved in pending proceedings to 12 months.
- Board members discussed the complexity of defining "participants" and the lack of proactive duties for officials to investigate financial interests.
- The board voted to receive and file the presentation and return with more information from the Fair Political Practices Commission.
Montecito Planning Commission’s and County Planning Commission’s Recommendation to Adopt a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Case No. 22 GPA 5)
- Staff presented amendments to the Safety Element to meet legislative requirements and incorporate the 2022 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan.
- Public comment expressed concern about vague language in wildfire policies, while staff explained the changes were made to avoid conflict with housing opportunity provisions.
- The board unanimously adopted the staff recommendation to approve the comprehensive plan amendment.
Administrative Item 7 – Amendment to Chapter 50 of the County Code (Licensing of Cannabis Operations)
- Staff presented revised recommendations adjusting the timing for tax reports and payments to improve budget predictability and administrative feasibility.
- The board adopted the recommended actions, constituting the first reading of the revised ordinance.
Coral Casino Amendment Project (Case Nos. 23 APL 15–18, 23 APL 20, 22 AMD 5, 22 CDP 79)
- Staff recommended denying appeals and granting de novo approval of the project as revised, following a settlement that restricts public access and defines club privileges.
- Public comment was largely supportive of the resolution, with some members expressing concerns about vagueness in seating and financial details.
- The board approved the amended application and denied the appeal, preserving the negotiated agreement.
Full summary
Meeting Opening and Roll Call
- The July 11, 2023, meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors was called to order. The Clerk of the Board called the roll, and all five supervisors were present. The board recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes
- The board considered the approval of the minutes from the June 2023 meeting. A motion was made and seconded. The motion passed.
CEO’s Report and Announcements
- The Chief Executive Officer provided announcements regarding the Tri-County Regional Energy Network (3CREN), noting that the Community Services Department secured $155 million in funding with CPUC approval for the business plan through 2031. The board submitted a letter of support for a CHIPS Act funding application from Teledyne FLIR. The state budget includes approximately $2.3 million for the Lompoc Theater Project and $750,000 for the County Fire Department’s Marine Rescue. Assistant Public Defender Lamar Kyle Griffiths was appointed to the National Association of Public Defense Board of Directors. The board noted that California State Association of County Chiefs (CSAC) awards would be presented later in the meeting.
Vice-Chair’s Announcement
- Vice-Chair Lavinino announced a Fifth District Town Hall scheduled for July 19 at 6 p.m. at Guadalupe City Hall to address storm damage, road access, and the Santa Maria River levee trail.
Clerk’s Announcements
- The Clerk noted an addendum to the agenda posted on July 7, amending the closed session agenda to include litigation (Utco v. County of Santa Barbara), labor negotiations with SEIU, and a public employee performance evaluation. Information on public participation methods was provided.
Consent Calendar
- Supervisor Nelson noted that items A7, A17, A18, A23, A28, and A29 were pulled from the consent calendar for individual discussion. A motion was made and seconded to approve the balance of the consent calendar. The motion passed.
Agenda Item A7: Amendment to Chapter 50 (Cannabis Licensing)
- Public Comment: Three speakers expressed concern that the proposed "one minute late" revocation clause for business license renewals would disproportionately harm small cannabis farms due to cash flow issues and market volatility. They requested more leniency in the timeline.
- Discussion: Supervisor Nelson raised concerns about the immediate license revocation and potential litigation, asking for staff recommendations on discretion. The Chief Deputy Tax Collector stated that 30 days is tight for operators to prepare financial statements and pay taxes, recommending 60 days, and noted that penalties for late payments already exist. The CEO’s office clarified that the initial 30-day timeline matched existing Chapter 50 language but acknowledged board discretion. Supervisors discussed the trade-off between enforcing timely tax payments and providing sufficient time for compliance. Supervisor Lavinino proposed extending the payment window to 60 days to avoid unintended consequences, while maintaining the 30-day reporting deadline. Supervisor Katz opposed the change, arguing that 30 days was the original staff recommendation. Supervisor Hartman supported the 60-day extension based on staff input.
- Decision: The board decided to trail the item. A motion was made and seconded to trail the item and bring back a redlined version of the text that extends the tax payment window to 60 days while keeping the reporting deadline at 30 days, and ensuring consistent language for initial denial and renewal denial grounds.
- Vote: The motion to trail the item passed 4-1.
Agenda Item A17: Smartsheet Inc. Agreement
- Discussion: Supervisor Katz asked the IT Director to explain the software procurement process. The IT Director explained that the Executive Information Technology Council reviews new IT initiatives and that the Smartsheet agreement is an annual renewal of a countywide license negotiated to save money compared to individual departmental licenses.
- Decision: No separate vote was taken; the item was bundled with A18, A23, and A29 for a collective vote.
Agenda Item A18: SB CAG Airport Land Use Commission Agreement
- Discussion: Supervisor Nelson asked if other jurisdictions fund this work. Staff confirmed it is a general fund pass-through for the county’s contribution to the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SB CAG) for Airport Land Use Commission services. Supervisor Nelson noted support for current funding but expressed a desire to monitor future costs to ensure the county is not paying more than its fair share.
- Decision: No separate vote was taken; the item was bundled with A17, A23, and A29 for a collective vote.
Agenda Item A23: Flood Control Projects
- Discussion: Supervisor Nelson highlighted the Santa Maria River pilot channel project, thanking Flood Control and Public Works staff for their work on storm damage mitigation. Supervisor Katz echoed the gratitude for preventive measures. Supervisor Williams noted the responsiveness of Flood Control and OEM staff.
- Decision: No separate vote was taken; the item was bundled with A17, A18, and A29 for a collective vote.
Agenda Item A29: Rooster Ordinance
- Discussion: Supervisor Nelson asked Supervisor Hartman to explain the background of the ordinance. Supervisor Hartman stated that the ordinance is needed to address nuisance complaints regarding roosters kept in non-agricultural settings. She noted that the proposed ordinance, based on a Los Angeles model, would limit the number of roosters by parcel size and require permits for larger numbers, potentially addressing underlying issues of animal cruelty or illegal cockfighting. Supervisor Nelson supported the ordinance and noted his district also faces similar issues.
- Decision: No separate vote was taken; the item was bundled with A17, A18, and A23 for a collective vote.
Bundle Vote on A17, A18, A23, and A29
- A motion was made and seconded to approve the staff recommendations for items A17, A18, A23, and A29.
- Vote: The motion passed 5-0.
Agenda Item A28: Residential Eviction Ordinance (Chapter 44)
- Public Comment: Seven speakers addressed the board. Andy Caldwell (CoLab) argued that the ordinance goes too far by including single-family dwellings and requested an exemption. Nadia Abushanab (SBCAN/Tenant) urged the board to pass the ordinance as drafted, arguing that single-family tenants need protection. Linda Honigman (League of Women Voters) supported the ordinance as drafted, citing the loss of affordable housing to corporate acquisition. Richard Appelbaum (Clergy and Laity United) supported the ordinance and suggested adding language to clarify that units vacated for substantial remodeling are not subject to vacancy decontrol if the tenant has a right of return. Max Golding (Santa Barbara Tenants Union) supported the ordinance but suggested that the right of return should include a rent cap. Philip Tabianin (Property Manager) urged the board to reconsider the mandatory lease component, arguing that a "one size fits all" approach may force owners to sell properties. Stanley Zankoff’s comment was not fully recorded. A representative of the Santa Barbara Tenants Union spoke in support, clarifying that the ordinance applies to single-family homes renting out three or more rooms and aligns with existing state law.
- Staff Clarification: Staff explained that under Section 44-22, the ordinance generally exempts housing issued a certificate of occupancy within the previous 15 years (unless it is a mobile home), single-family owner-occupied residences where the owner rents no more than two units or bedrooms, and residential real property alienable separate from the title of any other dwelling unit, provided the owner is not a Real Estate Investment Trust, corporation, LLC, or mobile home park management.
- Board Discussion: Supervisors discussed the implications of these exemptions. One Supervisor expressed concern that the ordinance may not fit the rental patterns in North County, where single-family homes often have multiple rooms rented to different individuals, and stated they would not support the measure due to enforcement concerns. Another Supervisor expressed philosophical disagreement, believing the ordinance might limit rental stock and lead to sales, and cited concerns regarding North County impacts. A third Supervisor supported the ordinance, citing constituent reports of tenants being displaced from rented rooms in the Guadalupe area. A fourth Supervisor supported the measure, stating the intent is to address corporate acquisition of low-income housing stock.
- Motion and Vote: A motion was made to support the ordinance and was seconded.
- Vote: The motion passed 3-2.
CAO’s Report: CSAC Challenge Awards
- The Chief Administrative Officer introduced Chastity Benson, Chief Operating Officer for the California Association of Counties (CSAC), to present two 2022 Challenge Awards to Santa Barbara County. 1. Montecito Neighborhood Trails Partnership: CSAC recognized the partnership between the Santa Barbara County Public Works Department and the community-based Bucket Brigade. The collaboration built more than 2.2 miles of ADA-compliant pedestrian paths in Montecito following the 2018 debris flow. The project was completed in less than two years at approximately one-fifth the cost of similar projects. 2. COVID-19 Health and Human Services Recovery and Resiliency Strategies Program: CSAC recognized the County Health and Human Services Department for its three-year recovery and resiliency plan developed in response to the pandemic. The plan focused on behavioral health, economic revitalization, community health, organization and technology, housing and homelessness, and disaster resiliency. The estimated cost over three years is $46 million, funded by ARPA, SAIT, and HomeKey funds. As of June 30, 2022, more than 25 projects had been initiated, including the development of over 76 shelter beds and the resolution of 59 encampment sites.
General Public Comment
- Brian Rosen: Spoke regarding a dispute with a trustee over the sale of a family home in Montecito. The speaker alleged the trustee delayed releasing funds, attempted to sell the property below market value, and failed to address roof repairs. The speaker requested the Board’s assistance in contacting the trustee to release funds. The Chair offered to have staff assist the speaker with contacting the trustee.
- CJ Jackson: Spoke regarding Romero Creek in the First District. The speaker stated that the creek has not received significant rehabilitation compared to other drainages and posed a threat to life and property. The speaker requested that the CEO agendize an assessment of the threat and that the Board contact the California Water Resources Board to facilitate involvement by the Army Corps of Engineers.
- E Planet Thunderstriker: Raised questions regarding population replacement rates, citing figures suggesting three children are needed to maintain population levels. The speaker discussed demographic shifts and expressed concerns about media and government transparency. The Chair clarified that the replacement-level fertility rate in the United States is 2.1 children per family according to the U.S. Census Bureau, and that aid eligibility is not determined by race.
Departmental Item 1: Solid Waste Collection Franchise Agreement (Zones 4 and 5)
- Staff Presentation: Staff presented the results of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for solid waste collection services in Zones 4 and 5. The current provider, Waste Management, holds a two-year agreement expiring June 30, 2024. Staff recommended a 10-year franchise agreement with Marburg Industries, effective July 1, 2024.
- RFP Process: Four proposals were received from EJ Harrison and Sons, Marburg Industries, Waste Management, and Waste Connections. Marburg scored highest overall (19.25/20), followed by EJ Harrison (17.35), Waste Management (15.45), and Waste Connections (10.2).
- Cost: Marburg’s proposed rate revenue is approximately $13.9 million annually, which is 5.3% lower than Waste Management’s current rate revenue of $14.7 million. Residential rates would decrease by 4–13%, and commercial rates by 2–6%.
- Evaluation Criteria: Cost competitiveness (40%), experience and qualifications (35%), contract exceptions (15%), and proposal enhancements (10%).
- Employee Transition: The agreement includes a provision for Marburg to offer positions to qualified Waste Management employees first.
- Facilities: Marburg is required to have at least one ABOP (antifreeze, batteries, oil, paint) facility in each zone. Staff noted that Marburg is in discussions to secure a facility in Santa Maria and has engaged a provider for compressed natural gas fueling infrastructure.
- CEQA: Staff recommended the Board determine the agreement is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
- Board Questions and Staff Responses:
- Employee Protection: Staff confirmed that Marburg is required to offer positions to qualified Waste Management employees first, consistent with county labor code.
- Facility Location: Staff stated that the specific location of yards and administrative offices was left to the proposers' discretion, provided there is at least one ABOP facility per zone.
- Old Carts: Staff explained that Marburg could purchase and rebrand existing Waste Management carts, or the carts could be recycled.
- Negotiation History: Staff explained that the RFP was initiated because Waste Management requested rate increases approximately 50% higher than current rates during negotiations, and subsequent attempts to negotiate lower rates were unsuccessful.
- Enhancements: EJ Harrison’s proposal included a $250,000 annual contribution to local edible food recovery programs.
- Exclusivity: Staff explained that franchise agreements are exclusive for the life of the contract. Competition occurs when contracts expire. The ordinance was updated to allow a single franchised hauler in unincorporated areas to ensure all potential haulers could bid.
- Assignment: Staff confirmed that if a provider assigns the franchise, the entire zone must be assigned.
- Bulky Items: The Marburg agreement includes up to four free bulky item pickups per year.
- Compost: Marburg plans to use the Engel & Gray facility for green and food waste composting.
- Guadalupe City: Staff noted that the City of Guadalupe has a separate contract with Waste Management.
- Contract Exceptions: Three of the four proposers did not take exceptions to the draft agreement; Waste Connections did.
- Employee Relocation: Marburg’s representative stated they do not plan to relocate North County employees to South County and intend to service the community with local staff.
- Public Comment: Due to the high number of speakers (32), time limits were reduced to one minute per speaker.
- Jessica Shealy: Spoke in support of retaining Waste Management, citing their long history of service and reliability.
- Tracy Baird: Spoke in support of Waste Management, highlighting their community contributions, education programs, and response to the January floods. The speaker advocated for consumer choice and requested no rate increases for the duration of a 10-year contract.
- Hagen Blount: Expressed gratitude for Waste Management’s support of a local sustainability foundation and event.
- Ryan Smith: Spoke against exclusive zones, arguing that competition benefits the community and lowers costs. The speaker expressed concern that the ordinance change and RFP process created an appearance of impropriety and requested that Board members who have received contributions from Waste Management recuse themselves.
- Celine Salas: Comment not fully transcribed.
- Waste Management (WM) Representatives: Multiple employees and managers spoke in support of WM. They requested the Board reconsider staff recommendations and reopen negotiations. Speakers cited employee benefits, community involvement, safety records, and competitive pricing. Sondra Persley, representing WM, provided financial context, stating that WM’s rates were lower than Zone 2 rates and that they had offered to freeze rates despite a 60% increase in their lease costs. She specifically requested the Board consider reopening negotiations for Zone 5.
- Marburg Industries Representatives: Brian Borgatello, Joaquin Hernandez, Scott Ramsey, and Derek Carlson spoke in support of Marburg’s proposal. They emphasized Marburg’s local presence, competitive pricing, and commitment to hiring existing WM employees with comparable benefits. Joaquin Hernandez shared his personal experience of transitioning from Allied Waste to Marburg. Scott Ramsey, a local business owner, cited Marburg’s responsiveness to emergency service needs.
- EJ Harrison & Sons Representative: Bill Camarillo presented the proposal from EJ Harrison & Sons, noting they were second in scoring. He highlighted their 91 years in business, competitive pricing, and inclusion of the SB1383 procurement option.
- Private Citizen: Peter Lortzen, a farm manager, expressed concern that awarding the contract to a single hauler would create a monopoly and eliminate competition.
- Staff Presentation (Rate Revenue Comparisons):
- Zone 5: Marburg’s standalone proposal represented a 4% decrease in rate revenue compared to current rates. WM’s alternative proposal (shipping trash out of county) represented a 0.5% decrease. WM’s standard proposal (keeping trash in county) represented a 4.4% increase.
- Zone 4: Marburg’s proposal represented a 6.8% decrease compared to current rate revenue. WM’s standard proposal represented a 13.3% increase. WM’s alternative proposal represented an 11.7% increase.
- Board Discussion: Supervisors discussed the RFP process, the importance of competitive rates, and the track records of the bidders. One Supervisor noted that while WM is a strong company, it did not rank in the top two proposals, and as a fiduciary for taxpayer dollars, they must consider cost. They expressed support for staff’s recommendation. Another Supervisor acknowledged the strong relationship with WM but stated that the decision must be based on the RFP results and rates. They noted that Marburg is a responsible provider with a local track record and expressed readiness to move forward with the contract allocation. Other Supervisors expressed support for the staff recommendation, citing the transparency of the RFP process and the strong reputations of the bidders. One Supervisor noted that while they appreciated WM’s community involvement, the decision was driven by the RFP outcome and rates. The Board acknowledged the concerns of WM employees regarding job security and benefits, noting that Marburg had publicly committed to hiring them with comparable benefits.
- Motion and Vote: A motion was made to move forward with the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded.
- Vote Outcome: Passed unanimously.
Closed Session
- The Board entered closed session to consider: 1. Existing litigation: UDCAL v. County of Santa Barbara (case conference with labor negotiators for SEIU Local 620 and Union of American Physicians and Dentists). 2. Public employee performance evaluation for a county executive officer.
- Report: The Board reported out of closed session and took no reportable action.
Departmental Item No. 2 – Conflict of Interest Code Amendment
- Presentation: The County Executive Office presented a hearing to consider adding the Board of Supervisors Department Chief of Staff position to the County’s Single Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Code.
- Context: The Political Reform Act requires public officials with financial interests in decisions to file a Statement of Economic Interest (Form 700). Currently, the Chief of Staff position is not designated in the county’s single code.
- Recommendation: Add the Chief of Staff position to the code with Disclosure Category 1 (broadest disclosure requirements).
- Comparables: Four of seven comparable counties (Orange, Santa Cruz, Sonoma, Ventura) require their Chiefs of Staff to file Form 700 under Category 1.
- Process: If approved, the Clerk-Recorder-Assessor will bring a resolution to amend the code at a future meeting.
- Board Discussion: Supervisors discussed the scope of the designation. One Supervisor asked if other positions in the office should be included, noting that multiple staff members advise on policy. Staff clarified that the item specifically addressed the Chief of Staff position but other positions could be considered. Supervisors discussed the requirement for outside employment/activity notifications under County Code Section 27-7, noting that employees must obtain department head approval for outside activities that may be incompatible with their duties. Supervisors expressed support for the amendment, citing transparency, accountability, and alignment with neighboring counties. One Supervisor noted that they had previously filed Form 700 voluntarily when serving as Chief of Staff. The Board discussed the potential to expand the requirement beyond just the Chief of Staff to other positions in the Board offices that participate in decision-making.
- Motion and Vote: A motion was made to consider the addition of the Chief of Staff position and all positions in the Board offices to the Conflict of Interest Code under Disclosure Category 1. The motion was seconded.
- Vote Outcome: Passed unanimously.
Departmental Item No. 3 – SB 1439 Campaign Contribution Requirements
- Presentation: Staff presented background on SB 1439, which amended Section 84308 of the Political Reform Act (Levine Act) effective January 1, 2023. The law removed the exemption for directly elected local officials (such as Board of Supervisors) regarding campaign contributions from parties, participants, or agents involved in pending proceedings. Key changes include extending the prohibition period for accepting contributions from three months to 12 months after a final decision and defining "pending" proceedings. Staff outlined the recently approved Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) regulations, which clarify definitions for officers, agents, participants, and competitively bid contracts. Staff noted that local agencies are responsible for compliance, though FPPC fact sheets are still pending. Staff highlighted that Orange County has implemented a policy requiring disclosure forms from applicants prior to agenda placement. Staff recommended the Board receive and file the presentation, provide direction as appropriate, and deem the item not subject to CEQA.
- Board Discussion: Board members discussed the complexity of determining which proceedings are covered, the definition of "participants" (those actively supporting or opposing a decision with a financial interest), and the lack of a proactive duty for officials to investigate financial interests. Concerns were raised regarding the exclusions for competitively bid and labor contracts, the difficulty of tracking contributions relative to specific agenda items, and the potential for inadvertent violations. Several members expressed a desire for direct guidance from the FPPC, including a study session or briefing, to clarify enforcement and compliance obligations.
- Motion and Vote: A motion was made to receive and file the presentation and to return with more information from the FPPC. The motion was seconded.
- Vote Outcome: Passed unanimously.
Montecito Planning Commission’s and County Planning Commission’s Recommendation to Adopt a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Case No. 22 GPA 5)
- Staff Presentation: Staff presented amendments to the Safety Element of the Comprehensive Plan regarding wildfire hazard information and policies. The amendments aim to meet legislative requirements (SB 1241, SB 1035, SB 99), incorporate the 2022 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, and address recommendations from CAL FIRE’s Safety Element Assessment. Specific updates include mapping "Single Egress Neighborhoods" (residential developments with only one emergency evacuation route) in various hazard zones, updating wildfire policies and actions, and adding hyperlinks to new interactive maps. Staff noted that the amendments are exempt from CEQA under Guideline Section 15061(b)(3). The Montecito and County Planning Commissions recommended approval.
- Public Comment: Kendra Duncan O’Connor expressed concern about the change in language for Policy 1.2 from "shall discourage" to "will consider," arguing the new language is vague and inadequate for life safety. She also requested updates to the draft map to include all foothill areas outlined in CAL FIRE survey reports.
- Staff Response: Staff responded that the language change in Policy 1.2 was made to avoid potential conflict with Government Code provisions regarding housing opportunities, while maintaining the goal of risk minimization. The Fire Department concurred, stating that existing fire codes and regulations provide sufficient tools for mitigation. Staff clarified that Policy 8.1 does not change development standards or fire marshal authority regarding "same practical effect" alternatives for ingress/egress requirements, which remains consistent with state fire safe regulations and the California Fire Code.
- Motion and Vote: A motion was made to adopt the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded.
- Vote Outcome: Passed unanimously.
Administrative Item 7 – Amendment to Chapter 50 of the County Code (Licensing of Cannabis Operations)
- Staff Presentation: Staff presented revised recommendations for an amendment to Chapter 50 regarding cannabis licensing. The revisions, resulting from a previous first reading, adjust the timing for tax reports and payments. Tax reports are due at the end of the reporting month, and taxes are due 60 days from the due date. The consequence for non-compliance (inability to issue or renew a license) becomes effective 60 days from the tax due date. Staff noted these changes provide more predictable budgeting data and additional time for the Treasurer-Tax Collector. Staff recommended a first reading of the revised ordinance, with a second reading scheduled for July 18.
- Board Discussion: Board members discussed the benefits of the 30-day reporting window for budget predictability and the 60-day payment window for administrative feasibility. No public comment was received.
- Motion and Vote: A motion was made to adopt the recommended actions and the memorandum dated July 11, constituting the first reading of the ordinance. The motion was seconded.
- Vote Outcome: Passed unanimously.
Coral Casino Amendment Project (Case Nos. 23 APL 15–18, 23 APL 20, 22 AMD 5, 22 CDP 79)
- Staff Presentation: Staff presented the appeals of the Montecito Planning Commission’s approval of the Coral Casino Amendment Project. The project involves amending the site’s development plan to modify conditions regarding public use of the second-floor restaurant, membership allowances, and the number of hotel guest rooms. Following the Planning Commission’s approval, five appeals were filed. Subsequently, the applicant and appellants reached a resolution, agreeing to edits in the project description and Condition 22 to further restrict public access and define club privileges. Staff found the project consistent with CEQA and applicable policies, and recommended denying the appeals and granting de novo approval of the project as revised.
- Public Comment:
- A public comment letter from Chris Saldo was received and placed into the record.
- Appellant Kim Seefeldt spoke on behalf of herself and other appellants, noting that the settlement terms are included in both the project description and Condition 22. She stated that the appellants would withdraw their appeals upon the Board’s approval of the amended application.
- Appellant Douglas Larch expressed support for the project, noting that the negotiated resolution addressed concerns regarding membership and privacy.
- Applicant Bill Medell represented the owner, thanking staff and the County Counsel for facilitating the resolution. He requested the Board approve the memorandum and findings, deny the appeals, and accept the amended application to allow the club to reopen.
- Staff clarified that the Board must deny the appeals and accept the amended application as a single action.
- Ed Brown stated he was not in favor of the proposal, citing vagueness regarding seating arrangements, dining reservations, and financial details. He expressed frustration with an email received suggesting that support for the club was necessary to prevent its closure.
- John Wilczak expressed support for the project, noting his long-term involvement with the club and appreciation for recent improvements made by the ownership team, including the elimination of hotel guest access.
- David Peterson expressed excitement about the facility reopening.
- Jim McFarlane expressed support, citing his membership since 1997 and the club’s history as a venue for charitable functions.
- Penelope Bianchi expressed gratitude for the resolution of delays and looked forward to the club reopening.
- Amanda Lee expressed support for the ownership team’s management and the proposed changes.
- Victoria Frost stated she had been a member since 1986 and a member of the Coral Casino Member Committee since 2017. She reported that over 150 members supported the resolution and urged the board to move forward.
- Board Discussion:
- Supervisor Nelson commented on the successful mediation between the parties and the community interest in reopening the Biltmore and Coral Casinos.
- A board member stated support for the recommended actions but noted concerns that the county’s involvement in the operations of a private club could set a bad precedent regarding the use of police powers. Despite this, the speaker indicated willingness to support the applicant’s proposal as long as it did not negatively impact the surrounding community.
- A motion was made to adopt staff recommended actions A through D.
- Supervisor Nelson confirmed that the motion meant the amended application was approved and the appeal was denied, while preserving the agreement.
- Vote Outcome: The motion to approve the amended application and deny the appeal was passed.
Adjournment
- The board adjourned the meeting, with the next session scheduled for Tuesday, July 18, in Santa Barbara.