A Zoning and Permitting Issue in the City of Santa Barbara

Conclusions 7

• CL1
  Residents contended in 2014 that the Company’s food processing operations in zone C-M should not have been permitted in zone C-M and have maintained that opinion to the present day.
• CL2
  Following renovations at the Location, which made the Company operational, neighboring residents have complained about machinery noise, odor, and traffic noise from those operations from mid-2014 to the present day.
• CL3
  The Santa Barbara City Council never held a public hearing on the complaints and inquiries from residents affected by food processing operations of the Company at the Location.
• CL4
  The City Attorney of the City of Santa Barbara issued a “cease-and-desist” order to the Company, in July 2015, following citizens’ complaints about the Company and having concluded that the Company’s specific type of food processing is not allowed in the C-M or C-2 zones. 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 7
• CL5
  The City of Santa Barbara Community Development Department issued a Building Permit in 2014 for interior renovations of the Company’s facilities at the Location without review by the City of Santa Barbara Planning Commission since such a review was not required.
• CL6
  Following negotiations between the City Attorney of the City of Santa Barbara and representatives of the Company, those parties drafted a “Settlement Agreement” to mitigate the claimed nuisances – machine noise, traffic noise, and food odor – which recognized that the parties have differing interpretations of the Santa Barbara City Code with respect to zones C-M and C-2 and allowed the Company to continue operations at Location.
• CL7
  In 2014, the City of Santa Barbara issued a Building Permit for a food processing facility at the Location. The work consisted of interior renovations to build cold processing and storage structures. That site at City Address A is in a C-M zone, which is one in which the type of food processing at the Location is neither prohibited nor specifically allowed. City CDD officials interpreted the City’s C-M zoning as allowing food processing because it allows food product manufacturing subject to avoidance of “obnoxious or offensive” disturbances. Some local residents disagree about the interpretation of the C-M zoning and have subsequently complained of noise, food odor, and traffic nuisances created by the food processing operations and have argued that the facility is in a zone where food processing is not allowed. Despite costly measures taken by the Company to comply with notices of code enforcement sent by the City, residents’ complaints continue about the nuisances from the Location. Efforts in 2015 and 2016 to reach a settlement between the City Attorney and representatives of the Company never materialized because of opposition from the affected residents. Several offices of the City of Santa Barbara – the Community Development Department, the City Administrator, the City Attorney, the City Council, the Office of the Mayor – have responded to these complaints, but the 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury found that those responses have not completely eliminated the nuisances to the local residents’ satisfaction. 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 6 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding 1 The City of Santa Barbara Community Development Department issued a Building Permit in 2014 for interior renovations of the Company’s facilities at the Location without review by the City of Santa Barbara Planning Commission since such a review was not required. Recommendation 1 That the City Council of Santa Barbara direct the City of Santa Barbara Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on any zoning, permitting, or Certificate of Occupancy decision, whether involving interior or exterior renovations for any project, that may lead to “obnoxious or offensive” operations in any zone. Finding 2 Residents contended in 2014 that the Company’s food processing operations in zone C-M should not have been permitted in zone C-M and have maintained that opinion to the present day. Recommendation 2 That the Santa Barbara City Council direct the City of Santa Barbara Community Development Department to issue a report to the Santa Barbara City Council clarifying the uses that are allowed by the City Code’s land use regulations for the C-M zone. Finding 3 Following renovations at the Location, which made the Company operational, neighboring residents have complained about machinery noise, odor, and traffic noise from those operations from mid-2014 to the present day. Recommendation 3a That the Santa Barbara City Council direct the City of Santa Barbara Community Development Department to issue a report to the Santa Barbara City Council reviewing the status of mitigation measures taken with regard to the food processing operations of the Company at the Location. Recommendation 3b That the Santa Barbara City Council direct the City Community Development Department to review the documentation and archiving of its zoning and permitting decisions and its manner of communicating with the public, appointed officials, and elected officials with the purpose of making those decisions more complete, clearer, and more accessible to the general public and to City officials at all levels. Finding 4 The City Attorney of the City of Santa Barbara issued a “cease-and-desist” order to the Company, in July 2015, following citizens’ complaints about the Company and having concluded that the Company’s specific type of food processing is not allowed in the C-M or C-2 zones. 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 7 Finding 5 Following negotiations between the City Attorney of the City of Santa Barbara and representatives of the Company, those parties drafted a “Settlement Agreement” to mitigate the claimed nuisances – machine noise, traffic noise, and food odor – which recognized that the parties have differing interpretations of the Santa Barbara City Code with respect to zones C-M and C-2 and allowed the Company to continue operations at Location. Finding 6 The Santa Barbara City Council never held a public hearing on the complaints and inquiries from residents affected by food processing operations of the Company at the Location. Recommendation 6 That the Santa Barbara City Council direct the City Administrator to promulgate revised procedures for managing zoning and code enforcement cases, including procedures for putting complaints about such cases on the Council’s agenda and reporting to residents on the decisions taken by City authorities. REQUEST FOR RESPONSE Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933 and 933.05, the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the enumerated findings and recommendations within the specified statutory time limit: Responses to Findings shall be either:  Agree  Disagree wholly  Disagree partially with an explanation Responses to Recommendations shall be one of the following:  Has been implemented, with brief summary of implementation actions taken  Will be implemented, with an implementation schedule  Requires further analysis, with analysis completion date of no more than six months after the issuance of the report  Will not be implemented, with an explanation of why The City Council of Santa Barbara – 90 days  Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6  Recommendations 1, 2, 3a, 3b, and 6 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 8 APPENDIX 1 ZONES FOR BUSINESS ACTIVITIES IN THE CITY OF SANTA BARBARA Section 30.05.10 of the City of Santa Barbara Municipal Code shows current zones and previous zones at http://qcode.us/codes/santabarbara/. This Report refers to the old zone names because the RFI and the responses refer to the old zone names. C-2 (old); C-G Commercial General (new). The C-2 zone is applied to land that is appropriate for retail business and commercial needs including stores, shops, and offices supplying commodities or performing services for the residents of the surrounding community. C-2 (now C-G) does not include the types of food processing done by the local Company. C-M Commercial Manufacturing (old); M-C Manufacturing Commercial (new). This zone seeks to provide a desirable living environment by preserving and protecting surrounding residential land uses. in terms of light, air and visual amenities. “Any of the following uses, provided that such operations, manufacturing, processing or treatment of products are not obnoxious or offensive by reason of emission of odor, dust, gas, fumes, smoke, liquids, wastes, noise, vibrations, disturbances or other similar causes which may impose hazard to life or property.” A list of 30 uses is given including (#16) “Food products manufacturing.” H-C Harbor Commercial (old); CO-H Coastal Oriented Harbor (new). “The Coastal-Oriented Harbor (CO-H) Zone strives to maintain the harbor as primarily a working harbor with visitor-serving and coastal-related uses secondary to coastal-dependent uses, and that Stearns Wharf will consist of a mixture of visitor-serving, and coastal-dependent and coastal-related uses. In addition, this zone is intended to preserve and protect the coastal environment in terms of light, air, and visual amenities.” OC Ocean-Oriented Commercial (old); CO-CAR Coastal Oriented, Commercial Arts and Recreation (new). “The Coastal-Oriented Commercial, Arts, and Recreation (CO-CAR) Zone strives to achieve balanced use of the City’s Waterfront and maintain the small scale, local character that is unique to the Waterfront area. Land uses shall be encouraged in this zone that maintain and enhance the desirability of the Waterfront as a place to work, visit, and live. This zone is intended to foster a vital, mixed-use neighborhood and preserve and protect the coastal environment in terms of light, air, and visual amenities. Land classified in the CO-CAR Zone may also be classified in the Coastal-Oriented Hotel and Visitor-Serving (CO-HV) Zone.” OM-1 Ocean-Oriented Light Manufacturing (old); CO-MI Coastal-Oriented Manufacturing Industrial (new). “The Coastal-Oriented Manufacturing Industrial (CO-MI) Zone strives to provide for appropriate coastal-dependent and coastal-related industrial uses in close proximity to the Harbor/Wharf Complex. The zone encourages the establishment of coastal-oriented industrial uses in keeping with the policies of the California Coastal Act and the City’s Local Coastal Plan.” 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 9

Agency Responses 1

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.