Santa Barbara County Grand Jury
• 2020-2021
• Agency Response
obnoxious or offensive*
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 6 findings
F1
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. Response to Finding 1 Agree.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
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. 1801-220041 Honorable Gustavo Lavayen, Presiding Judge, Santa Barbara County Superior Court March 16, 2022
F2
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. Response to Finding 2 Agree.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
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.
F3
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. Response to Finding 3 Agree.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3a
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 1801-220041 Honorable Gustavo Lavayen, Presiding Judge, Santa Barbara County Superior Court March 16, 2022 the status of mitigation measures taken with regard to the food processing operations of the Company at the Location.
R3b
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.
F4
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. Response to Finding 4 Disagree partially. The City Attorney issued a letter on June 15, 2015. (Attachment 1; July 10, 2015 Letter from City Attorney to Santa Barbara Fish Market.) The letter is not, and was not intended to be, an enforceable "order."
No recommendations for this finding
F5
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. 1801-220041 Honorable Gustavo Lavayen, Presiding Judge, Santa Barbara County Superior Court March 16, 2022 Response to Finding 5 Agree.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
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. Response to Finding 6 Disagree partially. It is accurate that a noticed public hearing has not been conducted by the City Council on this matter. However, residents have appeared at City Council meetings and been heard so as to respect the rights of the community to petition the Council for redress of any grievance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
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.
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.