Das Williams First District Board of Supervisors Gregg Hart County Administration Building Second District, Chair*

R1a

That the Santa Barbara County Board direct the Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Department Director to prepare Environmental Impact Reports addressing each region of Santa Barbara County after holding public hearings to evaluate public concerns. This recommendation will not be implemented, as it is not warranted. Santa Barbara County's "Cannabis Land Use Ordinance and Licensing Program" (Program) fully complies with both California Planning and Zoning Law and CEQA. Pursuant to CEQA, on February 6, 2018, the Board certified the PEIR for the Program, and the Board has relied on the PEIR, in compliance with CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162 and 15168, to make amendments to the Program. As stated above, the Board certified the PEIR for the Program, after completing numerous public meetings and hearings on this matter (e.g., Montecito Planning Commission, County Planning Commission, and Board hearings). County staff provided public notice of these meetings and hearings, as well as opportunities to comment on the PEIR during its development, pursuant to State and County requirements. In addition, staff: provided notice to over a thousand individuals and interest groups who specifically requested notification of these events, attended or conducted numerous public and private meetings to provide environmental information about the Program and maintained multiple websites that have provided environmental information about the Program. The PEIR evaluated the entire unincorporated area of the County by: (1) dividing it into five geographical regions; 1 and (2) identifying the regions and/or populations that would experience disproportionately greater impacts from cannabis activities, due to their unique characteristics (e.g., residentially developed areas located adjacent to agricultural zones in which cannabis activities could occur). The regional distribution of cannabis development that has resulted from the Program is consistent with the assumed distribution of cannabis development set forth in the PEIR (i.e., proposed cannabis activities are concentrated in certain areas or agricultural zones like the Carpinteria Agricultural Overlay, where medicinal cannabis cultivation activities existed at the time of preparation of the PEIR).²

R1b

That the Santa Barbara County Board direct the Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Department Director to develop Project Objectives for the Environmental Impact Reports that reflect a balance between cannabis, traditional agriculture, and the residents of Santa Barbara County. This recommendation will not be implemented, as it is not warranted. Santa Barbara County's "Cannabis Land Use Ordinance and Licensing Program" (Program) fully complies with both California Planning and Zoning Law and CEQA. Furthermore, the County Agricultural Commissioner assembled a working group of cannabis cultivators, conventional agriculturalists, pest control advisors, and pest control business representatives. This group created guidelines for agriculturalists to mitigate conflicts that can occur from the application of pesticides to crops located near cannabis cultivation sites. In addition, there is ongoing dialogue between the CEO's Office, Planning and Development Department, and Agricultural Commissioner regarding additional actions that the Board could take to further address this issue.

R2

That the Santa Barbara County Board require all future Ad Hoc Sub Committees be open to the public and subject to the Brown Act. This recommendation will not be implemented, as it is not necessary. The Board has used Ad Hoc Committees in the past when attempting to resolve issues of great complexity. The Board complies with the Brown Act, specifically Government Code § 54952(b). Pursuant to the League of California Cities' Guide to the Ralph M. Brown Act, "Open and Public V" (2016), an Ad Hoc Subcommittee "comprised of less than a quorum of the legislative body that serves a limited or single purpose, that is not perpetual, and that will be dissolved once its specific task is completed is not subject to the Brown Act." In addition, to preserve transparency and public participation, Ad Hoc Subcommittees lack the authority to act on behalf of the County, and can only develop recommendations that must be submitted to the full Board for approval.

R3

That the Santa Barbara County Board develop standards that require Santa Barbara County Board members to publicly disclose all access granted to lobbying individuals or groups, especially while a matter involving these individuals or groups is before the Board. The California This recommendation will not be implemented, as it is not warranted. Supreme Court in Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1325, held that the Governor's calendar and schedules, including names of every person with whom he met, were not A Charles and Bridge Control As a second second second subject to public disclosure because disclosure would chill the deliberative process. Implementing the proposed recommendation would have a similar chilling effect.

R4a

That the Santa Barbara County Board amend the Land Use and Development Code and Article II, the Coastal Zoning Ordinance to require all pending cannabis land use permit applications be subject to a Conditional Use Permit review. This Recommendation will not be implemented, as it is not reasonable. On July 14, 2020, the Board considered recommendations from the County Planning Commission and voted to amend the Land Use and Development Code to: 1. Require Conditional Use Permits for cannabis cultivation activities on Agricultural II (AG- II)-zoned parcels located within the Inland Area of the county, where the cannabis cultivation area would exceed 51% of the lot area; 2. Include new development standards that are designed to reduce potential conflicts with neighboring properties; 3. Ban cannabis cultivation operations within EDRNs in the Inland Area of the unincorporated county; 4. Retain all other current permitting requirements for the Inland Area; and 5. Preserve all existing requirements in the Coastal Zone of the unincorporated area of the county.

R4b

That the Santa Barbara County Board amend the County's Uniform Rules for Agricultural Preserves and Farmland Security Zones [collectively, "Uniform Rules"] to declare that cannabis cultivation and related facilities are compatible uses on contracted land instead of as an agricultural use. 44. This recommendation will not be implemented, as it is not warranted. When determining in which category of uses (e.g., residential, agricultural, commercial, industrial, or open space) to classify cannabis cultivation activities for the purposes of land use and zoning regulations, cannabis cultivation and processing activities are best suited to be classified as "agriculture," as defined in the County's Agricultural Element ( ), Land Use and Development Code (§ 35.110.020), and Article II Coastal Zoning Ordinance (§ 35-58). 4 4 4 The Board has the discretion to determine whether cannabis cultivation and related facilities count towards the minimum requirements of a Williamson Act contract. If determined not to count towards the minimum requirements of a Williamson Act contract, the Board may specify conditions (if any) under which cannabis cultivation and related facilities may be allowed on contracted lands. During both the development and implementation of the Program, staff confirmed with the California Department of Conservation (DOC) that the DOC defers to the Board when determining which specific types and quantities of uses—agricultural or otherwise— may be allowed on contracted lands within the county. Ultimately, the Board amended the Uniform Rules to specify: (1) that cannabis cultivation is a type of agriculture that may count towards the minimum requirements of a Williamson Act Contract; and (2) the conditions under which certain accessory uses and development associated with cannabis cultivation may be allowed on contracted lands, to ensure that contracted lands remain in agricultural production. Although the Board amended the Uniform Rules to allow cannabis cultivation activities on contracted lands, the Board also amended the County's Right to Farm Ordinance (Santa Barbara County Code, Chapter 3, Article V, § 3-23 et seq.) to clarify that cannabis cultivation activities are not subject to the protections afforded to agricultural activities under the Right to Farm Ordinance. In doing so, the Board was able to regulate certain aspects of cannabis cultivation activities (e.g., odors) differently and more stringently than other types of agricultural activities. Furthermore, the Board recently amended the Land Use and Development Code to establish additional requirements (e.g., outdoor cultivation areas be setback 50-feet from all property lines) which will address potential conflicts with agricultural uses on contracted lands.

R5a

That the Santa Barbara County Board require all applicants with cannabis use and development permit applications and licenses pending, who claim legal non-conforming status, to prove their claimed status before the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission. This recommendation will not be implemented, as it is not warranted. The Grand Jury's concern will be resolved through the termination of legal nonconforming status for medical cannabis cultivation activities, pursuant to the criteria and procedures that the Board adopted on 1 0 William Control - 2 November 14, 2017. (See County Code, Chapter 35, Article X.) These cultivators' legal nonconforming use status will terminate once the pending permit applications are acted upon. Additionally, beginning in 2020, the CEO's Office implemented a process for reviewing cases in which there is compelling evidence to suggest that the affidavits have been falsified. If such falsification is verified, the county can withdraw the letter of authorization which the state requires when issuing such licenses.

R5b

That the Santa Barbara County Board direct the Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Department Director, in conjunction with the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office, to eradicate all cannabis grown on acreage claimed under Legal Non-Conforming status when the cannabis operator fails to demonstrate to the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission that the planting of cannabis occurred prior to January 19, 2016. This recommendation will not be implemented, as it is not reasonable. The Board and staff will continue to comply with the provisions of the County's zoning ordinances related to enforcement action and abatement.

R5c

That the Santa Barbara County Board direct the Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Department Director to deny permits for the growth of cannabis on acreage claimed under Legal Non-Conforming status when the cannabis operator fails to demonstrate to the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission that the planting of cannabis occurred prior to January 19, 2016. This recommendation will not be implemented, as it is not reasonable. The Board and staff will continue to comply with the provisions of the County's zoning ordinances related to enforcement action and actions on permit applications. As stated in the response to

R6

That the Santa Barbara County Board require all applicants with cannabis use and development permit applications and licenses pending, who claim legal non-conforming status, to prove their claimed status before the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission. This recommendation will not be implemented, as it is not reasonable. The CEO's Office, in conjunction with Planning and Development, has implemented a process for reviewing those cases in which there is compelling evidence to suggest that the affidavits were falsified. Additionally, beginning in 2020, the CEO's Office, in conjunction with Planning and Development implemented a process for reviewing cases in which there is compelling evidence to suggest that the affidavits have been falsified. If such falsification is verified, the county can withdraw the letter of authorization which the state requires when issuing such licenses.

R7a

That the Santa Barbara County Board direct the Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Department Director, in conjunction with the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office, to eradicate all cannabis grown on acreage claimed under Legal Non-Conforming status when the cannabis operator fails to demonstrate to the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission that the planting of cannabis occurred prior to January 19, 2016. This recommendation will not be implemented, as it is not reasonable. The Grand Jury's concern will be resolved through the termination of legal nonconforming use status for medicinal cannabis cultivation activities, pursuant to the regulations that the Board adopted on November 14, 2017. These cultivators' legal nonconforming use status will terminate once the pending permit applications are acted upon.

R7b

That the Santa Barbara County Board direct the Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Department Director to deny permits for the growth of cannabis on acreage claimed under Legal Non-Conforming status when the cannabis operator fails to demonstrate to the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission that the planting of cannabis occurred prior to January 19, 2016. This recommendation will not be implemented, as it is not warranted. The Grand Jury's concern will be resolved through the termination of legal nonconforming use status for medicinal cannabis cultivation activities, pursuant to the regulations that the Board adopted on November 14, 2017. These cultivators' legal nonconforming use status will terminate once the pending permit applications are acted upon. . . . the set of the second The state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of t . . 5<br>4

R8

That the Santa Barbara County Board amend Ordinance 5026 to tax cannabis cultivation using the Square Footage method. This recommendation will not be implemented, as it is not reasonable. The current tax structure was approved by a vote of the people and changing the tax structure would require re- submitting the matter to the voters. Changing this portion of the ordinance has been discussed in the past, but the potential advantages of this change do not currently warrant the effort or expense. The Board may wish to evaluate this in the future.

R9

That the Santa Barbara County Board require that all future ordinances that involve taxation require the Santa Barbara County Treasurer-Tax Collector be involved in the creation of the ordinance. This recommendation will be implemented as future situations arise.

R11

That the Santa Barbara County Board suspend all County unpermitted cannabis operations until proof of odor control at the boundary of their operation is accepted by the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission. This recommendation will not be implemented, as it is not warranted. See the response to

R12a

That the Santa Barbara County Board establish, staff and empower an independent Ethics Commission with oversight over the Board and its staff members. This recommendation will not be implemented, as it is not warranted. The California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) already serves this role and has the resources to inform, advise and enforce the Political Reform Act (Gov. Code, § 81000 et seq.), as well as adopt regulations and seek legislative amendments to the State's ethics laws. The FPPC is a nonpartisan agency that is primarily responsible for the fair application, interpretation, and enforcement of the Political Reform Act. The mission of the FPCC is to promote the integrity of state and local government in California through fair, impartial interpretation and enforcement of political campaign, lobbying, and conflict of interest laws.

R12b

That the independent Ethics Commission develop a Code of Ethics, review Board activities on a periodic and as needed basis for compliance, and share its findings with the public. This recommendation will not be implemented, as it is not warranted. Per the response to

R12c

That the Santa Barbara County Board require all its members to publicly disclose receipt of campaign contributions from donors who have matters pending a decision by the Board. This recommendation will not be implemented, as it is not warranted. The Board complies with the Political Reform Act (Gcv. Code, § 81000 et seq.) which addresses limits and restrictions on campaign contributions and imposes reporting requirements.

R12d

That the Santa Barbara County Board require those members receiving campaign contributions from donors with matters pending a decision, to recuse themselves from those matters or return the campaign contributions. . . . . A Cartinate Company of the Cartinate Company of the Cartinate Company of the Cartinate Company of the Cartinate Company of the Cartinate Company of the Cartinate Company of the Cartinate Company of the Cartinate Company of . This recommendation will not be implemented, as it is not reasonable. The Board complies with Political Reform Act (Gov. Code, § 81000 et seq.). The California Supreme Court has considered and rejected imposing restrictions as recommended in Woodland Hills Residents Assoc. v. City Council of Los Angeles (1980) 26 Cal.3d 938, 946-947. The Court in Woodland Hills Residents Assoc. (citations omitted, emphasis added) stated: Governmental restraint on political activity must be strictly scrutinized and justified only by compelling state interest. While disqualifying contribution recipients from voting would not prohibit contribution, it would curtail contributors' constitutional rights. Representative government would be thwarted by depriving certain classes of voters (i.e., developers, builders, engineers, and attorneys who are related in some fashion to developers) of the constitutional right to participate in the electoral process. Public policy strongly encourages the giving and receiving of campaign contributions. Such contributions do not automatically create an appearance of unfairness. Adequate protection against corruption and bias is afforded through the Political Reform Act and criminal sanctions. . of the second second second second . - . .