Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

County supervisor updates Carpinteria on housing projects, cannabis appeals and ICE policy

Carpinteria City Council · May 12, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

First District Supervisor Daisy briefed council on upcoming Baylard/Red Tail meetings, two pending project applications, a county 'locals-first' marketing rule for new housing, ongoing cannabis-license appeals and county policies limiting unauthorized immigration enforcement on county property.

First District Supervisor Daisy told the Carpinteria City Council that county staff and project applicants will meet May 28 to discuss the Baylard/Red Tail housing proposal and that the project currently has two open county applications; the applicant must choose one path to move forward. Daisy said the county'9s fire marshal requested a full fire-evacuation traffic study and that public-works staff indicated possible later discussions about impact-fee sharing if the project proceeds.

Daisy described a county ordinance requiring developers to run a 'locals-first' marketing campaign for 12 weeks before marketing housing more broadly and to report the number of local residents occupying a project at 90% occupancy. "They're hammering that out, what local means," Daisy told the council when asked how the county will define "local."

On cannabis, Daisy reported that nine valley operators received notices of intent to revoke licenses; two were brought into compliance and one was issued an advisory letter. Six operators remain in appeal and are allowed to keep operating while their appeals are adjudicated over the next 60 days.

Daisy also summarized county policies intended to limit unauthorized immigration enforcement on county-owned property and to increase communications about election security and poll-worker training. She emphasized these county policy steps do not supersede federal authority but were intended to "draw a line" clarifying county expectations and protections for public facilities and events.

Council members asked about enforceability and whether sheriffs would implement the county'9s policies; Daisy said the sheriff is an independently elected official and enforcement models remain uncertain but that the county's goal is to set policy expectations and explore land-use protections for any proposed detention facilities on unincorporated land.