Board of Supervisors — 2014-07-29

Re-ratification of Drought Proclamation

• The County Executive Office requested the Board consider recommendations to re-ratify the drought proclamation originally passed in 2014.
• A motion was made and seconded to approve the recommendation.
• The motion passed.

Measure P Implementation Ordinances and General Plan Amendment

• Staff recommended directing the development of implementing ordinances and general plan amendments to process exemptions for vested rights and constitutional compliance if Measure P passes.
• Twenty-seven speakers addressed the Board, with proponents citing procedural clarity and opponents raising concerns about the scope of prohibitions and potential takings litigation.
• Staff clarified that the county is self-insured for takings claims and estimated the need for additional legal resources to handle transactional advice and potential litigation.
• A motion was made and seconded to direct staff to develop the implementing ordinances and general plan amendments as recommended.
• The motion passed.

Closed Session

• The Board entered closed session to discuss existing litigation and labor negotiations with bargaining units and unrepresented employees.
• No reportable actions were taken during the session.
• The meeting was adjourned until August 19.

Administrative Agenda

Item: Re-ratification of Drought Proclamation

• Discussion: The County Executive Office requested the Board consider recommendations regarding the re-ratification of the drought proclamation originally passed on July 1, 2014.
• Action: A motion was made and seconded to approve the recommendation.
• Decision: The motion passed.

Departmental Agenda

Item 1: Measure P Implementation Ordinances and General Plan Amendment

• Discussion: Staff presented a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the implementation of Measure P, a ballot initiative to ban high-intensity petroleum operations (including hydraulic fracturing, acid well stimulation, and injection of substances). Staff explained that while the initiative’s general prohibitions would take effect immediately upon passage, Section 5 requires implementing ordinances to process exemptions for vested rights, constitutional compliance, and takings avoidance. Staff recommended directing the development of these ordinances and general plan amendments to be effective immediately if the measure passes, with a target for Planning Commission consideration on August 25.
• Public Comment: Twenty-seven speakers addressed the Board. Proponents of Measure P argued that the measure protects water and health, exempts existing operations and vested rights, and that implementing ordinances are standard practice to provide procedural clarity. They cited examples of other jurisdictions that successfully banned similar techniques without significant financial loss. Opponents, including representatives from the oil and gas industry, royalty owners, and business associations, argued that the measure is broadly written to include routine maintenance and existing production techniques (such as cyclic steaming and acidizing), which would effectively shut down current operations. They raised concerns regarding potential "takings" litigation, loss of tax revenue, job losses, and the county’s lack of insurance coverage for takings claims. Several speakers questioned the county’s fiscal exposure and the legal interpretation of "vested rights" versus "existing operations."
• Board Questions and Staff Response:
• Supervisors inquired about the necessity of developing ordinances before the election. Staff explained that doing so provides certainty to the industry and mitigates the county’s exposure to litigation by clearly defining the exemption process.
• Supervisors asked about the county’s insurance coverage. Staff confirmed that the county is self-insured for takings claims and does not have specific insurance coverage for these liabilities.
• Supervisors asked for an estimate of potential liability. Staff stated that a hard number cannot be provided until courts interpret the initiative, but noted that damages for temporary takings could be significant (e.g., fair rental value of deprived property). Staff estimated that in the first year, the county would need to allocate at least two full-time equivalent attorneys for transactional advice, plus additional resources for litigation if it occurs.
• Supervisors asked how "vested rights" would be defined. Staff indicated that the implementing ordinance would likely use state law definitions, requiring a valid permit and substantial reliance on that permit (substantial work and liabilities incurred).
• Supervisors asked if the initiative expressly exempts existing operations. Staff clarified that the initiative does not use the term "existing operations" but relies on the three exemption categories; while there is expected overlap, the legal determination will be case-by-case.
• Action: A motion was made and seconded to direct staff to develop the implementing ordinances and general plan amendments as recommended.
• Decision: The motion passed.

Closed Session

• Discussion: The Board entered closed session to discuss two items: existing litigation (Owens v. County of Santa Barbara) and labor negotiations with bargaining units and unrepresented employees.
• Action: No reportable actions were taken.
• Decision: The meeting was adjourned until August 19.