Board of Supervisors — 2018-07-17

Minutes Clarification and Approval

• Staff clarified that the previous budget revision placed funds into a balance rather than expending them immediately.
• The board approved the minutes with an amendment directing staff to return with an update on fund expenditure.

Resolution A33: Pretrial Probation and Parole Supervision Week

• Probation officials provided background on department roles, case management, and recent legislative changes.
• The board adopted the resolution proclaiming July 15–21, 2018, as Pretrial Probation and Parole Supervision Week.

Year-End Transfers and Revisions of Appropriations

• The Auditor-Controller and County Executive Office presented recommendations for year-end budget transfers.
• The board noted the item for the record without a separate vote, with requests for better organization in future presentations.

Continuum of Care Program

• The board reviewed grant agreements for the continuum of care program.
• Public comment was deferred as the board moved to other agenda items.

Thomas Fire Storm Incident Update

• The board discussed the Thomas Fire storm incident and requested specific recommendations for wildfire prevention.
• The CEO confirmed that Chief Peterson would present a report on wildfire prevention options in late August or early September.

Amendment to 2018 Board Schedule

• The board considered canceling the August 21 meeting in Santa Maria to ensure North County accessibility.
• The Chair agreed to review the schedule based on agenda item distribution to adjust future meeting locations.

Nova Montecito Community Stakeholder Process

• The board discussed a $5,000 request to support a stakeholder process led by Novum, NewsHawk, and the Davenport Institute.
• The board amended the staff recommendation to remove specific references to NewsHawk, shifting contract details to the County Executive Officer to ensure equal media access.

Balance of Administrative Agenda

• An addendum was noted adding a communication from the City of Carpinteria regarding a local sales tax measure.
• The board approved the balance of the administrative agenda.

Agenda Item A17: Compensation for County Executive Officer

• The board considered a 3% performance-based salary increase and the conversion of unit cash to base pay for the CEO.
• The board voted to take action on the item, approving the compensation changes.

Agenda Item D2: Human Resources – Extra Help Services and Retirement Waiver

• Staff presented a request to hire a retired employee as a part-time project lead to maintain progress on high-profile HR projects.
• The board approved the hiring of the extra help employee.

Community Choice Energy (CCE) Feasibility and Options

• Staff presented a feasibility study concluding that a CCE program is financially viable, with Option 1 (all-county JPA) estimated at $9.3 million startup cost.
• The board directed staff to move forward with Option 1, adopt a resolution of intent to form a JPA, and determine CEQA exemption.
• The board passed the motion to proceed with the JPA formation and further financial analysis.

Gaviota Coast Plan / California Coastal Commission Local Coastal Program Amendments

• Staff identified eight key issues for the board to address in a letter to the Coastal Commission, including agriculture exemptions and habitat protections.
• The board accepted the staff report and draft letter to the Coastal Commission, passing the motion 4-1.

Agenda Item 4: "You Draw The Lines" County Ordinance / Independent Redistricting Commission

• Staff presented the second reading of the ordinance to create a Citizens Independent Redistricting Commission.
• The board adopted the staff recommendations to place the ordinance on the November 6, 2018, ballot and sign an argument in favor.

Agenda Item 5: Independent Redistricting Commission (Reason and Government Initiative)

• Staff presented a report on the citizen-initiated ordinance to create an Independent Redistricting Commission.
• The board adopted the staff recommendations to place the initiative on the ballot and sign an argument in favor.

Agenda Item 6: Lower Mission Creek Reaches 2B Phase Two and Three Fee Acquisitions

• The department requested to continue the item to a future meeting due to construction timing.
• The board voted to continue the item to August 14.

Agenda Item 7: Oak Hills Estates Request for Hearing

• Staff presented the Oak Hills Estate Project, including off-site mitigation, on-site restoration, and a $60,000 public benefit contribution.
• The board approved the project, certified the EIR, and adopted the rezone ordinance as amended.

Appeal of Denial for Secondary Access Road and Bridge at 949 Toro Canyon Road

• Staff recommended denial of the appeal due to conflicts with ESHA policies and lack of justification for secondary access.
• The board passed a substitute motion to approve the project with an admonition prohibiting the applicant from mining rocks or sediment from the creek.

Closed Session

• The board reported from closed session regarding civil litigation, existing litigation, and employee labor negotiations.
• No reportable actions were taken in closed session.

Meeting Opening and Roll Call

• The Chair called the meeting to order and conducted roll call. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

Minutes Clarification and Approval

• Discussion: A clarification was requested regarding the minutes for the Goleta Beach coastal development permit budget revision. It was noted that the previous action placed funds into a fund balance rather than immediately expending them. Staff explained that a separate vote would be required to pull funds from the balance for expenditure.
• Motion: A motion was made to approve the minutes with an amendment to clarify that the board approved the budget revision and directed staff to return with an update.
• Vote: The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.

Resolution A33: Pretrial Probation and Parole Supervision Week

• Discussion: The board considered Resolution A33, which proclaims July 15–21, 2018, as Pretrial Probation and Parole Supervision Week. Chief Probation Officer Tanya Heitman and Deputy Chiefs Kim Sheehan, Sean Small, and Holly Benton provided background on the department’s roles, including adult supervision, juvenile institutions, and juvenile probation services. They discussed case management, evidence-based practices, and recent legislative changes.
• Motion: A motion was made to adopt Resolution A33.
• Vote: The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.

Administrative Agenda Items

• Item A1: Year-End Transfers and Revisions of Appropriations
• Discussion: The Auditor-Controller and County Executive Office presented recommendations for year-end budget transfers. A supervisor expressed frustration with the cryptic descriptions and the volume of items, requesting better organization and explanation in future presentations. The Chair agreed, suggesting the board track the number and value of such items as a metric.
• Action: No separate vote was taken; the item was noted for the record.
• Item A7: Continuum of Care Program
• Discussion: The item regarding the continuum of care program grant agreements was presented. Public comment was requested but deferred as the board moved to other items.
• Item A11: Thomas Fire Storm Incident Update
• Discussion: The board discussed the Thomas Fire storm incident. A supervisor requested that Chief Peterson return with specific recommendations for wildfire prevention. The CEO confirmed that Chief Peterson would present a report on wildfire prevention options in late August or early September.
• Action: The board noted the upcoming report; no formal vote was recorded in this segment.
• Item A13: Amendment to 2018 Board Schedule
• Discussion: The board considered canceling the regularly scheduled meeting on August 21 in Santa Maria. A supervisor requested that a meeting be held in Santa Maria to ensure North County accessibility, noting that all January meetings were held in Santa Barbara. The Chair explained that meeting locations are determined by the concentration of agenda items (e.g., South County vs. North County) and agreed to consult with the supervisor to adjust future dates based on workflow.
• Action: The Chair agreed to review the schedule based on item distribution; no formal vote was recorded in this segment.
• Item A14: Nova Montecito Community Stakeholder Process
• Discussion: The board discussed a request for $5,000 to support the Nova Montecito community stakeholder process, led by Novum, NewsHawk, and the Davenport Institute at Pepperdine University. Concerns were raised regarding potential conflicts of interest and favoritism toward NewsHawk. Public speakers, including Jim Knight (Novum) and Bill McFadden, defended the process, stating that NewsHawk’s role was to report on findings and that the funds would be held in a restricted account for direct expenses, not media payments. Other speakers expressed support for the engagement process but raised concerns about the perception of conflict of interest.
• Motion: A motion was made to amend the staff recommendation to remove the specific reference to NewsHawk from the description of the stakeholder process, changing it to "process led by Novum." This would shift the contract details to the County Executive Officer, ensuring equal access for all media.
• Vote: The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.

Balance of Administrative Agenda

• Discussion: An addendum was noted adding Item A34, a communication from the City of Carpinteria requesting consolidation of a local sales tax measure onto the November 6, 2018 ballot.
• Motion: A motion was made to approve the balance of the administrative agenda.
• Vote: The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.

Public Comment (Items Not on Agenda)

• Joy Hoover: Spoke regarding the "Brisa Encinas" development project in Mission Hills, expressing concerns about lack of transparency, resident opposition, and the nature of the supportive housing facility. She requested that resident objections be entered into the record.
• Deb Andrews: Spoke regarding air quality at Lompoc Valley Medical Center and water quality issues, citing studies on nitrate levels and uranium in aquifers. She urged the board to investigate funding for facilities with potential health hazards and to consider water storage projects.
• Ed Kolaski: Listed as the next speaker, but the transcript ends before his comment is recorded.
• Board of Architectural Review Dispute: A resident presented concerns regarding a ruling by the Board of Architectural Review that their second-story addition was "solely over the garage," which they disputed. The resident stated they were removed from a public meeting before presenting drawings and cited high legal costs for an appeal. The resident requested an explanation of the ruling.
• Southern California Edison (SCE) Outage Notification: A resident raised concerns about a planned SCE power outage scheduled during a high-temperature and high-wind warning period. The resident stated that county emergency management and fire departments were unaware of the outage until the resident intervened, arguing that the county should have a formal process to receive notification of such outages to protect public safety and notification systems.
• Board Response on SCE Outages: The Chair and staff responded that the California Public Utilities Commission recently adopted a resolution requiring utilities to conduct public outreach and mitigation for fire-prevention de-energizing. Staff noted that the Office of Emergency Management (OEM) had been in discussions with SCE and PG&E regarding risk mitigation and resident preparation. Staff clarified that the specific outage mentioned by the resident was part of a routine maintenance program, not the fire-prevention shutdown program, and that OEM had requested SCE not perform maintenance during high-risk periods.
• Policy Discussion on Power Reliability: A Supervisor noted the societal trade-off between constant power availability and fire risk mitigation, acknowledging the impact of outages on critical infrastructure and residents. The Chair stated the board’s role is to scrutinize outage plans to ensure they are appropriate for fire safety relative to the drawbacks.

Agenda Item A17: Compensation for County Executive Officer

• Discussion: The Chair recommended a re-vote on this item, which involves approving a 3% performance-based salary increase and converting unit cash to base pay for the County Executive Officer to align with other managers.
• Motion: A motion was made to take action on Item A17.
• Vote: The motion was seconded. The vote was taken, and the motion passed.

Agenda Item D2: Human Resources – Extra Help Services and Retirement Waiver

• Discussion: Staff presented a request to hire Carrie Topliff, who retired in June, as a part-time extra help employee to serve as a project lead. This position is intended to maintain progress on high-profile projects, including civil service rules revision and the centralization of human resources functions, following the retirement of Assistant Human Resources Director Andres Piper.
• Motion: A motion was made to approve the hiring.
• Vote: The motion was seconded. The vote was taken, and the motion passed.

Agenda Item: Community Choice Energy (CCE) Feasibility and Options

Presentation and Discussion

• Staff and consultants from Pacific Energy Advisors (PEA) presented the results of a new feasibility study on Community Choice Energy for Santa Barbara County. The study evaluated three scenarios: all of Santa Barbara County, unincorporated areas only, and the City of Santa Barbara, analyzing renewable energy content levels of 33%, 50%, and 75%. PEA concluded that a CCE program would be financially viable and rate-competitive with investor-owned utilities (IOUs) for both the all-county and unincorporated-only scenarios, particularly at 50% renewable content. Startup costs were estimated at approximately $10 million. PEA identified power price volatility and Power Cost Indifference Adjustment (PCIA) exit fees as primary financial risks.
• Staff presented a comparison of assumptions among three consultants (PEA, Wildan, and MRW). Key differentiators included startup capital requirements and financing mechanisms. PEA estimated startup capital at approximately $9 million for an all-county scenario, assuming a short-term bank loan, while Wildan estimated nearly $240 million assuming a 30-year bond. Staff noted that PEA’s power cost estimates were generally higher than MRW’s and lower than Wildan’s. Staff explained that previous studies were directed to develop uniform rates for both PG&E and SCE territories, whereas PEA was directed to develop separate rates for each utility territory. Staff confirmed that PEA’s projected CCE rates remain below the IOU rate projections of all three consultants for 2020.
• Staff outlined potential policy benefits, including local control, increased competition, higher renewable energy content, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Staff estimated that a CCE program could reduce the unincorporated county’s greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 138,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent in the first year. Supervisor Lavagnino questioned why the county could not simply sign up for PG&E’s Solar Choice program. Staff responded that premium renewable options from IOUs are not currently cost-effective for the county and that the county’s goal includes local generation and control. Supervisor Hartman asked if the JPA could set feed-in tariffs and net metering rules to encourage local investment. Staff confirmed that most existing CCE programs offer such incentives.
• Staff presented four options for the Board’s consideration: 1. Form a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with other cities for an all-county CCE program. Estimated startup cost of $9.3 million; earliest launch in 2021. 2. Create a new CCE program serving only the unincorporated parts of the county. Estimated startup requirement of $6.7 million; potential launch in 2020. 3. Join existing CCE programs. Not considered particularly viable due to constraints of serving two IOUs. 4. Discontinue exploration of CCE. Citing significant risks and uncertainties, including pending regulatory changes.

Public Comment

• Public comment was received from 22 individuals and representatives of various organizations. Comments were divided on the merits of the CCE program:
• Supporters (including representatives from the Community Environmental Council, Sierra Club, League of Women Voters, Food and Water Watch, and individual residents) generally favored Option 1 (JPA). They cited benefits such as local control, job creation, environmental benefits, and the ability to reinvest savings locally.
• Opponents (including representatives from the Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association and CoLab) argued that CCE is unnecessary and potentially a "Ponzi scheme." They cited concerns about financial risk, the lack of true "choice" due to state mandates, and the high cost of studies.
• Neutral/Cautious speakers (including a representative from the Chamber of Commerce) expressed concerns about the discrepancies between consultant studies and the impact of the upcoming PCIA fee decision. They recommended waiting for the PCIA decision and conducting further peer review of assumptions before making a decision.
• Additional Speakers: Lucas Meyer (350 Santa Barbara), Mariah Clegg (UCSB Researcher), and Craig Lewis (The Clean Coalition) expressed support for Option 1, citing local action, resilience, and job creation.

Board Discussion

• Supervisor Wolf expressed support for Option 1, viewing it as an opportunity for the county to take control of its energy source.
• Supervisor Lavagnino raised concerns about the fragmentation of the energy market and the risks associated with the CCA model. He argued that California’s investor-owned utilities are already meeting renewable energy goals ahead of schedule and requested additional scrutiny and peer review before moving forward.
• Supervisor Hartman supported Option 1, citing economic viability, local control over rules, and the ability to capture dividends for local reinvestment.
• Supervisor Adams stated he would not support the motion to adopt Option 1 at this time. He requested that staff review the assumptions and calculations to ensure they are reasonable and highlighted a potential conflict of interest regarding the consultant being considered for managing the program without independent review.
• Chair Williams clarified that he does not view CCAs as a panacea but believes they are a necessary path for the county to achieve renewable goals and local energy generation. He emphasized the importance of local generation for economic diversification.

Motion and Vote

• Motion: Supervisor Wolf moved to receive and file the Community Choice Aggregation Technical Study; direct staff to move forward with Option 1 (forming a JPA to create and administer a new CCE program with interested cities); adopt the resolution of intent to form a CCE JPA; and determine that the actions do not constitute a project subject to CEQA.
• Second: Supervisor Hartman seconded the motion.
• Discussion on Motion: Chair Williams added a strong belief that the JPA formation should avoid the use of unbundled RECs. Supervisor Wolf clarified that the resolution authorizes staff to participate in discussions but does not bind the county to membership, general fund allocation, or participation in a future CCE program.
• Additional Motion: Chair Williams moved to conduct further financial feasibility analysis once it becomes clearer which cities are interested in participating in the JPA. Staff confirmed that costs for the feasibility study are reimbursable and that the direction is to participate in discussions with the intent of creating a CCE program, but it does not lock the county into fully launching the program if further analysis shows it is not viable.
• Vote Outcome: The motion to receive and file the study, direct staff to move forward with Option 1, adopt the resolution of intent, and determine CEQA exemption passed 3-2.

Agenda Item: Closed Session Report

• Report: The board reported from closed session, which considered four matters: one case of significant exposure to civil litigation, two matters of existing litigation (Rancho La Laguna v. County of Santa Barbara and Service Employees International Union Local 721 v. County of Santa Barbara), and one matter of employee labor negotiations with SEIU Local 721.
• Decision: There were no reportable actions taken in closed session.

Agenda Item: Gaviota Coast Plan / California Coastal Commission Local Coastal Program Amendments

Staff Report and Discussion

• Supervisor Hartman provided an opening statement, noting that an ad hoc committee held a workshop on July 3rd to discuss issues flagged by the Coastal Commission. Staff identified eight key issues for the board to comment on in a letter to the Coastal Commission. Staff recommended that the board carry forward with the drafted comments and requests.
• Staff provided additional details on discussions with the Coastal Commission:
• Agriculture Exemptions: Progress was made on exempting certain agricultural expansions from coastal development permits. The Commission suggested a 20-year timeframe for historic agricultural exemptions.
• Coastal Dependent Uses: The Commission struck examples from the definition in NS2, referring back to the Coastal Act.
• ESH (Environmentally Sensitive Habitat): The Commission was willing to consider clarification on when chaparral is considered ESH but did not support reinserting rare species criteria.
• Bio Studies: Conceptual progress was made to include bio study requirements in an appendix to the coastal zoning ordinance.
• Riparian Corridors: The Commission was not prepared to allow adjustments to setbacks and buffers.
• Accessory Structures: The Commission agreed to include general accessory structures and home occupations as permitted uses.
• Economically Viable Use: The Commission agreed to delete specific standards and require appropriate findings for inconsistent development.
• Prescriptive Rights: The Commission is considering reinserting "if feasible" language to provide a safety valve for the county.

Public Comment

• Public comment was received from representatives of the Gaviota Neighbors Group, local residents, Los Padres Forest Watch, the Jack and Laura Dangerman Preserve, El Capitan Canyon Campground and Resort, the Environmental Defense Center (EDC), the Gaviota Coast Conservancy, the Naples Coalition, the Agriculture Advisory Committee, and other local stakeholders.
• Agriculture and Grazing: Several speakers emphasized the historical and ecological role of grazing. Andy Mills requested language recognizing agricultural practices that sustain sensitive habitat. Sue Bennett noted that interactive management is often necessary. Paul Van Leer argued that the proposed permitting standards for agricultural expansion were not feasible and requested the removal of the 20-year "historic agriculture" timeframe. Jeff Carruthers expressed concern that ESHA protections could jeopardize fire insurance renewals.
• Habitat Protection (ESHA/Chaparral): Rebecca August supported the Coastal Commission’s recommendations to protect chaparral as an ESHA. Brian Troutman supported the position that chaparral and coastal sage scrub should be protected as ESHAs where they meet specific criteria. Anna Citrin supported the plan’s overall direction but requested that the county retain discretion in determining ESHA boundaries.
• Buffers and Development: Iona Zimmer urged the board to fight for the ability to adjust riparian buffers downward. Linda Kropp objected to designating low-impact campgrounds as "resource-dependent uses" within ESHAs.
• Process and Plan Viability: Jim Aitkenhead and Anna Citrin urged the board to support the GAVPAC plan. Phillip McKenna stated that the plan is 99% complete.

Staff Presentation and Discussion

• County staff addressed specific concerns raised during public comment:
• Conservation Easements: Staff clarified that conservation easements are only required for restoration work that serves as mitigation.
• Trails and Environmental Review: Staff confirmed that trails included in Policy NS2 are still subject to full permitting and environmental review.
• Fire/Fuel Modification: Staff explained that existing development is allowed to maintain current fuel modification standards.
• ESHA Definition Strategy: Staff indicated the board’s strategy is to focus on clarifying when chaparral is considered an ESHA.
• Historic Agriculture Timeframe: Staff noted that the Coastal Commission prefers the term "ongoing agriculture" and that a 20-year timeframe is easier to defend.

Motion and Vote

• Motion: Supervisor Hartman moved to accept the staff report, the draft letter to the Coastal Commission, and the CEQA exemption.
• Vote Outcome: Passed (4-1).

Agenda Item 4: "You Draw The Lines" County Ordinance / Independent Redistricting Commission

Presentation

• Staff presented the second reading of the "You Draw The Lines" Citizens Independent Redistricting Commission ordinance. The recommended action was to consider appointing board members to sign and submit a direct argument in favor of the proposed ordinance for the November 6, 2018, consolidated general election ballot.

Public Comment

• Robert Collector (Reason and Government): Expressed support for the county’s initiative and stated that his organization would support both the county’s initiative and their own competing initiative.
• Andy Caldwell (CoLab): Questioned why the board waited so long to introduce their initiative and criticized the exclusion of for-profit companies and county employees from serving on the commission.

Discussion

• Clarification on Elections Official: Supervisor Wolf asked for clarification on who the "county elections official" would be. The Chair confirmed it would be the elected registrar of voters.
• Ballot Order and Signers: Supervisor Adam moved to adopt the staff recommendations. Supervisor Williams seconded. Supervisor Lavagnino suggested that the same two supervisors sign both the county’s initiative and the Reason and Government initiative to demonstrate bipartisanship. He also suggested that the community-initiated measure should appear first on the ballot.
• Board Position: The Chair expressed support for redistricting commissions but noted concerns about potential abuse in the Reason and Government criteria. Supervisor Hartman noted that the proponents of the Reason and Government initiative did not provide the full 30 days for analysis.

Motion and Vote

• Motion: Supervisor Adam moved to adopt the staff recommendations and place the ordinance on the ballot. Supervisor Williams seconded. Supervisors Adam and Lavagnino agreed to sign the argument in favor of the ordinance.
• Vote Outcome: Passed (Unanimous).

Agenda Item 5: Independent Redistricting Commission (Reason and Government Initiative)

Presentation

• Staff presented a report on the citizen-initiated ordinance to create a Santa Barbara County Independent Redistricting Commission. The recommended actions were to receive the report, order the ordinance to be placed on the November 6, 2018, ballot, and appoint board members to sign an argument in favor of the ordinance.

Discussion

• Resolution Date Correction: Staff noted a clerical error in the resolution date and confirmed the corrected version would be used.
• Representation Concerns: Supervisor Hartman raised concerns that the random selection process for the commission could result in a skewed pool of members.
• Ministerial Duty: Supervisor Adam characterized the board’s action as a ministerial duty to place the initiative on the ballot.
• Signers: Supervisor Adam volunteered to sign the argument in favor of the ordinance. Supervisor Lavagnino also agreed to sign.

Motion and Vote

• Motion: Supervisor Adam moved to adopt the staff recommendations and place the ordinance on the ballot. Supervisor Lavagnino seconded. Supervisors Adam and Lavagnino would sign the argument in favor.
• Vote Outcome: Passed (Unanimous).

Agenda Item 6: Lower Mission Creek Reaches 2B Phase Two and Three Fee Acquisitions

Request for Continuance

• The department requested to continue this item to a future meeting.

Discussion

• Timing: Supervisor Wolf asked if the item could be brought on September 11 instead of August 14. Staff indicated a preference for the earlier date due to construction timing but agreed to accommodate September 11 if preferred.
• Owner Input: Staff recommended checking if any property owners were present to comment on the continuance. No owners were present.

Motion and Vote

• Motion: Supervisor Wolf moved to continue the item to August 14. The motion was seconded.
• Vote Outcome: Passed (Unanimous).

Agenda Item 7: Oak Hills Estates Request for Hearing

Presentation

• Staff introduced the item regarding the Oak Hills Estates request for a hearing of case numbers 15 RNZ2, 15 TRM1 (Tentative Map 14180), 15 DVP1, and 17 DN6. The item was in the third district.

Discussion and Presentation

• Staff presented the Oak Hills Estate Project, located at the northernmost point of Vandenberg Village, proposing 29 single-family lots. The presentation addressed changes made since the March 13 hearing based on board direction. Key modifications included:
• Off-site Mitigation: The applicant identified a site on the Burton Mesa Ecological Reserve for approximately 13.8 acres of restoration.
• On-site Restoration: Additional restoration was proposed in an ephemeral drainage area on the site.
• Public Benefit: The applicant proposed a contribution to the Vandenberg Village Park and Playground Coalition, initially stated as $50,000, later amended to $60,000.
• Environmental Review: Staff prepared a final EIR revision letter determining that the changes would not result in additional significant environmental impacts.
• Fees: Staff clarified that affordable housing in-lieu fees would be due prior to building permit issuance.
• Staff recommended approval of the project, certification of the EIR, adoption of the rezone ordinance, approval of the vesting tentative tract map and development plan, and approval of the road naming application.
• The applicant’s representative presented the project, highlighting the collaboration with state agencies to secure off-site mitigation permits and the revised public benefit contribution.

Motion and Vote

• Motion: A motion was made to approve staff’s recommendation as amended by the July 16, 2018 memorandum, including the acceptance of the $60,000 contribution. The motion was seconded.
• Outcome: The motion passed.

Agenda Item: Appeal of Denial for Secondary Access Road and Bridge at 949 Toro Canyon Road

Discussion and Presentation

• Staff presented the appeal by Barton Myers of the County Planning Commission’s denial of a land use permit for a secondary access road and bridge. The site is located in the Toro Canyon Plan area.
• History: The project was previously denied by staff and the Planning Commission due to conflicts with environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) policies and lack of justification for secondary access.
• Environmental Analysis: Staff prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) identifying impacts to biological resources, geology, and water quality.
• Staff Recommendation: Staff recommended denial of the appeal, citing insufficient justification for the secondary access road given the existing primary access and conflicts with ESHA policies.
• The appellant, Barton Myers, presented arguments in favor of approval, emphasizing fire safety, zoning and rights, and minimal environmental impact.

Board Questions and Clarifications

• Fire Marshal: The Fire Marshal for Carpinteria-Sumlin Fire District stated that while the current driveway meets minimum standards, the secondary road would be an improvement.
• Zoning: Staff clarified that "Mountainous Toro" is a resource protection zone, not an agricultural zone.
• Riparian Rights: The Chair raised concerns that approving the road might facilitate the removal of rock or sediment from the streambed. The appellant stated he was willing to surrender rights to mine the streambed for rock or sediment as a condition of approval.

Discussion

• A board member expressed concern regarding a finding in the staff report stating that the on-site structure was specifically designed for sheltering in place during a wildland fire. Staff agreed the statement could be removed.
• Another board member raised concerns about the legality of riparian mining of rocks from the creek bed.
• A board member stated they did not believe the applicant had a vested right to mine rock from the creek bed.
• A representative recommended against including the rock mining in the approval to maintain a defensible approval process.
• The Chair proposed a substitute motion to approve the project with an additional admonition to the applicant not to mine any rocks or sediment from the creek.
• A board member expressed support for the motion, noting that evidence indicated additional access is valuable.
• A board member stated they would vote against the motion, citing concerns about setting a bad precedent regarding oak woodland restoration and biological resources.
• A board member supported the motion, arguing that the site has abundant oak trees that are regenerating naturally.

Motions and Votes

• Motion: A motion was made to deny the appeal and proceed with findings for denial.
• Substitute Motion: The Chair made a substitute motion to approve the project, including an admonition to the applicant not to mine rocks or sediment from the creek.
• Second: The substitute motion was seconded by Joan Hartmann.
• Vote Outcome: The substitute motion to approve the project passed with a vote of 3-2.