Board of Supervisors — 2019-03-12

Personnel and Board Appointments

• The board approved the appointment of Supervisor Williams as the main member and Supervisor Hart as the alternate for the Santa Barbara County Psychiatric Health Facility Governing Board.
• A retiring employee was recognized, and the board approved the associated personnel item.
• Item A2 was trailed until after item D2 and subsequently approved upon return.

CDBG Funds for Camino Pescadero Beach Access Stair Replacement

• Staff requested an increase in federal Community Development Block Grant funds to cover a $232,000 cost overrun for the stair replacement project.
• The board approved the draft 2018–19 Action Plan Substantial Amendment to award the additional funds from the county’s 2018–2019 CDBG allocation.

Resolution of Commendation for Yvonne Bailey

• Supervisor Lavendino sponsored a resolution honoring Yvonne Bailey for her ten years of public service in the 5th District.
• The board passed and adopted the resolution recognizing her roles in fair park management, district support, and community organizations.

Forensic Unit Supervisor Job Classification

• Human Resources presented recommendations for establishing a job classification for the Forensic Unit Supervisor role.
• Public commenters and the board discussed whether a bachelor’s degree is strictly necessary, noting that previous incumbents did not hold degrees.
• The board considered the recommendations regarding the specific qualifications and requirements for the position.

Ordinance Amending County Land Use and Development Code (Hoop Structures)

• The board debated the regulatory framework for hoop houses, balancing agricultural viability against environmental and visual concerns in designated overlays.
• A substitute motion was adopted to exempt hoops under 20 feet in height on slopes under 30% and on lands cultivated in the last three years.
• The board established that non-exempt structures between 4,000 and 20,000 square feet require a Zoning Clearance, while those over 20,000 square feet require a Land Use Permit.
• The hearing was continued to April 9th to allow staff to further analyze economic infeasibility and prepare findings of overriding considerations.

Agenda Item: Administrative Matters (Minutes, Personnel, and Appointments)

• Approval of Minutes: A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of the March 5th meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
• Personnel/Retirement: The board recognized a retiring employee. A motion was made and seconded to approve the item. The motion passed unanimously.
• Trailing Item A2: A motion was made and seconded to trail item A2 until after item D2. The motion passed.
• Board Appointment (Psychiatric Health Facility): A motion was made and seconded to appoint Supervisor Williams as the main member and Supervisor Hart as the alternate for the Santa Barbara County Psychiatric Health Facility Governing Board. The motion passed.
• Revisited Item A2: Following the completion of the appointment, the board returned to item A2. A motion was made and seconded to approve the item. The motion passed unanimously.

Agenda Item: CDBG Funds for Camino Pescadero Beach Access Stair Replacement

• Staff presented a request from the Santa Barbara County Parks Department for an increase in federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for the Camino Pescadero Beach Access Stair Replacement Project. The project was originally awarded $465,000 in 2018 CDBG funds. Due to increased construction costs, the lowest bid exceeded the original budget by $232,000, bringing the total project cost to $697,000. The Capital Loan Committee concurred with staff’s recommendation to award the additional funds from the county’s 2018–2019 CDBG allocation. No public comments were received on this specific item. The board approved the draft 2018–19 Action Plan Substantial Amendment awarding the additional $232,000.

Agenda Item: Resolution of Commendation for Yvonne Bailey

• Supervisor Lavendino sponsored a resolution of commendation honoring Yvonne Bailey upon her retirement from the 5th District. The resolution recognized her ten years of public service, including roles as PR and Marketing Manager for Santa Maria Fair Park and Assistant to the 5th District Supervisor. It also acknowledged her work with the Northern Santa Barbara County Athletic Roundtable and various community organizations. The board passed and adopted the resolution.

Agenda Item: Forensic Unit Supervisor Job Classification

• Human Resources presented recommendations regarding the establishment of a job classification for a Forensic Unit Supervisor. Public commenters discussed the qualifications for the role, with one speaker suggesting that a bachelor’s degree is beneficial but not strictly necessary if the candidate has sufficient experience. Another speaker noted that several qualified candidates within the unit possess the necessary field experience. The board discussed the requirements, noting that previous sergeants in the position did not hold bachelor’s degrees. The board considered the recommendations regarding the job classification.

Agenda Item: Ordinance Amending County Land Use and Development Code (Hoop Structures)

Public Comment

• Public comment was received from multiple individuals representing various perspectives on the proposed hoop house ordinance.
• Support for Exemptions: Several speakers, including representatives of cannabis and conventional agriculture, argued that hoop houses provide environmental and economic benefits, such as reduced water usage and protection from pests. Speakers requested the removal of restrictions within the Design Overlay (D overlay) and the Gaviota Critical Viewshed Corridor, arguing that the 4,000-square-foot limit effectively prohibits farming on significant acreage. Speakers emphasized that hoops are temporary agricultural implements, not permanent structures, and argued that requiring Development Plans or Land Use Permits (LUPs) for hoops under 20,000 square feet is infeasible and burdensome. Some speakers cited a petition with over 1,000 signatures supporting the exemption of hoops for all crops, including cannabis.
• Opposition and Concerns: Other speakers expressed concerns regarding visual impact, odor, and safety. One speaker, a healthcare professional, cited health issues and odor complaints from cannabis grown under hoops near residential areas. Another speaker, a resident of North County, described glare from hoops on steep hillsides and requested regulation of hoops on slopes. A speaker representing Tepeskaya Canyon residents cited noise, light pollution, and illicit activity associated with cannabis hoop houses, urging the board to prohibit hoops for cannabis specifically.
• Technical and Legal Arguments: Speakers presented arguments regarding the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). One speaker argued the EIR was inadequate because current cannabis permit applications (688 acres) exceeded the EIR’s estimate (65 acres) by a factor of ten. Another speaker argued that the existing zoning ordinance already exempts cultivated agriculture, making the new ordinance unnecessary. A planner from Rural Planning Services suggested that the historical cultivation requirement is a poor proxy for habitat protection and that the Design Overlay restrictions were not intended to limit agricultural operations.
• Specific Requests: Nancy Emerson, representing the San Dimas Valley We Watch, addressed the Board of Supervisors regarding slope and design overlay protections in the San Dimas Valley. She noted that the Planning Commission had recognized the need for tailored regulations and that the community plan and its Environmental Impact Report (EIR) were adopted after years of compromise. Emerson stated that the design overlay areas include portions of three highways and Alamo Pintado Road, which are key scenic roadways for residents and tourists. She emphasized the economic importance of tourism and wineries to the valley and requested that staff obtain figures on tourism impact. Emerson presented the following specific requests regarding hoop structures and related regulations:
• 1. Protect view corridors visible from the valley’s most used roadways through design review. 2. Exempt only hillsides with a slope of 10% or less from review to mitigate glare issues caused by hoop structures on steeper slopes. 3. Prohibit lighting in hoop and shade structures. 4. Honor community plan setbacks for riparian areas. 5. Include propane in the list of prohibited utilities to protect fire hazard areas. 6. Clarify that hoop structures associated with cannabis are not exempt from permits, potentially by separating the ordinances to avoid unintended consequences.

Staff Presentation and Q&A

• Staff presented the current regulatory framework, noting that hoop houses are currently regulated as greenhouses, requiring a Land Use Permit for structures under 20,000 square feet and a Development Plan for those over 20,000 square feet. Staff clarified that the proposed ordinance aims to clarify permitting requirements and downshift the level of review. Staff explained that exemptions are self-certified by farmers unless challenged, and that the Planning Commission’s recommendation included specific criteria for exemptions, such as slope limits (20% or less), creek setbacks, and height restrictions (20 feet or less). Staff noted that the Planning Commission’s recommendation to include a slope criterion was not part of the original EIR mitigation measures but was added later. Staff also addressed the distinction between zoning clearances (non-appealable) and Land Use Permits (appealable), suggesting that shifting the permit level for non-exempt hoops to a zoning clearance or LUP would be more supportable than a Development Plan.
• Staff presented the background of the project, noting that the Land Use and Development Code (LUDC) currently lacks clarity on hoop structures. The Planning Commission recommended amending the LUDC to expressly allow these structures in agricultural zones and to establish specific exemption criteria. Key mitigation measures from the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) were reviewed, including:
• Visual Resources: Rejection of height limits near roads and urban boundaries as infeasible; revision of size limits in the San Ynez Valley Design Control Overlay and Gaviota Coast Critical Viewshed Corridor to permit thresholds (4,000 sq. ft.) rather than strict size limits.
• Biological Resources: Revision of the "historically cultivated" timeframe to one year out of the previous three; removal of the requirement for a one-foot gap for salamander movement based on biologist advice; and revision of creek setbacks.
• Flooding: Removal of floodway restrictions based on input from the Flood Control District.
• Staff clarified the permitting hierarchy: structures meeting exemption criteria require no permit; those not meeting criteria but under 20,000 sq. ft. require a Land Use Permit; and those over 20,000 sq. ft. require a Development Plan.

Board Discussion

• Supervisors discussed the feasibility of separating cannabis from other crops (food and fiber) in the ordinance. Supervisor Hartman noted that while legally possible to bifurcate cannabis, it would require a rational basis and potentially different mitigation measures. The board discussed the impact of the Design Overlay and the Gaviota Critical Viewshed Corridor on agricultural operations. There was debate regarding the slope restriction, with some supervisors expressing concern that a 30% slope limit for cannabis was restrictive, while others supported the Planning Commission’s recommendation. The board also discussed the stream setback requirements, noting that changing these could trigger a recirculation of the EIR.
• Staff and legal counsel explained the legal framework, distinguishing between "statements of overriding considerations" and "findings of economic infeasibility" under CEQA. They noted that the board has discretion to balance economic, social, and environmental benefits. Counsel clarified that the zoning code is "permissive," meaning uses not enumerated are prohibited, and that the board can direct staff to further analyze specific mitigation measures or project objectives.
• The board discussed the history of the item, noting that in 2017, the board directed staff to interpret hoop structures as farm equipment, a decision that was appealed. Supervisor Adams expressed frustration that the current proposal did not align with the original intent of exempting hoop houses under 20 feet and that it negatively impacts the berry industry. Supervisor Adams proposed a motion to direct staff to remove mitigation measures from the Planning Commission’s draft due to economic infeasibility and threats to agricultural viability, and to recirculate the draft findings with overriding considerations. The board discussed the timeline for recirculation, with staff indicating it would take more than four months. The board debated the scope of the exemption, with some supervisors advocating for a broader exemption to protect the berry industry and others concerned about the impact on the Design Overlay and neighboring businesses.
• Supervisor Adam stated that agriculture must evolve and that hoops are part of that evolution. Argued against creating separate rules for different crops, viewing it as a "divide and conquer" tactic. Noted that cannabis under hoops already requires a permit, creating a bifurcation. Supervisor Williams clarified that for the vast majority of the Santa Maria Valley, historical agriculture would be exempt. Confirmed that cannabis growers must go through a permit process regardless. Supervisor Hartman expressed frustration with competing interests (wine vs. berries vs. cannabis). Stated that many complaints about hoops are actually complaints about illegal cannabis grows. Argued that the EIR impacts (aesthetics, waste, water) are unrelated to the crop type. Opposed the overlay restrictions, citing slippery slope concerns. Stated that a 20% slope restriction might exclude prime agricultural land.
• Supervisor Adam proposed a motion to exempt hoops under 20 feet on slopes less than 30%, 100 feet from blue line creeks, and on land cultivated in the last 1-3 years. Suggested that non-exempt cases go to a zoning clearance rather than a land use permit or development plan. Supervisor Williams added to the motion that non-exempt cases should require a zoning clearance based on size. Supervisor Hartman expressed difficulty in finding a middle ground that protects traditional agriculture while being legally defensible. Suggested removing the Santa Ynez overlay and allowing exemptions for slopes under 30% and setbacks from roads. Supervisor Adam reiterated the need for a legally defensible, least restrictive option. Noted that recirculation would delay the process and impact the cannabis industry timeline. Supervisor Williams proposed a final motion structure: Hoops 20 feet and under, on slopes less than 30%, 100 feet from blue line creeks, and on land cultivated in the last 1-3 years, are exempt. Non-exempt cases require a zoning clearance. Supervisor Hartman questioned the 100-foot creek setback, noting it was a requirement from the US Fish and Wildlife Service to avoid recirculation. Supervisor Adam confirmed the 100-foot setback was a condition for Fish and Wildlife sign-off.

Motions and Votes

• Motion 1: A motion was made to adopt the staff’s recommendation for the hoop house ordinance, with modifications to the permit levels and exemptions. The motion included exempting hoops under 20 feet in height, except in specific overlays where square footage triggers would apply for zoning clearances or Land Use Permits. The motion also included criteria for slope (30% or less), creek setbacks (100 feet in rural areas, 50 feet in urban areas), and historical cultivation (one year in the last three years). The motion was seconded.
• Vote Outcome: The motion passed 3-2.
• Motion 2 (Substitute): A substitute motion was proposed and adopted in place of the previous motion. This motion recommended:
• 1. Exempting hoops 20 feet or under in height, inclusive of blue line mitigation and setback mitigation, on slopes under 30%, and on lands cultivated one out of the previous three years. 2. Including the Design Overlay provision. 3. Requiring a Zoning Clearance for structures over 4,000 sq. ft. up to 20,000 sq. ft. 4. Requiring a Land Use Permit for structures over 20,000 sq. ft. 5. Restoring the original 100-foot creek setback in rural areas.
• Vote Outcome: The substitute motion was passed.
• Motion 3 (Continuation): A motion was made to continue the item to a future date to allow staff to further analyze the economic infeasibility of the mitigation measures and to prepare findings of overriding considerations. The motion to continue was passed.
• Motion 4 (Adjournment): A motion was made and seconded to continue the hearing to a date certain. The board voted to continue the hearing to April 9th. The motion passed unanimously. The board adjourned.