Board of Supervisors — 2019-03-12

Mute all off. All right, good morning everybody I'd like to call to order this meeting for March 12th of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors Mr. Clerk can I get a roll call please?

Ms. Hartman? Here! Mr. Adam? Here. Mr. Williams? Here Mr. Hart? Here Mr. Lavinino?

Okay can I get a motion to approve the minutes of the March 5th meeting?

So moved. Seconded.

Moved and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. I will abstain. I was absent. And do we have a CEO's report this morning?

No report this morning.

All right, no report this morning so that takes us to our A agenda. Let's do our resolutions first. Can I get a motion to approve A1? I'd like to make that motion. Approve A1. Mr- I guess we need to read that in. Everybody is jumping on it. Yeah, we already know it.

Chair Lavinino, members of the board. Item A1 is sponsored by Supervisor Lavinino. This is a resolution of commendation honoring Yvonne Bailey upon her retirement from the 5th district.

All right so we've been moved and seconded all those in favor? Aye. Doss is an aye as well I believe. A long distance aye. Alright none opposed passes unanimously So I guess that means it's going to happen All right, Mr. Clerk can you read in? Yvonne if you'd like to come up do you want to bring Mike or? Come on up to the podium. You know how this works we're going to- It's her first day. All right, Mr Allen.

I'll read this into the record. This is a resident accommodation for Yvonne Bealey upon her retirement, whereas Yvonne Bailey has spent the last 10 years of her career in public service first as PR and marketing manager of the Santa Maria Fair Park and most recently as assistant to 5th District Supervisor Steve Lavinino. And whereas Yvonne actually worked and balanced multiple county jobs at the same time providing support to the Clerk of the Board and managing the Better AV Government Center in addition to our 5th district's responsibilities. And whereas Yvonne stepped up to become the new driving force behind the Northern Santa Barbara County Athletic Roundtable, raising money to ensure that young athletes continue to have an opportunity for recognition.

And whereas Yvonne's community involvement extends to many areas of Santa Maria including the Santa Maria Valley Boys and Girls Clubs, the Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce, the Santa Barbara County Veterans Stand Down, the Marion Hospital Foundation, Rotary Club, and Toys for Court Kids. And whereas, all of us at the county will miss Yvonne's friendly voice, work ethic and knowledge of just about everything.

Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors recognizes Yvonne Biele for her service to Santa Barbara County passed and adopted by the board today.

I think Supervisor Adam has... We didn't

want a photo bomb near the deal with Steve there, so we're going to do our own. Thank you very

much. That's beautiful. Thank you.

Oh the

real

flowers. Yeah,

oh

my gosh.

Steve says I get to say a few words. First of all, I want to say thank you. I feel so fortunate to have had the opportunity to serve the board, to serve the 5th District and to be involved with the county. I tell ya and I've worked over 45 years and if nothing else I've never worked with a group of people that are so kind and so helpful. I don't care what department I called or who I spoke to They always were very, very helpful and they do whatever they could. Friendly faces and I'm going to miss everyone so much.

Probably my biggest regret is not having worked for the county sooner. But thank you so much and I really appreciate everything and my time here. Thanks.

Yvonne came along, yeah it was too late. She showed up four years too late but I had a really great four years with her and always provided me with snacks. And a lot of great advice, and just our little conversations I'm going to miss. And the little notes that I got on my desk and thank you cards and those kind of things. Just so helpful to everybody in the county and we are going to miss you and I just hope you have a great, great retirement.

Thank you.

All right now she doesn't have to stay for the whole meeting this time. And so we are going to move on to our administrative agenda. I have to recognize my wife was here this morning, thank you for being here too, Mary Lavinino. So now I think you have to go back to work too, yeah all right. Someone's got to bring up the bacon that's what my mother-in-law tells us.

All right, so let's move on to the administrative agenda. Are there any items any of the board would like to pull? Supervisor Hartman?

I believe we need to trail A2 until we get to the departmental item.

Yep, we've got that. Supervisor Williams? A7. A7, I think that's the only one so can I get a motion to move the balance of the agenda besides A7 with A2 being trailed till after- So moved. Okay. Moved and seconded all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right let's hear well Do we need to read A2, Mr. Gazzone that we're trailing? Okay, let's go to A7 then.

Chair Labnino, members of the board, item A7 is brought to the board by Human Resources. It's to consider recommendations regarding establishing a job classification of forensic unit supervisor.

Well, I think we have a lieutenant from the Sheriff's Department here since it was a sheriff's request. And I just kind of wanted to understand this because obviously having more civilians in the department is part of your survival strategy. So I kind of want to understand from that standpoint but also From the standpoint of, just maybe one of the questions is should there be a bachelor's degree requirement for the position?

That's typical in a position of this type or what's the advantages and disadvantages of that.

Good morning. Yes sir I spent about five years in that position and having a bachelors degree is a benefit And I believe having a civilian supervisor would be best. Not only it would save money, but also the civilians that do that job have a better temperament, a better understanding as opposed to a sworn person who are more type A personalities. And I believe that right now we have several good candidates within our unit that are more than qualified to do that job.

So would it be a bad thing for us to have the bachelor's requirement in there? It's not currently, is it?

I don't know if it's currently in there or not, I'm not certain. I didn't quite go over it but- But that would be your recommendation? My recommendation would be a bachelor's degree is a good thing to have. Yes sir.

So I don't need to vote on this separately, but I do think it would be good for us to ask for that to be asked for as part of the position.

Supervisors, Human Resources, I'm not sure if they're in the Santa Barbara hearing room. If not, they are the ones who are responsible putting the job specs together with the department and I would also defer to them and ask them if that's necessary or If that's something they would find as amenable given classes of equal standing. So we could trail the item until after your first couple of D items.

Mr. Clark is

here.

Thank you. Yeah, we did talk, we went back and forth with the union talking about whether or not to include the bachelor's degree in the position description. And ultimately, we decided that was something that the department could use as a preference but that it would be better to have a more broad field of candidates to keep it out of the position description as a requirement.

I see. Were you asking is there something that we should have? I don't necessarily agree, there's been other sergeants that have filled that position in the past that haven't had a bachelor's degree. So that doesn't necessarily need to be there as long as they have experience.

Supervisor Adam? Well, I don' t have a bachelor's degree so- I don''t know whether that means that they're really mandatory to be successful in life or not but I wouldn't be able to serve if asked to. I probably could.

I don't know if any of us would be qualified for this position with or without a bachelor's degree.

Supervisor Hartman?

I had an opportunity to participate in the Citizens Academy and have the forensics presentation. And I asked about the education of both the people who were presenting, neither of them had bachelor's degrees but one had been a photographer. And I think life experience can serve for a degree. It may be in a supervisorial role that it would be preferable, but I don't think it's necessary from what I saw.

I agree with that. We have a lot of experience especially in our agency and most of the forensic technicians that are there Decade or so have had quite a bit of experience in field experience that will qualify them to do that.

Supervisor Williams? I don't need a separate vote on this, I think it's a step in the right direction to have the position and if it's not 100% to my perfect specifications, I still think it's good thing.

Okay, do you want to make a motion because this is the only one we did not- No sure, I'll move the item. Second. Moved and seconded, all those in favor? Aye. Men opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you very much for being here. Thank you. All right, I believe that finishes off our administrative agenda. Takes us right to our departmental items. Mr. Allen can you read item one please?

We need public

comment we sure do and I'm gone one week, and I fall apart All right, let's have public comment.

We do have three requests to speak under public comment today We're gonna go first to Santa Barbara for Ed Kulaski And then David Blue Wolf Diaz, and then we'll come back here to Santa Maria for Brian Tetley that mr. Kulaski

You put the drawing up Ken, thank you. I call my speech why is Alex Peugeot still at SBAR? And why does our government have a single person controlling our lives and yet he is not an elected official? We can't go to our, or at least I couldn't go to my previous supervisor Janet Wolfe when I tried to go speak to her about the decision she had an aide run out of the office And say no, no, no. Don't sign them up to see her.

This is how they run the department. Why when we were at the meeting where we ordered out of the meeting in 15 seconds? Why did I have to pay for the meeting only just to be told to leave? Why did the county put together a 64-page report telling us, do not locate our second story solely over the garage? But it's not solely over the garage. It makes no sense.

Why were we not allowed to speak? Why were we stripped of our civil rights? Do you have any idea how much this irritates me? Back of the bus lady if you know where that comes from. I'm sorry, this really irritates me that I'm stripped of my civil rights here. We appealed to the PC and to the Board of Supervisors. The PC apparently couldn't understand what solely over-the-garage means when it's not solely over-the-garage.

Janet Wolfe was in charge of the Board of Supervisors. That was hopeless, I couldn't even speak to her afterwards. So we got this dictator who's now retired, and we got Anne Almy who also was very creative in writing the minutes to the meetings. They had nothing to do with the meetings, whatever she could think up. I asked her to explain how it's solely over the garage.

She couldn't explain it right now. She never could. No one downstairs. You're the supervisors. You made the decision basically. Tell me how it's solely over the garage? So now we got a second in command, Alex Pujo to get passed. As I like to call him aka Heinrich Himmler if you know who that is. I listed 15 items about why he should be fired. I don't think he's even a county employee. I think he's contractor.

You know it's time for some sort of epiphany by the board here. And restore democracy in Santa Barbara. It shouldn't be for life and liberty, or excuse me, liberty and justice for those that pay the extortion fee. What do you think Alex does? That he takes control-

Mr. Kolaski your time's up. Thank you very much.

Our next speaker is David Blue Wolf Diaz. Then we'll come back to Senator Maria for Brian Tetley.

Good morning, Senator Barbara County. How are we doing today? On the back of this paper there's an indication that on March 1st over at Hammond's Chihuahua that they were spraying organic oils to kill all the weeds and plants that aren't desirable there. The funny thing is it's in red, so like I've been saying my entire life whether it's organic or unorganic or non-organic. Chemicals are chemicals and it says do not go around this area if it's wet and keep your dogs on a leash. Well, my interpretation of Hammond's was for decades you're supposed to be running your dog with a leash through that perimeter because A cemetery site that's on the federal register as a sensitive archeological site. So I'm a little confused, if they put it in red letters out of the entire page Channel Islands Restoration, it says a big story that chemicals that are toxic to animals, people, reptiles, riparian.

The cute little butterflies that we love so much that fly all over them, they get exposed to the wetness of this chemical and their history. What are we doing? Does the Coastal Commission, does the EPA know that this type of activity is going on? But anyhow, that was just a little tidbit of what I wanted to share. What I don't understand is, I've been researching extensively because the park director maybe he should recuse himself from this project over at Hammond's. Because apparently the ex-husband of one of his staff members schmoozed him to help get the restoration project going even though us native families were never informed We basically were informed through the MLD's most likely descendants that are recognized by the state.

And for those of us who are still burying our family's ashes there, it's quite vital that we're kept in the loop and apparently its Not going to happen, we're pretty upset and perhaps I mean with the park director recusing himself. Maybe we can get people who are more responsible and care about the integrity of the culture and the environment there. And who is paying for this? Is the county of Santa Barbara County Parks paying for this? Are we the taxpayers paying for this or are we allowing the private neighbors at Ocean Meadows and Bonnymead to pay for it?

Really have that much out of controlness in our government agency, where under the counter dealings are actually going on today and in this world. But anyhow, the second page real quick here is a letter on the paper chase when I hand this to the clerk here, I want the board members everybody to have a copy of it. And whoever it goes to please sign the second page so we know what the paper trail is. The community really wants to know.

Where the paper trail is once it's given to the clerk here when Michael's normally here. Thank you very much and my time.

Brian Tetley?

Good morning, I'm Brian Tetley. Thank you Mr. Chair and supervisors. I emailed a copy of this letter to the clerk this morning. I'd just like to read from it now. I'd like to take this opportunity to make the board and the public aware of their retirement this month from over a quarter century of county public service with my good friend and mentor, John Karametsos.

John's public service career was predominantly spent with the Planning and Development Department, and currently with Public Works. John has continued a family tradition of public service through his service to the county in service with local community service organizations including serving on the board of the Guadalupe de Napomo Dune Center and president of the local chapter of the Association of Environmental Professionals among others.

The Karametsos tradition of service started with his father, the late Dr. John Karametsos, a long time public health physician and obstetrician. And his mother Barbara, a longtime member and supporter of many local community service organizations. The public service legacy continues with John's siblings including his sister Dr. Carol Karametsos, the local physician in high school district board member, and his wife Kim, a long time English teacher at Rigetti High School.

Among many other projects in his planning career, John was a key member of a team of dedicated planners that worked to approve the Orcutt Community Plan. Up to this time, the only substantial plan for community growth in the county. As a lifetime resident of Orcuttt, John was that rare and fortunate person able to partake in and help direct the planning for the future of his own community.

John is one of those people that show up early to public meetings, to greet people and set up chairs. Holds a meeting then stays late to talk some more and then puts the chairs away again. For the Orcutt community plan this was the drill for dozens of meetings. This is why the late Supervisor Gray called John the unofficial mayor of Orcut. To name just a couple of the many projects that John managed for the county.

The Oak Knoll South Shopping Center, the Albertson Center, of which the late Supervisor Schwartz called the best planned shopping center in the unincorporated county and the Black Road Auto Wrecking Yard, Goat Farm and Boys Camp fortunately never approved. I consider myself very fortunate in the beginning of my career with planning and development to be seated across the hall from John.

John is one of those people that makes you want to do better in your own work In land use planning parlance, planning is a continuing tension between the two P's product and process. Although John addressed these two, John also emphasized the third P people. John is one of those public servants that with rare exception calls you back within the hour and gives you all the time you need not just for a few years but for his entire career.

Without this emphasis on the third P, the three-legged stool tends to topple I credit a large part of my success as a land use planner to the mentorship of John and a few other dedicated land use planners that shared their experiences and expertise with me at that time. So, I want to thank John for his mentorship, his friendship, the crumb, the Fitzcarraldo, and the Swan CDs.

And I invite the board in the audience in joining me in wishing John and his family along healthy and happy retirement. Thank you very much.

Okay. Is that the end of public comment?

That concludes public comment.

All right, very good well we'll close public comment and we'll move on to our D agenda item 1 Mr. Allen

Chair Lavenino, members of the board. Item one is from the county executive office. It's a hearing to approve the appointment of one member of the Board of Supervisors for the Santa Barbara County Psychiatric Health Facility Governing Board.

Unfortunately I was, well fortunately I was a member of that psychiatric health facility board that oversaw the psychiatric health facility. But it conflicts with my new duties on the Board of Retirement. They happen to be on the same day, so unfortunately I'm going to be stepping down. So I'm looking for a replacement. Supervisor Williams?

I believe I'm alternate right now and but I can either be the alternate or be the full time member and have another member be the alternate.

Meetings are once a month, and they are at the Cayo Real area. Supervisor Hart?

I'm open to being the alternate if Supervisor Williams wants to be the regular member.

Okay. Is that a motion? Yes. We'll have Supervisor Williams as the main member and Supervisor Hart is the alternate. We have a motion. And a second? I'll second. Okay, all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Great you will learn a lot of really cool things. All right let's go to item number two Mr. Allen

Chair Lavinino, members of the board. Item two is from community services. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the approval of action plan substantial amendments consisting of $232,000 for Camino Pescadero stairs replacement in Isla Vista third district and just to remind the board that we trailed item A to be considered and approved with this item.

Okay

very good Miss Lockhart?

Good morning Chair Lavendino, members of the board. I would like to introduce Ted Tiber and he is going to do the presentation for a public hearing to consider the draft fiscal year 2018-19 action plan amendment for CDBG grant.

Ted? Good morning Chair Lavendino, members of the board. Like I said, Ted Tiber is a New Housing Program Specialist with Housing Community Development.

Santa Barbara County Parks Department is requesting an increase in federal community development block grant funds that were previously awarded for a beach access stair replacement project. Approval of the CDBG funds for this project requires a public hearing and submission of an action plan substantial amendment to HUD. Today concludes the 30-day public comment period on the proposed amendment.

HCD has not received any public comments on this project as of today. The Camino Pescadero Beach Access Stair Replacement Project was awarded $465,000 in 2018 CDBG funds. The project went out to public bid and the lowest bid came back $232,000 over what was budgeted for last year for a total project cost of $697,000 of CDBG funds. These increases in costs can be seen throughout the construction industry due to steel and concrete international tariffs, as well as contractor labor being in high demand for Montecito construction repairs. The project was considered by the Capital Loan Committee on February 14th who concurred with staff's recommendations to award the additional $232,000 which are available from the county's 2018-2019 CDBG allocation from HUD which are needed to complete the project.

The project is expected to be complete before June 30th 2020 This slide briefly summarizes the recommended actions for today's meeting. The board is being asked to approve the draft 2018-19 Action Plan Substantial Amendment awarding additional $232,000 to the San Barbara County Parks Division. We're happy to answer any questions you might have and that concludes the staff report for today. Thank you.

Any public comment?

No request to speak.

Board members? Okay, Supervisor

Williams. I'm waiting to make a second.

I just was procedurally D2 and A2 exactly how do we do that? Do we need to read A2 into the record or take them separately this one then that one?

We're going to do them separate so we'll do D2 first and then we'll go back to A2.

Okay, move staff's recommendation for D2. Second.

Moved and seconded all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay let's go back to do A2 please read that into the record please.

Chair Lavagnino members of the board item A2 also from community services recommendations are regarding the Camino Pescadero beach access stair replacement project number 8656 this is the award of contracts in the third district

Okay, Supervisor Williams?

So moved.

Second.

Moved and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. All right so we're almost done. We only have one more item. Only one. All right well let's move to D3. Mr.

Allen. Chair Lavagnino, members of the board. Item three is for planning and development. It's a hearing to consider recommendations running the Planning Commission Recommended ordinance amending the county land use and development code. Case number 17 ORD 5, section 35-1 chapter 35 zoning of the Santa Barbara County Code to address permitting requirements for hoop structures and shade structures.

Okay very good. Ms. Harris are you going to lead off? Or Ms. Black?

Mr. Chair, I guess I'm just going to waste some time while she gets herself prepared but Julie Harris will be giving the staff presentation in about-

Take your time we're good.

Ten seconds

Good morning Mr. Chair, good morning members of the board. I'll be giving the presentation and it's going to be a summary of a project that's got a lot of complex issues but and I know you're all going to have a lot of questions but if we hold them to the end I should get through the presentation about 15 minutes or so and I know you're going to have a lot of questions so let's get started.

So I'd like to touch on a very brief background and overview of the issues which brought us here today. First, since 2016 the county building code has not required building permits for readily removable hoop structures that are 20 feet or less in height and that have no permanent structural elements. The building code also exempts shade structures. However, the County Land Use and Development Code or LUDC lacks such clarity with conflicting regulations and definitions and more than one interpretation.

Most important, the LUDC does not expressly allow the use of these structures in the agricultural zones. Therefore, the Board of Supervisors included this project in the Long Range Planning Division's work program which also allowed the County Planning Commission an opportunity to review the project and provide a recommendation to your board regarding how to address these issues.

In summary, the Planning Commission's recommendation to your board is to amend the LEDC to expressly allow hoop structures and shade structures also collectively known as crop protection structures. To expressly allow these in the agricultural zones. The planning commission also recommends exempting these structures when they are 20 feet or less in height. When they do not have any permanent structural elements such as lighting, plumbing, mechanical or any other kind of electrical.

When they are located on historically, intensively cultivated agricultural lands. When they are located on slopes averaging 20% or less and when they are 4,000 square feet in area or smaller and located within the San Ynez Valley Design Control Overlay or the Gaviota Coast Critical View Shed Corridor overlay. If they do not meet these criteria, a permit exemption. I'm sorry, a permit would be required.

This ordinance amendment provides clarity regarding the allowance and use of these structures including when they are exempt and when they require permits. A clarity that currently doesn't exist in the LUDC. Staff released a notice of preparation for a focused environmental impact report or EIR to analyze the potential impacts to five issue areas. Land use, aesthetics and visual resources, agricultural resources, water resources and flooding, and resource recovery in solid waste management.

In response to the notice of preparation, staff received a letter from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or CDFW. As both a responsible agency and a trustee agency with jurisdiction over the state's natural resources, the CDFW strongly recommended that the county include an analysis of impacts to biological resources. A program environmental impact was prepared to analyze the potential impacts that could result from the placement and use of crop protection structures throughout the county's agricultural zone lands within the inland area.

So, the EIR analyzed project impacts to the six issue areas. The EIR did not analyze the impacts of cultivation as this use is already allowed in the LUDC and exempt from permits. However, in addressing impacts to biological resources, the EIR identified how indirect impacts might result from an explicit permit exemption that could encourage and incentivize an increase in the use of crop protection structures on previously uncultivated lands.

Key mitigation measures were identified that would reduce impacts to a level that would be appropriate to allow the use of crop protection structures with an exemption. The final EIR identified three significant and unavoidable impacts to visual resources, and one to solid waste. Mitigation was identified to reduce impacts to visual resources however these impacts could not be mitigated to levels of insignificance.

No feasible mitigation was identified to address the solid waste impact due to a current lack of recycling opportunities for the plastic coverings once they wear out. The final EIR identified impacts to flooding and to biological resources that could be mitigated to less than significant levels with the identified mitigation measures. And finally, less than significant impacts were identified to land use, agriculture and other water resources such as water quality, groundwater supply and runoff in drainage.

Staff incorporated all of the EIR seven mitigation measures into the ordinance amendment that was provided to the planning commission for its consideration. After receiving public testimony and reviewing the project and mitigation measures during six hearings, the Planning Commission recommended nine revisions to the project. It should be noted that the commission's recommendation intended to work within the framework of the final EIR so as to avoid increasing the severity of any impacts that would then require pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act recirculation of the EIR.

The Planning Commission recommended changes to all seven mitigation measures. Rejecting two measures as infeasible, deleting two as unnecessary based on new evidence and revising three measures. The commission also recommended revising a requirement for the critical view shed corridor overlay and adding slopes as a new criterion for the exemption. Next, I would like to walk through each measure and the commission's recommended revisions as these are the crux of the commission's recommendation to your board.

Mitigation viz one would revise the ordinance to limit the height of crop protection structures to 12 feet within 75 feet of the right-of-way of a public road to qualify for the exemption. Its purpose, to reduce visual impacts from public roads and scenic highways. The Planning Commission recommended rejecting this measure as infeasible, as to summarize it would create an economic burden on farmers to require this different height limit along a relatively narrow strip of land creating farming inefficiencies and increasing costs.

Mitigation Vis 2 would revise the ordinance to require a setback of 400 feet from the urban boundary line of the county's unincorporated urban townships when the crop protection structures can be viewed from public roadways or other areas of public use. If the structures cannot be viewed from public areas, then the size limit would not apply. The purpose of this measure, to reduce visual impacts so as to protect and maintain the visual character of each of the nine townships which have well-defined stable boundaries that provide a physical and visual separation between the townships. And adjacent open and working agricultural lands.

The commission recommended rejecting this measure as infeasible, as it would create an economic burden on farmers creating farming inefficiencies and increasing costs. Mitigation Vis 3 would revise the ordinance to limit crop protection structures to 4,000 square feet per lot when located within the design control or D overlay of the Santines Valley Community Plan area.

If the structures could not be viewed from public roads or other areas of public use, the size limit would not apply. Its purpose, to reduce impacts associated with large exempt structures to maintain the unique neighborhoods, characteristics, community township gateways and visual community separators within the Santa Ynez Valley. The planning commission recommend revising this measure to make 4,000 square feet a permit threshold instead of a size limit. Thus, under the commission's recommendation, crop protection structures would be exempt if 4,000 square feet or smaller and require a permit if larger.

The planning commission carried forward the component of the measure allowing structures not viewed from public areas to be exempt no matter what their size. Within the Gaviota Coast's critical view shed corridor overlay, there is a similar requirement to limit the size of crop protection structures to 4,000 square feet per lot. It however was not a mitigation that was proposed as part of the project description.

It was included because the recently adopted Gaviota Coast plan includes a 4000 square foot per lot size limit on greenhouses. Which prevents large white structures from being used within the critical view sheds of US Highway 101 to protect those critical views. Crop protection structures, especially hoop structures have a similar visual effect so it seemed consistent with the Gaviota Coast plan to include the same size limit for crop protection structures.

The planning commission recommend revising this requirement similar to this three To make the 4,000 square foot a permit threshold instead of a size limit. Thus under the commission's recommendation, crop protection structures would be exempt if 4,00 square feet or less and require a permit if larger. The commission also added the element of Mitigation Viz 3 that allows structures not viewed from public areas to be exempt no matter the size.

Mitigation WR1 would revise the ordinance to limit the exemption to lands outside of a FEMA mapped floodway and require a permit for crop protection structures that would be located within a flood way. The Planning Commission asked for more information, and the Flood Control District subsequently provided a letter and testimony at hearing recommending against floodway regulatory measures for hoop structures. Stating these structures would not significantly cause or contribute to flooding impacts. Thus, impacts are essentially revised to less than significant and the measure would not be required.

Mitigation by a one addresses one of the more nuanced impacts. As mentioned earlier, CDFW made it clear that the EIR needed to analyze impacts to biological resources. The potential impacts included impacts to federal and state listed endangered and threatened species in their habitats and other protected sensitive habitats and natural communities. Grazing lands and other lands that have not recently been intensively cultivated may support protected biological resources. Thus, indirect impacts could result from incentivizing the use of crop protection structures on lands not being farmed by expressly allowing and exempting these structures.

Staff and our consultant on the EIR consulted with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the CDFW in developing mitigation by a one. This measure would revise the ordinance to limit the exemption to historically intensively cultivated agricultural lands. It also identified a time frame for the purpose of this mitigation regarding what is meant by historically intensively cultivated. And that is cultivation within three of the previous five years.

After discussing options regarding this mitigation measure, the Planning Commission recommended revising the timeframe for historically intensively cultivated. To aid in this determination staff again consulted with resources agencies. The commission discussed a variety of alternatives including cultivating one year out of the previous ten years and And one year out of the previous five years. But finally, the commission settled on one year out of the previous three years because the US Fish and Wildlife Service could support one year out of three. Concluding that the other longer time frames could allow too much time to pass such that California tiger salamander habitat could reestablish resulting in potentially significant impacts.

The CDFW, responding to the same question, stated a continued preference for the original three out of five years to address potential impacts to other protected sensitive habitats and state listed species. An impact identified in consultation with US Fish and Wildlife Service that was specific to the California tiger salamander is that crop protection structures near their breeding ponds would have the potential to be an impediment to this salamander's movement and dispersal due to the plastic cover extending to the ground.

So Mitigation Bio 2, which was developed in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the CDFW, Would have revised the ordinance so that to qualify for the permit exemption, any crop protection structures located within 1.24 miles of a known or potential California tiger salamander breeding pond shall have a minimum one foot gap between the bottom edge of the plastic and the ground surface to allow free movement of the salamander.

The commission asked for more information regarding its necessity. So staff consulted further with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, who in turn consulted further with their five independent biologists who specialize in California tiger salamander. The unanimous conclusion that the one foot gap allowing free movement of the salamander would not necessarily mitigate impacts to the salamander and might expose them to greater harm if they freely moved into the hoop structures. So, the biologists and the US Fish and Wildlife Service recommended removing the measure and the planning commission made this recommendation to your board.

Mitigation Bio 3 would revise the ordinance to require crop protection structures to be set back a minimum distance from streams and creeks. The mitigation requires a structural setback of 100 feet in the rural area, and a structural setback of 50 feet in the urban and inter-rural areas and in existing developed rural neighborhoods. These structural setbacks are consistent with the standard impact thresholds included in the county's Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual, and community plan policies and development standards.

Its purpose is to mitigate potential impacts to riparian habitats and the species that depend on them. The Planning Commission recommended revising the measure so that the structural setback in the rural areas is also 50 feet. However, it should be noted that several community plan areas including Toro Canyon, Saninez Valley and Gaviota Coast require a 100 foot setback in rural areas.