UnGovr Words

Board of Supervisors — 2019-04-09

Board of Supervisors — 2019-04-09April 9, 2019

Switch meeting
BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 April 9, 2019

Click any transcript line to jump the video there.

Meeting Summary

  1. PendingQueued for transcription.
  2. AIYou are hereAuto-transcribed and summarized; not yet human-verified.
  3. VerifiedReviewed and corrected by a person.

This summary was AI-generated to save you time. It may miss or misstate details, so verify against the official recording and the transcript.

At a glance

CEO’s Report and Recognition

  • The CEO presented a report honoring Park Rangers Nate Lang, Don Wilsey, and John LaRue for a rescue operation at Halama Beach.
  • The rangers rescued two distressed swimmers from approximately 150 yards offshore in 50-degree water with 4–6 foot waves.
  • The Board expressed appreciation for the rangers' service and the administration of first aid until EMS arrived.

Honorary Resolutions (Items A1–A4)

  • The Board approved four honorary resolutions unanimously.
  • Item A1 proclaims April 22–26, 2019, as "Committed Week" honoring CADA and the Friday Night Live program.
  • Item A2 commends Kelly Bull for her retirement from the Probation Department after over 25 years of service.
  • Items A3 and A4 proclaim National Crime Victims Rights Week and National Poetry Month, respectively, recognizing specific student achievements.

Budget Revision Requests (Item A15)

  • Supervisor Adam requested clarification on Budget Adjustment 6201 regarding funds returned to the General Fund.
  • A representative explained that $1.135 million is being returned from the Clerk-Recorder’s committed balance as unnecessary for an automation system.
  • The item was discussed, but no vote was recorded in this segment.

Licensing of Commercial Cannabis Operations Ordinance (Item A13)

  • A public speaker urged the Board to cap licenses, limit cultivation to one acre per parcel, and limit licenses per owner.
  • The Chair noted that some properties shown were under conditional use permits and subject to ex parte rules.
  • The Board moved Item A13 to a later date to allow for technical setup.

Environmental Health Services Fee Adjustments (Item A21)

  • The Board considered the second reading of fee adjustments for Environmental Health Services.
  • A motion was made and seconded to move Item A21.
  • The motion passed 4-1.

Hazardous Materials Program Fees (Item A22)

  • The Board considered the second reading of fee adjustments for the Hazardous Materials Program.
  • A motion was made and seconded to move Item A22.
  • The motion passed 4-1.

Waivers of Competition for Pharmaceuticals (Item A23)

  • Supervisor Adam questioned the lack of bidding, and a representative explained the requirement to use McKesson under the federal 340B program.
  • The Board considered the waiver to access discounted drugs through a contract pharmacy.
  • The motion to move Item A23 passed 4-1 with one abstention.

Appointment of Health Officer (Item A24)

  • Dr. Henning Ansorg was introduced as the new Health Officer, with his background and qualifications presented.
  • The item was included in the subsequent motion to move the balance of the agenda.

Balance of Administrative Agenda

  • The Clerk announced an addendum amending Item A8 to correct a date error and added Item A45 regarding a Sheriff Storage Lease.
  • Item A11 was continued to the May 7, 2019 meeting.
  • The Board unanimously approved the motion to move the balance of the administrative agenda with these changes.

Waiver of Retirement Exclusion for Dr. Jane McCallaghan (Item D1)

  • Public Health requested a waiver to allow Dr. McCallaghan to return for six months to assist with the transition to her replacement.
  • The motion to approve the waiver passed unanimously.

Extra Help Services and Retirement Waiver for Housing and Community Development (Item D2)

  • Community Services requested approval to appoint retired employee Margo Wagner for 180 days to provide consultation on affordable housing programs.
  • The motion to approve the waiver passed unanimously.

County-Wide Community Workforce Agreement Ordinance (Item D3)

  • Staff presented a proposal to draft an ordinance and negotiate a template for a Community Workforce Agreement (CWA) including local hiring and apprenticeship provisions.
  • Legal counsel explained that as a general law county, the Board can set non-mandatory goals but not hard quotas.
  • Public comment was divided, with opponents citing increased costs and reduced competition, and supporters citing local job creation and safety benefits.
  • The Board directed staff to develop an ordinance that defaults to a PLA for projects above a certain threshold, with exemptions allowed based on project nature.
  • The motion to direct staff to proceed with the development of the PLA ordinance and pilot project framework passed.
No decision 0–0

Salvation Army Disaster Relief Funding (Item 4)

  • The Board considered a request to approve $100,000 in CDBG funds for the Salvation Army to administer emergency grants for Thomas Fire victims.
  • The program aims to serve approximately 40 low-income households affected by the fire and debris flows.
  • The motion to approve the draft action plan amendment and sub-recipient agreement passed unanimously.

Operational Area Oil Spill Contingency Plan (Item 5)

  • The plan transitions local leadership responsibility for oil spill emergencies from the Office of Emergency Management to the County Fire Department.
  • The plan explicitly authorizes first responders to take initial containment actions without waiting for the responsible party or state/federal agencies.
  • Public comment raised concerns about the county's limited equipment and the need to fill the vacant oil spill response planner position.
  • The Board approved the staff recommendation, amended to include 24/7 response language, and requested a Fire Department assessment of staffing sufficiency.

Hoop Structures Ordinance Amendment (Item 6)

  • Staff presented an amendment to exempt hoop structures under 20 feet in height on historically intensively cultivated agricultural lands with slopes of 30% or less.
  • Public comment debated the slope limits, stream setbacks, and the impact of cannabis cultivation on food agriculture.
  • The Board rejected the initial 30% slope threshold and the 20% threshold, ultimately passing a conceptual motion to set the slope threshold at 25%.
  • The Board adopted the ordinance amendment with the 25% slope threshold and directed staff to provide further clarity on waterway definitions.
No decision 0–0

Appeal of Lompoc Stone Mining Area Expansion (Item 7)

  • The Board heard an appeal regarding a 28.5-acre mining expansion area in the Lompoc area.
  • The appellant argued that the project involves the same stone resource and legal parcel as previous operations dating back to the 1940s.
  • The opposing party argued that the evidence did not support vested rights and that a conditional use permit should be required.
  • The Board voted unanimously to approve the staff recommendations, granting the appeal and de novo approval subject to conditions.

Closed Session

  • The board recessed into closed session to confer with real property negotiators regarding six parcels located in Goleta and Gaviota Coast.
  • The session lasted approximately one hour.

Full summary

Meeting Opening and Roll Call

  • The meeting was called to order by Chair Lavagnino. A roll call was taken, confirming all members were present. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

Approval of Minutes

  • A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of the April 2, 2019 meeting. The motion passed unanimously.

CEO’s Report and Recognition

  • The CEO presented a report honoring Park Rangers Nate Lang, Don Wilsey, and John LaRue for a rescue operation at Halama Beach on March 30, 2019. The rangers rescued two distressed swimmers from approximately 150 yards offshore in 50-degree water with 4–6 foot waves and administered first aid for hypothermia until EMS arrived. The Board expressed appreciation for the rangers' service.

Honorary Resolutions (Items A1–A4)

  • A motion was made and seconded to approve Honorary Resolutions A1 through A4. The motion passed unanimously.
  • Item A1: A resolution sponsored by Supervisor Williams to proclaim April 22–26, 2019, as "Committed Week" in Santa Barbara County, honoring the Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse (CADA) and the Friday Night Live program.
  • Item A2: A resolution sponsored by Supervisor Hart to commend Kelly Bull upon her retirement from the Probation Department after over 25 years of service.
  • Item A3: A resolution sponsored by Supervisors Hartman and Hart to proclaim April 7–13, 2019, as National Crime Victims Rights Week.
  • Item A4: A resolution sponsored by Supervisors Lavagnino and Adam to proclaim April 2019 as National Poetry Month and recognize students from Pioneer Valley and Orchid Academy for their achievements in the Poetry Out Loud competition.

Agenda Reordering and Administrative Items

  • The Board agreed to trail Item A13 to allow for technical setup. The following items were addressed:
  • Item A15 (Budget Revision Requests): A four-fifths vote was required. Supervisor Adam requested clarification on Budget Adjustment 6201. A representative from the County Executive Office explained that $1.135 million is being returned to the General Fund from the Clerk-Recorder’s committed balance, as the funds were determined to be unnecessary for the automation system. The item was discussed but no vote was recorded in this segment.
  • Item A13 (Licensing of Commercial Cannabis Operations Ordinance - Second Reading): A public speaker presented slides regarding land degradation and unpermitted operations, urging the Board to cap the number of licenses, limit cultivation to one acre per parcel, and limit licenses per owner. The Chair noted that some properties shown were under conditional use permits and subject to ex parte rules. A motion was made and seconded to move Item A13. The motion passed.
  • Item A21 (Environmental Health Services Fee Adjustments - Second Reading): A motion was made and seconded to move Item A21. A roll call vote was taken. The motion passed 4-1.
  • Item A22 (Hazardous Materials Program Fees - Second Reading): A motion was made and seconded to move Item A22. A roll call vote was taken. The motion passed 4-1.
  • Item A23 (Waivers of Competition for Pharmaceuticals): Supervisor Adam questioned the lack of bidding. A department representative explained that McKesson is a contract pharmacy under the federal 340B program, which requires the county to use them to access discounted drugs. A motion was made and seconded to move Item A23. A roll call vote was taken. The motion passed 4-1 with one abstention.
  • Item A24 (Appointment of Health Officer): Dr. Henning Ansorg was introduced as the new Health Officer. His background and qualifications were presented. No specific vote outcome was recorded in this segment for this item, as it was included in the subsequent motion to move the balance of the agenda.

Balance of Administrative Agenda

  • The Clerk announced an addendum amending Item A8 (Salvation Army drug Medi-Cal ODS) to correct a date error and added Item A45 (Sheriff Storage Lease). Item A11 was continued to the May 7, 2019 meeting. A motion was made and seconded to move the balance of the administrative agenda with these changes. The motion passed unanimously.

General Public Comment

  • Four speakers addressed the Board on matters not on the agenda: 1. A speaker discussed issues with the Board of Architectural Review (SBAR) regarding project approvals and alleged procedural irregularities. 2. A speaker representing Food and Water Watch, Safe Energy Now, and the Santa Barbara Standing Rock Coalition requested that Planning Commission meetings be held in the evening to accommodate working families and that translation services be provided. 3. A speaker apologized for previous comments made to Supervisor Adam and shared a recording of a radio segment. 4. A speaker from Food and Water Watch reiterated the request for evening meetings and translation services to allow farm workers to participate in planning hearings.

Departmental Agenda Items

  • Item D1 (Waiver of Retirement Exclusion for Dr. Jane McCallaghan): Public Health requested a waiver to allow Dr. McCallaghan to return for six months to assist with the transition to her replacement. A motion was made and seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
  • Item D2 (Extra Help Services and Retirement Waiver for Housing and Community Development): Community Services requested approval to appoint retired employee Margo Wagner for 180 days to provide consultation on affordable housing programs. A motion was made and seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

Item D3: County-Wide Community Workforce Agreement Ordinance and Project Template

  • Sponsored by Supervisors Williams and Hartman, this item proposed directing staff to draft an ordinance and negotiate a template for a Community Workforce Agreement (CWA) for county projects.
  • Presentation: Staff presented the definition of a CWA, noting it includes local hiring provisions and apprenticeship requirements. They cited a Cornell University study and recent agreements in Port Hueneme, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo. The presentation highlighted the benefits of apprenticeships, state laws regarding skilled/trained workforce (AB 3018), and the county’s capital project history. The recommendation was to direct staff to draft an ordinance and negotiate a template.
  • Discussion: Supervisor Hartman asked about the "Helmets to Hard Hats" provision, clarifying that it involves goals rather than quotas. Legal counsel explained that as a general law county, the Board can set non-mandatory goals and good faith efforts but not hard quotas, citing California Supreme Court precedent. The Chair asked why the item was presented by a supervisor’s staff rather than the CEO’s office or Public Works; Supervisor Hartman explained this was due to the "eight-hour rule" limiting staff time without prior Board direction. Supervisor Adam requested that the negotiators be present for questions.
  • Staff Clarification: Staff clarified that for county projects, the negotiation of labor agreements is typically handled by the Public Works Director or General Services. The Board discussed prevailing wage requirements, with staff confirming that California law mandates prevailing wage rates for state-funded projects and the Davis-Bacon Act for federal-funded projects, regardless of whether the contractor is union or non-union. Staff indicated that local labor supply is generally adequate, citing a 48% local labor component on the $111 million Northern Branch Jail project, and reported no history of project delays due to labor shortages or labor strife.
  • Public Comment: Eighteen speakers addressed the Board regarding the proposed CWA or Project Labor Agreement (PLA).
  • Opposition: Speakers from AGC of California, V. Lopez Jr. and Sons, Cal Portland Construction, Debbie Shaw Restoration and Landscape, Top Notch Heating, TLC Underground/Directional Drilling, J.F. Will Company, and Cushman Contracting opposed the PLA. Arguments included that labor contracts should be negotiated directly between employers and bargaining units without municipal influence; that the PLA would exclude non-union contractors from bidding, reduce competition, and increase project costs; that non-union contractors already pay prevailing wages and hire apprentices; that the PLA would harm the local economy by favoring out-of-area contractors; that core workforce provisions limit the use of established employees and double-pay fringe benefits; and that the PLA would disadvantage small, female-owned, non-union businesses. One speaker from Colab requested more information and data on union vs. non-union hiring percentages, local workforce percentages, and a cost-benefit analysis.
  • Support: Speakers from IBW Local 413, Electrical Workers Local 413, Plumbers and Pipe Fitters, IBW, and Carpenters Union supported the CWA. Arguments included that it creates career paths for underrepresented groups, improves safety, and keeps wages local; that it supports local jobs, prevents worker misclassification, and promotes workforce diversity; that it is cost-neutral and helps maximize public spending by leveraging local resources and apprenticeships; and that out-of-area contractors cannot bid competitively without incurring high travel and lodging costs.
  • Board Deliberations:
  • Supervisor Hart supported the CWA, stating that the primary issue is that too much work is going to out-of-area contractors, and the CWA is a tool to ensure local hire and keep money in the community.
  • Supervisor Williams supported the CWA, arguing that the current system incentivizes dishonest practices and that the CWA creates a more honest system with alternating workforce requirements.
  • Supervisor Adams opposed the CWA, stating that staff answers indicated no need for the initiative. Argued that the current bid process supports local labor and that the CWA would increase project costs.
  • Supervisor Hartman supported the CWA, citing the benefits of organized labor, quality training, and local hire preferences. Expressed interest in exploring terms such as "helmets to hardhats" and requested staff to return with a negotiated agreement.
  • Chair Lavagnino expressed curiosity about why the CWA is being proposed county-wide rather than as a pilot program for a specific project. Noted that the justification for a county-wide approach (saving staff time) seemed weak, as most terms could be reused across projects. Suggested that a pilot program on a specific capital project might be a more appropriate first step.
  • Implementation Discussion:
  • Pilot vs. Blanket Policy: There was disagreement regarding whether to apply the PLA to all projects above a certain threshold or to test it first on a specific pilot project. Some members argued for a pilot to assess local impact and costs, while others advocated for a broader policy to ensure local workforce participation on upcoming projects.
  • Data and Local Hiring: Concerns were raised regarding the lack of data tracking local versus non-local contractors. Staff noted that local governments do not currently track this information, whereas unions do. It was suggested that staff should begin collecting this data on future contracts.
  • Bidding Procedures: A question was raised about the feasibility of "alternate bids" (bidding with and without a PLA simultaneously) to compare costs. Staff explained that previous legal reviews indicated this approach was not defensible under public contracting codes, particularly when state or federal funds are involved. The recommended approach is to include the PLA in the bid package with the authority to reject all bids if costs are deemed too high.
  • Staff Direction: Staff requested clarity on next steps. They proposed returning to the board with a framework for the negotiating team, a recommendation for a suitable pilot project, and an ordinance draft. The board directed staff to develop an ordinance that defaults to a PLA for projects above a certain threshold, with exemptions allowed if staff provides a rationale based on project nature or skills. Staff was also directed to negotiate with employees, not just general contractors, and to consider the San Luis Obispo County ordinance as a template.
  • Motion and Vote: A motion was made and seconded to direct staff to proceed with the development of the PLA ordinance and pilot project framework as described. The motion passed.
No decision 0–0

Item 4: Salvation Army Disaster Relief Funding

  • The board considered a request to approve a substantial amendment to the Fiscal Year 2018–2019 Action Plan and execute an agreement with the Salvation Army.
  • Details: The Salvation Army requested $100,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to administer an emergency grant payment program for FEMA-registered families affected by the Thomas Fire and debris flows. The funds were originally set aside for disaster relief but required a board action to be committed. The program aims to serve approximately 40 low-income households.
  • Public Comment: The 30-day public comment period had concluded with no comments received from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
  • Motion and Vote: A motion was made and seconded to approve the draft action plan amendment for submission to HUD and the CDBG sub-recipient agreement awarding $100,000 to the Salvation Army. The motion passed unanimously.

Closed Session: Real Property Negotiations

  • The board recessed into closed session to confer with real property negotiators regarding six parcels located in Goleta and Gaviota Coast (specifically at the corner of Cathedral Oaks Road and Via Chaparral, 183 Winchester Canyon Road, 17100 Acaya Mariposa Arena, 17100 Calle Mariposa Arena, and the corner of Calle Real and Coral Canyon Road). The session lasted approximately one hour.

Item 5: Operational Area Oil Spill Contingency Plan (OSCP)

  • The board considered the approval of the updated Santa Barbara County Operational Area Oil Spill Contingency Plan.
  • Key Changes:
  • Leadership Shift: Local leadership responsibility for oil spill emergencies transitions from the Office of Emergency Management (OEM) to the County Fire Department, which has existing hazardous materials response capabilities and incident command structures.
  • Operational Focus: The plan is restructured to be more operational, serving as a training guide and emergency tool. It aligns with the National Contingency Plan and incorporates lessons learned from the Refugio oil spill after-action report.
  • First Responder Authority: The plan explicitly authorizes first responders (specifically the Fire Department) to take initial containment actions and order resources without waiting for the responsible party or state/federal agencies, a clarification that was previously ambiguous.
  • Public Information: A County Public Information Officer is designated to ensure timely release of public safety and health information, separate from the Joint Information Center.
  • Resources: The plan includes lists of available resources (e.g., Pacific Petroleum, Marine Spill Response Corporation) that local incident commanders can now directly activate.
  • Discussion:
  • Board members inquired about the county’s equipment capabilities and response time metrics. Staff and the Fire Chief explained that while the plan authorizes the activation of external resources, the county may need to conduct further capabilities analysis to determine specific "mission ready packages" and equipment needs for various spill scales. The Fire Department emphasized that their personnel are trained to initiate immediate containment actions (e.g., diking) upon arrival.
  • A member raised concerns about the lack of 24/7 response capability during the Refugio oil spill, noting that cleanup crews had to leave when night fell due to a lack of night-fighting capability. Another member corrected the record, stating that delays were caused by EPA directives preventing action until their arrival. Staff clarified that the current plan allows local incident commanders to make deployment decisions and that the plan, once approved, will be codified with the Oil Spill Response Program (OSPR).
  • Public Comment: Linda Kropp of the Environmental Defense Center (EDC) stated that while the plan is an improvement over the 2011 version, it lacks a description of the personnel, training, equipment, and vessels needed for the county to act as an effective first responder. She noted that current county assets are limited to backhoes and front-end loaders and that the county lacks the boats and trained personnel to deploy containment booms. She urged the county to fill the vacant oil spill response planner position, which has been empty since January 2018. Molly Troop of the Santa Barbara Channel Keeper expressed support for the plan and the additional requests made by EDC.
  • Supervisor Hartman inquired about the Fishermen’s Oil Spill Response Team (FORT) and staffing for coordination. Staff explained that FORT is a structure created by the Oil Spill Response Organization (MSRC) to utilize volunteer fishermen with vessels for shallow water response. Staff recommended that the sustainability and activation of this program be addressed in the Area Contingency Planning process, noting that an area meeting with the Coast Guard and OSPR is scheduled for April 24. Regarding staffing, staff confirmed that duties previously held by a dedicated planner were transferred to the Fire Department. The Fire Department’s Inspection Services Captain currently holds these duties, and the department is analyzing the workload to determine future resource needs.
  • Supervisor Williams asked if the county agreed with the response times cited in the EDC letter (boom deployment within 15–60 minutes, skimming within two hours). Staff and the Fire Department representative stated that the county cannot mandate response times or resources under Coast Guard jurisdiction in the marine environment, though the county is responsible for land-based response.
  • Motion and Vote: Supervisor Hartman moved to approve the staff recommendation (A through C), amended to include 24/7 response language on page 27. Supervisor Williams seconded the motion. Supervisor Williams also requested that the Fire Department provide an assessment of whether existing positions are sufficient for the workload by the time the budget is approved. The motion passed unanimously.

Item 6: Hoop Structures Ordinance Amendment (Case No. 17 ORD 5)

  • Staff presented the final action for the hoop structures ordinance amendment, following a conceptual motion approved by the Board on March 12. The amendment proposes to exempt hoop structures that are 20 feet or less in height, lack permanent structural elements (lighting, electrical, plumbing), are located on historically intensively cultivated agricultural lands (defined as cultivation of a crop for at least one year in the previous three), and are on slopes averaging 30% or less. Exemptions are limited to structures of 4,000 square feet or smaller if located within the Santa Ynez Valley Design Control Overlay or the Gaviota Coast Plans Critical Viewshed Corridor overlay. Structures not meeting these criteria require a permit. The Board’s previous action changed the slope criterion from 20% to 30%, increased the rural area stream setback from 50 to 100 feet, and revised permit types: structures under 20,000 square feet require a zoning clearance, while those 20,000 square feet or larger require a land use permit. Staff stated that these changes do not require recirculation of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
  • Discussion:
  • Supervisor Williams asked about mapping guidance for "unaltered creeks" to clarify where setbacks apply. Staff explained that the definition relies on USGS 7.5-minute topo maps (blue lines) but requires on-ground verification to distinguish natural channels from man-made ditches or swales.
  • Supervisor Adams noted that "blue line" status on a map does not inherently indicate habitat quality or flow volume. Supervisor Williams stated she was reconsidering her support for the 30% slope limit and preferred the Planning Commission’s original 20% limit. Supervisor Lavagnino questioned the rationale for increasing the stream setback from 50 to 100 feet, noting that the Planning Commission had approved 50 feet. Staff indicated that reducing the setback back to 50 feet would require additional study and recirculation of the EIR because there is insufficient substantial evidence on the record to conclude that impacts would not increase.
  • Public Comment:
  • Andy Caldwell (CoLab) urged the Board to maintain the 30% slope limit and 50-foot setback, arguing that hoops have been used for over ten years without issue and that stricter regulations would harm agricultural production, particularly for Hispanic-owned strawberry farms. He suggested that cannabis issues should be handled under the cannabis ordinance, not the hoop ordinance.
  • John Dorwin argued that the Tepescay EDRN (Environmental Designation and Resource Network) should be carved out of the ordinance due to non-compliant cannabis growers building hoop houses in riparian habitats without setbacks. He cited satellite imagery showing violations and requested enforcement of existing grading and oak tree ordinances.
  • Renee O’Neill presented before-and-after images of non-compliant cannabis operations in the Tepescay area, alleging that violations persist despite inspections. She requested that the Tepescay EDRN be exempt from the hoop ordinance due to the prevalence of illegal cannabis activity.
  • Peggy Brierton requested that the ordinance prohibit cannabis in hoop structures, set a maximum height of 20 feet, and limit slopes to 20%. She argued that cannabis is the primary driver of hoop expansion and that the ordinance should protect food agriculture.
  • Susan Bellini supported the Design Control Overlay limits, arguing that unlimited hoops would negatively impact the scenic character and tourism economy of the Santa Ynez Valley. She cited visitor statistics and compared the potential visual impact to the "sea of plastic" in Spain.
  • Chip Wolbrant argued that the EIR is flawed because it assumed hoops were illegal prior to 2017, whereas a previous Director’s Determination stated they did not require permits. He warned that the current stream setback definition creates uncertainty for property owners and could lead to legal challenges.
  • Claire Weinman (Grower Shipper Association) supported the 30% slope criterion. She requested the removal of the phrase "historically intensively cultivated agricultural lands" as an arbitrary definition and supported the 50-foot stream setback, arguing that 100 feet would impact currently cultivated lands.
  • George Chapshew urged the Board to approve the conceptual motion to allow farmers to continue operations, warning that further delays or restrictions could lead to farm failures and conversion to housing developments.
  • Mark Chantillo (CLAWS/Gaviota Coast Conservancy) argued that the EIR must be recirculated due to significant changes in the project description, impact analysis, and mitigation measures. He cited conflicts regarding cannabis use in exempt hoops and a failure to respond to public comments.
  • Board Discussion:
  • Supervisor Williams asked staff to clarify the ramifications of the Grower Shipper Association’s recommendations. Staff stated that removing the phrase "historically intensively cultivated agricultural lands" is feasible and consistent with the mitigation measure, but reducing the creek setback from 100 to 50 feet would require additional analysis and recirculation of the EIR.
  • Supervisor Williams clarified the definition of a natural creek channel, noting that it requires both a blue line on the USGS map and a water course not altered by human activity. She expressed concern about the lack of clarity for property owners and suggested exploring a process for landowners to verify if their waterway meets the definition. She also noted that enforcement of existing regulations (grading, oak removal) is a more appropriate tool for addressing non-compliant actors than the hoop ordinance.
  • Supervisor Adams corrected the record regarding berry picker wages, stating that many are paid on a piece rate rather than minimum wage.
  • Discussion continued regarding the definition of "creeks" and "streams" for setback requirements, with specific debate over whether human-altered waterways, such as the Santa Maria River or channelized tributaries, meet the regulatory definition. Staff explained that the definition targets natural riparian corridors with specific ecological features, distinguishing them from concrete channels or ditches created solely for drainage. Staff outlined two options for farmers: seeking an official exemption determination from the county or self-certifying that a waterway does not meet the definition.
  • Supervisors discussed the interaction between the hoop ordinance and cannabis regulations. Staff clarified that adding hoop structures to an existing permitted cannabis operation would not require a new permit unless the addition compromised the cannabis operation’s compliance with state regulations. Supervisors expressed concern that the hoop ordinance had become entangled with cannabis policy debates and that the current definition of waterways created uncertainty for agricultural operations.
  • Motions and Votes:
  • 1. Motion to Adopt Staff’s Recommended Actions with Modifications: A motion was made to move staff’s recommended actions for approval, including CEQA findings and the statement of overriding considerations, certify the EIR, and adopt the ordinance amendment. The motion included a modification to delete the phrase "historically intensively cultivated agriculture" from the ordinance language. The motion failed. 2. Conceptual Motion to Change Slope Threshold to 20%: A conceptual motion was made to amend the plan to revert the average slope threshold from 30% back to 20%. The motion failed. 3. Conceptual Motion to Change Slope Threshold to 25%: A conceptual motion was made to set the average slope threshold at 25%. The motion passed. 4. Motion to Adopt Staff’s Recommended Actions with 25% Slope Threshold: Following a break to update slides, a formal motion was made to move staff’s recommended actions with the changes shown on the updated slide. The primary change was amending the ordinance to change slopes averaging "30% or less" to "25% or less" in Section 35.42.140C1A4 and any other locations currently reading 30%. The motion also included the deletion of the reference to "historically intensively cultivated agriculture." The motion passed. 5. Motion to Direct Staff to Provide Further Clarity on Waterway Definitions: A motion was made to request that staff return to the board with further clarity on the definition of streams requiring setbacks versus human-altered waterways, including examples. Staff was also directed to consult with the Agricultural Advisory Committee (AAC) before returning. The motion passed (with one abstention).
No decision 0–0

Item 7: Appeal of Lompoc Stone Mining Area Expansion Vesting Determination and Reclamation Plan Revision

  • The board heard an appeal filed by Sepulveda Building Materials regarding the County Planning Commission’s deemed denial of a vesting determination and reclamation plan revision for a 28.5-acre mining expansion area in the Lompoc area.
  • Discussion:
  • Staff presented the project details, noting that the applicant currently operates a stone mine with two sites (Site 1A for mining and Site 1B for sorting/storage). The request is for vested rights for an additional 28.5 acres adjacent to the existing operation. Staff recommended granting the appeal, making required findings, adopting the mitigated negative declaration, and granting de novo approval subject to conditions.
  • The appellant’s attorney argued that the project involves the same stone resource and legal parcel as previous operations dating back to the 1940s and 1990s. He stated that the expansion moves mining activity away from Highway 1 and behind a ridge, reducing visual impacts. He noted that the State Division of Mine Reclamation had reviewed the plan and issued no comments.
  • The opposing party, represented by Mark Chantillo, argued that the board must apply the legal standard for vested rights, which requires objective evidence of intent to mine the specific expanded area at the time the zoning ordinance was adopted in 1958. He contended that the evidence did not support this intent and that granting vested rights would allow the operation to continue without a conditional use permit, potentially for decades. He urged the board to reject the vested rights finding and require a conditional use permit application.
  • The appellant’s attorney rebutted by citing declarations from operators, geologist testimony, and aerial photos as evidence of intent. He stated that the site is already excavated to a level where changing direction to mine the new area is more environmentally beneficial than continuing toward Highway 1. He emphasized that the state review process was rigorous and that the applicant had been processing this change for 12 years.
  • Supervisor Hartman asked if vested rights would apply to other parcels or future expansions. The appellant’s attorney stated that the current proposal does not seek vested rights for other parcels but acknowledged the legal question regarding future expansions.
  • John Dorwin addressed the board regarding the legal and operational constraints of the mining operation. He explained that the current activity involves following a specific vein of ore within the legal parcel boundaries, consistent with the Extractive Resources Law. He noted that while the operation is limited to the current vein, the company intends to return to the site to continue the 12-year process in other directions. In response to a question from Supervisor Hart regarding the timeline for site restoration, Dorwin stated that the removal of the large mound would begin almost immediately upon receiving permission to proceed with the next phase of work. He estimated that it would take approximately seven years to completely remove the mound.
  • Motion and Vote: A motion was made to approve the staff recommendations for items A through D. The motion was seconded. The board voted on the motion, and it passed unanimously.

Adjournment

  • The meeting was adjourned. The board scheduled its next meeting for Monday at 9:00 AM in Santa Barbara for budget workshops.