UnGovr Words

Board of Supervisors — 2020-01-28

Board of Supervisors — 2020-01-28January 28, 2020

Switch meeting
BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 January 28, 2020

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

Employee of the Month Commendation

  • The board honored Ian Mather of the Fire Department for his role as a liaison for the Firefighters Alliance and contributions to fundraising and training.
  • A representative from the Fire Department and a member of the Firefighters Alliance spoke in support of the commendation.
  • The board unanimously approved the resolution of commendation.

Veteran of the Month Commendation

  • The board reviewed a resolution honoring Donald DeNoyer for his 32 years of U.S. Army service and work with the "We All Rise" anti-bullying program.
  • Supervisor Lavinino noted that DeNoyer was not present and suggested recognizing him in a future public forum in Santa Maria.
  • The board unanimously approved the resolution of commendation.

Administrative Agenda Approval

  • Supervisor Hartman requested that the County Pre-Trial Felony Mental Health Diversion Program be pulled from the agenda for further discussion on implementation details.
  • Public comment was received regarding the Auditor-Controller Report, the Mental Health Diversion program, and the Sheriff’s Canine Program donation.
  • The board unanimously approved the remaining administrative agenda items, excluding the pulled mental health diversion item.

Cannabis Compliance Enforcement and Taxation Update

  • Staff reported that cannabis tax revenue increased by 63% year-over-year, while 133 state provisional licenses are set to expire within 60 days.
  • The board discussed the selection of a tax compliance auditing firm and the upcoming state track-and-trace beta test.
  • Public commenters from the Carp Growers and other stakeholders supported stricter enforcement against non-compliant operators and requested continued staff support for the permitting pipeline.
  • The board unanimously adopted the staff recommendations for the first-quarter update.

Micro Enterprise Home Kitchen Policy

  • Staff presented recommendations to opt into AB 626, allowing small-scale home-based food service with caps on meals and sales.
  • The board discussed potential impacts on sewage systems and zoning exemptions, noting that onsite sewage capacity must be verified.
  • A representative from the Cook Alliance supported the opt-in approach to promote economic inclusion and food safety.
  • The board unanimously adopted staff recommendations to prepare ordinance amendments authorizing Micro Enterprise Home Kitchen Operations.

Strauss Wind Energy Project Appeals

  • The board denied a request for continuance to allow concurrent consideration of a pending Central Board of Architectural Review appeal.
  • Appellants argued that the Environmental Impact Report failed to adequately analyze impacts to the Gaviota tar plant, birds, and groundwater.
  • The applicant and supportive public commenters emphasized the project's contribution to renewable energy goals, job creation, and grid resilience.
  • The board unanimously approved the project, denied the appeals, and certified the final supplemental EIR with new conditions regarding turbine placement and tar plant monitoring.

Closed Session

  • The board reported considering two matters of existing litigation involving the Santa Ana River Water Conservation District and the Santa Barbara Fund for Public and Educational Access.
  • The board conferred with real property negotiators regarding three sets of parcels in Goleta and the Orchard Hills area.
  • No reportable actions were taken during the closed session.

Full summary

Meeting Start and Roll Call

  • The January 28, 2020, meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors was called to order. The clerk called the roll, and all supervisors were present. The board pledged allegiance to the flag.

Approval of Minutes

  • Item: Approval of minutes from the January 14, 2020, meeting.
  • Action: A motion to approve the minutes was made and seconded.
  • Decision: The motion passed unanimously.

CEO Report

  • Item: CEO Report.
  • Action: The CEO stated there was no report for this morning.

Agenda Announcements

  • Item: Agenda changes.
  • Action: The clerk announced an addendum posted on Friday, which amended the agenda to add one item to a closed session for the Board of Santa Barbara Fund for Public and Educational Access.

Resolutions (Items A-1 and A-2)

  • Item A-1: Resolution of commendation honoring Ian Mather of the Fire Department as the January 2020 Employee of the Month.
  • Discussion: The clerk read the resolution into the record, noting Mather’s role as a liaison for the Santa Barbara County Firefighters Alliance and his contributions to fundraising and training. A representative from the Fire Department spoke in support, highlighting Mather’s extra-duty work and advocacy. Ian Mather briefly addressed the board.
  • Item A-2: Resolution of commendation honoring Donald DeNoyer as the Veteran of the Month.
  • Discussion: The clerk read the resolution into the record, detailing DeNoyer’s 32 years of service in the U.S. Army, his awards, and his work with the "We All Rise" anti-bullying program. Supervisor Lavinino noted that DeNoyer was not present and stated the board would recognize him in a future public forum in Santa Maria.
  • Action: A motion to approve Items A-1 and A-2 was made and seconded.
  • Decision: The motion passed unanimously.

Administrative Agenda Approval

  • Item: Approval of the remaining administrative agenda items.
  • Discussion:
  • Supervisor Hartman requested that Administrative Item A-12 (County Pre-Trial Felony Mental Health Diversion Program) be pulled from the administrative agenda for further discussion.
  • The clerk noted public comment requests for Items A-1, A-7, and A-25.
  • Item A-1 (Ian Mather): Susan Petrovich of the Santa Barbara Firefighters Alliance spoke in support of the commendation, detailing the alliance’s partnership with the fire department regarding equipment and support programs.
  • Item A-7 (Auditor-Controller Report): Andy Caldwell of CoLab spoke regarding the external monitoring reports for environmental health and public health departments, raising concerns about fee-funded programs and oversight.
  • Item A-12 (Mental Health Diversion): Supervisor Hartman asked to pull the item to learn more about implementation details. Staff explained the grant from the Department of State Hospitals allows for community-based treatment for up to 18 individuals over three years, partnering with the DA and Public Defender offices. Supervisor Hartman expressed support for the pilot program. Staff noted the board is authorizing delegation to complete the contract, with a plan to report back on the final plan.
  • Item A-25 (Sheriff’s Canine Program Donation): Sergeant Jarrett Morris spoke regarding the recent death of a canine unit member and the importance of community donations to support the program.
  • Action: A motion to approve the balance of the administrative agenda (excluding the pulled Item A-12) was made and seconded.
  • Decision: The motion passed unanimously.

General Public Comment

  • Item: Comments on items not on the agenda.
  • Discussion: Six members of the public spoke:
  • Ed Kalaski: Expressed frustration regarding a planning commission decision on a home remodel, alleging procedural irregularities and lack of opportunity to present the project.
  • Jay Johnson: Described conditions in front of the administrative building, including drug activity and sanitation issues, and requested increased police presence.
  • Robert Hanson: Commented on various political and local issues, including the temperature threshold for opening Freedom Warming Centers.
  • Andy Caldwell: Raised questions about consistency in land use enforcement, citing examples involving agricultural land, view sheds, oak trees, and wineries.
  • Renee O’Neill: Read quotes from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and excerpts from the California Constitution regarding rights and criminal activity.
  • Ron Brett: Complained about difficulties dealing with the county building department regarding a restaurant expansion project in Buellton. Staff directed him to contact the supervisor for his district or the assistant director for planning.

Departmental Item 1: Cannabis Compliance Enforcement and Taxation Update

  • Item: First quarter update on cannabis compliance enforcement and taxation (Fiscal Year 2019-2020).
  • Discussion:
  • Staff presented an overview of the county’s cannabis program, including land use permitting, business licensing, enforcement, and tax revenues.
  • Permitting: 173 land use applications were submitted; 15 permits issued, 67 pending. 30 conditional use permits submitted, none approved. 3 coastal development permits issued, 28 pending. Acreage of proposed applications exceeds the caps for the Inland Area and Carpinteria Ag Overlay District.
  • Licensing: 1,164 state licenses held by operators in the county. 133 state provisional licenses are set to expire within 60 days. Staff is reviewing these licenses and those with no reported fiscal activity.
  • Enforcement: Activity levels remain constant. Staff noted a shift in focus toward specific operators and violation themes (odor, non-payment of taxes).
  • Tax Revenue: Up 63% from the first quarter of the previous year.
  • Future Actions: The board is selected for a state track-and-trace beta test. Staff is working on selecting a tax compliance auditing firm. The Planning Commission is reviewing ordinance amendments regarding conflicts with agriculture and odor.
  • Board Questions:
  • Supervisor Williams asked about hiring the audit firm before the track-and-trace system is fully online and requested verification that operators reporting no financial activity are not operating. Staff confirmed intentions to review these cases.
  • Supervisor Hartman inquired about non-storefront retail (delivery) licensing, security requirements, and the synchronization of land use permits and business licenses for legal nonconforming operators. Staff explained the concurrent processing model and the review of affidavits for nonconforming status.
  • Supervisor Lavinino asked about the prioritization of applications near the acreage caps, the reduction in confiscations (attributed to seasonal slowdown and training), the timeline for the track-and-trace system, and concerns about tax loopholes involving self-dealing between cultivators and processors. Staff provided updates on the beta test timeline (mid-February) and the review of zero-receipt operators.
  • Public Comment:
  • Mike Palmer (Carp Growers Board Member) stated that securing land use permits and business licenses is difficult, with some applications pending for over a year. He noted that Carp Growers has retained engineers to refine odor control systems and supported tougher enforcement against negligent legal non-conforming operators and for tax compliance. He requested continued staff support to move compliance applicants through the permitting pipeline.
  • Graham Farrar (Carp Growers President) described the entitlement and business license process as rigorous. He supported additional oversight, regulation, and enforcement on legal non-conforming operators not following rules, as well as audits on tax compliance. He stated that all cannabis businesses should pay their fair share of taxes.
  • Renee O’Neill expressed appreciation for the enforcement team’s recent shutdown of an illegal operation. She cautioned against prioritizing applications by date if applicants have repeatedly failed to respond or comply with ordinances, suggesting such operators be placed at the bottom of the list. She requested the rescission of licenses for legal non-conforming growers who falsified applications or violated laws, and noted concerns regarding track-and-trace compliance and tax evasion by illicit growers.
  • Action: A motion was made to adopt the staff recommendations. The motion was seconded.
  • Decision: The motion passed unanimously.

Departmental Item No. 2 – Micro Enterprise Home Kitchen Policy (Public Health)

  • Staff Presentation:
  • Staff presented recommendations regarding the implementation of Micro Enterprise Home Kitchen Operations (MECOs) under AB 626 and AB 377.
  • MECOs allow for small-scale home-based food service (dine-in, take-out, or delivery) with caps of 30 meals/day and 60 meals/week, and a gross sales limit of $50,000/year.
  • Key restrictions include single-process food preparation (no cooling/holding/reheating) and operation from a single-family residence.
  • The county must affirmatively opt-in via ordinance; if it does, the program applies county-wide, and cities cannot opt out.
  • Staff outlined pros (lower barrier to entry, pathway to compliance for existing informal operators, food safety oversight) and cons (zoning exemptions, potential impacts on sewage systems, lack of local control for cities).
  • Staff indicated a timeline to return to the board with ordinance amendments by the end of July, pending community and city engagement.
  • Board Discussion:
  • Questions were raised regarding local variations in requirements (e.g., grease interceptors) and the impact on special problems areas (sewage capacity). Staff confirmed that onsite sewage systems would need to be verified for capacity and that special problems area restrictions would apply.
  • A board member asked about the history of the cottage food ordinance; staff reported approximately 300 operations with no confirmed foodborne outbreaks and minimal complaints regarding parking or traffic.
  • A board member inquired about the applicability of MECOs to wineries; staff clarified that while a residence at a winery could potentially be a MECO, food service in the tasting room would not be permitted under this specific program.
  • Several board members expressed support for the opt-in approach to bring informal operations into compliance and ensure food safety, while noting the need to address potential infrastructure impacts.
  • Public Comment:
  • Bobby Thompson (Cook Alliance representative) supported opting into AB 626, citing the opportunity for economic inclusion, particularly for women, immigrants, and people of color, and the benefit of health inspections for consumer safety.
  • Motion and Vote:
  • A motion was made to adopt staff recommendations A, B1, and C (directing staff to prepare amendments to the County Code authorizing MECOs and determining the action is not subject to CEQA).
  • The motion was seconded.
  • Vote Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Closed Session Report

  • Report:
  • The board reported from closed session that they considered two matters of existing litigation: one involving the Santa Ana River Water Conservation District Improvement District 1, and another involving the Santa Barbara Fund for Public and Educational Access (PE Capital Endowment litigation).
  • The board also conferred with real property negotiators regarding three sets of parcels: one at 14730 Calle Real in Goleta, one open space parcel in the Orchard Hills area, and six parcels southwest of Orchard Hills.
  • No reportable actions were taken.

Departmental Item No. 3 – Strauss Wind Energy Project Appeals (Planning and Development)

  • Recusal:
  • Supervisor Adam recused himself from the consideration of this item due to a familial relationship with a partner in the law firm representing one of the appellants, citing potential common law bias.
  • Ex Parte Communications:
  • Board members disclosed various ex parte communications with parties involved, including the applicant (BayWa/Strauss Wind), appellants (Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy, California Native Plant Society, Bedford), and other stakeholders (Audubon, Sierra Club, Iron Workers, Chumash tribes, UCSB).
  • The Clerk of the Board noted that all documents received by the deadline were available on the county website.
  • Request for Continuance:
  • Staff Recommendation: Staff recommended denying the request for continuance, stating that information was available and no undue hardship would result from proceeding.
  • Appellant Argument (Andrew Graf, Adams, Broadwell, Joseph & Cardoza): Requested a continuance to allow concurrent consideration of the Central Board of Architectural Review (CBAR) appeal, which is pending before the Planning Commission. Argued that procedural requirements and CEQA compliance favor concurrent review to avoid premature approval.
  • Appellant Argument (Richard Adam, representing George and Cheryl Bedford): Argued that the project parameters are not stabilized until the CBAR appeal is resolved. Noted that the Planning Commission hearing for the CBAR appeal is targeted for February 26. Stated that hearing the current appeals before the CBAR decision is "putting the cart before the horse."
  • Applicant Argument (Julie Jones, Perkins Coie): Opposed the continuance, stating that the current process (Planning Commission/Board acting on CUP/variances before CBAR finalization) mirrors the process used for the Lompoc Wind Energy Project, which was upheld by the court. Argued that CBAR’s purview is narrow and that the project faces a tight schedule, making delay prejudicial.
  • Legal Counsel Input: The County Attorney noted that while the Land Use Development Code requires design review before permit issuance, the specific timing relative to the CUP approval is a matter of board discretion.
  • Motion and Vote:
  • A motion was made to deny the request for continuance.
  • The motion was seconded.
  • Vote Outcome: The motion passed unanimously. The board proceeded with the hearing.
  • Record Additions:
  • A motion was made to add late-submitted documents (letters from Sierra Club, California Native Plant Society, Karen Allsland, Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the applicant’s PowerPoint) to the record.
  • The motion was seconded.
  • Vote Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.
  • Staff Presentation on Project and Appeals:
  • Staff presented an overview of the Strauss Wind Energy Project, located four miles southwest of Lompoc. The modified project includes 29 wind turbines (98 MW) and a 7.3-mile transmission line.
  • Staff summarized the three appeals (Bedford, Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy, California Native Plant Society) and their 25 combined issues.
  • Key Issues Discussed:
  • Visual Impacts: Staff argued that technical requirements dictate turbine placement on ridgelines for efficiency, and the project’s remote location limits public viewing.
  • Biological Resources (Birds/Bats): Staff stated that the SEIR analysis of collision risks is adequate and consistent with CEQA. The applicant will seek a federal take permit.
  • Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Staff recommended revising the estimated CO2 reduction from 73,000–200,000 metric tons to 60,000–73,000 metric tons, using California-specific grid data rather than national averages, as California’s grid has a higher renewable energy mix.
  • Rare Plants (Gaviota Tar Plant): Staff argued that impact analysis based on acres of occupied habitat is more reliable than individual plant counts for this annual species, and that the 3:1 mitigation ratio is consistent with past practice.
  • Board Questions:
  • A board member questioned the logic of using California-specific standards for global GHG reductions. Staff and the applicant’s consultant explained that California’s grid is cleaner, so the displacement benefit is lower than the national average, making the estimate conservative.
  • A board member noted that while the California-specific number is more modest, it still represents actual emission reductions mandated by state law.
  • Public Testimony:
  • Nick Jensen (California Native Plant Society): Testified regarding the Gaviota tarplant, a state and federally endangered species endemic to the project site. Jensen stated that over 99% of documented individuals of this species occur on the project site. He argued that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analysis is flawed because it relies solely on direct acreage impact, ignoring the number of individuals lost (estimated at 500,000 to over 1 million) and indirect impacts such as habitat fragmentation, pollinator loss, and invasive species spread. He contended that the EIR’s conclusion that impacts are "Class 2" (significant but mitigable) is unsupported because the proposed mitigation is experimental. Jensen urged the Board to require an alternative project design that removes turbines N1 through N5 from the central portion of the tarplant population to reduce direct and indirect impacts, stating that the project cannot be approved as currently designed without such modifications.
  • Andrew Graf (Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy): Argued that the County failed to comply with CEQA by not recirculating the draft Supplemental EIR (SEIR) after adding significant new information, including a change in groundwater source from reclaimed water to groundwater and the identification of new well locations and studies. He stated that the EIR failed to adequately analyze collision risks for special-status avian and bat species, citing the lack of a standard methodology as an insufficient excuse. Graf also noted the EIR failed to analyze indirect impacts to the Gaviota tarplant, decommissioning impacts, and consistency with the County’s Energy Element. He urged the Board to direct staff to recirculate a revised draft SEIR and deny the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and variance requests until a revised EIR is considered.
  • Richard Adam (Representing George and Cheryl Bedford): Concurring with previous appellants, Adam argued that the EIR contains an insufficient project description due to the allowance for "micro-siting" adjustments of up to 100 feet for turbine locations. He stated that on the steep topography of the site, a 100-foot shift could result in a 50 to 55-foot increase in turbine height, significantly altering visual and noise impacts compared to the analyzed baseline. He argued that deferring environmental assessments and mitigation measures (such as pre-construction surveys for native plants and wildlife) until after approval violates CEQA requirements for a stable project description. Adam emphasized that the project is unprecedented in scale for the County and should be held to strict CEQA standards.
  • Daniel Duke (BayWa, Project Developer): Presented the project’s history, noting nearly 20 years of environmental data collection since 2001. He stated that the current design reduces the number of turbines from 65 (in the previously approved Lompoc project) to 29, utilizing advanced technology to maintain output while reducing footprint. Duke detailed efforts to minimize impacts, including relocating the substation and O&M building out of sensitive areas, reducing oak tree impacts by approximately 90% (impacting only 225 trees), and preserving 672 acres of critical habitat for the Gaviota tarplant. He cited benefits including the avoidance of 6 million metric tons of CO2, generation of power for 43,000 homes, $40 million in tax revenue, and job creation. Duke requested the Board deny the appeals, certify the EIR, and issue the CUP.
  • Staff and Applicant Q&A:
  • Gaviota Tarplant Mitigation:
  • Supervisor Williams inquired about the requirements for tarplant mitigation.
  • John Store (Applicant Consultant) explained that mitigation includes construction-phase avoidance measures and a compensatory mitigation ratio of 3:1 based on direct habitat impact. He stated that the applicant is proposing a 6:1 ratio through on-site conservation areas managed in perpetuity by a third-party entity. The mitigation plan includes a research component and a technical advisory committee. Store noted that the conservation area includes occupied habitat, not just restoration, and that genetic exchange between the seven known subpopulations is limited.
  • Supervisor Hartmann asked for clarification on the 6:1 ratio and indirect impacts. Store explained that the 3:1 ratio is an unofficial County policy for rare plants, while the higher ratio may be driven by state/federal agency requirements for incidental take permits. He acknowledged that quantifying indirect impacts (fragmentation, pollinator loss) is difficult and requires long-term study, which is part of the adaptive management strategy in the mitigation plan.
  • Supervisor Lavagnino asked if the tarplant management plan would be subject to periodic review by the Planning Commission. Scott White (Aspen Environmental Group) confirmed that the set-aside areas are subject to long-term management and monitoring in perpetuity, with an adaptive management strategy and annual reporting requirements overseen by state and federal agencies.
  • Noise and Micro-Siting:
  • Supervisor Hartmann asked about the impact of the 100-foot micro-siting shift on noise levels at the Bedford residence.
  • John Davidson (Applicant Acoustical Engineer) stated that the residence is approximately 2,000 feet from the nearest turbine. A 100-foot shift would result in a minimal change in sound level, remaining well below thresholds. He noted that the noise analysis used worst-case scenarios (low ambient wind noise) and calculated continuous noise levels below 43.3 decibels.
  • Supervisor Lavagnino suggested restricting micro-siting for the two turbines closest to the Bedford property (N5 and N7) to prevent movement closer to the residence. Davidson agreed that micro-siting could be restricted in that specific direction.
  • Turbine Materials and Decommissioning:
  • Supervisor Lavagnino asked about the materials, lifespan, and end-of-life disposal of turbines.
  • Applicant Representative stated that turbines are primarily steel with a lifespan of over 30 years. Rotor blades are the primary component currently sent to landfills, though research is ongoing for recovery methods.
  • Supervisor Lavagnino asked about decommissioning financial assurance. Staff confirmed that Condition 66 requires a decommissioning and reclamation plan, and Condition 67 requires financial assurance for decommissioning.
  • Coastal Zone:
  • Supervisor Lavagnino asked why the project avoids the coastal zone.
  • Staff explained that the applicant chose to pull the project footprint back from the coastal zone to avoid the additional permitting requirements and potential appeals to the Coastal Commission, keeping the project within County jurisdiction.
  • Fire Mitigation:
  • Supervisor Lavagnino asked about fire mitigation plans during construction and operation.
  • John Davidson confirmed that a fire plan exists for construction and firefighting procedures/equipment are in place for operation, though specific details were not provided in the testimony.
  • Public Comment (Continued):
  • Emily Williams (350 Santa Barbara, Food and Water Watch, Sunrise Movement, Environmental Justice Alliance): Stated that while the organizations support renewable energy, they are unable to endorse the project due to the lack of a project labor agreement with local union labor and insufficient consultation with all Chumash bands, including non-federally recognized bands. They emphasized the need for a "just transition" that includes social and labor justice components.
  • Karen Kuyper: Expressed opposition to the project, citing concerns about the cutting of mature oak trees, potential safety hazards (lightning, fire), bird and bat collisions, and the cost to taxpayers. She questioned the safety of the turbines and the impact on local wildlife, including condors.
  • Kenneth Kahn (Chairman, San Ynez Band of Chumash Indians): Testified in support of the project. He stated that the tribe initially opposed the project but, through dialogue, site visits, and supplementary studies, reached a balance. Kahn noted that sacred sites were considered, and mitigation measures include cultural monitors, conservation easements, and support for cultural education and artifact curation. He emphasized the importance of renewable energy for the community and requested Board support for the project.
  • Jean Beattie: (Testimony not fully captured in this segment; speaker was called but the transcript ends before her statement is recorded.)
  • Procedural Note:
  • The Board took a 10-minute break after the Q&A session. Upon reconvening, the Board noted technical difficulties with the digital timer and limited public comment to two minutes per speaker to accommodate the 27 remaining speakers.
  • Public Comment (Supportive):
  • Virginia Souza (Santa Maria Valley League of Women Voters) expressed support for the project, citing a letter from 27 organizations (including the Sierra Club, Community Environmental Council, and UCSB) stating that Santa Barbara County ranks near the bottom of the state in renewable energy and is not on track to meet greenhouse gas reduction goals.
  • Larry Bishop and Kelly Gray (resident of Los Olivos) supported the project, arguing it protects groundwater, air, and climate, and produces less impact than existing oil facilities.
  • Karen Harris (Solvang homeowner) supported the project, citing the need to reduce fossil fuel dependency and address drought and fire risks.
  • Craig Lewis (Clean Coalition) stated the project is one of the best renewable energy projects he has seen, noting it provides local energy generation for Lompoc and enhances grid resilience.
  • Reverend Jane Quant (Valley of the Flowers United Church of Christ) supported the project, identifying climate crisis as a moral issue and advocating for collective action on renewable energy.
  • Bill Mullins (Lompoc resident) supported the project as beneficial for the county, state, and nation.
  • Katie Davis (representing 27 environmental and social justice organizations) urged support, citing the urgency of climate action, the threat of extinction to species, and the project’s role in meeting the state’s 100% clean energy goal and improving grid resilience.
  • Michael Chiokos (Community Environmental Council) urged the board to deny appeals and approve the project, noting it provides power equivalent to all existing utility-scale and rooftop solar projects in the county and helps balance the grid.
  • Jonathan Ullman (Sierra Club, Los Padres Chapter) supported the project, stating it is the best way to advance conservation goals and meet climate challenges.
  • John Putney Jr. (Ironworkers Local 433) supported the project, citing job creation and economic benefits for Lompoc.
  • Ken Huff (Santa Barbara County Action Network) reported that the organization’s board voted to support the project, believing benefits outweigh negative impacts, and urged the board to deny appeals and approve the Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
  • Leroy Scolari (landowner) supported the project, noting it feeds into the bottom of the PG&E grid, enhancing local resilience, and provides funds to maintain his family’s cattle ranching operation.
  • Martin Rodriguez (Business Agent, Local 433) supported the project, stating union labor supports it, over 70% of work will be performed by union craftsmen, and it provides clean energy, tax revenue, and career opportunities.
  • Public Comment (Opposition or Mixed):
  • Jean Beattie (Miguelito Canyon resident) opposed the project, citing concerns about the carbon footprint of construction, seismic risks to the Santa Ana fault and Mount Trinchon, and lack of seismic expert input.
  • Steve Ferry (Santa Barbara Audubon Society) stated the project does not follow state and federal wind energy guidelines regarding bird impacts, arguing that raptor surveys should have occurred before turbine placement and that a bird collision hazard analysis was missing. He acknowledged some protections were included but called the process deficient.
  • Anna Citrin (Attorney for Santa Barbara and La Purisima Audubon Society chapters) argued the site is a biodiversity hotspot and the process was flawed because the draft EIR was released before critical surveys were completed and stakeholder outreach occurred after turbine layout was determined. She described the project as a "missed opportunity" for better design.
  • Robert Hanson (Lompoc resident) opposed the project, citing visual impacts on the cultural landscape and tourism sector, and public health risks from electromagnetic radiation from high-voltage lines and the substation.
  • Rebuttal by Appellants:
  • Nick Jensen (Native Plant Society) read from a California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) letter dated January 23, which recommended a supplemental EIR, additional analysis of impacts beyond the grading footprint, and an adaptive management plan for Gaviota tar plant. He cited CDFW’s estimate that up to 1.2 million plants could be directly impacted and noted the small population sizes of other Gaviota tar plant populations.
  • Andrew Graf (Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy) argued the EIR failed to disclose, analyze, or mitigate impacts to biological species, groundwater, and air quality. He stated that indirect impacts to Gaviota tar plant were not analyzed, which affects the calculation of the 3:1 mitigation ratio, and requested the board uphold the appeal and recirculate the draft SEIR.
  • George Bedford (Appellant) questioned whether the power generated would benefit Lompoc or be sent to Northern California. He expressed personal concern about the proximity of turbines to his residence, noise, and visual impact, and questioned the feasibility of housing development near the project.
  • Rebuttal by Applicant:
  • Daniel Duke (Applicant) responded to concerns by stating that while the project is not perfect, it has undergone three years of mitigation efforts. He addressed indirect impacts to Gaviota tar plant, noting commitments to track vector management, pollinator studies, and eDNA testing as part of an adaptive management plan reported to a technical advisory committee. He clarified that the power purchase agreement is with Marin Clean Power/CCA, but the electrons flow into the PG&E grid at the south end, serving Lompoc. He stated that 225 oak trees will be impacted, not 450. Regarding labor, he affirmed a commitment to union labor and worker safety. He addressed the proximity of Turbine N7 to the Bedford residence, noting it is approximately 2,000 feet away, with topographical and vegetation screening, and that micrositing flexibility would be used to move turbines away from the residence if necessary.
  • Staff Clarifications:
  • Staff confirmed that all mitigation measures in the EIR are part of the project conditions. They clarified that the 225 oak trees impacted include 150 along San Miguelito Road, 60 with the transmission line, and 5 with wind turbines. They stated that outreach was conducted to over 30 Native American organizations and individuals, including the Native American Heritage Commission and six tribes, as required by AB 52.
  • Board Deliberations:
  • Supervisor Hartman expressed support, citing research showing wind turbines produce 90-95% less greenhouse gases than fossil fuels over their life cycle. She noted concerns about biological impacts (tar plant, birds, bats) but stated the project is the best available option for transitioning to a renewable economy. She proposed a motion to approve the project and deny the appeals.
  • Supervisor Williams supported the project, arguing that approving local renewable energy avoids the "environmental hypocrisy" of relying on distant energy sources with higher transmission impacts. He cited data showing a 2.4-degree Celsius temperature rise in parts of the county over 30 years and stated that dithering on renewable projects is catastrophic. He emphasized the importance of enforcing mitigation standards.
  • Supervisor Lavagnino supported the project, acknowledging its significant environmental impacts (visual, biological, oak trees, tar plant) but stating that reducing GHG emissions and moving to a cleaner economy outweighs these impacts. He criticized environmental groups for opposing wind projects while advocating for the end of fossil fuels, arguing for an "all of the above" energy approach.
  • Proposed Conditions and Next Steps:
  • Chair proposed additional conditions:
  • 1. A specific condition ensuring that if Turbine N7 is relocated via micrositing, it is moved further away from the Bedford residence. 2. An annual report to the Planning Commission on the status of the Gaviota Tar Plant Mitigation Plan for at least five years to ensure public transparency. 3. A request for the developer to continue working with union contractors to maximize local hire union labor.
  • Staff indicated they needed a short break to draft the language for the micrositing condition regarding Turbine N7.
  • Supervisor Williams asked if moving the turbine further away could have consequences for endangered species analysis.
  • Supervisor Hartman asked for clarification on the oversight structure for the tar plant monitoring, specifically whether a multi-agency committee would oversee the adaptive management.
  • Final Discussion and Motion:
  • Staff presented language for an adaptive management plan related to the Biological Resources section of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), noting it aligns with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Golden Eagle Take Permit requirements. Discussion focused on integrating reporting for the Gaviota tar plant into the existing annual reporting structure to the Planning Commission. Supervisor Lavagnino offered comments regarding the collaborative process. A ten-minute break was taken to finalize condition language.
  • Staff Proposal: Staff proposed two specific condition changes:
  • 1. Condition 16 (Amended): The director shall submit an annual report on the implementation of the Gaviota tar plant mitigation plan to the Planning Commission at a public hearing for a five-year period, commencing one year after the wind turbines become operational. 2. Condition 103 (New): During the micro-siding process, the final location of wind turbines N5 and N7 shall not be any closer to the primary single-family home at 4026 San Miguel Road than depicted on the site plan approved by the Board of Supervisors on January 28, 2020.
  • Motion: Supervisor Hartmann moved to adopt staff recommendations A through D, deny the appeals, make required findings, certify the final supplemental EIR, grant de novo approval of the Straus Wind Energy Project, and include the new conditions.
  • Second: Supervisor Williams.
  • Vote: Passed unanimously.

Item A2 (Veteran of the Month)

  • Discussion: A request was made to continue this item to allow the February Veteran of the Month to be present to receive their recognition.
  • Motion: To continue Item A2 to the February 11, 2020 hearing.
  • Second: Seconded.
  • Vote: Passed.

Adjournment

  • The meeting was adjourned to Tuesday, February 4, 2020, in Santa Barbara.