In a real shocker of a decision, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors sided with greenhouses in the political war over agriculturally zoned land in the Santa Ynez Valley.
Should it be for residential uses only or should agricultural activities still be allowed on agricultural land? Well, according to the Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan, those ag-type uses should only be allowed if they’re “appropriate” for the area—whatever that means.
It means the Board of Supervisors was playing politics over the definition of one word in their discussion about a greenhouse.
“Appropriate” is apparently up for interpretation, and the objective subjectivity over its meaning seems to have tied up Santa Ynez/Solvang-area resident Steve Decker’s 15,000-plus square foot greenhouse project for 18 months. Welcome to Santa Barbara County.
If you ask 3rd District Supervisor Joan Hartmann and Decker’s neighbors, the answer was no, it’s not considered “appropriate” for the area. It’s a residential neighborhood, don’t you know? Even if it is in an agriculturally zoned area, where greenhouses are considered an “allowable use.”
“Nobody expected to be living next to a commercial agricultural operation with employees and parking lots, and a huge industrial building in their neighborhood that is highly visible. I believe that it’s inconsistent,” Hartmann explained during a Jan. 25 hearing on the matter.
So do people just move to agriculturally zoned areas so that they can say they live in the country next to bucolic grapevines without having to be around any actual commercial ag properties?
One local resident seemed to think that the size of the greenhouse is what made it inappropriate for the area, which is “primarily residences rather than commercial agriculture. No agricultural structure approaches this greenhouse’s square footage,” Nancy Emerson said.
Perhaps the Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan should have addressed this specific issue—the size of commercial structures on ag land that’s primarily used for residences. Because, according to county code, Decker could build another 4,000 square feet of greenhouse if he wanted to. And the community plan doesn’t restrict the type of development allowed on Decker’s land.
But even though the NIMBYs didn’t want a giant greenhouse in their backyard—and even the conservative supervisors understood that—NIMBYs don’t always get to determine what’s appropriate.
“I understand where the neighbors are coming from, but that said, it’s agriculturally zoned,” 4th District Supe Bob Nelson said. “I think that it’s appropriate for the zoning.”
Yeah. Greenhouses are an agricultural use. Duh!
And as far as the word “appropriate,” who gets to decide what that means? Although he didn’t have an answer to that exact question, 5th District Supervisor Steve Lavagnino seemed to think he knew what it didn’t mean.
“I can’t get to the bar of ‘appropriate,’ meaning that we have discretion just to be able to pick and choose what projects we approve in that area,” he said.
Yeah. That’s what zoning and community plans are for! You don’t like it? Maybe you neighbors should get together and work on an update to the community plan, which was approved in 2009. Now, that would be appropriate!
The canary is appropriate, but not always. Send comments to canary@santamariasun.com.
This article appears in Jan 27 – Feb 3, 2022.