Making the best land use decisions possible is of foremost concern to our organization. And, if there is one thread running through the community, it is our desire to protect the unique characteristics of our valley – its beauty, tranquility, healthy environment and sense of community. We all want to preserve and enhance agricultural endeavors which enrich our quality of life. The vision of a well planned future for the valley is sustained by the continuous protection of our many unique resources.
Our members can rest assured that, with your help, WE Watch will continue to monitor new development plans, attend and speak at public meetings, work closely with other community groups, and watch for any land use changes to our valley.
Santa Ynez Valley: Obtaining Regulations Needed to Coexist with Cannabis
Since WE Watch became involved with cannabis regulationin December 2018, its goal has been to help the Valley obtain needed regulations so that residents, tourists, other agriculture (including the wine industry) can coexist with cannabis cultivation.
Following legalization of cannabis by California Voters in November 2016, the State and then County government began developing cannabis regulations for many aspects of cannabis activities. For a period of time, the state issued temporary and then provisional licenses while waiting for counties to develop complementary regulations.
The County Inland Land Use Ordinance was approved by the Board of Supervisors on February 27, 2018 and the County Commercial Business Licensing Ordinance was approved on March 19, 2019. The Carpinteria Valley, Cebada and Tepusquet Canyon areas were impacted by significant cannabis cultivation and so began confronting the County about their problems before these ordinances were adopted. However, this was not yet true for Santa Ynez Valley so WE Watch and residents were “asleep” during deliberations on the Land Use Ordinance.
WE Watch first asked for help from the Board of Supervisors in early December 2018 and the following week a representative from Fredensborg Canyon asked the board for action.
On Jan. 29, 2019, at the Board of Supervisors meeting, a standing room only crowd of residents, including vintners plus cannabis growers filled the Santa Barbara Board’s Hearing Room. Seventy people signed up to speak, including WE Watch. The hearing and board deliberations lasted about 4 hours.The results were encouraging. The Board did vote to begin the process of revising the Cannabis Ordinance and by July 9, 2019 hadamended the Inland Land Use to provide additional regulation as follows:
*Ban cannabis cultivation on AG-1-5 and AG-1-10 parcels (5 & 10 acres) of 20 acres or less.
*A limit on total acreage in cultivation in the County of 1,755 acres.
*The Business Licensing Ordinance was amended to:
- Not allow cannabis testing firms to locate on agricultural lands
- Prequalify 8 applicants for storefront retail, and randomly select 1 for each of the 6 Community Plan Areas plus 2 more for sites not covered by Community Plans. (Subsequently the selection process has been pulled for further revision.)
- Increase staff’s authority to reject renewals by changing language from “may” deny to “shall”
- Not allow generators for security lighting and cameras.
In addition 3RD District Supervisor Joan Hartmann asked and got support from the other members to have the staff research:
- Not allowing cannabis cultivation on AG-1-20 parcels (20-39 acres)
- Expanded notification requirements
- Solutions for odor problems
- Parcel limitations (e.g. limits on size of grow).
- Buffers for cities, townships and EDRNs.
Action on these items is pending recommendations from the staff and Planning Commission.
WE Watch supported all the above decisions. Our early December request to the Board for help may have encouraged \the 1/29 meeting. The WE Watch sponsored 1/17/19 Lecture on Cannabis Regulation by County staff provided more than 200 Valley and other County residents with needed information. WE Watch then sponsored the first ever countywide,face-to face meeting of representatives from regions experiencing cannabis problems (Carpinteria Valley, Cebada and Tepusquet Canyons, Cuyama Valley + SYV’s Santa Rosa Rd, 154 & Edison, + other Valley neighborhoods where applications have been filed – Fredensborg Canyon & Kentucky Rd near 154). An outgrowth was the eventual formation by some of these areas forming a countywide Coalition for Responsible Cannabis. Later WE Watch coordinated a discussion with interested diverse stakeholders for John Parke, 3rd District Planning Commissioner attended by about 50 people.
About 30 Valley applications had been filed by the July 9 cut off date with 22 applications west of Buellton, the greatest concentration in our Valley.
By Summer 2019, a few land use applications had been approved in the Valley,So far 5 appeals have been filed and are beginning to be heard by the Planning Commission.
Solvang Urban Growth Boundary Initiative
Save Our Solvang gave a presentation to City Council on Monday, September 10, 2018 to explain what an Urban Growth Boundary is and why SOS favors such an initiative for Solvang. Here is a printed version of the Powerpoint presentation: Urban Growth Boundary for Solvang
Save Our Solvang has hired the Environmental Defense Center to assist it with the legal aspects of an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) initiative drive and election campaign. Gathering registered voters’ signatures to put this initiative on the ballot will begin in January 2020 and the project will conclude with the November 3 election. Save Our Solvang’s goal is to educate and involve our diverse residents in the UGB initiative drive and the election.
To learn more, to volunteer or to contribute in other ways to this project, which will give Solvang’s citizens a vote on any development projects proposed outside the UGB, please visit the Save Our Solvang website,: http://www.saveoursolvang.com or contact the Save Our Solvang Chairperson at firstname.lastname@example.org.
If you want to be kept informed about the process or have questions, please send your email address to email@example.com Check out the website: http://www.saveoursolvang.com
Chumash Fee to Trust Land Annexation
Fee-to-trust is a process established by the Federal government to allow recognized Indian tribes to increase the size of their reservations by removing land from the county and state and placing it within the trust (their reservation). This originated to allow Indians the means to survive economically. Any lands within the trust are exempt from state and local taxes and regulations including zoning.
Such transfers affect the local community in many ways. First and foremost, once land is in the “trust” the local community has lost its ability to influence its use. Local zoning, ordinances, and regulations no longer apply. For example, land previously zoned for agriculture might be used for high density housing with no input from the community. This is possible because the ”trust” is no longer part of the county. It becomes part of the reservation which is considered a sovereign nation. In our case, it is as though a separate country exists within our valley.
Once land is placed within the “trust” no property taxes or state taxes apply. This is a potentially substantial revenue loss for the county.
Loss of community control and reduction of the county’s tax base are the reasons WE Watch believes any fee to trust transfer application demands very careful, thorough review, with community input, before action as appropriate is taken.
Camp 4: In 2010 the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians purchased 1400 acres, known as Camp 4, from the estate of the late Fess Parker. Not contiguous to the Chumash reservation, this land is located at the northeast corner of 154/246. An application was made to the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the Department of the Interior to annex Camp 4 to the reservation through fee to trust. Such a transfer would increase the size of the reservation ten-fold. This application was appealed by several individuals and organizations in the Valley. In 2016 and again in 2017, Congressman LaMalfa, who lives 500 miles away from the Santa Ynez Valley, introduced legislation to insure the annexation of these lands to the Chumash. The current bill, AB 1491, although approved by the House, is still pending Senate approval.
Believing that this was a decision that should be made at the local, not the national, level, WE Watch joined a consortium of Valley organizations (SYV Coalition for the Santa Ynez Valley) opposed to the federal legislation, and supported our Third District Supervisor in one-on-one negotiations with the Tribal leadership through an Ad Hoc Committee of the Board of Supervisors. Knowing that the Chumash Tribe wanted to develop Camp 4 for tribal housing and a tribal community center, WE Watch believed that this might be done within the parameters of the General Plan. In September 2017, a tentative agreement (MOU) was announced between the County Ad Hoc Committee and the Tribe. Hearings were held in October, and on October 31, the Board of Supervisors approved the MOU, agreed to drop its lawsuit, and to support AB 1491 so long as it included details of the agreement.
The Board of WE Watch was divided because, on the one hand, we had always opposed the annexation of Camp 4 through fee-to-trust, but, on the other, we wanted to develop a more trusting relationship with the Tribe, that we believed needed this housing for tribal members and we thought was committed to good environmental stewardship. As a result, although we testified at the hearing, WE Watch neither supported or opposed the County Memorandum of Understanding.
Since that action by the Board of Supervisors, the SYV Coalition worked to educate members of Congress about this local issue. However, eventually in January 2019, the House of Representatives voted for HR 317, which ratified the fee-to-trust action taken by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. On Nov. 6, 2019, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs considered HR317, amended it to take the 1472 acres of Camp 4 into trust rather than simply ratifying BIA action. It passed unanimously and was referred to staff for any technical changes necessary.
Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan Update
The Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan is the foundational document for land use decisions in the Santa Ynez Valley. It is part of the county’s General or Comprehensive Plan and is a legally enforceable document.
The process of updating it began in 2000 when a diverse group of valley residents developed the Valley Blueprint. The Blueprint voiced a desire “to protect the unique qualities and character of the region while maintaining a sound base for economic sustainability of its quality of life.”
This was followed by the Santa Ynez Valley General Planning Advisory Committee (GPAC) whose members were appointed by former Supervisor Gail Marshall. Over the course of nearly two years the GPAC held a total of 32 public meetings to discuss a wide range of issues including:
Parks, Recreation and Trails
Agricultural Tourism and Wineries
Water, Wastewater, and Flood Hazards
Circulation and Highways
In August 2004 the Board of Supervisors initiated a draft project description of the SYVCP update. On February 15, 2005 the Board of Supervisors substantially reduced the area covered by the plan.
Early in 2005 Third District Supervisor, Brooks Firestone, appointed a new Valley Planning Advisory Committee (VPAC) to refine and offer alternatives to the previous work of the GPAC. Another series of public meetings was held.
On September 26, 2006 the Board of Supervisors sent the SYVCP update out for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Draft EIR was released for comment in July 2007. The Draft EIR was then revised in response to public comment. The SYVCP and EIR went on to the Planning Commission in May 2009. The Commission conducted five public hearings on the Plan before certifying the EIR and recommending adoption of a revised SYVCP to the Board of Supervisors on July 15, 2009. The Board voted to approve the Plan on October 6, 2009.
WE Watch was very active in this lengthy process. Our members served as part of the Valley Blueprint, GPAC and VPAC committees presenting a perspective in keeping with our Mission Statement and Guiding Principles. (See About Us.) When the Draft EIR was released, WE Watch members reviewed and commented section by section on all the topics including the sufficiency of mitigation measures. Multiple WE Watch Board members were present at each of the Planning Commission hearings and presented both oral and written comments..
The Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan can be found at:
Hoop Structure Ordinance: The Board of Supervisors approved a revised Greenhouses, Hoop Structures, and Shade Structures Ordinance on April 9, 2019 after 11 months of work, primarily at the County Planning Commission. WE Watch, Buellton and Santa Rosa Road residents became involved in early summer 2018.
Protection of at least the SY Valley Design Overlay Control area, placing slope requirements on agriculture and extending riparian setbacks were all important issues for those of us asking for some balance between agricultural and neighbor needs. The Commission finally recommended and the Board approved:
*Land use permit if a hoop structure is proposed within the Valley’s Design Overlays (Alamo Pintado Rd, Highway 246 and portions of 154 and 101) and is more than 4,000 square feet and visible from public roadways or other areas of public use. Landscape screening cannot be considered when determining visibility.
*Land Use Permit if a hillside has more than a 25% slope
*Riparian setbacks to be 50 feet from bank and/or riparian habitat in Urban, Inner Rural or EDRN areas; 100 feet if in Rural areas.
This ordinance can be found at: countyofsb.org/plndev/projects/Hoopstructures.sbc
Other Issues we are following:
Carbon Farming on the Chamberlin Ranch, report by Penny Knowles
On May 31st Russell Chamberlin invited us out to the family ranch to learn firsthand what carbon farming is all about. I have to say that there was not a lot to see, probably because the scarce rainfall this year has not allowed the composting to truly take effect.
It was a perfect morning, sunny but not yet hot. We assembled in a field adjacent to USCB’s test plots. WE Watch members were joined by a throng of other interested folks, including followers of Gerri French, a nutritionist and teacher through SBCC Continuing Education, and members of the Community Environmental Council in SB, one of the sponsors and promoters of this effort.
Russell spoke about some of the components of his carbon farming plan, supported by a grant from the State of California Healthy Soils Initiative. Two elements that are most important are rotating the cattle so they only eat about a third of the grass and trample down the rest, creating a nice mulch. The other is spreading ¼ inch compost over the grass in a onetime application that will last 30 or so years. Combined, these two procedures enhance the quality of the soil and its water and carbon retaining ability.
Sigrid Wright, the Executive Director of the Community Environmental Council (CEC) and Allegra Roth, Food and Climate Control Associate for the CEC, also spoke to us about their ambitious plans to extend this carbon farming protocol to 15% of the suitable grassland in our County or 42,000 acres. This would offset the carbon emissions from the county’s entire agricultural sector. The amount of carbon stored in the soil as a result would be like taking 11,350 cars off the road every year for two decades. Best of all, it will preserve our rangeland for future generations.
If you are interested in following this topic, please let us know, and stay connected to our website: www.we-watch.org.
California is turning farms into carbon-sucking factories
Santa Ynez Airport Expansion Background and History
The SYV Airport Authority was created in 1993 and is responsible for managing the airport. As required, a Land Use Plan was prepared and accepted by the Board of Supervisors in January 2002.
Subsequently, the SYV Airport Authority submitted an application for expansion of the airport. After numerous amendments, an Initial Study was released in May 2007, stating that only a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be required rather than an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Concerned about the possible effects of an airport expansion, a diverse coalition of community groups, including W.E. Watch, began meeting in 2006. This group submitted comments on the Initial Study in June and August 2007 and stated that an EIR should be required. Ultimately, the coalition hired a graphic artist and an attorney to press the claim that an EIR was required due to visual impacts alone in addition to other concerns.
The SYV Airport Authority has withdrawn the previously submitted expansion application and has stated that another will be submitted.
Other Projects We Are Currently Monitoring
- Santa Ynez Valley Transportation Plan, including Bikeways
- Air Quality Improvements