Planning Commission

Plantel Nurseries Eastside Expansion Project

• Staff presented a proposal to expand greenhouse operations on 77 acres, adding 13 new structures and a water recycling facility.
• Commissioners reviewed details on workforce increases, traffic impacts, and drainage capacity, with staff confirming compliance with flood control standards.
• The Commission approved the project, adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and authorized the revised development plan.

Recreation Master Plan and LUDC Amendments

• Staff outlined proposed standards for the Recreation Benefits Program, including floor area limits for country inns and trailside cafes.
• Discussion focused on setback distances from active agriculture, permit pathways for campgrounds, and the sufficiency of incentives for private developers.
• Public commenters raised concerns regarding equestrian trail usage, food safety setbacks, and the feasibility of capital-intensive structures for ranchers.
• No formal motion was taken as the session served to gather input for the upcoming Environmental Impact Report.

Minutes of January 28, 2026 Hearing

• The Commission reviewed the minutes from the previous hearing.
• The motion to approve the minutes was seconded and passed.

Agenda Item: Plantel Nurseries Eastside Expansion Project (Case No. 19-RVP-115; Case No. 22-NGDU-10)

Discussion and Staff Report

• Staff presented the project, an expansion of the existing Plantel Nurseries greenhouse operation on a 137-acre parcel on East Clark Avenue. The proposal involves expanding structural development to the eastern 77 acres, adding 13 new greenhouses, a germination building, and a water recycling facility. This is a revision to Development Plan 08-DVP7. Key details included:
• Operations: Hours remain 6:30 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday–Friday. The expansion adds 10 full-time employees, bringing the total workforce to approximately 130–150.
• Infrastructure: An 80-foot landscaping strip is proposed along Clark Avenue. Grading will be balanced on-site. Stormwater and excess irrigation will be conveyed to retention ponds for reuse.
• Regulatory Compliance: The project complies with Ag-2 zone requirements. A waiver was requested for landscaping in parking areas exceeding 3,600 square feet to accommodate truck maneuvering. The Petroleum Administrator authorized a setback reduction for water tanks near two plugged oil wells, subject to CalGEM inspection and potential re-abandonment.
• Environmental Review: A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared. Significant but unavoidable impacts were identified for air quality, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, biological resources, cultural resources, and public facilities. Mitigation measures include a natural gas fuel use limit (approx. 50% of rated daily capacity) and a GHG reduction program. APCD provided a condition letter supporting the air quality analysis.
• Staff Recommendation: Staff recommended the Commission make required findings, adopt the MND and Mitigation Monitoring Program, and approve the revised development plan subject to conditions.
• Commissioners discussed the project’s consistency with agricultural policies and efficiency gains for local farmers. Questions were raised regarding:
• Employee Housing: Clarification was sought on whether employee dwellings were for on-site staff or labor contractors. Staff indicated the dwellings were for employees working at the facility.
• Traffic and Parking: Staff confirmed that the traffic study accounted for the discontinuation of row crop cultivation, resulting in a net reduction in trips. Parking includes approximately 10 employee spaces and 76 staging spaces.
• Drainage: Staff confirmed the retention ponds exceed storage capacity for a 100-year storm event and have been reviewed by the Flood Control Division.
• Monitoring: Staff detailed the monitoring requirements for natural gas usage, including metering devices and monthly reports to permit compliance staff and APCD.

Public Comment

• Scott Nicholson (Applicant): Representing Plantel, he stated the project is an expansion of existing operations to meet demand for vegetable transplants, which improve farmer yields and reduce water/pesticide use.
• Unidentified Speaker 5: Expressed support for the project, citing the thorough planning and mitigation measures.
• Unidentified Speaker 6: Expressed support, noting the project is progressive and responsible.

Motion and Vote

• A motion was made to approve the project, adopt the MND, and approve the revised development plan. The motion was seconded. Vote Outcome: The motion passed.
• ***

Agenda Item: Recreation Master Plan and LUDC Amendments (Workshop)

Staff Presentation

• Staff presented a workshop on the upcoming Comprehensive Plan and ordinance amendments related to the Recreation Master Plan. The focus was on defining standards for the Recreation Benefits Program (RBP) and Land Use and Development Code (LUDC) amendments to inform the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Key topics for discussion included:
• Incentives: Determining if the range of incentives is sufficient to entice private parties. Proposed additional allowed uses include overnight/summer camps and stand-alone wellness/spa facilities.
• Zoning and Sizing: Defining minimum parcel sizes for country inns and trailside cafes.
• Setbacks: Establishing setbacks for trails and RBP uses, particularly from active agriculture (row crops, orchards, vineyards). Staff proposed 200 feet for row crops but remained open to other values.
• Permitting Pathways: Streamlining permits, such as using a Land Use Permit (LUP) instead of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for certain projects.
• Specific Standards:
• Country Inns: Proposed max floor area of 20,000 sq. ft. Staff leaned toward regulating max floor area rather than specific room sizes to allow operator flexibility.
• Trailside Cafes: Proposed max floor area of 3,000 sq. ft.
• Campgrounds/RV Parks: Proposed thresholds for permit types: LUP for 70 sites or fewer; Minor CUP for 120 sites; Full CUP for 121+ sites. Occupancy and stay limits were based on current county campground standards.

Commissioner Discussion

• Bob Nelson: Supported the concept of setting a maximum floor area for country inns rather than specific room sizes. Supported the 3,000 sq. ft. limit for trailside cafes to allow for indoor seating during bad weather. Raised concerns about setbacks for RV parks, specifically regarding noise from generators affecting neighboring residences. Suggested a 30-foot setback as a potential compromise to balance RV park rights with neighbor quiet enjoyment.
• Unidentified Speaker 6: Asked for clarification on the "bright line" rules for setbacks, suggesting that staff should establish clear baseline rules and handle exceptions case-by-case. Inquired about the definition of "employee dwellings" in the context of country inns, noting H-2A worker housing standards.
• Tina Mitchell (Staff): Clarified that the 20,000 sq. ft. limit for country inns was derived from a potential room size of 350 sq. ft. but is not rigid. Confirmed that day-use wellness facilities are being considered. Noted that the 70-site minimum for campgrounds was based on operator feedback for economic viability.

Public Comment

• Matthew Hofer (Attorney for Suzanne Duca): Representing the equestrian community, he raised concerns about the North Shore of Kachuma Lake and the Live Oak Trail. He stated that the North Shore is remote and supports bald eagle habitat and exclusive equestrian use. He requested clarification on proposed trail expansions and noted that federal laws and a state court judgment require site-specific environmental review (EIR) before changing trail uses. He argued that major changes to public trail usage should require a CUP or a public hearing, rather than an LUP or no permit.
• Kathy Rosenthal (Santa Ynez Valley Riders): Represented the equestrian community. She stated that the Live Oak Trail has been an exclusive equestrian trail for over 30 years but is not acknowledged in county documents. She disputed the claim that 12 new miles of trail are being added, stating these miles have existed for years. She requested that equestrian uses be included in long-term planning, public outreach, and comment periods for the Recreation Master Plan and RBP.
• Claire Weinman (Grower Shipper Association): Highlighted the importance of development standards for setbacks and fencing to protect food safety. She supported a 1,000-foot setback from row crops and 400–600 feet for orchards/vineyards, with mechanisms for adjustment. She emphasized the need for adequate fencing (e.g., cyclone fence) to separate uses. She expressed grave concerns about the structure and process of the RBP and recommended remaining opposed to reopening the Ag Element.
• Mary Hayden (Ted Chamberlain Ranch): Stated that many proposed incentives (trailside cafes, country inns, spas) require large capital investments that may not be feasible for ranchers. She suggested that incentives should include non-structural activities such as festivals, events, and trails that do not require permanent structures. She noted that permanent structures may not be compatible with primary agricultural uses on her property.
• Dan Giroir (CRATAC Representative): Addressed the Commission regarding the status of the public hearing process, which has been ongoing for over two months. He noted that CRATAC members expressed concern over the lack of certainty regarding how their submitted comments would be addressed and the specific process for doing so. Giroir stated that while the Parks Division had corrected errors and omissions in the master plan based on previous CRATAC letters, the policies remained unchanged. He highlighted specific concerns with the policy framework, noting that language using terms such as "should," "would," "could," and "maybe" does not create enforceable requirements. He cited an anecdote regarding the Valley View Trail to illustrate the impact of development on trail resources.

Staff Response

• Staff acknowledged the feedback, stating that the Commission’s input would inform the CEQA analysis. Staff confirmed that they had received sufficient feedback to proceed with the EIR preparation and would continue to work with stakeholders.

Motion and Vote

• No formal motion was taken on the Recreation Master Plan workshop items, as this was a workshop session to gather input for the EIR.
• ***

Agenda Item: Minutes of January 28, 2026 Hearing

Motion and Vote

• A motion was made to approve the minutes of the January 28 hearing. The motion was seconded. A roll call vote was taken. Vote Outcome: The motion passed.