The Santa Barbara County Planning Commission has begun discussions on an Agricultural Enterprise Ordinance that would allow farmers and ranchers to use their agricultural land for other purposes.
“These regulations allow for a variety of uses at a small scale or low-intensity level of use without a permit or with a low-level permit,” Julie Harris, county planner and project manager for the ordinance, told the commissioners at their meeting Wednesday.
“As the goals of these uses have been to provide agricultural landowners with options to enhance income on agricultural lands while maintaining the primary agricultural uses.”
The Planning Commission took no action on the ordinance, but used the meeting as an opportunity to learn about the project and hear from the public.
The commission plans to hold at least one or two more meetings on the topic before making any decisions.
As the ordinance is currently proposed, the additional options for allowed uses would include supplementary agricultural utilizations, such as composting, farm stands, small-scale agricultural processing beyond raw state, aquaponics, lumber processing and milling, and more.
The ordinance also would permit rural recreation uses like small-scale campgrounds, farmstays, horseback riding, educational experiences, small-scale events and incidental food service, including at winery tasting rooms.
The goal of the ordinance is to allow further uses, and provide a flexible permitting process with different permit tiers.
Depending on the size, scale, intensity of use, and other factors, the permit tiers include zoning clearance, a land use permit or coastal development permit, coastal development permit with a hearing, minor conditional use permit, or a conditional use permit.
Some smaller-scale projects may even be exempt and would not require any zoning or planning permit.
More information on the permit tiers is available in the Planning Commission’s staff report for the ordinance.
Several county residents provided feedback during the public comment period of the meeting.
Most of the speakers were supportive of the ordinance but had some suggestions for improvement or areas of concern.
Among those submitting public comment was WE Watch, a Santa Ynez Valley organization that shares information about land use and environmental issues affecting the area.
“While WE Watch is very supportive of experimenting with both existing and new agriculture enterprise uses, we think it is important to be sure they do not interfere with agricultural operations and neighborhood compatibility,” according to its public comment letter.
“We need to have a ‘research’ component so we can collect and analyze data before proposing scaling up or other changes to the ordinance in the future.”
Ana Citrin, legal and policy director for the Gaviota Coast Conservancy, said her organization supports changes to the ordinance that reduce barriers and encourage practices such as composting and pollinator hedgerow use.
But she added that the conservancy would like additional mitigation measures to protect prime soils, reduce land use conflicts between agricultural and rural recreational interests, and ensure that agriculture remains the primary use.
Another public comment letter, written by Solvang resident Fausto Parisotto, expressed concern that the ordinance could “open the door for other big developers to come into Santa Barbara County and change it to something that will never be able to be reversed,” by developing agricultural land into a resort-type property.
The Planning Commission is to continue its discussion of the Agricultural Enterprise Ordinance at its Dec. 13 meeting, where people can provide additional public comment.