Good Ordinances Make Good Neighbors

Based on the notion that agritourism can be beneficial, the Agricultural Enterprise Ordinance (AEO) will change the zoning for each and every unincorporated parcel zoned Agricultural (AG-II) in Santa Barbara County. AG-II zoning is intended “to preserve these lands for long-term agricultural use.”

At first blush, the ordinance lowers the barriers for struggling Santa Barbara County farmers and ranchers looking for ways to generate supplemental income. There is no doubt that this is a good idea. However, a closer read raises some concerns about unintended consequences that might flow from the Agricultural Enterprise Ordinance when implemented if the ordinance is not revised to reflect consideration of neighborhood compatibility.

WHAT:  “Exempt uses” under the ordinance are land uses that will be allowed on any and every AG-II parcel without any mechanism for review, monitoring, or enforcement.

Some exempt Agricultural Enterprise Ordinance uses are more closely related to agriculture (e.g., farm stands, firewood processing). For example, parcels as small as 40 acres may, as a matter of right, begin the mechanical processing of fruits and nuts harvested on that farm and any trucked in from Ventura and SLO counties. Other Agricultural Enterprise Ordinance exempt uses are commercial uses; they include the following hospitality and entertainment activities:
•  events (e.g., weddings, farm-to-table meals, bicycle and horse races);
•  educational experiences (e.g., classes, workshops, tours); and
•  incidental food service (e.g., food trucks, catering).

“Exempt” means skipping the long and tedious permitting process, but it also means that the Planning Department will be “exempt”: exempt from offering any monitoring or enforcement mechanisms to curb abuses and foster neighborhood compatibility.

WHO:  The Agricultural Enterprise Ordinance’s exempt uses will not be available solely to struggling, local farmers and ranchers. The ordinance is written to apply so that any owner of an AG-II parcel — including hospitality companies and investment groups — can bring the above exempt agritourism uses onto agricultural land without ever being subject to any form of review, monitoring, or enforcement. It does not matter whether the investors live in the county, and the ordinance includes no mechanism to monitor whether an AG-II parcel continues in long-term agricultural use.

WHERE & WHEN:  Although an early study recognized “neighborhood compatibility issues at or near the urban/rural interface” as an “area of known controversy,” the Agricultural Enterprise Ordinance is written to apply to any and every AG-II parcel without regard to location or neighboring land uses. The same ordinance uses allowed on huge remote parcels will also be allowed on smaller AG-II parcels that share the urban-ag boundary with residences. It is no secret that ag parcels and residential parcels share boundary lines: “[g]enerally, extensive agricultural lands border, or are in proximity to, the Santa Ynez Valley’s cities and rural townships.”

It seems as if some of the unintended consequences that have flowed from the county’s enactment of the Cannabis Ordinance can serve as both something of a cautionary tale and a template for options to hone the Agricultural Enterprise Ordinance. Despite requiring a permit for cultivation on lots located in or adjacent to an Existing Developed Residential Neighborhood or the Urban-Rural boundary, the Cannabis Ordinance continues to give rise to conflicts with neighbor pitted against neighbor because of their incompatible land uses.

This summer, the Planning Commission crafted a limited “overlay” that will require review and permitting in order to introduce any of the Agricultural Enterprise Ordinance’s rural recreational uses near row crops, but no such overlay or other enforcement mechanism was considered or adopted for neighboring residences. As a result, when amplified music goes all night for parties that far exceed the ordinance’s size limits, or parking or trash spills onto a neighbor’s property, or a tiny road or shared driveway is jammed with cars of guests or with trucks from neighboring counties, the only recourse neighboring residents will have is law enforcement’s non-emergency number.

Interestingly, the ordinance’s “blindness” to location and neighborhood compatibility leaves the many vast, remote AG-II parcels throughout North County with rather limited options under the Agricultural Enterprise Ordinance, imposing limits and buffers that are largely irrelevant when the “neighborhood” consists of open grazing land.

WHY:  The idea behind the Agricultural Enterprise Ordinance seems good, and it seems consistent with the preservation of AG-II land for long-term agricultural use. There are, however, a few ways in which the dots are not yet connected in support of such sweeping legislation.

An early study explained that “[w]hen sited and scaled appropriately,” various ordinance uses “have the potential to promote the preservation of agricultural land and operations thereby preserving the character of the agricultural lands while contributing to economic development and employment opportunities.”

At present, the ordinance applies to every AG-II parcel, regardless of location, type of land, or nature of the farming or ranching taking place. In fact, instead of showing that some or all of the agricultural sector is struggling or failing in Santa Barbara County, early research concluded that “[d]espite pressures from urbanization and imports, agriculture continues to thrive.”

Accepting for the sake of argument that at least some types of farms and ranches in some parts of the county are struggling and need support, it does not follow that (a) all farmers and ranchers are unable to make a profit from agricultural uses of ag land, or (b) that all farmers and ranchers would turn a profit if they invested in the introduction of some or all of the Agricultural Enterprise Ordinance agritourism uses on their land.  Unfortunately, the ordinance neither identifies any particular sectors (e.g., berry farms, cattle ranches, vineyards) that are unable to make a profit from farming their land, nor indicates whether farmers of prime agricultural soil are affected similarly to ranchers of vast grazing land.

In sum, it appears that there is no data to support that the many hospitality and entertainment activities the ordinance will usher onto AG-II land (the majority of our County) will actually protect or promote some or all of Santa Barbara County’s agricultural land or agriculturalists.

A majority of supervisors are expected to approve the Agricultural Enterprise Ordinance on Tuesday, December 10. The matter remains open for public comment.

Kathryn Lohmeyer Rohrer is a Los Olivos resident, parent, attorney, and farmer.