Vi ewp o int

Viewpoint: Ag events proposal is right idea but wrong approach

By Elizabeth Rolph and Kim Pasciuto

O n May 22 the Planning Commission will hear a proposal to expand the number of sites that can host large-scale events on agricultural land, rural land and rural residential land. This proposal sprang from two directives from the Board of Supervisors:

1. To revise existing licensing requirements for the SLO Symphony’s Pops Concert at the Avila Beach Golf Resort; and

2. To examine the possibility of expanding uses on agricultural land to help our farmers and ranchers continue to farm rather than to sell their land for development.

These are commendable goals, but the resulting proposal goes far beyond the assignment and, instead, results in the effective rezoning of our agricultural and rural land to recreational and commercial uses. This is the wrong direction.

The proposal is expansive. The new rules permit a dramatic increase in the number of events in our rural areas, allowing up to 20 special events per year on any 20-acre agzoned parcel with a token amount of agriculture, and up to 40 special events per year on any 20-acre rural land or rural residential parcel — without any agriculture at all.

Today, only wineries may host special events in rural areas. This will be a remarkable change with far-reaching and cumulative effects.

Applicants will be able to have bigger events with less permitting and less neighborhood review than wineries. The proposal allows events for up to 250 people with no public hearing and for more than 250 people (no upper limit) with a public hearing.

By way of contrast, wineries right now may only request up to six events for up to 80 people without a public hearing and, for more, they must have the highest level of permit. Hours for amplified music will be increased. Hours of operation, including setup and cleanup, will be from 8 a. m. to 11 p. m. Add to that parking, traffic, trash, night lighting and noise. Imagine if you have several neighbors doing regular events!

The final nail in our collective coffin is that this proposal allows grading and new construction of buildings dedicated to these special events on ag, rural land and rural residential property. This means agricultural and rural land can be converted to large, glitzy event centers.

This proposal violates Ag Policies 6 (accessory uses on ag land must be secondary and incidental to agriculture), Ag Policy 8 (accessory structures should be allowed only in support of agriculture) and Ag Policy 24 (preserve ag land.) These policies offer important protections to our agricultural lands and our rural character; they should be honored.

While the proposal is couched in the appealing title of Ag Tourism, it has little to do with preserving family farms and everything to do with converting our valuable agricultural lands to other uses. Ironically, under the definition of agriculture currently proposed, the small family farmer with diverse agricultural activities will be shut out—the very farmer we are trying to help. This is the wrong direction.

The right direction would be an events proposal for ag, rural lands and rural residential that offers accessory uses to real farmers, requires the use to relate to or promote direct marketing of that agriculture and scales the use to the size of the site and the size of nearby roads.

The county’s effort to create a comprehensive set of AgTourism proposals (proposals relating to retail, processing, lodging, rural recreation and signs are yet to