On March 22, 2016, the Board of Supervisors approved a staff proposal for a process and timeline to review General Plan policies and Zoning Code regulations for "agri-tourism" uses. Public meetings occurred on April 3 and April 11 to solicit community input, and a Planning Commission workshop was held on April 14.
At the April 14 meeting, the Planning Commission heard testimony from 21 individuals. At the request of the Commission, several of the participants sent in their comments (Attachment B). Other e-mail and written correspondence that has been received over the last month is also included in Attachment B.
As already noted in the previous staff report for the April 14 workshop, at the first public meeting on April 4, the group listened to brief presentations from staff on existing General Plan policies and zoning regulations; and pending and approved applications for agricultural commercial uses. Following the background information, the participants were divided into seven break-out groups which were instructed to discuss and record responses to two questions/issues: "What are the benefits of sharing Yolo County agriculture with visitors?" and "List the challenges of bringing visitors to the ag areas."
The small group responses to these two issues were summarized and are included in Attachment C.
At the second public meeting on April 11, the group submitted specific questions that were responded to by staff. The participants then broke into small groups and offered specific ideas/solutions for the three main challenges of agricultural commercial uses: public safety/crime/fire issues; traffic/road conditions; and other nuisance impacts such as noise, lighting, etc. The results of those break out sessions were summarized and the summaries were handed out at the last Planning Commission meeting. The summaries are included in Attachment D.
Before people left the April 11 meeting, they were asked to fill out a Zoning Survey of four questions. Almost all of the participants (41) submitted completed questionnaires. The results of the survey were also handed out at the last Planning Commission meeting, and the results are included in Attachment D.
|
Following the lengthy public testimony on April 14, the Commission discussed the issues that had been raised and agreed with staff's brief summary of how to proceed for the next meeting:
- Agree that no "major surgery" is required to the General Plan and zoning regulations;
- Work on the definition of agri-tourism;
- Review what other counties are doing in terms of agri-tourism regulations;
- Discuss how to regulate the locations of specific uses;
- Discuss how to protect existing agricultural operations from impacts of new agri-tourism activities; and
- Address/re-evaluate regulation of paid vs. non-paid/non-profit special events.
Staff has compiled a modest list of proposed amendments to the agricultural commercial regulations based on the guidance given by the Planning Commission at the last meeting (Attachment A).
Staff proposes the following changes:
- add development standards for large special event facilities;
- delete reference to "for-profit, paid" events;
- provide a consistent threshold to differentiate between small and large event facilities and B&Bs;
- delete the existing definition of agri-tourism; and
- delete the section regulating "other agri-tourism uses."
Additional Development Standards
Staff proposes that additional development standards be applied in order to approve large special event facilities, based on some of the recommendations generated at the second public meeting on April 11. The small groups at that meeting offered specific ideas/solutions related to public safety/crime/fire issues; traffic/road conditions; and other nuisance impacts such as noise, lighting, etc. (Attachment D).
Staff has incorporated some of these recommendations into additional development standards included in the new Sec. 8-2.306(k)(8), (9), and (10) in Attachment A.
Delete Reference to "for-profit, paid events"
Staff recommends that the reference to"for-profit, paid events" in Sec. 8-2.306(a) be deleted. Staff agrees with some commentors that it is sometimes difficult to differentiate between events that involve for profit enterprises versus events that are sponsored by a non-profit organization or which do not charge a traditional fee.
Consistent Threshold between Small and Large Event Facilities and B&Bs
Staff proposes edits to the existing regulations to ensure consistency in the threshold numbers that define "by right", "small," and "large" special event facilities and bed and breakfasts. This involves amendments to Sec. 8-2.306(k)(1) and Sec. 8-2.306(l)(1) to use the same threshold of "eight events per year/150 attendees/100 vehicle trips" that has been adopted in Sec. 8-2.306(k)(2).
Delete Agri-tourism Use and Retain Agricultural commercial Use Type
Staff recommends that the regulations be amended to clarify the distinction between agricultural commercial "Use Types" as opposed to specific land uses or activities that may be generally considered "agri-tourism."
Sec. 8-2.303 includes a description of "Agricultural Use Types Defined." These are broad use types that are allowed by right in the agricultural zones or permitted through issuance of a building or zoning permit.
The "Agricultural Use Types" are defined under the following five categories: "Agricultural Production, Processing, and Accessory Uses," "Animal Facilities Uses," "Agricultural Commercial and Rural Recreation Uses," "Agricultural Industrial, Resource Extraction, and Utilities Uses ," and "Residential and Other Uses."
The "Agricultural Commercial and Rural Recreation" Use Type includes wineries, commercial horse stables, “Yolo Stores,” farm-based tourism, special events, festivals, lodging, horseshows, crop-based seasonal events, ancillary restaurants, educational experiences, agricultural technical tours, garden/nursery tours, historical agricultural exhibits, ranch/farm tours, and winery/vineyard tours" (Sec. 8-2.303(c)).
Some of the specific uses that fall under the "Agricultural Commercial and Rural Recreation" Use Type are listed in Table 8-2.304(c) under "Commercial Uses" and "Rural Recreational." They include corn mazes, nurseries, produce stands, "Yolo Stores,"wineries/breweries, special event centers, stables, bed and breakfasts, farm stays, campgrounds, health resorts, and sports activities.
When reviewing a proposed project, planning staff first identifies whether the proposal matches one of the uses listed in Table 8-2.304(c). If it does, then the standards for that specific use are applied to the proposed project. If it doesn’t, staff uses the descriptions in the Use Type section (8-2.303) to determine which land use listed in Table 8-2.304(c) best matches the proposed use and then applies the appropriate standards.
Significant confusion has risen regarding some of these specific uses relative to them being considered agri-tourism and how this term is used during the project review process. The confusion arises because the existing zoning regulations include a detailed "agri-tourism" definition in Sec. 8-2.307 and while there isn’t a specific agri-tourism use listed in Table 8-2.304, there is one use listed as "other agri-tourism uses". The standards for this use then make reference to similar uses already listed separately in Table 8-2.304(c). The agri-tourism definition itself also makes references to uses listed separately in Table 8-2.304(c). In practice, as a project is being reviewed, whether it meets the definition of agri-tourism becomes irrelevant because the process followed to establish the requirements and standards that need to be met by any given project involves the actual proposed use and whether it matches one of the uses listed in Table 8-2.304(c).
Therefore, staff recommends that the existing definition of agri-tourism in Sec. 8-2-307 be deleted and that the existing description of the "Agricultural Commercial and Rural Recreational" Use Type in Sec. 8-2.304 be relied upon for project review. Staff also recommends the deletion of Sec. 8-2.306(n) and the line in Table 8-2.304(c) that regulates "other agri-tourism uses." This was originally proposed as a way to capture specific uses that may not fall under any of the listed commercial uses, but staff does not believe the separate call out for "other uses" is required.
Next Steps
Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission give staff guidance on the zoning text amendments that should be finalized for environmental review, followed by public hearings and formal adoption. Once the proposed Zoning Code Amendment text is decided, staff will prepare an Initial Study/Negative Declaration, circulate it for a 30-day review period, and return to the Planning Commission for public hearing(s). During this period staff will also make outreach to all interested parties, including participants of the public meetings and the citizens advisory committees.
|