Tulare County staff propose zoning changes to clarify “agriculture” and rules for ag service establishments

Tulare County planning staff on a county advisory committee meeting presented a package of zoning-ordinance updates intended to align the county code with the general plan and to clarify how agricultural and ag service uses are defined and permitted.

The items discussed included an expanded definition of “agriculture” to explicitly list greenhouses, hydroponics and aquaculture; a battery-storage definition sourced from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory; a 10-foot “permanent plant” setback in the zoning matrix; retention of standard 25-foot rear-yard setbacks for residences; and revisions to rules for ag service establishments, including clearer criteria for when a property is considered primarily agricultural. Staff said language allowing horse and mule slaughter had been removed to reflect state law dating to 1998.

Why it matters: the draft changes affect how farms, ranches and farm-related businesses are treated under the county code and how use permits and enforcement will be applied in mixed residential–agricultural areas. Committee members and attendees raised concerns about setbacks, grandfathering of existing parcels and whether administrative standards would be sufficient to control noise, vehicle storage and other neighborhood impacts.

Aaron Bach, identified in the meeting as assistant director of planning and economic development for the Tulare County Resource Management Agency (RMA), said the battery storage definition was taken from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and offered to provide the citation for members to review. Bach and other staff described the proposed agriculture definition as “the art and science of cultivating soil; the growing, gardening and harvesting of crops; the rearing and management of livestock; horticulture; greenhouses; hydroponics; aquaculture; forestry; and the production and processing of said products.”

The Farm Bureau submitted comments asking for an expanded agriculture definition that explicitly included greenhouses and hydroponics, and asked that ag service establishment rules not be broadly expanded to allow by-right commercial activity on small parcels. Patricia Stever Bladler, representing the Farm Bureau at the meeting, pressed for specificity in the ag service establishment definition and requested a clearer statement of what “primarily” means when applied to a parcel or business.

Committee members and members of the public questioned several specifics: whether the 10-foot permanent-plant setback prevents any part of a tree canopy from crossing the setback, how the 25-foot rear-yard setback interacts with very deep lots, and why some zones had historically required 100-foot distances between habitation and livestock while others use a 40-foot standard. Staff said most zones will use a 40-foot habitation-to-livestock separation and that the larger 100-foot buffer existed in only one zone; the change is intended to make the code more consistent across zones. Staff also noted that existing uses would generally be grandfathered, and the new standards would chiefly apply when an owner seeks a building permit or otherwise loses grandfathered status.

On ag service establishments, staff said the county has sometimes used discretionary use permits to add conditions on noise, truck parking and other impacts, and the proposed ordinance could convert common planning-commission conditions into administrative development standards so similar proposals could be approved without a discretionary hearing but with enforceable conditions.

Other clarifications discussed included: removal of proposed language allowing mini-storage facilities in agriculture zones (staff proposed deleting that allowance), adding a battery-storage term to the definitions section, and keeping poultry as a specifically recognized category. Staff said tiny-home rules and RV occupancy remain governed by public health and building code standards and are not changed by this zoning update.

Staff told the committee they would post both a redline and a clean version of the ordinance language on the county website, incorporate comments from the meeting, return the draft to the Farm Bureau for review, conduct further workshops with the planning commission and then return to the advisory committee and ultimately to the planning commission and board as required.

The advisory committee did not take a formal binding vote on the ordinance at the meeting; staff said an action on this agenda item will be scheduled at a future meeting after further refinement and outreach.