Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agricultural Tourism Rezone topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tehama County panel forwards agricultural‑tourism rezone with on‑site food provisions to supervisors
Summary
The Planning Commission recommended that the Board of Supervisors find Rezone No. 205‑02 exempt from CEQA and adopt staff findings after staff added language to permit on‑site food preparation and a stand‑alone commercial kitchen, set hours from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., and incorporated ADA and dust‑control edits; public commenters urged clarity on the distinction between 'limited' and larger agricultural‑tourism categories.
The Tehama County Planning Commission on March 19 voted to forward Rezone No. 205‑02 to the Board of Supervisors with recommendations after staff added provisions to allow on‑site food preparation and a stand‑alone commercial kitchen.
Planning Director Jessica Martinez presented the changes carried over from the commission’s February meeting, saying staff had worked with county counsel and environmental health to add new language (Q2A and Q2B), and that operating hours were set from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. She also said building flagged a requirement for ADA‑compliant accessible parking and that air pollution requested dust control language reflecting Rule 4.24. “This item was brought to table from the 02/19/2026 Planning Commission,” Martinez said as she summarized edits and next steps.
The commission voted to recommend the Board find the project exempt from CEQA pursuant to the citations in the staff report and to adopt the staff findings as amended by staff and the ad hoc review. A motion to move the matter to the Board passed on the record.
Public commenters focused on how the ordinance differentiates small, “limited” agricultural tourism from larger operations. Andrew Grady told the commission the redline left a problematic phrase in the limited category: “limited agricultural tourism shall be permitted when conducted in compliance with all the following,” and then, he said, the redline showed no criteria beneath that clause. Grady urged either reinstating a daily use cap for limited events or collapsing both categories into a single annual‑permit scheme so applicants could not claim a limited status to avoid reporting requirements. Chip Gracie suggested removing the ‘limited’ category outright to avoid confusion.
Commissioners and staff discussed options; Jessica Martinez said the definitions are spread through the code and she would review them with county counsel and the ad hoc committee to avoid sending inconsistent language to the Board. The planning office confirmed the department’s current administrative‑use permit fee for planning is $828 (other departmental fees may apply).
The commission’s recommendation forwards the revised ordinance to the Board of Supervisors with direction for staff and the ad hoc committee to clarify definitions and any cross‑references so the Board receives a clean draft. The Board will receive the item with the Commission’s findings and any staff‑recommended edits; the Commission did not adopt additional code changes at the meeting.
