Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Equine Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ag advisory committee urges quicker action on equine definitions; supervisors debate Measure D limits on event centers
Summary
An Agricultural Advisory Committee subcommittee updated the committee on progress drafting equine facility definitions and permitting options; supervisors and callers debated whether allowing event centers on Resource Management (RM) land would require voter approval under Measure D or could be addressed by technical amendments and conditional-use permitting.
The Transportation and Planning Committee heard an update on the Equine Technical Advisory Committee and a separate informational discussion about whether Resource Management (RM) land in the East County Area Plan should permit visitor-serving uses such as event centers.
Larry (Dr.) Gosselin, vice chair of the Agricultural Advisory Committee and chair of the Equine subcommittee, summarized a year of work to re-examine recommendations from a long-standing Equine Conditional Use Permit streamlining report. He said the subcommittee focused first on definitions (to distinguish training facilities from boarding facilities) and proposed three pathways for reform: (1) adopt ministerial definitions to allow certain equine activities by right up to a loading-capacity threshold; (2) formalize the Equine Technical Advisory Committee as an advisory reviewer for permit applications; or (3) develop a new paradigm using loading-capacity per acre to trigger conditional-review thresholds.
Committee members and many public callers weighed in. Several residents and organizations urged preserving the Measure D protections codified in the East County Area Plan (ECAP), saying RM land was designated for long-term preservation and that adding visitor-serving commercial uses to RM would be a substantive change requiring voter approval and (likely) environmental review. Several landowners and agritourism operators requested exceptions or a conditional-use pathway so existing or proposed event centers could be legalized through the permit process, arguing that controlled approvals promote agritourism and county revenue.
Planning staff cautioned that land-use designations in ECAP were adopted under Measure D and that substantive changes to the ECAP land-use map or to permitted uses often require voter approval; staff said there are limited categories of technical, non-substantive amendments the Board can make without a vote. Several supervisors asked staff to return with options that identify quick, low-hanging items and longer-term ordinance changes, and asked for outreach to MACs (municipal advisory councils) and stakeholders.
Why it matters: the debate pits property owners and agritourism interests seeking expanded economic uses against voters and open-space advocates who view RM designation as a voter-protected conservation tool. Whether changes require a ballot measure or can be achieved through technical amendments and conditional-use permits will determine the scale and timeline for any policy shift.
What’s next: staff agreed to return with a timeline of options, a list of actions that could be treated as technical clarifications versus those requiring a general-plan amendment, and recommended outreach to MACs and Planning Commission review.
