On Thursday, March 31st, 2011 the Planning Commission will be reviewing the newest draft of the Events Ordinance.  This will be the first item on the agenda.  The meeting begins at 9am in the Supervisors‘ Chambers.  To download the Staff Report click below:

Events Ordinance Staff Report - 03312011.pdf.

To download CABO’s comments on the most recent draft click below:

CABO Submission to PC for 3_31_11.pdf

In early March 2010, CABO submitted a "Viewpoint" to the New Times in response to a letter that New Times had published accusing those who support events as "courting the approval of development interests."  Although New Times did publish our "Viewpoint" on April 7, 2010, their editorial staff made significant editorial changes, especially to the introductory paragraph. The Viewpoint we submitted is presented in its original version below:

It’s Not Either Events Or Agriculture, As Some Would Have You Believe. . .

The past six months have seen several articles covering the issue of events on ag and rural land. While we welcome the coverage, we are concerned that some may uncritically accept the argument made by a small group of oft-published individuals who portray anyone who doesn’t embrace their agenda as “courting the approval of development interests” and who cloak their Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) opposition to events in appealing but inaccurate “environmental protection” rhetoric.

Those of us who host weddings and events on our land have a different perspective. Many of us own family farms, ranches, or vineyards – properties that are expensive to maintain and where agricultural operations often fail to cover annual expenses. Some of us have properties that have been in our families for generations; some of us are new to this County but are no less attached to the land we love and work hard to maintain.

In recent years, our County has become a popular “destination wedding” location, with couples traveling here to celebrate their wedding surrounded by glorious vineyards, golden hills, and majestic oaks. While destination weddings may be new to our County, weddings and special events have been celebrated on agricultural lands since time immemorial. The connection between weddings and agriculture is even enshrined in our language: the word “husbandman” means “farmer.”

As events have become a source of supplemental income for landowners, a handful of disgruntled individuals have waged an unrelenting campaign to paint weddings and events on rural land as equivalent to commercial “circuses” and “Disneylands,” and to depict their NIMBY crusade as an attempt to “protect agriculture” from often- invoked-but-never-identified “big development” interests.

Their assertions are made with a certitude that transcends the need for factual support or logical consistency. For example, at a 6/26/09 Forum, they argued that non-ag events “exhaust the resources” of ag land, but were unable to identify a single County property where this had occurred. They posited that their “hope” was that eliminating the income from weddings and events would “encourage” the landowner to “keep the land in agricultural production,” but provided no data to support their assumption.

While insisting that non-ag income-producing events harm agriculture, these same individuals support allowing non-profit and non-income-generating events on ag land without restrictions as to size or frequency, even on fragile historic properties, and even as they concede similar-size events have identical impact. (SLO Events Forum 7/27/09) (The average wedding on rural land has fewer than 175 attendees; nonprofit events often draw hundreds – even thousands -- of attendees.) Apparently, it’s not the impact on the land but the income derived by the landowner that “harms” agriculture.

Using an all-too-familiar tactic, these individuals vilify anyone who rejects their agenda, accusing everyone else of selling out the environment in favor of unrestricted growth and development. Yet the crowds who turned out at hearing after hearing to support events were largely composed of caterers, innkeepers, photographers, florists, coordinators, etc. – small business owners who contribute jobs and dollars to our economy and whose livelihoods depend on the County’s vineyards and ranches retaining their rural character. Landowners who host events also spoke of their commitment to agriculture, and their struggles to preserve ag land for future generations. These landowners say event income helps farmers survive lean years and price fluctuations.

We don’t doubt that some who rail against non-ag events may also be committed environmentalists. But if you delve into the arguments made by many who are strident in their opposition to events, what surfaces is not evidence of damage to agriculture or the environment, but rather an interest in prohibiting weddings in their neighborhoods.  It’s NIMBY, not agriculture, that drives them.

Undoubtedly, there are irresponsible landowners who fail in their obligation to their neighbors, as well as properties that are simply not suited for events. A recent hearing saw the Board of Supervisors vote unanimously to restrict events where significant problems had been documented. Supervisor Hill emphasized that those seeking to host events have a “maximum responsibility” to their neighbors. While the majority of landowners are responsible neighbors, in response to these legitimate concerns, we proposed an Events Venue Association that will promote best practices for this cottage “industry,” work to resolve neighborhood issues, and track complaints against offending venues.

Those of us working to maintain our lands do not need to be reminded that rural and agricultural lands require careful stewardship. We are the stewards. Event income helps us maintain the land and reduces the pressure to sell to developers (subdivision, not events, drives the loss of ag land.) Those of us who allow our fields, vineyards, and ranches to be settings for special celebrations are continuing time-honored agrarian traditions, adapted to a changing world in which events can help agriculture remain economically viable.