HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11011988 - 1.52 1-052
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon Contra
Director of Community Development Costa
DATE: October 14, 1988 County
SUBJECT: Minor Subdivisions in County Agricultural Districts January 1, 1983
through May 16, 1988
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Accept the attached report entitled "Minor Subdivision
Activity in Agriculturally Designated Lands: January 1, 1983
through May 16, 1988" .
2. Direct Community Development staff and the General Plan
Congress to carefully analyze the issue and the provisions for
the subdivision of agriculturally designated lands.
FISCAL IMPACT
None
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The Board of Supervisors requested that the Community development
Department conduct a study on Minor Subdivision activity occurring
in the County' s agricultural districts. The report was to
encompass the past five years.
4XR-.�,
CONTINUED ON ATTACBIl4EN'r: YES SIGNA
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMEND I N OF OOARDPtOMKITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON NOV 1 198 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED. X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
cc: Community Development ATTESTED NOV 11988
PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR.
BY , DEPUTY
KLW:plp
a
MINOR SUBDIVISION ACTIVITY
AGRICULTURALLY DESIGNATED LANDS
JANUARY 1, 1983 THROUGH MAY 16, 1988
The Board directed the Community Development Department to conduct
a study of minor subdivision activity occurring in the County' s
agricultural designated areas in the past five years. This report
is in response to that directive and encompasses the period January
1, 1983 , through May 16, 1988.
During the study period 172 minor subdivisions were proposed
involving approximately 1,235 acres and 520 parcels. The smallest
minor subdivision involved a two parcel split of two acres, the
largest a four parcel split of 1,100 acres. Table #1 reflects the
distribution of minor subdivision applications and proposed number
of parcels by year and area of the county both on a numerical and
percentage basis. Figure 1 graphically illustratea the .
relationships of Table #1.
The distribution of countywide minor subdivision applications
occurring in East County including the Agricultural Core area
ranged from 56% in 1984 to 87% in 1987. Project activity within
the Agricultural Core ranged from 6% in 1984 to 24% in 1987. It
should be noted that 1988 data (through May 16, 1988) indicates
that this year' s level more closely approximates the 1984-1985
intervals. A similar distribution exists for the number of parcels
proposed.
Two trends can be noted in 1987. Slightly over half of the project
involved two-lot minor subdivisions originating on properties
between 20 and 23 acres. This situation accounted for 38% of the
lots proposed in 1987. A second scenario which involved 50% of the
proposed parcels during 1987, involved four-lot subdivisions on
properties initially consisting of 70 acres or more.
i
V oR o
r-
014J Z7 41 M � N � Ci N N
C b •� O
to L C
E O O
C) U O
G: C u Ztk N ri N tD Ol '-i r♦
•r• N -1 M M •-i N Cf
C r♦
LO
L 4-1 .ad Mi N t` O d r1 rMi
O O
V H'
o to
O O
J v �
W 00 N O M N ri O r
U M ri n O
U
Q
a a
p �
W r o 0 6 0 0 0
N 41 tts -:r rl d N 00 •-1 M O
CO. 7 O l0 Ol n t \
0 LO r- rU
H OOC L) ~ to
I�•t d 41 LL
N W Ol M r-1 00 tD N cn r
I••1 ('7 e--1 Ol LO N m P-
p
N
W
H to
Q �
Z 00 O
0 coCn N
W ri ct M d In M O r
p N (\I Ol r N
CO 4.1 .-i ri Ln !r
•O
+)
g V E
r•I � Z i
W1 r 4-
J � M>r
m u p
Q 1-•1 01 b r O1 ZR 6AZ Z;R 3e
F• OC r-I d d RS M M O Ol ct co Q1 d
Q C b 10 O 1 M M N N Oi
V-4 •r L f- U
Z C O
1"'1 �• •r a \ r
y Q E o s
V
•r
►-1 i.
O tm
N L 4-) •-1 N co O lfl to
O O
O V ~ 4-)
Z_ trs
v N
ZIIZ N .r-i-I M M
W 3
7 4-3
O c
CL >, 0
•- � 0 0 0 � o � O
4-1 .--1 r- O .--I CO N ri U
�k = O t0 00 r t0 LO n r` O
V ~ 4-+
+1 >
N
to 4-3
Ol tD O Ol 00 N
rl M N r! •-1 N
ri N
i
N
i
b �
.r N
O
4J co to rl- r1 to LO
C •-1 d M M -1 N }�
ri C U 4-)
O O to
V U •r N
J Q a- O
00 00 00 O0 00 00 FQ•- r
r \ ((f
Ol Ol Ol O1 4 Ol ¢ Y E
.i i r1 -4- ri r
1 r1
MINOR SUBDIVISIONS IN
AGRICULTURALLY ZONED DISTRICTS
January 1, 1983 to May 16, 1988
50
0
0
40
U
r-1
arrr
o' � 3 0
aa) o
z > 20
':fi.: •::tip
•:til:�{ti;•;{iii:i.
:.•:�:;•;•:;�:i:j
O
10
Ll ... .. . .
l;•l:;•:;•:.:•f:•:
�I
GI
0 M. . .
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
(to May 16)
LEGEND
East County
Agricultural Core
Remaining County Wide
125
m 100
a,
,d '•
a�
75
o
P4
44 50
........: ::.:::::::. .. .........
<:
w
A
25
z•
•t11tt. ::1}
0 IQ
:
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
(to May 16)
FIGURE 1
-2-
The creation of additional lotage to increase financial leverage
relative to the rancher' s ability to secure funds for operational
and capital costs is one possible reason for 1987 ' s large acreage
scenario. The large increases in capital equipment costs and a
price of $27. 50/acre foot for irrigation water ($12.50/acre foot
for Central Valley Project water in the San Joaquin Valley) are
typical factors that could promote the aforementioned situation.
The smaller lots could result in the establishment of a single
family residence. It is, however, this possibility that
substantially increases the per acre value and hence the rancher' s
borrowing power.
The subdivided lands also provide a way for the rancher to minimize
fiscal risk since a lesser percentage of his/her total property
could be forwarded as loan collateral and subsequently repossessed
assuming "hard economic times" . It has been argued by the
Sacramento County Farm Bureau that "a halt in agricultural rezoning
would allow farmland to be lost to foreclosures, rather than
development. "
Despite what on paper may appear to be a series of uneconomical
units, it is likely the rancher would operate the created lots as a
single agricultural parcel. Subdivisions 126-79 and 5861 (both
received tentative approval in the early 19801s) which are
respectively located at the southwestern corners of Marsh Creek
Road and Walnut Boulevard and State Route 4 have subsequently had
their proposed parcels recorded. These properties however, remain
in agriculture and have not been developed with single family
residences. This practice is relatively common in the San Joaquin
Valley' s Westlands District where farms are "on paper" less than
960 acres, but in reality often constitute thousands of acres.
The smaller parcels may also provide a means for entry into
agricultural production. high value fruits such as white peaches
-3-
and organically grown fruits and vegetables which command a higher
market price relative to commercially grown foodstuffs often begin
with an initial purchase or lease of small acreage. This situation
is also typical for many of the u-pick orchard operations. The
operators, because they are often new to agriculture, cannot afford
the costs and risks associated with an initial start-up or
subsequent expansion involving large acreages. The availability of
small parcels and proximity to the Bay Area marketplace are
seemingly important factors . in supporting these scenarios. The
growth of high value specialty crops, organic produce, or the
operation of u-pick farms likely constitues an economically viable
production niche that if encouraged would prevent East County lands
from directly competing with other lower costs areas such as the
San Joaquin Valley.
While there are legitimate concerns related to the parcelization of
the county' s farmlands there are also positive-.results as well. To
date there does not seem to be an overwhelming problem related to
such divisions. However, a monitoring system should be developed
to insure such a problem does not evolve.
The Countywide General Plan review should carefully consider the
division of agricultural lands in the county and weigh the pros and
cons of the issue as the plan is developed. Clearly the issue of
parcel size should be carefully addressed.
KLW:plpMiscIII