Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12081992 - S.2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: TOM TORLARSON Costa SUPERVISOR FIFTH DISTRICT` A, County fi" Ile DATE: December 8, 1992 cots, SUBJECT: Consider direction by the Board on its interpretation of the agricultural land use policies in the County General Plan, its intent with respect to these policies and timetable for action. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION The Board makes the following determinations and takes the following actions% 1) That there are no policies in the General Plan which contemplate or require a rezoning of land outside the Urban Limit Line that is designated Agricultural Lands (the only such rezoning policy refers to Agricultural Core designated lands) . That, in fact, the five-acre minimum parcel size is included as part of the General Plan (see Policy 8-w on page 8-43 and the definition of Agricultural Lands on page 3-37) , and any change in the minimum parcel size for properties designated Agricultural Lands to a size greater than five acres would require amendments to the General Plan. 2) That the Community Development Department be directed to initiate the rezoning. of the Agricultural Core to forty-acre minimum parcel size, and that a rezoning ordinance to that effect be presented to the Board for consideration by March 1993. 3) That a minor subdivision of property designated Agricultural Lands is not discouraged by the General Plan policies, so long as it meets the criteria set forth Policy 8-w for rural residential development; provided, however, to avoid consecutive minor subdivisions that would result in a major subdivision over time, after four lots have been created, it is the intent of the Board that the next subdivision application must be treated like a major subdivision in applying the General Plan policies and new guidelines. :ONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: XX_YES SIGNATURE: `Oym _RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE _APPROVE OTHER IGNATURE(S): ,CTION OF BOARD ON Dprpmber 89 1992 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X The Board DEFERRED its decision on the above recommendation to December 15 , 1992 . The Board further REQUESTED.'a report from Community Development on the status of the Board directive on rezoning outside the urban limit lines . The Board REQUESTED County Counsel to provide a report on the provisions of the General Plan and the Board ' s legal options . ATE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE _Y UNANIMOUS(ABSENT- ) AIJD CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: _ AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE EOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ATTESTED December 8 , 1992 Contact: PEAL BATCHELOR.CLERK OF THE BOARD OF cc: CAO SUI'FRVISORS AND COUNTY AD'OINISTRATOR County Counsel /a BY DEPUTY 4) That through the PUD process as set forth in Policy 8-y, clustering of units in major subdivisions of agricultural lands is allowed under the General Plan. That these guidelines be presented to the Agricultural Task Force for its input and be available for consideration by the Board in March 1993. 5) That the Community Development Department be directed to prepare guidelines for major subdivisions of Agricultural Lands which will require a concurrent P-1 zoning application before the application be considered complete, and include an outline of the planning approaches that would be encouraged for any such PUD project, including clustering as contemplated in Policy 8-y. That the guidelines provide that where clustering is requested, the maximum overall density will necessarily be less than one unit per five acres in order to meet the agricultural protection policies in the General Plan and given practical constraints on rural residential development. For example, even with clustering the owner of a two hundred acre Agricultural Lands parcel should not expect forty two-acre lots. That the guidelines provide for even lower densities where a clustering concept is not included as part of the PUD application for a major subdivision. 6) That the Community Development Department prepare a staff report with options that will provide a basis for the Board to give directions to initiate the adoption of specific programs to protect agricultural resources, such as an agricultural lands trust program and a transfer or purchase of development rights program. That report should also include recommendations from the Agricultural Task Force and the East Bay Regional Park District Liaison Committee. That report should be available for consideration by the Board in May 1993. FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION See letter to Chair Sunne McPeak dated December 1, 1992 and enclosures, attached as Exhibit A. Tom Torlakson •- = 300 East Leland Road Supervisor, District Five ;;'' , --`;• Suite 100 Contra Costa County `g Pittsburg,California 94565-4961 Board of Supervisors (510)427-8138 �y, ,_..., ♦4 sp'q,COl7N"� December 1, 1992 Sunne McPeak, Chair Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors c/o Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553 Re: County General Plan Agricultural Land Use Policies Dear Chair McPeak: Enclosed is a copy of a recent article in the Contra Costa Times, one of a series, expressing concerns by farmers and ranchers in East County regarding the potential adverse effects on them of the County's land use policies for agricultural properties. Over the last several months, similar concerns have been expressed to me by individual farmers and ranchers, as well as agricultural representative groups such as the East County Farmers Association. Farmers and ranchers were active in the public review processes that lead up to the adoption of Measure C-1990, the 65/35 Land Preservation Plan, and the agricultural resources policies set forth in the Conservation Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan 1990-2005. These people were deeply concerned that policies under consideration in that process would result in a downzoning of their land, most of which was designated Agricultural Lands or Agricultural Core in the County General Plan and most of T.Th i nh i c r%iif-C i Ac +-ho TTrhnn T.i mi f- T.i»o �f *)�� �f