HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01111994 - IO.4 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS I .O.-4A
5
Contra
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE. --=r'. `-t.;'y-•
Costa
FROM: •� �,•
js
January 3, 1994 County.
��s= �_''
DATE: Tq' it
coup
SUBJECT: REPORT ON LARGE LOT REZONING
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 . DIRECT the Community Development Director to report back to
the 1994 Internal Operations Committee at, the . Committee' s
second meeting in February, 1994 on staff ' s. review, analysis
and comments on the papers submitted by the Mt. Diablo Audubon
Society and the Citizens Land Alliance on this subject, along
with any other papers which are submitted within the next few
days, and for this purpose REFER this matter to the 1994
Internal Operations Committee.
2 . REMOVE this matter as a referral to the 1993 Internal
Operations Committee.
,BACKGROUND:
On October 19, 1993 the .Board of Supervisors adopted the following
recommendations from our Committee:
113 . ENCOURAGE all interested parties to-submit issue papers to the
Community Development Department on the subject of large lot
rezoning so that the . Community Development Department staff
can take those viewpoints into account in ' .preparing the
agricultural strategy paper noted above..
4 . DIRECT the Community Development Director to report back to
the Internal Operations Committee on January 3, 1994 on the
progress which has been made on this subject. "
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD MITT E
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):.
ACTION OF BOARD ON JanuaryAPPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED
Contact: PHI BATCHELOR,CL OF THE BOARD OF
M. County Administrator SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Community Development Director
Jim Cutler, Chief, Advance Planning,CLD
BY , �-• DEPUTY
I .O.-4A
-2-
Two papers were submitted immediately prior to the January 3, 1994
Internal Operations Committee meeting, making it impossible for
staff to complete their review of these papers and integrate them
into the strategy paper on which staff has been directed to work.
In addition, it appears that other groups may still be planning to
submit papers . We are, therefore, recommending that staff be
provided until the middle of February to review these two papers
and any others which are submitted and prepare their comments to
the 1994 Internal Operations Committee. The two papers which have
been submitted to date are included for the information of the
Board members .
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
RECEIVED
CONTRA COSTA VM28MB
2 $
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPART .
OFFICE OF
rTn
TO: Internal Operations
FROM: Harvey E. Bragdo
Director of Com pment
SUBJECT: PROGRESS RT O AGRICULTURAL ENHANCEMENT
STRATEG
On October 11, 1993, the Internal Operations Committee requested the Community Development
staff to prepare a progress report on efforts to prepare an overall Agricultural Enhancement and
Open Space Preservation Strategy. The Committee encouraged interested parties to "submit
issue papers to the Community Development Department on the subject of large lot rezoning so
that the Community Development Department staff can take their viewpoints into account in
preparing the agricultural strategy paper noted above." To date, staff has received no written
comments from the groups that were involved in the discussion before IO.
Staff, however, understands that an attorney, David Bowie, has been hired by the group, East
County Farmers, to prepare a package of proposals on either large lot rezoning or 40 acre
minimum lot size in the Agricultural Core. The Agricultural Task Force has also indicated it
intends to submit a position statement.
It would appear appropriate for staff to contact the groups which have indicated a desire to
provide comments and to indicate a deadline of the middle of January for the submittal of their
papers. Based on such a date, IO should consider rescheduling this issue at its second meeting
in February. The reason for this February date is to give staff time to analyze the concept in
these papers.
HEB:JWC:aw
MSMO.MEM
(Subsequent to the preparation of this report, Mt. Diablo Audubon Society and
Citizens Land Alliance have submitted the attached material)
SENT BY: 12-15-93 ;11:38AM ;KIWO'S WALNUT CREEK, 6464098;# 2/ 3
MT. DIABLO AUDUBON SOCIETY
P_d,BOX 5.3
WAUW T CREEK CALIFORNIA 94596
ff Y•+�'may
13 December 1993
Mr Harveg Bregdon, �• C�" p 494 4{09.d
Community Development Director
651 Pine St.
Martinez, cA 94553
Dear Mr. Bragdon:RE:Vours of 26 Oct-i.e. large lot rezoning
Our comments re the issue of large lot rezoning in areas 'OUTSIGE" the
urban limit line are as follows:
1. when the voters were asked to decide on having a greenbelt area, two
propositions were on the ballot. The Voters decided on the less restrictive
urban limit line as proposed by the Board of Supervisors. Implicit in the
material presented to the voters on behalf of this urban limit line was that
there would be essentially NO deWopment bey. ,ond the urban bits line for
the period cited in the legislation_
2. Clearly the Supervisors and voters were in favor of protecting
agricultural lands and the legislation provided for such, in very specific
gays..
To now, at this early date reshape the urban limit tine to provide for
substantial changes in lot designations provided In. the legislation would
be to break o compact with the voters.
As the Honorable Board well knows, the mare agricultural lands are
divided, the more the general public is enabled to make use of agricultural.
lands for housing, business purposes etc.,the more difficult it is for those
who went to remain in agriculture to so do. This due to pressures on the
remaining eg lands by a public that his little to no interest in the
problems farmers face from urbanization of ag lands.
importantlU: the general public interest in having and maintaining a viable
agricultural lndustrg. Hight Vitt A Cult urra� l lends MUST be protected,
r -%NI' BY: 12-15-93 ;11:39AM I K I WO'S WALNUT CREEK 6464038;# 3/ 3
r
maintained else agriculture will WUT be able to feed and cloth even the
peWle of the State, let alone the 40% or so of the Ag products now
exported to other states and nations.
Lastly, the environmental problems if more and more agricultural land is.
turned to development. No one knows what the results may be of further
altering huge chunks of Contra Costa's ag lands from present uses to
urbanization.
Wildlife of all sorts will be adversely effected. The numbers sof animals
etc., on the threatened/endangered species lists will grout to unmanagable.
size. Ultimatelg, our own civilization may w811 be adversely off ected.
Changing lot Size, as being considered, if carried to its logical conclusion
will mean there will be no roam for anything In this state but people. We
submit, every study, every knowledgable student of biology, biodiversity
etc., asserts the implications for humans of'such a situation can be
disastrous.
We would suggests that before ANY mature consideration is "given to
chaning lot sizes(as being consdiered) a complete biodiversity study be
undertaken of the entire agricultural/delta areas. Once that has been
accomplished we might be in a position to determine how to handle further
development of agricultural lands without doing violence to wildlife and
humans.
Another part of the study should be a wide ranging public debate as to how
to maintain a 'viable agriculture, protect private property and the stake
the public hos in decisions that may reduce the ability of agriculture to
provide food and fiber for human uses.
u t ,
. a
Vice ('resident-Conserv ion
cc:Conservation Committee
Contra Costa County
CITIZENS LAND ALLIANCE
Post Office Box 553 • Byron, CA 94514 a (510) 634-60049
k
President Howard Higgins*Vice President Frank Pereira*Secretary James A.Gnerder*Treasurer A.Michggl�Sout�a, ��0.
Directors Mike Ambrosin,Tino Bacchini,Tom Brumleve,Bob Chapman,Enrico Cinquini, t�: 36
Bob Dal Porto,Eugene Harrison,Tony Souza
T
12/14/93
Harvey Bragdon,
Community Development Director
County Administration Building
4th Floor-North Wing
651 Pine Street
Martinez, California 94553
Mr.Bragdon:
Enclosed please find the Contra Costa County Citizens Land Alliance position paper on the
subject of large lot rezoning. As you may recall, in October the Internal Operations Committee
encouraged all interested parties to submit issues papers on this subject by December 15. We have
prepared the enclosed paper in the hope that you will incorporate it into your report back to the 1/0
Committee on January 3, 1994.
Sincerely,
A. Gwo�James A. Gwerder, Secretary
Contra Costa County
Citizens Land Alliance
POSITION STATEMENT
of the
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CITIZENS LAND ALLIANCE
regarding
LARGE LOT REZONING
SUMMARY
e
The Contra Costa County Citizens Land Alliance strongly
supports the retention of the existing Ranchette Policy at
least until the year 2005, the time horizon of the County
General Plan.
Abandoning the Ranchette Policy would preserve agricul
tural lands by keeping them as undeveloped open space, but
this is not the same thing as preserving agriculture. Agri-
culture is an economic activity requiring people willing to
work the land.
If the Board of Supervisors were to abandon the Ranch-
ette Policy by deleting or modifying Agricultural Resources
Implementation Measure 8-w to increase minimum parcel sizes,
also known as large lot rezoning, it would severely diminish
the value of the sole capital asset of the County's farmers .
Deprived of the ability to subdivide and sell smaller par-
cels to meet an immediate cash need or to provide security
for financing, many of the County's farmers would be forced
to leave agriculture, and they would not be replaced by a
younger generation of farmers who will buy their lands .
INTRODUCTION
Agricultural Resources Goal 8-G of the Contra Costa
County General Plan is :
"To encourage and enhance agriculture, and do
maintain and promote agricultural economy. "
Goal 8-G is implemented, along with other implementation
measures, by Agricultural Resources Implementation Measure
8-w, which establishes the Ranchette Policy. This policy,
among other provisions, specifies that the minimum parcel
size of lands designated by the General Plan as Agricultural
Lands shall be 5 acres .
As explained in this Position Paper, the Ranchette Pol-
icy is essential to the achievement of Agricultural Resources
1 Contra Costa County General Plan 1990-2005, January 1991 ,
p. 8-41 .
2 Ibid . at pp. 8-43 through 8-45 .
-1-
Goal 8-G. Note that this goal is not concerned with the
preservation of agricultural land, but rather with the pres-
ervation of agriculture as an economic activity. Preserva-
tion of agricultural land is not the same as the preservation
of agriculture. As an economic activity, the latter requires
agricultural land, plus, most importantly, people willing to
work the land. Simply stated, agriculture means both land
and farmers .
Removal of the Ranchette Policy from the General Plan
would adversely affect the maintenance and the promotion of
the agricultural economy of Contra Costa County by forcing
many farmers off their lands . The Ranchette Policy plays an
essential role in the maintenance and the promotion of the
agricultural economy of Contra Costa County by enabling farm-
ers to stay, on their lands and to keep farming.
Contra Costa County's Declining Agricultural Economy
The. Ranchette Policy plays this key role because of
the present state of the County' s agricultural economy which
has been experiencing a steady decline since the end of Worl
War II and is not likely to survive. the turn of the century.
The decline of agriculture in East Contra Costa county
is attributable to several factors . The division of the East
County area during the early 1900s into relatively small par-
cels suitable for non-mechanized farming now renders it rela-
tively unsuitable for the mechanized farming characteristic
of the post-World War II era.
East County cannot successfully compete with the irriga-
ted farming on very large parcels of land in the San Joaquin
Valley. Agricultural labor costs are relatively higher in
East County than in the San Joaquin Valley due to the
competition presented by the industrial labor market.
There are no agricultural processing facilities in East
County and only limited packing facilities . Contra Costa
County has lost its entire cattle feed lot business, and has
only two remaining dairies out of the literally hundreds of
dairies which existed in the County prior to World War II .
The County's walnut industry has been devastated by
black line disease, which originated in. the Walnut Creek
and Concord areas, and has totally inundated the East County.
In 1990, East County Farmer, an affiliate of the Contra
Costa County Citizens Land Alliance, commissioned an in-depth
study to examine the economic viability of agriculture in
3 The following discussion is taken from Position Statement
of the Contra Costa County Citizens Land Alliance regarding the
Contra Costa County General Plan, March 30, 1989 . While the
discussion in this position statement focused on agriculture in
East Contra Costa County, it is equally applicable to the entire
County.
-2-
East Contra Costa County.'4 This study was performed by The
Management Economics Groups and was presented to Contra Costa
_County. (Contra Costa County CLA notes in passing that this
report contains many of the elements of the "Other Strategies
and Ideas" cited in "Agricultural Enhancement and Open Space
Preservation Strategies" document referenced in the October
11, 1993 Internal Operations Committee memo entitled "Report
of Large Lot Rezoning. " )
The East County Farmer Study, among other topics, ana-
lyzed the structural changes in East County agriculture from
1969 to 1987 . One of the findings of structural change, the
age distribution of agricultural operators, is applicable
County-wide and confirmed what had previously been suspected
based on anecdotal evidence: that is, that younger persons
are not entering farming in Contra Costa County and the farm
operator population is aging. As discussed by the East Coun-
ty Farmer Study:
"Operators by Acre Group. The number of younger op-
erators increased in the late 1970s and early 1980s
but declined sharply by 1987 . The percentage of
farm operators under the age of 35 in Contra Costa
County has been relatively small but increased. to
1982 and then declined sharply (Table 23 ) .
TABLE 23
Operators by Age, Contra Costa County, 1974-1987
1974 1978 1982 1987
No. % No. % No. % No . %
under 35. years 47 6 . 6 91 10 . 7 111 11 . 5 69 8 . 2
35 to 44 years 116 16 . 3 209 24 . 5 240 25 . 0 182 21 . 7
45 to 54 years 186 26 . 1 209 24 . 5 254 26 . 4 222 26 . 4
55 to 64 years 191 26 . 8 212 24 .8 219 22 . 8 207 24 . 6
65 and over 173 24 . 2 132 15 .5 138 14 . 3 160 19 . 1
Total 713 853 962 .840
Source: Census of Agriculture
4 The Economic Viability of Agriculture in East Contra Costa
County, The Management Economics Group, May, 18, 1990 .
5 The Management Economics Group comprises three individuals ,
Chet McCorkle, Lee Garovan, and Warren Johnson, all of whom hold
Ph.D' s in various agriculture-related fields , and teach and
specialize in the study of agriculture at the University of
California, Davis .
6 See Responses to Comments on September 1990 Draft Envi-
ronmental Impact Report, Administrative Draft, December 14 , 1990 ,
p. C-27 .
-3-
It is also apparent that there were a significant
number who became operators between the age of 35
and 44 given the large increases in numbers in the
35 to 44 age bracket as compared to the under 35
category ten years earlier. There appears to have
been a significant exodus of farm operators in the
55 to 64 bracket judging from the large declines
between this bracket and the next five years later.
The only group who grew in absolute numbers during
the 1980s appears to be those who were over 65 .
These trends are similar to those found throughout
California and in much of the United States where
the financial barriers to entry deter young persons
from becoming farmers . Other factors are the nec-
essary commitment to intensive and frequently de-
manding physical labor and the realization that
capital invested will bring a' relatively low rate
of return. "
The Executive Summary of the East County Farmer Study
summarized the reasons for the aging of the farm operator
population of Contra Costa County:
"On a total farm basis, even at the most favorable
yields and prices, the net incomes derived on
typical fruit farming operations will not adequate-
ly cover the family living expenses and a return
on land, equipment and buildings . These growers
stay in business by accepting a relative low return
for their labor and a very, low or negative return
on investment. They expect growth in the value
of their land to provide the long term solution
to the sh rter term cash flow and low return
position"�
The reasons why the farmers of Contra Costa County are
willing to remain in agriculture, despite both a low return
for their labor and a low return on investment, vary depend-
ing on individual circumstances . However, given the family
histories and values of these men and women, undoubtedly tra-
dition plays a very strong role. This is especially true
among the older generation of farmers . But even tradition
must at some point yield to economic reality.
Preeminent among these realities is the need of the
farmer to have access to capital to compensate for the low
return on investment and to off-set the inevitable "bad
years" in which returns are very low. Like everyone else,
farmers obtain capital either by selling a capital asset
or borrowing it . Both methods involve the farmer' s primary
7 The Economic Viability of Agriculture in East Contra Costa
County, op. cit. , p. 35 .
8 Ibid. p. 2 .
-4-
capital asset, land, and this is where the Ranchette Policy
comes into play.
Important Role of the Ranchette Policy in Agriculture
The County General Plan recognizes the important role
of the minor subdivision of agricultural lands in the econom-
ic circumstances of farmers :
"Minor subdivisions are also requested when a farm-
ing family wishes to sell off a small piece of
their land in order t? make up a shortfall on the
remaining operation. "
In other words, the ability of a farmer to subdivide
and sell small parcels of his/her land for residential use
is at times essential to his/her ability to continue farming.
Although not explicitly noted in the County General
Plan, the potential ability of a farmer's land to be sub-
divided into smaller parcels and sold has .ahother equally
important function, which is to serve as the security for
loans made to farmers . This other aspect of minor subdivi-
sions of agricultural lands is understood within the agri-
cultural community, and was communicated by this community
to County officials and staff during the preparation of the
County General Plan.
By way of review, loans made to agricultural landowners
must be secured by some form of collateral, which in the
case of an agricultural borrower is almost always of neces-
sity the land which is being used in the agricultural opera-
tion. In order for this land to be acceptable collateral to
a prospective lender, it must have some alternative uses in
the event that the lender is forced to foreclose on the loan.
The potential opportunity to subdivide lands designated "Ag-
ricultural Lands" by the County' s General Plan into parcels
with a minimum size of five acres per the Ranchette Policy
provides this alternative use . Absent this alternative use,
lands designated "Agricultural Lands" would not generally be
acceptable as collateral for the purpose of making the loan,
or at best could be used to secure smaller loans than would
otherwise be available.
The role of agricultural land in serving as collateral
for agricultural loans was recently again communicated to
County officials in testimony given at the June 7 , 1993 Plan-
ning Commission hearlhngs on the proposed. Agricultural Core
rezoning proposals . Further evidence of the need of a
farmer/borrower to provide collateral in the form of land
9 Contra Costa County General Plan 1990-2005, January 1991 ,
p. 8-39 .
.10 Leonard Gerry, Chair of the Agricultural Task Force,
letter dated June 13, 1993 to Harvey E. Bragdon, Director,
Community Development, page 2 .
-5-
capable of being subdivided into smaller parcels is provided
by a letter which was recently obtained by the Contra Costa
County Citizens Land Alliance from Arnold Lenk of All
American Mortgage Company of Lafayette . This letter states :
"Loans to agricultural landowners need to be
secured by some form of collateral . To the
agricultural borrower, the land being used in
the agricultural operation provides this
security. Alternative uses of the land are
required for acceptable collateral in case the
lender is forced to foreclose on the loan.
Policy 8-w of the County General Plan provides
this alternative use by allowing the
opportunity to subdivide lands designated
'Agricultural Lands ' into parcels with a
minimum size of five acres . Without this
alternative use, lands designated
'Agricultural Lands' would not generally be
acceptable as collateral for the purpose of
making the loan. "
The County General Plan also recognizes that while some
subdivision of agricultural lands should be permitted, un-
restricted subdivisions could prove harmful . As noted by the
General Plan:
"While the limited subdivision of agricultural
lands for legitimate reasons should be accommodated
by the County, it is apparent that allowing a pro-
liferation of land divisions in a given area will
have a disastrous effect on. other farmers or ranch-
ers who are trying: to remain- in business . The pro-
liferation, of minor subdivisions has the effect of
creating; smaller and smaller parcels of land in ag-
ricultural areas , with more and more 'ranchette4
units owned by non-farming families moving into the
area and bidding up the price of the land, which
in turn drives out the original farmers . Adequate
minimum parcel sizes in agricultural zones must be
maintained in order to protect the existing farm
operations and to discouragelyrban landowners from
building homes in the area.
The Ranchette Policy was formulated and included in
the General Plan as Agricultural Resources Implementation
Measure 8-w to strike a balance between, on the one hand,
the legitimate need of farmers to be able to subdivide their
lands either for sale or for collateral, and, on the other
hand, the need to control unrestricted. subdivisions . This
Policy permits, among other types of subdivisions, the sub-
division of five acre parcels for lands designated as Agri-
Ibid. at pp. 8-43 through 8-45 .
-6-
cultural Lands , andlPl such subdivisions must meet extremely
stringent criteria.
The criteria which a proposed five acre subdivision- must
satisfy include the demonstrated availability of water and.
suitability for septic tank use, street access , flood control
improvements, fire protection, and erosion control . The ef-
fect of these criteria is that they are difficult, but not
impossible to meet, and thus they act to control unrestricted
minor subdivisions .
The important role played by the Ranchette Policy was
noted by the Agricultural Task Force in its August, 1992 memo
to the Board of Supervisors :
"The Task Force strongly opposes any effort to in-
crease minimum parcel sizes on privately-held lands.
which are designated as Agricultural Lands by the _
County General Plan. This action contradicts past
assurances made by this same Board that zoning, at
five-acre densities, would be maintained. The Task
Force feels that there exists sufficient regulatory
devices which limit development in these resource
areas and any rezoning action to increase minimum
parcel sizes creates unnecessary burdens on prop-
erty owners .
The Task Force believes that the adopted Urban Lim-
it Line, which sets the ultimate boundary for ur-
banization in the County, is sufficient for regu-
lating urban development, but property owners whose
land is designated for agricultural use should be
allowed to pursue low-density rural, residential
development, at five acre densities, provided all
the standards under the Ranchette Policy, require-
ments of the California Environmental Quality Act
or any other requirement related to rural residen-
tial development can be met. "
Consequences of Abandoning or Modifying the Ranchette Policy
If the Board of Supervisors were to abandon the Ranch-
ette Policy by deleting or modifying Agricultural Resources
Implementation Measure 8-w to increase minimum parcel sizes,
also known as large lot rezoning, it would severely diminish
the value of the sole capital asset of the County' s farmers .
Deprived of the ability to subdivide and sell smaller par-
cels to meet an immediate cash need or to provide security
for financing, the County's farmers would be forced to leave
agriculture, and they would not be replaced by a younger
generation of farmers who will buy their lands . The most
likely purchasers of these former farm lands would be non-
agricultural owners willing to hold these lands in the ex-
12 Contra Costa County General Plan 1990-2005, January 1991 ,
p. 8-39 .
-7-
pectation that County policy will at some. point change and
open these lands for residential development.
Citizens Land Alliance Position
Abandoning the Ranchette Policy would preserve agri-
cultural lands by keeping them as undeveloped open space.
But preserving agricultural land is not the same thing as
preserving agriculture. Agriculture is an economic activity
requiring people willing to work the land. As long as there
are farmers who are willing to work the land, even when it
is against their economic interests, the County should, for
reasons of fairness, retain the policies it has previously
established, such as the Ranchette Policy, which allow them
to do so.
The Contra Costa County Citizens Land Alliance strongly
supports the retention of the existing Ranchette Policyat
least until the year 2005, the time horizon of the County
General Plan.
If instead it is the desire of the Board of Supervisors
to delete or modify the existing Ranchette Policy to increase
minimum parcel sizes, then the Board must openly acknowledge
that its goal is to preserve agricultural land as undeveloped
open space. In this circumstance, the Board must amend the
General Plan to delete Agricultural Resources Goal 8-G and
to delete orl�odify Agricultural Resources Implementation
Measure 8-w. Concurrently with the approval of these Gen-
eral Plan amendments, the Board must adopt practical measures
for purchasing agricultural lands from the farmers who will
no longer be financially able to remain in agriculture.
The Contra, Costa= County Citizens Land Alliance strongly
opposes the, deletion, or any, modification of the existing
Ranchette. Policy to increase minimum parcel sizes for the
following reasons, among. others. One, persons currently
farming: their lands should be permitted to continue doing
so by the regulatory policies of their County government.
Two, local governments throughout California, including
Contra Costa County, do not have the financial resources
to embark. on any reasonable program of purchasing agricul-
tural lands for open space purposes, including transfer/pur-
chase of development rights .
13 These amendments of the General Plan would require
at least the preparation of a Supplement to the General Plan EIR.
-8-
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS I .O.-4B
Contra
FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONSCOMMITTEE
COMMITTEE i Costa g : `s L
County
January 3, 1994 �. sr
DATE: co`UN�
SUBJECT: REPORT ON PROPOSAL FOR 40 ACRE MINIMUM PARCELS IN THE
AGRICULTURAL CORE AREA OF THE COUNTY
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
RECEIVE the following report from our Committee and DIRECT that it
be listed for consideration in conjunction with the continued
hearing scheduled .on this subject for January 18, 1994 at 2 : 30 P.M.
so the Board of Supervisors can receive testimony on and further
consider the following recommendations.
On January 18', 1994 at 2 : 30 P.M. , consider the following
recommendations :
1 . AGREE that it is time' to bring the zoning of prime
agricultural land in Contra Costa County into compliance with
Measure C.
2 . DIRECT the Community Development Director to review all
options for clustering residences on various sized parcels to
determine what is feasible, with the objective of preserving
the spirit and letter of Measure C, even if a General Plan
amendment is necessary in order to allow such clustering while
still remaining consistent with. Measure C, including at least
the following, and report his conclusions to the 1994 Internal
Operations Committee by March 1, 1994 :
A. Clustering of multiple 40 acre parcels involving no more
than one residence for each 40 acres .
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD CO E
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURES:
ACTION OF BOARD ON PROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD.
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. o
ATTESTED \ `�
Contact: PHBATCHELOR,CL OF THE BOARD OF
cc: See Page 3 SU ERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY DEPUTY
I.O.-4B
-2-
B. Clustering of multiple residences on a 40 acre parcel
including no more than one residence for each ten acres,
utilizing a common-interest development (condominium)
concept for a parcel where the residences could be
clustered in close proximity to each other and the
balance of the land could be utilized in an economically
viable manner for agriculture. Under this concept, it
might be possible for individual residences to be
individually owned and for the remaining agricultural
land to be owned in common.
3. AGREE that those uses which are "permitted uses" in A-20
zoning should also be "permitted uses" in A-40 zoning and
DIRECT the Community Development Director to recommend those
actions which are necessary in order to accomplish this change
and whether such would be consistent with the General Plan.
4 . REAFFIRM the need for an Agricultural Soils Trust Fund, the
proceeds of which could be used to purchase future development
rights on prime agricultural land, to be funded by the $1
agricultural mitigation fee at Keller Canyon Landfill and
DIRECT the Community Development Director to develop a
mechanism for the implementation of such a Trust Fund and
report his conclusions and recommendations to the 1994
Internal Operations Committee by March 1, 1994 .
5 . AGREE with the need for a similar Trust Fund for open space
lands, funded by the $1 open space mitigation fee at Keller
Canyon Landfill and DIRECT the Community Development Director
to develop a mechanism for the implementation of such a Trust
Fund and report his conclusions and recommendations to the
1994 Internal Operations Committee by March 1, 1994 .
6 . REMOVE this matter as a referral to the 1993 Internal
Operations Committee and instead REFER it to the 1994 Internal
Operations Committee.
BACKGROUND:
On November 9, 1993, the Board of Supervisors conducted a hearing
on the recommendations of the County Planning Commission on the
County-initiated proposal to rezone approximately 11,644± acres of
land designated Agricultural Core by the County General Plan.
At the conclusion of testimony on this subject, the Board of
Supervisors continued the hearing until January 18, 1994 at 2 : 30
P.M. , in part in order to provide the Internal Operations Committee
an opportunity to further consider this matter.
On January 3, 1994, the Internal Operations Committee met with Gary
Freitas, a property owner from the area; David Bowie, an attorney
representing East County Farmer; Al McNabney, representing the Mt.
Diablo Audubon Society; and County staff. Our Committee received
and reviewed two proposals which are attached to this report, one
from Mr. Bowie and the other from Leonard Gerry, Chairman of the
County' s Agricultural Task Force.
Mr. Bowie reviewed his proposal in some detail, emphasizing his
point that the purpose of Measure C was to preserve the economic
viability of agricultural land. He noted that there are already a
number of parcels which are less than 40 acres which will have to
become non-conforming uses if the agricultural core is zoned A-40.
He also urged that those uses which are "permitted uses" in A-20
zoning also be "permitted uses" in A-40 zoning, meaning they would
require a use permit.
County staff appear to be in agreement that it is not possible to
zone land so that residences could be clustered at one unit per 10
acres . There also appeared to be agreement that a General Plan
amendment could be pursued which would allow clustering without
violating the terms of Measure C.
I .O.-4B
-3-
Supervisor McPeak indicated her interest in moving forward to
conform the County' s zoning of the agricultural core lands with the
provisions of Measure C. At the same time, she is concerned that
enough flexibility be provided to allow for the economic viability
of agriculture, including the concept of clustering multiple
residences in one area of a large parcel, with the balance of the
parcel being dedicated to agriculture.
Mr. Bowie reviewed his concept of how a "common-interest
development" could allow for exactly this type of clustering
without violating zoning laws or Measure C. Mr Bowie indicates in
his paper that "a common-interest development includes any real
property development which consists of separately owned lots and/or
spaces owned in common amongst the owners of all of the separately
owned lots and/or spaces . In addition, there are typically mutual,
common and reciprocal interests in or restrictions upon all or a
portion of the separately owned lots or spaces . "
On the basis of this and additional discussion, our Committee has
formulated the above noted recommendations . Since the Board has ,
continued the hearing on this subject until January 18, 1994, we
are suggesting that our recommendations be received by the Board on
January 11, 1994 but that they simply be referred to the hearing on
January 18, 1994 at 2 : 30 P.M.
If the Board approves our recommendations, we are asking that
Community Development report back to our Committee by March 1, 1994
on what is feasible in terms of clustering options. We are also
asking that staff outline how Trust Funds could be established for
the two $1 mitigation fees from Keller Canyon Landfill which would
allow for the purchase of development rights for agricultural lands
in one case and other open space in the other case.
cc: County Administrator
Director, GMEDA
Community Development Director
County Counsel
Dennis Barry, Community Development Department
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: December 29, 1993
TO: Internal Operations Committee
r
FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon
Director of Commun'ty Development
SIISJECT: Agricultural Core Rezoning
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the Board of Supervisors hearing on the Agricultural Core Rezoning, Mr.
David Bowie, on behalf of East County Farmer, requested that he be allowed to
submit a package of proposals regarding the issue for consideration by the
Internal Operations Committee at your January 3, 1994 meeting. The Board
consented to continue the matter to January 18, 1994 in order for your committee
to consider such proposals.
Staff has not received any proposals from Mr. Bowie or any other persons, but
has received a copy of a letter from the Brentwood Evangelical Free Church
objecting to the proposed rezoning, as the A-40 district does not provide for
the issuance of Land Use Permits for Churches, as does the A-2 district. The
Committee may wish to consider a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors that
the A-40 district be modified to allow for all uses allowed for through the use
permit process to be made consistent across Agricultural Zoning Districts.
Staff is currently processing a proposed change that would allow for
consideration of use permits in the exclusive agricultural districts for the
establishment of outdoor recreation uses under certain circumstances.
BOWIE & BRUEGMANN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
DAVID J. BOWIE 1331 NORTH CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD,SUITE 760 ..
WILLIAM J. BRUEGMANN WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596
TELEPHONE(510)939-5300
FAX(510)939-5392
December 30, 1993
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
611 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Re: Measure C-1990/
Agricultural- Core Rezoning
Gentlemen:
Contra Costa County has initiated a proposal to rezone
approximately 11, 644 acres of land designated Agricultural Core by
the County General Plan. The proposed zoning affects about 658
parcels in the East County area. That proposal would rezone the
affected properties from a variety of different agricultural zoning
designations to the Exclusive Agricultural District (A-40) . The
rezoning has been proposed as a measure necessary to establish
conformity with the Agricultural Core designation found in the
County General Plan and is a step designed to implement the
provisions of voter-initiated Measure C-1990.
This letter has been submitted on behalf of the East County
Farmers and the Citizens Land Alliance. Its purpose is to set
forth the concerns and proposals of both organizations all relative
to the proposed rezoning. Some prefatory comments are required
concerning both Measure C-1990 and the rezoning process itself.
1. Measure C-1990. Measure C-1990 is the 1165/35 Contra
Costa County Land Preservation Plan" . With its enactment by the
voters and incorporation into the current version of the General
Plan, its provisions obviously define both the limits and the
possibilities of land development within the County. It is worth
emphasizing the principal features of Measure C-1990 insofar as
they pertain to agricultural lands:
a. A primary defined purpose of Measure C-1990 was and
is to "protect and promote the economic viability of
agricultural land by appropriate standards and policies. "
b. The most important of the stated concerns related to
future planning and development of the County was and is
(g]rowing urbanization of the County is threatening the long-
term viability of the County's agricultural and open-space
land . . . . "
To: Community Development Department
Re: Measure C-1990
December 30, 1993
Page 2
C. In implementation of Measure C-1990, the County was
and is under a mandate to establish standards and policies
designed to "protect the economic viability of agricultural
land. "
d. The standards and policies designed to implement the
primary goal of protecting the economic viability of
agricultural land include, but are not limited to, a minimum
parcel size of 40 acres for prime productive agricultural land
as well as clustering, preservation agreements, conservation
easements, agricultural soils trust fund and agricultural
mitigation fees.
County Staff analysis of the requirements of Measure C-1990
has concluded that the subdivision of property within the
Agricultural Core area to parcels smaller than 40 acres would be in
conflict with .the Measure and its provisions as incorporated into
the General Plan. That analysis depends entirely upon the use of
the mandatory "shall" in the context of the designation of a
minimum parcel size of 40 acres, all as a part of those standards
and policies to be adopted for the purpose of protecting the
economic viability of agricultural lands. Other standards and
policies are also stated in the legislation but in the context of
the permissive "may" . Among the other standards and policies may
be found references to "clustering" which might ordinarily be taken
to refer to residential densities to be permitted on agricultural
lands.
Neither the East County Farmers nor the Citizens Land Alliance
is prepared to urge County Staff to ignore mandatory language in
Measure C-1990. The mandatory 40-acre minimum parcel size,
however, must be construed in the context of the overriding
requirement that the "economic viability of agricultural land" be
preserved. It is incumbent upon the County to balance the
potentially conflicting standards and policies which are to be
adopted in an effort to meet the mandate of voters throughout the
County as a whole while yet acknowledging the concerns of the very
landowners whose agricultural lands the County is charged with
preserving. In short, the stated purpose of the legislation is not
to create 40-acre minimum parcels; it was and is to protect the
economic viability of agricultural land.
2 . Certain observations _ Concerning Contra Costa County
Agriculture. The Conservation Element of the General Plan contains
significant background data on the relative importance of the
County's agricultural resources. Table . 8-3 contained in the
1
To: Community Development Department
Re: Measure C-1990
December 30, 1993
Page 3
General Plan depicts changes in agricultural acreage by type of
activity throughout the. County over the years 1940 to 1988 .
Interestingly, the General Plan notes that while.cultivated acreage
in all categories of farm crops has declined precipitously over the
last 50 years, significant increases in productivity have offset
the vastly reduced acreage available for crops. In addition it is
noted in the General Plan that the transition of Contra Costa
County from a rural to suburban environment has resulted in
specialized forms of agriculture on remaining agricultural lands
such as the production of nursery crops.
From a land-use standpoint, the County General Plan concerns
itself with two separate but related concepts relative to
agricultural land. One concept is that enunciated in Measure C-
1990 concerning the "economic viability of agricultural land" .
This concern obviously has to do with the standards and policies
necessary to assist a farm or ranch operation to remain in
business. A second concept inland-use planning is the "continued
viability of agricultural operations" . This concept has more to do
with the minimum amount and type of land available to sustain a
particular agricultural operation from the standpoint of crop
production.
It is obvious that nothing in Measure C-1990 mandates the
maintenance of some minimum parcel size to ensure the viability of
agricultural operations. In this respect, both Measure C-1990
implicitly and the General Plan explicitly acknowledge that farming
has changed as the County has grown such that even within the
Agricultural Core, ownership is typically scattered amongst many
property owners holding relatively small acreage - often well below
the anticipated 40-acre minimum parcel size of Measure C-1990. In
fact, the proposed rezoning of the Agricultural Core to a 40-acre
minimum parcel size will create numerous parcels in nonconforming
use - each of which will have entitlement for construction of a
single-family home. Obviously, past, current and even future
zoning policies as well as Measure C have nothing to do with the
continued viability of agricultural operations.
It is submitted that the "economic viability of agricultural
lands" as- a concept is unrelated to a minimum 40-acre parcel size.
There has certainly been no showing that the creation of such a
minimum parcel size will make agricultural lands economically more
viable. The General Plan itself acknowledges a "recurring problem
in agricultural areas" as the dilemma of permitting a limited
amount of land subdivision to accommodate farm ownership needs.
For example, minor subdivisions of farming properties are often
To: Community Development Department
Re: Measure C-1990
December 30, 1993
Page 4
requested in Contra Costa County so that a member of the family can
build an additional home on the property. Banks require collateral
for construction loans and/or for agricultural operations. . The
ability to create a minor subdivision adds value to property for
collateral purposes and creates a source of potential funds when a
farming family wishes to sell a small piece of land in order to
make up a shortfall on a remaining operation. Finally, the limited
subdivision of agricultural lands permits a family to make
provision for distributing property for estate purposes and
preserving family ownership of that land through successive
generations. The economic viability of agricultural lands . is
probably hampered more than. helped by the establishment in Measure
C-1900 of a minimum parcel size requirement.
In the conservation element of the County' s General Plan, it
is noted that the vast majority of privately held lands supporting
vegetation and wildlife resources are found within the agricultural
areas of the County. The General Plan further observes that
agriculturalists and biological habitats have co-existed for
decades in the County thus privately preserving resources with
public benefit. The General Plan further acknowledges, " [a] s a
practical matter, it should be recognized that historically it has
been the agriculturalists who have protected the unique
environmental resources of the area. Their continued efforts in
this regard are critical to the long-range preservation of the
area's resources. "
Agriculturalists in general supported Measure C-1990. The
strong statement of that Measure' s support for the continued
economic viability of agricultural lands suggested sensitivity to
the legitimate economic interests of farming operations. While a
minimum parcel size is stated in the Measure, allowances for
additional policies and standards for flexibility in land use and
zoning were explicitly promised.
Agricultural lands within the County have evolved to the point
that, with the exception of range lands, they are characterized
more often than not by small individual holdings on relatively
small parcels. The Agricultural Core is probably best
characterized by 10-acre minimum parcels if relatively recent
history is .to be any judge. With proposed minimum 40-acre zoning,
a great many nonconforming parcels will be created with something
akin to "spot zoning" as to the remaining lands. The 40-acre
minimum zoning is not mandated either empirically or legislatively
by the need to preserve the viability of agricultural operations.
If rigid adherence to this standard of 40 acres per parcel is to
To: Community Development Department
Re: Measure C-1990
December 30, 1993
Page 5
become the goal, it is doubtful that the economic viability of
agricultural lands will actually be preserved. In effect, those
remaining agriculturalists who have contributed so much to
maintenance of habitat and open space will be penalized with the
loss of value of their land holdings through a reduction in
potential land-use densities while those who have abandoned
agriculture and/or previously subdivided their lands will have
already reaped the benefits of the higher pre-existing densities
and correlative higher land values. Clearly, any adoption of a
minimum parcel size - even though mandated - must also address the
principal purpose of Measure C-1990 and thereby mitigate the
economic impacts of down-zoning densities.
3 . A Proposal. The current General Plan and existing
implementing zoning ordinances define a variety of uses that are
allowed in the Agricultural Core and in the Agricultural Lands
designation. The uses described as conditional uses in the
Agricultural Lands designation are not considered appropriate in
the Agricultural Core designation. In addition, residential uses
allowed in the Agricultural Core are limited to a maximum permitted
residential density of one unit per 40 acres with the subdivision
of land and creation of a cluster of "ranchette housing" being
absolutely prohibited. It is submitted that permitted uses -within
the Agricultural Core designation must be expanded and that
residential uses allowable must be based on the concept of one unit
per 10 acres notwithstanding prohibition against a minimum parcel
size of less than 40 acres.
a. General Use Designations. Each established zoning
district within the County has both "Allowed Uses" and
"Permitted Uses" . Allowed Uses within the A-40 district
include all types of agriculture uses including warehouses,
dehydration plants and the like, buildings for storage of
agricultural products and equipment, and a detached, single-
family dwelling on. each parcel together with accessory
structures. Permitted Uses include a fairly extensive list of
activities and structures less complete, however, than those
Permitted Uses within the A-20 district. Quite simply, if the
economic viability of agricultural lands is to be maintained,
the broadest possible use thereof should be encouraged: This
suggests that Allowed Uses might perhaps remain as currently
stated; Permitted Uses, however, should be expanded.
The procedure for the grant of a Land-Use Permit creates
numerous. safeguards for the public as a whole and adjoining
neighbors of any land for which a Permitted Use is sought. If
To: Community Development Department
Re: Measure C-1990
December 30, 1993
Page 6
the proposed use is simply inappropriate or entirely
incompatible with the land, the location or the neighbors,
that use is then denied. If by contrast appropriate findings
can be made to permit a proposed use or if such proposed use
can be sufficiently mitigated, there is no particular reason
to restrict permitted- uses.
By way of example, Allowed Uses within the, A-40 zoning
district include buildings for storage of agricultural
products and equipment. A permitted use within the A-20
district is boat storage - subject to certain location
restrictions. Surely there is no apparent difference in use
nor impact upon either the affected land or adjoining
landowners if' buildings established for storage of,
agricultural equipment are put to use for storage of boats or
even recreational vehicles. Concerns for excessive traffic,
safety, services, noise and the like are best addressed
through the use permit process rather than simple prohibition.
The more expansive a potential use, the higher the value of„
the affected land. If economic viability of agriculture is a
specific concern, then a more expanded statement of permitted
uses should be incorporated into the zoning code with due
regard being given to legitimate concerns in the granting of
any requested "permitted" use.
b. Residential Uses. Currently, allowed uses in the A-
40 zone include "a detached, single-family dwelling on each
parcel and the accessory structures in uses normally auxiliary
to it. " Permitted uses include living accommodations for
agricultural , workers employed on the premises and an
additional single-family dwelling for members of the family
within the third degree of consanguinity. The combination of
allowed and permitted uses suggests that the mere number of
buildings - or even dwelling units - has no direct
relationship to the viability of agricultural operations. If
the goal is to sustain the economic viability of agricultural
lands, then the potential for permitted residential uses
should continue to exist under the land-use permit application
procedure. The current General Plan limitation of one
residential unit per 40 acres in A-40 zoning is neither
required by Measure C-1990 nor necessarily given effect under
existing Allowed and Permitted Uses.
It is noteworthy that Supervisor McPeak, an author and
backer of Measure C-1990, voiced her opinion that "clustering"
would permit the maintenance of historic densities based upon
To: Community Development Department
Re: Measure C-1990
December 30, 1993
Page 7
one dwelling unit per 10 acres notwithstanding minimum parcel
size. The contemplated concept was apparently that separate
parcels might be created to accommodate up to four single-
family homes for a 40-acre parcel with the single-family homes
"clustered", leaving a remainder parcel in agricultural use.
While the County Counsel and staff have determined that such
a clustering approach would be inconsistent with Measure C-
1990, the expansion of Allowable and Permitted Uses within the
A-40 zoning district to accommodate higher residential
densities would both contribute to the economic viability of
agricultural lands and remain consistent with Measure C-1990.
For quite some time, California law has sanctioned
"common interest developments" . A common interest development
includes any real property development which consists of
separately owned lots and/or spaces together with one or more
additional lots and/or spaces owned in common amongst the
owners of all of the separately owned lots and/or spaces. In
addition, there are typically mutual, common and reciprocal
interests in or restrictions upon all or a portion .of the
separately owned lots or spaces. Forms of common interest
development have included condominium projects, stock
cooperatives, community apartment projects, and planned
developments.. Within the confines of the City of Berkeley,
yet another form of cooperative ownership of land has
materialized in the form of traditional tenancy-in-common
ownership coupled with certain contractual rights which define
the specific attributes, benefits and burdens of ownership.
It is submitted that Supervisor McPeakIs concept of
historic residential densities of one dwelling unit per 10
acres can be accommodated in a fashion consistent with both
the spirit and intent of all provisions of Measure C-1990.
The economic viability of agricultural lands is best
maintained ' by an expansive view of allowable or permitted
uses. The maintenance of a minimum parcel size honors the
mandate of Measure C-1990 while a policy that accommodates
residential densities within the concept of common interest
development for which application is made as a Permitted Use
balances the need to maintain .the viability of agricultural
operations and yet sustain land values. The sheer fact that
buildings or dwellings might be constructed upon the land is
hardly inconsistent with -Measure C-1990 when long-standing
County policies have both ' allowed and permitted the
construction of a wide variety of buildings and even housing
on agricultural lands. It is finally submitted that the twin
To: Community Development Department
Re: Measure C-1990
December 30, 1993
Page 8
procedures which would require approval . of common interest
developments and of permitted uses would provide amply
sufficient forums for careful environmental review of any
actual development which might be proposed as to any
particular property within the Agricultural Core.
4 . A Final Word on Variance Procedures. The County has long
had procedures permitting variances on the minimum lot size and
dimensional requirements provided for in the County' s zoning
ordinance all in accordance with state law. The General Plan in
its Conservation Element notes that the limited subdivision of
agricultural lands for legitimate reasons should be accommodated by
the County. That same General Plan acknowledges that
agriculturalists might well need a minor subdivision to permit use
of land for collateral purposes or sale to subsidize agricultural
operations. In a number of instances, a Permitted Use for a common
interest development might prove impractical for an agriculturalist
either due to the cost and expense of such a development or the
undoubted lengthy procedures which might be attendant upon it.
As a part of the rezoning process, it is urgently requested
that the County make clear the potential application of variance
procedures on minimum parcel size requirements under appropriate
circumstances. An actual case considered relatively recently by
the County illustrates the point I wish to make.
In or about June 1992 , the Board of Supervisors confirmed the
approval by the East County Regional Planning Commission of a
vesting tentative map to divide 45. 2 acres into two lots. The
application was County File No. MS8-91; the owners were Walter and
Irma Bettencourt. The General Plan designation for the parcel
involved was and is Agricultural Core -with a maximum allowable
density of one residential unit per 40 acres. County Staff
recommended against the proposed subdivision based upon its
conclusion that it was and is inconsistent with the General Plan
(and Measure C-1990) . It was held, however, that there was no
grant of special privilege since the subject property was
consistent in size with contiguous properties and other properties
in the vicinity and hardship existed due to age of the owners with
substantially all of the property being retained for agricultural
use.
The foregoing application required the grant of a variance and
incorporated all of those same considerations which have motivated
the East County Farmers and Citizens Land Alliance in requesting
the Board to do something more than simply give rigid adherence to
To: Community Development Department
Re: Measure C-1990
December 30, 1993
Page 9
the minimum 40-acre parcel provisions of Measure C-1990.
, The County's agriculturalists desire to maintain the
agricultural uses of their properties; they also desire to preserve
the value thereof for their families and future generations. The
County should give due regard for the application of variance
procedures in appropriate circumstances all as a part of any
rezoning effort presently underway.
5. conclusion. Agriculturalists owning lands affected by
the pending rezoning have demonstrably acted responsibly with
respect to the maintenance of their lands and for public benefit
both with respect to open space and biologic habitats. If the
economic viability of agricultural lands is the overriding
principle of Measure C-1990, then rigid adherence to a minimum
parcel size of 40 acres without the expansion of Allowed and
Permitted Uses and without careful consideration of variances is
simply inappropriate. It is respectfully urged that Allowed and
Permitted Uses be expanded as set forth in this letter and that
specific sanction be granted for implementation. of variances in
appropriate circumstances. Finally, it is requested that the
various guidelines for development .previously submitted to Staff by
the Agricultural Task Force be imposed as conditions to any
Permitted Use which might be granted.
Thank you for your consideration of this letter.
Very truly yours,
DAVID J. BOWIE
DJB/mrr
DF C 22 '93 1023 DIABLO AGRI. CHEM. .
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
AGRICULT11RAL TASK FORCE .
December 21, 1993
Tom Torlakson, Chairman
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Chairman Torlakson;
The Agricultural Task Force has prepared the following comments for your
consideration regarding the upcoming hearings on the County Agricultural
Core rezoning proposal. These comments are submitted in response to the
request for issue papers as described in a letter sent by the County
Administrator's office.
The recommendations developed by the Task Force relate to several issues
created by the proposed rezoning. More precisely, this letter addresses
redefining the Agricultural Core boundary; past Board actions relating to the
minimum 40 acre parcel size requirement for purposes of subdividing AS Core
lands; discrepancies between the A-20 and A-40 zoning regulations; and
consideration of a variety or other methods for enhancing and protecting
agriculture.
Ad justine the Aa _Core Boy darn: The Task Force requests the Board to
adjust the AS Core boundary to include only those properties that actually
consist of "prime agricultural soils". Several properties on the outer
boundaries of the Core do not fail under the Prime Soil definition and would be
unfairly burdened if they were rezoned to A-40.
In addition. the Task Force requests that, because of historic small parcel
patterns west of Walnut Blvd., that there exists a preponderance of
uneconomic agricultural units of land. Although these properties do fall into
the prime soil category, they are not, and are unlikely to ever, be used for
commercial agricultural pursuits and are basically either "hobby farms" or In
fact, agriculturely abandoned tracts. The Task Farce is available to advise
county staff why this area would he inconsistent -with an Ag Core designation.
Also, the group is aware of the California Department of Conservation's project
to revise the existing criteria defining "productive" agricultural land and feels
that the Ag Core should he reflective of these accepted standards.
Past Boar cti s in the As! Care: Task force members have noted that
the Board approved a minor subdivision (Bettencourt 8-91) in the AS Core that
allowed the creation of a five acre parcel in apparent contradiction of the
inviolate 40 acre minimum. The rationale for this exception we understand to
be' that of a proven hardship condition. It seems only logical to apply this
..-precedent to allow the recognition of hardships to achieve flexibility in
regulating AS Core policies.
DEC 22 '93 1632 DIABLO AGRI. CHEM. P.2 .
LoninQ, Regulation I)Iscrena ciem The Task Force believes that
unjustified discrepancies are proposed for the A-20 and A-40 zoning
regulations. More specifically, there are several permitted uses which are
allowed in A-20 that would not he allowed In A40. If the county 'is to proceed
with any form of rezoning AS Core properties to the more restrictive A-40
category, then there should be no distinction in the permitted uses in A-20 or
A-40. Additionally, we also want to ensure that farmworker housing
allowances, as defined by the State, are reflected in any revised set of zoning
regulations.
EnhancJIIlt_tke. _Enloe tv of .lFarming: Although Measure C
stated a goal of providing strong and continuing support for agriculture in the
Core, the new General Plan has proposed to devalue farmers property (thus
diminishing their financial standing) by down-zoning to 40 acre minimums,
and to limit the earning capacity of Ag Core property by decreasing the
allowed uses of that property. To the contrary, rather than restricting land use
the Task Force recommends expanding permitted uses by creating an
"Agricultural Enterprise Zone" to allow farm, and farm-trail allied, consumer
oriented businesses; thereby enhancing the economic well-being- of this area
and amtributing to the diversity of all Contra Costa County.
Previous recommendations from the Task Force on other Issues have been
submitted for review and should be ready for your action in the near future. I
have included this list for your information. 1 and other Task Force members
are happy to meet with you or county staff to discuss these concerns and
concepts prior to hearings in 1994.
Respectfully Yours,
Leonard Gerry
Chairman, Agricultural Task Force
cc:
Phil Batchelor -- County Administrator
Vic Westtnan -- County Counsel
Harvey Bragdon -- Community Development Director
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
• RECEIVED 7
'
DEC 23 d
OFFICE OF
"AUNTY ADMINISTRATOR