The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 01251994 - 2.3 2 . 3a •:a Contra ,,. TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS n1 -z = Costa o: FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON County DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT srA cotiK`�'t �A DATE: January 25, 1994 SUBJECT: A County initiated proposal to rezone approximately 11, 644± acres of land designated Agricultural Core by the County General Plan to A-40. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Adopt and reaffirm the reasoning and CEQA determination included in Planning Commission Resolution 47-1993 as the basis for your Board's determination, as modified below; 2 . Make the following determinations with respect to the proposed rezoning, on the basis of the entire record before the Board of Supervisors: a. The change proposed will substantially comply with the General Plan; b. The uses authorized or proposed in the land use district are compatible within the district and to uses authorized in adjacent districts; C. Community need has been demonstrated for the use proposed, but this does not require demonstration of future financial success. 3 . Adopt the Agricultural Core Rezoning, County File 3005-RZ as indicated in the Board of Supervisors expression of intent approved on January 18, 1994 and depicted on the attached Ordinance; 4 . Introduce the ordinance giving effect to the aforesaid rezoning, waive reading, and set a date for adoption; 5. Direct the Community Development Department staff to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE PIO-41 � RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON January 25 , 1994 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER Ordinance 94-8 , approving the rezoning, is '; INTRODUCED, reading waived and February 1 , 1994 is set for adoption of same. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A 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. Contact:Rose Marie Pietras ATTESTED January 25 , 1994 cc: Community Development Department PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF County Counsel THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS City of Brentwood COU ADMINISTRATOR BY , DEPUTY DMB:df 1 Page Two FISCAL IMPACT Minor cost in application processing. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On January 18, 1994, The Board of Supervisors closed the public hearing on this rezoning and voted unanimously to express intent to adopt the proposed rezoning of the Agricultural Core as recommended by the County Planning Commission, with the exception of the areas zoned and developed as Light Industrial, Commercial, and Retail Business Districts. The Board further directed Staff to prepare findings and an ordinance for adoption. Approval of the recommendations will carry out the intent of the Board as indicated on January 18, 1994 with respect to the rezoning portion of the Board's deliberations. ORDINANCE NO. Re-Zoning Land in the East Contra Costa County Area) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Pages K-26, L-26, L-27, M-25, M-26, M-27, M-28, N-25, N-26, N-27, N-28, P-2S, P-26, P-27, P-28, Q-26, Q-27, M-28m, 0-28m. of the County's 1978 Zoning Map (Ord. No. 78-93) is amended by re-zoning the land in the above area shown shaded on the map(s) attached hereto and incorporated herein (see also Community Development Department File No. 30OS-RZ ) A-1 Light Agriculture A-2 General Agriculture A-3 Heavy Agriculture A-4 Agricultural Preserve A-20 Exclusive Agricultural L-I Light Industrial FROM: Land Use District R-B ( Retail Business ) TO: Land Use District A-40 ( Exclusive Agricultural ) and the Community Development Director shall change the Zoning Map accordingly, pursuant to Ordinance Code Sec. 84.2.003. SECTION II. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within 15 days of passage shall be published once with the names of supervisors voting for and against it in the a newspaper published in this County. PASSED on by the following vote: Supervisor Are No Absent Abstain I. T.M. Powers ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 2. J. smith ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 3. G. Bishop { ) { ) ( ) ( ) 4. S.W.McPealc ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 5. T.Todakson ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ATTEST: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Chairman of the Board By , Dep. (SEAL) ORDINANCE NO. 3005-RZ Contra Costa County Page 1 of 11 i A•2 1-- - - -1 __ __ ; A-z _ jL ccc _- -_ i A4 Ai: — 3 i ATT �- IN " � � A-3 i PTIUNSET RD A•` A•2 i I I j I i A3 ........................:....... ....................... . ....... .......................... .. —_— m I ................................... ................................... .................................... .................................... .................................... ..................::::.:::::::::::: ::.::::::.::::::.. ................. v o o A-3 Page K-26 of the County's 1978 Zoning Map 3005-RZ Y rAMOR i.. <` ::. ..:: .... ... :. :. cccAMOREy:"--:�`�: —ter,;�4;`r-:w-�-'::::': �:::::.;.'-- -- u A• u - u ......... _'j':}::}ti::i:> }i':}}$�} ••:::.v.•..:.•:,v:..<{.:.•.'{ ................... ................. C v:...:v: .........:.. .. H TNUT T '•::'( r' �f 2 . W{ _ m A-4 l>{. /� �???::•`.•`.2� ::t r:�::}::i:::i<ii:'>:�, }.............. Page L-26 of the' County's 1978 Zoning Map 3005-RZ 3005-RZ Contra Costa County Page 2 of 11 A•3 2 - A•3 - oew000 A 2€>>> •4 A >:> Y<:::>>'.>>;'.iii:ii?i f.. .............. ............... ..............:.:::::: ......................: < `.i%: ssi:asi`:i` i?'� 3i '.ii$i�i?:��[ Page L-27 of the County's 1978 Zoning Map 3005-RZ 4 -I�EI +_ BALFOURRD Ui -- 1 5 Y LU CONTINENTco S AYE o� 1 � _ 6`��` tiRENnY0.'A� ... CCC i is >:f ......::............. .......................................... ............ A•2 .- v'isY...... ? — •»»[>< isy ><....>...... .............. i.3'> z�``'"` i <i` >,>.....'y"i Page M-25 of the County's 1978 Zoning Map 3005-RZ 3005-RZ Contra Costa County Page 3 of 11 d 4 A BALFOUR R I W Q� A•4 R - N' INEN A i:ii%. :.;................. 6AE N%ttlD CC C .�.•:. ......:j iiv�. :: .v:�:�.v:::.:: ....�"'.:.r.'............... ii'i?}}i}i:i::i: a... ....... ............' ..-... ...................... :.."v�yli::::::-iLi::f•...�..�. `''.. +?v:::i ::i::i ... .. A 4 <.: ` . €:As'.3:::. .>: . Page M-26 of the County's 1978 Zoning Map 3005-RZ A 4 ......................... .........................................................:.... :...:.::..::.::::::::::::::::::::::.. 3.<"<.>< . s '<><' < :'':< ;< < <?'' s< . >.>><.>< ' is ...........::.::..:.......................... ....:. . ......:::. .... ..... ..? > » Page M-27 of the County's 1978 Zoning Map 3005-RZ 3005-RZ Contra Costa County Page 4 of 11 A-3 A.2 4 A-3 F, A- 2 P 1 t _ t Page M-28 of the County's 1978 Zoning Map 300S-RZ A-2 < .. A3 W xKtn- A-3 - A' v.F. A•4 A-3 A•4 Page N-25 of the County's 1978 Zoning Map 3005-RZ 3005-RZ Contra Costa County Page S of 11 fw..v. ..Y:-au .,^u�^.�"!RI-Yfrr?�!:42::- !!^rt%'.v:•5'v:w-G%i":}' �::::.�::::hr::::.....:..:.....,._..........:.:.:........ ::.r: ................ 'R�;'�tlk::`f;:>5 iiii;: :i:;%rr>::rr:-::<•ri•%"'s:-;::? i::ii ir;•i:i iii;;•r>:-r:.r:.r:.r:.rr:.r:.r:.ir"::.•r;.ir;:-;•r:;•:r>:r::;.;:.ro:,r:.rr:.r::>:r:.r:.irr:.rr:.r:-: %:: :ii;ii::::::::};i:;:;iiiJi:?i'%i:;':':•ii:;:j ':'::ii ii:ir%ii+;ii:;i:;i:•ii::i::}isv v::::';:i.'i::':iviii:}i%ii%r. . _. +rsri:;t::;rri:;:i;S::i:i::.ri::irt,:::ii: :i;•ii::i i:i::i::?:%?isiiiz:::is3i::i::}'.:::::i::i::4::ii::i[t:•is'F`:..':::.:.::::::'""".::.:.:�!!,.a....e.>:..............: .........:........... ..... q. a ......... .;::.:;::.:::::. ......:.:::.:::i.::i:::.............!Sw,.,� ;;aSS :ii:::i::iii::%%i:;is: i:;i:;'Si[tiiii2ii<tlii jiyi <".�i i'%iy::::..::.::::5:•: Page N-26 of the County's 1978 Zoning Map 3005-RZ crr:.:i;:fi::ii::::.r:;:::x}ci irF;'1•iiiiarrr}>:.:r:;a;•rrir:»;sir:.>::r;c;r;-ro:;;•rrr>:or::::ir•::::.rr*r:.rrrrs.>rrr»..;::.;:.::::::;c..-:.::::::.: .....:....:.:::::::::::.,rrr>:. .::::: ........... .:.::::::::..:....::rr::::::•::-:::•::;•::-rrr:?;:k::i$f?;SE:;;:;::Ei i?L:... ::.............::::.:rr::rrr;r: :<}::;•%i�%:�riirr.S i ?>•rir:nrri;>:nrr•� " :h>r:-rri::r x:::•i:-r:-r:-ri r»rr:%:;:-rr:�:; ........:...:. ........ .r::r:.: :::::.rr:iii%:r;:•i::;i; ..'ryy•Viii;?'r:2iri::>:•irp:.:vy%i ,,**�� %rr:ri:.:•rrr>o-:.........:.::.::.::iii <:•:.�. i!ii:<v%:<:i."v iii?:i::;;?fi:'%;: :i::si>vi:i::::i:i.i:; ry;;••;:::'+•r;:.2.:::...:...1.:.•:...-i:.•:..�v..n•... - - i:_h::%r:•ir:-r r:•rr:i<i:s:%ii:sis:%ii:;:r r>rr:> r - ;:;::F. i.; i;<%;is:::::r:�i:;!�;;::::::i>::sr<??<::<''•.%:::;s�::�;::f^:?::>i:issu%::'":.::i:... .....:......f.::..:.v.::..:.•}v::nr:.:::.r:rr:;.ri:'i:•ir:S:.::.iriiF iiiir;:-r:J:<:r:'r:{.rrii::r:::::nr': :^R�'r:.::i::::i.::::':::::ji:�:::r'::::i:::`::::i:::::::::i:i ::;G.%:: :.::::k:::..:.r:�ri:.r::Nrrrrr:..::::::::::.T':•::_vir;•iri:::, ..::::.:::::::::::;:::h;:r':.:.;ni• ::�::.:..:::..:::::.r r:rrr:;v::::.�::.,::.w::: :::::::. �:}i:ir:9:::::::nrirrrriri iii:Ciri$:r:.•:;:::.1•:::::{.r',ir:•rrri::•:.ii4::::::;:::::n}'::.'^rrriri:Crr:i;r:::•:i:•.v:..••:.riirr:.i'•ri:+L:•i:•r::::r::.:::::.iir};-r rrrri: 4r};ii: is7r i'Y� •4 �ii�(?iE<:i'.':;Eii':i iiii:;i<; :i::i i:;;;:ii%iiiiii:;>.<::: :a;;r:::iiia;:::i::i::ii;:i::i:%i:::;•::;%o->::%rxr;i:r,:ii:;%ii:<%i iii£%i5i;rs:•;riii:::tr`::iic;;ii .....-...�::.:: A Page N-27 of the County's 1978 Zoning Map 300.5-RZ 3005--RZ Contra Costa County Page 6 of 11 A-2 POINT A3 I P'T 3 Fri go c J K I \ _ I m P-1 ----- .............................. .............. I 3F`- P ------_ -------_--_= A-2 A-3 " ...,... H RE K Page N-28 of the County's 1978 Zoning Map 3005-RZ A•4 A-3 A 4 A-3 3 A-3 A-4 I A4 ac W A-4 A-4 x /I�A3 Page P-2S of the County's 1978 Zoning Map 3005-RZ 30OS-RZ Contra Costa County Page 7 of 11 ;;xi.fi;i:::i: ............. ..:.+. ...:..::.s'::: A-4 A 3 A-4 A-3 trtr 1 _ _ Page P-26 of the County's 1978 Zoning Map 3005-RZ Gi:•iiii�.-?: :tip:ilii '.iiih'.:p;•}iipi}iii::piii}i;.i$:iiii:.iiiiiii:.:ii}i:::i::ii::ii:i.iiiiii:.::i:piiiiii%iii: .mow 3 R— >C B :i4 L :'i:ii+iY:ijk;;i"i::i:::::i vi:::i::::::i i?;:Y% i:::L:i '�:•::::�.::.'i i'ii:: A4 4•- OFFMAN LN-- ......... L ...i xx,,ll�� ff'iM4i2Y ..i....::i:::�:�`:::: ��)) Y} ?::v::jnii<::::'i:..Y.CK:::i::::i:�:'i•vi''::::::i::ii;iii:::::i::::::i:ii :.:i::::: :i....::i: ii::i:::i::::is is:::::i :jii:::i'::::i::::j :i:iii::i::i::i::i::::iii:.ii >::::>::>;<:i:: A•4 »:;::::>::::>:::::'<:::>::»::::>;::>::::>::::»::::>:i;::i::i: .;;;;:.::_:.;:.;;::`.:;:.;:.;:.;:.':-i:::iii::>::;::::;:::i;::>::::>:::>:::>::::>:: :: Page P-27 of the County's 1978 Zoning Map 3005-RZ 3005_RZ Contra Costa County Page 8 of 11 A-3 ATE HWY 4 X-3 AI ------- -------- ---- - - KELLOGG CREEK D A-3 --- - A- A2— - 2 Page P-28 of the County's 1978 Zoning Map 3005-RZ A-4 A•3 A-3 A4 9e A-3 y DR J A P \N� OJ�0OS G A2 Page Q-26 of the County's 1978 Zoning Map 3005-RZ 3005-RZ Contra Costa County Page 9 of 11 3 Z A- 4 r - t A-3 A. C 9�2 6 R' Li A•3 A2 Page Q-27 of the County's 1978 Zoning Map 3005-RZ 10111 Werner „ 12 ORWOOD RD 14 13 15 14 ORWOOD RD a W A- 4 X m A- 3 A 2 Or Page M-28m of the County's 1978 Zoning Map 3005-RZ 3005-RZ Contra Costa County Page 10 of 11 Lr A- 2 BYER D c ccccW J _K m A- 3 CAMINO DIABLO A- 2 Page Q-28m of the County's 1978 Zoning Map 3005-RZ 3005-RZ Contra Costa County Page 11 of 11 Y 2 . 3b THE BOARD OR SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on _January 25, 1994 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Smith, Bishop, McPeak, Torlakson, Powers NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SUBJECT: Consideration of the Internal Operations Committee Report for 40 Acre Minimum Parcels in the Agricultural Core Area of the County The Board considered the recommendations of the Internal Operations Committee presented to the Board on January 11, 1994, relative to a proposal for 40 acre minimum parcels in the agricultural core area of the County. (A copy of the referenced Internal Operations Committee is attached and included as a part of this Order. ) Supervisor McPeak commented on the scope of recommen- dations Nos. 1 through 6 set forth in the Internal Operations Committee Report. In referring to Recommendation No. 2 .B, she explained that the intent of this recommendation is to ask Community Development Department staff to look at the options that would be available to allowing the previous ratio of one unit per ten acres and a clustering provided that there is a permanent dedication of development rights. She advised that this would be a mechanism for being able to secure in perpetuity beyond the timeframe of Measure C the preservation of agricultural land. Board Members concurred to add to Recommendation 2 .B the following sentence: "This would include a permanent dedication of all potential, future development rights. " They also agreed to delete the word " (condominium) " in the third line of the text of the recommendation. In addition, the Board discussed the feasibility of having a report to the Internal Operations Committee by March 1, 1994, on a program for clustering of multiple residences. There being no further discussion, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that recommendations Nos. 1, 2 .A, 3, 4, and 6 are APPROVED as presented in the Internal Operations Committee Report. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that recommendation No. 5 is DELETED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that recommendation No. 2 .B is APPROVED as amended to read: By March 1, 1994, the Community Development Director is to report to the Internal Operations Committee on the development of a program for clustering of multiple residences on a 40 acre parcel including no more than one residence for each ten acres, utilizing a common- interest development 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. This would include a permanent dedication of all potential future development rights. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: PHIL BKTCHELOR,cler of the Boaro of supervisors and county Administrntor Deputy cc: County Administrator Internal Operations Committee. Community Development Director a " TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Costa County frl GATE: January 3, 1994 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 ITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): -UNNE WRIGHT MR-PEA-9 ACTION OF BOARD ON January 11, 1994 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. Q ATTESTED ` Contact: PH BATCHELOR,CL OF THE BOARD OF cc: See Page 3 SU RVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY ,DEPUTY -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 181 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. -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 ll, 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 C01414UNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: December 29, 1993 TO: Internal Operations Committee FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon Director of Commun y Development SUBJECT: 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 outdoo' recreation uses under certain circumstances. BOWIE & BRUEGMANN ATTORNEYS AT LAW DAVID J.BOWIE 1331 NORTH CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD,SUITE 700 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 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 0- 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 in land-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 landsis 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 "ranchett,-- 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 Community Development Department e: 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 McPeak's 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 DEC-22 '93 10023 DIABLO AGRI. CHEM. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AGRICULTURAL TASK FORCE . December 21. 1993 Tom Turlakson, 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 redc:tining the Agricultural Core boundary; past Board actions relating to the minimum 40 acre parcel size requirement for purposes of subdividing Ag Cure lands; discrepancies between the A-20 and A-40 zoning regulations; and consideration of a variety of uther methods for enhancing and protecting agriculture. Adjusting the Ag fore Buundarv: 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 dei not fall 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 it preponderance of uneconomic agricultural units of land. Although these properties du 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 Force 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 Cure should he reflective of these accepted standards. Past Kezar c i � in the Ag fore: 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 Ag Core policies.