Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12031996 - D6 --- - - Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - Costa FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON Co�,Jnty DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: December 3, 1996 SUBJECT: MARSH CREEK AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION AREA SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS The Board should receive this report and direct that this item be rescheduled for February of 1997 as a Discussion Item. FISCAL IMPACT The effort to date, has come out of existing Community Development Department resources and since it was patterned on the Briones model, it has only taken time for meetings and public hearing noticing. If the Board wishes to require a more extensive program, beyond a few staff workshops and additional public hearings, then additional sources or revenue need to be considered to pay for this work. BACKGROUNDfREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On December 19, 1995, Supervisors Torlakson and DeSaulnier brought forward a request for the Board of Supervisors to request Community Development Department staff to initiate work on creating a Marsh Creek Agricultural Preservation Area similar to what was adopted in the Briones Hills Agricultural Preservation Area between central and west Contra Costa County. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: �_ YES SIGNATURE Ltd RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON - _December 3, 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER g_ See the attached Addendum. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A X_ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT -- - - - - - TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Jim Cutler, CDD (335-1235) ATTESTED Wecemher 1 , 1996 Orig: Community Development Department PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF cc: CAO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR: County Counsel AND 0 ADMINISTRATOF BY , DEPOT) j:\audrey\marcrk2.bo MARSH CREEK AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION AREA December 3, 1996 Page 2 In furtherance of this request, County staff has met with the staff of the cities of Clayton, Concord, Pittsburg, Antioch, and Brentwood on this issue with two purposes. One, was to familiarize them on this concept in case their city may choose to participate and secondly to discuss the potential boundaries of the area. The existing proposal was a result of these actions. The public hearing on the proposed Marsh Creek Agricultural Preserve was scheduled for November 19, 1996, at 2 : 30 P.M. and all lands within and around the perimeter of the preserve were noticed based on the latest Assessors role. Eighteen speakers presented input on the proposal and numerous letters were received by the Board. At the conclusion, the Board closed the public hearing and brought the matter back to the Board to decide on how to proceed. The Board action and discussion made it clear that the Board would not , approve the Preserve without further workshops and deliberations by the Board. Staff was requested to provide initial information and responses to several of the points brought up at the hearing. MAJOR ISSUES The Board received a substantial number of letters and testimony both in support of and in opposition to the creation of the preserve. The following is a list of the major issues raised both in writing or at the hearing: ► Support over protection of agricultural uses in this area; ► A concern that the preserve will take away property rights; ► A concern that the preserve constitutes a "taking" of land; ► Concern over how the preserve would affect already approved projects (vesting rights) ; ► A concern over the potential of the preserve to affect property values or the ability to get bank loans; ► Recognition that the existing County General Plan and Urban Limits Line (ULL) already protect this area; ► Concern that the difference between this proposal and the ULL would induce growth and undermine the ULL; ► Areas with poor ground water quality and quantity would be precluded from receiving surface water supplies; ► Confusion over the effect of connection to CCWD for lands already within that district; ► Limitation of irrigation water for new crops which might be grown in the area, e.g. grapes; ► Recognition that some of the properties are already in Williamson Act contracts which limit development; ► Feeling that the ULL already diminished the land values in the area; ► Concern that since this is a non-enforceable restriction, that the County's Assessors office won't recognize it in land valuation disputes; ► Concern over the legibility of the boundary map mailed with the public hearing notice; ► A feeling that Cowell Ranch project was being treated differently than this area; MARSH CREEK AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION AREA December 3, 1996 Page 3 ► Suspicion of government in general; ► Requests for specific owners to have their properties to be deleted from the preserve; and ► Questions on why property already subdivided to the extent allowed by the General Plan should not be allowed to annex to CCWD. As this list indicates, the issues range from easily solvable items such as preparation of a better display map to thoughts which are philosophical in nature and for items which can't be quantified but are matter of judgement. It would appear inappropriate to race to provide staff responses to these issues without adequate time to reflect on the merits of the concerns and to discuss the issues with knowledgeable sources, before staff releases it's responses. COURSES OF ACTION At the close of the public hearing, several board members indicated some support for staff to hold a workshop on the subject before the Board reconsiders this matter. Among the range of options (some of which aren't mutually exclusive) are: 1. . Direct staff to hold a workshop on the current proposal to better explain its purposes to interested individuals, before rescheduling the item for a new hearing before the Board. 2 . Direct staff to respond in writing to all the issues listed above. 3. Terminate further proceedings on this item at this- time. 4. Consider dealing with this issue as a General Plan Amendment 'which would include hearings on this matter before the County Planning Commission. 5. Defer all decisions on how to proceed to the "new" Board of Supervisors. This could be scheduled for February 1997 as a discussion item. The new Board may have different priorities for staff time. 6. Conduct the review of Marsh Creek Preservation Area issues as a General Plan study as also called for in the December 19, 1995, memo from Supervisor Torlakson and Supervisor DeSaulnier. This request was to pull together the policies already in the plan to create area policies for Marsh Creek area as are found for other geographic areas. 7. Refer the existing proposal out to the cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Clayton, Concord, and Pittsburg for city action prior to Board consideration. (This differs from the existing approach which was that the Board should act first since the area is unincorporated. If it wouldn't pass there, there was no point in city action. ) 8. Direct staff to strongly support use of the existing ULL as the boundary of growth. 9. Others as may be proposed. It needs to be restated that currently there is no specific money currently allocated to the project, the efforts to date have been from Community Development Department budget. If the work is to expand substantially it will need to be budgeted for. J: \aw\marcrk2.bo ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.6 Agenda .December 3, 1996 On November 19, 1996, the Board of Supervisors directed the Community Development Department staff to report on issues including a possible workshop, timetable and process for the proposed adoption of the Marsh Creek Agricultural Preservation Agreement. (County File #CP 96-66). The subject land is located within the incorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa, between Black Diamond Mines Regional Park on the north, and Mt. Diablo State Park, Morgan Territory Regional Park, Round Valley Regional Recreation area, and the Los Vaqueros Watershed land complex to the south, in the unincorporated Marsh Creek-Morgan Territory area. Jim Cutler, Community Development Department, presented the staff report and recommended that the matter be continued to February, 1997. The following people commented on the issue. William J. 'Bill" Pattison, 3345 Aspara Drive, Clayton; Hal Boex, 3441 Tice Creek, Walnut Creek; Mary Delamater, for the Lucy E. Viera Trust Properties, 5514 Indiana, Drive, Concord. Supervisor Bishop advised that her office had received many letters and calls supporting this issue, and that she would like to address the matter and not continue it for the new Board members to consider. Supervisor Rogers stated that he supported the matter and that this is strictly a policy declaration, and not a legal action. Supervisor DeSaulnier moved that the matter be continued to February, 1997. He advised that this was a unique corridor and should be a preserved area. Supervisor Rogers seconded the motion. Supervisor Smith restated the motion and included direction to the Community Development Department staff to communicate with the area property owners and keep them informed of relative issues. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the above matter is CONTINUED to February,1997; and the Community Development Department staff is REQUESTED to communicate with the area property owners regarding relative issues.