Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10071997 - D6 s � TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS C0�1? �� =- tm Costa FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP County INTERIM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: OCTOBER 7, 1997 SrA'660— t SUBJECT: MARSH CREEK AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION AREA SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND & JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS ACCEPT report from the Interim Community Development Director on the proposed Marsh Creek Agricultural Preservation Area; REVIEW potential courses of action and DIRECT future staff work on this subject. Four potential courses of action are provided for Board Consideration. The staff recommendation is Option 1 . Option 1 DIRECT staff to monitor the status of agriculture in the Marsh Creek area and the effectiveness of existing agricultural protections, MEET with city staff to discuss existing agricultural protections, and REPORT back to the Board on this matter in one year. Option 2 DIRECT staff to proceed with the current proposal by holding a public workshop to explain the proposal and solicit comments before rescheduling the item for a new hearing before the Board. Option 3 DIRECT staff to discontinue further work on this item at this time. Option 4 DIRECT staff to contact staff at the Cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Clayton, Concord, and Pittsburg to discuss changing the Preservation Area boundary to be consistent with the existing Urban Limit Line and REPORT back to the Board on the results of these discussions. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE. j` .A_ _ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITT E APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON October 7,1997 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _ OTHER X See the attached Addendum_ for Board action . VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT III 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: John Kopchik, CDD (335-1227) ATTESTED October 7 , 1997 Orig: Community Development Department PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF cc: CAO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County Counsel AND C UNTYADMINISTRATOR BDEPUTY h:\jkopc\john-old\marafts.bo FU MARSH CREEK AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION AREA October 7, 1997 Page 2 FISCAL IMPAC There is no specific funding for this effort. If the Board directs a more extensive program, beyond a few staff meetings, workshops and additional public hearings, then a source of revenue needs to be identified to fund this work. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS "Marsh Creek Agricultural Preservation Area" is the title of a proposed agreement between the County and the Cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Clayton, Concord, and Pittsburg. It is intended to deter urban development in a specified area--located near Marsh Creek and almost entirely outside the Urban Limit Line--by committing the parties to a policy of not annexing the land in this area to cities and urban services districts. This report is in response to an action taken by the Board on May 6, 1997 requesting an update on the proposed agreement and options for proceeding with the agreement or otherwise addressing this matter. The requested information is provided below and organized by the following topics: 1) History and status of the proposed Marsh Creek Agricultural Preservation Area; 2) Assessment of existing protections to agriculture in the area and the impact of the proposed preservation agreement; and 3) Potential courses of action. Copies of past Board Orders relating to this matter are also attached. HISTORY AND STATUS OF THE PROPOSED MARSH CREEK AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION AREA The Board of Supervisors first addressed the concept of pursuing an agricultural preservation agreement in this area on September 19, 1989 when it directed staff to initiate discussions with the Cities of Clayton, Concord, and Pittsburg on the desirability of establishing what was then referred to as a Kirker Hills Agricultural Preservation Area. This concept was brought before the Board of Supervisors again on December 19, 1995 by Supervisors Torlakson and DeSaulnier. The Board approved their recommendations and directed the Community Development Department to begin work on the potential designation of a Marsh Creek Agricultural Preservation Area. The Board action specifically cited the Briones Hills Agricultural Preservation Agreement as a model for the Marsh Creek effort. The latter agreement, adopted in 1987 and 1988 by the County and eight cities, preceded the establishment of the Urban Limit Line by three years and was the first formal designation of a regional growth boundary in the County. Consistent with Board direction, County staff met with the staff of the Cities of Clayton, Concord, Pittsburg, Antioch, and Brentwood to discuss development of the agricultural preservation agreement and the potential boundaries of the area. Staff from the cities requested that any areas they felt the city might consider for future urbanization be excluded from the preservation area. The existing proposal resulted from these actions. The proposed preservation area boundary is generally parallel to or outside the approved Urban Limit Line, except for the Clayton Ranch area, which has a development application pending. In addition to a general commitment to not annex the designated lands, the proposed agreement resolution also provides for a review of the agreement following decennial Federal Census and an exception to the existing Clayton Regency Mobile Park for provision of water and sewer service. A public hearing on the proposed Marsh Creek Agricultural Preservation Area was held on November 19, 1996, and all lands within and around the perimeter of the preserve were noticed based on the latest Assessors roll. Eighteen speakers presented input on the proposal and numerous letters were received by the Board. The range and intensity of the views expressed was substantial. At the conclusion of public comment, the Board closed the public hearing and directed staff to report back with additional information and responses to issues raised in the public hearing. MARSH CREEK AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION AREA October 7, 1997 Page 3 Staff reported to the Board on December 3, 1996 with a summary of the major issues raised by the public, both at the hearing and in writing, and some suggestions for proceeding with the matter. The Board directed staff to hold two workshops with property owners and the public to further explain and discuss the proposal, and report back to the new Board in 1997. On May 6, 1997, the Board requested staff to provide a general status report on the Marsh Creek area and the proposed agricultural preservation agreement. The Board also requested an analysis of potential options for Board action on this matter. ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING PROTECTIONS TO AGRICULTURE IN THE AREA AND THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION AGREEMENT The Board of Supervisors, through approval of the General Plan and other actions, has established a number of policies which protect agriculture in the Marsh Creek area as well as other sections of the County. Provided below is a summary of the protective policies already in place for the Marsh Creek area as well as an analysis of the effect of these policies relative to the proposed Marsh Creek Agricultural Preservation Area. The Contra Costa County General Plan designates agriculture as the current and future land use in the Marsh Creek area. It also contains a number of policies intended to ensure that this land use does not change. The most significant of these is the Urban Limit Line or "ULL". The ULL, approved by voters in 1990 as a part of the 65/35 Contra Costa County Land Preservation Plan, establishes the boundary for urbanization of agricultural and other lands in the County. The Urban Limit Line may be amended by popular vote or a 4/5 vote of the Board of Supervisors, if the Board makes certain findings and the amendment does not violate the 65/35 agriculture/urban preservation standard. With one exception, all of the land in the proposed Marsh Creek Agricultural Preservation Area is outside the ULL. The Board of Supervisors has approved a number of other policies which restrict development and/or protect agriculture in the Marsh Creek area. A summary of these policies is provided in Attachment 1. The intent of the proposed Marsh Creek Agricultural Preservation Area is to provide added protection to the agricultural uses of the Marsh Creek area. In terms of County policy, the Marsh Creek Agriculture Preservation Area would add little or no new substance. As explained above and detailed in Attachment 1, the County has already adopted a number of policies which protect agriculture in the Marsh Creek area. These existing policies embody all the specific provisions of the proposed preservation agreement, and go well beyond them. To be specific, since nearly all of the preservation area is outside the urban limit line, designated for agriculture, and subject to the agricultural protections described above, the County has already established the types of protections called for in the proposed agreement--namely, restrictions on development and the extension of urban services. Likewise, since the ULL is generally more restrictive than the boundaries of the proposed preservation area, and since the Board has already adopted a broader range of agricultural protections than would be included in the preservation agreement, existing County protections are actually stronger. Any new or additional protection the proposed agreement might provide relates to its potential to strengthen or solidify the agricultural protection policies of the cities in the area. However, these potential benefits should be weighed against its possible drawbacks. For example, it is possible that adopting the proposed Marsh Creek Agricultural Preservation Area could confuse landowners, investors, and the public regarding the County's land use policy by recognizing an agricultural protection boundary which, in many places, differs from the existing ULL. While these two boundaries would have different foundations and somewhat different policy MARSH CREEK AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION AREA October 7, 1997 Page 4 implications, it may, nonetheless, be difficult to enforce both simultaneously. This confusion could make the meaning of the ULL uncertain in both this & other areas of the County. COURSES OF ACTION For Board consideration, staff has compiled a number of potential courses of action regarding this matter. These examples represent a broad but not exhaustive range of options for proceeding. The Board may suggest additional actions and it may modify or somehow combine these actions. Option 1 DIRECT staff to monitor the status of agriculture in the Marsh Creek area and the effectiveness of existing agricultural protections, MEET with city staff to discuss existing agricultural protections, and REPORT back to the Board on this matter in one year. Option 2 DIRECT staff to proceed with the current proposal by holding a public workshop to explain the proposal and solicit comments before rescheduling the item for a new hearing before the Board. Option 3 DIRECT staff to discontinue further work on this item at this time. Option 4 DIRECT staff to contact staff at the Cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Clayton, Concord, and Pittsburg to discuss changes the Preservation Area boundary to be consistent with the existing Urban Limit Line and REPORT back to the Board on the results of these discussions. Staff recommend Option 1 . Since the County has already adopted policies which protect agriculture in the Marsh Creek area, and since the proposed preservation area is not consistent with the ULL, staff finds that the County will not benefit from proceeding with the current proposal at this time. Staff believes the best approach is to monitor the situation, meet with city staff to discuss the protections afforded by existing policies like the voter-approved ULL, and consider appropriate action or actions in one year when we have a better understanding of what additional protections, if any, are needed, and what approaches will be most effective. H:\jkopc\john-old\maraIts.bo ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.6 Agenda October 7, 1997 On this date, the Board of Supervisors considered the options as recommended in the staff report presented by Dennis Barry, Interim Community Development Director, regarding the proposed Marsh Creek Agricultural Preservation Area. The following people presented testimony: Julie Pierce, Clayton City Council, 1526 Haviland Place, Clayton; Seth Adams, Save Mount Diablo, P.O. Box 5376, Walnut Creek; Martin Vitz, East Bay Regional Park District, 2950 Peralta Oaks, Oakland; Jim Gwerder, County Land Use Alliance; Mike Vukelich, Farm Bureau, 3459 Fleetwood Drive, Richmond. All persons desiring to speak having been heard, the Board discussed the issues. Supervisor Canciamilla informed the Board that he would like resolution of this matter this year; he moved staffs recommendation Option 1, and included language directing Community Development staff to meet with him to further his efforts to develop a future standard policy for these kinds of issues. Supervisor DeSaulnier voiced agreement with Supervisor Canciamilla regarding having an overall policy in place, and suggested that Option 4, or similar language, and Option 2, with a one year time frame, be considered. Supervisor DeSaulnier also suggested that staff from affected cities, along with County staff be included in developing protocols for this area. Supervisor Rogers suggested that the item be held over until a full Board is present. Supervisor Uilkema questioned whether time was of the essence for this matter, and Mr. Barry responded that it was not. Supervisor Uilkema discussed the city annexation process and noted that she would like a statement outlining the purpose of this proposed preservation area. She also requested maps or overlays be provided to the Board members demonstrating current zoning, urban limit lines and other data that might be relevant to this matter. Supervisor DeSaulnier noted that this is a particularly sensitive area, and that all of the suggestions should be incorporated into future consideration of this issue. Supervisor DeSaulnier moved to continue the matter to November 4, 1997, at 3:00 p.m. and suggested that Community Development Department staff notify affected cities regarding this date. Supervisor Rogers seconded the motion. Supervisor Canciamilla urged that this issue be discussed in light of an overall policy and not in response to a specific special interest group. Following further discussion, the Board took the following action: CONTINUED to November 4, 1997, at 3:00 p.m., consideration of the proposed Marsh Creek Agricultural Preservation Area; and DIRECTED that Community Development Department staff notify affected cities of the upcoming agenda date; and further DIRECTED that Community Development Department staff provide the Board with requested material, including urban limit lines and zoning maps as expressed in today's meeting. 1 Attachment 1 : Existing Protections to Agriculture in the Marsh Creek Area October 7, 1997 In addition to agricultural land use designations and the Urban Limit Line ("ULL"), the General Plan contains a number of other policies which restrict development and/or protect agriculture in the Marsh Creek area. Examples from the Land Use Element (Chapter 3) include the following: • Policies for the Morgan Territory Area on page 3-57 which: 1) require a General Plan/zoning conformity study in the Morgan Territory Road Area (Policy 3-107); 2) state that restriction on further fragmentation of parcels is crucial and that a rezoning study should be initiated to apply new, more stringent zoning categories (Policy 3-108); and 3) call for the implementation of a scenic route specific plan for Marsh Creek and Morgan Territory Roads. • Southeast County Area policies on pages 3-51 through 3-53 which stress the need to preserve agricultural lands for agricultural use (Policy 3-86), and state that new land uses within this plan area should be limited to those which are compatible to the primary agricultural and watershed purposes of the area (Policy 3-87). • Land Use Goal 3-G on page 3-39, which states an intent to discourage development on vacant rural lands outside of planned urban areas. • Land Use Policy 3-10 on page 3-41 , which discourages the extension of urban services and growth-inducing-infrastructure into agricultural areas outside the ULL. • Land Use Policy 3-11 on page 3-41 , which states that urban uses will expand only within the ULL where conflicts with agricultural economy will be minimal. Policies from the Conservation Element (Chapter 8) which restrict development and/or protect agriculture in Marsh Creek area include the following: • Overall Conservation Policy 8-5 on page 8-3 which precludes scattered urban development outside the ULL to reduce adverse impacts on agriculture and other. • Agricultural Resources Policy 8-33 on page 8-41 which encourages agriculture to continue operating adjacent to developing areas. • Agricultural Resources Policy 8-38 on page 8-41 which encourages Williamson Act contracts to retain designated areas in agricultural use. • Agricultural Resources Implementation Measure 8-y on page 8-44, which discourages applications for major subdivisions of agricultural lands. • Policies Encouraging the Economic Viability of Agriculture (Policies 8-41 through 8-48 on pages 8-41 and 8-42), including Policy 8-42, which recognizes the importance of agricultural industries and requires that agriculture be integrated into the County's overall economic development programs. The Open Space Element (Chapter 9) also contains policies which restrict development and protect agriculture in the Marsh Creek Area. The following is one example: • Overall Open Space Policy 9-9 on page 9-5, which preserves open space lands located outside the ULL by prohibiting general plan amendment studies which would result in redesignation of such lands to urban land use designations, and by not designating any open space land located outside the ULL for an urban use. The General Plan contains policies which place some restrictions on ranchette or rural Attachment 1 Page 1 of 2 October 7, 1997 residential development. For example, Agricultural Resources Implementation Measure 8-w on pages 8-42 and 8-43 establishes a number of criteria for subdivision of lands designated for agricultural or open space uses. These include requirements that: • cities be notified and consulted regarding filed applications • the parcels have a source of water of a certain, verifiable quality and quantity • road, street, and access matters, including possible right-of-way acquisition and/or dedication, be subject to Department of Public Works recommendations • the land be suitable for septic tank use and a percolation test be passed • homesites be designed with a minimum of grading In addition to policies contained in the General Plan, the Board of Supervisors has adopted other policies which restrict development and/or protect agriculture in the Marsh Creek area. • On September 19, 1989, the Board authorized a number of measures to address the concerns of the City of Clayton and others with the development application process in the Marsh Creek/Morgan Territory area. As a part of this action, the Board directed that, until the rezoning effort called for in the General Plan was funded and completed, all minor subdivisions and use permits in a specific defined area (roughly equivalent to the boundaries of the proposed agricultural area) be referred by the zoning administrator to the County Planning Commission for public hearings. • On May 6, 1997, the Board considered correspondence from the Greenbelt Alliance regarding the Clayton Ranch Project (the one area of the proposed Marsh Creek Agricultural Preservation Area which is inside the ULL) and a recent newspaper article which discussed the possible purchase of the property for use as open space and a youth camp. The Board authorized a letter in response which indicated that, if the landowner chose to sell the property for open space and youth camp uses, the Board of Supervisors would likely be supportive. • On June 10, 1997, the Board designated the current and future capacity of Marsh Creek Road to be two lanes to reflect the agricultural character of the area and to help assure that this character was maintained. h:\\jkopc\mara1ts.at1 Attachment 1 Page 2 of 2 October 7, 1997