HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05221990 - IO.2 To:' BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SE-_L Contra
FROM. INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE :°
Costa
DATE: May 14, 1990
County
�°�V.
SUBJECT: REPORT ON THE STATUS, STRUCTURE AND MEMBERSHIP OF THE
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND THE AGRICULTURAL
TASK FORCE
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMMiDATIONS
1. Express the intent of the Board of Supervisors to create a
single advisory body to the Board of Supervisors with the
responsibility to advise the Board of Supervisors on
agriculture and open space issues, following the development
and adoption by the Board' of Supervisors of a set of working
policies on agriculture which will provide a charge to and
direction for the advisory body.
2. Request the Community Development Director to recommend to
our Committee possible composition for such an advisory body
once our Committee has completed work on many of the issues
relating to the revisions to the General Plan.
3 . Request the Community Development Department staff to review
the King Is County, Oregon proposal for development of a
transfer of development rights concept and report to our
Committee at their earliest opportunity.
BACKGROUND:
on December 19, 1989 the Board of Supervisors referred to our
Committee the issue of the status, structure and membership of
the Agricultural Resources Advisory Committee and the
Agricultural Task Force.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF B
APPROVEOTHER
CI
UNNE WRIGHT Mc EAK TOM POWERS
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON May 22 , 1990, APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X 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.
CC: ATTESTED d�� 074R , 1990
PHIL BATCHLCOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
County Administrator
Community Development Director SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Dennis Barry, Community Development
County Counsel
M382 (10/88) Supervisor Tom Torlakson BY DEPUTY
On May 14 , 1990 our Committee met with staff from the Community
Development Department, Supervisor Torlakson and a number of
residents from East County. We received and reviewed the
attached report from Community Development, including the
materials from Leslie K. Davis & Associates which are also
attached.
Our Committee believes that the Board of Supervisors needs one
advisory body which is responsible for addressing issues
affecting agriculture and open space areas. We also believe that
in order for such an advisory body to be successful it must have
a clear charge from the Board of Supervisors, based on some
specific policies relating to agriculture which needs to be
developed as a part of the revisions to the General Plan.
The above recommendations will provide for establishment of such
an advisory body once some . of the fundamental direction has been
put in place by the Board of Supervisors as a result of the
deliberations which are now underway on revisions to the General
Plan, the draft Environmental Impact Report on the General Plan
and related work. Once some of these policies are set down by
the Board of Supervisors we will work with Community Development
to formulate the charge to such an advisory body and will
recommend its size, composition and charge for the Board' s
consideration.
Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS `✓W��
FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon �o County
Director . of Community Development
DATE: May 7, 1990
SUBJECT: Status Report on the Agricultural Task Force
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Reactivate . the Agricultural Task Force as a standing committee,
with the additional charge of assisting the County".: in - revising the
County .General Plan regarding agriculture and other open space
issues, and subsequest to adoption,. to assist in the implementation
. and continuing review of the plan policies:, In addition, the
.committee should develop' a closer working relationship with the
City of Brentwood, in order to foster a cohesive, unified set of
policies which both the city and county can. support, adopt and
carry out.
.FISCAL IMPACT
Approximately one-quarter of a Senior Planner and one tenth of a
. Principal Planner' s time would be committed to this effort, plus
support staff (graphic, " clerical and . direct. .. costs of
administration) . In round numbers, this represents about 40-50,000
dollars- per year. , If the City of Brentwood were ' willing to
co-sponsor the re-activation of the task force, it might also be
willing to contribute a part of the cost.
BACKGROUND/REASONS ,FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The: Agricultural task force developed several .recommendations for
inclusion- in the Draft County General Plan, and their terms expired
by. "sunset" clause on Sptember 30, 1989.
4k L' ...�
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNA
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECO ON OF 131RD COMMITTEE
APPROVE _ OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) .-
ION
IGNATURE(S) :ION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
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
UPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
cc: Community Development ATTES
P ATCHELOR, CLERK OF
THE BO OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY INISTRATOR
BY ,
A copy of the staff and Chair' s reports on the recommendations of
the task force are attached.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDED POLICIES
COMPILED BY
THE AGRICULTURAL TASK. FORCE
Implicit in the Task Force's recommendations is the conviction
that agriculture is a commercial enterprise and the preservation
of agriculture should be directed at enhancing its economic
viability and not to create or preserve open space.
At its meeting of April 20th, the task force adopted the
following statement to send to the Board of Supervisors:
"The Agricultural Task Force is concerned that the land use
policies in the proposed General Plan are designed to put East
County lands into an agricultural holding pattern. We believe
the present process precludes proactive planning that recognizes
the social and economic pressures in East County. We believe the
new General Plan needs to address the impacts on agriculture
without creating an artificial system that .does not work in
concert with other elements of the General :Plan. The Task Force
is committed to working on a cohesive plan that integrates
agricultural needs with urban pressures while allowing for the
flexibility of the Agricultural Community to respond to economic
forces outside the control of the County .land use policies.
We need your authority to develop a consensus on East County land
use policies before we develop implementation measures. We are
committed to work with you on these issues. "
At the May 23, 1989 joint meeting, the Board of Supervisors
directed the Task Force to answer the following question:
"What can the County do to enhance the continued use of
prime .lands for agriculture?"
In response to .the Board's query, the Task Force discussed and
adopted the following. recommendations for inclusion in the
proposed General Plan and for action by the Board .of Supervisors.
NOTE: The Agricultural Task Force continues to believe that a
separate General Plan for .East Contra Costa -is -essential .
LESLIE K. DAVIS & ASSOCIATES
2810 Lone Tree Way, Suite 7
Antioch, CA 94509
Phone 415/757-2479
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the Task Force
��
FROM: L� ie K. Davis
DATE: December 27, 1989
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Attached please find the summary of the recommendations made by
the Agricultural Task Force. According to Dennis Barry, Project
Manager, the General Plan EIR is due out later this week so we
can probably expect the hearings on the General Plan to begin by
early Spring. You might note that according to the proposed
schedule for the countywide General Plan which we were given on
March 9, 1989, the Draft EIR was expected to be published by May
5, 1989, three months before the County Planning Commission was
expected to begin hearing the General Plan. Hence my estimation
that the hearings should begin in early Spring of this year. The
attached summary creates the basis for our presentation so please
review it and consider whether we should meet to discuss or
refine the recommendations.
At the Board of Supervisor's November 28, 1989 meeting, they
requested that Community Development schedule a Board workshop
with the members of the Task Force and the Agricultural Resources
Advisory Board to discuss preservation of prime agricultural
areas in the County, as well as the status, structure and
membership of the Task Force. When a meeting date is
established, I am sure each of you will be notified. I have
attached a copy of their recommendation S. 2 .
Also attached is a memo from Supervisor McPeak, dated December 4 ,
regarding possible zoning alternatives and East Bay Regional Park
involvement to preserve agricultural soils.
In case you haven't heard, Eric Parfrey, the Senior Planner who
so ably assisted us, has accepted a position with San Joaquin
County. I have been dealing with his supervisor, Dennis Barry.
I am sure Dennis, or another member of the planning staff, will
be assigned to act as liaison for any future work of the Task
Force.
Please don't hesitate to call me if you have any questions about
the summary or the remaining steps in the process.
enc
'LESLIE- K. DAVIS & ASSOCIATES
2810 Lone Tree Way, Suite 7
Antioch, CA 94509
Phone 415/757-2479
December 27, 1989
Mr. Dennis Barry
Contra Costa County Community Development Department
651 Pine Street
4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Dennis,
As we discussed, I am enclosing a memorandum, a summary of recommendations,
and two attachments that I would like mailed to the members of the Agricultural
Task Force. I would appreciate your mailing them as soon as possible.
As you might know, the Board of Supervisors has expressed an interest in having a
workshop with the Task Force and members of the Agricultural Resources Advisory
Committee before the General Plan hearings begin. I hope that the Task Force can
finalize their recommendations before this workshop. It is likely that the Task Force
will need to meet again to discuss these recommendations. The Task Force will
need a person to fill Eric .Parfrey's place as a liaison with Community Development,
and I hope that you will be that person or at least someone who has your breadth
of knowledge. Besides, I haven't seen you for a while so it would be a good
excuse for dinner.
Happy Holidays! To: Ag. Task Force: 1/2/90
From : Dennis Barry
Sincerely, Per Leslie's request I am forwarding the
enclosed. Also included is Eric's Draft for
your consideration.
Leslie K. Davis If you need to cal 1 , my number is the same
as Eric's; 646-2035.
enc.
APPENDIX G
Recommendations of Agricultural Task Force ,
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: October 2, 1989
TO: Harvey E. Bragdon
Director of Community Development
FROM: Eric Parfrey, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Summary of actions taken by the
Agricultural Task Force
— -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a summary of the actions that have been discussed and recommended by the
Agricultural Task Force. The Agricultural Task Force was established by the
_ Board of Supervisors in March, 1.989 and met on a biweekly basis through the end
of September.
The task force was charged with the responsibility of recommending specific
implementation programs which could be adopted as part of the draft County
General Plan which would contribute to the viability of agriculture. The focus
of the group was primarily on the "Agricultural Core," the 12,000 acres
of land designated as such in the existing and draft General Plan, which include
the best farmlands (Class I and II soils) located around the Brentwood Sphere of
Influence. However, the group also discussed countywide agricultural issues.
General Policy Statements Adopted by the Task Force
At it meeting of April 20th, the task force adopted the following statement,
which was sent to the Board of Supervisors prior to the joint meeting held
between the task force and Board in June?.
"The Agricultural Task Force is concerned that the land use policies in the
proposed General Plan are designed to put East County lands into an agricultural
holding pattern. We believe the present process precludes proactive planning
that recognizes the social and economic pressures in East County. We believe the.
new General Plan needs to address the impacts on agriculture without crating 'an
artificial system that does not work in concert with the other elements of the
General Plan. The Task Force believes that a cohesive plan that integrates
agricultural needs with urban pressures while allowing for the flexibility of
the Agricultural Community to respond to economic forces outside the control of
the County land use policies is needed. "
At one of its early meetings, the task force also adopted the following general
Policy statement:
"The purpose of the committee is to find ways to make agriculture as a business
more viable_ not to create or preserve open space or constrain growth. "
Proposed General Plan Policies and Implementation Measures
At its meetings of August 17th, September 21th and September 30th, the committee
discussed and adopted the following draft policy language regarding the General
Plar in East County.
-• r. 4 f
Policy 1: Promote opportunities for the alternative marketing of irrigation
district water. -
Implementation: Eliminate existing County policies that restrict .the
marketing of surplus irrigation district water.
Policy 2: Divert urban traffic from rural roads. _
Implementation: Provide a bypass to accomodate through traffic and _
commute traffic, and to more effectively serve growth
areas.
Rural roads should be improved for health and safety reasons
and to serve the agricultural industry. --
Policy 3: Encourage clustering of development by requiring that subdivisions in _
the Agricultural Core create one acre parcels, on the basis of one
dwelling unit per ten acres, to be clustered in one area on the
"parent" parcel .
(This "clustered housing" concept is discussed separately below. )
One of the most significant recommendations that the task force has made is to
direct the County to study the possibility of implementing a transfer of �-
development right/credit program in East County. Briefly described, the program
would apply to any developer of unincorporated land in the county who wished to -
develop at a residential .or commercial/industrial density above the mid-range
specified in the General Plan. The developer would be required to purchase
development rights or credits from landowners in the .Agricultural Core area -
around Brentwood in proportion to how many units over the mid-range the project
was proposed. _
The following policy and implementation language defining the TDR/PDR study was
recommended by the Agricultural Task Force at its meeting of September 14th for -
inclusion in the draft General Plan:
- t
Policy 4: Development in all unincorporated areas shall .occur at the mid-range
density specified by the General Plan unless additional development - -
rights/credits have been acquired from the Agricultural .Core area.
Implementation: . The County will prepare a study regarding the _
proposed transfer/sale of development rights program which
will include, but is not limited to: - --
o a recommended ratio for the number of development
rights/credits to be applied per acre in the
Agricultural Core;
o potential residential , commercial , and industrial land
use growth projected for the unincorporated areas under
the General Plan;
o possible city/County agreements which would allow the
transfer of development rights/credits to incorporated
areas;
o possible phasing. of development right/credit
entitlements and/or renewable development rights; and
0 ownership of development rights.
At its meeting of September 14th, the committee also discussed and adopted the
following policy language regarding consolidation of public facilities into a
common transportation corridor.
Policy 5: Minimize the impact of public facilities planned in East County by
consolidating those facilities into a transportation corridor.
Implementation: Encourage public agencies and utilities to coordinate
.projects within existing and proposed transportation
corridors.
Task Force Recommendations Regarding_Agricultural Board(s)
The task force extensively debated the issue of local representation. As part of
both the Agricultural Park and Agricultural Enterprise Zone concepts (see
below) , proposals had been made to create some board or other organizational
entity consisting of local agriculturalists within the Agricultural Core area.
The board would represent the local property owners on all issues before the
Board, and could have some additional responsibilities. Specific issues that the
board could address are budgetary matters; flood control ; animal control ; and
land use.
At its meeting of Septemebr 30th, the task force adopted the following
recommendation:
An oversight board should be created, composed of five members appointed by the
Board of Supervisors. The five members should be propertyowners from the
Agricultural Core or agricultural operators in the Ag Core. The oversight board
should be established to review General Plan policies and implementation
measures affecting the Agricultural Core, as recommended by the Agricultural
Task Force and subsequent studies taken to implement policies, as long as the Ag
Core exists.
7-T
The task force, upon urging of the representative from the Farm Bureau, also
adopted a recommendation that a second agricultural committee be established by
the County, composed of five agriculturalists from all rural areas. The second
committe would address• countywide agricultural issues, not limited to the Ag
Core, which could . include General Plan policies affecting agricultural
economics, animal control , the budget of the Agricultural Department, etc. —
Proposed Changes to the Agricultural Core Boundary
A subcommittee of the task force met in August to discuss possible changes to
the boundaries of the Agricultural Core. The subcommittee recommended that ".
changes to the Ag Core boundary be made according to the following criteria:
soil productivity; water availability; aesthetics; practical cosiderations (lot -
sizes, contiguity, straight simple boundaries) ; City of Brentwood planned
growth; and experience of subcommittee members.
The subcommittee of the task force recommended that .three areas be deleted from
the Ag Core, and two areas be added. At its last meeting of September 30th, the
full task force voted to recommend that the three areas, totalling 2,220 acres,
be deleted, but that the other two areas (520 acres) not be added. The task
force recommends the following as the boundary of the Agricultural Core,
provided that the -other recommended policies be adopted.
The "areas" refered to below are keyed to the accompanying map of the
Agricultural Core. .
Agricultural Core in 1978 approx. 14,600 acres _
East County Area General Plan
Agricultural Core in draft approx. 11,900 acres
County General Pian
Task Force recommendation:
(aelete approx. 2,220 acres from
the Ag Core)
Area E approx. 1,500 acres (delete from Ag Core)
(bounded by EBMUD aqueduct/
Brentwood Sphere/Brentwood Rd.
Area B 200 acres (delete from Ag Core)
(area north of Byron town)
Area A 520 acres (delete from Ag Core) -
(near Sixler Road)
Proposed Total Ag Core: 10.720 acres
Note: Areas "D" (230 acres at the western edge of Ag Core) and Area "C" (290 y
acres consisting of the apple orchard on the Cowell Foundation property) were
proposed for addition to . the Ag Core, . but were not recommended by the task
force.
r
Right to Farm Ordinance; Specific Recommendations of John Ginochio
r .. John Ginochio submitted a letter to the joint task force/Board of Supervisors
meeting held on ?, which outlined some recommended' changes to specific
agricultural programs administered by the County. The task force did not have
Ctime to any formal action on the specific. items mentioned in the letter, but
seeemd to generally concur with them.
The task force agreed that the newly created agricultural committees or boards,
recommended above, should address the "nuts and bolts" issues raised by John's
letter. The group specifically recommended that action should be taken on the
following issues:
o adoption of a right to farm issue;
o regular trimming of overhanging tree branches along roads;
y o support for the Sheriff's off road vehicle patrol ;
o progams for the .eradication of the star thistle;
o continued financial support for the squirrel eradication program;
s o enforcement by Animal Services.
y The task force was told that the Agricultural Resources Advisory Committee,
previously established by Supervisor Torlakson but now dormant, had spent a
great deal of time developing a right to farm ordinance for the county. However,
that proposed ordinance had never been sent to the Board for adoption. The task
force wanted to be sure that the draft ordinance is ressurected to help with the
adoption of an updated right to farm ordinance (which is already recommended as
an implementation measure in the draft County General Plan) .
Summary of Other Implementation Programs That Were Discussed But Not Adopted
The task force brainstormed a wide range of possible, programs that could be
implemented in East County to help agriculture. The wide range of programs was
r distilled into a list, with accompanying brief descriptions, of over twenty
1 ideas and the committee further debated each one individually. Some of the ideas
were accepted by the group and became the basis for the proposed General Plan
policies listed above. Other programs were deleted by consensus or by a vote of
L _ the committee members.
Early on, the task force decided by a vote to delete the following progams from
' further discussion: (1) increasing the size of the Agricultural Core; (2)
establishing an "urban limit line" in East County; (3) establishing a tariff or
tax on local ag products to fund support programs; and (4) establishing a
' Mello-Roos district for the Ag Core.
The remaining programs on the list were discussed over several meetings. The
following is a brief summary of some of the proposals that were extensively
` debated, but were not recommended by the committee on a vote.
Agricultural Park. Proposal :
The "Ag Park" would consist of approximately 17,000 acres of prime agricultural _
land south and east of the City of Brentwood, an area slightly larger than the
"Agricultural Core" designation in the existing (and proposed) County General
Plan. _
The idea behind the park is to "create an attraction in East Contra Costa
similar to the kind now existing in the wine country of Napa Valley, thereby i
stimulating a diversity of related economies." The park would encourage the
development of uses related to tourism, such as restaurants, hotels, inns,
recreational activities, and food industries and services. The Ag Park would ?
include a voluntary purchase of development rights program, whereby the County
could purchase the rights to agricultural properties and the parcel would then _
become a part of the park. Other lands could be added to the park through fee
simple sale or donation of lands.
A more complete description of the Ag Park is included in a five page proposal
prepared by .its proponenets.
Enterprise Zone Proposal :
The County would encourage and assist in the establishment of cooperative,
specialized farming operations in the Ag Core, which are more directed to local _
markets and tourism. Establishment of an agricultural enterprise zone could be
modelled on the enterprise zones that have been created in urban areas —
throughout California or it could be a special district approved and recognized _
by the Local Agency Formation Commission, with it own board of directors.
The idea behind the Ag Enterprise Zone is to attempt to shift marketing of local
ag products from wholesale or pre-wholesale to retail , and encourage the farming
of more specialty products that would be economically profitable. The enterprise
zone idea would also encourage cooperative farming efforts, such as a
cooperatively run canning operation. The concept includes the need to provide
more tourist-oriented services in Brentwood in order to take better advantage of
the thousands of tourists who are already coming out to the area on the —
weekends. The model for the enterprise zone is similar to a small Napa Valley.
ericl4/agtaskl.mem