HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07101990 - IO.3 I .O.-3
To: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �� 6' L Contra
1
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
Costa
FROM: •�, t•
(Also meeting as an adjourned meeting x _ .. • ;a
of the Board of Supervisors) �'�.,- ��� County
DATE: grrq_co'uK'��
June 28, 1990
SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON INSTRUCTIONS TO STAFF ON THE DRAFT
GENERAL PLAN, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ON THE GENERAL
PLAN, URBAN LIMIT LINES AND RELATED ISSUES
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
V '
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Refer to the Community Development Director for study as a
part of the Environmental Impact Report on the draft General
Plan, pending adoption by the Board of Supervisors of a
report from the Water Committee on this subject, the
possibility of General Plan provisions for a- 100 foot
setback from wetlands as a buffer from development and/or
where such setback and/or preservation of wetlands is not
possible a mitigation ratio of 3:1.
2. Refer to the Community Development Director for study as a
part of the Environmental Impact Report on the draft General
Plan the possibility of General Plan provisions allowing the
City of Brentwood and urban development to expand eastward
towards Sellers Avenue, providing that substantial buffering
is provided on either side of Sellers Avenue to prevent
urban development adjacent to the prime agricultural core
area of the County immediately east of Sellers Avenue in
Brentwood and providing that no urban development is allowed
east of Sellers Avenue.
3 . Determine whether the Board of Supervisors is willing to
meet with the City Council of the City of Brentwood - in
Brentwood - on Tuesday, August 7, 1990 at 3 :00 P.M. and if
so direct the County Administrator and Community Development
Director to make arrangements for such a meeting. In this
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YP&YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD CO
APPROVE OTHE 4O�Y��� n
SIGNATURE($): SUNNE WRIGHT McPEAKwPOWERS
ACTION OF BOARD ON July 10 , 1990 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X
APPROVED Recomendations #1 and #2, and #4 through #11; with respect to Recommendation #3,
the Board reserved that date for a meeting with the City of Brentwood, but no further action
on this recommendation was taken.
In addition, the Board REQUESTED the Community Development Department to review the concerns
of the Cities of Antioch and Pittsburg, the Bollinger Canyon community and the Cowell
Foundation relative to the proposed urban limit lines; and REQUESTED Community Development
staff to report on the feasibility of adjusting urban limit lines with the sphere of influence
boundaries of the cities and utility service areas.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT } AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: I, III, IV, V NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: I I OF SUPERVISORS ON HE DATE SHOWN.
CC: ATTESTED 1990
PHIL TCHELO CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Please See Page 3 . ,SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
M382 (10/88)
BY DEPUTY
-2-
connection, request the Community Development Director to
work with the planning staff from the City of Brentwood to
identify all issues which such a joint meeting should
address and present a report on this subject to the joint
meeting.
4. Refer to the Community Development Director for further
study the location of the Urban Limit Line with respect to
the Byron Airport.
5. Refer to the Community Development Director for study as a
part of the Environmental Impact Report on the draft General
Plan the possibility of various General Plan options for
minimum acreage sizes for prime agricultural areas,
including the following and including the issue of
dedicating future development rights on the balance of the
property to the County:
* Minimum parcel sizes of 40 acres with cluster
development on not to exceed 5% of the property,
* Minimum parcel sizes of 40 acres with with cluster
development on not to exceed 10% of the property,
* Minimum parcel sizes of 20 acres with cluster
development on not to exceed 5% of the property, and
* Minimum parcel sizes of 20 acres with cluster
development on not to exceed 10% of the property.
6. Alert County Counsel that immediately after the adoption, of
this report by the Board of Supervisors on July 10, 1990 it
will be necessary to do some substantial legal work on the
ordinances and other implementation measures for the
proposed General Plan policies which have been identified by
the Board of Supervisors.
7. Request the Community Development Director to include in the
Environmental Impact Report on the draft General Plan an
evaluation of the impact of an Urban Limit Line policy
taking into account all of the direction already provided to
the staff by the Board' s previous actions on this subject.
8. Request the Community Development Director to include in the
Environmental Impact Report on the draft General Plan
consideration of General Plan provisions for the adoption of
appropriate zoning regulations to implement the agricultural
and open space goals and policies included in the draft
General Plan text.
9. Request the Community Development Director to analyze in the
Environmental Impact Report on the draft General Plan policy
provisions calling for the dedication of land and/or the
assuring of improvements for adequate public facilities.
10. Request the Community Development Director to review in the
Environmental Impact Report on .the draft General Plan policy
provisions which provide for support of the economic
viability of agriculture consistent with related goals,
policies and implementation measures of the draft General
Plan elements, particularly the Land Use, Growth Management,
Open Space and Conservation elements. Support elements may
include, but are not limited to, those outlined in the
attached report from the Community Development Director
dated June 22, 1990.
11. Correct the title of the "line" referenced in the Community
Development Director 's memorandum of June 22, 1990 to read
-3-
"Urban Limit Line" instead of "Agriculture/Open Space
Conservation Line" and except as otherwise modified in the
above recommendations, incorporate herein by reference the
attached report dated June 22, 1990 from the Community
Development Director - for informational and background
purposes.
BACKGROUND:
On June 28, 1990, pursuant to the Board's actions on June 26 ,
1990, the Internal Operations Committee, meeting as an adjourned
meeting of the Board of Supervisors, with all five Board Members
present, considered additional testimony on the concept of an
Urban Limit Line. Testimony was received from approximately 15
individuals, including the submission of several letters and
maps.
The Internal Operations Committee, meeting as an adjourned
meeting of the Board of Supervisors, with Supervisors Powers,
Schroder, McPeak and Torlakson present, heard a presentation from
East County Farmer (Gene Harrison,. Jack Bloomfield and Evo
Baldocchi) of their study entitled, "The Economic Viability of
Agriculture in East Contra Costa County, California" .
The Internal Operations Committee, meeting as an adjourned
meeting of the Board of Supervisors, with Supervisors Powers,
McPeak and Torlakson present, met with Mayor Catherine Palmer,
Councilwoman Barbara Guise and Councilman Art Gonzales from the
City of Brentwood as well as Brentwood' s Director of Planning.
The City of - Brentwood requested that any proposed Urban Limit
Line not interfere with the City' s planned expansion. In
particular Brentwood seeks to expand to the East up to Sellers
Avenue.
Following the meeting with the City Council of the City of
Brentwood, the Internal Operations Committee, meeting as an
adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors, with Supervisors
.Powers, McPeak and Torlakson present, formulated the above
recommendations to staff, for presentation to the full Board of
Supervisors on July 10, 1990.
cc: County Administrator
Community Development Director
County Counsel
City Council, City of Brentwood
Don Russell, City Manager, City of Brentwood
Gene Harrison, East County Farmer
P.O. Box 16, Knightsen, CA 94548
TO: Internal Cperatians Ccumittee DME: June 22, 1990
n ,Vbz..,,,,,� u`., '
MOR: L.,� Harvey E. ffiagdon
vas• `Director of Developuezrt.
SUBJHCP: Board Referral on General Plan Update
Staff Report and Recommendations
tici ns Aa/7
1. Request the Cmmmity Developwnt Department include in the draft general
Plan an
with certain modificaticns to the proposed line's location relative to that
depicted in the map distributed June 6, 1990. The suggested lines are depicted
on the attached Exhibit 1.
2. Request the Cammity Develgm*ent Department to include in the draft General
Plan provisions for open space zoning in conformance with and inpementing the
agricultural and open space goals and policies included in the plan text.
Following the basic rezonings required to accomplish conformance with the new
general plan, aggregation of non-conforming parcels and rezoning to appropriate
districts could be on a voluntary basis as a matter of policy. Although
voluntary, such rezonings could be "batched" and initiated by the planning
agency, at no cost to the landowner.
Recmnended General Plan-Zoning for Open Space and Agricultural districts
include the following:
Plan e Zoning
Agricultural Core - A-40; A-80; P-1 with appropriate findings related to
specific goals and policies of the plan. Existing non-conforming parcels
would be unaffected, or "Grandparented".
Agricultural Iands - A-20; A-40; A-80; P-1 with appropriate findings as
above. Existing non-conforming parcels would remain as above.
Delta Recreation and Resources - A-20; A-40; A-80; P-1 with appropriate
findings as above. Voluntary programs limited as non-conforming parcels as
indicated above.
Parks and Recreation and Open Space - A-20; A-40; A-80; P-1 findings,,
non-conforming parcels and voluntary program limitations as above.
Internal Operations Committee Page 2
June 25, 1990
3. Instruct staff to include provisions in the draft plan which provide for
support of the economic viability of agriculture consistent with the goals,
policies and implementation measures of the other general plan elements,
particularly the land Use, Growth Management, open Space and Conservation
elemexnts. Sort activities may include, but are not limited to those listed
below under 'Background/Reasons for Emendations".
for
Mie following analysis is based upon considerable study, discussion arra debate
by the Cmmnmity Develcpent Department, County Counsel, Morrison and Foerster
(special counsel) and EIP (planning and environmental consultants) following the
Board of Supervisors hearing of the committee's report on June 12, 1990.
1. The Urban Limit Line concept is related to the extent of development which
will occur during the planning period. Thus, it would seem to fall most
naturally into the province of the land Use Element. However, the goals and
policies addressed reflect essential aricultural, open space and conservation
issues. In addition, the Committee and Board have noted that the plan text
should specify that there is no expectation that all of the land within the line
Will develop during the course of plan imlementation.
Moreover, It has been our experience that individual members of the public are
more vitally concerned with the land use designation than in the agriculture,
open space and conservation policies of the plan.
For these reasons, staff suggests that the line should be included as an
essential diagram in the Open Space Element, and be replicated in the land Use
Element so that it is not overlooked by those who may refer only to that
element. Staff suggests that the line be denoted as an Agriculture and other
Open Space conservaticn Lime rather than an Urban Limit Line, in order to more
clearly reflect its purpose.
2. A copy of a staff report and recd mnendations regarding minimum parcel sizes
in open space land use designations provided to the planning congress is
attached for review. With regard to the non-prime agricultural areas of the
county, staff has not received any evidence since publication of that report to
significantly change that analysis.
Rezoning 2218-RZ accomplished in the Tassajara Area (about 28,000 acres)
successfully implemented the Open space and Conservation Element Goals and
Policies of the San Ramon Valley Area General Plan, adopted in 1977. In the
decade since implementation, there have been no rezonings by the Board of
Supervisors in the area, nor any successful legal challenge. The suggested
approach is based upon that local experience.
Internal Operations Committee Page 3
June 25, 1990
.The goal is to prevent gradual conversion of open space lands to very low
density residential lands. Staff believes this can be accomplished without
significant economic impact on landowners by application of the existing A-20,
A-40 and A-80 Zoning Districts, which will be subject to further review for
conformi,nty following adaption of the plan..
We recommend this range of parcel sizes because we are convinced that a
preponderence of 80 acre parol minimums, transitioning to the smaller-sized
districts with proximity to the exsti g concentrations of smaller parcels will
preclude the shift to residential use.
It has been suggested that the Board policy on ranchettes could be strengthened
to address this issue. More stringent criteria for application submittal
docking the suitability of the site for residential ranchette use would weed
out some applications before submittal, rather than at the map filing stage, but
the overall number of- units constructed would remain essentially' unchanged.
Application of the SD-1 Slope Density and Hillside Development Combining
District, amended to apply to rural properties of large acreage, could
address this concern. Areawide Hydrogeologic studies could be required as part
of the Ranchette Policy which would require documentation of the suitability of
groundwater supplies prior to application for ranchette type subdivisions.
3. -mile staff recognizes the need to address the economic factors surrounding
the continued viability of agriculture in the county, and the advisability of
increasing County efforts to support that viability, staff strongly suggests
that this does not reflect compensation, since the proposals considered to date
do not deprive any property owner of any right currently enjoyed. For example,
if 40 acres could now be..divided into four ten acre parcels, and the proposal
would allow the same overall density, no taking has oc;urred, 'only regulation,
and compensation is inapplicable.
As part of its proposal to form an urban limit line or "greenline" as part of
the new General Plan, the Board of Supervisors .has discussed a number of
measures that could be applied to the property that is designated agricultural
or open space in the General Plan. At the Board meeting on June 12, 1990, the
Board and members of the public discussed a number of these measures. The Board
concluded by asking Staff to report to the Board describing the measures in
further detail.
The folowing anlysis responds to that request and describes the following
measures: (1) open-space easements, (2) conservation easements, (3) the
transfer of development rights, (4) agricultural mitigation fees for conversion
of agricultural land, (5) clustered subdivision development, (6) the
establistment of an agricultural trust fund, (7) non-urban preserve agreements,
(8) special legislation for preferential tax treatment for agricultural and open
space lands, and (9) direct purchase and leaseback of agricultural land. In
general, the purposes of these measures are to conserve agricultural and open
space resources and insure the economic viability of agricultural production on
prime agricultural land.
Internal Operations Committee Page 4
June 25,, 1990
The Board need not commit itself to or specifically endorse any of these
measures at the General Plan stage. In fact, each of these measures should be
further studied and formulated before the Board ultimately decides whether to
adopt the measure. Nevertheless, to maximize its flexibility to formulate
appropriate Agricultural -Core programs in the future, the Board should state in
the General Plan that all or some of these measures may be considered for future
adoption.
Measures for motion of the Acricultural.Core
A. Open Space Easements
California law permits a county or city with an adopted open space plan to
acquire open-space easements on privately owned lands located. within its
jurisdiction. Cal. Gov't Code 151080. An cpen-space easement is a dedication
to the public of the open-space character of the subject property. Cal. Gov't
Code {51081. The easement imposes restrictions on the future use of the
property to preserve for public use and enjoyment the natural or scenic
character of the open space land. Cal. Gov't Code {{51075(d). The restrictions
also may be used to preserve agricultural uses. Cal. Gov't Code {{51075(a) ,
65560. 'These restrictive covenants run with the title to the property. Cal.
Gov't Code {{51075(d) , 51082.
Open-space easements may be acquired either by purchase or voluntary conveyance.
The acquisition of such easements is in the public interest, and public funds
may be expended for the. acquisitions. Cal. Gov't Code {51073. An open-space
easement runs for a term of not less than 10 years. Similar to Williamson Act
contracts, the easement .waist provide that, on the anniversary date of the
acceptance of the easement or on such other annual date as specified in the
instrument, a year is automtically added to the initial term unless a notice of
nonrenewal is given as provided in the statute. Cal. Gov't Code {51081.
Several commentators refer to the purchase of open-space easements as the
purchase of "developnent riots." This shorthand is somewhat misleading, since
a local agency does not phase the "riot to develop" any property. Rather, it
acquires only the public benefit of use restrictions on the subject property.
The procedures for creating an open-space easement purchase program are fairly
detailed. The statutes authorizing such programs prescribe, among other things,
(i) the findings that Waist be made by a local agency accepting an open--space
easement, (ii) the required content and terms of open-space easements, (iii) the
methods of abandoning or terminating them and (iv) the tax benefits available to
persons whose property is subject to an open-space easement.
The most apparent problem with an open-space easement program is funding. Unless
the Comity can convince landowners to convey open space easements voluntarily,
the County would have to purchase the easements. Clearly, that purchase would
be quite expensive, although seat less expensive than the purchase of fee
title to the property. This problem could be alleviated to some extent by the
irposition of the agricultural mitigation fee or the creation of the
agricultural trust fund described below.
internal operations Committee Page 5
June 25, 1990
B. Conservation Easements
The Board has also disused using conservation easements to insure the long
term preservation of agricultural land.. Conservation easements are defined in
Sections 815-816 of the California Civil Code as:
any limitation in a deed, will, or other instrument in the form of an
easement, restriction, covenant, or condition, which is or has been
executed by or on behalf of the owner of the land subject to such easement
and is binding upon successive owners of such land, and the purpose of
which is to retain land predominantly in its natural, scenic, historical,
agricultural, forested, or open space condition (eqhasis added)
conservation easements are like open space easements in that they are conveyed
to a public agency or a qualified nonprofit conservation organization by either
purchase or dedication. As with open space easements, before a city or county
accepts a conservation easement, it mast find that the easement is consistent
with the city's or county's local open space plan. In directing the county's
consultants in revising the draft General Plan, we will want to insure that the
open space element of the General Plan will aeeommiodate the use of conservation
easements in the County.
The main difference between a conservation easement and an open space easement
is that a conservation easement is perpetual in duration; it cannot be
abandoned.
In some of the discussions on conservation easements, it has been suggested that
they be required as a condition to obtaining approval for development
(specifically, cluster development) on agricultural property. California Civil
Code Section 815.3(b) states that "No local governmental entity may condition
the issuance of an entitlement for use on the applicant's granting of a
conservation easement pursuant to this chapter." Therefore, the county will not
be able to require the dedication of a conservation easement as part of a
cluster development. Alameda County has been sued, in part, based upon its
treatment of conservation easements. Nevertheless, the County could encourage
the dedication of conservation easements by providing information to the public
on the tax and other benefits of these easements.
Internal Operations Ccenunittee Page 6
June 25, 1990
C. Transfer of Development Rights
Many cities and counties in California have stablished programs for the transfer
of development rights ("TDR Programs") . TDR Programs are designed to ccepensate
landowne s for restricting the use or development of their properties, whether
voluntary.cr by mandate of the local agency, to achieve some socially desirable
purpose (e.g., maintenance of open space or agricultural uses, preservation of
historic buildings or establishment of highly restrictive densities) . Unlike an
open-space easement purchase program, a TDR Program does not involve the
transfer of public funds to the landowner restricting the use or development of
his property. Instead, a landowner restricting his property is cmpensated by
"selling," to other landowners at a price established by the market, the
densities he might otherwise have developed on his property. The landowner
purchasing such development rights (commonly referred to as "transferable
development rights" or '"TDB's") is permitted upon a transfer to develop his
property to a, greater extent than would have been possible without the benefit
of the purchased TDR's. In essence, a TDR Program allows a local agency to
achieve restrictive zoning on certain properties by permitting increased
development on other properties.
A typical TDR Program contains several elements.
First, the local agency mast designate which properties in its jurisdiction
would be "Transferor Properties" and which would be potential "Transferee
Properties." In the present case, the Agricultural Core properties would be
Transferor Properties, while certain properties within the urban limit line (or
outside the "greenline") would be designated as possible Transferee Properties.
Zhe owners of the designated Transferor Properties, by selling the TDR's
allocated to those properties, would give up any future right to develop those
properties for other than agricultural uses (except as may be permitted under
the clustered development concept discussed in this n enywandum) .
Second, the local agency must decide whether owners of Transferor Properties
could elect not to participate in the TDR Program and thus develop their
properties. A mandatory TDR Program creates some risk of "takings" claims if
the restrictive land use designation imposed on Transferor Properties leaves the
owners of such properties with no economically viable use and there is no
meaningful market for the TDR's. To be an effective tool for the preservation
of agricultural uses, the County's program should probably be mandatory.
Third, the local agency mast designate how many MR's (which might take the form
of measurable densities, floor area or raw units) an owner of Transferor
Property can sell, and how much additional development an owner of Transferee
Property will be permitted to buy. The TDR Program would probably involve the
creation of overlay general plan designations applicable to the Transferee
Properties, where such properties would be permitted a certain amount of
development without having. purchased any MR's and an increased amount of
development with the benefit of MR's.
Finally, a local agency angst ensure that, upon the transfer of MR's from one
property to another, the Transferor Property will remain permanently restricted
Internal Operations Coamiittee Page 7
June 25, 1990
for the desired use. This can be aeeouplished by the mandatory recordation of a
declaration of restrictions or perhaps the grant of an open-space easement,
conservation easement or similar dedication.
A successful TDR' Program is a cainplicated mechanism, and must be designed to
ensure that owners of the designated Transferor Properties have a meaningful
market for their TDt's. In fact, courts have indicated that-the existence of a
meaningful market is central to the concept of a TDR program. See, e.g.,
Barancik v. County of Marin, 872 F.2d 834, 837 (1988) . Despite the difficulties
inherent in creating a successful TDR Program, such a program would reduce the
need for the expenditure of public funds. The California ILegislatune is
currently rently considering a bill that would specifically authorize local agencies to
create TDR programs.
D. Agricultural Mitigation Fees
The Board also has discussed the possibility of imposing certain fees to
mitigate the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses. free
types of fees have been considered: (i) an agricultural land conversion
mitigation fee (an "Agricultural Conversion Fee") that would be payable whenever
agricultural land- is .. developed for other uses, (ii) a development fee (a
"Countywide Development Fee") for the purchase of agricultural land that would
be imposed on any development within the County and (iii) an in lieu fee (an "In
Lieu Fee") that could be paid in lieu of a requirement that developers of
agricultural or other lands dedicate portions of their land for open space or
agricultural uses.
The imposition of these types of fees may assist the County in funding some of
the other agricultural preservation measures discussed in this memorandum. For
example, the fees could be used to create the Agricultural Trust Fund described
below. However, our legal counsel has advised us that there are legal
restrictions on the County's ability to inpose these or similar fees. In
general, unless the fee bears a reasonable relationship (or "nexus") to the
development on which it is iuposed, or the burdens created by the developuent,
it will be unconstitutional. See Nollan v. California Coastal Cxmmissi.on, 483
U.S. 825 (1987) . In the absence of a constitutional nexus, the fee might also
violate the provisions of state law. See Cal. Gov't Code 166000 et seq. The
plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging Alameda County's urban limit line have
raised this issue.
Thuile these legal and constitutional restrictions are significant, preliminary
discussions with our legal counsel indicate that same sort of fee can be
structured in a manner that would likely withstand legal challenge. If the
County decides the irpose such a fee, we. will want to consider the legal
limitations on the fee in detail.
Internal Operations Committee Page 8
June 25, 1990
E. Subdivision/Cluster Development
The Board of Supervisors is also considering an agricultural preservation policy
to increase the minimae parcel size in the Agricultural Core while allowing
farmers to make minor subdivisions of their parcels for cluster development.
Generally, these types of proposals involve three elements (1) the creation of a
large mininum, parcel sizes for agricultural parcels, (2) the concentration of
residential densities permitted under the agricultural zoning onto one portion
of the agricultural parcel, and (3) the use of the remainder of the agricultural
parcel for agricultural purposes only. The property owner may then subdivide
and sell off the "residential" portions of their parcels, or retain these for
future agricultural or development purposes.
The Board has not yet determined the size of or densities that would be
permitted on the developable sub-parcels. one proposal has suggested that the
agricultural sub-parcel would be a minimum of 40 acres, and that 5%, or two
acres of the parcel could be subdivided into two one-acre parcels with one
residential unit on each parcel.
It has been suggested that the County could require that a conservation easement
be placed on the agricultural acreage to insure continued agricultural use. As
we explained above, such . a requirement would probably be prohibited by
California Code Section 815.3(b) .
Similar "cluster development" programs are used in at least two Bay Area
counties, Alameda and Sonoma. Both counties errploy site restriction standards
and require, to the extent allowed by law, that an agricultural or conservation
easement be placed on the residual parcel and be conveyed to either the County
or appropriate non-profit organizations at the time of subdivision.
F. Establishment of Agricultural Trust Fund Y
The Board of Supervisors is considering the establishment of an agricultural
trust fund to purchase land and/or development rights in the Agricultural Core.
The Board has considered funding the trust fund through a general obligation
bond measure to be submitted to the voters of Contra Costa County for their
authorization.
By way of example, the City of Brentwood has submitted to the County
Administrator a craft program called the Brentwood Farmland Preservation Program
(the "Program") . Under the Program, the County would purchase the development
rights to certain voluntarily-offered farm and open space lands to insure
continuation of those properties in an undeveloped state. The Program would
require a County election to authorize the issuance of general obligation bonds
for the purpose of acquiring either development rights, full ownership or any
lesser interest, easements, covenants or other contractual rights to
agricultural properties. As proposed, the bonds would be paid by annual tax
levies upon all the taxable property within Contra Costa county in excess of
constitutional and statutory limitations. The measure would require approval by
a 2/3 vote of the Contra Costa electorate.
Internal operations Committee Page 9
June 25, 1990
"DevelcpTient Rights", are defined in the Program as "an interest in and the
right to use and subdivide land for any and all residential, crcial and
industrial purposes and activities which are not incident to agricultural and
open space uses". The "Value of Development Rights" is defined as the
"difference bett� the fair market value of Full ownership (as defined in the
Program) of the land (excluding the buildings thereon) and the fair market value
of the Agricultural Rights to that land". "Agricultural Riots" are defined as
"an interest in and the right to use and possess land for purposes and
activities related to horticultural livestock, dairy and other agricultural and
open space uses."
The Program would establish a "Farm Authority" with the power to issue bonds,
sign contracts, purchase land and be obligated to implement the ordinance. The
Farm Authority would consist of seven members, two appointed by the farmers, two
by the Board of Supervisors and one by the Sierra Club.
G. Non-Urban Preserve Agreements
The Board has also discussed a General Plan policy that would encourage
agreements between the County and cities to maintain "nonurban preserves". The
purpose of this measure would be to obtain agreement from the affected cities to
refrain froth annexations of certain lands that for various reasons, are
considered inappropriate for development during a specified period of time. An
example of such an agreement is the Briones Hills Pact, entered: into between
certain cities in the County and the County, which identifies certain properties
for open space preservation.
H. Mechanisms for Preferential Tax Treatment
The Board has also discussed a General Plan policy that would encourage
preferential tax treatment of properties that are retained for agricultural or
open space purposes. one of these mechanisms, the Williamson Act, is already
established by state law. The Board may also want to include in the General
Plan a policy whereby the Comity would encourage the adoption of state
legislation that would provide similar mechanisms.
The California Iand Conservation Act of 1965, Cal. Gov't Code { 51220, et seq. ,
otherwise known as the_ "Williamson Act," permits local governments to execute
voluntary contracts with landowners limiting the use of land to production of
agricultural cm*modities in return for preferential tax assessments. The
Williamson Act authorizes any county or city having a general plan to establish
an "agricultural preserve," defined in the statute as "an area devoted to either
agricultural use . . . recreational use . . . or open space use . . . or any
combination of such uses and which is established in accordance with the
provisions of this chapter." { 51201(d) . once such an agricultural preserve is
created, a qualifying city or county may enter into contracts related to any
land located within the agricultural preserve that is "devoted to agricultural
use." { 51242.
Internal Operations Can ittee Page 10
June 25, 1990
Each such contract Waist (i) provide for the exclusion of uses other than
agricultural uses or uses 11coupatible" with agricultural uses, and (ii) be
binding- on.and inure to the benefit of all successors in interest to the owner.
{ 51243. The. statute defines "ccupatible use" as "any use determined by the
county cr, city administering the preserve to be compatible with the
agricultural, recreational, or -open..space use of land within the preserve and
subject to contract." { 51201(e) .
Once the contract is entered into and recorded against the affected property,
the property is then assessed for purposes of property taxes on the. basis of its
permitted agricultural use rather than on some other potential use of the
property, thereby reducing the farmers property taxes. Under this program, the
State reimburses the County's tax loss.
The term of each Williamson Act contract must be no less than ten years. Under
the Williamson Act, agricultural land is presumed to be in parcels large enough
to sustain their agricultural use, that is, at least 10 acres in size for prime
agricultural land and 40 acres in size for land which is not prime agricultural
land.
I. Direct Purchase/Leasebacks
Another measure that has been suggested is the direct purchase by the County of
agricultural lands and the leaseback of those lands to farmers for only
agricultural purposes. This measure would give the County ecaplete control over
the preservation and use of the agricultural lands.
There are two apparent problems with this measure. . First, the purchase of the
lands would be very expensive. Second, the County may not be equipped to take
on the role of a landowner with all of its attendant problems. The County may
be able to aoeoplish the same objectives through the pease of open space
easements, since they are less expensive, and since the property owner still
owns the underlying fee interest in the property.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO: Members of the Agriculture/Open Space Subcommittee
FROM: Eric Parfrey, Senior Planner
Walter Kieser, Economic and Planning Systemsol
Douglas Duncan, Duncan & Jones
RE: Staff/consultant recommendations regarding minimum parcel sizes
DATE: January 21, 1988
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This memorandum outlines the recommendations of the Community Development
Department staff and its General Plan consultants regarding setting minimum
parcel sizes in the rural areas of Contra Costa County. The memo responds to the
action taken at your meeting of November 12, 1987, when the subcommittee voted
to retain the five acre minimum parcel size in the A-2 zoning districts.
Minimum Parcel Sizes in Other Bay Area Counties
In a previous report, you will recall that staff summarized- the-"-range of-minimum
lot sizes that are applied in other counties of the region. Staff found that
nearby counties such as Alameda, Solano, Sonoma, San Mateo, Santa Clara all have
adopted minimum lot sizes for agricultural lands that are significantly larger
than .Contra Costa's predominant five acre minimum. For example, Alameda County
employs a 100 acre minimum for much of the farmland in the Livermore-Amador
Valley. In Solano County, most of the prime soils and grazing lands have been
placed in districts that require 20, 40, 80, 'and 160 acre minimum parcel sizes.
In San Mateo County, agricultural lands receive a density credit in the General
Plan which allows one residential unit per 40 to 160 acres. Santa Clara County
employs minimum acreage sizes of between 20 to 160 acres, while Marin County has
zoned much of the agricultural land in the western part of the County in 60 acre
districts. The proposed Sonoma County General Plan, which is now pending
approval before the Board of Supervisors, sets parcel sizes for agricultural
lands in the range of 10, 20, 60, and 100 acres. Napa County has protected its
vineyard areas from urban encroachment by instituting a predominant minimum lot
size of 40 acres. Thus, out of the eight counties in the San Francisco Bay Area
that include substantial areas of agricultural lands, Contra Costa is alone in '
its practice of applying an extremely small minimum parcel size (5 acres) in
most of its agricultural areas.
1.
State Guidelines Regarding Minimum Parcel Sizes
There are no State General Plan laws or guidelines specifically relating to
minimum parcel sizes in rura-1 or agricultural areas. However, there is a
General Plan law that requires legal consistency between the policies of a
jurisdiction's Open Space Element and .the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. In
1973, the State Attorney General offered an opinion that a two acre parcel zoned
for residential use allowed within an area designated in a General Plan for open
space or agricultural use would not meet the consistency requirement, while a
ten acre parcel zoned for agricultural use would be consistent with the General
Plan designation (California Attorney General , Indexed Letter 73-84). This State
legal opinion seems to indicate that zoning which allows residential uses on
minimum parcel sizes of less than 10 acres in areas designated as open space or
agriculture in an adopted General Plan would be inconsistent with the plan, and
thus subjected to legal challenge.
In addition, the California Subdivision Map Act includes a section which
suggests appropriate minimum parcel sizes necessary to sustain agricultural
use. The State Map Act prohibits the subdivision of lands under Williamson Act
contract if the resulting subdivided parcels "would be too small to sustain
their agricultural use. For purposes of this section, land shall be presumed to
be in parcels too small to sustain their agricultural use if the land is (1)
less than 10 acres in size in the case of prime agricultural land, or (2) less
than 40 acres in size in the case of land which is not prime agricultural land"
(California Subdivision Map Act, Government Code 66474.4) .
Existing General Plan Policies Regarding Minimum Parcel Size-
The current County General Plan, in conjunction with the Zoning Ordinance,
allows a property owner the right to apply for subdivision down to a minimum
parcel size of 5 acres in most rural areas of the County which are designated as
"General Open Space" in the plan and zoned General Agriculture (A-2). Lands
under Williamson Act contract are currently designated "Agricultural Preserve"
in the General Plan and are zoned A-4, which requires a 20 acre minimum parcel
size. A smaller number of areas in the County are zoned Heavy Agriculture (A-3),
which carries a 10 acre minimum.
However, there are several locations in the County where policies in the General
Plan are more restrictive, and thus over-rule, the lot size allowed in A-2
districts. Prime farmlands around Brentwood are designated as "Agricultural
Core" in the East County Area General Plan, adopted in 1978, which requires 10
acre lots. Lands in the Delta area are designated in the same area plan as
"Agriculture-Recreation" and carry a 20 acre minimum parcel size. In addition,
the Port Costa Area General Plan, adopted in 1980, includes a policy that
mandates a 20 acre minimum parcel size for all lands designated as open space.
And in the Morgan Territory Road area, the adopted General Plan discourages all
further subdivisions of designated agricultural lands.
In the Dougherty-Tassajara area east of San Ramon, the Board of Supervisors
in 1981 rezoned a very large area of approximately 28,500 acres from the
predominantly A-2 zoning to new .zoning categories of A-20, A-40, and A-80, which
require minimum parcel sizes of 20, 40, and 80 acres, respectively. In the
Orinda area, the County has also adopted A-80 minimum lot sizes for most of the
East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) watershed lands.
2.
Housing in Agricultural Areas
Under the proposed agricultural land use categories outlined below, one
residential .unit may be permitted per parcel , resulting in a maximum residential
density equal to the minimum parcel size applicable in each category. Two
exceptions to this density regulation are recommended by staff, when either an
Agricultural Housing Provision or a Planned Agriculture Combining District is
applied to the property.
An Agricultural Housing Provision section would be included in. the zoning
ordinance under each agricultural zone. This provision would permit a one-time
minor subdivision of any parcel within an agricultural category area into two
parcels: a residential parcel no smaller than 2.5 acres and no larger than 5
acres in size; and a remaining agricultural parcel that must be determined to be
of an adequate size to permit feasible agricultural operations. In return, the
land owner would be required as a- condition of subdivision approval to deed all
future development rights of the agricultural parcel to the County or another
appropriate agency, or record a deed restriction prohibiting further land
divisions. The residential parcel created in this one-time minor subdivision
would be intended for farm family member housing. This regulation is based upon
a similar process that has been successfully implemented in Sacramento County.
The proposed Planned Agriculture Combining District would be an "overlay zone"
included in the zoning ordinance that could be combined, following a rezoning
action, with any agricultural zone within the Rangeland General Plan category.
The combining district would permit small , clustered residential developments in
agricultural areas, subject to a "development plan" approach typical of planned
unit development regulations (e.g. Contra Costa County -s -- current P-1 zoning
district):. This process has been sucessfully implemented in Marin County. The
.combining district would allow creation of a clustered residential subdivision
with the number of lots equal to the original parcel size divided by the minimum
residential density of .the applicable agricultural category. This clustered
development would only be permitted through the minor subdivision process.
For example; a 320 acre parcel in an area designated as Rangeland, with an 80
acre minimum lot size, could be permitted four residential parcels and a
remaining agricultural parcel , for a total of five parcels. As in the case of
the Agricultural Housing Provision, the Planned Agricultural Combining District
regulations would require that, as a condition of approval of the subdivision,
the remaining agricultural parcel deed all future development rights to the
County or other appropriate agency, .or record a deed restriction prohibiting
further subdivision of the property.
Parcel sizes within a planned residential cluster would need to be large enough
to permit on-site sewer and water systems (septic tanks and wells) , where they
can meet applicable health and safety standards. Generally speaking, this
requirement would result in parcels approximately 2 acres in size.
3.
Proposed New General Plan Categories and Parcel Sizes
The Planning Congress . was presented with staff recommendations regarding
proposed new General Plan categories at their. meeting of October 15th. The new
urban and open space categories were outlined in a memorandum dated October 9,
1987. The open space/agricultural land use categories that are described below
are generally consistent with that memorandum and with the categories that have
been used by staff in the preparation of the draft land use sketch plan
presented to the Planning Congress in January, 1988. The only deviation from the
land use categories originally proposed by staff . is the inclusion of one
additional category ("Intensive Agricultural Lands"), which is one more subgroup
under the broad "Agricultural Lands" category.
Agricultural Core
This category would be applied only to- those lands in the
Brentwood area which are described as Class I or II soils by
the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. The area would correspond
with the "Agricultural Core" designation now used in the 1978
East County Area General Plan. The category would not be
applied to isolated areas of prime lands, such as narrow bands
of land along water courses outside irrigation district
boundaries.
The current minimum lot size allowed for properties included in
the Agricultural Core category is 10 acres. Staff believes this
minimum should be raised to 40 acres in order- to prevent
further parcelization of the prime lands. Raising the minimum
lot size for prime lands to 40 acres would then ensure
consistency between the stated General Plan policies to protect
these Class b and II soils from urban encroachment and the
implementing zoning laws. Instituting a 40 acre minimum would
bring Contra Costa County into the parcel range employed by the
State of California and most other jurisdictions when
designating prime agricultural lands.
Intensive Agricultural Lands
This new land use designation would be applied to agricultural
lands that are not within the Agricultural Core, are not within
flood prone areas in the Delta, and are not hilly areas in the,
County used primarily for livestock grazing and related
activities. The category would include generally flat agri-
cultural lands capable of intensive production of orchard
fruits and nuts, row crops, and other irrigated and dry crops.
4.
Staff recommends that- the new Intensive Agricultural Lands
designation carry a minimum lot size of 20 acres. This minimum
lot size would recognize that many of the agricultural
operations in, this category in the East County area, such as
the small to medium size orchards, have historically been in
relatively small parcels.
Rangelands
The, Rangelands category would be applied to lands that are
primarily in production for cattle grazing or associated dry
grain farming. Much of these ranch and grazing lands are
located in the Mt. Diablo and Briones Hills areas of steep
terrain with slopes over 20%.
Staff proposes that these grazing lands be designated with a
much . higher minimum parcel size than is currently in effect.
The reasons for raising the minimum lot size are several . The
new County General Plan is intended to include the adoption of
an urban limit line, which would effectively place many of
these hilly areas off limits to urban development during the
planning period. Any significant new residential uses would not
be permitted to be introduced into these areas through
conventional minor subdivision applications based upon the
current five acre minimum, but would be regulated through the
adoption of the proposed Agricultural Housing Provision and
Planned Agricultural Combining District, which will allow a
limited number of nonconforming, smaller parcels to be created.
Thus, adopted General Plan policies and accompanying zoning
should not encourage the incremental parcelization of these
areas over time. Rather, the updated plan should seek to retain
these agricultural lands in viable economic grazing units,
which are generally of large size (a quarter section, 160
acres, or more).
Staff recommends that the Extensive Agricultural Lands category
require a minimum parcel size of 80 acres. This lot size would
be consistent with the zoning that has already been adopted for
a large section of grazing land in the Tassajara area, and
would bring General Plan policies and the Zoning Ordinance into
greater legal consistency.
Delta Recreation
The lands. in the Delta area of Contra Costa County that are now
designated in the East County Area General Plan as "Agri-
culture-Recreation" would be placed in this category. The
intent of this category when created in 1978 was to encourage
compatible low intensity recreational uses, such as marinas and
duckhunting, in the Delta Island areas that are subject to
periodic flooding. The designation encourages the continued
predominant agricultural uses in the area.
5.
Staff recommends that the minimum parcel size for these lands
be set at 80 acres. Most of the ownership in this -area is
already in fairly large parcels, so only a small number of
legal non-conforming-lots should be created with this increase
in minimum parcel size.
Open Space
This category would be applied to all public and private lands
that are not planned for any future urban development and/or
are restricted by deed to open space use (e.g. some tidal
lands; areas of common open space in PUD-type developments for
which development rights have been deeded to a public agency,
etc. ) .
Staff recommends that no minimum parcel size be applied to Open
Space properties. No additional residential density would be
permitted in these areas, which are not planned for urbani-
zation in the future.
Watershed
This category includes all watershed lands owned by a public
utility, e.g. EBMUD or the Contra Costa Water District: As in
the case of the other open space categories, staff recommends
that no minimum parcel size be adopted for th.is. category, in
effect locking in the existing parcel pattern.
Parks and Recreation
This category would be applied to all public and some private
lands that have been acquired for recreational purposes. The
category would remain substantially unchanged from the current
Contra Costa County General Plan, except that additional
properties that have been acquired for park use since the last
plan update would be designated.
Staff recommends that no minimum parcel size be established for
Park and Recreation properties. As is the case with Open Space
and Watershed lands, these properties are not expected to be
urbanized during the period of the General Plan. While some of
these areas are composed of very large parcels, many of the
community and neighborhood parks are of much smaller size.
6.
Water
This General Plan category is applied to the 75+ square miles
of County and city jurisdiction which is reservoirs, bay, or
Delta sloughs. Most of this land use consists of the San
Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun Bays, and the EBMUD reser-
voirs. As in the case of the other open space categories, no
minimum parcel size is recommended.
eric 6/parcel .mem
1/19/88
rev. 1/19/88
1/21/88
7.
O
f� Z )010-
1SI
f�
O O •
F) A t/f n a
C C C
r� z
C C O C
m m
q,�xfi •
O m
O
m
n > CA
M
D C7 Z e7M
n DC m
M C t
O �
37 N N
� g
m A m Aric►'rt
O m ' a
M x
Z O
CA w
D ,` C n
Y0
Y 2
m
v� SSA D
en
e ' F w°sa'SY a`ts
U /
xLV
�/
Z) k
C9
P ' + G
n
r � �