Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.5 Amend Ag Preserve Guildelines 53D -� AGENDA STATEMENT MEETING DATE : July 11 , 1983 SUBJECT: Modification of Alameda County Agricultural Preserves Guidelines EXHIBITS ATTACHED : 1 . June 16 , 1983 , transmittal letter 2 . Map indicating Agricultural Preserves 3 . Materials regarding significant impacts and feasible mitigation measures RECOMMENDATION: Determine if comments are appropriate FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None DESCRIPTION: The Alameda County Planning Department has forwarded an initial study for the modification of Alameda County Agriculture Preserves Guidelines for review and comment . The proposed project would allow Planned Development rezoning to be considered at the request of individual . property owners under the Williamson Act, to permit creation of 5-acre building sites at a ratio of one per each full 100 acres of contiguous total ownership . Various sites within the Dublin Planning Area for the General Plan, and within the proposed Dublin Sphere of Influence are under the Williamson Act . The project was scheduled for review by the Alameda County Planning Commission on July 5 , 1983 , and will be reviewed by the Board of Supervisors at a date to be determined. At its July 5 , 1983 , meeting, the Planning Commission considered this matter and made no recommendation on it . The full initial study and text cf the proposed amendments are available for review in the Dublin Planning Office . ----------------------------------------------------------------- ITEM NO. �.5- COPIES TO: ALAMEDA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, California 94544 (415) 881-6401 June 16, 1983 To Whom It May Concern: The Board of Supervisors is again considering amending the "Alameda County Agricultural Preserves Objectives, Uniform Rules and -Procedures". The proposed amendments would allow rezoning to be considerd at the request of individual property owners under the Williamson Act to permmit creation of small (five acre +) building sites at a ratio of one per each full one hundred acres of contiguous total ownership. This would be an alternative to the present requirement that each building site be at least one hundred acres in size, and would be accomplished through reclassification to a PD (Planned Development) District, at which time the individual application would be examined, including California Environmental Quality Act review and public hearing. This alternative form of division is felt to be more conducive to preservation of agriculture in that the one hundred acre density is maintained, but five acre homesites are a more appropriate size for such use and large agricultural acreages may be retained. Attached is the Initial Study for the proposed amendments, which includes the text of the amendments and other appropriate material. As the amendments themselves will not have significant effects on the environment, and any division under the amendments will be subject to its own specific CEQA review, a Negative Declaration is proposed to be adopted. If you would like to make written comments on the Initial Study, please respond to the above address by July 5, 1983 and they- will be considered in the adoption of the Negative Declaration. The Alameda County Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the proposed amendments on July 5, 1983. The hearing will be held in the Auditorium of the Alameda County Public Works Building, 399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, California, and will begin at 6:00 p.m. You and other interested parties are welcome to attend that hearing and present oral testimony on this matter. Based on the testimony presented at that hearing and written comments received prior to that hearing, the Commission will make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on this matter. e,y truly J _William H.Planning D RECEI _Y_ ED. D c #0 89D 'JUN 2 7 1983 QTY. OF DUBLIN .WK. � �14•;,;`�.1 v r.'S_. }�.'r' ®... _ Sf }rr; rJ%• _x: "t M. �.r r rte• t ► s s �'�tF� a� i i .f t. , l fLI _ _ , \."V • n�; xF.y.7' y1 r' ��`�f jc F� t.i'� e _v�,•�,/r ��'1' � � I � "4 -d' © it t �I© _,, •� ��: _ .;•t t1 fi't �� ',,i �r '�•a'itlls'� .y!� ,' �1 'r� ay,rx '.�ifP�`T�- � ::+.;•�+Y"! 73t!1�� �' w1 ,��,��, a.,.�•! 3f+F a...�_ x'. t:•.,,�!. 1 ''',w 'Z" '-it1t+�!lff_S�.,,. • a , ��/��• �r'y'. ®r;# ," Ire _. t►'' _ r/Sl C`��^[ ,v�R pr. /�l : ` .• �i ����:'�r,awyr f v:...['Y• Er _I.1,�7_%.�;i: t" tit.; � ♦ � �' _ '/ II..•�s� ,�p:�a l`-� ���E •� ;y:.a iw� ° �;, •�.�tM• ''c'� � •C•�;M � r�. .F�, . , � s'1 yet ., �' � � . � � ♦ � ► ♦ �� � � ���•.. !h J'b y 1711r� � •I xi�•'� l � '� fir" I �;: • � ^'f�,} .� •,�: .�� �,�.5 ,,.y+�.f��t �: ~;-�i! t r�-ti:.' �•���\ ( ,�^( T.t.�, -+7.� ':���' 0,4��r �• �r /� �,pb/ ��*=j�'���-�;,`P ,.+� � ,4' ii.. ' i c•r'.. �F �' 1`+:'i .,. a F s �"�) 1.1 t(e:t r r �'�.w►�. .1.� �7'• y �r 4(r '� ' �' - - `j�� s _r +_ � ti6•( c��'�S TI.s� '' Y-, f t {.� �,Q���i'l'1./ 1' it' ;• 't, 7© ..r ti lr\ Llr 1� •.q f � '•�' `'•wt ',•, 'w! c r �Y t ',., ! ��vtJ_ �. •: ni ,�� 'f �-;�•�''-�' ` 1Y,'` t- *� s i }:,ilk.t: �Z. 7 4 �tQ t t v•. °L ♦. v, cyy"t '` l7. "` � .7 fit, .I�.� �� �c :✓a �. J l �. J .. j TF Rg ar !` '. hrl �✓'Y' '`J�v/" 2 �f��� `•.I�v:� MIM1/� `. .7'TT II"�,.,,�1 't t.,r •� • /I(y' ,' t f� =T�` ,:, tii�• �. P`•. may . a.� hi ME j�;1 r IrJ I`rti it .I ��. :�.► /tr '' `� +�` f� � ��N•�%��1�.f/�• .'�� �.�f ��/� ®/; .J'!A. "�fi' '�.,,"DIY �• \ � �I �'C%a�... ry IM A ,a r •r; L. • IV. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES Presently the owners of property zoned A (Agricultural) in Alameda County, which is generally all the property outside the urban areas, can divide their properties into parcels of one hundred acres or larger, assuming all zoning and subdivision requirements are met. This right applies to all property whether or not it is in an agricultural preserve, and is based on provisions of the A District section of the Zoning Ordinance and other County ordinances. The current "Alameda County Agricultural Preserves Objectives, Uniform Rules and Procedures' reflect ordinance requirements in stating that all properties in preserves are to be zoned "A" and further that there will be no division into parcels of less area than the minimum required by that district. However, no acreage figure is specified--if the A District requirements were to change, the preserve requirements would also change accordingly. During 1979 and 1980 the Board of Supervisors conducted a lengthy review of County policies regarding agricultural land. At the onset of that review, the Board indicated by its Resolution No. 180973B, dated December 7, 1983, that it . .endorses the concept of using a PD (Planned Development) District or other such technique to allow clustering of homes while not increasing densities, in order to retain larger segments of land in agricultural production. At the conclusion of the review, the Board adopted Resolution No.188149, on July 29, 1980, stating the policy that Any subdivision in the A (Agriculture) District for other than agricultural uses shall be preceeded by a rrezoning to a district appropriate for such uses; . . . (The full text of these resolutions are attached as Appendices A and B. ) By these two resolutions, and by other comments during that review, the Board indicated its willingness to consider requests of owners of land in the A District to reclassify their property to a PD District allowing creation of building sites of five acres in area (or larger if circumstances warrant) at the ratio of one parcel per each full one hundred acres of contiguous ownership, provided the remainder of the property would be restricted to agricultural uses through a contract (separate from any preserve or other such contract which might be on the property) with the Board of Supervisors for a fifteen year period, during which time the property could not be further divided, nor could there be any non-agricultural construction on the property, except that: (1) If the property owner(s) wish, the remainder could be a building site if one less five acre parcel were created; and (2) Additional five acres parcels could be created if the full potential of one building site per one hundred acres of the total ownership had not yet been realized. This has received the somewhat inaccurate appellation "cluster concept". The basic criterion of this zoning concept is that residential density not be greater than tha: which would have been allowed had the property remained in the A District. This 'procedure requires a rezoning, and all rezoning procedures are followed, including CEQA review and public hearings on the specific property. The proposed amendments to the preserve policies (see Appendix C for the full text of the policies, Appendix D for the proposed amendments) would allow use of this "cluster" concept also to be considered where the property is under the Williamson Act. These policies are adopted under California Government Code Section 51231, which states: For the purposes of this chapter [the Williamson Act] , the Board or council, by resolution, shall adopt rules governing the administration of agricultural preserves. . . These policies were adopted when the County first began to create preserves, and have been amended several times since then to reflect current agricultural policies, and the amendments were never challenged. However, an attempt to amend them to allow the "cluster" concept was challenged, hence this Initial Study. There are no significant adverse impacts which would result from adoption of this policy. There may or may not be impacts from division of land to create building sites. However, the bulk of these impacts are no greater than those resulting for division done under present zoning and subdivision laws and ordinances, and the significance of these impacts would be analyzed and discussed in an Initial Study for the specific project; if significant, an Environmental Impact Report would be prepared It is possible that this amendment may lead to increased requests to divide property for creation of building sites. It is anticipated that the per acre price of the small building sites will be several times higher than that for one hundred acre building sites, so that the total - cost of the former will approach that of the latter--i.e. , the purchaser will be buying a building site, or the right to build a residence, and size is of little importance. It may be argued that this amendment will lead to increased development in the area as property owners can realize almost as much by selling small parcels as by selling their entire holdings, yet they will retain the bulk of their land, therby having their cake and eating it, too, and that this will encourage them to do so whereas if this alternative were not available, they would not sell one hundred acre parcels, and thus there would be less development. However, the possibility and extent of such effects cannot be quantified, other than by examining past proposals. Since this concept was conceived about three years ago, there have been five applications under it. Two were to enable the property owner to raise capital to continue grazing operations; one to enable a property owner to significantly expand operations by purchase of a large ranch which might otherwise have been divided into one hundred acre parcels. Two of these owners are major land owners in the agricultural areas, whose families have been ranching for several generations. The fourth application was to enable the owner to raise capital to establish a vineyard; the fifth may have been done primarily for speculative purposes, but has not been finalized through filing a parcel map. One of the applicants had originally proposed to divide the property into two parcels of one hundred plus acres; another would have been divided into one hundred acre parcels had this alternative not been available. It should be noted that each of these applications was the subject of an Initial Study, and each was found not to have significant impacts on the environment and a Negative declaration was filed, which was not challenged. The bulk of the property affected, and which could be anticipated to be affected, is grazing land of varying qualities. Even the best grazing land cannot support a commercially viable operation on one hundred acres without additional feed being imported; the poorest can support only two or three head during the grass season. Thus, one hundred acre parcels in most of the area under consideration cannot be said to be agricultural parcels, but rather large lot rural residential parcels, selling at residential rather than agricultural prices, and which may or may not support some non-commercial hobby ranching. Thus, unless some type of leasing arrangement in connection with other contiguous properties is made--difficult with a number of individual landowners--this land is taken out of active agricultural production. This, in turn, can have adverse impacts on adjacent agricultural operations such as allowing proliferation of weeds, rodents, etc, to spread to the adjacaent property. Also, after purchasing one hundred acres, the property owners may find that it is too large for a homesite, and possibly that it is a liability. They may then bring pressure to further divide the one hundred acres into fifty acre, twenty acre, or smaller parcels. In effect, one hundred acre parcel requirements can be counterproductive to the goal of preserving agriculture in the County. Under the proposed policy, although relatively small building sites are created, they are a reasonable size for rural homesites. Allowing them at the onset forestalls pressure for further division. They do not generate the quantity of pests as the hundred acre parcels, and those generated can be much more easily controlled. Large segments of land which can support commercially viable grazing operations are retained; and since the development potential has been realized, land is available at agricultural prices rather than at inflated prices reflecting development speculation. The property owners are not forced to dispose of a portion of their capital--their land--to realize liquid capital to continue their operations; once ranchers have sold all their land to generate liquid capital they can no longer be ranchers. It may be argued that there will be impacts on scenic resources by increased numbers of residences scarring the landscape. However, this would be no greater in absolute numbers than what would be allowed under existing policies, and can be much more easily controlled through location of the parcels. The "cluster" zoning concept has been reviewed by the State Office of Planning and Research, and the Department of Conservation. Both these agencies see this concept as a reasonable and beneficial alternative to one hundred acre divisions. It has been suggested that the purchasers of the five acre building sites are getting an unfair and illegal advantage by receiving agricultural tax breaks for non-agricultural property. The Califoarnia Revenue and Taxation Code, Section 428, requires: The provisions of this article [Article 1.5, Valuation of Open Space Land Subject to an Enforcible Restriction] shall not apply to any residence on the land being valued or to an area of reasonable size used as a residence. Depending on the extent of the residence and grounds, the County Assessor designates up to several acres as a homesite, and applies the standard, non-williamson Act, assessment to this area. As a condition of the PD zoning allowing the five acre homesites, the guidelines would require nonrenewal of the Williamson Act contracts for those parcels (as the County is unable to cancel the contracts), and has also asked the County Assessor to consider them as excluded homesites in assessing them. The Assessor is an individually elected official, and the Board may not require him or her to do this; however, under State law The Assessor may do this. This procedure has been reviewed by the Assessment Practices Division of the State Board of Equalization which feels it is a logical extension of the Revenue and Taxation Code requirement. The bulk of the controversy surrounding these policies appears to deal with political rather than environmental questions. It would appear that the benefits of preservation of large segments of land which can successfully be used for commercial ranching operations, rather than fragmentation of land into holdings which, although large, are basically unsuitable for either agricultural or residential uses, more than counterbalances minor impacts which may result from creation of small building sites at the same density. Doc 0390D