For many months, those that have been before the Agriculture Commission and the Agriculture Commissioners themselves have expressed frustration over the General Plan's restrictions and the strict interpretation of a single provision. Several recent cases have highlighted the conflicts within the General Plan and the fact that the individual zoning that preceded the 2004 General Plan has not be brought into conformity. This lack of conformity is most apparent in the Rural Centers & Community Regions where the goal is to focus sub-urban & urban development. The defining of these regions was specifically intended to preserve agricultural interest by limiting development in rural regions.
In a most disturbing case, an agricultural policy stopped a parcel split because it was next to a school and the school had an outdated zoning for agriculture. Another policy in the General Plan states the schools are incompatible uses adjacent to agriculture. Although the Commissioners expressed that the proposal was correct and should proceed, they also expressed, that based on County Counsel's advise, they had to deny the project based on a conflict within the General Plan. The conflict is that no lots under 10 acres can be made when it is adjacent to agriculturally zoned lands. Even though the School retained it's old agriculture zoning, it could not be agriculture because it was a school! Even with the clear error, the Commission applied the letter of the law while expressing their frustration over an inability to "Do what is right."
Members of the public, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors have asked the Development Services Department to put forward suggestions to correct this conflict between agricultural policies in areas that are intended for non-agriculture development. After five months of no demonstrable progress by the Development Service Department, the Ag Commission's own staff presented some suggested solutions on Wednesday evening.
Agricultural Commissioner Bill Stephans presented the following suggestions for discussion and follow-up at the Ag Commission's May meeting:
General Plan Policy 8.1.3.1: “Agriculturally zoned lands including Williamson Act Contract properties shall be buffered from increases in density on adjacent lands by requiring a minimum of 10 acres
from any parcel created adjacent to such lands. Those parcels used to buffer agriculturally zoned lands shall have the same width to length ratio of other parcels.”
The County Agricultural Commission may consider recommending the creation of a parcel(s) less than 10 acres adjacent to agriculturally zoned lands when the Commission finds that the following exists:
- The parcel adjacent to the agriculturally zoned land is within an existing General Plan Community Region or Rural Center and will not intensify conflict with an adjacent agricultural operation; or
- The agriculturally zoned parcel is zoned Exclusive Agriculture (AE) or Agricultural Preserve (AP) and is no longer under contract and used agriculturally; or
- The agriculturally zoned parcel is less than 10 acres in size and is not being used for agricultural operations; or
- The Agricultural Commission determines that the surrounding parcels are residential in nature and are not suitable for an agricultural operation; or
- The parcel was assigned an urban or other nonagricultural use in the Land Use Map for the 1996 General Plan; and
- The proposed parcel size is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation; and
- The proposed parcel will not intensify conflict with an adjacent agricultural operation; and
- The agriculturally zoned land area contains less than 20% choice soils; or
- The Agricultural Commission determines that there is currently no agricultural activity on the agriculturally zoned parcel(s) adjacent to the subject parcel and that the conversion to a low or high intensive farming operation is not likely to take place due to soil and/or topographic characteristics of the adjacent agriculturally zoned parcel(s).
QUESTIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL COMMISSION CONSIDERATION:
- Should the required findings be placed in the General Plan or in a “Criteria and Guidelines” document adopted by the Board through a resolution similar to the “Administrative Relief from Agricultural Setbacks” criteria and guidelines?
- Are the draft findings appropriate? Are other findings needed?
- Should there be different findings criteria for Community Regions and Rural Centers?
- What other GP policies may be affected or may require further consideration due to the draft findings?
