Special Notice / Hearing: None__
Vote Required: Majority
To: Honorable Board of Supervisors
From: Steve Monowitz, Director of Planning & Building
Subject: Introduce an Ordinance Amending the County’s Zoning Regulations: Chapter 8.106, Section 8.106.150, Subdivision A
RECOMMENDATION:
title
Recommendation:
A) Introduction of an ordinance amending Section 8.106.150 (Procedural Criteria for Issuance of a Planned Agricultural Permit), Subdivision A (Master Land Division Plan) of Chapter 8.106 (Planned Agricultural District) of the County’s Zoning Regulations, and waive the reading of the ordinance in its entirety; and
B) Adopt a resolution authorizing and directing the County Executive or designee(s) to submit a Local Coastal Program amendment amending Section 8.106.150 (Procedural Criteria for Issuance of a Planned Agricultural Permit), Subdivision A (Master Land Division Plan) of Chapter 8.106 (Planned Agricultural District) of the County’s Zoning Regulations to the California Coastal Commission for review and certification.
body
BACKGROUND:
A. 2020 LCP Amendments
Regulation of agricultural lands of the San Mateo County coast involves balancing the interests of the public visitors to coastal resources and the needs of the agricultural producers who use the land for productive commercial agriculture. In general, the County has sought to strike that balance by ensuring that land is protected against any development inconsistent with long-term agricultural use, while acknowledging that coastal properties in agricultural production are a sought-after setting for public recreational use. The goal is to have robust agricultural operations on lands historically used for farm and ranch production, while also making adjacent lands available for public recreation, such as trails.
When agricultural land is acquired by public agencies such as Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) and Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST), it is often in parcel configurations that made sense in the early part of the 20th century but are impractical for modern land management, particularly for public agencies. Planned Agricultural District to provide unique standards when agricultural lands are proposed by a public agency for lot line adjustment or subdivision.
For example, a large parcel or group of parcels that constituted a single farm or a ranch might have included both crop fields and large areas of upland hills or marshlands that could not be put into productive agricultural use, but were part of the same legal parcel. When POST or MROSD acquires the land, it can only do so with the existing internal parcel boundaries and must apply to the County for any alterations of those internal boundaries. MROSD and POST will often determine that drawing new parcel boundaries that separate the productive agricultural land from other open space areas of the parcel improves their ability to manage the land efficiently - for example, by drawing parcel boundaries that separate lands based on their use (e.g., putting the highly productive crop fields in one parcel so they can be leased in their entirety to a farmer, while putting the uplands into a different parcel so it can be managed to control invasive plant species, or to plan hiking trails, or for other public uses different from raising crops). Once these new parcel boundaries are put into place, MROSD and POST can then lease, sell or manage lands based on their appropriate use, rather than the vestiges of their historical parcel boundaries.
Thus, on July 7, 2020, the Board took action to approve amendments to the Local Coastal Program (LCP) and its implementing regulations in response to an application by MROSD and POST (“2020 LCP Amendments”). These amendments were designed to facilitate MROSD’s and POST’s policies and programs of open space preservation and restoration, development of low-intensity public trail networks, and securing and sustaining farmland within the County.
The text amendment approved in the 2020 LCP Amendments provided MROSD and POST relief from two existing requirements within the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations that had provided for dedication of easements and a maximum parcel size. The text amendment lifted those requirements only for public agencies proposing land divisions (i.e., lot line adjustments and subdivisions) for the purpose of providing public recreation within the Coastal Zone.
Staff recommended approval of the 2020 LCP Amendments because staff agreed with the applicants, MROSD and POST, that these specific requirements of the LCP and implementing regulations, while beneficial as applied to most landowners, had unintended effects on proposals specifically made by public agency landowners.
Indeed, unlike private property owners, public agencies generally do not seek to change parcel boundaries for the purpose of maximizing sale value or to enable future development. Rather, these agencies tend to request changes to parcel boundaries in order to better implement programs in furtherance of their land stewardship mission. Staff agreed that parcel boundary changes sought by public agencies with an open space, public recreation or conservation objective are different from parcel boundaries that the generally applicable regulations sought to control. The Board passed the item as Resolution No. 077576 unanimously with one member absent.
As directed by the Board’s adoption, the 2020 LCP Amendments were submitted to the California Coastal Commission (Commission) for certification as a minor LCP amendment. The Commission approved the minor amendment on January 13, 2021, finding that its action complied with the California Coastal Act and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) using the Commission’s functional equivalent to CEQA.
B. Farm Bureau’s Writ
Thereafter, the San Mateo County Farm Bureau (SMCFB) filed a petition for Writ of Mandate in the Sacramento County Superior Court on March 3, 2021, asserting that the Commission’s action violated CEQA and the Coastal Act (“Petition”). The Petition alleged that the Commission’s action failed to consider various environmental impacts that SMCFB alleged would arise from the change in regulations. The County was named in the Petition as a Real Party in Interest (rather than as a respondent) because it was an applicant in the proceeding before the Coastal Commission.
The three parties to the case (the SMCFB, the Commission, and the County) immediately commenced settlement discussions, which took place over the course of several years. The parties ultimately determined that minor modifications to the existing language in the 2020 LCP Amendments would satisfy the SMCFB’s concerns about potential impacts to agriculture. Language acceptable to all parties was negotiated and brought to the Board in the form of a proposed settlement agreement which provided that the SMCFB would dismiss the litigation if the County adopted the new agreed-upon language and the Commission certified it as a Minor LCP Amendment.
DISCUSSION:
The agreed upon language provides as follows:
For land divisions brought about in connection with the purchase of agricultural lands by a public agency for public recreational use, parcels that are suitable for agriculture shall be designated as agriculture (alone or in combination with open space, recreation or other compatible uses) in the Master Land Division Plan and be configured to minimize the potential for conflicts between agricultural and recreational uses. The agricultural production of thusly acquired lands shall be reported by the public agency to the San Mateo County Agricultural Commissioner for inclusion in the Department of Agriculture/Weights & Measures’ annual crop report.
The County believes that this language will accomplish the shared objective of ensuring that parcel boundaries are drawn with an eye toward impacts to adjacent agricultural operations.
COMMUNITY IMPACT:
Amendment of LCP implementing regulations that protect agricultural uses assists the coastside businesses and communities that are a sustaining source of income to farmers and farmworkers.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no expected fiscal impact from these regulatory changes.
1.