Print Reading Mode Back to Calendar Return
  Time Set   # 33.       
Board of Supervisors Meeting   
Meeting Date: 07/07/2015  
Brief Title:    Consider adoption of ag mitigation ordinance
From: Philip J. Pogledich, County Counsel
Staff Contact: Philip J. Pogledich, County Counsel, x8172
Supervisorial District Impact:

Subject
Presentation and direction to staff regarding final Planning Commission recommendations and related policy issues involving the County's agricultural mitigation program, including mitigation ratio and other changes.  (No general fund impact) (Pogledich)
Recommended Action
1.  Receive a staff presentation on the Planning Commission's final recommendations regading the Agricultural Conservation and Mitigation Program and the attached draft ordinance (Att. A);

2.  Receive comments from interested members of the public;

3.  Provide final direction to staff on changes to the attached draft ordinance (Attachment A) that incorporate the Planning Commission's recommendations and address other policy issues, as appropriate; and

4.  Continue a public hearing on the ordinance to July 28, 2015, at which time a final version of the ordinance will be presented for potential option.
Strategic Plan Goal(s)
Advance innovation
Preserve and support agriculture
Protect open space and the environment
Reason for Recommended Action/Background
As the Board is aware, the Planning Commission has discussed changes to the Agricultural Conservation and Mitigation Program (Yolo County Code Section 8-2.403) on several occasions in 2015.  Together with prior direction from the Board, those discussions resulted in preparation of an ordinance revising the existing program.  A copy of that ordinance is included with this Board letter as Attachment A.  

As the text of the ordinance reflects, it would revise the existing Program to, among other things:

(a) allow development projects below 20 acres in size to pay an “in-lieu” fee (the current threshold is five acres);

(b) establish a 2:1 mitigation ratio for projects that convert farmland to non-agricultural uses;

(c) require all agricultural mitigation to occur within two miles of a city or certain unincorporated towns; 

(d) allow adjustments to the mitigation ratio based on conservation easement location (potential ratio decrease) and, potentially, project residential density (potential ratio increase); and

(e) eliminate the current requirement that conservation easements acquired as mitigation be located within two to four miles of the project site.

The Yolo County Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider a proposed ordinance with these changes on June 11, 2015.  By a unanimous vote, the Planning Commission recommended that the Board of Supervisors adopt the ordinance described above with certain additional changes, including:
• Removing an adjustment factor based on whether a project met a certain residential density;
• Allowing the addition of conservation areas more than two miles from a city or town by resolution of the Board of Supervisors;
• Adding an area bounded by County Roads 98 and 102, and 27 and 29, as a priority conservation area with a 1:1 ratio;
• Removing a partial exemption for solar energy projects;
• Modifying the definition of exempt public projects, and requiring public projects that are revenue generating to mitigate in accordance with the ordinance in certain circumstances; and
• Clarifying the draft ordinance to permit the sale of mitigation credit if a project applicant preserves more acreage than required to meet an agricultural mitigation obligation.

Staff will review these recommendations (and certain other minor recommendations) with the Board on July 7, 2015, to obtain final policy guidance.  Staff will then prepare a final ordinance for consideration for adoption on July 28, 2015.
 
Collaborations (including Board advisory groups and external partner agencies)

The Office of the County Counsel has regularly consulted with the Agricultural Commissioner and Planning, Public Works, and Environmental Services Department in connection with this matter.  Various other interested stakeholders, including the Yolo Farm Bureau and the Yolo Land Trust, have also provided comments and testimony during this process.


Fiscal Impact
No Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Impact (Expenditure)
Total cost of recommended action:    $  
Amount budgeted for expenditure:    $  
Additional expenditure authority needed:    $  
On-going commitment (annual cost):    $  
Source of Funds for this Expenditure
$0
Attachments
Att. A. Draft Ordinance

Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Phil Pogledich Phil Pogledich 07/02/2015 09:36 AM
Phil Pogledich Phil Pogledich 07/02/2015 09:36 AM
Form Started By: Phil Pogledich Started On: 06/30/2015 03:18 PM
Final Approval Date: 07/02/2015

    

Level double AA conformance,
                W3C WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0

AgendaQuick ©2005 - 2024 Destiny Software Inc. All Rights Reserved.