Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-09-02; City Council; 6290-1; Proposed Interim Agricultural PolicyCITY OF CARLSBAD r* I ft -U~ INITIAL AGENDA BILL NO. U> <2 /O ^ ^^f^Ju^^j^JC ^ / Dept. H d . \ j p/QDATE: September 2, 1980 ___ Cty. Atty. V LlQ DEPARTMENT: Planning _______ Cty. Mgr. SUBJECT: PROPOSED INTERIM AGRICULTURAL POLICY STATEMENT OF THE HATTER The proposed interim agricultural policy was first presented at the joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting on July 8th. It was referred back to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation The Planning Commission reviewed the policy at their August 13th meeting. They made one change in the policy which added a member of the Planning Commission to the proposed agricultural Advisory Committee. They approved the policy unanimously and recommended approval to the City Council. Fiscal Impact No adverse fiscal impact to the city is expected. However the policies and goals to be suggested by the Agricultural Advisory Committee should be evaluated for their fiscal impact when they are proposed. EXHIBITS T^Memo to City Manager dated, August 14, 1980 2. Proposed interim agricultural policy 3. Current agricultural policies 4. Article, "Disappearing Farmlands" RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the proposed interim agricultural policy be APPROVED by the City Council. - Council Action: 9-2-80 Council approved the interim policy and directed that it be prepared in Council approved formal as Council Policy #29. MEMORANDUM DATE: August 14, 1980 TO: Frank Aleshire, City Manager FROM: James Hagaman, Planning Director SUBJECT: PROPOSED INTERIM AGRICULTURAL POLICY Attached for your review is the interim agricultural policy. It was approved by the Planning Commission on August 13th. It is scheduled for the City Council's September 2, 1980, meeting. The policy is interim for three reasons. First, there exists an immediate and pressing need for an agricultural policy in Carlsbad. This policy should allay the fears of land owners regarding the future development status of their land. It should also encourage temporary and productive agricultural use. Second, the recommendations of the Local Coastal Plan (LCP) for agriculture in Carlsbad have not yet been presented. When the nature and extent of these recommendations are known, it may prove necessary to revise the interim agricul- tural policy. Third, it was felt that if an agricultural advisory committee was formed the members of that committee could provide the technical advice and experience needed for a successful program. They would investigate and evaluate various solutions to the agricultural problem. These solutions might include, among others, special agricultural districts or an agricultural development council. The committee's recommendations could form the basis for an agricultural element to the General Plan. The agricultural advisory committee would be comprised of repre- sentatives from the agricultural community, the Planning Commis- sion, and the City Council. Also, attached is a brief list of the current policies, as contained in the General Plan, regarding agriculture. An article which provides background information for the overall problem of disappearing farmland is also included for your information. JC:ls 8/14/80 EXHIBIT #2 PROPOSED INTERIM AGRICULTURAL POLICY It is the policy of the City Council to encourage productive management of Carlsbad's natural resources. This policy includes the temporary agricultural use of land which is not designated as agricultural in the General Plan. Such agricultural activity, whether carried on by the property owner or by a lessee, shall not in any way indicate that the property will be zoned agriculture. This policy shall not preclude the ultimate development of land used for agriculture provided that development is consistent with Carlsbad's ordinances and policies. It is also the policy of the City Council that a Site Development Permit be required for all agricultural activities conducted on previously undisturbed land. This shall assure that grading and clearing operations do not disturb potentially valuable and significant environmental resources. This interim agricultural policy also encourages active enforcement of the goals and policies now contained in different elements of the General Plan which deal specifically with agriculture (see Attachment B). As an additional part of this interim policy an agricultural advisory committee shall be formed. This committee shall be comprised of citizens from the agricultural community, Planning Commission, and City Council. The committee's purpose will be to document agriculture's problems in Carlsbad, evaluate and select various solutions, propose incentives for retaining farmland, and return a report to the Planning Commission and City Council. This report would be considered as the basis for an agricultural element to the General Plan. JC:ar 8/14/80 EXHIBIT #3 The Open Space Element of the General Plan contains the most specific direction for agriculture. "It is the express policy of the City of Carlsbad ... to regard agricultural land and prime soil as a natural resource and as a significant contrasting land use to the urbanized environment of the city" (page 8). To achieve that policy, the objective of preventing "the premature elimination of prime agricultural land and to preserve said lands wherever feasible" (page 12) was stated. Four guidelines were set up. They include: 1. Urban development should take place in the least productive areas. 2. Agricultural use should be encouraged as a land use in designated open space; 3. The city should support and use all measures to reduce the financial burden on agricultural land; and 4. Use proper design criteria to maximize the preservation and future options of prime agricultural land. The Land Use Element states that it is a goal to "promote the economic viability of the agricultural and horticultural industries" (page 6). Master Plans were suggested to implement the Williamson Act which allows local governments to identify agricultural reserves. The Master Plan would identify land use based on agricultural production. The city and the property owner would then agree on the zoning and timing of development for that area. The Land Use Element also includes agriculture as a potential use for the lands near Palomar Airport designated as non-residential reserve. The Zoning Ordinance's expressed intent is to permit agricultural use in areas that are not appropriate for urban development, to protect agricultural uses, to recognize that agriculture is a necessary part of the character of Carlsbad, and to assure the continuation of a healthy agricultural economy in the appropriate areas of Carlsbad. Two zoning categories - the E-A Exclusive Agricultural Zone and the R-A Residential Agricultural Zone are now used. Also, all the lower density residential zoning categories permit agriculture as an acceptable use. JC:ar 8/14/80 Disappearing Farmlands A Citizen's Guide to Agricultural Land Preservation National Association of Counties Research Foundation Bernard F. Hillenbrand, Executix'e Director1 Robert C. Weaver, Associate Director Edward Thompson, Jr., Director, Agricultural Lands Project December 1979 Disappearing Farmlands Clearly, there it* a dramatic change taking place in U.S."agriculture—the ground is literally being excavated out from under it. Every day 12 square miles of American farmland are converted to nonagricultural uses.20 That's three million acres a year. Over the past decade or so, the loss of farmland amounts to about 30 million acres—an area the size of Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey and Delaware combined. And this loss has touched every corner of America: New England has witnessed the disappearance of half her native farmland, the Mid-Atlantic States have lost 22 percent of theirs, and even the vast Midwest has suffered the loss of 9 percent of its cropland." According to the U.S. General Accounting Office and the Soil Conservation Service only 35 million acres of the potential cropland remaining :n the United States could easily be put into production without expensive treatment to correct its soil, water and slope deficiencies.10 But this assumes that landowners would be willing to grow crops where there are now pastures and v. oodiots. At the present rate of farmland conversion, our crc-r>!nnd "frontier" could he closed within another decade. Clearly, there is a dramatic change taking place in U.S. agriculture—the ground is literally heing excavated out from under it. But nobody seems to be starving. In fact, we read all the time about bumper crops and agricultural surpluses. Why should we be concerned about the loss of farmland? The answer is, simply, that unless the steady trend of disappearing farmland is halted, it will one day deeply touch all of our lives and those of our children. As Secretary of Agriculture Bob Bergland put it, "Our land and water resources are being whipsawed between the demands for greater food and fiber production and the demands from commerce and a mass society for space and water for suburbs, roads and other developments."15 Indeed, the effects of farmland conversion are already being felt in a variety of ways in local communities throughout America. As individuals and as a nation, we cannot afford to allow much more of our farmland to disappear—slowly, bit by irreplaceable bit—before it begins to affect our pocketbooks, the quality of our lives and, perhaps, even our national security. Agricultural Productivity and Farmland How much longer can we continue to depend upon technology—the development of which has relied on cheap energy—and the always unpredictable weather, to keep agricultural production high while farmland disappears? Up until about a century ago," agricultural production was more or less limited by the amount of lard under cultivation. Clear more acreage, plant more crops, feed more people. Then came the industrial revolution and, in the years following World War II, the so-called "Green Revolution," which enabled the nation's farmers to grow progressively more food by substituting machines and energy for land. The tractor replaced the horse and, later, chemical fertilizer (made from petroleum) replaced the manure. There have been some productivity setbacks, such as occurred during the 1930s when drought and poor husbandry caused the ruin of 100 million acres of farmland, but generally the trend has been a steady increase in the per acre yield of American agriculture.8 Indeed, increasingly sophisticated technology, not to mention a period of benign weather, allowed us to double crop yields in the two decades after 1950.21 This helps to explain why, despite the dramatic losses of agricultural land, our food production capability has up until now remained practically undiminished. But how much longer can we continue to depend upon technology—the development of which has relied on cheap energy—and the weather, always unpredictable, to keep agricultural production high while farmland disappears? Is there, in fact, any substitute for good agricultural land, about 17 percent of which lies close to our expanding urban centers and is under the heaviest development pressure?8 Energy After decades of advancement, agricultural technology now appears to be running up against economic and ecologis limitations. Foremost among these is the availability and cost of energy—according to one calculation, it now takes nine units of fossil fuel energy to produce each unit of food energy that comes from American farmland.3 The extraordinary dependence of modern agriculture on energy is not surprising, considering that farm machinery runs on diesel fuel, fertilizers are made from natural gas feedstocks, pesticides and other chemicals come from petroleum, natural gas is also used to dry enormous quantities of grain, and electricity is used to run the pumps for irrigation. With the dependence of agriculture on energy, what are the implications of an energy shortage for agricultural productivity? The use of fertilizer provides a good illustration: A study at the University of Illinois concluded that the amount of corn that can be grown on 100 acres, using 120 pounds of nitrogen fertilizer per acre, would require up to 300 acres to produce without fertilizer.8 A cutback in the use of fertilizer, either because of an absolute shortage of natural gas feedstocks or because of prices .that are out of reach, would limit productivity and make it essential that more acreage be put into production. That is, i/the farmland acreage is still available. Multiply this example by the many other ways in which agriculture uses fossil fuel energy, and you begin to see why scarce and increasingly costly energy supplies limit our ability to maintain agricultural productivity by relying on energy-consuming technology to make up for the continuing loss of farmland. Soil and Water But there are other significant limitations on agricultural productivity that place a premium on the preservation of our remaining farmland. Our soil and water resources, both vital to agriculture, are being depleted and degraded. Since 1935, about 100 million acres of farmland have been idled because of soil erosion.15 The annual loss of soil from U.S. cropland has been conservatively estimated to average about five tons per acre.12 Thus, in addition to the three million acres of farmland we lose 7 each year to nonagriciiltural uses, the equivalent of another three million acres is washed into our rivers.12 An Iowa agricultural specialist put it more dramatically: "Farmers here are losing two bushels of soil for each bushel of corn they grow."15 Agricultural productivity also depends quite heavily on irrigation, particularly in the semi-arid western states. A federal study showed that in the early 1970s about 12 percent of all harvested cropland was irrigated, and that the production from this land represented 27 percent of the value of all U.S. crop production.15 In some areas the percentage is much higher: 90 percent of the value of crops from California depends on irrigation, over 80 percent of the crop values in Colorado, Texas and Florida, and almost 50 percent of the value of crops from Nebraska.15 Competition for limited quantities of water from growing urban areas and energy development poses a threat to the viability of irrigated agriculture in the West. Depletion of groundwater resources in the high plains, stretching from Texas to Nebraska, and in the San Joaquin Valley of California is reaching critical levels.15 And the misapplication of irrigation technology on some western croplands is causing the buildup of salinity in the soil, which may eventually destroy productivity.8 Climate Finally, there is the weather. Nobody pays more attention to the weather than the farmer, for the obvious reason that crop production depends, for better or worse, on its changing moods. Experts u ho study long-term weather trends believe that the world climate is now emerging from a relatively mild period that dates back lo the turn of the century, and is returning to a "normal" pattern of greater unpredictability.3 The drought that gripped the West during 1974, and reduced crop production, is thought to be symptomatic of this trend. There is evidence too that the climate is cooling off, warning of a further drop in agricultural productivity: According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the temperature of the Northern Hemisphere has cooled about three degrees since 1945.8 With the cost of energy skyrocketing, the depletion of soil and water resources (caused in part by the side effects of technology), and maybe even the climate turning against us, there is a serious question whether American agriculture can continue to "replace" farmland losses through technology. The evidence is mounting that it cannot: Per acre yields from U.S. croplands peaked in 1972 and have since then fluctuated rather widely at lower levels.3 21 To be sure, new technology is being developed all the time, but it has been estimated that the lead time between the development of agricultural technology in the laboratory and its widespread application on the ground averages about 15 years. And new technology is expensive, since much of it relies on. energy. Will new, productivity-stimulating technology—that is affordable—be ready in time to avert a crisis? A crisis caused by the steady, unrelenting disappearance of our most basic natural resource, agricultural land. The National and Global Implications of Farmland Losses From a diplomatic viewpoint, American agricultural exports contribute to the international reputation of this nation, perhaps even more than its military strength. What are the possible consequences of the continuing disappearance of American agricultural land? Or, to put it another way, what are the reasons, in the face of limits on agricultural productivity, why we should preserve farmland? It is self-evident that the strength and security of the United States would be jeopardized it it were unable to feed its own people. Mass starvation in America appears highly unlikely, but long before anything resembling it would occur, the shortage of food—caused ultimately by a shortage of farmland—would begin to squeeze consumers' pocketbooks. An increase in food prices, dictated by supply and demand, would force low-income people to eliminate basic nutrients from their diets and cause the middle class to cut back on certain foods. Shortages of specialty crops like oranges, caused by the conversion of citrus groves to subdivisions, just as they are now caused by frost damage, would make these commonplace foods luxury items. If all of this sounds familiar, consider the fact that every time you go through the checkout line at the supermarket on a weekly shopping trip, another 60 thousand acres of American farmland has disappeared.20 But we should not be concerned only about our domestic food supplies, for the United States can truthfully be said to be the breadbasket of the world. From a broader, global perspective the continued ability of America to produce sufficient quantities of basic foodstuffs is an economic, diplomatic and humanitarian imperauYe. The value of American agricultural exports in 1978 reached $27 billion, and this sum made about 20 percent, or one fifth of all U.S. exports.20 The income we receive from agricultural exports is an important counterweight to help balance the payments America makes to foreign countries for imported oil. Some experts believe that, as our mineral resources are depleted and our older industrial plants become an liquated, agricultural exports will play an even larger rok- in maintaining the future economic stability of the United States.3 From a diplomatic viewpoint, American agricultural exports contribute to the international reputation of this nation, perhaps even more than its military strength. There are both practical and humanitarian dimensions to this proposition. The practical importance of U.S. agriculture is that food helps cement international friendships and reduces tension among nations. For example, the Soviet Union has in the past relied on the United States for a sizable proportion of its grain and may in the future become more dependent, along with our neighbors in Canada, upon American agricultural exports if the cooling of the global climate reduces grain production in the more northern latitudes.3 Of course, none of us would wish for such a prospect, because we regard food as more than an international bargaining chip—it is vital to human survival. America's ability to produce food for export is the single most important weapon in the war against world hunger. The population of the globe is now over four billion people, a great percentage of whom inhabit developing nations. By the year 200O. experts predict, we will add another three billion mouths to feed, most of whom, again, will be bom in the countries least able to feed themselves."1 Ultimately, preserving 115 rich bounty of agricultural land is one of the most significant humanitarian gestures that America can make. CEREAL YIELD PER HECTARE, U.S. Source: Lester R. Brown, Tin Worldwldt Lossol Cropland The Effects of Farmland Loss At the Community Level There is no question whatsoever that farmland loss is having a powerful effect, right now, on the economy, social fabric and quality of life in local communities all over the country. The national and global questions raised by the continuing toss of American farmland are serious. Although, barring an unforeseen climatic or pestilential disaster, it may take time for its most severe consequences to befell. Some people may argue that the disappearance of 12 square miles of farmland a day does not yet constitute a crisis of national importance, but there is no question whatsoever that it is having a powerful effect, right now, on the economy, social fabric and quality of life in local communities all over the country.4 Let's look at a "typical" community to see what is happening as farmland is converted to nonagricultural uses. The leading cause of farmland loss is unplanned suburban development, sometimes called "leapfrog" or "scattershot" development because it often skips over land close to town and sprawls out over the countryside in a random pattern. Such 5 r development not only takes farmland directly out of production, but also tends to create conditions that make it unpleasant for fanners and homeowners alike and, consequently, leads to friction between them. The odor of manure may offend homeowners, the noise from a tractor working before dawn may bother them, and blowing dust and agricultural chemicals may cause them more serious problems. On the other hand, dogs may chase livestock, teenage children may trample crops or vandalize fences and farm equipment, and suburban LOSS OF PRIME FARMLAND BY REGION (1987-1975), Thousands of Aero Source: N. Sampson, Development on Prime Farmland, Environ. Comment, Jan. 1978 homeowners themselves may be led lo complain to the authorities about th.fr "nuisance" that nearby farms are creating. While the situation is unpleasant for both, it is the farmers who generally lose out, or simply give up, to the growing numbers of suburbanites. More agricultural land is thus allowed to lie fallow or is sold for additional development.7 But the chain of consequences does not stop there. As more and more farms succumb to development, fewer suppliers of farm implements, seed, fertilizer and other agricultural necessities can stay in business due to the decreased demand for their products and services. The agricultural businesses close up or move away, forcing the remaining farmers to travel greater distances and to pav more for supplies. Jobs and income are lost when the businesses go; their contribution to the local economy is often appreciated only after it is too late. And the whole fabric of rural life starts to unravel.u Farmers and supporting industries are obviously the most profoundly affected by this whole turn of events—which is being repeated all over the United Stales—but the rest of the community also shares the consequences. Open spaces that add immeasurably to the quality of life of a community gradually disappear. Natural resources and environmental amenities are often sacrificed. Those who once enjoyed locally grown produce are forced to rely on farflung markets and to pay higher pi-ices. And, perhaps most importantly, the cost of providing community servces may increase dramatically. As development spreads out, sewers, water lines, roads and school bus routes must cover greater distances than if development were more concentrated. The cost of these extensions is, of course, met with tax dollars paid by local residents.8 So everyone pays for "scattershot" development on agricultural lands. Federal Impacts on Farmland The vast programs and sweeping policies of tlie federal government exert a powerful influence on the use of agricultural land. Useful but single-minded public works and facilities often take farmland directly out of production. For example, about 21 million acres of land in the United States a re now covered by highways, including one million acres of mostly rural land that was paved over di iring the construction of the federal interstate highway system.* Reservoirs and other impoundments, built by federal agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation, have drowned 10 million acres, much of it rich bottomland, and continue to do .so at a rate of 300 thousand acres a year.8 Airports, which come under the authority of the Federal Aviation Administration, take another 35 thousand acres of farmland annually.8 While many of these federally sponsored or supported projects may be justified, they are often too large or poorly located and consume more farmland than necessary. Then there are activities that are regulated by, and to some extent subsidized by, the federal government. Sewage treatment plants funded and regulated by the Environmental Protection I 10 Agency are often a key stimulus to sprawl development. EPA limitations on the amount of sewer capacity that can he added to serve growth in already built up areas may unintentionally encourage scattershot development in rural areas using septic- systems. If the intensive use of septic systems in the countryside leads to water pollution, sewage treatment facilities may ultimately be financed by the Farmers Home Administration and further encourage the loss of farmland.18 Energy development and generation is one of the most important activities regulated by the federal government that can consume agricultural land, if the regulators are not watchful. It is estimated that four million acres of rural land in the United States have already been stripmined, and that almost 20 billion tons of stnppahle coal—a source of energy that federal policy favors—underlies 2.5 million acres of farmland in Illinois alone.8'13 Electrical generating plants, regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, also take farmland; a single coal-fired 2800 MVV power plant proposed in Kansas would, with its cooling lake and ash disposal areas, cm er 13,500 acres of agricultural land.8 These kinds of federally sponsored, funded and regulated activities and projects generally affect specific tracts of farmland in individual local communities. But there are other federal policies that may affect farmland everywhere. An example is the capital gains taxation of land sales, which makes land speculation a more attractive enterprise than investments that are taxed at a higher rate. Speculation, in turn, can stimulate the conversion of farmland to development.0'6 On the other hand, there are federal policies that hold promise as tools to help prevent unnecessary conversion of farmland. The Environmental Protection Agency has recognized the impact that sewer financing and regulations have on patterns of land development and has adopted a formal policy designed to protect significant farmlands from this impact.17 Similarly, the U.S. Department of Agriculture now has a farmland preservation policy and reviews federal projects that may result in the loss of agricultural land.16 And the Carter Administration's urban policy, which seeks to promote compact urban growth and revitalize the cities, could have the collateral effect of reducing the pressure for development of rural farmlands.1' Because of these federal effort:1, there is hope for American farmland and all that depends on it. r 1 Searching for Solutions: State and Local Approaches to Farmland Preservation Some local governments and states are helping to solve community problems caused by the loss of farmland by adopting measures to combat it. While the federal government influences agricultural land, what happens at the local level is also very important. Sprawl development, of the kind that unnecessarily and prematurely converts farmland to nonagrtcultural uses, is generally the result of increasing pressure for urban growth and, often, the inability of local government to control it. The federal and state governments sometimes contribute to the problem as well through programs that unwittingly promote scattershot development and projects that directly take farmland out of production. Pressure! for growth takes the form of population expansion and, consequently, an increased demand for new housing. Developers who attempt lo meet this demand often bid up the market pi-ice of farmland to where selling the land becomes more attractive to farmers than growing crops, particularly if the farmer is aging or his operation isn't very profitable. Once development gains'a foothold in the countryside, nearby farmers may neglect to invest in necessary improvements and otherwise enter a "holding pattern," waiting for the day when they too will be made an offer that they can't refuse. An uncertain future puts additional pressure on agriculture to give way to suburbanization.'' As all of this is taking place, the response of the community at large may contribute to the problem. Planner William Toner described what he calls a "series of self-fulfilling prophecies" thai often confront local government: "First you project substantial growth in an agricultural area, then you build roads and water and sewer lines to accommodate the growth, then you switch the zoning from agricultural to residential, and, presto! subsidies in place, population follows."13 To avoid this turn of events, communities can get out ahead of the problem by planning for the logical management of growth. But growth management is a complex task that demands sophisticated technical groundwork, adequate financial resources and, perhaps above all, an understanding of the process and the stakes involved by the general public. Particularly in rural areas, communities often do not have the money to hire planning technicians, and the people who live there, having never experienced leapfrog development and its consequences, may be unaware of just how quickly suburban sprawl can get out of hand. Some local governments and states are, however, helping to solve community problems caused by the loss of farmland by adopting measures to combat it. The growing number of local farmland preservation programs is starting to offer hope that enough agricultural land can be retained to-avert a national crisis. But this hope is tempered by the fact that the farmland problems in your community can be solved only if you and your neighbors take action to keep the hope alive. The following experiences with state and local farmland preservation measures serve as examples of how the job can be done. 9 Tulare County, California Tulare County, located in south centra! California, is the third largest agricultural producer in the nation, with farm products contributing about $700 million annually to the local economy. Its land and climate are ideal for growing specialty crops that cannot easily be produced elsewhere. During the period from 1964 through 1969, Tulare County experienced the loss of 66 thousand acres of its farmland, mostly to suburban "ranchettes" and small lot development scattered through the countryside.13 Tulare has adopted an agricultural zoning program that establishes different minimum lot sizes, ranging from 20 to 80 acres, designed to protect agricultural operations that require different size farms to be profitable. Development is concentrated in those parts of the county, generally adjacent to its existing municipalities, where agricultural districts have not been established by the county under California state law. The Tulare program uses a system of suitability points to determine where residential development is appropriate. For example, if a buildingsite has superior agricultural soils, it qualifies for four points: if the building lot is too large and would take more farmland out of production than necessary, another four points can be added; if the surrounding lands are used for productive agriculture, three points may be tacked on; or if the building site is far from public services such as county roads and fire stations, add another point or two. In all T'jiare evaluates development on the basis of 15 categories, each of which carries suitability points. If a proposed development accumulates too many points, it is disapproved.13'27 This system is flexible like traditional zoning, but it has the advantage of providing detailed criteria—the suitability points—for determining when the character of an area has substantially changed from agricultural to residential, so as to allow what is in effect a change in zoning. The Tulare zoning program is based on a comprehensive plan that includes an agricultural lands component, and thus far seems to have been successful, since its adoption in ] 975, in encouraging development close to existing urban centers, while preventing the premature subdivision and conversion of its large expanse of prime farmland. Black Hawk County, Iowa Black Hawk County is situated right in the heart of the great American Corn Belt and surrounds the city of Waterloo which takes up about 10 percent of its total area. Almost 60 percent of the soils in Black Hawk are classified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as Classes I and II, the best that exist for growing >- crops. In contrast, only about 20 percent of the land nationwide falls into soil Classes I and II. But in the early 1970s local officials in Black Hawk realized that the excellent soils in the county were growing television antennas instead of corn, and in 1973 adopted an innovative zoning program that is rooted in the soil itself.13'24 The Black Hawk program is based on a detailed method of rating soils according to their agricultural productivity. The system is geared to the U.S. Department of Agriculture "corn suitability rating," and dedicates to exclusive agricultural use those soils with a CSR of 70 and above, soils that produce roughly 115 bushels or more of corn per acre. In those areas where the soil is less productive—about 30 percent of the total area of the county—development is guided toward buildabfe soils that are suitable for septic systems. In agricultural areas that are not zoned exclusively for this purpose, development can take place on lots that are a minimum of three acres in size, if 75 percent of the lot consists of buildable soils. The Black Hawk program is adapted to its own unique circumstances, but like its Tulare counterpart it seems to be working to preserve the best agricultural lands and to concentrate development around the perimeter of its principal I 13 municipality. Both the technical groundwork that u'ent into its development, and the flexibility of its administration, contribute to its success as a possible model for farmland preservation in areas of large-scale agriculture. State of Wisconsin Nearly all the states have adopted some kind of measure to try to preserve farmland. Most of these take the shape of special property tax breaks for farmers who keep their land in production, but this approach has been criticized as simply a "holding action" that encourages land speculation and is not very effective at preserving farmland.19 The Wisconsin , farmland preservation program, however, stands out along with a handful of others as a notably successful effort. The Wisconsin program, adopted in 1977, gives farmers the benefit of a state income tax credit (and protection from special tax assessments for municipal services). The credit varies with farm income—it increases up to $4,200 annually, as income decreases—and serves as an "insurance policy" against crop failure or other factors that otherwise could financially cripple farm families. Unlike the property tax break used by some other states, the Wisconsin income tax credit does not cut into local JQrevenues. To qualify for the income tax credit, the farmer and his local community must take a number of actions. Until 1982, the end of the first phase of the Wisconsin program, a farmer may qualify for the credit if he either contracts with the state to keep his land in agricultural use, or his land is zoned exclusively for agriculture by local government. After 1982, counties must either adopt exclusiv t% agricultural zoning programs or, in the case of predominantly rural counties with less than 75,000 inhabitants, prepare farmland preservation plans as a less stringent alternative to zoning. Unless counties take these steps—the state helps them by providing technical assistance—farmers cannot qualify for the tax credit simply by signing contracts to hold their land off the development market. If a contract between the farmer and state expires, and is not renewed either because of personal preference or the failure of local government to act, the 12 accumulated income lax credits must be repaid completely or in part.28 Our description of the Wisconsin program-lias been simplified for the sake of brevity, but the fact remains that its two-phased approach has stimulated county interest in farmland " preservation. In effect, the program attempts to harness the political support of farmers by giving them an incentive, namely tile continuation of the tax credit, to encourage local government to adopt agricultural xoning or farmland preservation plans. During the first year of the Wisconsin program, farmers became eligible for income tax credits at a rate much greater than their entry into similar programs in other states. This seems to demonstrate that a program that requires the active cooperation of farmers, local government and the state itself holds great promise as a means to preserve farmland on a statewide basis. Suffolk County, New York Suffolk County is a prototype urbanizing area in the shadow of the eastern megalopolis, taking up the far end of Long Island. Its population has increased six-fold since World War II, and during this period it lost over half of its original 120,000 acres of farmland to development. Still, gross agriculture? sales in Suffolk total about $70 million per year, ranking tho county first in New York State.25 In 1972, Suffolk County embarked on a program of purchasing the development rights to farmland. A "development right," as the term implies, is simply the legal right to use farmland for nonagricultural purposes such as residential development. The county pays farmers, who voluntarily offer their development rights, the difference between the assessed value of their acreage for development and its value for agriculture, a price that has aver.iged about $3,000 per acre in Suffolk. By selling development rights, farmers retain ownership of the land itself and can continue farming on a more solid financial foundation, not only because they receive a cash payment, but also because their property tax assessment is reduced. The county selects parcels for purchase very carefully, trying to secure an agricultural core in each key area of its jurisdiction. Soil suitability, present land usage and development pressure also enter into the equation used to select farmlands from among those whose owners submit bids for purchase. To date, Suffolk has acquired the development rights to 3,200 acres of its best agricultural land, and has plans to double this figure.^ Funding for the purchase of development rights has come from general revenue bonds sold by the county. The Suffolk program—the first of its kind in any U.S. county—is a relatively conservative approach to farmland preservation that can get expensive where it is necessary to protect large areas of agricultural land. But, despite the expense involved, the purchase of development rights is attractive to farmers and can help obtain their cooperation and support for other multifaceted approaches to farmland preservation. In Suffolk County, it seems to have had an encouraging effect on the entire agricultural community, because it has demonstrated that local government cares about its native industry and wants to help ensure its survival. Howard County, Maryland Located midway between the metropolitan areas of Baltimore and Washington, D.C., Howard County has experienced the same pressures for growth as has Suffolk, losing roughly half of its farmland since 1950. The existence of the planned "new town" of Columbia in the center of the county has somewhat mitigated the effects of sprawl development in Howard, but intensive subdivision activity continues. Howard, too, has adopted a local program of purchasing development rights to farmland, funded presently out of real estate transfer taxes. But what distinguishes this county is its diligent pursuit of farmland preservation, using all its available policy tools, and its close cooperation with the State of Maryland, which has a development rights purchase program inspired by Howard County officials. The county is actively encouraging the formation of agricultural districts under Maryland law, which qualifies farmers for sale of their development rights. The agricultural districts, once established, will become a formally constituted element of the county's comprehensive plan, now undergoing a major revision to achieve this goal. Cooperation with the state in what amounts to a joint development rights purchase program 13 f gives Howard great flexibility and a broader financial basis for ensuring this permanent protection of its farmland.26 Other State and Local Farmland Initiatives Other jurisdictions have adopted farmland preservation approaches that are variations on the themes adopted by these local governments. Some of the more interesting are: • The Blue Earth County, Minnesota zoning ordinance that calls for one dwelling unit per "quarter-quarter section" or 40 acres, but allows additional dwellings as a bonus if they are concentrated rather than widely separated.1'1'22 • The Walworth County, Wisconsin comprehensive plan and zoning program that creates several exclusive agricultural districts and thus treats farming as a preferred use—like other industries in their respective zones—rather than simply as something that may occur until development is ready to take over.13 • The initiation in Chester County, Pennsylvania of an Agricultural Preservation Council that will take an active role in promoting agriculture much like the county development council promotes other business and industry.23 • The agricultural district program in New York State, and statewide purchase of development rights programs in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and most recently, New Hampshire. 14 Conclusion: Where Do We Go From Here? These are but a few of the growing number of farmland preservation approaches that are being taken by states and counties throughout the United States. Citizens and public officials may have new ideas that are suited to the geographic, economic and political situation in your community. Considering the consequences for your locality and possibly the nation itself, it is well worth trying to preserve farmland no matter what the local circumstances may be. The experiences of Tulare, Black Hawk, Wisconsin, Suffolk, Howard and other pioneers offer lessons to other communities that wish to preserve farmland: The early participation and cooperation of the agricultural community is essential to the success of any local farmland preservation program. The agricultural community—including not only farmers, but also county agricultural extension agents, representatives of farm organizations and agricultural businessmen—has the most to gain or lose from any local attempt to preserve farmland. The political support of agriculturalists for loca! ordinances, plans or bond issues is usually critical to the adoption of these measures for farmland preservation. Moreover, as land use specialist William Toner puts it, "Planners know how to plan, but farmers know how to farm." Their experience on the ground puts farmers in a better position than any other group of citizens to provide common sense approaches to the related problems of preserving farmland and farming itself. Many communities have, as the first step in putting together a program of farmland preservation, established bfficial agricultural advisory committees to document the agricultural problems in their locality and to propose solutions to farmland loss.22'26 Careful technical analysis of the local farmland situation, including surveys of soil types and land usage, is the basis for a reasoned choice about how much and which kinds of farmland should be preserved by a community. Very few state cr local programs have set for themselves the illusory goal of protecting all their agricultural lands. The choice of which lands to preserve as a priority thus becomes an important question. Good technical information about the value and productivity of local farmland, and the uses to which it is being put, is the cornerstone of a responsible farmland preservation program. Technical assistance is sometimes available from a number of federal government agencies, notably the U.S. Department of Agriculture, whose Soil Conservation Service provides indispensable help with soil surveys. Some communities have, as part of their technical analysis, reviewed the statistics that demonstrate the economic contribution that agriculture makes to their locality; the publication of this kind of information has helped gain public acceptance for their farmland preservation programs. Local farmland preservation works best when all the tools available to government are used in a coordinated way, so that policies do not work at cross purposes. Any one approach to farmland preservation is not likely to be effective, if other government programs or policies arc inconsistent with it. For example, agricultural zoning can be undercut, if the local capital improvement plan calls for the extension of water and sewer lines into prime fanning areas, or if property taxes are not restructured so as to prevent the premature sale of farmland for development. Similarly, agricultural districting and the purchase of development rights can help preserve farmland, but may not succeed in preserving farming itself, if state or local policies do not support agriculture as an ongoing enterprise. And state and local initiatives themselves may be rendered ineffective if federal actions are not consistent with them. A coordinated farmland preservation strategy that meshes all the policy tools of government is the approach that is most likely to succeed. Communities that provide for a flexible balance between the preservation of farmland and the development of housing and industry are most likely to succeed. Farmland preservation is a sophisticated process that seeks to meet community residential and industrial development goals by directing such development onto lands where it is most appropriate, thus saving the most valuable farmlands and sustaining native agricultural industry. Communities cannot affoixi to ignore the "other side of the coin" in trying to preserve IK farmland. Generally speaking, at least at the initial stages of farmland conversion within a community, it is not the extent of development so much as the improper type of development- sprawling "leapfrog" or "scattershot" development—that undermines local agriculture. Of course, there are places where so much farmland has been taken out of production that a community cannot afford to lose much more before agricultural support businesses have to close shop. But, in most communities, there is room for both development and agriculture, and the success of farmland preservation depends on finding an appropriate mix that will neither stifle reasonable development nor contribute to the ruin of the local agricultural economy. The prospect of America running out of farmland is, perhaps, even more alarming than that of running out of energy. Just imagine what it would be like to stand for hours in a/bod line and then to pay higher prices for groceries than we do for gasoline. Our national energy problems have arisen, in part, because we were not foresighted enough to see them coming; we did not conserve resources wisely, and now we cannot seem to produce enough to go around. But, unless we preserve agricultural land, there will be no way to "produce" more of it. In the words of Robert J. Gray, executive director of the National Agricultural Lands Study, "As a nation, we must come to the realization that prime farmland is no longer a surplus resource, if, indeed, it ever was."~() With the recognition that America no longer has any "N. farmland to waste must come a dedicated willingness on th«v part of government to do something about it. As we have seen, quite a few state and local governments have taken the lead to come up with promising approaches to farmland preservation at the community level. But there is a need to devise new methods and techniques for preventing the loss of farmland: new variations on local zoning authority, innovative combinations of techniques such as transfer of development rights to farmland, along with ways of getting more out of the local farmland preservation dollar, and original approaches to the cooperation of states and counties in joint farmland preservation programs. The more approaches to preservation that are available, the greater will be the likelihood that at least one of them will be adaptable to the circumstances of your community. 16 To support local communities in their efforts to preserve farmland, the federal establishment must take a hard look at its programs and policies that can and do frustrate local preservation initiatives. The existing procedures specified by the National Environmental 1'olicy Act and the A-95 review (through which local governments are notified of proposed federal projects) do not, as a matter of fact, guarantee that the impact of federal activities on farmland are adequately considered prior to their implementation or that these activities are compatible with local farmland preservation programs. Federal policies should be reexamined to determine how they can be changed to accommodate the goal of protecting our agricultural land base, and, most importantly, a fail-safe process should be established to ensure consultation with state and local governments whenever a proposed federal action might affect farmland. Finally, we all must make farmland preservation our personal concern. In a nation where government derives its support from the will of the people, there is no substitute for citizen participation and private initiative when it comes to solving problems, whether they affect only the local community or the nation as a whole. Our elected and appointed government officials need our encouragement and support for conscientious farmland preservation measures, the positive benefits of which we all will share. I If NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SP - 180 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Carlsbad City Council will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, August 19, 1980 at 6:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, to consider approval of a Specific Plan (SP-180) establishing land use and standards of development for property described as those portions of Lots "F" and "G" of Rancho Agua Hedionda, part in the City of Carlsbad and part in the unincorporated area of the County of San Diego, State of California, according to the partition map thereof No. 823, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of such county, November 16, 1896, as shown on the map below. APPLICANT: THE ROLL COMPANY PUBLISH : August 9, 1980 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a Public Hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 7:00 P.M. on Wednesday, June 11, 1980, to consider recommending to the City Council that a Specific Plan (SP-1&0) be adopted to establish land use and standards of development for property described as those portions of Lots "F" and "G" of Rancho Agua Hedionda, part in the City of Carlsbad and part in the unincorporated area of the County of San Diego, State of California, according to the partition map thereof No. 823, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of such county, November 16, 1896, and shown on the map below. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the Public Hearing. If there are any questions, please call ^38-5591• APPLICANT: KOLL COMPANY CASE NO: SP-180 PUBLISH: MAY 31, 1930 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION Costa Real Municipal. .: ,Vat*cr District ' j! 5780 IU- Camino Real Ca£l.sbad CA 92003 ..JJi' • '-I1 Beckman Instruments, Inc.j' 2500 Harbor Boulevard' ; Fullerton CA 92634 ' 30772 Vista La Cresta S ; 5150" 1-1 Camino' Real Palos Verdes.CA 90274 Carlsbad CA 92003 'Ralph Palmer c/o 40 California 1st Bank P.O. Box 109 San Diego CA 92109 Pan American I'nvestors P.O. Box 1315 !La Jolla CA 92023 Henry § Itsuko Yada 5538 El Cainino Real Carlsbad CA 92008 Carlsbad 48 46 Encinitas -Boulevard Encinitas CA 92024 William § Agnes Miholich 74,4 Marsolan Avenue Solana Beach CA 92075 Gordon § Juliana Fox 1500 Via Arco_^ Palos Verdes Estates Palos Verdes CA 90274 Marvin Warnick 110 E. 9th Street Los Anceles CA 90015 Lexington Arms Corp. 830 First Street Encinitas CA 92024 Barbara Higdon 2448 A Street San Diego CA 92102 George § Mui Bolton 6519 El Camino Real Carlsbad CA 92008 Title Insurance § Trust ! P.O. Box 1150 I San Diego CA 92112 ! Japatul Corp. P.O. Box 849 San Diego CA 92112 Robert Kelly P.O. Box 175 Carlsbad CA 92008 Robert § Estelle Bienerj 10522 Greenbriar Road i Santa Ana, CA 92705 i James Hicatt S04 14th Street Manhattan Beach CA 9026 Occupant 6519 El Camino Real Carlsbad CA 92008 Occupant 4867 El Camino Real Carlsbad CA 92008 - S i gn a 1 / L and ma rk 17890 Skypark Circle Irvine CA 92707 Occupant 6200 HI Camino Real Carlsbad CA 92008 Harold Stokes Star Rt. 11 ox 61 San Luis Roy, CA 92068 Occupant 5580 1-1 Camino Real C;ir3sb;id CA 9200R