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