HomeMy WebLinkAbout; Agricultural Advisory Committee Gen Info (1981); Program Report; 1981-08-264
DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES
0 Assistant City Manager (714) 4385598
0 Building Department
(714) 4385525
0 Engineering Department (714) 4385541
0 Housfng (L. Redevelopment Department (714) 438-5811
0 Planning Department
(714) 438-5591
DATE :
TO : FROM :
SUBJECT:
1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
August 26, 1981
Agricultural Advisory Committee
Joyce Crosthwaite, Planning Department
Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting Wednesday - September 2nd, 1981 Planning/Engineering Conference Room
7:OO - 9:OOpm
AGENDA
1. Review final implementation package
2. Set next meeting date
NOTE: The Committee will review the final implementation package
take it, as information, to the Planning Commission on for the Agricultural program at this meeting. We hope to
September 9th.
please plan to attend. If you cannot and want to make
Nicholas at 438-5591.
comments, please call either Joyce Crosthwaite or Catherine
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MEETING OF: AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DATE OF MEETING: July 29, 1981
TIME OF MEETING: 7:OO P.M.
PLACE OF MEETING: Planning/Engineering Conference Room
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Mackauf at 7:17 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present - Chairman Mackauf
Guy Moore
Ben Hillebrecht
Also present were:
Council Member Anear, Carlsbad
Thomas Escher. San Diego County Department of Agriculture
Howard Mueller, Soil Conservation Service, Escondido
Staff members present were:
Joyce Crosthwaite, Assistant Planner
Catherine Nicholas, Assistant Planner
Tom Hageman, Principal Planner
Vicki Bowen, Drafting Technician
REVIEW OF DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Joyce Crosthwaite referred to the Agricultural Program, and explained that a
new program would be added that would state that the City would require all
lands comprised of 50 percent or more of Class I, 11, and I11 soils, to
concentrate 100 percent of their development potential on 50 percent of their
land. The remaining one-half would be encumbered by an easement and made
available for agricultural activities. She added that the City encourages
consolidation of such easements to form contiguous agricultural areas, and
also encourages all other lands to participate in this program. Further, that
the City would offer some flexibility in development standards for all land
enrolled in the agricultural program.
Tom Hageman stated his feeling that if this was implemented, it would create
Joyce Crosthwaite explained that Staff has anticipated this, and that is why
a "patch work" effect throughout the County, and discussion reflected same.
they are encouraging the formation of contiguous agricultural areas, through
the Agricultural Review Board. It was also explained that the Agricultural
Review Board would be looking at consolidating them where appropriate.
Conunittee discussion reflected on the implementation process for the
Agricultural Program, and the different class soils.
AGRICULTURA - DVISORY COMMITTEE
July 29, 19bl
Page 2
Joyce Crosthwaite then referred to the Application of Chapter section of
may create some problems. She suggested that the Committee might wish to
the program, under Implementation; and indicated that the wording of same
and 111 soils," to "comprised of a significant amount of Class I, 11, and
consider changing the wording from "comprised of 50% or more Class I, 11,
I11 soils."
Mr. Howard Mueller showed a map of different types of farm land, and
explained same to the Committee. Mr. Hageman pointed out that the intent
is to implement Class I, 11, and I11 soils into the Ordinance that Staff
has drafted.
make the requirements more strict. He added that in five or ten years if
Chairman Mackauf indicated that Class IV was excluded in the criteria, to
farming is no longer feasible here, he would like the flexibility to change
same.
Catherine Nicholas explained that if the property owners are given full
development rights on half of their property, they could come back in five
years if farming is no longer feasible in the area, and the problem would
be that the City has not planned for the public facilities.
you will have units that will not be as valuable as they could have been, if
Guy Moore suggested that when you move the full density to half of the property,
fully developed. Mr. Hageman stated that the City could abandon the Ordinance,
and hold same in a dedicated easement.
Chairman Mackauf stated, with regard to facilities, that it can be reviewed at
such time if it is needed.
Joyce Crosthwaite indicated that if the land has its full development, it still
would be undersized.
exceeds the General Plan for the City; which also means that all the facilities
Committee discussion reflected on minimum parcel sizes. Joyce Crosthwaite
it is Class I1 and I11 soils, it is too urbanized.
indicated that they are having problems with the downtown area; even though
Discussion then included the procedures for the Agriculture Program, and the
matter of suitable soils.
preservation of Class I, 11, and 111 soils; as they offer the potential to
Chairman Mackauf stated that at the last meeting, discussion included the
grow a significant diversity of crops. It would offer a higher return to
He added that same was feasible only on Class I, 11, and I11 soils; therefore,
the farmer, who could sustain himself better than our current export does.
they excluded Class IV.
He continued that the land owner who is required to dedicate is going to get
the full right to develop the gross density on half his land, and it does not
cost the homeowner anything to make the contribution for the benefit of the
community.
Guy Moore expressed concern about what would then be left. Chairman Mackauf
stated his opinion that same requires too much speculation.
Joyce Crosthwai
in that a property owner
.te explain
AGRICULTURA ,DVISORY COMMITTEE
July 29, 1981
Page 3
-
.ed another possibility suggested by Tom Hageman;
who has a significant amount of acres might take
a chance and develop 60 percent of his development potential, on 50 percent
of his land, and later on put an easement over the rest of the land. However,
he could come back and request to put his 40 percent on the other half of his
land.
Discussion then included the Open Space Element. The Committee concurred with Mr. Hageman's suggestion, as explained by Joyce Crosthwaite.
In discussion of the processing requirements, it was suggested that the
processing approval of "Properties in excess of 100 acres," be changed to
11 Properties in excess of 50 acres." The Committee concurred.
Catherine Nicholas stated that Staff is suggesting the exclusion of office
In discussion of the uses under the Exceptions section of the Program,
buildings, commercial uses, industrial uses, development on properties of less
than 1 acre, and the infill area; from mandatory involvement in the Program.
The Committee then discussed the duties of the Agricultural Review Board, and
it was indicated that the Board would review appeals from property owners
who were requesting exclusion from the Program; and also applications to the
Planning Commission and City Council for development.
With regard to development criteria, Catherine Nicholas requested input from the
prime soils for agriculture," to "provision of the suitable soils for
Committee on same. The Committee suggested revision of the "provision of the
agriculture." Under "suitability of the property for agriculture purposes," the
Committee suggested including terrain and climate. Also, Chairman Mackauf
suggested an additional criteria of prior land leasing to the list.
Joyce Crosthwaite indicated that Staff would bring back a revised report on
Permitted Uses, and the Right to Farm, as written by the City Attorney. She
added that they would subsequently be forwarded to the Planning Commission and
the City Council, at which time public testimony would be taken.
ADJOURNMENT
By proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 0:44 P.M.
Respectfully Submitted,
Ann R. Alleman
Minutes Clerk
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
.-
DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES
0 Asslrlant City Manepel (714) 43&5598
DATE : June 12, 1981
TO : Agricultural Advisory Committee
FROM: Joyce Crosthwai te, P1 anning Department
SUBJECT: AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, June 29, 1981 PlanningIEngineering Conference Room 7:OO - 9:OO P.M.
AGENDA
1. Update Coasta on final 1 Commiss
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
1200 ELM AVENUE
ion (Patrick Tessier) Local Coastal Plan as approved by State
2. Review right-to-farm ordinance and condition of approva for leasing agricultural land.
,1
3. Discussion with Mike Holzmiller, Principal Planner, on density bonuses for agricultural land.
JC:ls 6110181
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
CITY OF CAHLSBAD
MINUTES OF: AGRICULTUaAL ADVISOBY COMMIT'PEE
DATE OF MEETING: FGBMJAHY 18, 1981 TLME OF WiiXTING: 7:OO P.M. PLACE OF MEETING: ENGINdERING/i?LANNING CONFEliENCE HOUM
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Plackauf called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.H.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairman Peter Mackauf Guy Moore Eric Larson Baul Tarango Victor Kato Ben Hillebrecht John Prazee
Also present were Staff members Jim Hagaman, Planning Director, Patrick Tessier and Joyce Crosthwaite.
APPHOVAL OF MINUTES
Minor corrections were made by Staff to the Minutes of
February 16, 1981, and Patrick Tessier pointed out that meeting daters., .&aa.....the first paragraph had been transposed.
The Minutes, as amended, were approved by the COmrnittee.
DISCUSSION
Chairman Mackauf asked if everyone had had an opportunity to look over comments from the Coastal Commission Staff on tine LCP proposal and asked for Staff's comments.
Patrick Tessier enlarged on this and commented that the Coastal Commission had basically substituted their program for part of the plan instead of the TOUYS one. He drew attention to the summary sheet which members had received outlining what the program would be and discussed the use to be made of the development fee required for the conversion of the best soils from agricultural use. He advised that significant changes had been made in that Toups had recommended classes 1 through 4 soils be preserved whereas the Coastal Commission recommendation
covered all classes of soils. Unlike the Toups map where parcels were partially to be preserved according to soil types, the Coastal Commission would preserve the entire parcel regardless of differing soil types. He further advised that they had called for 80% of Mr. Kelly's property, if he is to develop the rest, to remain in agricultural use and tne only place where a cluster type development concept was used was on the 40 acres conversion on Paseo del Norte and Palomar Airport Hoad in exchanqe for the remainder of the Ecke property to be left in agriculture.
Mr. Tessier then mentioned that he had done some research and talked to Coastal Commission Staff. It was his understanding that they would have to make similar findings for Carlsbad as they had for San Dieguito that there are no Prime Soils in this area.
Mr. Moore advised that the greenhouse issue had become a major one in the San Dieguito area. A request had been made that greenhouses not be included in the definition of agriculture due to the fact that the land was not important to this type Of operation. He wondered if this should also be addressed in the
Conmittee's recommendation.
Mr. Moore then raised the issue of the effects on the local economy and the unemployment situation of local minority groups should agriculture not be kept viable in the area. He felt perhaps sometning should be added to recommendations concerning this. Discussion followed among Committee members who agreed that they would rather not address this situation.
Members agreed that the time limit stated in the last paragraph on page 6 was too long a period and that this should be changed to read 5 to 10 years.
In response to a question from Mr. Kelly the Committee discussed possible coordination with the Planning and Engineering Departments regarding consideration of the impact of proposed roads on farm land with the possible phasing in of such development to allow for agricultural use as long as possible.
Chairman Mackauf made the suggestion that perhaps there was a need for E continuing dialogue between the Planning Department and an Agricultural Consultant Committee for the purpose of assessing effects upon agriculture of roads and utilities in the future. Members discussed this at length and an agreement was reached that number 12 in the report should be changed. This should read to the effect that one of the policy recommendations be that Carlsbad adopt a Growth Management Plan that integrates the phasing in of development while agriculture is phasing out and to give serious thought in all development considerations to its impact on agriculture.
At the suzgestion of Mr. Larson, Staff was then requested to incorporate an item in the report supporting the City's General Land Use Plan.
In response to a question raised by Jim Hagaman, clarification
-2-
was given concerning the Committee's feelings on the statement on page 1 of their report regarding the criteria for defining the best agricultural land being no longer valid. Chairman Mackauf then stated that perhaps the report should instead say that the Williamson Act criteria is not an appropriate technique for defining the best agricultural
land and the xost appropriate would be soil classification and climate.
The Committee then discussed how their report would be presented to the City Council. Guy Moore made the motion, which was seconded by Eric Larson, that Chairman Peter Mackauf should make the presentation to the Council. Members agreed unanimously to this.
Chairman Mackauf advised he would be prepared to make the presentation provided other Committee meinbers were also present so he could call on them to speak on any subject about which they had strong feelings.
Nr. Noore again raised the question of a statement being
inserted concerning the fact that greenhouses and floriculture under cover should not be considered agricultural land. However, after discussion by members, it was decided that no
statement should be made at this time.
Chairman Mackauf requested the opportunity to meet with Staff prior to the City Council meeting on March 10. He also commented that members should make a note of the Coastal Commission hearings on the 13th and 27th. At this point Mary Narcus advised that the first hearing could possibly be delayed because it is expected the San Dieguito one would be very long.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8;34 P.M.
-3-
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES
0 Assistant City Manager
V14) 43"
0 Building Department (714) 438-5525
0 Engineering Department (714) 438-5541
0 Houslng & Redevelopment Department
&g Department
(714) 438581 1
(714) 438-6591
DATE :
TO :
FROM :
SUBJECT :
February 17, 1981
Agricultural Advisory Committee
Joyce Crosthwaite, Planning Department
ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1981
7:OO P.M.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
AGENDA
1. Review minutes of February 9th meeting
2. Review final report on LCP to City Council (attached)
3. Select spokesman for March 10th City Council meeting
4. Set next meeting time
1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
CITY OF CABLSBAD
Minutes of: AGHICULTURAL ADVISOBY COMNITTEE Date of Meeting: February 9, 1981 Time of Meeting: 7:oo P.M. Place of Meeting: Ensineering/Planning Conference boom
CALL TO OBDEB
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Mackauf at 7.12 Y.N.
ROLL CALL
The following
The followina
Committee members were present:
Peter Mackauf Guy Moore Victor Kat0 Ben Hillebrecht Eric Larson
Staff members were present: Tom Hageman and Patrick Tessier .
Also present were City Councilwoman Mary Casler and Mr. Alan Kelly.
AYPBOVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of the Meeting of February 2, 1981, were approved as
presented.
DISCUSSION
Staff explained the Coastal Commission would be having a hearing on March 13. At present a meeting is scheduled with the City Council on the 10th but it was hoped a deferment would be made to February 24.
Mr. Tessier explained that Attachment A was for discussion only. He further commented that perhaps the Committee might be interested in the San Dieguito LCP. This would present a good opportunity to study the comments listed and come up with something acceptable.
In response to a question from Mr. Kelly concerning the Occidental property, Mr. Hageman advised that a deal had apparently been signed between Occidental and the Coastal Commission. There was a trade off involved but the exact details were unknown.
Staff sought to impress on the Committee that their recommendations to City Council should at least be in terms of Coastal Act Policies since it would be easier for the Commission to review something in the terms of their own Act. At the request of Chairman Mackauf, Mr. Tessier briefly summarized this.
- h Page 2 February 9, 1981 Agricultural Advisory Committee
Mr. Mackauf stated that he did not feel they could accept the interpretation of prime land and sought input from members as to their wishes concerning the definition of this. The Committee then discussed their feelings on soil classifications and agreed there was a significant difference between 3 and 4 soils. Peeling was expressed that members would prefer to see prime land limited to a 3 classification.
Discussion then centered around acreage size to be considered for preservation and the economic feasibility of farming small areas. 'The suggestion was made that there should be no attempt to preserve anything under 100 acres but full agreement was not reached on this since it was felt a relationship exists between
size required and the type of farming.
Mr. Hageman then suggested that there could be two approaches to
this with one policy covering parcels 100 acres or larger and another covering smaller parcels.
Chairman Mackauf suggested that it might be worthwhile saving class 4 soils in certain parcel sizes but with the recognition that they would not be suitable for long term preservation. However, where soils are of high quality there was a need to preserve as much as possible.
The Committee then made the request to Staff that a soils map be placed on the wall for future meetings so members could easily identify areas under discussion.
Following discussion on the financial aspects of farming, Mr.
Hillebrecht expressed the opinion that it was essential that economics be included in any decision.
Mr. Hageman commented on the two different policies emerging from the discussion keyed directly to the map and suggested recommendations should include a map showing how this policy relates to these large areas and also to the smaller agricultural parcels. Chairman Mackauf asked if Staff could put notes together on these ideas.
Mr. Hageman further advised that one of the things to be stated up front was a very clear indication to the Coastal Commission. He commented that it was very important not to separate resources from production. Agricultural preservation should include preservation of the land as a resource but must also include ensured production for the farmer. It is inequitable to restrict a property to agricultural use and not include some assurance that it can continue to be farmed. If provision for continued production cannot be made the land should not be restricted.
Chairman Mackauf then requested Staff to put this in the draft report to the Coastal Commission.
-.
.- Page 3 February 9, 1981 Agricultural Advisory Committee
With regard to buffers between agricultural and developing land, members agreed that 6ft. high walls had proved an effective buffer with local agricultural practices. It was also felt that the responsibility for erecting this should lie with the developer
and not the farmer.
It was agreed that no action should be taken on item 11 in the rough draft and this should be deleted.
Mr. Moore expressed his support of the City's general plan and it was agreed that the next meeting would discuss land use based on the general plan.
ADJOURNMENT
The Committee adjourned at 9.06 P.M. to Wednesday, February 18, 1981, at 7:OO P.M. in the Engineering/Planning Conference Boom.
At the last Agricultural Advisory Committee meeting, several items were handed out. They were:
1) A newspaper article from the LA Times (2/2/81) re- garding the county agricultural plan.
2) A copy of the county agricultural plan.
3) A newspaper article from the San Diego Union (2/11/81) regarding housing costs.
They are included in your agenda package.
A new county plan would substi- .)
.. . ,
tute kindness for coercion in crying to Savesome of the San Diego most productive coastal farmland,..
The plan. would offer fanners,, economic incentives rather than the : -
mandatory land use policieithat sparked controversy whh .. pto-., posed last year., " , . . ,..<,.lr. .I... :.:. ., . . "The county can take the'lead in supporting agriculture .by :i being more kind to it," said County A@. cultural- Commissioner :':Kenneth Lit&, who has drawn up the plan. Little's plan; to be made public today, aska that fanners' be given . water and electric rate discounts, reductions in property taxes and n- lief from suburban haassment over
rich in to ma toe^ ad flow-; y";": ;,: 5:.
... . .
rc ."-. k "1 ""
, *-. >
. ". . ..- .-. .- - ..
"Let's be practical," Bates said in endorsing the pl an... "Let's do like we did with the Ecka propod (plan by. flower grower and landowner Paul Ecke to allow devel-... opment of half his North County land and keep the .-
' other halt for agriculture). . "Let's consider.trade-offs, let's be selective. Before.' - we were asking to take on all agriculture, even all those.: hillsides with avocadas that cap never be developed anyway." .-. Major pmm in Little*$ pl;m indud& -A "right-to-farm". law. whereby any fami tx'-i operation for more than a year could not be labeled a-; nuisance under county regulations when a housing ,:. development later is buiit nearby and residents plain about odon or noise.... - .? : " '. Said Little 'There have been &xidents whm.5 ~ _. .$f
growers witb their backs to the wall, so to speak faund themselves harassed by neighbors who find that subur- bia isn't aU that good since they. moved -in the same neighborhood with an agricultural operation.'' "Elimination of requirements €or riding and hi trails, bike patbs. or other easements as conditicm for farmers wanting or renewing a permit to apemte. The : requirements are costly,and could result in theft or . damage to crops, Little said. "The density bonus program; Little said the county.8 also might want to buy land rights to small parcels adja- cent to agricultural lands, at market value - land that:; otherwise would be developed, making continued farm-:!. ing more difficult. "Reduction or elimination of fees that .the county now charges fanners who maintain on-site labor hous-
" ing. Farmers have been criticized by health officials for unsanitary living congitions of their farm hands, many.- of them illegal aliens, who live in nearby canyons. But the farners say the permit process far housing is too complicated and tbat, in any event, they run afoul of federal laws if they house iHegd aliens. Supenisom Tom Hamilton and Paul Eckert pIan ta introduce a proposal next month to easesame of the- problems of using illegal aliens as workers. ; -Support of requests to give farmers spetial eIectric' rates during off-peak hours and to assure them redu water rates and guaranteed supplies in case of fut- shortages. Little said he would Iike to see cities with 1 chunks ol agricultural lands - such Carlsbad and Oceanside - take similar s
j_ .. ... 1 . ".. .
,. - ... -. _." . .. *-
..
"
3
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES
0 Assistant City Manager
(714)
0 Building Department (71 4) 4365625
0 Englneerlng Department (714) 43&6641
lartment 0 Housing ti Redevelopment Dep (714) 43BM)ll
1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
0 Planning Department (714) -1
February 3, 1981
TO : AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FROM : Joyce Crosthwaite, Planning Department
SUBJECT: Advisory Committee Meeting
Monday February 9th, 1981
Engineering/Planning Conference Room
7:OO P.M. - 9:OO P.M.
1. Review minutes of February 2nd meeting (attached)
2. Review Coastal Act Policies (attached)
3. Review report to City Council (attached)
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Minutes of: AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Date of Meeting: February 2, 1981 Time of Meeting: 7: 00 P.M. Place of Meeting: City Council Conference Room
CALL TO ORDER
Call to order was made by Chairman Pro Tem, Jon Friestedt, at 7:17 P.M.
ROLL CALL :
The following committee members were present: Raul Tarango, Guy Moore, Eric Larsen, Ben Hillebrecht and Victor Kato. Chairman Peter Mackauf and John Frazee were absent.
Also present were Pat Tessier and Joyce Crosthwaithe of the
Planning Department, and Vice-Mayor Mary Casler.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The Minutes of the Meeting of January 26, 1981 were approved as presented, with the understanding that date of the meeting was January 26, 1981, rather than January 19, 1981.
DISCUSSION:
Chairman Friestedt began the discussion with a review of the 7 issues identified by the Committee at the last meeting as important to the City's Agricultural Policy:
1. The City's Agricultural Policy should be applied dn a City-wide basis, rather than restricted to.the Coastal Zone.
2. The Policy should include a mechanism to identify and remove land which is not suitable for agricultural due to quality of soil or other factors.
3. The Policy must identify and define land rights, both those of the land owner/farmer and tenant/farmer.
4. The Policy must include a mechanism to annex the 8 square miles of County agricultural land contained within the City (County Islands).
5. The Policy should provide a method to guarantee the value of the land, whether actually used for agriculture or not.
6. The Policy should provide for the creation of some form of
agricultural agency to work with the City Council to specifically discuss farming and development of agricultural lands in the City.
7. The Policy should address the issue of agricultural land in the County over which the City does not have the usual controls through zoning, General Plan and land use restrictions.
- 1-
In response to inquiry, Mrs. Casler explained that the City Attorney does not consider the buying of land rights by the City to be legal since there is no case law to that effect. The City Attorney is not in favor of'development rights since if you sell the development rights to property, then the property can never be developed.
Guy Moore then discussed the article excerpted from the February
1, 1981 SD Union , (Distributed Item "A"), which relates the increased housing costs as a result of land-use regulations, and expressed the opinion that any and all regulation should be avoided.
Chairman Friestedt acknowledged Mr. Moore's concerns, indicating that the Policy the land identified as agricultural, the preservation of which should be tied into economic factors. Because of economics in development, we may realize in ten to 15 years that there may be no more agricultural land in Carlsbad. However, if the Coastal Comission designates land as agriculture in perpetuity, then some form of compensation must be provided.
Ben Hillebrecht expressed the opinion that the City should encourage agriculture, but the arbitrary designation of any land as agricultural is not constructive. In support, he noted that since 1976, there is actually less land under cultivation due to governmental regulation of one form or another -- the results of Coastal Commission have been negative.
Eric Larson concluded that if the preservation of agricultural is mandated, then only those lands which are best suited should be permanately designated.
Ben Hiklebrecht then referenced the Memorandum from Kenneth K. Little, Jr., County Agricultural Commissioner, dated January 26, 1981 and expressed his agreement with and support of same in that it realistically addressed the problem.
Joyce Crosthwaite responded to Committee concerns regarding water, indicating that since the City has a water reclamation policy now, agriculture should be a preferred customer. Further, staff would check on the restrictions of using reclaimed water on crops.
The Committee then discussed the desirability of making right to farm statement in the form of a Right To Farm Ordinance.
Guy Moore then expressed concerns with how farming activity could be moved and maintained if the land became unproductive for farming at some time in the futurel, but yet not lose the land asi:a result of previously transferred development rights.
Pat Tessier suggested that perhaps only l/3 of the total develop- ments be transferred at any one time, with the remaining 2/3 to be transferred at a later time when, say, farming on the land was no longer feasible.
-2-
Page 3 is missing.
In response to inquiry, the Committee agreed that the concept of clustering of development, in any manner, would be agreeable, providing that whether it was done initially or in phases, the land owner received an equitable price.
During discussion of the economics of the situation, Joyce Crosthwaite mentioned the possibility of a providing a mechanism whereby land that has been set aside for agriculture would be reviewed onanannual basis to consider the changing economic factors.
Joyce additionally inquired if another part of the Policy should be to encourage the leasing of land, not now used for agricultural, to farmers, during the period prior to development.
In response to Committee discussion, Pat Tessier explained that the property owner's rights would be assured through the Master Plan process which would provide for agriculture use.
The Committee then discussed formation of an Advisbry Committee which would include members of the farming community, planning staff, Planning Commission and City Council.
The Committee then concurred in discussion that the issue of buffers, water rights, etc. should be addressed and identified as the responsibility of the developer and City, respectively.
In summary, Joyce Croswaithe articulated the elements of the Policy:
1. Right to Farm Ordinance that recognizes that barriers are the responsibility of the developer.
2. Check on water reclamation policies, support continued water rates.
3. Agree to fair market priae based on density transfer, or some kind of program.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Encourage lease of land slated for development.
Arinula revie of agriculture and report to Council.
Support electrical power rates for agriculture.
Reflect the agricultural policy in the CC&R's.
Support tax incentives
Coordinate agricultural policy with growth management policy, resuling in a time table for those areas of the City in agriculture which are slated for development.
-4-
Pat Tessier concluded by indicating that the Committee had been furnished with a verbatim excerpt of the Coastal Act with regard to agriculture and requested the Committee to examine the p.olicy statements in light of the language of the Act, expressing the opinion that the policy could fit within the intent of the Act. Basically, using the Act as a framework, the policy should address the Coastal Act legislation.
As a side line, Mr. Tessier indicated that staff had this afternoon received the Coastal Commission comnents relative to?
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 P.M. to Monday, February 9, 1981 at 7:OO P.M. in the Engineering Conference Room.
Respectfully submitted,
WHOMEVER
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES
0 Asslstant Clty Manager
(714) 4385568
0 Bulldlng Department
(71 4) -
0 Englneerlng Department
0 Houslng & Redevelopment Department
(714) 438-5541
(714) 438-581 1
0 Plannlng Department (714) 484501
1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92008
January 29, 1981
TO : AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FROM : JOYCE CROSTHWAITE, Planning Department
SUBJECT: Advisory Committee Meeting Monday, February 2nd, 1981
Council Con'ference Ro'm, Carlsbad City Hall
7:OO P.M. - 9:00 P.M.
AGENDA
1. Review minutes of January 26th meeting (attached)
2. Finalize recommended Alternative agricultural program
3. Set next meeting date
i'
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Minutes of: AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
36 Date of Meeting: January-, 1981 *
I
Time of Meeting: 7:OO P.M.
Place of Meeting: Engineering/Planning Confefence Room
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Mackauf.
ROLL CALL :
The following committee members were present: Bud Lewers,
Guy Moore, Victor Kato, John Frazee, and Ben Hillebrecht
The following staff members were present: Patrick Tessier,
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of the January 19, 1981 meeting were approved.
Mr. MacKauf noted the contribution and attendance of Allan Kelly and asked that it be noted in the discussion.
Discussion by the Committee reflected the need for a agri-
cultural preservation policy for the entire city that in- cludes recognition of resources and productivity. Mr. MacKauf also noted that the policy might be more success- ful if agriculture accured on the best soils. He suggested phasing development on good soils over a number of years. The Committee also discussed the fragile economic.market for agricultural products. They noted that a permanent
agricultural policy would preserve the resource but not necessarily ensure production.
Mr. Frazee noted that many crops grown in Carlsbad are
labor-intensive and that labor is becoming restricted and more expensive.
Mr. Hillebrecht also noted the competition of foreign mar-
kets as a deterrent to continued local production.
The Committee discussed the length of time an agricultural
policy should be in effect. Mrs. Casler suggested a 20 year development program with 25% of the land developed every 5 years. Mr. Kelly suggested that the report to the City Council contain 3 categories:
1) Recommendations for which lands are best for preservation;
2) Alternatives to the Coastal Commission's LCP; and
3) A list of items (i.e. buffers, water) the city needs to implement on property around agricultural land to help the farmer.
.The Committee expressed the need for the city to lobby against
.the criterion used now to determine agricultural lands. They "also expressed a need for the city to provide incentives for land owners to lease land. Mrs. Casler expressed her
concern over an agricultural policy that would conflict with state policies and would therefore be useless.
Mr. Tessier asked that the criterion for determining economic
feasibility be clarified. Mr. Kato said it should be keyed to
crops and should be evaluated over several years. Mr. Hillebrecht said it should be left up to the farmer/owner.
Mr. MacKauf asked each Committee member to state their preferred method of agricultural preservation.
Mr. Hillebrecht
The state should buy the land at fair market price if they
rezone it to agriculture.
Mr. Frazee
The strongest plan might include arbitration; therefore, the city should not propose any plan to counteract the Coastal Commission's LCP which is too restrictive.
Mr. Kelly
The city should annex the county islands and gain control
over those lands. A positive approach should be developed
by the city to encourage annexation and to make control by
the city attractive. Changes in land use and zoning, phasing development, and lobbying efforts by the city to change legislation should all be included.
* **
K Mr. Kat0
Agricultural lands should be partially zoned as such or as open space. A higher density or a density bonus should
be permitted on the remainder of the property. There
should be a limited period for agricultural use. The policy
should include the entire city.
Mr. Moore
The state should pay the property owner taxes plus 12%, of a fair market price as holding rent if their land is limited
to agriculture.
Mr. Escher
Agricultural land should be viewed as a resource. The best should be preserved. The policy should include the pur-
chase of development rights. Agriculture should get reduced
water rates. Clustering dwelling units or a land trust conservancy are also alternation.
Mr'. MacKauf
Any lands preserved should be economically feasible. The
policy should be city-wide. The policy must recognize that
agriculture is fragile and may not be viable in 20 years.
Agriculture should be encouraged on preferred soils. Leasing should be encouraged on lands slated for development. An agricultural review committee should be established to annual review the economic situation of lands designated for agriculture, Land owners with land designated for
agriculture should be fairly compensated,
ADJOURNMENT
The Committee adjourned at 9:20 P.M. to Monday, February 2nd,..-
1981 at 7:OO P.M. in the Council Conference Room.
AGRICULTURE ALTERNATIVES
- Include more than one possible choice in the program.
Example:
50% or less of the land to be developed immediately with
the respective allowable development. Then, at a later
date, when it would be shown (to the satisfaction of
Council) that agriculture activities were no longer fea- sible, the remaining land (with respective development potential) could be developed, or program originally proposed by the committee or somebody else's idea.
- All voluntary (as per original program).
- Combination of subsidy (on those properties - both paying
and receiving that will go along with subsidy) and mixed use
on others. We know that most of those required to pay will do so. Those who are to receive are the reluctant ones. It may be possible to find a group that will pay and receive - which may lower the subsidy payment - and put the rest under mixed use.
- Modify the subsidy program, i.e., insert an escape clause,
so its easier to get out of the perpetuity easement.
- Modify the subsidy program, i.e., flat out buy agricultural
land with subsidy f-tind.
- Forget the whole g .d. thing.
JC:wl
c
COASTAL AGRICULTURE: SUMMARY
A. Agricultural land acreage
Site I = 510
Site I1 = 287
Site 111 = 275
Site IV = 109 Occidental = 157
Lusk = 93
Shell = 35 Bankers Life = 26
acres acres acres
acres acres
acres
acres acres
TOTAL 1,492 acres
B. Procrram Alternatives
1. Coastal Approval Plan. Mixed use on site I; subsidy
program for sites I1 to IV; conversion of 1-5 parcels.
2. Carlsbad: Alternative A. Mixed use (50/50) on all
parcels containing class I11 soils; mixed use on entire
site I1 area; include Ecke.
3. Carlsbad: Alternative B. Mixed use (60/40) on all
parcels with class 111 soils; includes entire site I1
and Ecke.
4. Carlsbad: Alternative C. Mixed use (50/50); include
site 11; exclude Ecke.
5. Carlsbad: Alternative D. Mixed use (60/40) for class
I11 soils: include site 11: exclude Ecke.
6. Original Carlsbad Proposal: Alternative E. Mixed use
(50/50) on parcels with class I11 soils only.
C. Comparative Analysis
Class I11 510 462 54 3 62 7 65 7 412
Class IV 467 94 122 94 122 0
Class V+ 105 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL ACRES 1,091 556 665 721 779 412
PWT : wl
CCYISTAL AGRICULTURE: ANALXSIS
Wriculture: Program Alternatives
1. Coastal Approved Plan
mal
Preserved class I11 class IV
Site I 420 420 0
Site I1 287 50 207
Site 111 275 20 195
Site IV 109 20 74
Occidental 0 0 0
Lusk 0 0 0
Shell 0 0 0
Bankers Life 0 0 0
TCrrAL 1,091 acres 467 (43%)
class v+
0
30
60
15
0
0
0
0
105 (11%)
2. Carlsbad : Mixed Use (Alternative A = include site I1 and Ecke ; 50/50 mix )
Total Preserved class I11 class IV class v+
Site I 255 Site I1 144 Site 111 0
Site IV 0 Occidental 79
Lusk 47
shell 18
Bankers Life 13
255 0
50 94
0 0
0 0
79 0
47 0
18 0
13 0 -
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 -
mALI 556 Acres 462 (83%) 94 (17%) 0 -
3. Carlsbad: Mixed Use (Alternative B; include site I1 and Ecke; 60/40 split)
mal Preserved Class I11 Class IV Class v+
Site I Site I1
Site 111
Site IV Occidental
Lusk
shell Bankers Life
306
17 2
0
0
94
56
21
16
306
50
0
0
94
56
21
16
0 0
122 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 -
TCJIRL 665 Acres 543 (82%) - 122 (16%) 0 -
4. Carlsbd: .Mixed 'Use (Alternative C = include site 11, exclude Ecke; 50/50
split)
?rota
Preserved class I11 Class IV Class v+
Site I Site I1
Site 111
Site IV
Ckcidental
Iusk
shell
Bankers Life
420
144
0
0
79
47
18
13
420 0 0
50 94 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
79 0 0
47 0 0
18 0 0
13 0 0
TcrrAt 721 acres 627 (87%) 94 (13%) 0
5. Carlsbad: Mixed Use (Alternative D = include site 11, exclude We; 60/40
split)
Total
Preserved class I11 class IV class v+
site I
Site I1
site 111
Site IV
Oxidental
Lusk
shell
Bankers Life
420
17 2
0
0
94
56
21
16
420
50
0
0
94
56
21
16
0 0
122 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 - -
TcrrAL 779 Acres 657 (84%) - 122 (16%) - 0 -
Site I
Site I1
Site 111
Site IV Occidental
Lusk
shell
Bankers Life
Total Preserved
255
0
0 0
79
47
18
13
412 Acres
Class I11 class IV
255
0
0
0
79
47
18
13
412 (100%) 0 -
class v+
0
m :wl
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES
Asslstant Clty Manager (71 4) 438-5696
Bulldlng Department
(714) 438-5525
0 Engineering Department
(714) 4386541
0 Houslng (L Redevelopment Department
0 Plrnnlng Department
(714) 436-5611
(714) -1
1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
January 21, 1981
To: AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FROM : Joyce Crosthwaite, Planning Department
SUBJECT: Advisory Committee Meeting Monday, January 26, 1981
7:OO P.M. Engineering Conference Room, Carlsbad City Hall
AGENDA
1. Review minutes of January 19th meeting (Attached) .
2. Review and revise objections to LCP (Attached) NOTE:
Also attached is memo on water prices 1980-1990.
3. Discuss "should agriculture land be preserved as a
resource even though production may cease?"
4. Develop outline of alternatives for agricultural pre-
servation.
5. Set next meeting date.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Minutes of: AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Date of Meeting: January 19, 1981
Time of Meeting: 7:OO P.M.
Place of Meeting: Engineering/Planning Conference mom
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Mackauf at 7:07 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
The following Committee members were present: Peter Mackauf, Eric LWSOR,
Victor Kato, Ben Hillebrecht, John Frazee, Guy Moore, Raul Tarango and
Girard Anear.
The following staff members were present: Tom Hageman and Joyce Crosthwaite,
Tom Escher, Deputy Agricultural Commissioner for the County of San Diego, was
present also,
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the meeting of January 12, 1981, were approved as presented,
DISCUSSION:
As an aid, staff displayed maps of the area showing those portions designated by
Toups for tgricultural preservation, and a map prepared by staff displaying t?e
different soil types for a portion of the City,
It was noted by the Committee in comparing the two maps that a great deal of the
land designated by Toups as agricultural preservation areas, was in fact displayed
on the soils map as soil that is marginal or unsuitable for agriculture,
Chairman Mackauf referenced an area on the map designated for preservation, south
of Palomar Airport Road and north of La Costa Avenue, and stated he had previously
farmed that particular area. He further stated, as shown on the soils map, that
the soil is marginal. With reference to the fact that it is still being farmed,
he indicated that better soil is not available to the individual farming the area.
Mr. Mackauf suggested that the best method for retaining agricultural would be to
encourage fanning on those lands designated on the soils map as the better agri-
cultural soil.
Discussion by the Committee reflected the need for evaluation of the Toups
recommendation, determination of areas of disagreement, development of a recomenda-
tion for the Coastal Commission, and development of an agricultural policy on a
City-wide basis.
-
Page 2
January 19 , 1981 , Meeting
Agricultural Advisory Committee
Mr. Mackauf noted the economic and governmental conditions which have forced the
farmer to farm the areas where the soil type is marginal. He also suggested the
possibility that some areas might be considered for farming for a period of a
couple of seasons prior to actual development.
Mr. Hillebrecht noted the importance of a good farmer on any type of land.
The Committee expressed the desire for viewing maps of the area prior to the
adoption of the Coastal Act, and since its adoption, to see the effects of same
on the number of agricultural uses in the City.
The Committee agreed to continue by listing the areas of disagreement with the
Toups proposal. Those are as follows:
1. Uncertainty of Transfer of Development Right concept.
2. Disagreement with the Toups premiss that agricultural use is economically
viable in the City forever. The Committee noted that agricultural use
is economically fragile due to:
a. water costs
b, labor costs.
c. Angus MacDonald report noting no better than 5% return on investment.
d. Shrinking Market Window
3. Toups proposal does not preserve the best soils for agricultural purposes.
a. The area designaked by the Committee as the Palomar Properties_are
marginal, with slope and erosion problems, and access problems.
b. Preferred properties west of the first coastal ridge is not preserved and
would provide better yield and more economical production.
4. Study does not take into consideration all the agricultural lands in the City.
5. a. Purchasing land from farmers at less than market price weakens the
industry intended to be preserved.
b. Purchase of land from anyone at less than market price is inequitable.
6. Toups failes to provide incentives for land owners to lease land for
agricultural purposes (80% leased land).
a. Three out of five year provision has forced land out of production.
7. Toups does not recognize the ability of San Diego County agricultural to
co-exist with other development.
a. Agriculture is compatible with existing coastal property development.
The Committee noted the above list woul'd assist than in formulating recommendations
for Council and the Coastal Commission.
Page 3
January 19, 1981, Meeting
Agricultural Advisory Committee
Additional discussion by the Committee related to opposing views as to whether
it would be desirable to retain land as open space after it no longer is
viable or economical to farm Same, in the event it may be required in the
future .
The Committee concluded by noting that the particuIar issue needed further
discussion and consideration
ADJOURNMENT:
The Committee adjourned at 8:46 P.M. to Monday, January 26, 1981, at 7:OO P.M.
in the Engineering Conference Room.
Respectfully submitted,
LEE RAUTENKRANZ
City Clerk
ROUGH DRAFT
Agricultural Advisory Committee's Objections to the LCP
1. The concept of transfer of development rights (TDR) is
too new and controversial to assess its Potential to
2.
3.
4.
5.
be effective.
The Committee questions if a program based on the use of TDR's would still be effective if agriculture were no longer economically viable. They also question the
use of TDR's in the coastal zone only. To be of last-
ing value an agricultural preservation program should
encompass the entire city. They believe that the administrative mechanism for TDR's might not prove feasible .
The basic Dremise of 'the LCP is that the aaricultu'r'al
economy is healthy; however, current facts Suggest
that farming is econom.ically fragile.
The.Committee cites the steep rise in water and labor
costs as severe determinants to a. healthy agricultural
economy. The markets for San Diego C6unty products
have shrunk; the products have lost their off-season
advantage. For these reasons the Committe believes
that any agricultural preservation program needs a
mechanism to frequently review current circumstances
and status .
The LCP Plan does not 'recommend lands that are avail- able or have suitable soils for preservation.
a. The bulk of lands recommended for preservation
south of Palomar Airport are marginal due to steep
slopes, high erosion potential, and a lack of access.
b. The lands west of the first coastal ridge are pre- .
ferred for preservation because of ,their soil and ._
flatter terrain. Those lands have better yields
and are more economically feasible.
A viable agricultural plan should include all of
Carlsbad's agricultural land.
Compensation for l'and owners
a. Purchasing lands from farmers at less than market price weakens the farming industry by not encour- aging farmers. .to continue.
b. The purchase of farm land at less than market price is inequitable.
.
6.
7.
The LCP fails to provide incentives for land o'wners - to lease land.
The Committe noted that 80% of the local farm land is leased; therefore, any effecti.ve agricultural preser- vation program should provide incentives for land owners
to lease land or, minimally, to remove any barriers for leasing.
The LCP does not recognize the ability of 'San' Diego
County agricultural' 'to co-exist wi'th development.
The committee believes that agriculture is compatible with existing coastal property development. Agriculture does not present undue hardships to neighbors because of local agricultural practices, such as hand spraying.
JC: jt 1/21/81
..
si -005
January 9, 1981
MEMOkANDUM
TO : City Manager I ',
FROM : Director of Utilities & Maintenance
. ,I ' %
SUBJECT: Price of Water, '1980-1990 , ..
I have just received a copy of the MWD letter to all member agencies regarding projected water costs over the next decade. MWD currently charges $90 per acre-foot to member agencies. This wi 11 rise to about $160/.AF in 1985 and to $255/AF by 1990, or an increase of about 280%. A large part of this increase is, of course, due to the accelerated increase for energy costs.
. The City presently charges about $205/AF to the retail customer, or a $11 5 mark-up over the MWD price. This. mark-up i.ncludes a1 1 of the costs and charges added by the San Diego Water Authority, CRMWD and the O&M costs of the City department. The mark-up won't be impacted by energy costs to the same degree as the MWD costs si'nce energy is a smaller percentage of their overall O&M costs. However, it is reasonable to assume that these costs will increase at about the same rate as the national rate of inflation. Assuming infl-ation wil.7 increase at about I ., , 10% per year, our water price to the customer will look like this: (. : Met. a Customer .' Per Charge Mark- Up cost Unit -
$ 90/AF . $130/AF $205/AF ' ,$ .47 1980
1985
1990
$1 60/AF $1 77/AF $337/AF $ .77
$255/AF $285/,AF $540/AF $1.23
Agricultural water costs will track similarly 'to that above. Currently $39/AF is rebated to the agricultural customer. I do not anticipate that this rebate will be increased and, in fact, could be deleted during this time frame. The basis for the agricultural rebate is because it'is "surplus water" and as urban demands increase to the point that there is no longer a water surplus, it follows that there will be increased pressure to charge a flat rate to all customers.
-3
Maintenance
RWG: pab
cc: Assistant City Manager - Development +-..
' City Engineer . - Planning Department . .. (Pat. Tessier)
-. .
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
..
DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES
0 Asslstant City Manager
(714) -
0 Bollding Department (714) 436-5525
0 Englneerlng Department
(714) 438-5541
0 Houslng & Redevelopment Department (714) 438-581 1
0 Planning Department
(714) 438-5501
1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
January 16, 1981
TO : Agricultural Advisory Committee
FROM : Patrick Tessier, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Advisory Committee Meeting Monday, January 19, 1981 7:OO P.M. Engineering/Planning Conference Room, City Hall
AGENDA
1. Review minutes of January 12th meeting.
2. Review and discuss soils map/areas suitable for
agriculture.
3. Discuss agriculture program alternatives.
4. Set next meeting and agenda.
5. Adjourn
”
CITY OF CARLSBAD Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting of January 12, 1981 7:OO P.M. - Engineering Conference Room
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Mackauf called the meeting to order at 7:OO P.M.
At the request of the Comittee members, Chairman Mackauf detailed the contents of the January 12, 1981 Memorandum from the City Attorney’s Office to the Comittee regarding Transfer of Development Rights, copies of which were distributed to the Committee by Jim Hagaman, Planning Director.
ROLL CALL
Present :
Chairman Peter Mackauf Raul Tarango John Frazee Eric Larson Guy Moore Ben Hillebrecht Victor Kat0
Also present were staff members Jim Hagaman, Planning Director, and Messrs. Tom Hageman and Patrick Tessier of the Planning Department, Additionally present was Tom Escher of the San Diego County Agriculture Commission.
City Councilwoman Mary Casler was present, as was Mr. W. 0. Kelly, Carlsbad resident.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairman Mackauf requested clarifying wording to the Minutes of January 5, 1981 on Page 2, Paragraph 2, to reflect that the instances of bankrupt farmers cited by Mr. Moore related to: cut flower growers.
The Minutes, as amended, were approved by the Committee.
DISCUSSION
Referencing the issues identified by the Committee at their last meeting (should land be preserved, what land, and how), Chairman Mackauf suggested that in determing what land should be preserved, bhe soils resource approach could be utilized. To effect that determination, Mr. Mackauf explained that if soils maps were color coded according to most desirable to least desirable in terms of current local growing, they could be compared with the classifica- tions of the Coastal Commission and Department of Agriculture.
1.
Mr. Escher then explained the criteria in determining the class of soil in terms of rocks and stones, water quality capacity, depth and slopes.
Staff acknowledged. the request for color coded soils maps.
In discussing alternatives to the Toups Proposal, Mr. Kelly requested staff to express a view of using zoning as an alternative.
Mr. Hagaman presented an example explaining that the Planned Unit Development process could require clustering of units on a portion of a large piece of property, with the remaining portion designated as agriculture. The Homeowners' Association would then become the Owner and could lease same to a farmer.
Tom Hageman continued explaining that if you define agriculture as an amenity, in line with open space, tennis courts, swimming pools, etc., under the provisions of the PUD ordinance, a developer could plan and design a development in accordance with the example pre- sented by Jim Hagaman.
While an advantage to this alternative is that it affords a Home- owners' Association a money-making venture, zoning as a method of preserving ag lands is not viewed by the Coastal Commission as sufficient to ensure permanent agricultural designation, since local government can change zoning. The Coastal Commission prefers agricultural easements.
Tom Hageman then referenced an alternative solution proposed by Councilwoman Casler whereby on parcels of property in excess of 50 acres, the parcel be designated agriculture, but allowed to develop under a schedule of phases.
On this point, Mr. Moore expressed concern with converting the residual development rights to government regulation in exchange for allowing increased density in the developed portion of property.
Continuing the discussion, Chairman Mackauf suggested that the Committee begin with the premise that agriculture is a fragile enterprise and formulate an alternative on this basis. Mr. Mackauf compared the cost of labor to the price of local crops, which are labor intensive, and other examples of increasing production com- ponents. Therefore, the appropriate position is that agriculture must be viewed in terms of how much longer it can continue to operate in the current manner, since there are no signs of any technological advances to change the situation.
With regard to the schedule of phased development posed under Mrs. Casler's suggestion, Messrs. Moore and Hillebrecht expressed concern that the economics to determine a development years.
of agriculture were changing tob rapidly schedule any further than one or two
2.
Chairman Mackauf expressed the opinion that any alternative should include the whole sphere of influence, including the land east of El Camino Real and that the minimum size of any parcel under such alternative should be 100 acres in order to make the alternative viable in terms of farming.
The Committee discussed the fact that some of the best land in the area has not been used for agriculture because of the owners's reluctance to allowing farming in view of the possibility that the land may be permanently designated as agriculture and lose its attractiveness for potential development. Mr. Mackauf expressed the opinion that prior use of land for agricultural purposes should be considered by local government in approving land for development.
Tom Hageman then requested clarification of the definition of resource: is land a resource without productivity. In response, some members of the Committee took the-position that productivity should be assured if agricultural land is to be preserved. This would be true in or out of the Coastal Zone. However, irrespective of the Coastal Zone, we should have productivity and that premise was accepted by the Committee.
The Committee then discussed the process of phased development on agricultural land, concluding that if all social, economic and technological elements of agriculture were considered on a frequent basis, then same may be feasible. Otherwise, it is inappropriate to preserve a resource without the ability to produce. Additionally, it may be possible to obtain certain trade offs from the Coastal Commission in terms of agricultural lands in the coastal and non- coastal area.
The Committee then discussed the effects of designating land in the coastal zone as agricultural land in perpetuity, which effects are predicated entirely on unpredictable economic environment. The Committee concluded that the Coastal Commission would view agricul- tural land as a "resource" and not consider economics or other factors. They also concluded that the Commission should be pre- sented the argument that agricultural preservation should include continued productivity.
COMPROMISE PROPOSALS
Guy Moore expressed approval of the recommendations contained in the Angus MacDonald report, excluding agricultural residuals, explaining that if density transfers were allowed that the fee title be retained by the owner to be reviewed at 5 years and terminated at 10 years considering all economic conditions.
Mr. Hillebrecht adamantly expressed the opinion that the Coastal Commission be required to make an outright purchase of the land for the price it would command for potential development.
The Committee concurred< as a whole that the trans5er of development rights would be acceptable only if the land owner were to receive an equitable price for the property.
3.
Mr. Mackauf expressed the opinion that the transfer of development rights should be applied on a City-wide basis, with the entire City bearing the cost.
The Committee then briefly commented on a City-purchase of ag lands funded through the sale of bonds, Public Land Trust corpora- tion purchase of the lands or charging a "public facilities' fee" for new development to be retained in trust for agricultural lands.
In conclusion, it was the consensus of the Committee that each member individually formulate their respective alternatives and forward the terms of same to the City Planning Department for preparation in final form and discussion at the next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
The Committee adjourned at 9:Ol P.M. to Monday, January 19, 1981 at 7:OO P.M., in the City Council Conference ROOR.
Respectfully submitted,
JAMES C. HAGAMAN Planning Director and Ex-Officio Member
4.
CITY OF CARLSBAD January 12, 1981
Agricultural Advisory Committee
Discussion items: Alternative Agricultural Preservation
Techniques
The following provides a range of agricultural preservation
techniques for preliminary discussion purposes.
1. Transfer of Development Rights
. Purchase of development rights from designated preserva-
tion areas, and sale of development credits to recipient
parcels (proposed in Toups LCP)
2. Planned Unit Development
. Utilization of existing Carlsbad Planned Community Zone
to protect agricultural lands. Could be applied to
large single holdings or multiple ownership area. This
would allow for all density on a given parcel to be
cl-ustered on lands suitable for development, while
allowing the preservation of agricultural lands.
3. Phased. Development Scheme
. Development of a program designating lands of significant
agricultural value, allowing certain portions of the agricultural lands to be phased out of production at five year intervals, with total phase-out of developable
lands occurring in twenty to twenty-five years. Program
might include development of criteria for determining
conversion of agricultural lands.
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES
1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
0 Assistant City Manager (71 4) 438-5596
0 Building Department (71 4) 4385625
0 Engineering Department (714) 4385641
0 Housing & Redevelopment Department
(714) 438-5611
0 Planning Department (714) 436-5591
DATE :
TO :
FROM:
SUBJECT :
January 7, 1981
Agricultural Advisory Committee
Tom Hageman, Principal Planner
ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MONDAY, JANUARY 12, 1981
7:OO P.M. PLANNING/ENGINEERING CONFERENCE ROOM (CITY HALL
OFFICES)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
AGENDA
Review minutes of January 5, 1981 meeting (to be delivered separately)
Discuss "Ma-jor points from Agricultural Committee meeting January 5, 1981" (attached)
Discuss packet on alternative methods of agricultural
preservation (attached)
Discuss Toups (and Coastal Commission recommendation on Toups plan if available). Specifically review
"lands suitable for production" as mapped by Toups.
Staff will review agenda for Council/Planning Commission workshop. on Local Coastal Program status scheduled for January 13, 1981.
Set next meeting date/tirne and agenda.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Minutes of: AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Date of Meeting: January 5, 1981 Time of Meeting: 7:OO P.M. Place of Meeting: City Council Conference Room
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:OO P.M. by Chairman McKauf.
ROLL CALL
It was noted for the record that the following members were present:
Raul Tarango Eric Larson John Frazee Pete McKauf Victor Kat0 Guy Moore
Staff persons present were:
Jim Hagaman, Planning Director
Patrick Tessier Tom Hageman
Council liaison Girard W. Anear was also present,
Also present was Tom Escher, Deputy Agricultural Commissioner for the
County of San Diego.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of , were approved as presented.
TOUPS REPORTS
Mr. Tessier began discussing stating the Toups Report attempted to
provide a means to compensate property owners, through the tiransfer of development rights, rather than zoning property as agricultural. Essentially,
the report provides a framework from which the Committee may evolve alternatives and a solution.
Tom Hageman explained that , administratively, there were problems with
the transfer of development rights process. While it is a good concept, staff is of the opinion that it should be done through zoning.
Chairman McKauf identified the problems as: (1) Should land be permanently saved for agriculture; (2) Where/What land should be preserved; and (3) How should the preservation be accomplished.
-1-
John Frazee expressed objection to taking away a person's land through the transfer of development rights process and expressed concern that farmers could not afford to continue farming on expensive land.
Guy Moore made the statement that due to the Coastal Comission restrictions, the property could not be sold for what the current owners had purchased the land for and cited cases in the study area where the farmer/land owner has gone bankrupt.
The Committee then discussed the environmental requirements of the flower, fiber and fruit farmers in terms of proximity to the coast, relationship of the location of crops and market conditions, economic impacts of Mexican imports, pesticide regulations and requirements and increased costs of water and energy costs in supply vital water. It was noted that the technical advances resulting .in mechanically harvested crops and savings in labor costs could not be applied in this area in that the local terrain will not accommodate the large machinery involved in mechnical harvesting.
Mr. Escher noted that the solution for the most part will be determined by whether or not people will be willing to pay the price to preserve agricultural land in that in order to make farming viable, the land must be worth as much as agricultural land as it would be if developed in other ways.
The Committee then discussed whether the land resource question should be separated from the ability to economically produce on the property, concluding that the transfer of development property rights will not produce viability.
Tome Hageman requested clarification of Committee discussion inquiring
if both land and production were being addressed. Committee discussion reflected the uncertainties as to whether the preservation of land for agriculture would serve to improve the situation or lead to the demise of farming. The Committee noted that some land is better for farming that others and discussed the impact of using land at greater-than- assessed-value to borrow against.
Addressing the Toups Report, the Committee expressed disagreement with the first assumption and expressed the position the property valuation
is not accurate in that it does not give the property owner a fair
price.
During discussion of the effects of an agricultural designation on property,
it was noted the value of same does not compare with other property values under the current General Plan. Also noted is the fact that a gross disparity exists between property in the study area used for farming and farm land outside the study area, the value of which has appreciated irrespective of the current farming use.
-2-
The Committee concluded that the agriculture designation imposed by the Coastal Commission prevents the mechanism which allows the land to be purchased at its appraised value. In that the Coastal Commission wants the land, the Committee expressed the opinion that the Coastal Commission should pay for same at a price corresponding with other property in that area not affected by the Coastal Commission restrictions.
The Commission adjourned at 8:27 P.M. to Monday, January 12, 1981 at 7: 00 P.M. in the Engineeriqg Conference Room.
Respectfully submitted,
- 3-
MAJOR POINTS FROM AGRICULTURAL COMMITTEE MEETING JANUARY 5, 1981
Primary topics to be addressed regarding Toups plan
(and subsequently city-wide).
I. Should agriculture be retained in Carlsbad?
A. Recognizing that the Coastal Act specifically identifies retention of agricultural land;
1. Should the land be treated as a resource not necessarily connected with continued production?
2. Should the retention of "agriculture" by definition in all cases include continuous production?
11. If it is concluded that agriculture should be retained, where is the best place for it in the city?
A. Is there anything unique about agricultural
land or production in the coastal zone or Carlsbad and why?
B. What effect will agriculture preservation in the coastal zone have on agricultural lands
outside coastal zone?
111. If agricultural retention is important, what is the best way of insuring it?
A. Is retention "in perpetuity" desirable/feasible/ practical?
B. What is the $ value of in-production agricultural
land?
Preliminary comments on Toups transfer development proposal.
1. Land Owner - farmers will experience a substantial loss in property value - particularly if they have recently purchased the land.
2. Land Owner - farmers will not be able to borrow on "value" of their property to help them through
the low return periods.
3. Exclusive agricultural designations in the coastal zone will create increased demand for conversion of agricultural areas in other parts of the city.
4. The area chosen to distribute the costs and benefits of the Toups scheme is too small, and
identifies to few people to be responsible for
"preserving agriculture". If agriculture is to be retained the maximum number of people to be
benefited should help in the effort.
-2-
r' 1'
..
8
h ,. i
.. .
.C
PART V
bfETCiCDS OF PRESERV i NG AGR I CULTURE ..
..
. ..
CHAPTER 1
COMPENSATORY PROGP.AMS FOR PRESERVING AGRICULTURE
This chapter includes discussions of several methods of providing compensation
to property owners whose land is restricted to agricultural use. The methods
discussed are as fol lows: 8
1. Preferential property tax assessment;
2. .Transfer of development rights; 3. Purchase and lease-back; sand 4. Other methods.
Cornpensatcry prcgrams svch as these are capable of providing positive incentives
for using land for agricultural purposes. The provision of some form of ccmi;en-
sation to owners of land restricted to agricultural Gse may also be desirable
as a means of mitigating adverse economic effects of governmental regulatory
decisions.
PREFERENTIAL PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT: THE WILLIAMSON ACT
Introduction .i I NaticnNide, one of the mast popular methods of providing conpeinsatlon to cwriers
of land restricted to agricultural use is prefemntial propertv tax assessnent.
ComWnl\!, !and so restricted is assessed based not on its maryet val~e but on
its value for agricultural uses. According to a 1977 report 4:2 stater; have
"use-value" assessrrient progrszs for asricul tural or other upea;-space lands.
California's program was enacted in 1965 as the California Lad Conservation Act,
or Williamson Act. By 1976, 47 OF California's 58 counties pirticipzted in the
P~OQ~~TP., makin: it one of the nmst important in the United Sta:tes.
The tlilliamson Act permits participating counties in Cal'ifornija to enter into
contracts with owners of agricultural or open space land. The contracts restrict
I the use of the land and limit its potential for subdivision in exchange for a
! reduction in property tax. The contracts run for a pzriod of ten years and are
i rencwsd aucomatically each year. The arrtount of the tax reduction is based on
' the difference between the agricultural value of the property and its market
j value.
!
I
' . The Cocinty of San Diego has been an active participant in the Williamson Act
program since 1969. The following table shows the total dollar value of taxes
saved each year by those property omers with lands under contract.
-.
I I
.* .
. ..
'I .. . ..
I
TAX YEAR TAX SAVINGS
1969-70 1970-7 1: 197 1-72 1972-73 1973-74
* 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78
TOTAL
1,443,599 1,663,008 1,732,376.
$8,772,322
The goals of the Williamson Act are expressed within the Act itself, as follows:
1.
2.
..
That the preservation of a maximum amount of the limited
supply of prime agricultural land is necessary to thc
conservatlon of the state's economic resources, and is
necessary not only to the maintenance of the agricultural
economy of the state, but also for the assurance of
adequate, healthful, and nutritious food for future
residents of this state and nation;
That the discouragement of premature and unnecessary
conversion of prime agricultural land to' urban uses is
a matter of public interest, and will be of benefit tc
urban dwellers themselves, in that it will discourage
discontiguous urban development patterns which unneces-
sarily increase the cost of community services to
community residents;
That in a rapidly urbanizing society, agricultural lands
have a definite public value as open space, and the
preservation in agricultural production of such lands,
the use of which may be limited under the provisicns
of this chapter, constitutes an important physical,
socia\, esthetic, and economic zsset to existing or
pending urban or metropolitan development (Section
51220, CaI ifornia Government Code):
. "
.. *. .. ._
.. , .. . . ..
.. i-,
4.
1 These statements make it clear that the State legislature intended that the Act 2 would.be used to further land use planning goals of preserving agricultural land
? and containing urban sprawl, while providing open space to be used for agricul-
? Let us examine the relationship between these goals and thc actual use of the e Williamson Act program in San Diego County.
i First, has it helped cause the preservation of a maximum amount of the limited i! supply of prime agricultural land in the County? The answe: to this questicrl
I -.
7 *
?
$ 6
ture.
6
I I . ;:
>
L depends on what is meant by "prime agricultural ,land." Such land is defined In
:
2
i the Act as follows:
i:
i (1) All land which qualifies for rating as Class I or Class
II in the Soil Conservation Service land use capability
classifications; 1
I- (2) Land which qualifies for rating 80 through 100 in the
f
e
2 Storie Index Rating.
(3) Land which supports livestock used for the producticn
capacity equivalwt to at least one animal unit per
Agsi cul ture.
. acre as defined by the United States Department of
(4) Land planted with fruit- 3r nut-bearing trees, vines,
bushes or crops which have a nonbearing period of less
than five..years and which will normally return during
the commercial bearing period on an annual. basis from
the production of unprocessed agricultural plant pro-
duction not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per
acre. .. i 1 (5) Land which has returned from the production of unprocessed
agricultural plant products an annual gross value of not
less thm two hundred dollars ($200) per acre for three
I of the previous five years.
According to one source there are 192,300 acres of ''prime" land in the County.
Of this acreage, 9.1 percent, or 17,433 acres were under contract during the 1975-76 tax year. More recently, the San Diego County Assessor has reported
that, for the 1978-79 tax year, there are 20,807 acres of prime agricultural
land under contract ogt of a total of 135,673 acres under contract. Thus, only 'IS percent of the land in the County now under contract is prime agricultural
land. . i
!
.. .'
.. .' I 'I I ..
. .. - . .
-
L.
..
Second, has the Williamson Act program in San Piego County helped contzin urban
the lands under contract. A map showing the location of all contract lands
reveals that most of the contract lands lie far to the east of the urbanized
areas of San Diego County. The lands under contract lying within or near urban
areas are relatively smaller and discontiguous in comparison to the vast tracts in the more remote areas. The overall effect of these contracts on the spatial
characteristics of urban growth would appear to be minor.
One reason for the present spatial distribution of lands under contract is the
voluntary nature of the Williamson Act program. The law provides for the County
to establish agricultural preserves for the purpose of idbntifying which lands
should De eligible for contracts. However, the County has never attempted to
establish agricultural preserves for the purpose-of keeping agricultural land
from being urbanized unless the owner desired to sign a Land Conservation
Contract. In general, the County has only established preserves in response
to the expressed desires of landowners to sign contracts. Exceptions to this
policy have occurred only in the more remote areas of the Ccunty. Thus almost
all of the land within agricultural preserves but not under contract is located
far from any urbanizing areas. The agricultural preserves that do exist near
urban areas are generally coterminous with the boundaries of land under contract.
Third, has the Wi 11 iamson Act program served to foster ayricul tural production
on agricultural lands? The answer to this question can be approached by analyz-
ing what lands are under contract. This analysis will show who the beneficiaries
are of the Williamson Act in San Diego County. Once the beneficiaries are known,
' 'sprawl? To answer this question one rrwsi analyze the spatial distribution of
i 1 1 i anlson
ions
IS
one can attempt to evaluate the extent to which the tax benefits of the \J
Act appear to foster actual agricultural production. The following qucst
are asked as the basis for this analysis: ..
1. How many acres of land devoted to particular agricultural activities
under contract?
2. How much of the total annual tax savings under the County's Vi1li;rnson Act
program supports each agricultural activity? ..
3. What is the average percentage of tax savings by agricultural activity?
The answer to the first of these questions is found in the table below, as
reported by the San Diego County Assessor as of March 1, 1978.
AGRI CULTURAL ACT I V I TY ACREAGE 8 OF TOTAL
'. .
~~ ~~
Grazing and Dry Farming 122,217 88.2
.. Tree Crops 10,127 7.3 I rr i ga ted C rops .2,346 I .7 . Flowers 1,108 m8
space easements) 2 , 807 7 2.0
. -Other (includes open
TOTAL 138,605 100.0
. . ..
..
I.
Note that 88.2 perc.ent of the total acreage under contract is classified as land
for grazing or dry farming.
The answers to the second and third questions appear in the next tablc, which
provides an analysis by agricultural activity of the tax savings enjoyed by
Owners of land under contract during the tax year 1977-78. These figures are
based on the County Auditor and Controi!er's Agricultural Preserve Inventory of
November 22, 1977. *
ACRl CULTURAL ACTIVITY TAX SAV I E4 G % OF TOTAL
AVERAGE 2,
TAX SAV I NG
TO OWNE4
Grazing
Tree Crops
Fiowers I rr i gated C rcps
Dry Farming
Open Space Easements
Dairies
TOTAL
$1,083 890 63% 80%
336,178 19% 42%
180,442 10% 61%
46,626 3% 74%
39,101 2% 63%
21,835 1% 76%
19,302 1% 66%
$1,727,374
The answers to'these three questions clearly show that by far the principal
beneficiaries of the Williamson Act in San Diego County are the owners of grazing
land. Grazing is the most predominant agricultural activity under contract;
owners of grazing land receive 63 percent of the total t'ax savings in San Oiego
County from the blilliamson Act program; grazing results in thz highest percentage
tax savings of. all the agricultural activities.
Thus it appears that, in San Diego County, the Wi 11 iamson Act program has
provided the strongest incentives for owners of grazing land to sign Land
Conservation Contracts. This relative emphasis of the program on grazing would
make more sense if livestock made up an important segment of this County's ayri-
CUltUrai productim. However, as shown in the tabie beiow, cvt of a gross value
of $335 million in agricultural sales in 1977, only $5.8 million was derived
from cattle and calves. These fisures are reported in the 1577 Agricultural
Crop Report prepared by the County Department of Ayricu!ture.
1
.. ..
..
e
E i
PERCENT OF
CROP . DOLLAR VALUE . TOTAL VALUE
Toma toes
.Eggs
Avocados Milk
Val enci a Oranges
Strawberries
Lemons
Carnations (Standard)
Cattle and Calves
$63,332,000 51,408,0~0
50,058,000
24,701,000
17,830,000
7,721,000
5,854,000
5,821t ,000
6,634,000
18.9% 15.3 14.9
7.4 5.5
2.3 2.0
1.7
1 e7
Cattle and calves were the ninth most valuable agricultural commodity in 1977,
comprising only 1.7 percent of the value of. 311 agricultural conrnodities.
Significant also is the fact that the signing of a Land Cocsetyation Contract
in'no way obligates the owner to use any of his land for agricultural purpcses.
The owner may enjoy his. tax break without producing an agricultural coninodi ty.
The contract provides disincentives and restrictions on nonagricultural uses,
rather than positive incentives for agricultural use.
The discussions above lead to the conclusion that, in San Diego County, the
Williamson Act program does not appear to have been encouraging owwrs of lapd
suitable for the prodcction of the County's mst important agric-ultural co;xmdi-
ties to sign Land Conservation Contracts. One might yet, however, conclude that
the program has, in accordance with the third goal of the Williamson Act itself,
fostered the agricultural use of open space land by discouraging nonagricultural
use of grazing land. However, one could hardly argue that this has been the
most efficient or productive use of the County's investxnt in the Williainson
Act program.
- Effect of Proposition 13 on the Williamson Act Program
It must also be noted that the Williamson Act program, like many others, will be
significantly affected by Proposition 13, the Jarvis-Gann property tax initiative.
As the discussion below derconstrates, the property tax savings incentive for
signing or renewing a Williarnson Act contract will be greaiiy reduced by Prcposi-
tion 13. In scme cases, the tax savings formerly attributable to the Williamson
Act contract may ~GW be exceeded by the savings attributable to Proposition l3
even if no contract is signed.
..
*I L.
.I
..* .
..
.i
This discussion will compare various examples to show the difference made by the
passage of Proposition I3 on the tax savings resulting from signing a \/i 11iamson
Act contract. Each example bcloo is computed on a per acre basis for a typical
mature avocado orchard in Valley Center. Estimates of market values, restricted
or agricultural values, and tax rates were received from personnel from the
County Assessor's Off i ce.
r - 1975
Harket Value (typical) $7,500 $15,000
Restricted Value (typical) $6,000 $ 6,000
- How taxes were com3uted before Proposition 13 -- Had Proposition 13 not passed, 1978 property taxes would have been computed by multiplying the tax rate times
the assessed value of the property. In Examples 1 and 2 a typical tax rate
for Valley Center was selected equal to $.IO28 per dollar of assessed value.
In Example 1 the assessed value is equal to one-quarter of the "restricted" or
agricuitural use value of the land under Wil1iamson Act contract.
Example 1 -- 1978 tax pel- acre on land - not under contract had,Propositicn 13 not
passed : _I
Tax = (Tax Rate) (Assessed Value) =
= (Tax Rate) (Market Value! = 4
= (.1028) ($15,000) = $385.50/acre -4
Example - 2 -- 1978 tax per acre on land under contract ha3 Proposition 13 not
passed : "
. Tax = (Tax Rate) (Restricted Assessed Value) = - (Tax Rate) (Restricted Value) =
4
(.1028) ($6 030) = $154.20/acre 4-
HOW taxes are computed under Proposition 13 -- Under Proposition 13, property
taxes shgi 1 be levied at no more than clne percent of the full 1975 property
value, adjusted annually by a two percent inflaticn rate, as shown below:
.. - 1978 property tax = .01 (1975 full valae) (l.L\2I3
where .01 is. the one perccnt tax rate and (1.~)~ represents three years of .. inflation at a rate of two percent. *
.. . ..
'If ownership of the property has changed since 1975, the tax shall te no more
than one percent of, its full value at the time of sale, adjusted annually by the
two percent inflation rate.
Example 3 -- 1978 tax on land not under contract but according to Proposition 13: -
Tax = (.01) (1975 Market Value) (2% inflation for 3 years)
= (.01) ($7,500) (1.~1~ = $79.59/acre
How taxes are computed under Proposition 13 for property Gnder Wi lliarnson Act
contract -- Property under Wil liaxson Act (California Land Conservation Act)
contract will be taxed based on its 1975 agricultural or "restricted" value,
adjusted by the two percent inflation rate, as shown below:
I__
1978 property tax = .01 (1975 restricted value) (1.02) 3
For- property now under contract but not under contract in 1975, the tax is
computed based or) the restricted value at the time of sale, adjusted fcr infla-
tion.
Example 4 -- 1978 tax on land under contract according to Proposition 13:
Summary of Examples -- 1378 tax per. acre avocado land, if:
1. No Proposition 13 and no contract - $385.50 2. No Proposition 13 but under contract - $154.20 3. Proposition 13 but no contract - $79.59 4. Proposition 13 and undcr contract .. $63.67
The most important effect on the \Jilliamson Act program will be the apparent
reduction in incentive for property-owners to enter into new contracts. The
incentive will be reduced because the dollar value of tax savings resulting
from the contract will be greatly reduced. The effect of Proposition 13 on, for
example, acreage planted in avocados' but not under contract would be to redcce
taxes by as much as 80 percenc. This savings is based on the approximately 60
percent reduction in tax rate coupled with the fact that 1975 property value may
be only 50 percent of 1978 property value.
Signing a contract now should sti 11 result. in a tax savings to the property
owner. However. the dolrar amount of that tax savings may seem insignificant
relative-to that amount saved solely 'because of Proposition 13.
Another possible effect of Proposition 13 may be increascd numbers of property
owners with lands now under contract deciding not t6 renew their contracts.
When property owners decide not to renew, each yeGr for ten years they pay an
i
'!
I.
! increasing percentage of what would have been their taxes had their land not
! been under contract.' Under Proposition 13, these yearly payments wi 11 be based
on the full 1975 value, adjusted for inflation by only two percent per year.
These payments will brt considerably less than they would have been without
Proposition 13 because the tax rate has been reduced by approximately 'GO percent
and the two percent inflation rate is far below the actual inflatior. rate for
property value.
c
A further possible effect of Prdposition 13 on the Williamson Act program rnay he
to increase the number of petitions for outright cancellation of contracts. The
Board of Supervisors may cancel a contract at the owner's request and impose a
cash penalty equal to 12-1/2 - 25 percent of the "full cash value of the land
as though it were free of contractual restriction'' (Section 51283, Government
Code; see also Eoard of Supervisors Policy 1-38), Before Proposition 13 was
passed, this "full cash value" meant market value. Now it means 1975 market
value adjusted at only a two percent inflation rate. Since market value has
been increasing at a much higher rate than two percent, as each year goes by
the maximum dollar value of the cancellation penalty beconcs less and less an
effective disincentive to petition the Board of Supervisors for a contract
cancellation. Already since the passage of Proposition 13, one property owner
has successfully petitioned the Board of Supervisors for a cancellation,
Conclusion
The following conclusions Cali be made from the above discussion:
1.- In the last nine years, the Williamson Act has provided tax savings of over
$8.7 million to owners of contract lands.
..
2. Only 15 percent of the land under contract. wets the definitions of priae
agricui tural 1ar.d.
3. Contract lar?ds are most likely to be lccated far from urban areas and
suitable only for grazing, a relatively unimportant segment of our agricul-
tu ra 1 economy.
4. The passage of Proposition 13 significantly reduces the incentive for
entering iGto or continuing a Land Conservation Contract.
Thus, it seems that the Williamson kt program in Ssn DiegG County has been of
lintited public vaiue relative to the goals of the Act itself. The proqram ha5
not been espscially effective as a means of effecting the Act's land use planning
goals of preservin9 prime agricultural lsnd or containing urban sprawl. The
open space preserved through the pi-ograin has, by and large, not been land
suitable for highly productive agricultural use or subject to the pressures of
urban growth. In the future, the program will probably be even less succe'ssful
because the limitations on the property tax reduce the incentives to participate
in the program. It is 1 ikely that the program now provides hicjhest incentives for owners of land unsuitable for any use at all to enter into or continue
contracts which provide them with zn 80 percent tax reduction.
..
.. . '1 . ..
, '.
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMEtlT R I GtITS
Another method of providing compensatlon to owners of lad restricted to agri-
cultgral use is a proposed system known as "transfer of development rights," or
TDR. The principle on which TDR is based is that land, ownership nay be considered
to consist of the. title to various rights. One of the normal rights of ownership
Is the right to develop or improve property. Under TDR, this right is separated
from the other rights of ownership and nay be purchased by others. Under one type
of development rights transfer, a governmental agency would purchase developnent
rights of land the agency.desired not to he developed. This kind of program is
often called PDR, "purchase of development rights." Except for this case, TDR
involves the establishment of a market for development rights to be sold by owners
of land planned - not to be developed to cjwners of land planned for development.
Thus, governmental actions to restrict the development of certain lands would not
necessarily have their usual effect of lowering thz value of the owner's invest-
ments in those lands. A portion of those investments would consist of the dcvel-
opment rights, the sale of which would provide Compensation to the owners of lands
restricted from development.
In order to set up a TDR prcgram for the purpose of restricting certain lands to
agricultural us?, the governmental jurisdiction nlanasing the program would designate
sites for agricultural preservation and for development and would issue certificates
of development rights. Each owner woujd receive certificates based on some equit-
able principle of distribution. One system would be to issue certificates corres-
ponding to the maximum number of dwi 1 ir?g units each owner might have been permitted
prior to the adoption of the plan to be implemented by the TDR proposal. Then
owners of developable landjwould be rcqui red to purchase development rights from
the owners of undevelopsb:& land in order to develop their land at more than a
rnlnimum intensity. I
According to Cavid L. Peterson, fiscal and c,zonornic consultant to the Regional
Grmth i1a~:~ger;lent project, transfer of development rights has both advantages
and disadvantages as c' tectjn ique of plan implcmentaticn, as 1 i sted below:
i
Advantages I.
I
_. 1. Consistent with established constitutional principles.
2. More politically acceptable than public acquisition or stringent zoning
without compensation.
3. Hinor expenditure of public funds.
4. A1 leviates ''windfa1 Is" and l'wipeoutsll; prcmotes equity.
.-
5. Fleiibi I ity; can protect any resource from market forces.
Disadvantaaes
1. Too new and complex.
2. Will not work without proper eccnomic conditions.
..
. ..
..
3.
4.
5.
6,
7-
8.
9.
.
h'ould take years to study and implement.
May not work unless adopted regionally.
Requires sigoificant political committment to be credible to would-be
participants.
Ends may be more efficiently accomplished through less complex mechanisms.
May conflict with existing toning and plans.
I nvol ves admi n i strati ve and bookkeep
Involves questions of property taxat
He concludes his discussion of TDR as fol
ing problems.
ion of development rights.
1 ows :
TDR is a complex implementation technique which would not be easily under-
stood by the general public, the development industry, and local decision-
makers. TDR wotild require a significant administrative structure with
associated cats. TDR shares, with density bonuses, the problem that it is
i t is more . Further,
ity Pians
I very
. -relatively easy to identify areas from which to take rights, but
. difficult to identify areas to which rights would be transferred
such transfers could reduce the effectiveness of existing Comurr
as well as create problems ir! capital faci 1 ities and service del
planning. . . .[E]xtensive use of the technique seems premature at this tirrtc. !t
would seem wiser to let others experiment, and to hold general use of TDR
in reserve for possible future application.
The Arroyo Group, consultant for the Citv of Riverside, California, recently
prepared a document entitled "TDR: An Evaluation of the Potential for Utilizing
the Transfer of Development Rights 2s a ;jeans for Implementation of the Arlington
Heights Plan sild Growth Managment Program." This report proposes that TDR be
used in the Arlington Heights area for the following reasons:
1.' To ensure greater equity for property owner; by e
windfalls and wipeouts, and
2. As a means of acqui ring or preserving pub1 i c open
resources. .
1 iminating or minimizing
spaces and environmental
This consultant's proposal includes draft enabling legislation and a city
ordinance. Enabling legislation may,be necessary for a number of reasons,
as listed below: I
1. So that ,development rights can be corlsidered estates in real property which
can be transfgred, recorded, and insured;
* . .I
2. So that land will be assessed for tax purposes based on the density and
type of use permitted after development rights transfer;
3. To permit local agencies to require the recordation of TDR certificates
to evidcnce the existence and transfer of development rights.
I-
..
-,. .- ..
.. .. ..
..
..
.. . ..
..
CHAPTER 2
LAND USE REGULATIONS
LARGE-LOT ZONING
Large-lot zoning is probably the:most common technique used in this country for
the preservation of open space. Wherever land is not proposed for urban uses,
that land is likely to be subject to large-lot zoning. This technique operates
by directly affecting the process of dividing land. When land subject to large-
lot zoning is scbdivided, new lots can be made no smaller than some minimum size.
How large this mininrum standard must be for it to be considered "large-lot zoning"
depends on the circumstances. In some situations, a 10,000 square foot lot size
requirement may be considered "large." In another case, 600 acres may be the
size of the large lots required.
The theory behind the use of large-lot zoning is that the private land subject
to it will be more likely to revlain a; open space if it is not divided into
small lots. \.;here the desired open space use is agriculture, then large-lot
zoning is ofter! irsposed in the hope that either the. land will not be subdivided
at all or that new lots will be large enough for agricultural use. Theoretically,
the imposition of large-lot zoning will prevent the speculative value of land
from rising so much above its agricultural value that agriculture can no 1or;ger
be considered a perrcanent economic use.
Large-lot zoning is now the principal technique used in San Diego County tc
preserve land for agricultural use. It is now imposed by three different means --
by The Zoninc, Orciinarlc.e, by the General Plan, and by Williamson Act Contract.
In the past, The Courcty Zoning Ordinance contained four types of large-lot zones -- estate zones. asricultural zones, temporary zones, and the limited control
zone, These zones provided for minimum lot sizes ranging from one-half acre to
twenty acres. The newly adopted County Zoning Crdinance'provides for the applica- .tion of any minimum lot size standard desired. This may be accomplished by apply-
ing the desired tot size designation at the time zoning Ts adopted or revised 3n a
particular property. For example, under !:he old Zoning Ordinance the agricultural
zones of the County provided a choice of vnly five differenr minimum lot sizes --
1/2, I, 2, 4, or 8 acres. Under the neiv Zoning Ordinance, the County has avV2i!able
the legal machinery needed to expand the range of possible nininlunl lot sizes from
these few te any sire desired. What this means is :hat the County need no iongzr
create and adopt new zones in order to impose new and different lot size require-
ments. The County General Plan, since 1375, has included nininlunl lot size
standards over and abcve those required by The Zoning Crdinance. Land not planned
for urban use may be subject to minimum lot sizes ranging from one to forty acres
depending on slope, access, water availability, ana other criteria. Land designated,
for example, as "Intensive Agriculture" may have minimum lot size standards of
2, 4,.or 8 acres dependicg on certain criteria.
The table on the following page shows the acres of land in agricultural use for
each land use piannirlg category of the County General Plan. Ncte that the three
categories with the most acreage -- Rural Residential, Agricultural Estates -
Medium, and Intensive Agriculture -- all permit lots as small as two acres.
Together these three categories contain 52.5 percent of the land in the County
in agricultural production.
Other figures of note are that qre than 11 percent of the land in agricultural
use is now planned for urban use; almost 28 percent is planned in categories
that permit lots as small as one acre; and almost 69 percent is planned in
Categories permitting lots as small as two acres.
The significance of this analysis lies in the possible ioss of agricultural
production that may result from the implementation of the County General Plan. If the General Plan is implemented in a wav such that land in the County is
divided into the minimum-sized lots perm'i tted in each land use category, then
many areas noGt in agricultural use will be divided into lots of two acres or
smaller. Dividins land into lots this smal 1 may result in reduced agricultural
production. Owners of small lots may chocse to take all or part of their land
out of production in order to substitute residential uses or simply because not
enough' aoney can be made to make farming worthwhile.
Board of Supervisors' Pol icy 1-38, "Agricultural Preserves," also contains minimum
Conservation (Williamson Act) Contract.
agricul tural activity and have ranged from 8 to 6CO
lot size standard now imposed by Policy 1-38 is 80
..
- Grazing .. ~ 80 acres
Dry Fa rmi ng 40 acres
Cattle Sreeding 40 acres
Horse Breed i ng _. .-.40 acres Poul try 10 acres
I Dairies 20 acres
Tree Crops 10 acres
Truck Crops 10 acres
Flowers (Field) 10 acres
Flowers (tlothouse) 10 acres
.. . .
I
Large-lot zoning has a number of important advantages over other methods of agri-
cultural preservation. The most important of these is that it is a regulatory
technique based solely on the police pcwer uf the state. Thus, it requires no
direct expenditures by government other than the costs of administering the program.
Aside from being inexpensive, the technique is easy to understand, relatively easy
to adainlster, lega'rly sound, and politically acceptable. Its legality and
acceptability are, however, subject t9 the 1 imitation that the standards imposed
are reasonable.
.. 'I
LAND USE CATEGORY
MAX I MUM
DENSITY AGRICULTURAL USE .% OF TOTAL
PERMITTED ACRES OF LFIND IN
Urban Categories
Very Low Residential
Hedium Low Residential
Low Residential
Low Medium Residential
Kedium Residential
High Medium Residential
Medium High Residential
High Residential
Office Commercial
Neighborhood Commerciad
. General Comxercial
Heavy Industrial
Nonurban Categories
kural Res idcnt ial
Agricultural Estates - Low
Agricultural Ejtates - Red.
Agricul tursl Estates - Rurai
Agricultural Preserves
Intensive Agricul tur-e
Moun ta i R Dew 1 @?men t
Mu1 tiple Rural ~ Use
National ForesF
Other Categories;
Floodpl a i r: 1
Open Space
Public, Semipublic
Greenbel t
Special Planning Area
1
TOTALS
Urban
Nonurban
Other
GRAND 'TOTAL
a 1 du/ac
2 du/ac
2.9 du/ac 4.3 du/ac
7.3 du/ac 10.9 du/ac 14.5 du/ac
29 dubac " -
1 du/l,2,4 ac
1 ciu/4 ac
1 du/2 ac
1 du/2-4 ac
i du/8 ac
1 du/2,4,8 ac
1 du/4,8,20 ac
1 du/4,8 ac 1 du/4,8,20 ac
1,212
2,748 1,041 ,
467 7,364 39 159
72 8
15 80
20 7
I .03
2-35 0.89
0.39 6,30
0.03
0.13
0.05
0.07
0.01
0.06
0,17
18,982
1,173 22,286
5,564 13,327
20,104
7,703 6,370 68 1
1 du/4-8 ac 3,552
1 du/8 ac 42 8
CI 628
I 265
(various) 2,278
1-29 du/ac 13,412
1 du/l-20 sc 96,190
(various) 7,151 - 116,753
.
16.25
1 *oo 15.08 4.76 11.41
17-21
6 :53 5.45 0.58
3.04 0.36
0.53
0.22
1 *95
..
.. . . . ..
I
There arc also a number of important disadvantages to the use of large-lot
zoning as a means of.preserving agricultural land. Probably the most important
of these are thz problems of establishing large enough minimum lot size stan6ards
and then maintaining them over time. Another disadvantage is that large-lot
standards arc difficult politically to impose when their effect will be to lcwer
the value of private investments in land. Even when such standards are imposed,
the rationale for their imposition may often be based on their temporary nature.
For example, in this County, a minimum lot si7c standard of twenty acres w;is
applied by Zoning Ordinance only when that ordinance was explicitly intended to
be temporary. In additicn, the imposition of large-lot zoning nay have sericlgs
unintended economic effects when the land is owned by the same party who farms
it. In some cases, the owner-farmer is able to continue his agricultural acti-
vities because of the rising valze cf his land investment. More stringent
minimum lot size standards may lower this value, making it mre difficult for
the owner to ob:a in mortgage nloney that he may need to finance his agr I cul tural
pursuits. The ability to sell off smal!' portions of thc property may also
provide thc cwner with an important source of capital he my need for conrinuing
agriccltural production. ..
A further disadvantage of using large-lot zonins as a means of preserving agri-
cu1t:tr'e is that the mere threat of its imposition, whether real or inlagi~ed,
may influence owners of agricultural land not to continue agricultural uses.
There is sortie evidence that this built-in disincentive for agriculture CIGY
already be functioning in San Diego County. Landowners in at least one area
have apparently stopped leasing their land for agricultural use because they
fear that the evidence oq such use will be a factor in the County's decisions
to impose more stringent land use,controls. Owners who would norna?iy gain frox
the temporary agricultural use of their property have become w1 11 ing to forgo
that gain. This effect of the threat of large-lot zoning seems to have the most
impact on our vegetable crops and field flowers. However, mre pernanent agri-
cuitural uses, such as orchards and greenhouses, may also have already been
affected in this way.
It should be noted that the present minimum lot. size criteria for the "Intensive
Ag:ici:?ture'' land usz category of the County General Plan provides. incectives
.for csing land fcr agriculture. If 1and.has been planted for the previws year
in certain crcps, and some other criteria are met, then the land ray be considered
for 2 rather thari 4-acre lots. This offer of a smaller minimum lo: size may
serve as a counter-balance to the disincentive to agricultural use discussed
above I
"Points System" Zoning
Tulare County in California has established a corcprehensive program of larae-lot
torling w$ere any requests for smaller lot zoning are evaluated by a detailcd
rating system. The purpose of this rating system is to provide explicit guide-
lines for dcclsion-makers to cse in considering miking exceprions tc the o.gera11
pol icy ~r' preserving agriculture by means of lar-ae-lot zoning. Thus, Tuiare
Covnty's large-lot zming proqrarn includes criteria for flexibility. Where land
is less suitable for long-term agriculttjre, then, if certain criteria are met,
smaller lot zoning may be granted.
.. .~
c -
e
.
.. '. . ..
The Tulare County rating system wo'rks as follows. If land zoned for large lots
fs not within an agricultural preserve (\ii 11 iamson Act) and is sl;i table for an
individual waste disposal system, then points are awarded based on to what
extent the property meets thirteen different criteria. In all, thirty points
may be awarded for scch features as soil classification, parcel size, land use,
proximity to certain uses, water availability, fire protection, road access,
hlstorical or archaeological value, wildlife habitats,,unique natural features,
and floodplains. The more points awarded, the nore suitable the land is for
agriculture. A low score, however, would provide the basis for deciding to
rezone the property to permit sm-aller lot sizes.
The most valuable feature of the Tulare County program is the explication of
the factors to be considered in the decision-making process. Too often land use
planning.decisions are made on an arbitrary, inconsistent, or unclear basis.
Getting a pol icy adopted which contains in great detail the criteria for decision-
making would be a yreat step toward improving the credibility of the lartd use
planning process. Explicit criteria, if adhered to, make planning resulations
seem more objective and fair to the affected isndowncrs.
Another interestins feature of the Tularc County large-lot zoning program is
the inverse relationship between suitability for agriculture and permitted
minimum lot size. Ten-, 20-, 40-, and 80-acre rnirtimum lot sizes are imposed for agricultural preservation. The most prodirctive ?and is zoned for l0-acre
minimums, the least, for 80-acre minimums. The rationale for this inverse
relationship is that more land is needed to run a profitable agricultural
enterprise on less productive land.
There are some apparent, but possibly minor, drawbacks to the Tulare' County
"points" system. First, it would probably be difficult to prepare ti compre- '
hmsive rating system For San Diego Co~aty's agricultura? lands that couid work
throughout the County. Our County seems much more diverse in character thsn
does Tulare and, therefore, might require an even more corcpl iczted rating systcm
for it to be expected to work rationally. Second, any complicated rating system
requires a certain amount of administrat-ive effort to make. it work. A system
complex enough tm be justifiable might.be too complicated to administer cffi-
ciently.
DENS f TY ZON I NG
Density zoning is a commonly-used alternative to standard large-lot zoning. The
"quarter/quarter" and "slidizg scale" techniques discussed below, are forms of
density zoning. With dersity zoning, the regulations determiRe hov! n!any lots
may be created out of a particular parcel. The emphasis is on the number of.
lots, not on their size. For example, a density zone of one lot per 10 acres,
when applied to a 100 acre site, would result in 10 lots. For the purpose of
preserving agriculture, it might be best if 9 of these lots were 1-acre hornesites,
and the remaining 91-acre lot were kept in agricultural uhe. Under standard
large-lot zoning, as used in this County, thc 100-acre lot wol;:d be divided into
10, 10-acre lots. Where a particular agricultural enterprise on the 100-acre .
site requires more land than 10 acres to be profitable, it is 1 ikely that the
division into lo-acre lots will result in a significant loss in production. Thus standard large-lot zoning may cause the subdivision of agricultural land .. .- - into lots not large enough for continued agricultural production.
The following diagram shows the difference in the ultimate lot patterns that may
result frcn the subdivision of a 100-acre parcel into 10 lots under standard
large-lot zoning and under density zoning.
The desirability of density zoning as an agricultural preservation technique is
limited by the possibility that the creation of small lots, however few, for
residential purposes will result in land use conflicts. Living next to a farm
may scm idyllic to som, but pesticides, fertilizer, smudge pots, noisy machinery,
flies, and noisy or smelly farm animals may prove to be unanticipated drawbacks.
Conlplaints from rural residents may be an important factor in the farme.r's
decision to consider lionag'ricultural use of his land. Such complaints may
include threatened legal action or result in investigations by County authorities.
In addition, the encouragement of 2 land L;se pattern of non-farm residences
scattered thrcclghout rural areas may result in a hiah public cost for such services
as school bus transportation.
Density Zoninq vith Open Space Easements
Density zoning has been uscd in this County in some specialized situations.
The most ccinmon of these has been in the grantins of special use permits fGr
Planned Residzntisl Developments (FRD's). PRD's are condominium subdivisions,
where small building lots ;tre sold individual!y and one or more large !ots are
sold in common to the residents to provide open space and recreationai areas
for sl! of them to own 2nd enjoy. Condominium ownership arrangements have also
been used in standard subdivisions to provide for the ownership of open space
lots. Often these open space lots are created to protect very steep land from
being develcped. The open sFace lot is protected from resubdivision by an o~en
space easczent granted to the County by the original subdivider. Such an ease-
ment, in effect, transfers the right to develop the property to the County.
The owners of the residential lots then jointly own the open space lot.
Condominium ormzrship of an open space lot does not seem appropriate or necessary
when such a lot is suitable for agricultural use. Even with a restrictive oFen
space easement on thc property, it could be retained by the. crisinal owner Fcr
continued agricultural use, or sold for this purpose.
Om problem this County has faced with open space lots has been the failure of
owners to make mortgage paymeats or pay property taxes. Foreclcsure can result
in loss of the open space easement restrictions. Therefore any program to retain
large lots in agricu?tural use by means of open space easements irust be devised with this possible pitfall in mind.
Another problem to be solved regarding density zoning is how to encourage sub-
dividers. to use it. If the owner has the choice, he may prefer the more standard
approach of subdividing land intcj iarge lots of equal size. In order to assure
the retentior! of a large lot reserved for asricultural purposes, it may be
nece.ssary to make this approach mandatory. Otherwise other inducements may
have to be offered, such as a density bonus or eventual expiration of the open
space easement. (State law allows oper? space easements to be granted fgr 20 .. year or lonyer periods.)
."
Large-Lot Zoning
1
'j
Original
I 00-Ac re
Pa rce 1
Original'
100-Acre
Parcel
I
"
.
IO New
10-Acre
Lots
Dens i ty Zon i fig
New 91-Acre
Lot
I
9 New One-Acre Lots ..
-_ . ..
.. . . .. I
Quarter/Quarter Zoning
Quar-ter/quarter zoning is a special kind of density zoning technique used in
some counties in Minnesota. This technique permits a certain number of small
lots to be located within each quarter of a quarter of a section of land. A
quarter/qusrtcr section is one-sixteenth of a section, or approximately forty
acres. If any quarter/quarter section had already been divided into a number
of lots equal to or greater than the number permit'ced, then no new lots would
be allowed within it.
Quarter/quarter zoning wa*s proposed as a more flexible alternative to the standard
large-lot zoning technique. Its purpose is to preserve agricultural land by
keeping most of it in very large lots. In theory, the one or mre small lots
Permitted in each quarter/quarter section will not interfere materialiy with the
.long-term agricultural use of the property. The ability to sell off a limited
number of small lots provides the owner with some income-earning potential over
and above the agricultural value of his land. Another advantage of the technique
is its ease of adninistration by the land use control jurisdicLion. All that is
needed for administration is accurate legal lot information for all the land
surveyed into sections.
While quarter/quarter zoning offers a solution to some of the problems of standard
large-lot zcning, its applicability to San Diego Cosnty my be limited because of
the fol lowing factors:
1. Not all of the County's agricultural land is surveyed into sections. The
. technique could ngt be used within the Caiifornia ranchos.
.. 2. Much of the County's agricultural land is already divided into parcels snaller
than 40 acres. Quarter/quarter zoning does not work well unless the land is
sti 11 in large tracts of 40 acres or, i>etter yet, multiples of 40 acres.
Sliding Scale Zoning
Another type of density zoning is the use of a "sliding scale" for the deternim-
ticn of minimum lot size. With this technique, the subdivision of land is per-
mitted in acccrdance with a felxible standard.based on the size of the parcel
proposed for subdivision. The larger the original parcel, the lower the permitted
density.
The following tabie shows how the sliding scale is used in Baltimore County,
Maryland.
-\ -
Area of. Lot of Record
at the Time of the Effective -- Waximurn Number of
Date of this Ordinance ' Lots Permitted _u.
Less than 3 xres t
At least 3 but not more than 10 2
Hore than 10 but not more thsln 20 3
Hore than 20 but not more than 100 4
Hore than 100 5 lots plus one additional lot for each 25 acres in excess of
100 acres of the total tract area
..
.*
" .. -
.* . ..
The theory heilind "sliding scale" zoning for agricultural preservation is that
smaller lots are less 1 ikely to be important segments of the agricultural base
of the area. This technique is designed to keep larger tracts in agricultural
use while snlal ler parcels would be permitted io be divided for resiaential
estates. The proponents of the "sliding scale" technique would also argue that
large landholdings are more likely to be profitably engaged in agriculture; there-
fore, owners of such land are less likely to need to subdivide their land to
profit by their invcstnients.
"Sliding scale" zoning has a number of important advantages. First, it would
appear to be an effective way of minimizing the subdivision of large landholdings
and thereby preserving land for agricultural use. Second, it provides for a great
deal of flexibi 1 i-cy. Different "s1 iding scales" could be used in different areas
to suit local conditions. As in quarter/quarter zoning, the. landowner could be
relied UPOR to decide on the size snd location of the- permitted new lots. Third,
the technique would theoretically work in areas where quarter/quarter zoning wo~~ld
not bc appropriate. Its use is not restricted to areas surveyed into sections
where all lots are of any particular size. Fourth, it is not difficult to
adrni'nister. The density permitted on any lot is determined by the size of that lot
at the time specified in the ordinance implementing the sliding scale techniql;e.
However, the "sliding scale" techsique also has some important drawbacks. It is
not c.!ear whether such an approach would be legal here in Cal ifornia. On the facg
of it, it seems to violate commonly held notions of' equity. One might argue that '
owners of larger tracts were. being arbitrarily .discriminated against. Even if
such a legal chalienge were not effective, it might be difficult to retain in the
long run the nscesssry pol i ticz! r-uppo!-t for sgch a program. Another drawback is
that new owners of land that tias already been subdivided in accordance with the
"sliding scale'' may not be properly infcrrned about the development potential of
their property prior to their purchase oi it, it may be difficult For them to
accept that their prcperry cannot be resutdivided when some adjacent smaller
property can be divided.
..
i ,."
'\
-.
*.. " . .
CHAPTER 3
PURCHASE AND LEASE-BACK
The unincorporated area of San Diego County has approximately 1!3,000
acres of land in agricultural production. The bulk of this land lies
in four areas: Fallbrook (14,003-i3%), North County Metro and San
Dieguitoa (25,593-23Z) , Valley Center (24,104-218), and Otay (13,695-12%).
Clearly, many of the lands in these areas will be subject to future
urban development pressure and thus any attempt to preserve this
agricultural land via purchase and leaseback, etc. would be quite
. costly. This paper will examine the financing methods and costs of
preserving agricultural lands. Based upon post Propcsition 13 rzvenue
constraints and the methods available, the following is a summary of the
feasibility of preserving agricultural landvia its acquisition.
. Essentially, given the revenue constraints at the Federal?
State, and local level and the market price of agricultural _.
land in San Diego Coanty, it is highly impractical to t
attempt to preserve agricultural land in this County
primarily via acquisition.
An estimate was made of the cost of purchasing agricul-
tural land The price tag of such a purchase could well
exceed 6001mi11 ion dollars at today's market prices.
Obviously,lsuch an ambitiouz effort is beyond the scope
of governmknt. The point, however, is that any attempt
to purchase agricultural land in San Diego County would
involve 2 $assive sum of money. As a corollary, this
acquisition would entail foregoicg other services an3 --
revenue (property taxes) by local governments.
I
"
I \ . The number land f lexi b i 1 i ty of f i nanci a1 mechan i sms
available to the County of Sa11 Diego to purchase agri-
culturai land is very 1 inlited. There are no funds
currently existing at the Federal and Statelevel available
for direct purchase. At the local level, it appears
that the purchase of agricultural land by 2 nonprofit
corporation, leasing this land to the County, and in turn
having the County sublease to the grower-tenant is the
most practical method at this point irt time. It is
1 ikely that under such a scheme that the County of San
Diego would have to subsidize lease payments; the amount
depending on which agricultural land was purchased.
That is, the market value of existing-agricultural land
. and associated debt service costs are likely to be less
than market rates. Any deficiency between revenues and
costs are likely to be funded in the capital improvement
* Includes some. incorporatzd areas.
-2-
budget .
i
. The issuance of general obligation and revenue borlds by
The County of San Diego appears infeasible. General
obligation bonds have been virtually eliminated as a
result of Proposition 13. According to a financial
consultant to the County:';, issuance of revenue bonds
directly by County of San Diego is questionable due
to potential lease revenue being insufficient to cover
debt services.. Likewise a joint powers agreement is
not viable, as these intrajurisdictional contracts are
designed for building or improvement oriented activities.
A development fee for an "open space agt.icuItura1" fund
is probably not legal. This is due to the fact that
fees must be directly tied to benefits to the
development. Finally, a special assessrnerlt district
approach (i.e., City of San Diego's open space
requisition bonds) would be difficult in the era of
post Proposition 13 revenue constraints and according
to this municipal financial conLultant subject to
legal challenge;.
. In smmary, the large quantity of agricultural acreage
coupled with the high market price of this land ana
the revenue constraints in the post Propositicn 13 era
make it virtuaily impossible to preserve agricultural
land via its acquisition. At best,'it appears that
the use of a private nonprofit corporation approach
may be feasible as a minor supplement to other more
ambitious methods (density zoning, etc.).
I
* Terry Comerford, Blythe, Eastman, and Di 11 ion.
METHODOLOGY
Explained below is the method for calculating the market value of
agricultural land in San Diego County. Admittedly, it is somewhat
crude. However, to derive a "true" value of agricultural land in
San Diego County would involve a farm by farm appraisal; a quite
costly effort. The attempt in this study is to provide a rough value
of agricultural land at today's market prices. This value, in many
cases, is likely to be above what the land is worth for purely
. agricultural production. In other words, much' of the agricultural
land in San Diego County is valued for nonagricultural uses.
This price of agricultural land by planning subregion was cclmputed
via two steps. Step one was to "inflate" the most recent information
on !and inflation by the most current acreage market value data from
the Assessor's property information system. The only information
which could be discovered on the inflation rate of land was the
average increase in the price of existing single family homes in 1978
by those of 1977. This assumes, naturally, that land value is the
sole cause for home price increases from 1977 to 1978. While not
,enti rely true, it is a good "ha1 lpark'l estimate. Between 1978 and .1977 the average price of an existing single family home in San Diego
County increased by 31%;:.
This 31% inflGtion rate v!as applied to the Assessor's estimate of
average market value per acrk for all land in a planning subregion in 1977. Cleariy, this' implies that land would be purchased at highest
and best use value. In summary, acreage in production figures were
multiplied by 1977 Assessor's market value and in tdrn inflated at
31%. The tatle below summarizes this calculation:
TABLE I
MARKET VALUE AGRICULTURAL LAND
PLANN I NG AREA ACREAGE IN PRODUCT I ON -
Pendleton-De Luz 22 89
Fa1 lbrook 14803
Bonsall . 7829
North County Metro 20392
San Diegui to 520 1
Pa 1.a Pauma 92 05
Val ley Center 24 104
* May 1978, Chamber of Commerce Economic Bulletin.
CURRENT MARKET VALUE
(In r'4i 11 ions)
$ 4.1
16G. 4 47.8
124.5
95.6
- 14.5
92.2
, ..
r -"I-.""- """".. ." """"" """rp'
~ -2
. .A
TABLE t (Cont'd)
MARKET VALUE AGRl CULTURAL LAND
PLANN ING AREA ACREAGE IN PRODUCTION
Otay
Ramona
Ra i nbow
Lakes i de
Pamy
CURRENT MARKET VALUE
"n M; 1 I ionsj
$ 20.4
26. ?
27.3 6.0
7.7
TOTAL : 11 1690 $632.6
Obviously, not all of the land in these areas would be even considered
for preservation due to small lot sizes, etc. The point, hwever, is
that such an effort would be quite costly.
'As can be seen, the total estimated market value of this agricultural
Imd is in the- neighborhood of 633 million dollars. This amounts to
an average market value per acre of $5,664.
As mentioned earlicr, possibly revenue bonds cogld be issued by a private
nonprofit corporation to purchase part of this agricultural land. In
todsy's. market such revenue bonds ar2 issued typically for tweQ:y five
years st 7% interest. Related to this approach, the table below
illustrates the impact on County government of the following scenarios:
. The purchase of 10 million dollars worth of Agricultural
iand in 1979 at an overall average purchase price of $5,664 per acre (the ccimputed average). This amounts to
the purchase of 1766 acres of agricultural acres in
production; or 1.6 percent of the total acres in the County.
. It is assumed that the bonds are issued at 7% for twenty
five years. This amounts to an annual debt service of
$858,100. . Lease rates begin at an annual $150 per acre and are
escalated at 10% per year.
. The financing "scheme" is one in which a nonprof i i
., corporation leases to the County of San Diego and in turn the County subleases to the growcr-tenant. Any difference
between debt service cost and lease revenue is financed
via the capital inprovernest budget. The term deficit
refers .to this capital fund figure.
, c
YEAR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-
TABLE I I
TEN FISCAL IMPACTS OF FINANCING AGRICULTURAL LAND VIA ACQUISITION 10 YEARS {IN ACTUAL NOMINAL DOLLARS)
DEBT SERVICE COST
$ 858,;oc
858,100
858,100
858,100
858,100
858,100
858,100
LEASE REVENUE
$ 264,900
29 1 ,390
321,412
353,200
388,520
427,372
469,756
8 858,100 515,672 342,428
9 858,100
- -10 858,100 ..
TOTAL $8,581,000
568',652 289,448
625, I 64 232,935
$4,226,058 $4,354,962
The implication of the data and analysis in this sect.ion leads to the
following conclusions:
1.
2.
3.
Even under what appears to be the most feasible financial alternative,
the private nonprofit corporation approach, the County of San Diego
could end up "subsidizing" agricultural production.
Bearing in mind that the table in this section amounts to less thsn
a mcdest 22 purchase of agricultural lands in production, an even
more ambitious approach would naturally incur substantial costs to
County government and would likely cause the elimination of potential
capital improvement projects. In addition, the County would be
eliminating sources of property tax revenue.
There is, however, two apparent advantages to such an approach.
First of all, if the agricultural land is thought of as open space,
then the County's nonprofit corporation could gain functional open
space and unlike most open space receive revenue from it. Secondly,
a substantial profit could pass to the County if future proceeds
from the sale of the agricultural land reverted to the County.