HomeMy WebLinkAbout; Agriculture Committee General Info (1981); Program Report; 1981-01-08STATE COASTAL CONSERVC..:;C;r' STAFF RECOMMENDATION
CONSULTANT'S REPORT: Enhancement of Coastal figriclll ture
January 8, 1981
REQUE STEO ACTION: Acceptance of the supplemental use report, Enhancement of
.. Coastal Agriculture, prepared by the consulting firm Angus
. McDonald and Associates.
.. .. SHORT . .DESCRIPTION: Report authorized by the Board in August 1979 and jointly
.,
.. funded by the Coastal Commission recomendiny possible Conservancy roles in promoting supplerental use projects as 'a method of preserving agriculture. ..
.. .. - ~, ..
. PROJECT .. . , ..-
CATEGORY: Agricultural Preservation. ..
_.
. . .. > .. -
I .. ..
._. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the State Coastal Conservancy adopt the fol 1 owing resol ut ion: "The State Coastal Conservancy hereby accepts the supplemental use report, Enhancecent of Coastal Agriculture, prepared by the consulting firm Angus
funded by the Coastal Comission,." . . Mdonal d and Associates under a contract jointly
.. STAFF SUMMARY: ' Staff recommends that the Conservancy zccept the supplemental use report. Jointly sponsgred by the Conservancy and the Coastal Comission, the report presents a method for determining the economic feasibility of ,individual farm units and suggests a way to enhance coastal agricultural operations and, more generally, coastal farm economies. Supplemental or nixed use, as the terms are used in report, mean a non-agricultural use -- that is, a use other than, and not nornally incident to, agricultural
.
- ..
Y
1
.. -. I_ .
production -- vhich is consistent with Coastal Act policies, compatible with agricultural use, and which
' economical ly supports the long-term productivity of the agricultural operation. A supplemental use may or may not
. be located on-site in proximity to the farm use. In a regulatory framework that provides for the transfer of devel opment potential , a supplemental use coul d be 1 ocated off the farm site. There are two basic ways that a supplemental use could enhance long-term' agricultural productivity: 1) increases to an i'ndividual farm unit's operating income or capital ; and 2) by enhancing local ... agricultural economies, such as additions to .. ... infrastructure; for example a food-processsing plant or
- ..
-. .
...
' farmers' market. .. ... _.. .. . ~.
. , ,' The report's major findings and recommendations of greatest
.. significance to the Conservancy are the following: a
supplemental use program can be an effective planning tool
. . for supporting agriculture within the Coastal Zone;
. existing statutes mask the fact that the concept of
..
.. ..
. . supplemental uses is equally appl icabl e to the programs of the Commission and the Conservancy; the role of the State Coastal Commission in implementing a supplemental use program should primarily be of a policy nature; the role of
.involvement; the supplemental use concept has immediate applicability to Local Coastal Programs.
... the Coastal Conservancy in imp1 ement i ng a suppl emental use : program should include both technical and fi nanci a1 -. ..
-. -. ,-
... ... .. .. , .. f .. .. ... The report consists of three major elements: first, two'.
.. supplemental-use, pilot studies, one on a large
...... ,. South Carlssbad, a highly productive agricultural area in .. . non-prime-land. ranch in Mendocino Cotlnty, and the other in
.. . . Northern San Di ego County; second, mixed use gui del i nes which provide a model set of performance standards for implementing mixed uses and a series of standardized
.' formats for assembling farm-unit, cost and income data in order to permit evaluation of supplemental use projects, to develop appropriate farm-unit size criteria, and to determine economic feasibility of a given farm-uni t'; and third, an action program directed at the Conservancy regarding how their unique powers can best be used to
..
' promote the supplemental use concept.
STAFF
* .DISCUSSION:
,.
The staff believes that the consultant's. report provides a basis for renewed and expanded staff efforts to develop . agricultural preservation projects for at least four reasons. First, the report suggests that the supplenzntal use concept may be a way of preserving agricultural land at less cost to the Conservancy than the purchase and resale/leaseback technique proposed in agricultural projects to date, Despite the passage of Proposition 1, Conservancy funds remain limited relative to the amount of agricultural lands in the coastal zone needing additional protection or enhancement measures. .
Second, supplemental or mixed use projects provide the Conservancy. with a means of enhancing agricultural economic viability. This is important because preservation of agricultural land alone does not assure that it will continue to be actively farmed, If farmlands do not continue to be actively farmed, political and economic pressures to convert them to urban use will increase.
.. .. ._I .. ..
., . . .. Third, the mixed use guidelines provide a means of not only .- identifyi ng more immediate problems with agricultural
.. .. .. economic viability which need to be addressed,.but also .. opportunities for enhancing long-term vizbility. . Economically healthy farms often decline in viability because of strong countervail i ng econmic forces, . For
be converted to urban use results in del ayed or forgone investment in needed equipment and improvements; also, the ..
- -. .,
.. .. example, speculation that agricultural lands can eventually
.. rates of return on agricultural investments are often lower
._ than for agriculturally-unrel ated i nvestnents due, in part,
.. .to excessive dependence upon convent-ional channels for marketing farm products.
.. *. ..
. .. Fourth, the farm-unit analysis procedure provides a non-soil-dependent means of identifying farm units on which
feasible without a supplemental use. This is particularly he1 pful because, the Coastal Act's division of agricultural
i_ lands into prime and non-prime categories does not adequately address these situations.
' continued and renewed agricultural operations are not
Based on the consultant's report, the staff will identify possible supplemental use projects for implementation, wil I
" REPORT SUMMRY:
...
..
.. ..
consider the recommended legislative changes as part of the Conservancy's legislative program, will work with the Commission's staff and local governments on implementing . ' the concept in the LCP's and will report to the Conservancy ' on its progress. In addition, the staff will continue to work with the consultant on the final draft of the report in order to incorporate Conservancy input. ..
.. . . ,. .,. I. .-- . ,.
Findings .znd Recommendations: The study concludes that the supplemental use concept can play a major role in preserving agriculture in both rural and urban fringe areas in the Coastal Zone, and that the Conservancy has a significant role to play in implementing the concept. The study's conclusions and recommendations of greatest significance to the Conservancy are the foll owi ng: ..
..
.. ..
. ... ..::
., .. ....... :. ... ., , ........ - , .......... ........ ....... ..... ... ...... .. ... ... :. - r.
.. . . I 1. "A supplemental'.use program can be'an effective ' .
...... ..... 'planning tool for supporting agriculture within the Coastal
..... .. -Zone." The stud.y draws a distinction between the use of
- .. 3
.I ... .. .. ... ..
~. ... .. ..
.. .. .... ....
. .- - '. .... .- .supplemental us& in rural and urban areas. It recommends
.... ... ,. should enhance local agriculture by providing capital or
.. .. .. .. that in rural areas the emphasis of mixed use projects
.~ .. - .. agricultural economies. In urban fringe areas, the
" .. .... should be upon economic development --supplemental uses .. .. ...
-. .. .- .. .- income which supports ongoing production or local .........
emphasis should be on securing agricultural land by deed
L. ... restrictions in the context of creating stable urban
... buundari es and reducing conf 1 icts between urban and
... .. , . . agricultural use's. This may be accomplished either through
.. .. .a transfer of limited development potential off-site, or by
.. . conditionally permitting compatible non-agricultural use of
.. .a portion of a parcel . All such urban-fringe-area projects
.. . should enhance the suitability for agricultural use of the .
.... resi-dual agricultural portion or the viability of local
.. . . agricultural economies, and must be consistent with the
..
- .. I' ,
...
.. .. .'.:.'1 .... . '.
...
.. priority of coastal uses mandated by the Coastal Act.
. ., .- ... ..
*. ... Supplemental uses may be either agricultural ly-re1 ated, as'
.. in the case of timber harvesting or on-site food 'processing, or agriculturally-unrelated, as with
however, fit neither category exclusively, such as an on-site roadside produce stand. Such a commercial, potentially visitor-serving use would, strictly speaking, be agricultural ly-unrelated. However, by providing a marketing channel for farm products it would be
' *_ residential, commercial and industrial uses. Some uses,
.. : '.
-1 78-j
.
..
I . . -.
7-
. ..
agricultural ly-related.
2) "Existing statutes mask the fact that the concept of supplemental uses is equally applicable to the programs of the Commission and the Conservancy." Tile study notes that the Conservancy's enabling legislation gives highest priority for Conservancy act ion to urban fringe sreils, while the Coastal Commission has interprzted Coastal Act policies to generally exclude any development on prime agricultural lands. Because urban-frinse areas frequently fall on prime lands, a Conservancy mixed use pro,ject may conflict with the Coastal Act pol icy. At the same time, the Conservancy's own legislation di scowages it from undertaking mixed use projects in rural areas where Coastal Act policy would permit them.
3) "The Role of the State Coast.al Commission in implementing a supplemental use program is primarily of a
'%xed use concept and cooperate with the Coastal, Conservancy in devel oping its mixed use program.
" -
-
olicy nature." The Coastal Cornmission should support the
4) "The role of the Coastal Conservancy in imp1 ementi ng a sum1 mental use Droaram includes both technical and ,I f i nanci a1 i nvol vernent ." The study recox~nds three distinct roles for the Conservancy: technical assistance to local governments in identifying ax! evaluating actual mixed use proposals; serving as a repository for dedicated lmd or easements that result frm mixed use projects, and taking the responsibility for developing mixed use project sc
5) "The supplemental use concept has immediate appl i 1LocaI agenci es couia aaopt a rnixea use poiicy, based on the mixed
use guidelines which contain a model policy and a farm-unit analysis procedure as a part of their Local Coastal Plans.
Recommended Action Program - The cc~nsultant's recommended Conservancy Action Program i ncl udzs several recommendations. It emphasizes the need for successfully completing at least one project as soon as possible, and the need for an early elimination of projects that are unsuitable or that have a low probability of successful implementation. The report recommends the Conservancy take the fol 1 owi ng act ions :
Id
.. . .. ,
..
..
-1 19-
'.
. "
Endorse and adopt the mixed use concept. Adequately fund agricultural projects and hire specifically qualified staff. Adopt tangible objectives for each year. Establi sh guide1 i nes and criteria that emphasize a sequential, rather than a conparati ve project evaluation process. This will stream1 i ne the process and he1 p make decisions about individual project proposals as early as possible. The report provides a full list of suggested criteria for assessi ng projects. Seek amendments to the Conservancy's enabling legislation. These include: the removal of the limitation of $100,000 on the amount the Conservancy can pay for an option; modification of the priority given to urban-fringe areas to allow mixed use projects; modification of the requirenents that project sites be designated as agricultural land in the LCP; modification of the finding that there are no other reasonable means to preserve the site, and the addition of specific language permitting the Conservancy to implement agricultural preservation projects through local, non-profit, land trusts.
Mixed-Use Guidelines: Intending that they assist .in the implementation of the Local Coastal Programs (LCPs), the consultant's study includes a set of mixed use guidelines .for the incorporation of supplemental uses with coastal agricultural operations. The guidelines include: 1) a mdel mixed use policy which is essentially a set of performance standards; 2) a set of procedures for analyzing
' farm units so that mixed use opportunities can he identi- fied, proposed, and evaluated in a consistent way. The guidelines were developed from the preparation of the two pi1 ot studies.
._._
The model mixed use pol icy is a set of performance standards for implementing the Supplemental use concept in the Local Coastal Programs. It would provide that, before a permit for a supplemental use is granted, the permit-granting authority must find that the proposal economically enhances coastal agriculture, complies with the Coastal Act, and preserves productive agricultural land and other natural features. If such findings can be made, the model pol icy would a1 1 ow for supplemental uses subject to conditions, such as the preparation of financial analyses, dedication of development rights, and requiring
-1 20-
e' -
4' , . 1
..
..
.. ..
the cost of all public service capital improvements to be borne by the developer.
The farm-unit analysis provides a standardized format for relating farm costs and income over time to the financial status of the farm owner/operator, and thus provides a means of analyzing the viability of individual farm units.
It has several uses: it can be applied to develop appropriate farm-unit-size criteria for use in land-use regulation. Also, the standardized fornat for providing data to evaluate economic feasibility can facilitate negotiations between a landowner and a regulatory agency. Third, the farm-unit analysis when combined with a market . analysis, can be used by the Conservancy, Commission, or local agency in evalutating a specific, mixed use proposal. Finally, the Conservancy can use it to project its own relative cash flow as a component of a prospectus on projects that would be marketed to private interests.
The. format of the farm unit analysis permits taking into account changed assumptions or conditions,. such as crop changes and transfer of ownership. The cost of ownership over time, tax advantages, and many other factors will vary depending "on whether a farm is operated by either a new owner, a longstanding owner, a leaseholder, or an absentee investor with other major assets or income.
Pilot Studies: The report analyzes the supplemental use' concept in two pi1 ot studies, one in Mendocino County, and one in Carlsbad, San Diego .County. These pi1 ot studies' ' deronstrate th2 broad appl icabf 1 i +y of the consultant's techniques for evaluating'potential supplemental uses. Each study first determined the relative market demand for different possible supplemental uses and then examined the viability of specific farm units. In each pilot study three different types of ownerships were analyzed which highlighted the importance and financial implications of the owner's economic situation and requirements.
The Mendocino Pilot Study: For the physical characteristics of the site, the report relies on a 2100 . acre dairy, beef and timber-operation located on the Mendoci no County coast. The market analysis showed that the market for milk and beef is presently strong; thus
" ~~ ~~
*i
then coastal dairies of Mendocino County are in a healthy, competitive position for the forseeable future. Two problems were identified: 1) the lack of 1,ocal processing; and, 2) transferring the dairies to the next generat ion of operators.
.. ' The farm-unit analysis .showed that the two .supplemental uses that appear most compatible and 'feasible are a cheese processing facility and a guest ranch. ..
.. .. . . . : _.
..
..
.. ..
San Diego County-Carl sbad Pilot Study: ' This pi1 ot study is in a highly productive tomato-and-flower-farming region,that is subject to urban pressures and conflicts, targe agricultural holdings are surrounded and interspersed with urban development, making it a good testing area for innovative agricultural preservation . . techniques, The market analyses looked at a wide range .of visitor-oriented, agriculturally-oriented and urban uses that could supplement incomes derived from farm operations. The farm-unit analysis showed that agriculture in the area would be financially vi able no matter which assumptions about .the type of .operator were used. ..
..
.. .. -. .. . .. , -) . .. -, . ..
.. f.
In order to illustrate the range of a1 ternative supplemental uses possible in such an area, three case studies were selected. For smal 1, individually-owned lots, the most viable option is partici,pation in the agricultural subsidy credit program suggested by the 'Carl sbad LCP or a parcel-based density transfer system. For a 1 arger parcel of 140 acres, resi denti a1 supptemntal us= wwe if 1 ustrated using a "planned community" concept. Devel opment of 50 acres would a1 1 ow . the preservation of the remainjng 90 acres in agriculture. Finally, for parcels with commercial potential, the case study showed how deed restrictions to retain agricultural use on 100 acres could be obtained in exchange for 16 acres of commercial development. The commerci a1 uses would provide for the marketing of 1 oca1 agricultural products, which could in turn improve the economic viability of other agricultural operations in ,'. the area.
--_
..
..
.-
,
.. .
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
-_
. ,.. ..
AGRICULTURE ".-
A. "" Overview of Policies Recommended and Findings Regarding Agricul.ture in the
. Initial Draft of the Carlsbad LCP-
" -
1. """ Background <vld Findings - The PRC Toups draft of the LCP notes that there
is approximately 1,550 acres of land within the Carlsbad LCP study area which.
qualifies as prime agricultural land utilizing the Willianson Act definition kg- 18 of
draft .Le). Ano-ther 400 - 500 acres within the Carlsbad LCP has historically
been fanned but does not qualify as prime agricultural land under the Williamsan
Act hecause the land has not heen in production in recent years.
Within the PKC Toups draft of the Carlsbad LCP, or in the technical s~pport paper
i for agricultue prepared. by PRC Toups, the following inforxiation is provided. i
Agriculturzl crops in the Carlsbad coastal zone consist primarily s
-. of field flowers and a variety of vegetables, particularly tomatoes.
Relatively fex greenhouse o9erations occur in the Carlsbad coastal :. .
- zone; the largest is located off Poinsettia Lane within the south-
. western portion of the study area. Production in the Carlsbad area i. is unique in that the crops which are grown can he grown in very few
other places during the same time of year. This significantly reduces
growers for marke-ts for certain vegetables.
:
1: .
.. domestic congetition, although the area does compete with Mexican
I
f
. Pols tomato production is the most significant vegetable crop in the
. Carlsbad area and in San Diego County, both in terms of revenue and
planted acreage. The tomato industry has a high ,~'multiplier-effect",
That is, it generates a substantial amount of direct and indirect
.economi.c activity, Revenues from pole tomato production tend to
fluctuate widely from year to year, prirna.rily because of competition
Disease resistant varieties, however, have increase yields sub-
stantially during recent years.
.. from other areas, adverse weather conditions, and disease problems.
4 -..
Jim Hag;lman, Planninq Uirector
January 20, 1381
Page 4
Other crops nctcd ix the PRC ToULjS ILP draft ;IS being cithcr currenyly grown
or capable of bcinq cr-own in the arc2 incluc?,c: cherry torntses .. strzwberries,
snap Leans, cabhaye, cauliflower, celery, cucumbers, chives lett:-lcc and squash.
Additionally, field f10~~ers are a significant nursery crop cjrown in the Carlsbad
coastal zone.
As stated in the Tou,ns LCP draft and technical support documnt, climate is the
major fact.or which has determined the success of the areas agricL:lture. The
soils, whj.le not. defined as prime by the Soil Conservation Service of the U.S.
Departnent of Agriculture, are nevertheless (for the most part) class 111 and
.IV soils which are'well suited for growing truck crops, tomatoesI flowers and
other crops. This is supported by the following data contained in Appendix 6
of the Toups technical support paper relating to tomato productian,
PRODUCTION
PRODUCTION IN TONS AmA'
% NATIONAL PRODUCTION
- I
Nationwide
33% 333,000 California
100% 1,000,000
San Diego
County 1- .165,000
78,000 8%
.I
% STATE
PRODUCTION
N/A
100%
48%
23%
-
AVERAGE
YIELD/ACRE
8 tons
11 tons
30 tons
30 tons
IW~VESTED
ACilEAGE
125,000
29,400
5,500
2,600 I
% NATIONAL
ACREAGE -
100%
23%
4%
2%
I
"
-L
% STATE
ACREAGE
N/?.
100%
18%
8.8% .
As found in tf?e City of Carlsbad Mello Bill Properties (hB462) Local Coastal Program,
informative agricultural statistics can be extrapolated from the chart. The
. Carlsbad area ?reduces approximately 8% of the nation's fresh tonatoes on only 2%
,of the national acreage; and, the area produces 23% of California's fresh tomato
'indicate the high productivity of the Carlsbad agricultural area- The purpose of
' the extrapolation is to indicate the real capability of non-prime soils to supprt
agriculture, Soils, in combination with the other unique locational factors, such
as the moderating coastal climate, make coastal agriculture unusually productive.
' crop on 8.8% of State's acreage devoted to tomato production. Such statistics clearly
.As with much of the agriculture in the State of California, the Toups LCP draft
economy of the area. These include availability and cost of water, energy costs,
and labor costs. While advisory and supportive policies can be developed in the
LCP regarding thcsc issues, the issues arc broader in scope and si:ould be resolved
. at the state and or fcdcral level and not in the LCP. However, the key planning
issues which must be addressed in the LCP are identified by PRC Toups as:. pressures
of urbanization; urban/agricultural conflicts; and, rccjulation of agricultural lands.
These three issues are discussed in the foll.owing su!!hcadings.
' finds that there are a number of factors which will influence.the agricultural
Jim Ilagainan , Plannrx-ig KIi-rcctor
January 20, 1981
Page 5
until development 03 the land is possible. Other ownerships are extremely small
and f rarjmentcd.
, The basic princigal underlying much of the land use conflict is
that market value of vacant land increases as demand for urbanization
increases. Agricultural land which is in close proximity to sn urban-
izing area has a market value in excess of its value as an agricultural
resource. As constraints to urbanization decrease, land values in-
crease.. Any number of factors, such as improved access, increased
sewer capacity, residential zoning, .and increased water availability,
can contribute to such increases. This situation has led to land :.
.. speculation in many areas of the Carlsbad coastal zone. Many
. . agricultural land owners reiy on the future value of their land as
. the basis €or their investment strategies. (pg. 20, FRC Toups LCP
.. 'draft).
Because of this urbanization pressure and land speculation which has occurred in the
Carlsbad area, the economic feasibility of agriculture takes on added importance.
At the request of PRC Toups, Dr. Alan P. Kleinman at Great Kestern Research
prepared a report entitled The Economic Vi,&ility of Agriculture in the Carlsbad
Coastal'Zcne. That report states:
.. Based on the derivation of the expected costs and returns
as rlerived for the area, profitability of production on
the average is in a reasonable range for farm operators of
specialty crops in the coastal zone. Historical1.y there ' -
losses due tc market factors and yield variance. If production
$3,500 per acre invested in land, it could be concluded that
._ have Se-ln years of very high returns and years o€ significant 0.
-. in the stuiiy area was by owner-operators who had not more than
" ' agricultaral production would continuo into the forseeable future.
,. However, Sased on the current land tenure, a host of eccnomic .. pressures are at work which will ultimately result in abandonment
' . of agricultural production. The question then becomes one of
. . the econonics of land ownership rather than the economics of
.. . .. agricultural production. ..
In addition, a report prepared by Copley International Corporation titled Analysis .
of Agriculture on the Spiers Study Parcel Regardinq the California Coastal A=
. concludes that:
..
' .?n terms of ,Section 30242 of the Coastal Act, the study
parccl does not represent a case where renewed agricultural
,use is feasible.' From an economic point of view, ownership
of the parcel for agricultural activities is.not viable, The
value of the parccl assessed at $26,654 per acre does not
xeprcsent an agricultural land use. As shown in the Gcneral
Agriculture section above, the agricultural valuc oE the land
is approximately $4,000 (Page 32 of the Coplcy Reprt) .
P - b 1 4
Jim Hagaman, Planning Director
J'muary 20, 1981
Page 6
The Spiers Parcel is one of the Occidental Land, Inc. parcels in the Me1l.o Bill
Properties (AB462) LCP which the Coastal Cornission has approved.
As concluded by Dr. Kleinman and PRC Toups, the quesiton becomes one of the
economics of land o,mershi.p rather than the economics of aC'''cultura1 production.
Agriculture in the Carlsbad area does provi.de an adequate l.r..-:y term economic
rate of return if the land were purchased at approximately $4,000 an acre. If
. purchased at a much higher speculative value, the long term economic rate of
. return €or continued agricultural use becomes problematic.
In conclusion, the PRC Toups draft of the Carlsbad LCP states that Khat is
. economically beneficial to the individual landobmer is not necessarily beneficial
.to the regional economic fabric. The following excerpt from the LCP technical
document supports the above statement by indicating that continued agricultural
operations result in a net positive impact on the area as a VJhOlC:
Planning methodologies have been developed to compare the
uses on individual parcels of land, particularly comparing
agricultural and residential uses. In conjunction with
prepxation of the County's Agriculture Element, County
planning staff conducted a computer analysis using the
Demojraphic and Economic Forecasting I.Iodel to analyze the
relative imsortance of agriculture to San Diego County.
As part of that study, an analysis of replacing 80 acren
.costs and revenues associated with placing different land
.. . , of 'tomato production with low d-ensity residential develop-
- ment was conducted which found that greater long run ..
person2 income would acc-qe to the region if this land
remained in agricultural Froduction. This analysis assumed
that 108 houses built. on this land would be a net temporary
.@
. .* ' addition to the County's housing stock in 1979. In other
. words, it wzs assumed that the development would have oc-
curred elsexhere in the region over the long run. What the
. results indicate is that the building of low density re- b
.. sidential homes on agricultural land generates "temporarily"
.. about $2 million in income to the region (direct and indtrect). Over the long run, however, the region could effectively lose
an annual $303,000 in personal income due to the elimination
. . of agricultural production. Hence, at the end of about seven
years; the residential "one time" gain in the regional income
.'is offset by the loss in agricultural income (County of San
' Diego, 1979) . .
.. ,This example indicates that the eventual long run displacement
of certain types of high yield agriculture with low density
residential development is likely to result in a net negative
economic impact upon the region. ,
(P. 13 City of Carlsbad, Tcchnical Support Pspcr: Agriculture)
b. Urban/i\gricultural Conflicts - Page 21 of the draft LCP prepared by PRC
Toups states the following: ""_."__I_ ""
Conflicts betwecn urban and agricultural land uses are strong in
the coastal area of Carlsbad because scattered residential develop-
ments have been allowed to occur within agricultural areas south
of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Agricultural opcration in close proximity
to an urban area would have ta contend with increased vandalism,
complaints Eron residents about noise fron machinery, dust and
pesticides, and possibly damage to plants from urban pcllutants.
This type of urban/agricultural border results in lost productivity
.. and increased cost to farmers in the Carlsbad area.
.. ' In order to minimize potential conflicts between adjacent urban
and agricultural uses, the concept of "buffer" areas is appropriate.
Such areas must be wide enough to effectively separate the two
conflicting uses. The Carlsbad area offers many natural and
existing buffer areas. Currently, Agua Hedionda Lagoon effectively
separates agricultural lad to the south from the northern, populated
portion of the City. Interstate 5, and steep sloping lands exceeding
25 percent offer the potential of providing additional effective
buffers. However, buffers of approximately 300 feet in width seem
to be necessary to separate residential uses from potential aerial
spraying of pesticides utilized on row crops. Smaller buffers can '
be utilized where aerial spraying does not occur.
. Policies progosed by PRC Toups with regards to buffer areas ?re discussed: under :I&-
heading 2. ..
c. Regulation of Agricultural Lands - The initial draft LCP for Cyclsbad includes
the following cn pages 21 and 22:
..
' Several a5encies have jurisdiction over land use and
:: agricultural land conversion in the Carlsbad coastal zone.
. . as in cases of the effect of capital gains and inheritance
Federal co:ltrols are generally indirect, but may be significant
taxes on individual owners. The state has direct control over
agricultural land use through the Coastal Commission and LAFCO.
Both of these agencies support the preservation of agriculture,
but LAFCO policies are confined to prime agricultural land
as defined by the Williamson Act while the Coastal Conunission
policies also cover non-prime land. The current' policies of
nearly all the coastal agricul.ture to residential uses. However, the CarLsbad general plan introduces the concept of the "Urban
Reserve Area". These arc areas which will be subject to
increasing urban pressures through time. This program would allow
property owners to "land bank" their holdings with the City and
phase the dcvelopment of the land. Thc int.ent of thc~ program is
to provide thc City with thc ability to tcmporarily prcscrve
agricultural uses and open space arms and not prematurely ,
cormit l.and to urhn uscs. Dcvcl.opmcnt is not expected nor
encouragccl to occur in thcsc arcas in thc inuncdi;ltc future.
The County po.r,ition is similar to thc City of Cnr1xb;:d although
under xcccntly proposed anicndmcnts to the North County blctropoli tan
..
. the City of Carlsbad would ultimately allow conversion of
-_ ..
Subregional Plan, the conversion could not cccur under County .
jurisdiction until 1995.
The bclsic policies of the CaliEornia'Coastal Act of 1.376 (Sections 30241 and
30242) and the policies of the City of Carlsbad with regards to long term pre-
servation of agriculture are at odds. The City's policies allow gradual.
conversion of agricultural lands (including both prime and non-prime lands)
while the Coastal Act restricts conversion of any agricultural lands except
as permitted in Sections -30241 and 30242 of the Act. Because of the Coastal
Act mandate to preserve and protect agriculture, PRC Toups developed the followin?
draft: LCP policies ..
2. Initial Draft Carlsbad LCP Policy Reconmendations - The staff response will
highlight the policy recomqendations prepared by PRC Toups in the initial draft
' of the LCP as concerns agriculture. Staff will follow the format of the Toups LCP
draft . ..
Policy 2-1: Aqriculturai Site 1 - This site comprises aj?proximately 490 acres of
contiguous land south of Agua Hedionda lagoon, north of Palomar Airport Road and
east of Interstate - 5 (ref. attached map) Most of the site is commonly referred
to as -the Ecke Preserve.
PRC To-ups reco~;mends that the Ecke Preserve be preserved as agriculture under the
Williamson' Act for as long as is feasible. If the contract is not renewed, the
owner will be assigned agricultural subsidy credits similar to the program defined
in Policy 2-2 or some other alternative program. The details would be determined
through 'the LC? znendment process. The pgrtion of the site rlot in the Ecke Preserve ' .
is recommended for the agricultural subsidy credits techniques.
-The 15 acre sqxent located between 1-5 and the frontage road is recommended for
visitor-commercial uses.
Policy 2-2: ggricultural Sites 2 and 3 - Site 2 is located just south of the Ecke
. 'Preserve' and north of Poinsettia Lane. Row crops are the dominant farming operation
and there are relatively few individual owners. Site 3 is located just south of
Poinsettia Lane extended. There are many individual small farming concerns with
nursery crops as a typical use of the land. A total of approsimately 575 acres of
..
-
.. . contiguous land devoted to agricultural. purposes comprise Sites 2 and 3.
: The Toups LCP draft recommends that the land in Sites 2 and 3 Le preserved as
..
. 'agriculture, This recommendation shall he implemented through the purchase and
'transfer of the agricultural subsidy credits associated with this agricultural
, land. The principle on which this method is based is that land owncrship may
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 the purchase of
agricultural subsidy credits concept, this right is separated from the other rights
of owncrship and may be purchased by ot,hers. It should be cnphasized hcre that
compensation is not required to preserve these lands for agriculture. Coastal.
Coxmission policies stipulate that a strong regulatory position alone would bc
enough to prc7servc thcse lands. Iicwevcr , the purchase of agricultural subsidy credit - is rccomncndcd hcrc to incorporate sornc? masure of equity into thc land w;c planning
process. It represents an effoxt by the public to preserve agricultural lands
through a compensat3ry prograrn designed to establish stable urban/rural bounclari cs
and nunimize c:onfli cts.
The details of the PRC Toups Agricul-tural Subsidy Credits Program are provided
on pdges 24-33 of the initial draft of the Carlsbad LCP.
Poliq 2-3: Agricultural Site 4 - This site comprises areas near the southern boundary
of the City of Cnrlsbad and northeast of the Ratiquitos Lagoon. The site includes
ap;?roximately 265 acres of agricultural land, the majority of xhich is on the Rancho
La Costa 1.andholiiing which was included in the Flello Bill Pro;?er-ties .(AB 462) LCP.
..
-~
The draft LCP for Carlsbad recommends that these agricultural lands be preserved
. either through the agricultural subsidy credits program or in-the case of Rancho
La Costa with an internal transfer of development rights scheme (ref. pg. 34 of the
.. draft LCP for details).
Policies 2-4, 2-5 and " 2-8 - These two policles discuss prime and non-prime agricultural
land suitable for production but whlch because of urban conflicts, or because of the
inability preserve them for long tern production, PRC Toups recommends their conversion
to urban uses. Most of the acreage converted would be required to participate in the
agricultural s&sidy credits program (ref. pgs. 34-37 of draft LCP for details).
Policies 2-6 ar?d 2-7 -- PRC Toups recommends in Pollcy 2-6 of the draf-t LCP establish-
merit of a 100 foot buffer between urban uses and agricultural uses where nc aerial
spraying of cro2s occurs. Wnere aerial spraying does occurl a 300. foot buffer is
recommended. Pal.icy 2-7 recormends temporary agricultural use of land not pemansntly
protected for agric .llture (ref. pg. 37 €or sdditional infomation).
-
B* - Relevant Colstal Act Pol.icfes - Two policies'of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal
Act of 1376 deal with preservation of agricultural lands. These policies are found
in Sections 39241 and 30242 of the Act and are quoted below.
. Section 30241 - The maximum amount of prime agricultural land shall be malntained
. in agricultur-81 production to assure the protection of the areas' agricultural
. . economy, and conflicts shall be minimized between agricultural anci urban land
uses through all of the following:
(a] By establishing stable boundaries separating urban arid .
rural areas I including, where necessary I clearly defined
buffer areas to minimize conflicts between agricultural and
. urban land uses,,
(b) , By limiting conversions of agricultural lands around
of existing agricultural use is already severely limitcd by
conflicts with urban uses and where the conversion of ti2e lands
' would complete a logical and viable neighborhood and contrihute
to the estnblishmcnt of a stable limi-t to uxhan development.
'the periphery of urban areas to the lands where the viability
(c) By developing available lands not suited for agriculture prior
to the conversion of agricultural lands.
(d) By assuring that public service and fac2lity expansions and
non-agricultural developncnt do not inlTair agri-cultural vi&ility,
either through increzsed assessment costs or degraded air and water
qua1.i ty .
(e) By assuring that all divisions of prime agricultural lands,
except those conversions approved pursuant to subdivision (b)
of this section, and all development adjacent to prime agricultural.
.. lancls shall not diminish the productivity of such prime agricultural
lands. .. ..
Section 30242 - All other lands suitabie for agricultural' use shall not be
use is not feasible, or (2) such conversion would preserve prime agricultural
land or concentrate development consistent with Section 30250. Any such permitted
conversion shall be compatible with continued agricultural use on surrounding lands.
. converted to non-agricultural. uses unless: (1) continued or renewed agricultural
C. Summary of Previous Coastal Commission Actions on Precedential Permit and
LCP Decisions - The Coa.sta1 Comission has a long track record in San Diego County .
of efforts to preserve agricultural lands or protectfng existing agricultural lands
from urban encroachment. Past precedential permit decisions include denial of the
fcllowing pem.it applications: .. -
Project Title . ,Location File No. Appea.1 No .. .Regfonal Commi.ssian State commission
MCS Deve'loprnent
Madonna Const, ..
.. . Piaymor North
Ti a j uma River F5702
Tiajuana River F5676
Encinitas 3'5031
Valley
Valley
Takara International Leucadia '
Pacesetter Hones Carlsbad ' '
F5251
F5040
,Q 284-77
285-77
55-77
110-77
58-77
Standarc Pacific Carlsbad ' . . F5449 . 144-77
John Lusk and Son Carlsbad F5613 244-77
Additionally, the Commission in appeal No. 15-76, conditioned the expansion of the
Encina Sewage Treatment Plant to prevent sewering of agricultural lands prior to
certification of the Carlsbnd and County of San Diego LCPs.
' All of 'the above pe-rmit decisions have several 'things in common which exemplify the
Coastal Commission's concern to protect the viahiljlty of agriculture in the coastal
zone. First, the land involved in each perrnit decision was cithcr in ficlcl crop or
greenhousc producti-on or had traditi0n~11.l.y bccn so. Second, the pro-jccts all involved
subdivisions which would introduce additional urban cncroachmcnts without formally
establishing sound/stablc urban boundarics. Third, in cach cssc thc applicant: claimcd
that nqriculttlrc t:as not feasihlc; (except for thc c;c?tr;qc trcatnwnt plcl~lt) but, thc
projects wcrc ,111. rcvicwcd by thc Comrnissior. 3-4 yc;lr:s ago and aqriculturc continucs
to be viable in tllc arc2 cven tlhougl~ SOIW of thc property OW!IICI:S havc wit1-1hcl.tl land
from production. Fourth, in all cascs the land was zonccl for agriculture prior to
- _- -4
Jim IIagaman, Pl.ann,L;cj DirLLtor
January 20, 1981
Page 11
tentative subdivision apsroval; therefore, purchase for future urban' development
was speculati.vc.
It should be noted that in the LCP process the Conmission has allowed conversion
from an agricultural land use designation to an urban use designation for some of
the above properties (i .e. , MCS, P!adonna, Standard Pacific 1 ; but, only after
detailed and comprehensive agricultural protection issues had been addressed.
With regards to precedential LCP actions, the Tiajuana River Valley Land Use Plan
LCP for a segment of the City of Carl.sbad are of importance to the draft Carlsbad
LCP. In both LCP actions by the Commission, preservation of agricultural lands was
a central issue. In rssponse to this issue the Commission required preservation
. of agricultural land; it also allowed conversion of some land suitable for agriculture
in order to establish stable urban boundaries and to attempt to guarantee long
term agricultural production. In general, the Commission's attitude in the LCPs 7 ,
'has been not just to preserve land for agricultural use; but, to also encourage :- '-!-'-
ag;icultural production through incentive programs such as the mixed use concept. "' .''.;
..
. (a segneng of the City of San Diego's LCP) and the Mello Rill Properties (AB462)
D. Staff Suggested Policy Modifications, "I Additions or Deletions to the Folicies
of the Initial Draft Carlsbad LCP - In presenting this'portion of the staff response,
the comments are directed to;<zrrds the cozcept of an agricultural sU33s:i y program;
elaboration. of the TRC Toups findings in the draft Carlsbad LCP; and finally, major
portion references a lengthy attachment to this let-ter titled; "City of Carlsbad LC?
Agricultural Coz~onentll (Atkxhnent - A) The attachment provides detailed infoimation.
as to the direction stzff is proceeding. However, the staff report to the San Diego F',%l!
- Coast Regional Comission has not been prepared, and the staff position regarding the '
-.complex issue of agricultural preservation remains flexible. Again, itdis urged that
- policy modifications, 'additions, or deletions as suggested by staff. This last
I,
any comments be submitted to our office as soon as possible.
.- 1. Agricultural Subsidy Program - Staff concurs with the basic cor.cept of an
.agricultural sksidy program as recommended in the draft Carlsbad LCP. In reviewing
the program, staff is of the opinion that considerable refinement is necessary; but,
we agree with the concept. A very important fundamental point must be noted - that .
is - the land is suitable and designated for agricultural use: Participation in the .
participate, the staff position is that the land remain designated for agriculture.
.. . . Agricultural SuSsidy Program is strictly voluntary. If a pro;?erty owner does not.
, '. ' 2. Elaboration of the PRC Toups' Draft Carlsbad I,CP Fi.ndings - The PRC Toups
draft of the LCP and the technical support paper on agriculturc-prepared by Toups
-provide a substanti.al amount of information regarding the agricultural economy of
coastal San Diego County. In seciton "A" of the staff response on Ajriculture, the
Toups findings are sTariscd. In addition, staff has reviewed a nunber of other
documents related to thc feasibility of agriculture in San Diego County, prior land
use decisions and court cases. Staff would recommend the following findings to
buttress PRC Toups' findings in the draft LCP for Carlsbad.
.-.
' b. _I Feasibility of Agriculture - As previously noted, both the Copley International
. report titled iInalys.is of Agriculture " on the Spiers Study Parcel RcgardiPq the California
" Coastal. Act, aqd the report prepared by Great Western Research titled The Economic
Viabilitv of Agriculture in the CaKlsbad Coastal Zone, indicate that long term product-
ivity and adequate economic return fr'om agricultural operations could be realized if
the mount invested in land costs was comensurate with an agricultural land use
designation (i e. , approx. $4,00O/acre) . The Cornrnission found in the Mello Bi1.1.
Properties (ABG-62) LCP that while technica1l.y an analysis of feasibility of agriculture
may not be required for prime agricultural lands under Section 30241 of the Coastal
Act, that nevertheless, a feasibility analysis similar to that required for non-prime .
lands in Section 30242 is appropriate since removal from production for three years
would result in all the agricultural lands in Carlsbad being designated as non-prime
under the Willi&?.son Act definition.
The Commission zoted in the Mello Bill Properties (AB462) LCP that there is con-
siderable &iff-?rence of opinion on the type of (.zonomic analysis to.& used in
determining ths feasib-ility of agricultural, operations on non-prime lands. Such'
analysis could be based on cash flow from year -to year, -annual income, 1and;Turchase ." --
price (variable from individual to individual depending on date of purchase) appraised 7s -
""
..
' -- . :.' value, current lease rates or other factors which would all produce different con" .
. . clvsions as to feasibility.. ... .*
. Economic feasibility based solely on purchase price is only one of many means to - 4-
. evaluate the continued economic feasibility of agricultural lands. If this test were
years ago, it \could mean that his opera.tion was economically viable. (regardless of :. other factors such as net income or capitalization) and therefore he could not convert'
his land to a non-agricultural use. However, a buyer of his operation could convert
the same land provided that he paid a high purchase price. In effect a buyer of land
subject to Section 30212 could determine the suitability of the parcnl for agriculture
simply by setting the purchase price. Section 30242 requires an objective test that
can be applied to all lands rather than a subjective test w!lose results can be
predctermi.rxd by the parties themselves. Because of the lack of logic of a subjective
approach based on purchase pricc,the Conunission, in the Hello Bill Properties- (AB-162)
KP, rejected the use of purchase price as the sole basis for determining economic
feasibility of continued agricultural operations.
. . applied to a long tine California farmer who purchased or inherited his land many
I I
Jim Hac~~unan, Plann,..g Dirt cor
January 20, 1981
Page 13
The 1anclo:iners of some of the land within the Carlsbad IC? agree that agriculture
would be feasible if land prices had been $4,00O/acrc, but argue that agriculture
is -clearly infeasible because they paid well over that amount for the land. Again; -.-
the Cozmission has found that the price paid by the landowner reflects speculative . ';
value, and that such speculative values should not be considered the overriding
factor in dealing with the question of feasibility.
' Even assuming that purchase price were an appropriate test for economic feasibility
in some CircwEtances, it then becomes appropriate to consider the circumstances
surrounding the purchse.
Looking to the facts surrounding development in Carlsbad, annexation and zoning
policies have been an issue of major controversy throughout the 1970's. Initial
.annexation of this area into the City of Carlsbad was highly controversial, and
1100 acres weze deleted fron the annexation. When the annexation and zone change
'.to allow development came before the City of Carlsbad, the Planning Commission on
April 24, 1973, denied the zone change. In that denial the Planning Commission
found :
Development ... could adversely affect the City's abillty to provide
adequate services. . .and. . .the City is currently developing its
General Plan Revision. .. _. .. . ~.
That denial'was appealed to the CiQ Cowxil, an2 the City Council overruled the
Planning Commission and granted the zone change in May of 1973. However, the
.' zrea was still without the necessary public utilitfes to develop. A permit to .
construct a sewer line dona the edge of Ratiquitos Lagoon to serve the area was
denied by the 2redecessou State Commission because of concern that premature sewer
services woulc? undermine p1annir.g efforts to protect agricultural landshd prevent
adverse effects on Batiquitos Lagoon (Appeal No. 215-73, Rancho La Costa). The
s - snwer line was G'bsequently perxitted by:the Fegional Comnission under conditions
-x --";?at prevented the use of sewer capacity for s'erving agricultural lands. Similar ..
.. ,- .-. c; E -,---.-A conditions preventing sewering of agricultural lands were attached to expansion
. of the regional sewer plan (Permit No. A-15-76, Vista)
Land Development in the a.rea north of Batiquitos has been fraught 972th problems.
When the regulatory process established by the Coastal Act of 1972 began, the
land in question was without sewer service , was not zoned for uban development,
and had not been annexed to the City of Carlsbad. All of these approvals were
discretionary, and all were highly controversial. No developer who began the
process of seeking approvals could be assured of final approvals, even without
seeking permits fron the Coastal Commission.
In addition to the economic analysis of feasibility prcpared by Copley International
and Great Western Research, it is noted that "feasible" according to the Coastal *
Act is defined as follows:
Section 30108 - ''Fcasible" mcans capable of being accomplishcd in a
successful mmncr within a rcclsonablc pcriod of time, taking into . account economic, cnvironrncrltrll, soci;cI, and tc-cilrioI.oqicc21 factors.
" " -..
-. _.
Jim Hagaman, Planning Director
January 20, 1981
Page 14
conversion to residential uses. Experience with agricultural use in the areas border-
ing ngua 1-Iedionda Lacjoon has shown that peztici.de use on agricultu3:al lands can be
much more effectively regulated than pollution resulting from urbm developmeat and
that agricultural. uses serve to limit potentj.al scdirnent impacts in contrast with the
sediment and accelerated runoff prohiens created by urban devnlopment. A marked
increase in sedimentation of Batiquitos Lagoon has been documented subsequent to
urbanization of portions-of the wztershed. Agricultural lands also provide a habitat
more environmentally conpatiblc with the surrounding lagoon. In terms of agricultural
use itself, the size and location of the parcels do not present any significant
environmental limitations on agricultural activities.
Social factors require the Conmission to balance the need for housing against the
regional benefit of continued agricultural operations. Carlsbaci is a sparsely
populated area of more than 38 square miles characterized by haphazard islands of
low density residential development. Financing of urban services needed for additional
residential dzvelopment remains a problem and a moratorium on construction has been
in effect for many years. In contrast, the excerpt from the LCP technical document
as quoted on page 5 of this staff response indicates that continued agricultural
operations result in a net positive impact on the &rea as a whole.
Technological impediments to residential deve.l.opment (such as sewers) have been
discussed. Alternatively, continued agricultnral use is technologically approgriate
because 'the climate, soils and relatively large parcels make agricultural operations
i;l this are's zore prozitable thar, in nany other zres of Sm. Diego, The long-term
economic and social impacts favoring agricultural use of high yield lands reinforce
the prior discussion of the positive benefits of agricultural use compared with .
urbanization in tt?nns of the overall public costs (e.y. lagoon sedimentatio") in-
herent in the physical impacts of developing "he area. Thus, social and econonic
factors also favor agricultural use.
In summary, the Commission found in the Mello Bill Properties (AB462) LCP 'that the
&nvj.ronnentzl, social and technological elements of the feasibility test contained
in Section 30108 of the Coastal Act favor continued agricultural use of the agricultural
lands in the Carlsbad area. The Mello Bill LCP concludes that.. /,,.,;:..;-; ;<>.. .-
The' substantial uncertainties in planning, market conditions, and
. availability of services make it clear that acquisition of land at
prices well above the capitalization value of agriculture was
speculative, and did not reflect reasonable expectations of devclop-
ment within the reasonable future. The lack of unconditional
. land sales in the intervening period confirms the speculative nature
of land prices; all sales have been purchase options, contingent
Upon all necessizry approvals to allow development. These Speculative
. land prices, reflecting substantial uncertainties, must be compared
to the substantial valuc of thc land in continued agriculture. Within
Carlsbsd, the combination of a coastal climate and soils give the
. area an avcragc productivity of 30 tons/acre of tomatoes cornpared to
8 tons/acre nationwide. 'The coastal climate also gives thc area the
ability to market tomatoes during othcr times of thc year than most
to~nato growinq regions, giving producers the hi.ghest possible price.
1
I
*.
Similar climate advantages, although not as mzrkecl, exist for other
crops. ?'he Corrmission f.i_nils that the great acivantages of the coastal
climcltc and the Carlsbad soils give the land an inherent productivity
far in CXC~SS of the $20O/acre required for the prinn? designation
unzcr t.he Willlamson Act. Thz Coxjssion further finds that the
specul.ative price paid by the curreat landowner does not reflect any
such inherent vaiues in the land, but rather reflect hopes for develop-
ment in an area wher.e both public policy decisions artd market con-
ditions .involves substantial risk. Weighing these two factors, the
Comvi.ssion cannot find that the price paid for the land under such
speculztion outweighs the very real, and sestantial value that the
land has in continued production. Therefore, the Cormission finds
that continued agriculture is feasible.
3. Major Policy Modifications, ....I_ Additions - or Deletions Suqqested by Staff - Staff
recognizes the importance of certainty in real estate and the future of renewed
.sgriculture in this area. In order to assure renewed and continued agricultural . . .
production, staff is suggesting a planned zone approach that will assure renewed ' ..
and continued agricultural production. It would all.ow additional development
incentives in exchange for preservation of agricultural opportunities either
through a mixed/supplemental use concept or an agricultural subsidy pxogrm.
Ir. staff's opinion, the approach provides econonical, feasible development
opportunities consistent with the preservation of agriculture. Staff believes . that planning designat5ons that enhance economic feasibility by allowing develop-
ment of portions of the property may be n3re .protective of agriculture beceuse
they provide a rcechanism for perma-nently protecting agricultural land and for ..
rer'oving the land use uncertainity and resulting speculative value from that -
.. agricultural lanc?. Therefore, staff has included within the land use plan two
..methods for allzwir7 developnnt that further enhance feasibility if the remaining
agricultural land is permanently protected through agricultural conservation
easements. These methods enhance the existing feasibility of agriculture by
.allowing laniiowzers a return on their speculative hopes as well as on the realistic _- .thlue of the lam? to remain in agriculture. In staff's view, with these policies, . . .. . .. there can be no question of the overall feasibility of permanently protecting
agricultural land in the area cavered by the Carlsbad La.
.. There are several significant dlfferences in the staff proposal for agricultural
preservation and the proposal in the PRC Toups draft of the Carlsbad LCP. In summary,
the staff proFDsed planned agricultural zone (PAZ) differs with the Toups proposal .
. in the fol1owir.g ways:
.- The word "credits" is removed from the "Agricultural Subsidy Program" .. .since the word is a misnorner resulting in confusion. To preserve
.. . agricultural land, no credit to propcrty owners is required. However, . .. to encourage long term preservation of agricultural lands and continue6
agricultural production, an agricultural subsidy program as outlined
in the attached draft of the planned agriculture zone appcars very
desirable,
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
Revised 9/11/81
State and Federal Mapping Sources on Agricultkrai Lands (Conaty)
Draft circulated September 10th; final mid-October
Defining Agricultural Land (Bass)
Establishing an Effective Local Agricultural Lands Monitoring Program (Kraus)
Draft expected October 9th
Where to Get Help From State and Federal Agencies (Conaty)
Outline - draft expected September 29th
Annotated Bibliography of California Agricultural Lands Conservation Materials
(Brazil); Outline - draft expected October 5th
Ten Recommended Readings on Agricultural Lands Conservation (Brazil)
Draft expected September 30th
Saving the Good Earth (Detwiler)
Final
Policy
A Question of Balance - Introduction to Room to Grow (Rikala or Detwiler)
Approaches to Agricultural Land Policies in General Plans (Mintier)
Outline - draft circulated September 11th
Summary of State and Federal Policy Towards Agricultural Land (Mintier and
Janelli); Draft expected October 9th
Application of State Agricultural Lands Policy to Local Projects and Plans
(Dm); Outline - draft expected October 2nd
Local Policies for Public Works and Services (Stewart)
Outline - draft expected September 23rd
Sierra Club v. Hayward: An Analysis (Abbott)
Draft circulated August 25th; final expected late September
Balancing Development/Agricultural Conservation: The Elected Official's Perspective (Koenigshoffer); Draft expected October 2nd
Balancing Development/Agricultural Conservation: The Small Community Planner's
Perspective (Cervantes); Draft expected October 2nd
Coastal Agricultural Issues (Rodriguez)
Outline - draft expected September 14th
Developing A Consitutency for Agricultural Preservation (Orman)
Draft expected late October
Room to Grow
Page Two
. .- .
Implementation
Approaches to Environmental Review on Agricultural Land (Bass)
Outline - draft expected September 18th
Williamson Act Cancellations and CEQA (Bass)
Final
Open Space and Conservation Easements (Del Pero)
Outline - draft expected September 21st
Zoning as a Means of Preserving Agricultural Land (Mahan)
Draft expected September 21st
Agricultural Nuisance Ordinances (Janelli)
Draft expected October 10th
Case Studies of Effective Local Agricultural Lands Implementation (Castrillo)
Outline - draft expected September 16th
Urban/Rural Limit Lines (Gene Smith, Tulare County
Draft expected end of November
Subdivision Design Criteria on Agricultural Land (Rikala & 1
Draft expected October 30th
Implementing Public Works and Service Policies (Detwiler)
Outline - draft expected September 14th
Williamson Act in the 1980's (Kraus)
Draft expected October 9th
Implementing AB 2074 (Detwiler)
Draft expected September 28th
Use of Initiatives as a Means of Protecting Agricultural Lands (Rikala)
Draft expected October 9th
-.-. y_ ~ ". .
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
438 - 5591
PUBLIC NOTICE OF PREPARATION
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:
%e Planning Department of the City of Carlsbad intends to prepare a Negative Declaration for the following project:
Project Description: Amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and adoption of a City Council Policy for the preservation of agricultural land.
Project address/Lmation: City of Carlsbad
Anticipated significant impacts: None.
we need to know your ideas about the effect this project might have
an the environment and your suggestions for ways the project could be
revised to reduce or avoid any significant environmental damage. Your ideas will help us decide what issues to analyze in the environ-
mental review of this project.
Your camnents on the environmental impact of the proposed project may
be sulmitted in writing to the Planning Department, 1200 Elm Avenue,
Carlsbad, CA 92008, no later than October 28, 1981.
DATED: October 7, 1981
JAMES C. HAGAMAN
APPLICANT: City of Carlsbd Planning Director
PUBLISH DATE: October 10, 1981 ND3
5/8 1
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
Lt Col. E.H. Jose, Jr.
2099 Truesdale Lane
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Victor Kat0 2004 Subida Terrace %mm&do, CA 92025 bf+ !%;CALL.
7a9- 437 3
John maze
2410 *ian Rxd 7 39-48bS/
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Raul Tarqo
1070 Buena Place
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Claude Lewis
2030 Basswcd Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Girard Anear
1728 Calavo Circle
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Peter McKauf
c/o Ukegwa Brothers
4218 skyline Road
Carlsbad, CA 92008
w. Allan Kelly
4912 Via Arequipa
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Tan Fscher
Bpt. of Agriculture,
mmty of San Diqo
555 Overland
San Diego, CA 92123
7 29- 5773
7 aCl-41'83
BlM. 2
5b5-5376
X
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
i
..
C, "- Framc- rlc x- €or 1mplcmenting"thc Purchnx id Transfer. of """ ."
Agricultr.lra1 Subsidy Crcdits
I. -. Calcdate the total number of dwelling units permitted on each of the
agriculturally designated sites. Each unit will be counted as one credit.
..
2. Determine the market value for each of the four agriculturally designated
sites; then, determine the proportion of this market valtle held by each
landowner.
3. Assign credits to landowners in proportion to the market value which they
possess.
PC'
4. The value of a landowner's credits will equal: market value of the land minus
'the agricultural value of the land. The value of each credit will equal: the
value of each landowners' credits divided by the number of credits assigned to
each landowner.
-1
5. The value of credits will remain fixed unless changed by an overall property
"- _" ". " :reassessmeht. ~..
..
6. Developers will be required to purchase a certain number of credits in order
to qualify to build in the Carlsbad coastal zone. The purchase price will be
$3,144 per credit (weighted mean value of all credits). The City of Carlsbad
will determine the number of credits to be purchased by each developer in
accordance with land use policy and the general plan,
1-
7. The City of Carlsbad will assess thc'developer an amount equal to the value
of the credits that are purchased. The proceeds will be placed in a separate
. City fund. Those who own credits may then apply to the City to sell part or
a11 of their credits. Preferencc will be given to landowners who own small
numbers of credits.
8. The interest earned by the special City fund will be used to pay for the
administration of this program.
Tables 3-5 through 3-8 summarize agricultural landowncrs by major site and parcel
size. These tables also stlow the number of credits assigned to each landowner, as
well as the valuc of thcx credits. Figure 3 illustrates the location of these parccls
in relation to the Agricultural Sites.
..
Table 3-S
1 211-021-15 Carltas Company 13.46 13.46 100.0 $ 261,936 $ 45,764 - 41 $5,272
46 4,616
292,400 158 4,508
416,534 2b5 I 4,656
211-021-18 Carltas Company 23.05 .23.05 100.0 29Q,700 * 78,370' 1
211-921-20 Csrltas Company 86.00 86.00 - 1co.o 1.004,7~ 1
TOTAL ' '1 122.51 122.51 100.0 1,557,336
" -
2' . . , ..
h!t-kt: value Is ca:culat& by multiplying each assessed value by 4. Agricdare.1 value is calcuiated by using $3,40O/acre as the average value of agricultural land.
..
.
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
MAP Y
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
h Land-use regulationsr’: have raised housing prices more than 20 percent in Northern California over the past two years, accord- ing to Professor Kenneth T. Rosen, chairman of the Cen- ter for Real Estate and Urban Economics at UC Berkeley.
1. His recent study of the impact of local land-use Eegulations on the price of ;land and the cost of housing 3n California and the San .Francisco Bay Area indi- .etes that land-use regula- , lions have had substantial impact on house prices. , Growth moratoria and -growth-control plans have -raised orices between 18-28 4 *brceni in those San Fran cisco communities where they are present.
.:. The results are not sur- prising given the wide- ;spread use controls in many -communities which, 01 course, limits the available supply response in neigh- :boring communities. Spread .Of these techniques to dm-
’ California metropolitan .ireas clearly could have :negative consequences on ?he affordability of housing lor the maturing post-World War I1 baby boom cohort :‘now entering the housing market. , ..
- . Land-use and ’ environ- -mental regulations can ,have important impacts on ‘almost every component of .:housing costs. Regulaticns .that restrict the supply of developable land, impose a ‘minimum lot size, or re- strain the permissible level ‘of residential development density can greatly in- %ease raw land costs. Reg- %lations concerning im- Ilnrovements, the provision ;pf amenities and subdivi-
v -don design can add siginifi- .cant costs to. lot preparatio? rand land develo?ment. I: Substantial carryjn
;costs can be imposed by ai llministrative delays and by =the often lenethv interval
:various types of adminis- 2rative, engineering .and -+laming costs. Finally: de- Selopment re&rictions may :read developers to reorient Zjheir projects to higher-in- :come customers as cost in- :;eases force them to build %ore-expensive dwelling :wits. , ,-
I
I‘
‘i
‘1
I
.. - ,. :. A dramatic increase in government regulation of :the housing industry has oc- :curred in recent years. Dur- ’ing the late 1960s and the early 19iOs. many commun- .ities became increasingly -dissastified with the delet- ’erious effects upon the nat- pral environment and over- $1 quality of life of rapid, unregulated suburban growth. : This increased. awareness of the environmental, Social and economic impacts Of new residential develop- ment led to a widespread proliferation of land-use and environmental regula- tions. While these increas- ingly stringent land-use .regulations and growth con- trols have been justified in -terms of improved environ mepta! quality and the maint&l;mce of “communi. ty c&acter,” there is i -growing recognition that ir many communities, land use regulations serve tc .maintain housing Cpsts at : .level high ‘enout?$+ to pre vent low-, moderate- ant middle-income familie from finding housing a prices they can affordL
- The complete analysis of this research, entitled “The Effects of Land Use Con- trols on Housing Prices” by .Lawrence Katz and Ken- neth T. Rosen, can be ob- tained by requesting Work- ing Paper No. 80-13 from the Center for Real Estate and Urban Economics; 156 Barrows Hall; University of ’ California, Berkeley, BeFke- . , ley, Calif. 94720. Cost of .the paper is $3 and a check ; should be enclosed, payable ’ to the Regents of the Uni- versity of California.
Sunday, February 1, 1981 THE SAN DIEGO UNION F-37
Av. Cost Av. Coot Av.Cost Av.She Av. Cust AV.Sales Of Lot Lot Per Of Lot Of Lot FarmLand price (dollars) Per Sq. Ft. Per Acre (acres) Per Acre of House (dollars) (dollars) . ’ (dollars) (dollars)
California.. ...... .28,466 ........ .2.% ...... .; .142,906 ........ .199.. ......... 844 ...... .103,698 Colorado.. ....... .12,613 ........ .1.~ ......... .69,750 ........ .iai.. ......... 297.. ....... 71.034 Florida .......... .12,Q19 ........ .1.13 ........ ..54,477 ......... 2.. ......... 838.. ...... sS,277 Georgia.. ......... .9,839 ......... ..52 ......... .25,281 ........ .&X.. ........ 491 ....... .60,220 Illinois.. ......... .16,484 ........ .1.57 ......... .76,(129 ........ 217.. ........ 1,484.. ..... -83,270 Michigan.. .. t.. .. .12,986 ......... ..95 ......... .46,146 ........ 281.. ......... 708. ...... .69,363 Mississippi.. ...... .9,174 ......... ..70 ......... .34,069 ........ .269.. ......... 424 ....... .56,447 Missouri ......... .10,427 ......... ..89 ......... .43,065 ........ 242.. ......... 560.. ...... 68,756 New Jersey ...... .16,486 ......... ..98 ......... ~7,201 ........ .MI.. ....... .I,M ....... .71,019 Texas.. ........... .9,689 ......... ..96 ......... .46,245 ........ 209.. ......... 320.. ..... .a474 LAND COSTS Am HOUSING ’ Virginia.. ........ .15,754 ........ .1.19 ......... .57,778 ........ 272.. ......... 672 ....... .74,627 ..
. 1976 and 1979
Average Cost of I Average Cost of Lot - Dollars House - Dollars Per Sqoare Foot Per Square Foot
Source: Centerfor Real Estate and Urban Economics University of California, Berkeley
1976 1979 76 Chg.1976 1979 % chg. California. ......... .1.57 ........ .2.96 ......... 88.5 36.01.. ....... .5~.a1. ........ .5z.z. ‘Colorado. ........... ..95 ........ l.44 ........ .51.5 . 27.43. ........ .41.88 .......... ~2.7~ Florida ............. ..95 .?. ..... -1.13 ......... 18.9 28.85.. . .-. .... .34.85 ......... .20.a Georgia.. ........... ..45 ......... ..52 ......... 15.6 31.99.. ....... .34.35,, ........ .7.4! Illinois.. ........... .LO9 ........ .1.57 ......... 44.0 34.04. ........ 48.52. ......... .42.6 Michigan.. .......... ..72 ......... ..95 ......... 31.9 30.93.. ....... .40.05.. ....... .29.5 Missouri ............ ..79.. ........ .89 .......... 12.7 8.01.. ....... x.82 ......... .30.4’ New Jersey ......... ..79 ......... ..98 ........ .24.1 31.27.. ....... .%.a7 ......... .u.9 Texas. ............... .69 ......... .96. ......... .39.1 24.34.. ....... .36.54 ......... .50.1- Virginia.. ........... ..a7 ........ .1.19 ......... 36.8 31.95.. ....... 42.26. ......... .32.2
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
A new county plan would substi- tute kindness for coercion in trying to save some of the San Diego area's :. most productive coastal farmland rich in tomatoes and flowers. The plan would offer farmers '. economic incentives rather than the mandatory land me policies. that sparked controversy when pro- posed last year. .". . .~ "The county can take thekad in supporting agriculture by: being more lund to if" said County Agri- cui tural . Commissioner . Kenneth Little, who has drawn up the plan. Little's plan, to be made public today, asks that farmers' be given water and electric rate discounts, reductions in property taxes and re- lief from suburban harassment over
..
1.
.. j "*... I" ... . .,:,i .. ~. . ,
the noises. and odors that'"occun when new housing is built alongside an existing farm.
- tittle's proposai also would offer "density' bonuses" to owners, of coastal agricultural land if they de-. veloped only part of their land and kept the rest in farming. That is, the, county would let the owners put a greater number of houses than nor- mally permitted on a parcel and allow them to make the same profit they would reap from fewer houses . spread over the entire acreagc- The Board of Supervisors will , hear the plan Feb. 10. (. ' 6.; "
I 3n his letter to supervisors. Little ' ,calls the 5365- million annual gross
1 -I ."""_
4
i
"_
,
"Let's be practical," Bates said in endorsing the plan. "Let's do like we did with the Ecke proposal (plan by flower grower and landowner Paul Ecke to allow devei- opment oE half his North County land and keep the other haif 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 avocados that can never be developed anyway." Major proposals in Little's plan include "A "right-to-farm" law, whereby any farm in operation for more than a year could not be labeled a. nuisance under county regulations when a housing development later ia built nearby and residents com- plain about odors or noise. .. . . r. Said Little: "There have been incidents where growers with their backs to the wall, 50 to speak, faund themselves harassed by neighbors who find that subur- bia isn't all that good since they moved in the same neighborhood with an agricultural operati0IL" "Elimination of requirement$ for riding and hW trails, bike paths or other easements as WnditiOtIS fQt farmers wanting or renewing a permit to operate. The requirements are coatly and could result in theft ot damage to crops, Little said. .c -The density bonus program: Little said the counti also might want to buy land rights to small parcels bdja- 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 farmers who maintain on-site labor hous-
' 1 ing. Farmers have been criticized by health officials for unsanitary living conditions of their farm hands, many of them illegal aliens, who live in nearby canyons. But the farmers say the permit process for housing is too complicated and that, in any event, they run afoul of federal laws if they house illegal aliens. Supervisors Tom Hamiiton and Paul Eckert plan to introduce a proposal next month to ewe some of the problems of using illegal aliena as workers. ',:; "Support of requests to give farmers special electric rates during off -peak hours and to assure them reduced water rates and guaranteed supplies in case of future shortages. , ,. Little said he would like to see cities with large chunks of agricultural lands - such as San Khego, Carlsbad and'oceanside - take similar steps. j
. .,
*",
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
June, 1979 Vol. 28, No. 6
Trusts Join
ainst Farmland Losses
By John Barnes
People across the country are
becoming alarmed about the
rapid loss of productive farmland
and its likely impact on the rural
way of life and the nation's future supply of food.
There are many reasons for the
loss of farmland and an equal
number of organizations and
government agencies working to
reverse this trend. A recent
addition is the Trust for Public
Land, a national non-profit
conservation organization head-
quartered in San Francisco.
The trust has been working the last six years with community groups, landowners, and public land management agencies to
encourage the preservation and
responsible use of open space
lands. It has combined a
businesslike approach with con-
senation ideals to ocqu' :re more
than 25,000 acres of land and
move much of it into the hands of public agencies at prices aver- aging 30 percent below market
value. in addition, the trust 'helps
community groups pioneer new
approches to communicy land
ownership. It provides training
workshops and technical assist-
ancg to'gi-oups incorporating land
trusts and acquiring land for
community purposes: It has . helped set up more than 35 land
' trust; that recycle vacant inner-
:' city lots and own or,manage thousands of acres of rural and suburban land.
.... .
Land trusts are non-profit
corporations that enable g~oups
of people to own land or partial
interests in land. They are
governed by people who are
responsible to the community
and have an undersranding of
community needs and the
pressures confronting landown-
ers. They are increasingly seen 2s
local advocates of policies that protect the future of agricalture.
Perhaps the most exciting
aspect of land trusts as a vehicle
for agricultural land ret.cntion is
their flexibility and responsive-
ness to IOCRI needs. X trust can
acquire full title to farm property
and lense it to beginning formers
who cannot afford to buy land. The Northern California Land
Trust, for example, recently
acquired a 40-acre farm at Lodi,
Calif., and leased it to two farm
families.
Another agricultural land pro-
tection tool is the acquisition of
development rights, an approach
that allows individual ownership
whi!e p!acing the development
potential in the hsnds of a trust.
A!;hough seve:jI T<8iC and
county agercies odmini.-ter pro-
grams of this kind, they are often
expensive and there is some
question as to how respocsive
government can be in monitoring
these easements. By acquiring land or develop-
ment rights at below fair market
value, the land trust can offer landowners an income tax
4
deduction. Since the difiercnce
between the fair market value
and the puchase price may be
treated as a charitable donation,
the capital gain that is almost
inevitable on valuable farmland
is offset.
Land trusts can also engage in
commercial or resiclentid devel-
opment on a portion of a land
parcel. Local residents in Lin-
coln, Mass., formed a land trust specificdly for non-profit devel-
opment, for example, and ac-
quired Q 71-acre farmland tract.
The 125 units of low and
moderate income housing buiit
on a portion of the farm unsuita-
ble for agriculture paid for all the
land and made is possible to per-
manently preserve the 20-acre
portion that was prime farmland.
Using this approach enabled the
community to control develop. ment and preserve some prime
land at the same time.
While much of the funding ior
land trusts comes either from
local communities or from
foundations. land trusts are starting to look to government as
a source of support. The
California Legislature recently
passed a bill granting $100,000 to
a land trust for acquisition of
development rights on coastal
land. Although this acquisition is
for state-designated purposes, it
is the first time a state has funded this type of local effort.
At a time when distrust of government programs runs high and the costs of these programs
are going up, land trusts would appear to be logical alternatives. As nn organization pun by local
farmers and residents, a trust can be extreinely responsive to problems confronting farmers
and can create the program most
appropriate for the situation.
The Trust for Public Land has
started to look at ways acquisi- tion of development rights can be
used by local land trusts to help
working farms stay in product- ion. It sponsored a conference in
Denver recently to discuss
growing losses of agricultural land to second home and energy-
related development. Several
communities expressed an inter-
est in acquiring development
rights on threatened ranch and
orchard land. The trust also is working with
consultants and farmers from
West Marin County in California
to examine the economic incent-
ives farmers would .need if their
development rights were ac-
quired by a local land trust. By '
studying the actual figures from
ranches and dairies in the area,
the land tfust can determine what benefits it has to offer to the farm ~
community.
In the future the trust plans to
explore other ways in which land
trusts can help retain farmland.
These include putting small
parcels together, or dividing up
large pieces of threatened land, to
form workable farm units that
can be leased. It also will study
ways land trusts and cooper-
atives can work together to save
agricultural land.
..
I
.. I
L
.. . i .
.-
.. THE DEDICATION OF 535
,acr.es of the Watson Ranch to
open space is a fitting tribute to ,
the memory of John Watson. ., John Watson was a prominent *
' agricuIturaIist in Sonoma Coun- ty for years prior to his death in
1963. He was stricken with a fa-
tal heart attack uhile waiting for a plane 31 San Francisco on
his'way to attend a mccting ol
the University of California
Board of Rcgcnts. Ilc was scrv-
Ing as president of the Stnlc
' Board of Agriculture at the
'.
time. ...... +:
HE \VAS A FIRM BELIEV- .ER in the future'of the dairy, business Sanama County and
operated a dairy between Petal- uma and Cotati on Pepper Road for ' 1 ' :.* ! . : ' ' .; - It is the bulk of this'ranch which will be kept in perpetual
open space through an agree-
ment betweco the present own-
.-
one-time tax cfcdil of :an un-
specified amount.. _. .... -
Conditions of the agreehcnt.
are that 1hc.land stay in an agri- cultural use.. The 'present own- ers can sell the 535 icrcs, but
the n& o\vrw-s also: must keep
tlw land in agricultural uscs.
TIfE PRFSEKT OWNERS re-
taincd control over some 80
acres of the ranch, Lvhich they
will attknlpt to develop. The consrrvation c'nscmmt is
a novel ~p~JrO3Ch to the growing
problcrn of how to kccp land in
agriculture (and thus in open
S~:ICC~ in thc facc of today's tax laws. It is hccorning increasing- I Is difficult for owners of large
ranches lo pass the property on
to their heirs, and the property usually 'must be sold to satisfy
the'tax obli$ations.' ..
The concept employed in re-
gdrd to the Watson Ranch might
be the way other holders of
..
..
. .. : ..
. . ...
ice, Southern California mrea- tloml vehicle park developrs and the government of Kuwait. The Camha Point or Potter Ranch lies immdately south of
the 4,CnB~cre Btg Creek fianch which the Nature Conwservmcj acquired In ”7 for transfer to the Univenity of California. Bolh rmcbes were once part of
The Gnmh Point Ranch was obtained by foreclosure in 1MO by New Yorkers David Schatzow, Murray Rnbinowitz. Bernard Werner, Sidney Lichter, Leon #arc-her, Clem Glass and Mar- tin Simon, as Big Sur Devel- opment Co. They reportedly had been try- ing to unload it ever since. “They are not people who ever
wanted to live on &e land or put down roo& in Big Sur,’’ Ms. Hop kins %id. Eegimlng In the spring of 1878, the Big Sur Land Trust tried to Interest various parties Includiq the YMCA, the Uriversity of G1- lfornia, the Monterey County Parks Department and the Mon- terey Penhula Regional Perk MsMct, the state Coastal Con. aervancy and several private foundations In acquiring the
pmperty. Appmch Stymlcd Stymied ln thme epproecha, the lad trust gave up activs pur- wit of tbe property around April of t& year, when the om6n da- cided to lfrrt It for eale with a real estate agent who advertised it as a potential corporate retreat. “We hn4 not thought of selling It to an Jndividual with devel- opment restrictions,” Ma. Hog kinn Bald. The truet found such an indfvid- ual purely by chance, havy aid. The proparty reportedly bed ken brought to PaCkatd’8 attention by 8n FrmcLm attorney Ed Land- lee and Pecknrd’s daughter, Nan- cy Burnett o! Camel Valley. Leavy Bald he learned of Pack- ed’s Interest from Saunders HI11- yer, executive director of the Big Sur Foundation, who had Rotten
the Circle M Ran&.
a
the Rust for Public hd, koth-. er land conservation foundallon, interested in buying the land for resale to the US. Forest Service. Trust treasurer Iloyd hddle- han, a former electtics rnanu- facturer who knew Packard, called him and obtained his ver- bal commitment to buy the
property.
, kvy promptly called the obv- em in New York with an offer to buy. His coli got thrwgb to the partners as they sat dimsslng an offer from the Oklahoma pup. The Oklahomans reportedly had de a higher &fer, but It involved a substantid broker’s commission end afforded the owners no tax advantage. On July 24, ttwy decided to a@ cept the W trust‘s offer of $1.125,a\o, taking the difference between that and the full market vdue D deductible mrribution to a non-profit foundation. The ranch’s current nlarket value was not known, but it was
appraised at $1.8 milllm t7 1!?79 and Ir probbly higher today, 80 the Uference could easily be @R,W or more. Thb ab eUmlnated th9 bro- ker’s commlssfon, since the.land trust wm not covered by the real estate agent’s lkting. In the next four davs, ritrlle the land trust dld necessary title work, Packed toured the ptoper- ty with family membera apict uni- veadlty tcprmsnutlver, held a famlly conference on whether to
go through with the deal and worked out acceptable reatric tIon8 on the land. During escrow, Oklahoman Bill Jennings trled to substitute him- self for Packard In the deal, but reportedly backed off became he could not agrw to one restrlction wNch Pockard had propotred and ultimately agreed to. This condition was that ehould Peckrd and his wife declde to transfer title to anyone other than their chlldrea or grand- children or the university, the land trust would have flrst crack
at buying the irand-at XI percent
*e‘
,’ f . , a. .. : .’
of t5e I979 sale prim. “This Is the most significant factor La the whole deal,” fcdd trust vice president Pager Mew- ell. “It stabilizes the land’s value
nnd revem the symirone of a-
calating taxable vdue tlat has plagued the Big Sur cCoast.” kb. Kopftins said sirr..ply tf..st ii was “nice for the neighbors,” who include Marion, George and John Karlan, the Forest Service and the New Canaldoli Hiemitage. %e pointed out that hkad ad a besvy commercial CT resjdeenrtm! develeloprnent that dd generate more traffic along overloaded Highway 1, the sale to tke Pack.- ards would hold d2vvelupment to four kouse~ plus whatever fences, tool sheds and caretakers’ qwr- ten are needed to We cam of the propem. Leevy crcdited both the &?Hers and the Packatds with generosity. He mid th&l the land wa~ now
50 heavily ewmbtmd thst thz Pachrds undoubtedly got “much less value tban they paid for.” although the development re- strictions should hold dom taxes on the ranch.
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
-7
_I. "_ "
_. by Henry Savage Jr.
I
SEPTEMBER 1980
A. . I'
-the airtight Cawley 800-
Here is the highly adaptable
Cawley 800 multiple use
c45t iron woodstove-Its
dimensions and praportions
ofkf no conlprcrmise as a
free-slanding unit or flurd in
as a fireplace insert-The
Cawley 800 is a high
efficiency heater with
cooklids. re~r~ovable lront
doors and screen for lire
lront pleasure-Write today lor complcte inlormation and prices.
urrcomp~rrr hAME Nrorr wnd I
54
1809 Main SI.. Franconia, N.H. 03580
~closnl 1s we Send me your new full cdor catatop
Ith flattnel swalcha
I f D f
Lme
ldIeFS
sp -Visit our shop in Franconia! I 111 dl ZIP . .-
"" - ""
Pmrmanent ALUMINUM & PLASTIC SICns Custom SIsns X. Nema Irnf~rl~tLs avnllrblo ScndforFrcc ran~lllc&cateloy
Dept.f D , R.D. 1.Maolius.N.V. 13104 JOHN VOSS
SEPTEMBER 1910 55
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
+ 1 .- ,.
PREFERENTIAL ASSESSMENT
Y
97
DEFERRED TAXATION
RESTRICTIVE AGREEMENTS
__ ."" "-
98
CREATING AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS
-I_--- """"" -~l_""""- __
99
PROGRESSIVE PROPERTY TAXES
"" -
100
ADDITIONAL TAX PROPOSALS
The states of Michigar1 and Wisconsin have tried another innovative
method of using tax policy to mist farlncrs. ffflichi~pn has adopted a vari-
ation on the propcrty tax “cil-c~rit-l,rcaItcr” lllnt had liitherto bcm used
primarily to provide property tax relief to low-income and elderly Ilonle-
owners. Under the Michigan law, a farmer is entitlccl to a credit on his
income tax if his propcrty tilxus risc al)ove 7% of his income. The o:hcr
requirement to receive tlle tax crctlit is tllaL the farmer enter into a ten
year developrnent rights contract cnsuring that the land is riot developed.
Wisconsin’s F;lrnl/ol1c/ Prcscrv;rfio/l Act of 1977 is CLWI mor!: ambitious.
State income tax credits are offerccl to farrners who are willing to participate
in a detailed and extensive program aimed at preventing development of agri-
cultural lands. The size of the incorne tax credit del,entls both on the trouse-
hold incomc of the farm farrlily and the clcgree of their, and their county‘s,
participation in the effort to pr-otcct agriccrit~.~ral land. More and mcre states
will be intensively examining the Micf-ligan and Wisconsin laws as possible
models lor Iegklatinn to protuct farmlalld. TIE Wisconsin law is described
in detail in a pamphlet pltblis1lc:d hy the University of Wisconsin’s Coopera-
tive Extension Pr-oryam which is reprinted as Example 29, Wisconsin’s
Farmland Prescrv’ation Proyam.
Finally, although no longer at1 active legislative proposal, the Ncrth
Dakota Farmer’s Union dr’;lftetJ a bill in the early 1970s which would htlp
new farrncrs throuyl1 their nlost dilficul t period of financial stress due to the
erlorn-lous capital investnlent required to begin farming today. This prograrn
was modeled on a similar five year tax forgiveness given to new industries
by most slates.
PUBLISHED RESOURCES
'We, I
The formland assessment law (Mnrylnnd Code Article 81, Section 19 (b)) provides for farm- volue assessment of land used ns o farm, regardless of its mtrrkct vnlue. It was sold to the voters in
19GO on pounds tlwt it would preserve fnrming clnd open sptiec. It hns not done so, n3 is shown by a
number of surveys of the land chunges which hnve occurred in thc Inst 15 yenrs. The Iieprt Of t!?e
Slote Department of Agriculture's Committee on Prcscryntion of Agricultural Land sl.nted the
situation BS follows in 1974:
Since 1949, more thnn 1.2 million ncrcs hnve txcrl withdrnwn from ngricultural use.
The rate of decline hns nvcragcd 62,600 ncrcs pcr ycrir. It is projected that an
additional 1.5 - 1.8 million ncres will be removed from fnrrns by the turn of the
century leaving from 1.0 to 1.3 mlllion acres in ngricultural we.
The fact is that thc reduced tux due to thiu lnw htls prnclicnlly no effcct on the rate of land conversion or development. When the opportunity for development nrrivcs, there is rnuch to be mnde in development, and the tax concession cnnnot offset more thnn n smctll fraction of thc gaim to be made. Nor docs the rote of developmcnt depcntl on taxus pnid by either farmers or
spcculators. Neither homebuyers nor businesses IIIOVC to our Stnte or County in response to the tax
paid or not pnid on farms or speculntivc holdings. They act on the bnsis of employment and bushes
opportunities, not someme else's taxes.
Neither logic nor the history of recent years give tiny brtsic for believing that the farmland
assessment law is a useful instrument for preserving nl;riculture or open space.
Docs Furlnhnd Assessment lielp Poor Formers?
17~ nrpnlcnt is mndc thtlt farmess nrc !~lprtJ to strly on ttwir Innd by the low tr1xe.s providctj by
llle "ftrrnllnnd assssnlerlt" luw. The trouble with this tlrguruent is that most ft\rmers' land is worth
little more than whnt it will yield in income from forrnirlg, so they get little ndvantoge from the
fnrmlnnd osessmcnt law. For them, nssescmcnt nt mnrket vnlrle is'fnrlnlnnd nsessrnent--nnd the
hw Ls not ncceswry to givc them thnt nsscssrrlcnt. 'I'his Ls true forthc rurtll eountics of the State,
and for the rural areas - the real farm orens - of Montgornery County and other suburban
counties.
Some farmers have experienced suburbnn development in their vicinity, however, and the value
of their lnnd hns increased many-fold. Most of thcse hnvc ct.~?;hcd in on their land profits, and hove
either retired from forming or bought nlorc rind kttcr frirm lnnd clscwh~.:re, with the proceeds of
their sole. A few hove themsclvcs gone into rcsidentirll or commcrciallindustrial development
activity.
'i'hc people who gct thc biR ut!vc~ntrll;c~s frolll fr1rrnlorlcl n!;.;c!:snlc~rlt ttro ttww who own the most
vnluc~blc? Irmd - wealthy investors in land, nrtd dcvelopcrs holdin[; lund for future development.
A fnrmcr in the rurnl nrcn between Clrlrksbrrg and I3nrr~uscu.c might hclvc 200 acres worth
$1,00O/ucre. The asscssrnent on his lnntl bclsed on 50% of rrlurkct valuc, would be $100,000. ?he "farrnlnnd assessment'!. (Article 81, Section 19 (b) (1)) would be abut $30,000. lie gets an nsscssrncrlt.reduction of $70,000 - worth nbout $2500 II ytnr in tnxcs.
103
development will bc permitted only after repayment of tnx concessions nnd any payments received
for dcvcloprnent rights. Thc rcpoynjcrlt provisions do no1 npply to Hurnl %or:c properties.
In addition to Itrrrnl Zone and hgriculturnl llistrict Inntls, tho Morltgomery County bill permits
dcfcrrnl of mutket-vnluc tnxes on frirrns owllcd clnd 0pcrntr:tl tJy fnrnlcrs, dcfincd ns those who live
on a form nnd earn n living (at least to the extent of SOX) from fnrming. Farmers receiving this
deferral would hnve to pay the dcfcrrcd taxcs wIlt~i\ they scll their fnrrr,s (but not when they transfer
by gift or inheritance), or tt\cmselvcs cngnge in ?cvclopment. This provision ennblcs fnrrncrs in developing nreas to conlinuc enjoying the bcnefit of present low nsscsrncnts, so they will not be
forced to sell by n shortage of cash resulting from nsscsarllerlts hsed on speculntivc volue of their
Innd. When they or their llcirs sol1 the form, howcvcr, ttlcvastr to poy tnxos is in hnnd, and the back
taxes should be paid.
In these limes of real hardships for poor nnd cvcn rlvcrrlgc tnxpnyers, it is unrcnsonclblc to
burden them with Inillicirls of dollars of tnx hurclcrl which ctlll bcttcr be carried by thc wealthy
individunls nnd corporutiorls who own dcveloprncnt lnntis. 'l'hcsc tnxpnyers not only hrive more ability to pny, but nre in business to make profits from lnnd snlcs rtIttlcr than fnrming. Only if n durable
commitment to farmina is mnde is therc nrly erpity or p~hlic purpose to be served by giving lerrnlund t\ssessmcnt to vnluuble development ltln:is.
..
105
S' ..
56 I 7.4m
". - .."" . . _.
106
i
107
would pay more tax than a small farm unit, bur it would also
pay a higtler rate of tax. !Tl~c title of t!>is Im[)er calls for "discussion" - we have dis-
I
b "" _" "".""
109
011 June 29, 1977, Wisconsin's Farmland Prcscrvation
Act became law. Thc purpose of the new law is to help
local govt:rnments that want to p~esr!lve farmland through
loci11 [Jlanning and zoning, and to provide tax rolief to
farlncl s who participdte in the local progrsrns.
This panlphlet summariles [Ill: Iaw--t)oth thc! Ilritl,ll
program and the permanent program. Then. the nleaning
of ttw new law for farmers and city people is dtscusscti.
110
119
This articlc is reprinted from Richard Barrows, "Wis-
consin's Farmland Prescrvation Program." Coopera- tive Extcn\ion Programs, Wi5consin Dcpat-trncnt of
Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, Novem-
ber 1977.
I
112
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
. , \. '. Chapter 6: Protecting Farm Land Through Planning
-
America's cities and suburban sprawl are spreading out relentlessly,
threatening to overwhelm rural and farm communities. The commercial
development of open and agricultural land poses a desperate crisis for
American agriculture.
The annual land loss is staggering. Over 3 million acres of farmland
are lost to farming each year. Between 1950 and 1972, this country lost
6% of its total farm acreage. New England lost half of its farm acreage:
New Jersey lost 45%. The rising demand of commercial and residential deveicpers and specu-
lators puts overwhelming burdens on owners of open space and farmers.
The wide-open "Market" for such land is accelerating and natural forces
seem unable to stop it.
Many state legislatures have decided through one approach or another
to prevent the "free market" from making the basic decisions on land use.
A number of exciting approaches have been attempted and provide useful
models. State governments have been the prime movers on this problem
because the U.S. Constitution reserves to the states the righl PO control uses
of land. States, either independently, or acting through county Or municipal
governments, have taken the lead in protecting farmland and open space from development and speculation.
STATE LAND USE PLANS
One of the major approaches considered by many states, and adopted
by some, has been state land use plans. Such state use plans vary widely.
The basic principles of a land use pian is that a state divides all the land in
that state info different categories based on present use and the quality of
the land. The land in the various categories is then restricted to certain
narrow uses. State land use plans are, however, designed for a number of
objectives including preserving open space, controlling urban sprawl, im-
proving air and water quality, enhancing the local economy, and improving
the scenic and visual environment. Meeting those objectives sometimes over.-
laps with and sometimes conflicts with protecting agricultural land.
One of the nation's strongest land use plans is in the state of Hawaii.
It was also one of the first. Passed in 1961, Hawaii's Land Use Law create5
a State Land Use Commission with authority to classify all public and privato
land in the state into one of four different classifications-urban, rural,
agricultural, or conservation. The Commission then established specific
boundaries for each zone and proscribed the uses that land could be put
io in each district. If an old or new property owner wanted to change the use of his land, he required permission from the Land Use Commission.
Although not as strong as that of Hawaii, Vermont's Act 250, which
was passed in 1970, established a permit system requiring specific permis,
don for the intensive development of land. Act 250 created a State Environ-
mental Board and o series of District Environmental Boards to hear requests
for permits from developers. Permits were required for any development of
ten or more acres, and any construction above 2,500 feet of altitude. The
1370 legislation also required the State Environmental Board to prepare
a state Land Capabi!ity and Development Plan which would have divided
the state's land into specific classifications such as those contained in the
Hawaiian law. Widespread public opposition to the prospect of "state-wjde
zoning'' eventually killed the Land Capability and Development Pian, but
lefl Act 250 operating and popular.
Somewhat milder than both the Hawaiian and Vermont legislation is
. that of Oregon. The Oregon Land Conservation and Development Conlniis-
sion Act of 1973 put that state on the path of controlling development and
required that counties develop detailed land use plans within a general frame.
work of state developed guidelines and goals. The 1973 Act also granrs wide
privileges to the Exclusive Farm Use zones (EFU) which had been permitted
in an earlier 1961 law. Oregon was one of the first states to combine land
use planning and special tax assessment of farmlands as contained in the E FUs.
Legislators and farm leaders have recognized that sta?e land use plans
alone are not adequate to protect threatened farmland. In some states, these
groups have pushed for specific land use plans aimed at protecting agricul-
tural land. Two of the most interesting approaches have been proposed in
California.
In 1976 California Assemblyman Charles Warren drafted California
Assembly Bill 75 which would have established a powerful state-wide zoning
program to protect agricultural land. An Agricultural Resources Council.
would have been established vfith power to prescribe the permitted uses of
land classified as prime agricultural land. It would also have had t5e power to
review and ovsrride local decisions affecting prime agricu!tural land. Cities
and counties would have been required to submit detailed maps of desig-
nated prime agricultural land for review and approval. In addition, land desig-
nated as prime agricultur?.l would also receive lower assessments from local
tax assessors. The bill passed the Assembly but failed in the Senate.
In 1977 attention was focused on another interesting California pro-
posal. California Senate Bill 1736 was designed to steer development away
from prime agric.ultural lands. A state commission wou!d establish maximum
boundaries for municipalities, to be called "spheres of influence." Munici-
palities would not be permitted to extend roads, sewers, water or public
transportation outside its "sphere of influence" after a certain period of time.
Denying residentially oriented public services to prime agricultural land would
force development to be intensive and within the "sphere of influence" rather
than the current pattern of unchecked growth.
A group of Hawaiian Senators tried another interesting approach. They
tried to combine the strict land use control regulations created in the 1961
law with the goal of providing low and moderate income housing. The 1975
Hawaiian Srate Land Bank Bi/!would have identified major parcels of Hawaii's
land as Land Bank land. The State Land Use Commission then would have
been prohibited from changing the classification of that land except on
peti?ion of the State Housing Authority. Such legislation woGld have given
low and moderate income housing the first access to any land being developed
from agricultural or rural uses.
One should look north to the Canadian Western Provinces for the most
comprehensive efforts of land use planning to protect agricultural land.
Under the leadership of the New Democratic Party, British Columbia passed
ttx B.C. Land Commission Acr of 1973. It created Agricultural Land Re-
serves as a form of zoning aimed at protecting agricultural lard from non-
agricultural development. The Reserves limit use of the agricultural lands to
__.
86
purposes that will not diminish the ability of the land to produce crops.
The Act also allows the province to purchase land directly and lease it back
to new farmers. British Columbia's comprehensive approach seems superior
to the piecemeal approach of many American states. Excerpts from the
report: Example 22, The S.C. Land Commission-Keeping the Options Open,
describes its authority and programs.
PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAMS
Another approach a number of states have considered to both help
farmers znd stop development is to purchase the "development rights"
to farmland. Under this type of program, the state or local government
purchases from the landowner the right to sell that land for commercial,
industrial, or residential development. The farmer continues to own all
other rights to the land.
The state or local government pays the farmer for the "development
rights" to the land. The value of these "rights" is the difference between the
price a developer would pay for the land-the market-value-and the price a
farmer would pay if the land was only to be used for farming. Such "develop-
ment rights" programs are all voluntary. Farmers can either sell or not sell,
depending only on their own personal commitment to protecting their IaRd
from development and speculation.
cuitural Preservation Foundation Act of 1974. This act authorized the state
to purchase or accept gifts cjf easements that restricted the future uses of
agricultural and woodland to uses that maintain the existing character of
the land; Regrettably, the Maryland Legislature has not yet provided the
funding for the program.
,The state of Massachuse?ts recently, however, passed the Agricultuml
Preservation Restrictions Act of 7977 which authorizes a $5 million bond
to purchase the "development rights" or "preservation restrictions" for
farmland. A companion piece of legislation gave Massachusetts towns and
cities authority to spend their own money to purchase "preservation restric-
tions" as part of their own programs. A description of the new Massachusetts
legislation published by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council of Boston is
included as Example 23, Notes on the Law: A New Way to Save Our Farm-
land. Next door to Massachusetts, the Connecticut House of Representatives
also approved a $5 million "pilot" program for that state to purchase the
development rights to farmland under development pressure.
The state of New Jersey has also passed a purchase of development
rights bill. The four Burlington County townships of Medford, Lumberton,
Pemberton and Southampton were chosen as the first sites. The program,
funded initially at $5 million is financed from the Green Acres Bond Issue,
a large fund used to purchase open space and recreational land for New Jersey.
Perhaps the most well known and largest "development rights" project is the Suffolk County Farmland Preservation Program. The initial iegislation
has approved by the Suffolk County Legislature in 1974, leading the way to
voter approval of a $60 million bond issue to finance the program. On Sep-
tember 29, 1977 the first contracts were signed with two farmers, Nathaniel
Talmage and George Reeves, to purchase their development rights. ?he Co-
operative Extension Association of Suffolk County published an excellent
description of the purpose and procedures of the Suffolk County program which is included as Example 24, Suffolk's Farmland Preservation Program.
One of the first "development rights" programs was the Maryland Agri- .
87
County officials hope to be able to purchase between 10,000 and 12,000
acres of farmland. Priority would be given to farmer-owned and occupied
holdings of 3t least 20C acres. Besides' receiving payment for the develop-
ment rights, the farmer would also benefit from a reduction of about 80%
in property taxes. One of the major problems of the Suffolk County pro-
gram, as in all development rights programs, is the enormous cost. These high
costs will probably result in state and local governments not being able to
afford to buy the rights to land near urban areas where development pres-
sures are strongest, but instead to buy the development rights to land which
will inevitably face development 10 to 15 years from now.
LAND TRUSTS: A NEW CONCEPT
As a means both to cut the cost of a development rights purchase pro-
gram and also to keep government out of the land ownership business, some
communities have turned to the concept of land trusts. k model State Lard
Trust Act has been drafted by former Vermont State Representative John
McCiaughry. The Land Trust wculd be an instrumentality of the state whose
primary purpose would be to accept land and interests in larid for the benefit
of the people of the state. It would not have the power to issue bonds or tc
exercise eminent domain.
The Trust would accept land or interests in land in two major forms:
On the one hand any landowner could donate land, the development rights,
or other interests in lands to the Trust. The landowner would get a tax
deduction for his charitable contribution. The other major purpose of the
Trust would be to permit landowners to lease the development rights or
other interests in the land to the Trust for some period of time. The Trust
would pay the property taxes on the rights or inrerests it wijs then leasing.
A slight increase in the state's property transfer tax would cover the cost of
financing this program.
THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
Another major initiative states have considered to protect agricultural
land from development also has the advantage of not costing the public
treasury money. This is the concept of "transferable development rights"
or TDRs. Illinois has already enacted a limited TDH plan. New Jersey came
close to adopting a comprehensive TDR plan, and among the 10 states
which considered it last year, a limited TDR plan passed the New York
Assembly in 1978. The concept of transferable development rights is well
described in the article reprinted from State Legislatures which is included
as Example 25, Transferable Development Rights.
The New York Assembly bill gives cities and localities wider authority
under their local zoning and planning process. They would be allowed to set
up a system of "transferable development rights" through which a land-
owner could sell the development rights to the land without actually sel!ing
the land itself. That "development right" could be sold to another land-
owner who wanted to develop one specific parcel of land more intensively
than local zoning regulations would permit. The effect of such legislation
steers development into certain specified "development areas" of munici-
palities, while at the same time compensating other landowners for the
decreased value of their land caused by the zoning.
88
, a
PUBLISHED RESOURCES
Bosselman, Fred and David Callies, The Quiet Revolution in Land Use Control. Prepared for Council on Environmental
Quality, 722 Jackson Place, N.W., Washington, 3.C. 20006.
December 1971. Summaries of state lapd use plans in
Hawaii, Vermont, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Wisconsin,
end Missouri; has good theoretical discussion of the role of
the state in land use planning.
British Columbia Land Comrnirsion, Keeping the Options
Open. B.C. Land Commission, Burnaby, British Columbia.
1975. Good pamphlet describing goals and provisions of B.C. Land Commission Act of 1973.
Bryant, William and Howard Conkfin, "New Farmland
Preservation Programs in New York," Journal of the Ameri-
can Institute of Planners. American Institute of Planners,
1776 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.
November 1975.
California Land Use Task Forae.The California Land: Ptan-
ning for People. Planning and Conservation Foundation,
1225 8th Street, Sacramento, California 95814. 1975.
California Tomorrow, "Land Preservation: Five Bills in
Search of a Majority," Cry California. California Tomorrow,
Monadnock Building, 681 Market Street, San Francisco,
California 94105. Summer 1977.
Connecticut Conservation Association, The Vanishing Land: Agriculture in Connecticut. Connecticut Conservation Association, Northrop Street, Bridgewater, Connecticut
0657%. Auyust/Septernber 1974.
Gcle, Dennis and Harvey Yampolsky, "Agri-Zoning: How
They're Gonna Keep 'Em Down on the farm," Planning.
American Society of Planning Officials, 1313 East 60th
Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637. October 1975.
Klein, John V.N., Report to the Suffolk County Legislature
From the Select Committee on the Acquisition of Farm.
lands. Select Committee on the Acquisition of farmlands,
County Center, Riverhead, New York 11901. November
1974. Minutes of Committee meetings, and texts of the
various contracts designed 'to purchase development rights
in agricultural lands.
Lefaver, Scott, "A New Framework for Rural Planning,"
Urban Land. Urban Land Institute, 1200 18th Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20036. April 1978. Introduction to all
the issues of rural planning.
Lernire, Robert, The Economics of Wing Massachusetts Farmland. Massachusetts ksociation of Conservation
bmmissions, Medford, Massachusetts. 1976.
Little, Charles E., The New Ongon Trail: An Account of the Development and Passage of State Land Use Legislation
in Oregon. Conservation Foundation, Incorporated, 171 7
Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, DX. 1974. His-
tory of issues and passage of Oregon legislation.
Lyman, Gregory, S.J. Meyer, and R. Nelson, "Can Zoning
Preserve Farmland," Practical Manner. American Institute
of Planners, 1776 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 2q6. September, 1977.
McClaughry, John and Richard Lamm, "Two Views on Land Use Planning," People 2nd Land. Vol. 2, No. 1, The Land Reform Movement, Center for Rural Studics, 3410
19th Street, San Francisco, California 94110. Summer
1974. Debate over whether state land use planning is the
best strategy for preserving agricultural land.
Miner, Dallas, "Agricultural Lands Preservation: A Growing
Trend in Open Space Planning," Management and bntrol
of Growth. Scott Randall, Editor, Urban Land Institute,
1200 18th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.
Miner, David, "Land Banking in Canada: A New Approach
to Land Tenure," Journal of Soil and Water Comervation.
Soil Conservation Society of America, 7515 Northeest
Ankeny Road, Ankeny, Iowa 50021. JuiyIAugust 1977.
Minnesota Department of Agriculture, A Position Paper on
the Preservation of Farmland. Minnesota Department of
Agriculture, State Office Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota.
55155. February 1977. Review of states' efforts to pre-
serve agricultural land, reasons for the "green acres'' act
failare in Minnesota, and a proposal to establish "agri-
cultural districts."
Myer, Harold, "Exclusive Farm Use Zoning and Farmland
Prices," Journal of the American Society of Farm Managers
and Rural Appraisers. 210 Clayton, P.O. Box 6857, Denver,
Colorado 80206. October 1977.
Nash, Joseph, "Farmcolony: A Development Alternative to
Loss of Agricultural Land," Urban Lend. Urban Land Insti-
tute, 1200 18th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20336.
February 1976.
National Community Land Trust Center, Community Land
Trusts and Their Relation to Proposals for Purchasing De-
velopment Rights from Farmers to Save Farmland. National
Community Land Trust Center, 539 Massachusetts Avenue,
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139. Review cf recent efforts
to transfer development rights and preserve prime agri-
cultural lands.
Pennabecker, James, Open Space Lands Preservation Vech-
niquer: A Literature Review of Innovative Methods. Coun-
cil of P!anning Librarians, No. 1393, P.O. Box 229, Monti-
cello, Illinois 61856. 1977.
Peterson, Craig and Claire McCarthy, "A Proposal for an
Agricultural Land Preservation Program," Land Use Law %I
Zoning Digest. Vol. 29. No. 8, American Society of Plan-
ning Officials, 1313 East 60th Street, Chicago, Illinois .60637.1977.
C
I
E
The Land Commission Act, although primarily intended
to preserve agricultural lands for farm use, also contains provisions related to other land uses. For example, it is
concerned with the preservation of greenbelt lands in and around urban areas. the preservation of landbanks suitable for urban or industrial development, and the establishment of park-land for recreational purposes.
The essential significance of the Land Cornmission Act
is tha! its passage marks the coming of age of agriculture in British Columbia. Food production is now an industry of urgent concern to all citizens of a province whose farm resources must be husbanded as never before.
The Land Commission. which consists of five members.
was appGinted by the Lieutenant Gwernor-in-Council in May, 1973, and reports to the Legislature through the Minister of Agriculture.
The presentation of agricultural Band
The Land Commission is empowered to preserve
agricultural land for farm use by means of the
establishment of prctective zones. These zones are
shown on maps commonly known as Agricultural Land Reserve Plans. Within a designated Agricultural Land
Reserve (ALR), regulations define the type of land-use
activity that may take place.
The Commission also has the authority to purchase
agricultuml land and to hold, manage, lease or sell
purchased land at ifs discretion. These powers are necessary in order that the Commission may act
positively to encourzge farming and preserve agricultum! land for future generations.
Gift§
The preservation of greenbeit land
In general terms, a ‘greenbelt’ is an area of permanent
open space within or surrounding a town or CIQ;. Its main
purposc is to provide undisturbed natural larrdscape for the interest and enjoyment of the urban popu!ation
Typical greenbelt would include treed areas in the heart
of the comrnuRity, pedestrian and cycling paths alongside waterways, and natural viewpoints overlooking the city. The Land Cornmission is not ernpowered to designate land for greenbelt without first purchasing the land. The Commission’s objective is to encoumge the
preservation of natural greenbelt lands by local and
regional governments,
The.presePvation ob landbank land
The Land Commission k also empowered to purchase,
either on its own or jointly with local and regional
governments, certain lands that have desirable qualities
fc: urban w industrjal devslopment. lt is expected that the Commission will play an increasingly important role
in “landbanking” as one means of directing u~an
development away from farmlands and preserving agricultural lands for agricultural use.
The preservation of parkland
The Land Commission also has a role to play in encouraging the establishment of lands in parkland
reserves for recreational purposes. This function is’ intended to complement and not compete with the
activities of Provincial and Municipal park authorities. As in the case of greenbelt and urban landbank land. the Commission has no powea to designate p-rkland unless the land has been purchased or received 2s a gift.
The Commission has already received two gifts of land Dr. & Mrs. Hugh Campbell-Brown of Vernon donated
totalling 600 acres. 300 acres of land along Kalamalka Lake in rntz?niory of
The Morrell Wildlife Sanctuary was a gift of 275 acres their parents, who were pioneer farmers in the area.
from Mr. W. A. Morrell of Nanaimo. The Sanctuary, The land is an example of unspoiled natural Okanngan
dedicated to the protection and shJy of wildlife. is landscape and although a carefully located campsite may
managed Malaspina College Council through an be developed st some later date, the Campbell-BrW
advisory committee including Mr. Morrell and members ?ark,= it is now named, will be maintained in its
of B.C. Povemment departmenb. natural state.
”
Agricultural Land
Ahhough the Commission is not actively seeking to
purchase agricultural land, it has nevertheless acquired a
number of properties. Some of these purchases have been of farms close to expanding uhn areas; others have involved land in conflict with other resource uses such as wildlife and recreation. In these cases, the
Commission has arranged for management studies to
determine the best use of the land.
. Through its farmland purchases the Land Commission also hopes to assist farmers who wish to retire but are unable to sell their farms on the open market. These farms will be offered to young farmers on a lease arrangement to offset the high cost of establishing
new farms.
-Once the land has been purrhased, and the land-use studies completed, arrangements for tenancy are made
by the Property Management Division of the Department of Agriculture in cooperation with other resource departments. Arrangements may involve consolidation
with other land parcels or leasing the property as a single farm unit or as an addition to a neighbouring farm.
GreenbeIt and Parkland
In co-opention with the Regional Districts and their municipalities, !he Commission is also interested in
purchasing - or helping local authorities to purchase -
greet';'hit and parkland in and around urban centres.
The in; id $5 million set aside for this purpose is being
spent on a Regional District per capita basis for properties recommended for purchase by the District. In fact, the Cornmission will consider the purchase of any type of
natural area or park.
The Commission has been given stewardship oi greenbelt sites that were purchased by the government in past
years. These lands, together with the properties
acquired by the Commission, are under the management of the local government authority or the appropriate government department.
The Land Commission has &en described as the
coordinator of activity at the boundaries where town and
countty meet. The Cornmissin anticipates.that much of its work will deal with those land-use conflicts that
arise where growing communities impinge upn the neighbouring farmland.
The encouragement of family farming is one of the main
objectives of the Land Commission Act. In the
administration of Agricultural hnd Resewes, the
Commission will give careful artention to the impact of
the regdations on the opemtjons of the active farmer,
rancher and orchardist, especiaily as they affect the
family agriculturalist. For example. the Land Commission evcts to help brmers adjust property lines and in some cases assemble land (with the co-operation of their neighburs) in order to achieve
more viable production units.
The general policy regarding hnd cxuned by the Commission will be to place the properties in the hands of farm families who may not haw the extensive
resources necessary to purchase a farm outright. A career lease is envisioned, with the hope that the operation hill be passed on to the next generation of the family in
similar tenure.
The Commission also believes that one of the most effective ways of protecting the farming community is by
helping cities solve problems which in the past were
handled by the naive expedient of encroaching more
and more upon the countqside..Tectwiques to
encourage the efficient use of land within towns, methods of projecting patterns of future gruu~h, and
other innovative strategies will be pub!icized to assist regional and rnunlcipal decisionmakers in planning land
use within their jurisdictions. In some instmces, direct
participation with local government on a partnership
basis may be necessary to resolve problems for the mutual benefit of town and county. The Vernon spray imgation project. designed to divert that city's sewage effluerit from Okanagan Lake to otherwise arid iands. is
En example of this type of co-operation.
On the broader scale, co-operarion with the various departments of the Provincial Government and with the Environment and Land Use Committee of Cabinet will continue to be an important function of the Land Commission.
The Agricultural Land Reserve may be viewed in the
long haul as a fail-safe device to consewe countryside for food production. However, much of the land in the Agricultuml Land Reserves is suitable for integrated use without compromising the land's food production
capability. The identification of such uses will be an important aspect of the work to be done in the future. In some cases, as in high capability forest, wildiife or recreation lands, integration will be essential for better ecolocJcal land use planning.
The mandate of the Land Commission is both constructive and extensive. Resolution of land-use conflicts which endanger the material well-being and life
style,of British Columbians will be the central concern of the Commission.
This article is reprinted from The B.C. Land Commir-
s1on"Kecping the Options Open, B.C. Land Commis-
tion, 4333 Ledger Avenue, Burnaby, British Colurn- bla USGlH1, pp. 8, 12, 14.
Chapter G/Protecrtfng Farrpl Lan4 Through Planning
""
This article is reprinted from Alexandra 0. Dawson, "Notes on the Law: A New Way to Save Our Farm- land," Metropolitan Area Planning Council, Boston, Massachusetts. p. 4.
92
Faced with the rapid and continuous loss of farmlands
to non-agricultural uses, Suffolk County has embarked on
a unique program to save some of the remaining 60,000
acres. The program, which provides for the parchase of
development rights of 12 to 15,000 acres of farrnland by
the county, was proposed by an Agricultural Advisory
Committee after two years of study during which time
numerous types of farmland preservation alternatives
were considered.
Development rights comprise part of the package of
property rights which landowners possess. They are de-
fined as "all the rights, title, and interest except the right
of ownership, the right of exclusive possession, and the
right to use and sell the land for agricultural purposes."
The value of the development rights is determined by
subtracting the agricultural value of the land from its full
market value. For example, if the agricultural value is
$1,000 per acre and the fdl market value is $5,000 per
acre, the development rights would be worth $4,000 per
acre. Or if the agricultural value is $1.500 per acre and the
full market value is S15.000 per acre, the development
rights would be worth $13,500 per acre.
The County initiates the purchase procedure by sending
letters to farmland owners inviting ?hem to submit sealed
bids specifying the amount (acreage) of land which is being
offered and the asking price. Submission of Sids is entirely
voluntary and owners of any farmland in the county may
make an offer.
AI! sealed bids are opened by the county on a desig-
nated date, read and recorded, and forwarded to a Select
Committee for preliminary evaluation. Each parcel of
farmland is evaluated relative to its soil, contiguity to
other farmland, and price. The Committee compiles a list
of those parcels which appear to meet the county's criteria
and submits it to the County Legislature along with a
similar list of unacceptable bids and reasons for their
rejection.
The Legislature, after studying the committee's recom-
mendations, may authorize the County Executive tc seek
options on each approved parcel for the purpose of making
an independen? appraisal of both the market value and the
agricultural value. The appraisal information is forwarded
to the Select Committee which uses it in making the final
evaluation of bids.
The Select Committee then prepares'a list of those bids
for which it recommends the County exercise the option.
This list is submitted to the County Legislature which must
act on the recommendations. If the Legislature approves
the recommendations, the County may exercise the options
and sign contracts with the owners of the acceptable parcels.
Title searches and any necessary surveys will be carried out
and the closing transactions will be concluded within sixty
days.
At the closing, the landowner signs the deed conveying
the development rights to the County. The County, in turn,
Pays the owner the cash value of the development rights
in a lump sum to the owner or his designee. The County
Cannot sell any of the development rights without the ap-
proval of a msjority of voters in a countywide referendum.
The purchase of development rights and the attendant
administrative expenses will be financed by the sale of
30-year municipal bonds. A resolution authorizing the
sale of bonds must be passed by a 2/3 majority of the
County Legislature.
The statute which allows the Courlty to undprtake this
program is Section 247 of the General Municipal Law. This
authorizes local governments to acquire full or lesser title
to land for the purpose of open space preserva?ion. Suffolk
County Local Law No. 19-1974 enacted by the County
Legislature authorized the implementatlon of the farmland
program.
The county program is designed to relieve some of the
economic pressures which force farmers out of business.
Selling development rights will prevent the forced liquida?ion
of the farm assets to pay federal estate taxes on the death
of the owner since most of the assets will not be in the
form of land. Local property taxes will be based on the
agricultural, value of the land rather than on the full market
value which includes the value of development righrs.
Farmers who participate in the program will have money to
reinvest in their farming operations and/or to purchase
additional land to expand the operation.
This article is reprinted from "Suffolk's Farmland Preservation Program," New York Cooperative Ex- tension, 246 Giffing Avenue. Riverhead, New York 11901.
93
Chapter G/Protdng Farm Land Through Planning
A new land management concept IS state:. cunsldered the measure laht !car Jnd promising state and local go\ernment\ a more are expected to intrnducc TDR thl\ way to presene historic. agnculrural or se<sion
environmentall! sensltite arcar at no puh- The baric premr\e of TDR I\ thJ! a iiC cost. without finanL,lal loss to ouners propen! ouner can \ell the right IC' de- and without sacriflclng future prouth. ' \clop hls land ju\t 2r he can sell a rlght of
11's called Transferable De\.elopment
Rights (TDR) and It's gaining atrentlon
across the country. Illmois has airead!
enacted a llmited TDK plan. eight other
.
"The basic premise of TDR is that a property owner can seII the right to develop his land just as Re can sell a right of way for a power line or the right to drill for oil."
uay for a pouer line or the right tto dr-111 lor
oil. The major d!fference. houeier. 15 that
he sells the developmcnt rlghrr f-or use on a
different plece of properl!
A simplified TDR plan might unrh like this:
* Rlmg land \alue5 are threatenmp
farmland at the edge of a communlt!. The
farmers u he ou n the propen! Lnau tha If
the! sell their land for the de\ elopmenr of 3
high-rise complex. the! u111 realm a fi-
nanclal gain far abo\e therr return from
farming.
The tit). houeter. is interested in
presen ing the land a5 fxnhnd. 50 I! de-
signate\ the propen! a\ a "presen-ation
zone. protectmg it trom an! change In
use. At the same tlme. the clt! deCIgndtc3 a
IucratiLe slte. uhlch can accomirdate the
nru grouth. as the "transfcr zone
B! allowing higher denbit! detelop-
ment In the transfer zone than 111 the rest of
the cornmunit!, rhe CII! gl*.es bullders an
Inccnti\e to de\eloy there Bu: the dc-
\elopers can on]! huild on fbe land at the
higher, more profitable den\tt! If the! huh
"de\elopment rlghtb" from the farmers In
the "preser"tlon'7one.''
Because farmers can sell their de-
velopment rlghts at the golng market pnce.
the! are not penalized by the presewation
plan: neither IS the developer.. who can
build the high-rise complex in the transfer
zone
The cornmunit! also beneflts. It IS
able to concentrate de\elopment where
roads. schools, seuer, and other publlc
facilities and services are most available
and easiest to upgrade. In addition. the
communiry can achieve its planning goals
at much less public expense. By using private marketplace forces
IO compensate landowners whose propen) is to he presewed. TDR ellminates some of
the problems common to other new land
management lechniques. "Because TDR
offers a way to preserve historic or
environmentally-sensitive properties
while accomodating growth and develop-
..
ment. it IS a way 10 ha\e krrur cahc and eat
it tm)." sa!5 John Helh of thc Seu Jcrrc!
Legl\lati\e Sen Ice5 Agent.!
But TDR har it5 opponcntr Seu Jer-
se! ha\ come the clo\e$t to endctlng a
comprehcn5ite TDR lau. hut the plm ha\
come under attack from seLeral quarter\.
Budders uorr? that 11 ma? turn out to
be jus! another procedural roadblock in a
burins\!. alread! brid!ed u~th permit\ and
cenlficale5 Although real ewtc Intere\:\
uould he able to sel! detelopment r,ght,
jus! as they dn acrual propen!. the! alro
oppose TDR. clalmmg II might ic5ter
exclusionary zonlng and interfere u Ith
"normal de\elopment '' Farmen. too.
haie ken concerned that the "de\elop-
men1 nghts" ceniflcates mlght turn out to
be so much dekalued paper.
"One Le! que5tlon IS whether the
TDR cenlficate IS a marketable commod-
it! ." says Assemhl! nun John Do! le. a
spnnwr of the Neu Jerse! bill. Slnce the
uonh of the cenlflcate i\ based on the
dlfferencr between the propenx's agncul-
rural cr open space valuc and !t> full mar- ket value for future development. demand
for construction in the transfer zone would
affect demand for cenlflcates.
To a\old ending UF htth a Stiber's
marker for TERs. staff and spnsors of
the Neu Jerse) blII are nou stud) Ing u a! 3
to allou municipal~t~es to phase In the crea-
tion of TDR ceniflcates to keep the buppl!
from outrunning the pace of debelopment
in the transfer zones.
Although the Neu Jersey bill uould
require interested communmes to conduct
extensive planning and market srudles be-
fore designating preservation and transfer
zones. there are bound to be dlsputes. and
some of them u~ll uind up in Iltlgatlon.
'"We expect COU~ challenge5 to the
Sew Jersey enablmg act." Do)k sa!h.
"But it is m). hope that a court u 111 declde
to defer judgment untll the TDR has been
implemented in a few places."
TDR rnay not be sui:ed to all
municipalitrec: it only makes sen5e for
communltler that ha\e areas uonh pre-
senmg as well ab areas that can suppnn
more intensive development. he pnlnts
out. "But for those communltle3. It's an
experlment that rnay help them better
pulde their own destinies." C. D.
This article is reprinted from "Transferable Develop- ment Rights." State Legislatures, NCSL Communi- cations Department, 1405 Curtis Street, 23rd Floor, Denver, Colorado 80202, p. 24, April/May 1977.
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
h
Sacramento, California August 5, 1981
TO
FROM':
RE:
Members, Subcommittee on Agricultural Land
Russ Selix, League Staff
AGRICULTURAL LAND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING
August 20,1981 - 1O:OO a.m. - 3:OO p.m. League Headquarters, 1400 K Street, Sacramento [Transportation available from Sacramento Airport to Senator Hotel)
1O:OO am - 1200 noon Presentation by Professor William Woad, Jr., University of California (See attached material)
12:OO noon Lunch
1:OO pm - 3:OO pm Open discussion between committee members and:
Mr. Angelo 3. Siracusa, Bay Area Council
Mr. H. L. Sissen, Construction Industry Advancement
Ms. Kathy Gordon, League of Women Voters of California
Fund
Please return the attached attendance form to the Sacramento office of the League
by August 14, 1981.
1400 K STREET, SACRAMENTO 95814 HEADQUARTERS
(91 6) 444-5790
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURAL LAND
I will I / I cannot - / attend the meeting of the Subcommittee on
Agricultural Land in Sacramento on August 20.
Name
Title
City
Please return this form by August 14 to:
League of California Cities 1400 K Street, 4th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814
ma
/- I -0u
ISSUES OVER FARM LAND
by
Dr. William W. Wood, Jr., Economist
Cooperative Extension, University of California
Jand has many attributes. Land provides space; it is an asset which
changes value because its supply and location are restricted; it 1s a tra-
ditional requirement for growing plants, the basfc source of food; it fs
a symbol of security, stability and success; it provides a focal point for
individual, group and national conflict; it can be measured, described and
compared; it has quality characteristics which, like beauty, tend to be in
the eyes of the beholder.
Preserving, protecting, reserving, saving for or from certain uses has
been and continues to be a conflict issue for land. At present iiwch of the
land issue focus is on land to providelfuture food supplies. Much has been
said and written about the loss of productive land to competing urban uses.
While figures abound regarding agricultural land conversions, reliable data
are scarce. This paucity of information results from several factors, the
principal ones being: lack of consistant and objectively measurable
definitions of land which reflect quality differences, thousands of loc:a?
governmental units to whom monitoring of land use has been delegated, and
lack of clear criteria by which to specify when conversion occurs.
At the' heart of the farmlands prcservatlon issue are three.difficult ques-
t ions.
1. What farmlands should be preserved?
-2 -
2. How should such farmlands be preserved and by which level of
3
Conven
tunate
I
1
government?
How should any costs involved in preserving farmlands be dis-
tr i bu ted?
ent names such as prime and unique are offered as solutions.' Unfor-
y, defining what lands could or should be included is very much
dependent upon a wide variety of variables, values for the more significant .
of which are judgmental. The three questions are interrelated, particularly
the second and third. Transferable development rights, zoning, land
banking and public purchase are among the various approaches, each with a
comnensurate distribution of costs. However, each approach depends upon
specific identification of land to which it is to be applied.
' Soil, the productive layer on the land surface, is an important factor in
considering land for agriculture. However, other factors--climate, water,
technology, management--are also key considerations. Some soils are more
flexible with regard to the number of canmodities that technically can be.
grown. However, other factors can ameliorate soil constraints. Thus, soil
as - the key to identifying land for protective consideration implicitly
assumes all other factors staying relatively constant. Perhaps the most
important implicit assumption is "at present relative commodity prices."
This assumption not only addresses concern over consumer food costs but
perhaps more significantly the importa'nce of consumer choice.
tkmmodities and Food Supply
In food supply discusslons, the typical context is in providing adequate
calories and nutritional components to provide for health and sustenance.
t -3- -
That is a vital context for many human beings in the U.S. and around the
world. Obviously, cost also plays an important role. The underlying goal
of agricultural policy for nearly a century has been to balance food
supply--in terms of providing incentives to produce--with food demand--in .
terms of price, quality and quantity.
However, in another context,. farmers do not produce food--they produce
comnodities. Likewise, humans do not simply consume food (calories and
nutrients)--they consume commodities, singularly or in combination.
Commodities provide choice to satisfy taste and variety. With varying
degrees of efficiency, markets and commodity prices signal both consuner
tastes and preference and producer response to anticipated incomes; food
supply in a health-nutrient context is not so represented. Thus, an inlpor-
tant but implicit assumption in the discussion over farmland conversion or
preservation is that there be no disruption of choice currently avsilsblc
to consumers. Whether it be avocados, beef, carrots or zuccini, variability
in production capacity is the objective rather than total calories for hurnan
consumption.
Time
Given the large array of factors which have an influence, current food, in
either a calorie or commodity context, apparent
Whether shortages are apt to occur in 10, 20 or
Many feel the risk of potential food shortfall
ly is not i:; short supply.
SO years is problematical.
is sufficiently high to warrant
action now to guard against it. The issue in these terms is who sl~ould be
responsible for keeping land resources available in case they are ur5)ently
needed. Substantial increases in the price of farm land notwithstsndirrg,
-4-
I.
clearly the market is not able to accommodate future potential needs in
the face of other current use demands for land. Thus, public action--
(J~)vt!1-Ilrnt.nt-.-is ncccss,lry to deal wit.h land rctcntion For future use if the
private sector cannot price and distribute such risk.
Simply stated, attempting to minimize the impacts of unknown future risks
in a mixed public-private economy is a political decision. Scientific
analysis can address portions of the issue, but specifying acceptable levels
of joint risk is a public policy decision.
Summary
Private rights in real property, opportunities to capture appreciated land
values, Jurisdiction of local, state or federal government, and public
revenue-service costs.have been debated in considerable detail. The
identification of which land areas should be considered and the mechanisms
for getting from 1980 to the next century have received less attention.
Not uncotnrnonly these latter items have been viewed as capable of solution-.
by appropriate analytical approaches. In reality, political decis'ions are
required. While scientific data and analysis are useful, they will not
-. . .
substitute for difficult decisions by legislative bodies.
Soil scientists and economists can and must provide information. Decisions,
however, must be made by citizens or their elected representatives as to how
natural resources--including farm land--can be most appropriately managed
and used to satisfy human needs and desires. Food, consumer choice, property
ownership, housing, risk avoidance and confidence in government are the
issues at stake.
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 9, 1 981
TO: Tom Hageman
FROM: Joyce Crosthwaite
SUBJECT: PRIME FARMLAND: INYERTORY;
URBANIZATION IMPACTS; MITIGATION MEASURES
This boouet was sent to the City by Bb LQdwig who apparently thought there would be "new ideas" in it to help staff. The booklet is a portion
of an environmental impact statement prepared by the City of Modesto for
the EPA.
A new definition of prime agricultural land is proposed. It was established by the Soil Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agruculture. It states that prime farmland has:
"Soil quality, growing season, and moisture content needed to economically produce sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed, including water management, according to acceptable farming methods.
Basically, under this definition prime land must produce relatively more food with less demand for fertilizer, erosion control, energy or other resources.
This definition is contrasted with that of the Williamson Act which requires one of the following for prime agriculturd land:
1 ) Class I or II soils
2) gross value of $200/acre 3) Rating of 80-1 00 in the Storie Index 4) Carrying capacity of one livestock unit/acre 5) Fruit trees which return $200/acre
Iand defined as prime agricultural land differs under each definition'. It was estimated that there are 20.58 million acres of prime land according to the Williamson Act and 13.00 million according to the Soil Conservation Service definition.
Carlsbad now falls under the Williamson Act definition. Under the Soil
Conservation Service criterion of soil quality, growing season and moisture, Carlsbad would probably be classified as fair in soil quality due to the lack of Class I soils and the quantity of Class I1 and I11
soils, as excellent in the growing season and good in the moisture content. Under the soil conservation service's criterion, Carlsbad would have more prime agricultural land.
This book3et also lists a number of measures to mitigate the irreplaceable conversion of prime land. mh measure includes a discussion of the purpose and theory, implementing agency and method of application of farm land preservation.
I am having the booklet copied. I will distribute one cow to each of the Agricultural Advisory Committee members and will have one copy for review in my agriculture file.
JC: jf
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
TOM HAMILTON
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
WEIGHTS & MEASURES
FIRST DtSTRlCT
PAUL W. FOROEM
SECOND DISTRICT
ROGER HEDGECOCK
THIRD DISTRICT
Building 3, 5555 Overland Avenue JIM BATES
San Diego, California 92123 FOURTH DISTRICT
Offices of County Agricultural Commissioner (714) 565-5764
County Sealer of Weights and Measures (714) 565-5781
PAUL ECKERT
FIFTH D152r(lCT
i:, - iFQt
July 27, 1981
Gary D. Roth, Vice President
Cesco Development Corporation
Community Developers
110 West C Street, Suite 1220
San Diego, California 92101
The action of the Board of Supervisors on February 17, 1981, was to discard
the Agricultural Element of the County General Plan. Although a number of
recommendations were adopted, not too much has happened. We have taken the
Board's action as a signal to acquaint public entities with the agricultural
land situation. Some interest has developed; most notably, the Carlsbad
Agricultural Committee. They are interested in a plan for a development
density transfer of some land in that area. Included in this plan would be a purchase of development rights of an adjacent small parcel of agricultural
land.
The Board of Supervisors sought an opinion from County Counsel on the legal-
ity of a Right to Farm Ordinance. I have not heard of a decision. Meanwhile,
Assemblyman Thurman introduced AB 585 which is a Right to Farm Bill. It has
passed the Assembly and is now awaiting action on the Senate floor. This
offers growers some measure of protection from nuisance complaints by neigh-
bors.
The Riding and Hiking Trails matter matter has been before the Board recently
with no resolution. The Board did direct the establishment of a committee
to study the matter backed by a technical advisory subcommittee. The next
Board meeting on this matter will be held September 17, 1981, at 1O:OO a.m.
This report does not indicate a frenzy of activity, but it describes the
situation as it is at present.
Lg-GK- . L TTLE, JR.
Agricultural Commission&
KKL:it