Land Use Current Conditions

From RUCS Wiki

D R A F T
Rural-Urban Connections Strategy:
Land Use Policies and Plans Current Conditions Inventory
September 23, 2008

1 Introduction: A Rural Perspective on Land Use
2 Development of the Rural Land Use Policies Current Conditions Inventory
3 Discussion
4 Appendix A

Introduction: A Rural Perspective on Land Use

The Rural-Urban Connections Strategy was initiated by the SACOG Board in January, 2008 to identify ways to help the rural areas of the 6-county SACOG region to have healthy economies. The project is developing knowledge about the economic realities of rural county and rural city local governments and property owners who are trying to earn a living for the uses of their rural lands. Through the Blueprint and Metropolitan Transportation Plan projects over the last six years, SACOG has developed data, analysis and plans that illustrate that the success of our region’s urban and rural areas are inextricably linked – one can not succeed over the long-term without the other succeeding as well.

The Land Use topic focuses on the current land use policies and plans that guide the use of rural lands. Whether for agricultural, habitat or conservation, rural home sites, urban development, recreation or open space, the use of land has implications for the viability of rural communities, agricultural operations, and natural habitats, as well as the provision of public services and the creation and maintenance of physical infrastructure. Taken together, these various uses of land determine the long-term economic and environmental sustainability of rural areas and are an important part of achieving similar objectives for the entire region. This paper summarizes current policies that affect rural land use in the Sacramento Region and begins to explore how these policies and development standards encourage or discourage agricultural uses, urbanization, rural home sites, or habitat conservation. Many counties are updating their general plans and new policies being drafted in those processes will be examined in the "innovations" phase of this study.

The opportunities and challenges in rural parts of our region are directly affected by the Sacramento region’s strong population growth and commensurate development pressure, particularly over the last ten years. From 1988 to 2005, the region grew by approximately 657,000 people. In that same time, approximately 200,000 acres of farmland were lost to urban and rural development. That is over 5% of the total farmland acres existing in the region much of which is higher quality farmland and in unincorporated areas. The six counties in the SACOG region, although unique in many ways, face similar challenges when it comes to policy making for their rural lands. Policy makers are often confronted with the competing demands of maintaining agricultural and open space, funding infrastructure and public services, economic development, growth pressures and land rights.

Development of the Rural Land Use Policies Current Conditions Inventory

An inventory of current rural general plan land use policies was developed in cooperation with the six counties in the SACOG region. SACOG staff summarized general plan polices and zoning ordinances and then met with staffs from each county to vet the findings of the inventory. This research helps SACOG staff and planning staff across the region understand generally and specifically what policies are being used in each county to guide the use of land. The inventory is intended to provide a starting foundation for a regional discussion and inquiry into key questions for the Land Use Working Group, including:

What are the goals of land use policies and standards in rural areas of the region?
Are recent land use trends consistent with the goals?
What is unique and what is common about land use goals and trends in the rural areas of our region?

Policy makers for a long time have searched for effective means for transitioning between urban and rural uses, contemplating what types of agricultural uses work most harmoniously near urban uses and vice versa. Rural residential, homes on parcels typically ranging from 1 to 10 acres in size, has long been seen as a possible answer to this "edge" question. As such, rural residential uses are an important focus area for the Land Use Working Group and this introductory paper.

What are the various approaches to rural residential zoning in the region?
Are some rural residential policies and codes more effective than others at providing an effective transition, or buffer zone between development and agriculture or open space uses?
What are the relevant trends for rural residential development in the six counties?

Ten topics were reviewed as part of the inventory. These include:

Spheres of Influence/City Limits defining the urban/rural edge
Rural Land Use Designations
Conflicts between land uses
Development Mitigation
Agriculture Conservation Easements
Williamson Act program
Flood Control
Farm worker housing in rural areas
Jobs-housing ratio standards
Economic development or agri-tourism policies and plans

Appendix A includes key general plan elements for each county is included for a more comprehensive look at any of the counties’ policies.

1. Spheres of Influence/City Limits Defining the Urban/Rural Edge

All six counties have general plan policies that direct or limit urban growth to urban areas, community areas, or spheres of influences of cities. These policies aim to preserve agricultural and natural resource lands and also promote orderly growth. Yolo and Sutter Counties have policies that are somewhat more restrictive than the others, directing urban development to existing cities and/or their spheres of influence and to existing unincorporated communities. In Sutter County, land use planning for the spheres of influences of Yuba City and Live Oak are the responsibility of those cities, subject to county approval (General Plan Policy 1.B-1). Similarly, Yolo County requires urban uses to be placed within incorporated cities or within the urban service areas of unincorporated urban areas (General Plan Policy ADM 15). In its policy to restrict urban growth to urban areas, Yolo County as a matter of policy responds negatively to proposals to extend existing service facilities outside of urban areas. Additionally, Yolo County has a "Pass Through Agreement" with the cities of Davis and Woodland to further restrict urban development in the unincporated area between the two cities.

In addition to spheres of influence, El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, and Yuba counties direct urban growth into community area boundaries in unincorporated parts of the counties. In El Dorado County, it is Rural Centers and Community Regions, and in Yuba County and Placer County, it is community boundaries. In Sacramento County, land expected to receive urban levels of public infrastructure and services within the planning period of the General Plan is defined by the Urban Policy Area (UPA). The County’s Urban Services Boundary (USB) indicates the ultimate boundary of the urban area in the unincorporated County. These boundaries establish infrastructure extension limitations; therefore these are currently the limitations of urban expansion into rural areas.

2. Rural Land Use Designations

Across the region, rural uses are generally categorized as agricultural (intensive and extensive agriculture), open space, recreation, forest (or timber) and rural or agricultural residential. Development standards typically require minimum lot sizes of 10 or 20 acres for agricultural and forested lands and 1 or 5 acres in the case of rural residential lands. Hence, by policy, agriculture generally starts at parcel sizes of 10 acres, with the exception of Placer County where its "Farm" zone has a minimum lot size of 4.6 acres and some parcels area as small as one acre. With the exception of some protected open space designations, most rural land use designations (agricultural, timber, and open space) allow for the development of at least one home site, but are intended mainly for agriculture production. Conversely, rural residential designations allow for at least limited agricultural use where ample water supply and suitable soils are available, but are intended primarily for residential use that supports the rural and agricultural character of these areas. A summary of allowed uses and parcel size is included as Appendix B.

3. Conflicts Between Land Uses

One consequence of development in the rural areas is sometimes a conflict between agriculture and non-agricultural uses. Mainly as a result of increasing complaints from residents near farmland (regarding noise, dust, sprays, smells, etc), all six counties have adopted Right-to-Farm ordinances. The Right-to-Farm Ordinance requires a real estate disclosure be given to all new property owners in the counties explaining the farmer’s right to farm and that sounds, smells, etc. are part of a normal farming practice and shall not be considered a nuisance. However, the agricultural department in each county reported that they still receive complaints on a regular basis.

Placer and El Dorado Counties also receive complaints related to agricultural tourism, specifically wineries where tasting is allowed or special events are permitted. These complaints are generally targeted towards the traffic and noise associated with events and safety on the rural roads. As a result, Placer and El Dorado Counties have developed Winery Ordinances, which provide wineries with specific regulations and regulate associated uses like wine tasting and promotional events. Placer County’s Winery Ordinance was adopted at the end of August 2008, while El Dorado County continues to refine their current ordinance.

Additionally, non-agricultural lands in the region are subject to buffer requirements to help minimize the conflict between agricultural and non-agricultural uses. Sutter and Placer Counties’ agricultural buffers range from 100-800 feet depending on crop type, Yuba and Yolo Counties require a minimum 100-300 foot buffer, Sacramento County ranges from 300-500 feet, and El Dorado County requires 200 foot buffer that may be administratively reduced if certain Board adopted criteria are met. El Dorado County also has minimum lot size requirement of 10 acres for rural parcels adjacent to urban areas. .

4. Development Mitigation

Many areas across the rural landscape in this region provide habitat for threatened and endangered species. All of the counties’ general plan policies have mitigation requirements generally stating that habitat land lost due to development shall be mitigated for. To that end, each county is also working on a Habitat Conservation Plan or some form of conservation strategy to identify areas that are important for species protection and areas where development may occur. Some of these efforts are building on existing conservation plans such as Placer County’s Placer Legacy or El Dorado County’s Oak Woodland Management Plan. The only completed HCP in the region covers lands in the Natomas basin.

There can be conflict between habitat conservation and agricultural land. Parts of the region are experiencing a conversion of agricultural land to habitat preservation for development mitigation purposes, which has the effect of removing land from agricultural use (and into habitat conservation) and sometimes creates difficulties for adjacent agricultural lands with the invasion of weeds, rodents, birds, and waterfowl. However, there can also be "working" relationships between the two land uses in which both needs can be met: rice fields have become part of the Pacific Flyway, alfalfa is great foraging habitat for Swainson’s Hawk, grazing helps keep non-native grasses in check and helps vernal pools function. Yolo, Sacramento, and Placer Counties are addressing this and planning for these working relationships in their HCPs. Sutter and Yuba counties have begun developing a joint HCP that will also address these issues. Yolo and Sacramento County staff indicate that some components of their HCP will be dependent on agricultural land preservation for implementation; in Sacramento County as much as 90% is dependent on agriculture.

In addition to mitigation requirements for habitat lands, Yolo, El Dorado, and Sacramento Counties have mitigation policies specifically for loss of agricultural land. For example, Yolo County adopted an Agricultural Mitigation Ordinance which requires all projects that result in a permanent loss of either farmland and/or habitat to mitigate an equal amount of land. Agricultural and habitat easements may not be "stacked" within the same property, and must be mitigated separately. The ordinance requires agricultural conservation easements be located within two miles of the development that is being mitigated. The purpose of this is to give first protection priority to lands close to urban areas which in Yolo County are viewed as higher risk for conversion to urban uses.

5. Agriculture Conservation Easements

Another way agricultural land is being preserved in the region is through conservation easements. Conservation easements require the transfer of development rights to ensure the parcel is preserved.

Yuba County encourages the voluntary donation of conservation easements to preserve agricultural or timber use (General Plan Policies 38 and 44-LUP). Similarly Placer County supports conservation easements as a tool for private conservation organizations to preserve agriculture (General Plan Policy 7.A.11). Sacramento County’s general plan policy AG-5 encourages mitigation of projects on prime, statewide, unique, and locally important farmlands to provide in-kind protection (must be of equal or higher farmland category). Sutter County has an agricultural preserve zoning district, which requires the development rights on the remainder of a parcel that has been allowed to develop a residence be transferred to the county. El Dorado has a similar requirement in its agricultural preservation zones. Yolo County has an Agricultural Mitigation Ordinance requiring agricultural easements at a 1:1 ratio for projects that result in a loss of farmland.

6. Williamson Act Program

The California Land Conservation Act, better known as the Williamson Act, was enacted by the California State Legislature in 1965 to encourage the preservation of agricultural lands. The Williamson Act program permits property tax adjustments for landowners who contract with a city or county to keep their land in agricultural production or approved open space uses for at least 10 years. Lands covered by Williamson Act contracts are assessed on the basis of their agricultural value instead of their potential market value under nonagricultural uses. In return for the preferential tax rate, the landowner is required to contractually agree to keep their land in agricultural production or approved open space uses for a period of at least 10 years.

El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, and Yolo Counties all participate in the Williamson Act program and have general plan policies encouraging enrollment and/or discouraging non-renewal. Yolo also participates in the Farmland Security Zone (Super Williamson Act) program, which extends the contract period to 20 years and reduces the tax burden even further; Sacramento County also supports this program. Approximately 87,000 acres of farmland in the SACOG region reported a non-renewal of their Williamson Act contract between 2004 and 2006 (about 6% of the lands in contract).

7. Flood Control

Four counties, Sutter, Yuba, Yolo, and Sacramento, have large floodplains along the Sacramento, Yuba, Feather, and American Rivers and their tributaries. Flood control projects – dams and levees – have made it possible to develop urban areas in these floodplains. However, recent state legislation imposing a higher level of protection (200-year v. 100-year) for urban areas (defined as 10,000 people or more) and changing Army Corps of Engineers levee standards are making it more difficult and expensive to protect areas already fortified with urban levees, let alone areas that might want to urbanize outside of these urban levees. To date, there are no plans to build new urban levees; jurisdictions are simply focused on improving the urban levees they already have. This may have implications for limiting the spread of development beyond those areas currently planned for urbanization in the floodplain. As well, some flood control plans include setting aside farmland to reduce the amount of land needing an urban level of protection in the future and thereby minimizing overall flood risk. In some cases, levee improvements may impact agricultural lands within the basin being protected. In Yuba County, for example, setback levees will be built over as much as 1,500 acres of farmland and will bisect orchards and other farmland in areas with high quality soils. In southern Sutter County and northern Sacramento County, levees improvements in the Natomas basin are estimated to impact more than 1,600 acres of farmland that also serves as habitat for the Giant Garter Snake and Swainson’s Hawk. Additionally, up to 700 acres of farmland will be converted to habitat for required mitigation. Similar impacts may be seen for other levee improvement projects in the region. The Delta Protection Commission is considering the use of "ring levees" around legacy Delta communities. Other small towns, such as Knights Landing in Yolo, are considering the development of new levees to provide100-year flood protection.

8. Farm Worker Housing in Rural Areas

The need for farm worker housing in the SACOG region is a greater issue for farming operations in the valley than in the foothills due to the types of crops and amount of production in these areas. Housing Authorities in the region provide some publicly owned and/or managed dedicated farm worker housing. Some of these units provide seasonal housing and others permanent housing. Nonetheless, Sutter County Housing Authority and Yolo County Housing Authority report having waiting lists for their permanent housing units.

Each county has policies encouraging some farm worker housing on-site (via an accessory unit) and all of the agricultural zoning codes in the region allow for secondary units on-site, either by right or with an additional permit. The number of second units that currently exist in the region is unknown and the percentage of these used for farm worker housing is also unknown. Additionally all of the counties have policies that encourage the use of state and federal housing aid programs. The state of farm worker housing, current and future needs, will be discussed further in a working paper on agricultural labor.

9. Jobs-Housing Ratio Standards

Most counties do not have jobs-housing ratio policies for rural areas. El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento and Yuba Counties address jobs-housing ratios for their urbanized unincorporated areas. Yolo County also promotes a balanced and functional mix of land uses consistent with community values (Policy LU-2 e).

10. Economic Development or Agri-tourism Policies and Plans

Rural economic development and agri-tourism policies in most counties are one and the same. Current general plan policies support and encourage existing agricultural-based and natural resource-related industries. Sacramento County has general plan policies that encourage the expansion of local agricultural products into international markets and encourages the growth of commercial agricultural businesses (Policies ED-15 and ED-21). Similarly, Sutter County encourages the export of local products into the foreign market (Policy 6.B-4). Sutter County also has policies in place supporting the expansion of agricultural businesses in the county. Yuba County’s General Plan Land Use Policy 140 protects all natural resources upon which the county’s basic economy depends on (recreation, agriculture, mining, and tourism). Yolo County has a policy to work with operators of private agri-tourism and eco-tourism operations to encourage regional marketing programs and to ensure that public and private efforts are complimentary (General Plan Policy RP 24). Yolo County also has several general plan policies promoting various types of tourism and recreation in the County. Placer County allows on-farm product handling and selling, including farm stands, in any agricultural land use designation. Additionally Placer County has several general plan policies supporting the development of tourist and recreational facilities (Policies 1.N.1, 1.N.3, 1.N.14).

Other counties explicitly promote or encourage agri-tourism, with policies tailored to the uses and activities of that county. For example, El Dorado County Policy 10.1.6.1 states that "The County shall encourage expansion of the types of local industries that promote tourism including but not limited to Christmas tree farms, wineries, outdoor sports facilities, Apple Hill and other agricultural-related activities, the County Fairground, bed and breakfast inns, and ranch marketing activities." El Dorado County also has a policy that directs the majority of its transient occupancy tax-generated revenue towards the promotion of general tourism, entertainment, business, and leisure travel in the county (General Plan Policy 10.1.6.4). Agri-tourism, both existing conditions and future potential, will be explored further in an agri-tourism working paper.

Discussion

This paper explores the policies and plans that shape rural land use in the Sacramento Region. Many of the current policies demonstrate a desire to preserve agriculture, habitat, and open space within our region. Although there are many challenges to preserving these lands, development (urban and rural) appears to pose the biggest land use-related challenge. Urban development is intended to be limited to spheres of influence, and other planning boundary designations. Beyond these boundaries rural residential development is generally allowed; however, it can also be seen within these boundary designations. Some effects of these policies to consider are discussed below.

Whether intended (as in the case of Sutter County, for example) or not, rural residential development may result in a de facto transition zone from urban uses to agriculture uses in some areas. Conversely, a hard boundary can be established. Yolo County, for example, discourages transition zones by using "pass-through" agreements with cities to direct growth to urban areas; in essence, drawing a line between urban and agriculture uses. These two approaches to demarcating agricultural and urban uses raise some questions about the effect such policies have on minimizing urban encroachment and the viability of agriculture.

One consideration is whether rural residential parcelization reduces the likelihood that these areas will eventually convert to urban uses. Given the difficulty of assembling parcels and building urban infrastructure, some assert that rural residential areas will remain basically as they are, aside from occasional parcel splits. If this is the case, these areas may in fact reduce the likelihood that urban development will encroach, thereby acting as buffer or transition zone. However, this potentially has implications for the land on either side of a transition area. A rural residential buffer, without strong policies to direct new growth to existing urban lands and infrastructure, could set up a “leap frog” development pattern whereby new development occurs on the rural side of a transition zone. On the urban side of a rural residential transition zone, a rural residential buffer or transition area puts demands on city infrastructure and services without paying into those services. Annexation, as a means to recover costs of servicing an unincorporated rural residential area, is difficult or impossible due to the lower development standards – and subsequently, high cost of infrastructure upgrades – associated with rural residential development.

To the extent that rural residential parcelization occurs within spheres and community plans, the effectiveness of these areas to manage urban growth may be limited. With parcel sizes ranging from 1-10 acres, rural residential uses within a boundary can reduce urban land supply more rapidly than expected. Chart 1, below, shows that within the region’s SOIs and community plan areas 19% of recent new housing permits are for rural residential units on 80% of the developed land.

Chart 1
Housing Permit Monitoring
Inside SOI’s and Community Plan Areas (including USB)

2001-2007 Final Building Permits by Subarea	Total Housing Units	% of Units in Subarea	% of Units in Region	Total Acres	% of Acres in Subarea	% of Acres in Region
Rural Residential - Parcel Size Over 10 Acres	297	2%	0%	6,865	35%	8%
Rural Residential - Parcel Size Under 10 Acres	2,931	18%	2%	8,607	44%	10%
Rural Residential Sub-Total	3,228	19%	3%	15,472	80%	17%
Single Family Large Lot (lot size greater than 5500 acres)	12,165	73%	10%	3,637	19%	4%
Single Family Small Lot (lot size less than 5500 acres)	578	3%	0%	51	0%	0%
Attached	713	4%	1%	236	1%	0%
Total	16,684	100%	13%	19,396	100%	22%

As counties plan for future urban growth, new or expanded urban planning areas may be needed sooner and encroach further into agricultural areas. In flood prone areas, this potential urban land supply may be reduced due to the cost of flood control improvements for areas currently lacking urban levels of flood protection. Using assessor data, SACOG estimates that of the 456,743 unincorporated acres in spheres and community areas, approximately 24% is developed parcels of 1-10 acres and of that 38%, or 42,340 acres is for rural residential uses. Therefore, at this rate, the value of rural residential areas acting as a transition zone may be limited if the result is more land supply being needed more rapidly for urban development in the future. SACOG’s current vacant land inventory estimates approximately 337,000 acres of vacant land have a general plan land use designation as some type of rural residential use.

A related issue is whether rural residential parcels are being utilized strictly as residential uses or still have commercial agriculture viability. Agriculture zones generally start at parcels of 10 acres in size, however many of the same uses are allowed on the smaller rural residential parcels. Understanding what type and how much agriculture is occurring on such parcels will help to understand the potential for agriculture in these areas. If that potential is low, these areas may essentially be considered very low density residential. If that potential is high, these areas may be considered part of the agricultural land inventory. Agricultural potential of rural residential parcels will be examined in the innovations section of this paper.

Conflicts between agricultural and residential and other uses are important factors that affect viability. An important question that may arise as rural residential development continues is whether conflicts may increase. As parcel size decreases, the concentration of residential-only uses may increase, raising the potential for conflicts and complaints, from both residents and farmers. Buffer requirements are meant to reduce these conflicts, but in many cases agriculture commissioners still receive complaints. Another conflict noted in parts of the region is between agriculture and habitat preserves. As mentioned above, not only do some preserves take land out of production, they have the potential to impact crops with the invasion of weeds, rodents, birds, and waterfowl reducing productivity or increasing costs for abatement.

Traffic impacts on agriculture operations from both rural residential and urban uses may continue to increase, highlighting one of the key conflicts in rural areas. Our transportation modeling shows that on average, non-agricultural rural residents (living on 1-10 acres) have an average of 80 vehicle miles traveled per household, compared to an average of 30 vehicle miles traveled per household in urban areas. Rural economic development and agri-tourism objectives may exacerbate this conflict. As well, a lack of farmworker housing not only challenges labor supply, it may contribute to traffic impacts as workers drive or are transported sometimes long distances. And in some areas, farmworker housing that is available is generally far from retail, medical and other services creating another source of traffic on rural roadways. Collectively, these sources of travel on rural roads can negatively affect agricultural operations.

As part of the Rural-Urban Connections Strategies project, we will explore these issues in greater detail by addressing the following questions:

1. How do current development standards encourage or discourage urban development, rural home sites and agricultural uses?

Does setting parcel size limitations on uses that are more residential in purpose work?
Does directing growth into community or sphere boundaries limit impacts on agriculture? Are these areas being used efficiently?
Can viable agricultural production occur on parcels 10 acres? 5 acres? Less than 5 acres?
In what ways does development mitigation work to preserve agriculture, habitat, and open space? In what ways does it create conflicts?

2. Anecdotally, our research indicates that typically a conflict arises when residential uses are located near agricultural uses. What are the policy mechanisms in place that are working to address these conflicts and which policies are less effective?

Do buffers work? What size? Whose responsibility is it to provide the land for the buffer? What are the best uses within a buffer?
Do right to farm ordinances work?
Do transition areas such as a Residential-Agriculture zone or Ranchette zone minimize conflicts?
Does demarcating a hard line between agriculture and all other uses minimize these conflicts?

3. How can conflicts between agriculture and habitat be minimized or eliminated?

Can Habitat Conservation Plans help with this conflict?

4. How can land use decisions reduce traffic conflicts with agricultural operations?

Does clustering housing and commercial activities help?
Can an increase in supply of farmworker housing help?

The next section of this working paper will examine local and national policy innovations related to agricultural viability and rural character, with a focus on two applications in particular:

The Rural-Urban Interface: Policies will be examined for their efficacy in minimizing conflict between urban and rural uses, at the urban edge and at the rural agriculture-non- agriculture edge;
County-wide agricultural viability and rural character: Policies will be examined for their efficacy in promoting and supporting agriculture and rural character at the county level.

This land use research along with data and research from the other elements of this project, such as agri-tourism and economic development, regulations, conservation, and transportation will help address the questions above and begin to identify land use policies and implementation strategies that support the viability of agriculture in the region.