BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1961
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 9, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
Susan Talamantes Eggman, Chair
AB 1961 (Eggman) - As Amended: April 3, 2014
SUBJECT : Land use: planning: sustainable farmland strategy.
SUMMARY : Requires counties to develop a sustainable farmland
strategy (SFS). Specifically, this bill :
1)Makes a number of findings and declarations related to the
importance of conservation of agricultural land resources.
2)Declares that certain actions by lead agencies, including
those to protect natural resources and the environment, have
been identified by the Governor's Office of Planning and
Research (OPR) as classes of projects that do not have a
significant effect on the environment, and therefore are not
subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);
and, declares that the adoption of a sustainable farmland
strategy would be considered to be an action to protect
natural resources or the environment.
3)Requires the board of supervisors (board) of any county, other
than a county with less than 4% of its land base in
agriculture, as specified, to develop a SFS.
4)Requires the SFS to include all of the following:
a) A map and inventory of all agriculturally zoned lands
within the county as of February 21, 2014. Allows a county
to use the county-level maps of agricultural land developed
by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
Department of Conservation, general plan (GP) maps, or
other available local and state maps and resources;
b) A description of the goals, strategies, and related
policies and ordinances to retain agriculturally zoned
land, where practical, and mitigate the loss of
agriculturally zoned lands to nonagricultural uses or
nonagricultural zones; and,
c) A page on the county's Internet Website (website) that
assembles all of the relevant documentation for the goals,
AB 1961
Page 2
strategies and related policies, and ordinances, as
specified in a) and b), above, as well as reporting on the
manner of compliance, as specified. Requires the board to
also include, on the website, a table and map showing the
location of lands enrolled in the California Land
Conservation Act.
5)Requires the board of each county to consult with cities
located within their boundaries, and with their local agency
formation commission (LAFCO), on the development of the SFS
for that county to ensure that the plans and policies of the
cities and LAFCO are taken into consideration and are
compatible.
6)Allows a county to comply with the requirements of this bill
by relying on existing inventories and maps of agricultural
lands, and existing goals, strategies, and related policies
and ordinances that substantially comply with the provisions
of a SFS. Requires any county complying in this manner to
summarize and incorporate by reference on the county's
website, a description of how each requirement has been met.
7)Requires the board to update the SFS as determined to be
necessary by the board.
8)Requires, on or before January 1, 2018, each county to affirm
compliance by one of the following means:
a) Developing and adopting a SFS, as specified;
b) Adopting a resolution finding that the existing county
goals, policies and ordinances have a functionally
equivalent strategy that meets the requirements of a SFS;
and,
c) Adopting a resolution finding that the county's
agricultural land resources do not meet the threshold, and
therefore the county is not required to develop a SFS.
9)Requires OPR, when it adopts its next edition of GP
guidelines, to include best practices that support
agricultural land retention and mitigation, including, but not
limited to, the following:
a) Right to farm ordinance with real estate disclosure;
AB 1961
Page 3
b) Farmland mitigation ordinances;
c) Conservation easement purchase programs;
d) Economic incentives to promote local agriculture;
e) Use of zoning to prevent nuisances and land use
conflicts, and to promote commercial agriculture by
limiting parcelization of agricultural lands;
f) Urban growth boundaries in coordination with
incorporated jurisdictions; and,
g) Locally adopted thresholds of significance for CEQA)
review for conservation of grazing lands and farmland of
local importance, in addition to existing thresholds for
conversion of prime farmland, unique farmland, and farmland
of statewide importance.
10)Defines "agriculturally zoned land" to mean land that is
determined by a county to be designated in agriculture as the
primary purpose of use of the zone.
11)Provides that no reimbursement is required by the bill's
provisions because a local agency or school district has the
authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments
sufficient to pay for the program or level of service.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires that each city and county in California must prepare
a comprehensive, long term GP to guide its future.
2)Requires a GP to include seven mandatory elements, including
land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space,
noise, and safety.
3)Allows the GP to include other elements or address any other
subject which, in the judgment of the legislative body, relate
to the physical development of the county or city.
4)Requires OPR to adopt and periodically revise guidelines for
the preparation and content of local GPs.
AB 1961
Page 4
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. This bill is keyed fiscal.
COMMENTS : This bill requires most counties, by January 1,
2018, to develop a SFS to include maps of agriculturally-zoned
lands and a description of county goals, policies, and
ordinances for the retention and mitigation of
agriculturally-zoned lands. Counties are allowed to comply by
using existing inventories and maps, existing goals, strategies,
policies and ordinances that are functionally equivalent. The
bill also requires OPR to include, in its next update of the GP
Guidelines, best practices that support farmland conservation.
According to the author, this bill ask counties to develop a
SFS, which includes maps of agriculturally-zoned lands and a
description of local goals, policies and ordinances for the
retention and mitigation of agriculturally-zoned lands. SFS
creates opportunities at the county level to discuss and plan
for the long-term retention of farmland, while maintaining
flexibility and local control of land use planning decisions.
Supporters point out that over the past 30 years, an average of
approximately 30,000 acres of California agricultural land was
permanently converted to non-agricultural uses annually, even
with existing programs. Furthermore, supporters point out
counties have jurisdiction over the majority of the state's
agricultural land and play a vital role in regulating the use of
land. As such, the counties are well suited to have SFS
discussions at a local level. Supporters state that the SFS
offers counties flexibility to determine their own goals and
strategies for agricultural land preservation and build on
existing resources.
Opponents say this bill invites restrictive zoning to be applied
to significantly lesser quality lands that are not critical to
the maintenance of the agricultural economy and are not
necessary to the protection of the state's food supply or
necessary for food security. Opponents point out that the bill
contains a statement in the legislative findings that the SFS is
an act to protect natural resources and the environment, and
therefore is exempt from CEQA, and feel this is a usurpation of
the role and responsibility traditionally left to the local lead
agency to determine whether or not an action qualifies for an
exemption. Two counties who oppose this bill state it will be a
burden on rural counties with limited financial resources.
AB 1961
Page 5
In order to clarify the legislative findings related to CEQA
exemptions, the committee may wish to consider the following
amendment (page 4, line 15): The adoption of a sustainable
farmland strategy would could be considered to be an action to
protect natural resources or the environment.
The committee may wish to consider the following technical
amendments (page 8, lines 18-25:
(2) Adopting a resolution finding determining that the existing
county goals, policies and ordinances have a functionally
equivalent strategy that meets the requirements of subdivision
(b), pursuant to subdivision (c).
(3) Adopting a resolution finding determining that the county's
agricultural land resources do not meet the threshold described
in subdivision (e), and that the county is not required to
develop a sustainable farmland strategy.
There have been concerns expressed that a SFS would override
aspects of existing agricultural preservation programs in a
county's GP. The committee may wish to consider clarifying that
the functional equivalent in this bill may be fulfilled by
existing elements within the GP, including, but not limited to,
the agricultural element, open space elements, or other elements
that preserve farmland.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American Farmland Trust [CO-SPONSOR]
California Climate and Agricultural Network [CO-SPONSOR]
Community Alliance with Family Farmers [CO-SPONSOR]
Agricultural-Natural Resources Trust
California Association of Resource Conservation Districts
California Center for Rural Policy, Humboldt State University
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Farmers Union
Catholic Charities, Diocese of Stockton
Farmland Working Group
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Humboldt County Conservation Action
Knoll Farms
LandWatch Monterey County
Marin Agricultural Land Trust
Peninsula Open Space Trust
AB 1961
Page 6
Potrero Nuevo Farm
Real Food Challenge
Rincon-Vitova Insectaries
Rominger Brothers Farms, Inc.
Roots of Change
San Mateo County Farm Bureau
Sequoia Riverlands Trust
Sierra Nevada Alliance
Sierra Orchards
Silicon Valley Land Conservancy
Sonoma Land Trust
Supervisor Don Horsley, 3rd District, County of San Mateo
Supervisor Louis R. Calcagno, 2nd District, County of Monterey
The Land Trust of Santa Cruz County
The Nature Conservancy
Trust for Public Land
Valley Land Alliance
Opposition
American Council of Engineering Companies of California
California Association of Realtors
California Apartment Association
California Building Industry Association
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
County of Humboldt
County of Kern
Large Scale Solar Association
League of California Cities (unless amended)
Orange County Business Council
Analysis Prepared by : Victor Francovich / AGRI. / (916)
319-2084