| The Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District (District) is a public agency formed in 1972
to acquire and manage open space resources. The mission of the District
is to acquire and preserve a regional greenbelt of open space land in perpetuity,
to protect and restore the natural environment, and to provide opportunities
for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education. Where appropriate,
the District provides visitor-serving facilities for low-intensity recreation
by the general public. The District’s boundaries have been expanded
through annexations to now encompass the northwestern portion of Santa Clara
County, the southern Bayside of San Mateo County, and a portion of Santa
Cruz County. The District proposes to extend its boundaries to include the
majority of the San Mateo County Coastside, approximately 140,000 acres,
in order to acquire and manage land and easements for the preservation of
open space and agriculture, and the protection of sensitive resources.
Agricultural land is included in the definition of open space under California
Government Code Section 65560. In this definition, open space is land that
is substantially unimproved and designated on a local, regional, or state
open space plan as used for the managed production of resources, including
but not limited to: forest lands, rangelands, agricultural lands, and areas
of economic importance for the production of food or fiber (among other
uses).
The California Coastal Act (Act) was enacted in 1976 to provide long-term
protection of California coastline through a comprehensive planning and
regulatory process. The Act contains policy that requires, among other things,
protection of productive agricultural lands. Compliance with the Act in
San Mateo County is enacted through the Local Coastal Program (LCP).
In the late 1990’s two public opinion polls were conducted for the
District, an advisory election was held, and over 25 community informational
meetings took place to assess public support for open space. In addition,
local government resolutions, letters, and petitions were sent to the District
requesting that it explore ways to help conserve open space resources on
the San Mateo Coast. Significant public support was displayed for the District’s
proposal, referred to as the Coastal Annexation Area, to expand its boundaries
to include the San Mateo County Coastside.
The proposed Coastal Annexation Area includes the City of Half Moon Bay,
urban areas to the north, relativity undeveloped lands in active agriculture
and ranching, low density housing, and open space uses. The District has
submitted a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the proposed annexation
to the San Mateo County LAFCo for public review and comment. Appendix C
of the EIR, the Draft Service Plan, outlines the services that would be
provided by the District in the Coastal Annexation Area. The annexation
requires approval from both San Mateo County and Santa Clara County LAFCo
organizations.
As a result of local media coverage that indicated some conflict related
to the proposed annexation and a specific complaint from a County resident
involved in agriculture, the Grand Jury investigated the following issues:
- The District’s plan to preserve agricultural lands in the Coastal
Annexation Area;
- Potential tax consequences to Coastside residents; and
- Implications of the District’s eminent domain power within the Coastal
Annexation Area.
The Grand Jury interviewed the head of the San Mateo Farm Bureau, the Executive
Officer of LAFCo, and the General Manager of the Midpeninsula Regional Open
Space District. It also attended the San Mateo County Agricultural Summit
and interviewed a Coastside rancher. The Grand Jury reviewed public information
on POST (Peninsula Open Space Trust), The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District including the San Mateo Coastal Annexation Draft Environmental
Impact Report, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Publication 544 entitled ‘Sales
and Other Dispositions of Assets,’ and State of California programs intended
to preserve agricultural lands. The LCP agricultural component also was
reviewed.
|
| The
District has successfully fulfilled a vital need in San Mateo County by
preserving open space for low-intensity recreational use. It has extensive
knowledge and expertise in open space land management.
The District does not have a history of preserving agricultural lands as
open space. It currently has no staff or expertise in the area of agricultural
land management. Most of the land the District would acquire in the Coastal
Annexation Area likely would be former or existing agricultural land. The
EIR states that active agriculture would continue, depending on site specific
resource characteristics and District policies developed with the input
of the local coastal community.
Visitor-serving or residential uses and agricultural operations are not
compatible. Conflicts between non-agricultural uses and agricultural operations
may arise over protection of commercial crops or dust generated from planting
and field preparation activities, for example. Buffer zones and physical
barriers that definitively separate agricultural operations and non-agricultural
uses have been found to allow both interests to successfully coexist in
proximity.
San Mateo County has not enacted specific protective policies or requirements
to preserve agriculture. The LCP agricultural component does not assign
specific priority to preservation of agricultural lands over visitor-serving
uses. It has limited requirements for clearly defined buffer areas between
agricultural and non-agricultural uses, and minimal direction to public
agencies to lease prime agricultural land to active farm operators on terms
compatible with the primary recreational and habitat use. The LCP does specifically
require the State to lease-back excess properties for agricultural purposes
as a condition of permit approval for state parks and recreation uses.
The District developed a mission for the Coastal Annexation Area different
from its published mission statement. For the Annexation Area, the District’s
mission was revised to include: “…, preserve rural character,
encourage viable agricultural use of land resources….”
The EIR does not prioritize agricultural lands preservation equal to preservation
of visitor-serving open space. It does state the District would be a resource
to help sustain agricultural viability by allowing for agricultural uses
where appropriate and preventing the encroachment of development. In its
Draft Service Plan for the San Mateo Coastal Annexation Area, the District
committed to:
- conduct its land management practices such that they do not have an
adverse significant impact on the physical and economic integrity of
prime agricultural lands on or contiguous to properties owned or managed
by the District (e.g. establishing appropriate buffers on District lands,
etc.).
- locate improvements or public uses on open space lands away from existing
prime agricultural lands, unless such location would not promote the
planned, orderly efficient use of an area, and
- the District acquire the necessary staff and expertise in the area
of agricultural land management.
The District’s Coastal Annexation, if approved by both San Mateo County
and Santa Clara County LAFCo, will not directly increase the District’s
funding level. Following annexation, the District may place a voter-approved
funding measure on the ballot, either District-wide or only within the Coastal
Annexation Area. The District has surveyed residents within its current
boundaries and learned that a $1.00 annual increase in the parcel tax would
be favorably met in support of open space. A favorable vote would require
approval from a 2/3 majority of the voters in the election.
Privately held lands acquired by the District within the Coastal Annexation
Area will remove those lands from the tax roll. Existing agricultural lands
have relatively low assessed valuations and as long as Coastside school
districts continue to be revenue limit districts, the revenue loss resulting
from transfers to the District will have less than significant impact. Fiscal
projections under the Draft Service Plan indicate San Mateo County agencies
will lose approximately $5,742 in annual tax revenues, on average, over
the 15-year period. The Fiscal Analysis, Appendix D of the EIR, shows no
significant tax impact to either the Cabrillo or the La Honda-Pescadero
school districts. Unless the districts become basic aid districts, any losses
resulting from parcels removed from the tax rolls are offset by state funds.
The California Farmland Conservancy Program (CFCP) is a voluntary program
that seeks to encourage the long-term, private stewardship of agricultural
lands through the use of agricultural conservation easements. The CFCP provides
grant funding to governmental agencies such as the District for projects
which use and support agricultural conservation easements for protection
of agricultural lands. The District, in its rejection of one planning alternative
in the EIR, stated that an option to acquire only agricultural easements
in the annexation area is not desirable as the District would not have use
of the property for public access.
The District has the power of eminent domain to acquire lands for public
purposes. Based on a recommendation from the District’s Coastal Advisory
Committee, the District proposes to pass an ordinance that prohibits the
District’s use of eminent domain on the San Mateo County Coast. The
San Mateo County Farm Bureau obtained a legal opinion that the ordinance
is not binding on the District, and may be modified by future Board action.
The IRS has specific rules related to involuntary conversions (property
sales made through eminent domain or the threat of eminent domain). The
involuntary conversion may be fee title, or it may be limited to land rights,
such as easements for public benefit. The tax treatment of the gains from
such sales will vary from case to case.
|
Conclusions:
The revenue impacts
to services within the Coastal Annexation Area will not be significant.
There will be no immediate, direct cost to property owners, but any
future parcel tax increases approved by 2/3 of the voters District-wide
will be imposed on parcels within the Coastal Annexation Area.
The LCP does not specifically prioritize preservation of agricultural
lands over recreational uses, even low-intensity uses that may interfere
with agricultural operations. Agricultural land can only be preserved
if it is prioritized.
Coastside residents place a high value on open space as defined by the
LCP. The District’s proposed Coastal Annexation Area has the potential
to preserve the rural environment and protect agricultural lands that
are threatened by development pressures, but that is not the intent
of the Coastal Annexation Area Draft Service Plan.
The public may have assumed that the District has assured agricultural
lands would be preserved in the Coastal Annexation Area, but the EIR
does not specifically provide for such preservation as a priority. This
is likely due to the lack of agricultural experience and expertise in
the District or implied in the development of the EIR.
The District’s Draft Service Plan requires revision to eliminate
inconsistency between its mission(s) and the application of its policies
and practices. Visitor-serving uses do not have a higher priority in
the definition of open space than preservation of agricultural lands,
and the Farmland Preservation Program is within the purview of the District.
An active acquisition program for agricultural easements, for example,
would meet the stated mission of the District and the needs of the residents
in the Coastal Annexation Area.
The District cannot give up its eminent domain powers beyond the offer
of the draft ordinance and still meet its fiduciary responsibilities
to the public. The ordinance as presented may result in an economic
detriment to land owners conveying agricultural easements.
|
