Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-09-05; City Council; 5565; Proposed Lafco Agricultural Policy--.- CITY OF CARLSBAD , AGENDA BILL NO. g5L5 DATE: SPn+PmhPr 5- 1978 DEPARTMENT: P-G Initial Dept. Hd. Jd#. SUBJECT : PROPOSED LA.FCO AGRICULTURAL POLICY Statement of the Matter LAFCO is considering adoption of a major policy on agricultural lands within the County of San Diego. This policy would effect the annexation of agricultural lands to cities in the County. "Prime Agricultural Lands" as defined in this policy could not be annexed unless LAFCO determines protection of the agricultural use is guaranteed. Exhibits Letter from LAFCO dated August 7, 1978 Letter from LAFCO dated August 22, 1978 Staff Report dated August 9, 1978 Recommendation Based on the concerns of staff, as referenced in the staff report dated August 9, 1978, and the fact that the City will be addressing agricultural land uses in detail in our Local Coastal Program the staff recommends the City Council indicate to LAFCO opposition to this proposed Agricultural Lznds Policy. Council Action: 9-5-78 Council approved staff recommendation of indicating to LAFCO opposition to the proposed Agricultural Lands Pol icy. August 7, 1978 i .. TO: Local Agency Formation Commission ' FROM: Executive Officer Staff Analyst SUBJECT: Agricultural Land Preservation in San Diego County - Issues and Problems This report provides basic data concerning agricultural activity in San Diego County and discusses the central issues in preservation of agricultural lands, It supports the discussion and recommendations for both the proposed Agricultural Lands Policy (Item H) and the "East Carlsbad Annexation" (Item 3) included in this agenda. into the following Chapters: The background report is divided I. California Statutes Relating to Agricultural Land Preservation 11. Agricultural Activity in San Diego County 111. Problems in Identifying Significant Agricultural Lands IV. Factors Leading to the Conversion of Agricultural Lands V. Local and Regional Planning for Preservation of Agricultural Lands and LAFCO Responsibilities .- 7/27/78 JA2 R'. STEWART Staff Analyst WG: JRS : nn ,- I. California Statutes Relating to Agricultural Land Preservation box-Nisbet Act Three separate provisions within the Knox-Nisbet Act establish LAFCO's responsibilities with respect to the preservation of agricultural land. (1) Maintenance of Agricultural Preserves - Spheres (Sec. 54774) In adopting a Sphere of Influence, consider ... the existence of agricultural preserves and the effect on maintaining the physical and economic integrity of such preserves if they are included within a Sphere. the Commission shall Factors to be Considered in Review of Proposals (Sec . 547 96 ) Factors to be considered (by the Commission) in the review of I' a proposal shall include but not be limited to: ... (e) The effect of the proposal on maintaining the physical and economic integrity of lands in an agricultural preserve in open-space uses. I1 For the purposes of implementing Sections 54774 and 54796, the Knox-Nisbet Act uses the same definition for "Agricultural Preserve" as that established by the Williamson Act (Section 51201(d)) : Section 51201 (d) stipulates that "Agricultural Preserve" means an area devoted to either agricultural use, recreational use as defined in subdivision (h), or open- space use as defined in subdivision (o), or any combination of such uses, and compatible uses by a city or county, and established by resolution of the governing body of a city or county after a public hearing. Recreational use defined in subsection (h) includes the use of land by the public for any of the following: walking, hiking, picnicking, camping, swimming, boating, fishing, hunting, or other outdoor games or sports for which facilities are provided for public participation. Open-space use defined in subsection (0) is the use or maintenance of land to preserve its natural characteristics, beauty or openness for benefit and enjoyment of the ... H public, to provide essential habitat for wildlife ... (3) Conversion of Open Space Lands to Other Uses; Policies and Priorities (Sec. 54790.2) In reviewing and approving or disapproving proposals which could reasonably be expected to induce, facilitate or lead to the conversion of existing open-space lands to uses other than open-space uses, the Commission shall consider the following . policies and priorities: (a) Development shall be guided away from existing prime agricultural lands in open-space use toward areas containing non-prime agripultural lands. (b) Development of existing vacant or non-prime agricultural lands within an agency's existing jurisdiction or within an agency's sphere of influence should be encouraged before any proposal is approved which would allow development of existing open-space lands for non-open-space uses outside of the agency's existing jurisdiction or outside of an agency's existing sphere of influence. - ' For purposes of implementing Section 54796, "Prime Agricultural Land" and "Open-Space Land" are defined as follows: "Prime agricultural land" means land which qualifies for rating as Class I or Class 11 in the SCS land use capability classification or land which qualifies for rating 80 through 100 in the Storie Index Rating (Section 54775(p)) . I1 Open-space land" is essentially unimproved and devoted to an open-space use as defined in this section, and which is designated on a local, regional or state open-space plan as any of the following: (1) Open-space for the preservation of natural resources; (2) Open-space used for the managed production of resources, including but not limited to, forest lands, rangeland, agricultural lands and areas of economic importance for the production of food or fiber; areas required for recharge of ground water basins; -2- .- I' '\ (3) Open-space for outdoor recreation; (4) (Sec. 65560 paraphased) Open-space for public health and safety. H. California Land Conservation Act of 1965 Through the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson), the Legislature established the following priorities and objectives for preservation of prime agricultural lands: 1. 2. 3. That the preservation of a maximum amount of the limited supply of prime agricultural land is necessary to the conservation of the state's economic resources, and is necessary not only to the maintenance of the agricultural economy of the state, but also for the assurance of adequate, healthful, and nutritious food for future residents of this state and nation; That the discouragement of premature and unnecessary conversion of prime agricultural land to urban uses is a matter of public interest, and will be of benefit to urban dwellers themselves, in that it will discourage discontiguous urban development patterns which unnecessarily increase the cost of community services to community residents; That in a rapidly urbanizing society, agricultural lands have a definite public value as open-space, and the preservation in agricultural production of such lands, the use of which may be limited under the provisions of this chapter, constitutes an important physical, social, esthetic, and economic asset to existing or pending urban or metropolitan development (Section 51220) b To implement these objectives , the Williamson Act provides that voluntary contracts establishing certain use restrictions may be executed between local governments and owners of agricultural or open-space land. Lands under contract are restricted to agricultural, recreational, open-space, or compatible uses for a minimum period of 10 years. As compen- sation for such use restrictions, participating landowners are assessed property taxes based upon the use value rather than market value of their land. As each year passes, the contract term is automatically renewed, unless notice of nonrenewal is served by either the landowner or the local government. Upon such notice the contract remains in effect for the balance of -3- M the existing ten-year term and the assessed value of the property is progressively returned to market value for tax - purposes over the remaining life of contract term. As an initial step, the Williamson Act provides that local governments designate potentially eligible for Williamson Act contracts. cultural Preserve is defined in Government Code Section 51201 as: I1 Agricultural Preserve" areas which are An agri- -- ... an area devoted to agricvltural and compatible uses as designated by a city or county, and estab- lished in the same manner as a general plan referred to in Section 65460 of the Government Code. Such preserves, when established, shall be for the purpose of subsequently placing restrictions upon the use of land within them, or supplementing existing restric- tions, pursuant to the purposes of this chapter. Such preserve may contain land other than prime agricultural land, but the use of any land not under contract within the preserve shall sub- sequently be restricted in such a way as to not be incompatible with the agricultural use of the prime agricultural land the use of which is limited by contract in accordance with this chapter. Such preserve may also be established even if it contains no prime agricultural land, provided that the land within the preserve is subsequently restricted to agricultural and compatible uses by agreement as provided in Section 51255, or by any other suitable means. The Williamson Act (Government Code Section 51201 (c)) establishes the following criteria to identify "prime agricultural lands" eligible to be placed under use value contracts: All land which qualifies for rating as class I or class I1 in the Soil Conservation Service land use capability classifications. Land which qualifies for rating 80 through 100 in the Storie Index Rating. Land which supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber and which has an annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture . -4- I. (4) (5) H Land planted with fruit or nut-bearing trees, vines, bushes or crops which have a nonbearing period of less than five years and which will normally return during the comnercial bearing period on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural plan production not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre. Land which has returned from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant products an annual gross value of not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre for three of the previous five years. California Coastal Act of 1976 The Coastal Act (Res. Code 30000 et seq.) establishes the following policies for protection of agricultural lands within the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission: 8 30241. Prime agricultural land; maintenance in agricultural production The maximum amount of prime agricultural land shall be maintained in agricultural production to assure the protection of the areas' agricultural economy, and conflicts shall be minimized between agricultural , and urban land uses through all of the following: (a) By establishing stable boundaries separating urban and rural areas, including, where necessary, clearly defined buffer areas to minimize conflicts between agricultural and urban land uses. (b) By limiting conversions of agricultural lands around the periphery of urban areas to the lands where the viability of existing agricultural use is already severely limited by conflicts with urban uses and where the conversion of the lands would complete a logical and viable neighborhood and contribute to the establishment of a stable limit to urban development (c) By developing available lands not suited for agriculture prior to the conversion of agricultural lands. (d) By assuring that public service and facility expansions and nonagricultural development do not impair agricultural viability, either through increased assessment costs or degraded air and water quality. (e) By assuring that all divisions of prime agricultural lands, except those conversions approved pursuant to subdivison (b) of this section, and all development adjacent to prime agricultural lands shall not diminish the productivity of such prime agricultural lands. (Added by Stats. 1976, C. 1330, p. , B 1.) Q 30242. Lands suitable for agricultural use; conversion All other lands suitable for agricultural use shall not be converted to nonagricultural uses unless (1) continued or renewed agricultural use is not feasible, or (2) such conversion would preserve prime agricultural land or concentrate develop- ment consistent with Section 30250. Any such permitted conversion shall be compatible with continued agricultural use on surrounding lands. H _- I -6- ti .I 11. Agricultural Activity in San Diego County Agricultural Preserves and Lands in Produc tionl Within San Diego County 411,000 acres are currently designated "Agricultural Preserve" lands, of which 89%, or approximately 365,790 acres, is devoted to dry farming or rangeland. By comparison, only 138,605 acres are now under Williamson Act contracts and 72,000 acres are actually devoted to crop production.2 Agricultural Preserve" lands are actually devoted to production, and about twice as much acreage is under contract as is in production. widely as a device to protect productive or prime lands from agriculture. For example, in 1974 only 9%, or 17,433 acres, of "Prime" farmlands within the County was under Williamson Based on this data,only about ten percent of I1 The Williamson Act has not been employed Act contracts. 3 Acreage Qualifying as I1 Prime'' Farmland under the Williamson Act Only six percent of the land in western San Diego region qualifies or I1 Soils or Storie Index 80-100). alluvial deposits in the following floodplain areas: San Luis Rey River Basin, Escondido Creek drainage, San Dieguito River Valley, San Pasqual Valley, Mission Valley, and Tijuana River Valley. Of that six percent, County Department of Agriculture officials estimate that at least half is already committed to urban or residential uses and cannot be farmed. However, due to extremely favorable climate conditions within San Diego County, agricultural production for certain crops is well above national average even on non-pri- soils (Class 111). I1 I as Prime'' farmland under Williamson Act soils criteria (Class I These are primarily Acreape in Production Trends The County Department of Agriculture Annual Crop Report (1978) indicates that between 1960 and 1978 acreage in crop production increased 52%, from 47,717 acres in 1960 to 72,651 in 1978. Data obtained from County DOA Annual Crop Reports, Integrated Planning Office, and Assessor's Office. Includes orchards (avocados & citrus); irrigated row crops (vegetable); other (field flowers & nurseries). dry farming (grazing, dairy, poultry). California Agriculture, "Use Value Assessment," 3/77. - Does - not include -7- - - Most observers attribute this increase to expanded avocado planting on smaller,rural-residential estate -type lots, acreage has declined approximately 37% from a peak of 13,500 acres in 1962 (see Figure I). This vegetable acreage is located primarily on the coastal plan area. The San Diego Coast Regional Commission (Coastal Land Environment, 1974) reports the following acreage losses by crop between 1950 and 1973 due to conversion to urban uses as follows: - particularly in North County. However, vegetable growing Avocado 1,000 acres Citrus 900 Field Crops 1 , 800 Nursery 2,500 Tree Crops 50 Truck Crops 1,800 Total 8,050 Production Values H According to County IPO staff, agricultural activity accounts for approximately four percent of the Gross County Product and employs an equal percentage of the County's total work force. Between 1960-1978 the County's total agricultural product increased 46 percent (adjusted for inflation). Due to the County's favorable growing climate, particularly in the coastal region, annual tomato production in San Diego County accounts for 25 percent of the state's tomato crop and 16 percent of the nation's crop. Ninety percent of the County's cut flowers crop are exported to markets outside the County. The following table lists the total value (adjusted for inflation) and acreage in production changes for three major crop products in 1968 and 1976: 1968 1976 Avocado Product Value $9.3 million $42 million Acreage 12,800 18,500 Toma to Value $26.7 million $55.8 million Acreage 4,000 5 , 000 Nursery Value Acreage Production Costs (not available) $16.6 million $68.7 million not available 3,553 Production costs are currently the subject of a consultant study for the County IPO . H 13, ooa 12,000 11,000 10,000 9,000 - 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 YEAR SAN DIEGO COUNTY VEGETABLE CROWING ACREAGE itii' ll II Source: San Diego County Oept. of Agriculture -9- *. H - 111. Problems in Identifying Significant Agricultural Lands "Prime Apricul tural Lands" - Production Factors in San Diego County Soils - While soil type traditionally has been used as the principal criterion for determining the productivity of agri- cultural lands, agricultural productivity in San Diego County is more dependent on the favorable coastal climate and the availability of water. within San Diego County falls in the Class I11 soils category and therefore does not qualify from a strictly soils standpoint as prime" farmland under the Williamson Act. Many agricultural operations are usually intensive and small-scale and yet qualify as Most agricultural land in production I' 'I prime'' based on economic criteria. To insure that potentially productive lands are recognized in unincorporated areas, the County's Agricultural Element will be based upon the San Diego County Soils Survey instead of only the Williamson Act soils criteria. The Survey, developed in cooperation with the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, identifies soils criteria for each of the five most important crops in the County. The Survey provides a detailed assessment of the agricultural potential of the soils in San Diego County, rating soils as €air or good for individual crop types. Soils which are not fair or good for agricultural production receive no rating . The criteria employed in this Survey coincide more closely with the definition of potential prime agricultural lands used by the Department of Water Resources: of being made prime through normal agricultural investment and management practices. "lands which have the capacity 'I Climate - San Diego County's unique climate is an extremely important factor in the County's unusually high production of certain crops. The County has five sub-climate zones, or area- climates. acreage in San Diego County is located in the two climatic zones closest to the ocean, the maritime and coastal zones. Fresh vegetable crops are primarily confined to this coastal area, since conditions in these two zones are especially mild and allow the production of vegetable crops during months when few sections of the country can produce such crops outside greenhouses. Not surprisingly, the coastal and maritime zones produce approximately 16 percent of the nation's tomato crop on four percent of the tomato growing acreage. The vast majority of crop production value and crop -10- Water - In addition to.soil quality and climate, the avail- ability, price, and quality of water for agriculture uses is Diego County. for imported water by 1983 (currently $75-$197 per ac/ft), continued pressure by the Metropolitan Water District for increases in agricultural water rates, and the likelibood of water shortages in San Diego County by the end of the century, agricultural water uses will continue to be threatened by urban water demands. Historically, urban water rights have preempted agricultural use rights where a shortage exists. Consequently, any strategy to preserve agricultural lands through the local land use regulation must also seek to main- tain lands with agricultural water-use rights in production. If not, an attempt should be made to maintain a portion of lands with agricultural water-use rights relative to lan'ds with urban-use rights. H L critical to the long term viability of agriculture within San Anticipating substantial energy cost increases Knox-Nisbet Definition of "Prime" Lands Under the Knox-Nisbet Act, LAFCO is required only to consider the soils criteria established by the Williamson Act (Class I or I1 soils, or Storie Index 80 or above) in applying policies for preserving agricultural lands (Section 54790.2). However, the Williamson Act also establishes three other criteria to identify "prime!' farmlands , which are based on livestock production and economic return. in Chapter I of this report). If your Commission restricts its consideration of prime agricultural land to those lands qualifying only on soils criteria, then you would ignore great majority of productive, prime lands (based on economic criteria) in the County. certain unincorporated portions of the San Dieguito River Basin. I (All five criteria are listed Areas of LAFCO concern would be primarily limited to Your Commission has the authority to extend the Knox-Nisbet definition of "prime agricultural land" to include livestock and economic criteria for several reasons: (1) Under Government Code Section 54790(b) (General Powers and Duties), your Commission has the authority "To adopt standards and procedures for the evaluation of proposals, including standards for each of the factors enumerated in Section 54796.'' .- (2) The Legislature's intent as expressed in Government Code Section 54774.5 is that LAFCOs .O. establish policies and exercise their powers pursuant to this chapter in such manner to encourage and provide planned, well-ordered, efficient urban development I1 -11- H patterns with appropriate consideration of preserving open-space lands within such patterns. II (3) If LAFCO only considers soils criteria in identifying significant agricultural lands worthy of preservation, virtually no agricultural land in the County would be considered of importance with respect to IAE'COe. Under such an approach the policies established by Sections 54774 and 54790.2 would be rendered meaning- less and could not be implemented. (4) Potential administrative conflicts between the objectives of the Williamson Act (implemented by local agencies) and the objectives of the Knox- Nisbet Act (implemented by LAFCO) would be eliminated. (5) The unusually high productivity of San Diego County's coastal region is the result of climatic rather than soils factors. Due to this productivity, growing locations in San Diego County are of statewide significance under both Williamson and Coastal Acts definitions. lands in San Diego County are not "prime" based on soils criteria contradicts the established significance of San Diego County's role in California agriculture. To claim that such productive agricultural "Prime!' and "Potentially Prime" Lands The Coastal Act instructs that the state Coastal Commission main- tain a maximum of "prime" agricultural land (which qualifies under any five of the Williamson Act criteria) in the agriculture use. In addition, the Act requires that the Commission protect lands "suitable for agricultural use" from conversion to urban uses, unless agriculture is no longer feasible on the territory or the conversion of the territory would concentrate urban develop- ment (Pub. Res. Code 30241 &2). The state Coastal Commission has adopted the position that "potentially prime" lands (suitable for agriculture) be identified for possible protection within the Carlsbad area as part of that City's Local Coastal Program. Such "potentially prime" lands are those that would have similar exposure, slope, and soils characteristics as "prime" land, but have been temporarily held out of production. This additional classification of productive agricultural land further extends the concept of agricultural lands to be preserved. There is a disagreement between the City and the Coastal Commission over use of the "potentially prime" classification which will not be resolved until completion by early 1980 of the Local Coastal Programs. Also, the application of Coastal Act - -12- .. - .I requirements for preservation of agricultural land in the Coastal Zone is expected to create additional pressures for conversion of agricultural lands outside the Coastal Zone which are still in the highly productive coastal and maritime climate zones (e.g., east of El Camino Real in the City of Carlsbad. Unlike the Coastal Commission, LAFCO is mandated to apply policies consistently within and outside the Coastal Zone. The use by LAFCO of a different definition for "prime" lands from the definition used by the Coastal Commission, or a local agency, could result in LAFCO's conversion of valuable agricultural lands which another agency may deem appropriate for preservation. - H -13- ' IV. Factors Leading to Conversion of Agricultural Land - Urban Encroachment and Land Values The history of urban development in San Diego County and elsewhere, shows that residential and agriculture uses traditionally have competed for the same level, open and in 1977 that between 15,000 and 20,000 acres of highly productive agricultural land were lost to urban uses over the last two decades. In discussing competition between urban and agricultural uses, the County's Growth Management Plan Draft EIR points out: prime" lands. The Office of Planning and Research estimated 11 "Traditionally , agricultural lands have been regarded as expendable in such a contest: urban uses are considered equivalent to are engulfed by urban growth because farming operations are regarded as 'transferable.' In San Diego County, the continued implementation of such attitudes places valuable agricultural resources in danger of extinction, 11 higher uses" and farmlands It .- Discontiguous urban development in agricultural areas has been shown to increase the per capita costs for public services throughout a community. agricultural lands are also increased, since the agricultural parcels are prematurely valued at a market value equivalent to adjacent developed lands. However, even if agricultural lands adjacent to residential development were exempted from property taxes entirely, the agricultural use value of a property cannot compete with its anticipated urban land value as territory available for residential development. When agricultural land can command an attractive selling price for the owner, tax relief will not serve to maintain agricultural land in production. Property taxee on the affected Parcel Size and Ownership Patterns Beyond higher property taxes and urban land values, parcel size and ownership patterns may increase the likelihood that agricultural lands adjacent to urban development cannot be maintained in agricultural use under present market conditions. Where agriculture is located on relatively small parcels berhapsless than five acres), or where agriculturally zoned land can be "split" or subdivided into parcels marketable for residential development , it is unlikely that such agricultural land can be effectively maintained for agriculture in the long- term uses without appropriate rezoning or public acquisition. H -14- - - .. -. *i (The threshold for a minimum agriculture parcel size is the subject of a current study by the County). Also, where land is leased for agricultural purposes rather than farmed by the Owners, it is likely that such land is being held for speculative purposes, instead of for long-term agricultural production. Due to the ten year agricultural use restriction imposed by a Williamson Act contract, many land owners forego the tax savings under Williamson Act contracts for the flexibility of sale at urban land values. These problems are evident in the Carlsbad area, where formerly productive flower fields have been removed from production due to potential Coastal Zone development restrictions and where there is only one ownership currently under Williamson Act contract (Ecke). When land is farmed by its owners, the owner is approaching retirement age and no family member intends to continue farming the land, it is likely that the land will be sold at urban rather than at agricultural use values. - .- In addition to market forces, parcel size, and ownership patterns, current zoning and other regulatory practices may actually encourage conversion of outlying agricultural land to urban uses. Frequently, general plan agricultural use designations and zones permit relatively dense residential development (1 du/2 ac in San Diego County or 1 du/ac in the City of San Marc0s.j Agri- cultural designations of this type are really less restrictive residential zones rather than true agricultural use zones. Under such designations, parcels which surround agriculturally used land can develop to more intense, incompatible residential uses, resulting again in higher urban use values for the nearby agricultural parcels. Incompatible Uses Where agricultural and residential uses are permitted in close proximity, potential conflicts may arise both from the annoyance farming causes nearby homeowners and the problems which a new resident population creates for agricultural production. Where vegetable crops are raised, residents may complain of noise from machinery, dust,and pesticides. Crops, in turn, suffer from air pollution, vandalism and trespass. Historically, agricultural uses have been eliminated when such a conflict arises. The usual approach used to avoid urban/rural use conflicts is establishment of compatible or complementary land uses adjacent to the agricultural land (buffer zones). accomplish that, a local jursdiction must first identify what agricultural areas are to be maintained and propose a preservation strategy. The principal task is to determine which agricultural areas can and should be maintained versus those which are more suited for residential development in the long term. However, To -15- H .I >. most local governments have not designated and mapped specific Agricultural Preserve areas, ranked their relative significance, solicited participation in agricultural contracts with private owners, nor established compatible agricultural use designations in efforts to the most valuable agricultural lands under their jurisdiction. - Current Preservation Programs While some 31 states now have voluntary tax deferral, pre- ferential assessment or land gains tax programs, there are few comprehensive programs at the local level (cities or counties) which provide incentives or use restrictions for maintaining land in agricultural production. include establishment of specific agricultural use restrictions through the General Planning process, agricultural or farm value districts, development rights purchase programs, or public acquisition and lease-back programs. Where local governments have implemented agricultural land preservation programs, the tax benefits derived are unclear and the programs' overall effectiveness has yet to be proven. A principal problem is the high cost of stringent land use regulation or actual land acquisition to the local government, along with the probability that additional public assessments are required to L finance preservation programs, As an example, while there are currently 55,000 acres of farmland in Suffolk County, New York, the approved $50 million bond issue to finance County's development rights purchase program provides funds for development rights purchases on only 3,900 acres. In California, the state's inability to reimburse local governments for property taxes lost from Williamson Act contracts has also discouraged more extensive use of agricultural contract programs by local governments. The County Assessor estimates that only $88,000 of $1.732 million is reimbursed by the State to defer tax losses from the Williamson Act contracts, which about covers the administrative costs of the contract program. Limited public resources and property tax limitations emphasize the need for local governments to identify the highest priority agricultural lands for preservation, and if desirable pursue a specific preservation strategy. Some proposed programs Performance of the Williamson Act The "Use Value Assessment" Report* stated that there is no evidence that the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson) has conserved agricultural land. The report: also * California Agriculture, March, 1977 -16- - .. - H :* a' t. indicated that many counties were reaching a ceiling in land likely to be placed under contract and concluded that substantial - amounts of California's best agricultural land will continue to be subject to development despite significant public investment in the program. that additional enrollment of agricultural lands under Williamson Act contracts is unlikely, since the tax benefits available under Williamson Act contract have been substantially removed with the passage of Proposition 13. the Williamson Act by itself cannot be relied upon to maintain and preserve existing productive agricultural lands. The County Assessor's Office has reconfirmed It is clear that -17- .- C. - H -* Ut 8. V. Local and Regional Planning for Preservation of Agricultural Lands and LAFCO Responsibilities c City and County planning programs are or will soon be underway which will identify valuable and productive agricultural lands, determine whether such lands can be maintained in agricultural use, and what techniques can be employed to maintain such uses. both the County of San Diego and coastal cities are required to develop Local Coastal Programs by January 1980 which would identify "prime" and "potentially prime'' agricultural land for possible preservation. the City of Carlsbad are disputing the need for identification of "potentially prime" agricultural land as part of the City's Local Coastal Program. should establish those agriculture lands which both the Coastal Commission and local governments agree are appropriate for preservation. In addition, the County of San Diego is preparing an Agricultural Element to the County's General Plan which will establish policies and priorities for preservation of the County's agricultural land, determine what lands may be feasibly maintained in agricultural uses, identify which areas of the County are most suited for long-term agricultural production, and propose methods for maintaining those lands in agricultural uses. Adoption of the Agricultural Element is not expected before July 1979. Under provisions of the Coastal Act, Currently the Coastal Commission and Once certifieq the Local Coastal Program On June 6, 1978 the Board adopted the six assumptions to provide the basis for continuing work on the Agricultural These six assumptions are as follows: That the agricultural lands of San Diego County ought to be maintained at or near their current level. That agriculture in San Diego is an economically viable enterprise. That the existing trends of urban development in San Diego County pose a direct threat to agricultural production in the County. That the economic threat to agriculture posed by urban development can be affected by the County. That some areas in San Diego County are better suited for agriculture than other areas. -18- H (6) That, in order to preserve agriculture in San Diego County, it will be necessary not only to identify those areas having the best chance for continued production but also to restrict the development of those areas so that a viable agricultural economy can be maintained. The Agricultural Element will seek to verify production trends and commonly held assumptions about agriculture in San Diego County. Production costs and economic factors in long-term agricultural preservation will be examined with the objective of identifying what agricultural lands can and should be preserved and how those lands can be preserved. LAFCO may be requested to approve proposals convert agricultural land to urban uses before completion of the County's Agricultural Element or Local Coastal Programs. When considering such annexation proposals in advance of a certified Local Coastal Program and the adopted County Agricultural Element, LAFCO is required (under Sections 54774, 54790.2 and 54796) to judge the relative value of one agricul- tural parcel versus another, and whether individual parcels can and should be preserved. While the Knox-Nisbet Act mandated LAFCO to consider the consequences of annexation of productive agricultural lands and guide development away from "prime" lands, the Williamson and Coastal Acts clearly intended the local agencies to designate what lands be preserved. In the absence of such designations, LAFCO's approval of a specific annexation proposal involving agricultural land may irretri- eveably commit an entire fringe to residential uses. which would c II prime'' agricultural area on a city's The Commission should have sufficient information on the physical and economic integrity of agricultural preserve areas and on the location of "prime" lands valuable agricultural parcel to urban uses. To provide this information local governments should first establish the location and priority of agricultural lands pursuant to Williamson Coastal Act standards. prior to committing any potentially By requiring that both the County and the annexing agency identify, rank, and assign compatible use zones for agricultural lands under their respective jurisdictions prior to LAFCO's approval of proposals which will convert agricultural lands to urban uses, your Commission would promote the policies established under Government Code Section 54790.2 (Knox). Such a procedure would also serve to mitigate the potential adverse effects of including productive or ''prime'' agricultural land within an agency's Sphere of Influence. - -19- r. .- ' .' AGRICULTURAL LANDS REPORT BIBLIOGRAPHY H Analysis of Agriculture on the Oxnard Plain and the Urban/Rural Interface, California Coastal Commission, South Central Coast Regfon, Santa Barbara; January, 1977. Bodovitz, Joseph E., "Adoption of Maps for Permit #A-15-76 (Vista Memo to State Commissions, California Coastal Commission), March 10, 1978. I' Clawson, Marion, Environmental Comment, Washington, D.C., January, 1978, p, 10. Preservation of Prime Agricultural Land." Coastal Land Environment, San Diego Coast Regional Commission, compiled by State and Regional Commission staff, with Charles Gwarz, University of California, Sea Grant Program, San Diego: 1974, Keene, John C., "Keeping Farmers Farming." Environmental Comment, Washington, D.C.: January, 1978, p. 9. Klein, John V.N., "Preserving Farmland on Long Island." - Environmental Comment, Washington, D.C.: January, 1978, pp. 11-13. Lesher, William G., and Doyle A. Erler, Farmland Preservation an Urban Fringe Area: an Analysis of Suffolk County's Development Rights Purchase Program, Cornel1 University, A.E. Res. 77-3, Zthica, New York: March, 1977. Local Agency Formation Commission, County of Santa Clara, Guidelines and Policies, approved February 1, 1978, San Jose: 1978. ll Mundie, Roberta M., "Managing Conflicts in the Urban/Rural Fringe. Environmental Comment, Washington, D.C. : January, 1978, pp. 6-8. Sampsor, R. Neil, "Development on Prime Farmland." Environmental Comment, Washington, D.C.: January, 1978, pp. 4-6. San Diego, County of, "Agricultural Referrals ." Interdepartmental Correspondence to Board of Supervisors, from Integrated Planning Office, San Diego: May 19, 1978. Draft Environmental Impact Report, Preliminary Regional Growth Management Plan, March, 1978. - Santa Cruz, County of, conversation with Mr. Jan Winter regarding Santa Cruz County's policy on conversion of agricultural lands, June 14, 1978. -20- Tulare, County of, "Rural Valley Lands - General Plan Land Use Element, adopted County Board of Supervisors. Plan" amendment 75-1D to December 2, 1975, Tulare University of California, Cooperative Extension - Agricultural Experiment Station, California's Use - Value Assessment Programs : Participation and Performance Through 1975-76, Corvallis, Oregon: March, 1977. Urban/Agricultural Resource Management Taskforce. California Agricultural Land Preservation, Visalia, California: June, 1977. Watsonville, City of, "Procedure for Implementation of Buffer Policy for Agricultural Land Preservation." dated May 24, 1978. West's Annotates Government Code Title 5. West's Annotates Government Code B 30000 "California Coastal Act (New) .I' Public Resources Code. 8 51200 "Agricultural Land." -21- r .I .. drairman 'Jr. Rex Gorton .Iblic Member Yxecu tive officer .. ::cretary wunsel mmbers: .;icl,ael J. Gotch '~rfltr D. Cremanr dilnald L. Clark .qh W. Chapman I dy Municipal ibater District Irn Hamilton ..rniy Lbard of .'iwi J. Kam ,brook Public 'dity District ~d r4cClellon ',cilwomen, Supervisors ..y of Vista .-.rile V. Mo:rra :nty Eudrd of . ~pswlron .I Morgan (or, City of tiontll City ternate .nbers: .x L. Adams Water District hdre Dam Municipal ;hii Lake councilman, City of Lemon Grove Stanley A. Mahr 'I San Marcor County Water District Lee R. Taylor &runty Board of Supervisors - (714) 236-2015 san diqa Local aggncy formation commissior* GOO p~ct IC highway san &go, ca. 92IC1 TO: Addressees FROY: Lxec ~ive OL iicer SUBJEC'I': liev isec Agricultural Lands Policy Based on comwnts received during the pas^ three weeks, WFCO S! a?jf has reivised the Drai t Agriculturdl Lands Policy :r, dddress two main issues: 1. Estatli.sl;> iit of a consistent definition of prime ai;: I, 1 tural lanr's'' €or review of If wth ciL district ' tinexation proposals. 2. Cl.arifica*_io;t uf local ,vermnents ' rcsponsir -1l;ties to ide: Lify and protecc a2;ricult.L -<ii lands within their gc -Ira1 p:~~nnirig i l-t': prior to annexation of agricul t~7 -a1 or open space lands. This revised twl-icy will be presented to the Comiission at ts ScptertLer 11, 1978 meeting. If you have coiinients or suggjes tion-; rt.l-ating to this policy, please contact Jay Stewart o E my Staff. Distribution L.ist -- ft ,. Revised. Agriccltura- Lands Polic~: City Planning Directors Carlsbad Chula Vista Coronado Del Mar El Cajon Esc ondido Imperial Beach La ;;.esa Lemon Grove :<citiona City Oceans id e San Diego San Marcos Vista San I.1i.e;~" Countx 113 - Paul Zucker, Lee Vance 1,UER - Jim Gilshian RGM - Dave Nielscn DOA - lien Little, Tom Escher Assessor's Oflsce - Ralph Kiiig -. Comprehensive Plann ._ i :& Organi+..Ation - Stuart Shaffer San Diego Coast Regional Commission - Bruce Warren 5 California Coastal Commission - Jim YcGrath Farm Bureau - Charles Wood Farm Advisor's Off5.,.e - Vic Brown Association of Resource Conservation Dists - Rob Dresselhaus Office of Planning and Kescl*irch - Peter Detwiler Special Districts Acrvisory C - l~-i.trtc>e - Subject : - A DFsposit ):-I. ,f annexati proposals which involve the conv L-S- of agric:Alcural or open space lands ?73 urban u:;c . Yo (LstabLish guidelines for the Commission's iniple- i;ientation oy Covernment Code Sections 54774, 5G190.2 prioriti.!s a ci policies which are ,qitned at the waintenance '2nd rj iservation of agricultural ar;d opcln space aids for use by LAFCO in its delibc r- a tions . 5479b (i,v,lJ'i-Nisbet Act' . These statutes establish Discussion The Knox-Nisbct Act (Government Code S.?ctions 54774 and 54796) requires that your Conmission consider the effect of maintnir..ing the physical arid econon::1c inti4grity of designated agriculturL1 preserves when .?dopting an agency's sphere of irnfluence or ccn- sidering an ani. 2xation proposal. Section 54790.2 establishes two policies with Tcispect to agricultural and open soace lands tc be used by LhFCOs in revicwi.ng, approving, or disapproving propc:sals : Firs C, that c3evelopinen;: sh.uuId be guided away from existin:; prime agricultura i 1a:ids toward areas containing non-prime agrici: 1 t ural lands ; and sccond, that development withi.n an agency ' s exis L i ng jurisdiction or sphere slic.i:!ld be encoLcaged before approval.. o f any <innexation to that ap,crray which would lead to conversion of open space or syricult:.ral lands to urban uses. State law pro- vides no more succific cr? ireria or guidc~lines by which to i.mple- ment the agricz :.tural r-.tnd open space lailJ preservation po1:ici es es hblishcd by Xnox-Ni: !>e t * However, through Government Ccjde Secti-on 54774.5 the Lei;is i::ture direc. ci d tiiat LAFCO " establish policies and c?xcarcise ~'OWE?L=S . . . to t:Lwourage arid pi:ovide planned, we 11 -ordered , e 2 f ic ic n i: u.r.lmn deve lo pnien. t. wit terns with app rcpr ia t e consideration of prese::vin.:; open spacii lani:;; within such patterns .I' Reports and policy doc? i~nts issued bv the San Diego County Depart- ment OT Agricti? cure an( Lr, (lgrat ed Pl*t:I:iing Oiir'ice, the Sail Gicgo Regional and State Coast C'omnissions, and various other St ate agencies have established 1-7-ic$ San Diego County is a produ er of statewide and nat-ional si? _I iif <.trice for tvrriatoes, avocados and cut field flowers. While *oca'- dgricultural- acrtJ<Lge may have actually Through the CL -Lorilia I,nrad Cons ervat'on Act of 1965 (Williamson), thc California oastal Act, and the K:iox-Nisbet Act, the Calif- orrtia Legis1aLu:e has clea-ly e~tablished the priority of pre- serving the scare's rno:t- produccive (prime) agricultural lands. Both tlic Will;amson anc ~~ds tal Acts have placed the re:%ponsiblity for identifyi sip,nifLcanc agricultural open space lands with local general .JL i)LJ-.re overninents and established 5 tandards by which to idr,rit_i_i'y such lands. Williamson Act encourages that loca I qove.-nments identify prime agricultural lands within their jurisdiction by Gesignat-i 18 "Agricultural Preserves, are those Lands eligi bit- for us' -assessment conLrac ts (Sectioii 5120X(d)). Tfte Coastal Act, ti I ugh IC' Local Coastal Prograns, requires local Aenciec to iden ify buch "prime agricultural Land" and "potenti,r i 7-y priiiie rtgr;.cu3 t- ral 1 ands" (1 ands in agricultural use within tht 'me twe-nty ye,,' ~kwithin thc i~- jurisdictions. Few local governmen~:s have : c'signac. (1 AgriLcdltural Preserves or I1 which prime agricultural lar JS" within thc Ir jurisdic Eons' thus far, until 1980. Yet eve_.ri wlicre prine lands may already be identified the local jurisdiction acten has not designated ap:,, )priate agricultural or open si'dc(: land uses or zoning for the territory. !I indat-ud Loc- il Coastal L'rograIris will not be completcd The Knox-Nisbet Act reo S-rcIs LAFCO to dctennine whether agricultural preserves CI:' r9rimt agricultural land would be adversely affect-eJ if B ~'~r;posed annexation were approved. tltjw- ever, b1OI;GA and Krrox-Ni stet. csta'ulish different definitions oE priiiie agricultuyal lanc for city arid district annexation pro- posals. For city propcsals , Section 35046 (MOEGA) defines prime Agricultural lar-1" 3s- lmd qualifying under any of the five Williamson Act CLI ?ria (soil quality and ecotiornic pro- duc tivity) . However, lor Jistri.;t proposals, Government Code land" in terms of o~nLy the Lwo Williamson Act soil quality criteria. To complicate the task of identifying the productive agricultural lar,ds, the:*( are a variety of definicions used by local, State, and Federal agencies for such agricultural lands. These dt finitio is iiicXuc1- "primt: ,I1 "potentially prime" good to fai r," and "uniqtie ," which are applied differently within and outsLde the TC ,,tal z.,,ne. 11 Section 54775(p (Knox-Nisbet) iefines It prime agricultural 11 * "Potentially 1,rinie" asriculturil land is defined in the "City of Carlsbad's (Adf7pted by Sz4n Diego Kegional Coast Commission, 7/7/78). Issue 14ei1:ifica ion and Work Program, 11 pg. 9 - - '; L '\ Wh 16 LAPCO 5- ~iti :over 1' t Code -cctions 547?+, 2% 95 ard "4: ,L to 6 a4:c :';.,e L~ ,t.rvation 05 designated Agx itrui~ uruL * serves, z)r -" \ c1* icul c,ral land, land in agri- cu tr-t il use, .d open sp. I d, thd Commission has no authority to directly re;- :lace 1; :id ,e GI to iliitiate boundary changes. Instead, the Cc anjssi\, i-2 approving or disapprwing an annexa- ticn proposal, -s a-crthLrizcd to *eLec: that agency's General Plan which bes, carries uurl thtl agricTJltura1 and open space policies establ shed under Knox-Visbe . To provide a basis '*or IAFCO's inm mnentation 3f tlr,ese pqlicies, the affected land use agenry first must have identified prim( agricultura - lands and have deve ,ped measures to mainta; '1 designated agricultural lands in agricultural use. Consequently, it is both necessary and reasonable thrz: LAFCO ins~--t* these steps have been carried out by the afFccted local goveriunen:, i pt-ior to your Commission committing a specific parcel of agriculturally productive land to urban use is the rz 3ulf of 11ne~ ,tion. Po 1. i c y 1. The Commission finds there 5s need for a consistent definition 01 prime agricultural - md !jy which to evaluate both city and dis trict-re'ated prJpo:sals p'Jrsuci >t to Government Code Section 547QG, and .o impLeh .ent the policit s set 'forth in Section 54730.2. P cordingLy, ill determining whether a city or district-relatecs ,jroposai may .li.fect prime agricultural- land, the ''ommissi:,n shall apply the definition of ''prime agricultura . land" est ablisyied ui-der Section 35046 (MOKGA) . 35046. "Pr IIC' agric +Ltr ral ?- md" means an arr a of land, whether a s ngle p; <-e? or contiguous parcels, which: (i) has not been dcaqeliped E3r a use other than an agricultura' use m<d (it) mt-ts any of the following qualifications : (a) Land which q-ml'fie: -or r ting as clas; I or class I1 in the Soif. Cc7ti'serv zLion Service land use capability lassifi :at'ou; S torie Index Rating : duction of food an. FI 2r arJ which has an annual carrying cal'ncity c *~-.t*aIcr,t to at least one animal unit per acre as detil -' by t-he Ucitcd SLates Depart- ment of Agr culturc rii -:IC National Handbook OE Range and Related Grazing Lan 1s 3 ~ly, 1-967, developed p irsuant to Public -,aw 46, c.ember 1935; \ (b) Larid which qual fies for rating 80 through 100 (c) Land which s ipports livestock used for the pro- c h 2. 3. \ (ci)! j, -7 fr -LE 01 nut-bearirg trees, vines, >Ushc:S 'JY Y')~s tdh c 1 2\Jt neni ?aring period of less tti<ln L 7e i/e~ - 3,nd wI-li '1 r ' 1 :~c-*r.!i:aI.! 7 return during the t-r~mver~ia tezrin;. U~T-LOL: c an F inual basis from the r rrtducticx- -)f unprcces ;ed a :ricuP:ural plant production 'ot less -an two bunt-red dollars ($200) per atbre; (e) La c which s rctur-ed fr9m the production of --I np roc e s : agricu rural ph.nt products in annual gross ralue of : less t-l-ian two ??llindred dollars ($200) per acre for - ee of +lie grevic?us five years; (f) La .._ which Is csed to mai.;zain livestock for commercia I wrpose_c . 1* - In considering the "md use aspects of a proposal pursclact to Sectiorl 'i4796(a'> and ying the policies under S,>c tion 5L.790.2 , t9;e Comnii :;::ion shall determine whether the affecred agricc Zt~rral C( 1-1 i tory is class ified as potentially prune'. ,- by thc Co,istal Commission or as Good to I'ai-r" for ,illy ~311~3 faf rhe five major crop types hy the San Uiego Ccuntv Soi .s Sa rvey. Lands so classi- A ied will be cons ic:er.>rl, of .tignLficant agricultural value arid subject to t:le m' xiec established by Government Coc'. Section 54790.2, i t: So issio-r so determines. 11 11 Annexatior Froposa:s :-?adl'> to the conversion of prime agricu1tu:a.' land c r nd 1 I agri-ultural us3 during the pdst five ylars wi-I . discouraged by the Conmission unless the affected 1; .~d use jurisdiction (either city or County) mve act orcplishe the following: (a) Ideni i fied "prime agric ultural lands" as defined in Sc.f:'-"on 3 )".46 any lands in agricultural use as &.fine( in Section 51201(b) within their respec ive Cei +>rsJ. Plwning Areas ; (b) Demonsyrated t-0 L4FCO ?at t:ie igency has adopted effect-ve mc'aylires to I aintain hose lands identified in (a> for ag icu'tura, use. Such measures may inclucj , but r:r PZ lirtited to, establishing Agrici tural '-e$ Zrves pursuant to the California Lanc' snserva'. iol- .kr , desigyating land for agrikxitural C\T .wp. ">le open space uses by means of that jur dirt ion's general planning powers public zciiuisi lion p -Llgrams, purchase- lease jack ar- angmrwntc , or )I i,er feasible means; 9; Reference pg. 9, I1 Carlsb ,cl IsF.ie Tdglntification and Nark Program, adopzed Reg. )ria CoLtL t Com:ission, 7/7/78. 4. (c) Prezs 3 (Cit- % J) i "xito y CI chin t le agency': gene- pLEm '9 f "- ' 3 be i.aintained -or agricultural use, 2 td the rwe ~LI'JL- propcsal area t,) indicate th.3 antic i.;ated 1:~: oi c Jelopment and the level of servicc_.s which wi 1 be required. Where the a'fected lanr use jurisdictions have satisfied (3) above? Fan Dipgo UFCO will accept for evaluation an annexation *aroposal leading "0 the couversion of agri- cultural lands to urba1 or xesidential uses. In reviewing such an annexation proposal, the Conmission shall apply the following proceduris ancl criteria to determine that the aninexatlan woulci (a) not adversely affect the agricultura_ resources of tke community, and (b) would not lead to prei,,.ittui*e, "leap-frog" development: - Detemina!ion by the County Agricultural Commissioner of the agricultural significance of the proposal area relative 1-0 other agrictiiciral lands in the region (soil, cltrnatc, ard water f~tors). - Determination by the County Assessor of the use value (or capitalization of ilicome value? versus the market value of %e proposa.2 area and surrounding parcels. - Determina-_ion by LAFCO of: '?ether the-e is agreement between the ..ffected cicy and the county (based on rdopted lan.' use ;)lans and budget p ucuments) that conversiork of the territory from agricultural to urban/ - esidential uses is appropriace and properly timcd. Iiihether public facilities would be c-xtended th-e -ugh Jr adjacent to any carher agricv.1 tura 1. lands to provide services to the b2velopment anticipated on the propcsal property. Whether the proposal area is adjacent to or surrounded 3y existiig urbap/ residential devel3pment. l%hether surroundiig parcels may be expected to devel. p to incompatible ~ses (as defined In Sectio.1 51201(c)) v?ithin the I-ext live years. (v) :Whether natxral or man-made barriers would serve to buffer the proposal area from existing incompatible (urban) use.3. Where a combinatiop. of these factors indicates that the agricultural uses of the property can be physically and economical-ly maintained, that the proposal area is a regionally valuable agricultural resource, or that a conflict exists between the affected land use jurisdictions over whether agricultural uses should be maintained on the property, then annexation for the purpose of urban develop- ment may not be appropriate. 5. Following adoption of the San Diego County General Plan Agricultural Element, the Commission shall discourage an annexation proposal which is likely to result in the conversion of urban use of those lands identified by the Agricultural Element as suitable for long-term agricultural use. -6- h ! I- 3 .> MEMORANDUM DATE : August 9, 1978 TO : City Manager I FROM : Planning Department SUBJECT: Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) Draft Agricultural Policy Our department has recently had the opportunity to review a LAFCO draft policy on agricultural lands; LAFCO staff points to two sections of the Government Code (Knox Nisbet Act) which requires their Commission's consideration of impacts on agricultural lands. The City Council should be aware of the subject policy and its possible effects on the land use patterns within Carlsbad's sphere of influence. Much of the area within the City's sphere of influence that has been in or is in agricultural production is within areas yet to be annexed. The subject policy will have direct influence on the areas subject to City annexation. LAFCO staff makes it clear that it is not their responsi- bility to impose land use controls. However, they do skate that it is their responsibility to insure that adequate land use controls are established to protect agricultural production by local government prior to annexation. staff goes on to state that through the California Land Conservation Act and the Knox Nisbet Act, the legislature has "established the priority of preserving the state's most productive (prime) agricultural lands". The govern- ment Code is quoted directing LAFCO to "establish policies and exercise powers.. .to encourage and provide planned, well ordered, efficient urban development patterns with appropriate consideration of preserving open space lands within such patterns". Evidently, the LAFCO staff has put these two legislative directives together in generating the subject agricultural policy. LAFCO Based on this background information, City staff has two comments. First, agricultural lands are not necessarily open space. One of the chronic problems in the attempt to preserve agricultural lands, is the confusion of land used for field agricultural with "open space". The traditional concept of open space infers more than a visual open area characteristic, -1- Open field agricultural is only open space in a visual sense. In every other way, the agricultural production is a purely commercial activity. When land values ex- ceed a certain level, the method of production intensi- fies, and in some cases, greenhouse production takes over. An acre of field crops or an acre of property line to property line greenhouses is in either case agricultural. LAFCO staff should not equate a direc- tive to preserve "open space" with the preservation of agricultural. City staff's second comment hinges on the definition of "prime" agricultural land and the attempt to establish a definition for it. We agree that before a resource can be protected or preserved, it must be defined and identified. However, we disagree with the definition LAFCO staff recommends, and we are uncertain of their motivation in presenting it. The LAFCO staff report reflects a common misconception in agricultural preservation. There are a number of definitions of "productive, desirable or prime lands". They are frequently used interchangeably depending on the circumstances. There are many factors which con- tribute to the quality of agricultural lands, the most frequently used being soil types. However, climate (in some cases micro climate) water availability and costs and labor availability and costs are also important factors. The overall viability of agricultural lands is, as a practical matter, a regional and statewide circumstance. As a result, before agricnltural policies are approved and agreed to, statewide definition of the resource must be established. Currently, State law establishes the definition of prime agricultural land through the Williamson Act. LAFCO staff in the justification of using three definitions of prime agricultural land (i.e., Williams Act, San Diego Coast Regional Commission definitions, and "good or fair" by the San Diego County Soil Survey) states that if the Williamson Act definition is used, only 6% of all San Diego County soils qualify as "prime". Evidently, the amount of land that qualifies for prime designation is not considered to be enough by the LAFCO staff. This seems to be somewhat arbitrary, considering the legis- lature approved the Williamson Act (California Land Con- servation Act of 1965) and thereby established a state- wide definition of "prime agricultural land". Since -2- staff bases their authority in State law, the expansion of the definition of prime agricultural 1and.s does not appear consistent. At this point, a final question regarding one of the recommended components of the LAFCO definition is necessary. City staff questions whether the San Diego Coast Regional Commission has defined "prime or potentially prime" lands, and if so, by use of what criteria; and/or, whose expertise"? In summary, City staff is concerned: 1) That LAFCO staff, in attempting to conform with State law, may be creating a number of problems. The confusion of "open space" and agricultural production must be clarified. The basic intent to provide both of these resources is founded on differing criteria. LAFCO staff should express a justification for the preservation of agricultural land other than merely referring to an implied mandate by State law. Once the specific reasons for preserving agricultural lands have been identified they will undoubtedly differ from those "needs" to preserve "open space". 2) That it is not necessary or justifiable for LAFCO to create its own definition of "prime agricultural lands". Primarily, because the legislature has established a definition through the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act). An expansion of this definition would not reflect the legislators intent. City staff recognizes that there are many popularized definitions of prime agricultural lands, however, if a more comprehensive definition is to be generated, it should be done statewide, and by the legislature. 3) That the LAFCO policy will entail additional City costs which are not readily estimable as prerequisite to LAFCO's accepting for evaluation an annexation proposal leading to the conversion of any agricultural lands to urban residential uses. 4) That this policy limits the exercise of traditional City prerogative with respect to determining land use patterns. Recommendation Based on the above listed staff concerns and the fact that the City will be addressing agricultural land uses in detail in our Local Coastal Program the staff recommends the City Council indicate to LAFCO opposition to this proposed Agricultural Lands Policy.