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.