HomeMy WebLinkAbout; Agriculture LAFCO Info 1978; Program Report; 1978-09-05-
--A- - . ,I
-. I . t-- CITY OF CARLSBAD
Initial Dept. Hd. ..JC#,- C. Atty . C. Mgr. , X-
AGENDA BILL NO. 55L5
DATE:
DEPARTMENT: PT,WC, J
SUBJECT :
PROPOSED LAFCO AGRICULTURAL POLICY
Statement of the Matter
LAFCO is considering adoption of a major policy on agricultural lands within the County of San Diego.
Of agricultural lands to cities in the County.
Lands" as defined in this policy could not be annexed unless LAFCO determines protection of the agricultural use is guaranteed.
This policy would effect the annexation
"Prime Agricultural
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 Lands Policy.
A
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
i,
I .@ ,
..
4 I. -1
..
MEMORANDUM
DATE : August 9, 1978
TO : City Manager
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 arees yet to be annexed.
The subject policy Mill 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 'I. 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.
LAE'CO
Based on this background information, City staff has two comments. First, agricultural lands are not necessarily dopen space. 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.
One of the chronic problems in the attempt to
-1-
..
,
I' , ;'
4
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 agricultural policies are approved and agreed to, statewide definition of the
resource must be established,
Currently, State law establishes the definition of prime
'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 Coupty 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
. agricultural land through the Williamson Act. LAFCO
..
-2-
staff bases their authority in State law, the expansion of
the definition of prime agricultural land-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
intentc 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 LAF'CO 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) prerogative with respect to determining land use patterns.
That this policy limits the exercise of traditional City
_- Recormendat ion
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
Policy. a indicate to LAFCO oppos-ition to this proposed Agricultural Lands
..
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
County Administration Cantu. 1600 hsdtic Highwsy.&an Diw, California 92?0? . -. Tekphow 23-97 PAUL C. ZUCKER
Adstant Chid AdrninistraKi*s OfticW
lntegratcd Pbnning
August 29, 1978
Michael J . Gotch
Executive Officer
Local Agency Formation Commission
1608 India
San Diego, CA 92101 c
SUBJECT: Draft Agricultural Lands Pol icy .
Thank you for giving me and my staff the opportunity to review your Draft
Agricultural 'lands Pol icy. I am espbcially pleased that you encouraged nly
staff to take such an active part in suggesting revisions to the previous
versions of the policy.
1 strongly support the present version of your policy. 1 believe it will
have its intended effect of preventing the conversion to urban use of the
County's best agricultural lands.
The only improvement I would suggest at this time is that the following
wording be substituted in the 'first sentence of Paragraph 3:
...'I unless, in the case of a municipal annexation, the city or,
in the case of a district annexation, the County, has accomplished
the following:"
This or similar wording should serve to clarify which jurisdiction is res-
ponsible in either type of annexation.
my staff so many opportunities to provide input
Assistant CAO
Integrated Planning Office
PCZ:KC: jh
Capital Facilities Planning . . I Environmental Planning . . Land Use Planning . . . Transportation Planning
~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~~_________
.
WAKD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
October 4, 1978 ..
Board of Supervisors County AdrninistratXon Canter 1600 Pacific liighway S-m Diego,%= 92101
Board Member6 t
he of my first legislative proposals after taking office as Third District Supervisor waa to direct staff to prepare an Agricultural Element to our County General Plan. f wa8 con- cerned about our lose of agricultural lands to urbanization and Lt was apparent thot State action to protect agricultural lands was stymied.
Board of Suparvisorr -2- October 4, 1918
I therefore#
RECOMMEND t
That the Board of Supervisora qo On record in SUppott of the proposed LAFCO AGRICULTURAL LWDS POLICY and authorize , the Chnitwoman to send a letter to each member of the members of the Commission expressing that support and urging their adoption of the p meeting.
*
icy at their November 6
17 Rcpp6ctf ully submitted I
Wsch
Enclosure
It has coma to my attention that another local agency shares aur concern for the protection and preservation of agrlcultutaz lands and X believe YO should work with them toward that end and support their effarts. nission will hoar an Agricultural Land8 Policy on November 6r 1978. f believo the County Board of Supervisors should go on record in support of WCO adoption and implementation of thio vital policy.
The policy, which ia attachedr was developed in response to a WCO directive at the time the Carlebad Sphere of Znfluence was adopted to mitigate potential impacts of including additional open space and agricultural lands within the City's Sphere. The policy is intended to guide the CoEaisBion in ita consideration of annexation prOpoSo16 vhich load to the conversion of agricul- tural or open space lands to urban uses.
LAFCO haa recognited that planning efforts which relate to agricultural lands arc currently underway. Local coastal Plans and the County Agricultural Element will bcttar define agricul- tural landa suitable for preservation, that the necesaary local land use decisions have been made prior to LWCO'a approval of annexation6 that would commit agricultural lands to urban development.
The proposed policy ia an important link into inter-agency cooper- ative effort. to achieve common goals. LAPCO is to be comendcYl for thc initiation of this policy and the Board of Supervisors should communicate our support for the badly needed tool to protect agricultural. lands.
The Weal Agency Formation Com-
The policy will insure
l6W ?AC*IC n WAV. UH bm0. L*(lrOrmiA tlioi
_-----..,----.----- -------- .
=R
Subject:
I
: Discussion
I
AGRICULTURAL LANDS mtw
SAN DIEGO LAFCO
Dljpos%tion of annexation proposals which involve the conversion OF agricultural or open space lands
to urban uscs.
To establish guidelines for the Cormnission's hple- mcntntion of Government Code Sections 54774, 56790.2 and 54796 (Knox-Nisbet Act). These statutes establish, . priorities and policies which are abed at the maintanance and presentation of agricultural and open space lands for use,by LAFCO in its deliber-
ations.
The box-Nisbct Act (Government Code Sections 54774 Md 54796) requires that jour Commission considot the effect of maintain5.q . the physical and economic intcgritp of designated agricultural preserves vhen adopting on apncy's sphcra of influence or con- aidcring an annexation proposnl. Section 54790.2 establishes two policies with respect t(r ngricultural and-open space lands to be used by WCOs in reviewing, approving, or disapproving proposnls: First, that development should be guided away from existing prime agricultural lands touord areas containing non-prime agriculturnl lands; and second, that development within an agency's existing jurisdiction or sphere should be encouraged before approval of
any annexation co that ngcncy which would lead to conversion of open space or agriculturol lands to urban uses. State law pro- vides no more specific criteria or guidelines by which to imple- ment the agricultural and open space lend preservation policies
Section 51774.5 the Legislature directed that L4FCO 'I cstnblish
policles and exercise poucrs . . to encouragc and provide planncd, vell-ordered, efficient urban development patterns with appropriate
consideration of preserving open space knds within such patterns."
Reports and policy docmcnts issued by the San Dicgo County Depart- ment of Agriculture and Integrated Planning Offica, the Ssn Diego Regional and State Coast Comiasions, and varioua otksr State agcncies have established that San Diego County'is a producer of
rtcrLrwidc and na4hld slyrrLllcrlircu LOA* Lolnuruolr, awctldur, rti~rl cut field flowers. While tohl agricultural acrcage may have actually
*
' established by box-Nisbet. Nowever, through Government Code
.
I u, i
6 '. !\
increased fn San Dicgo County, nm residential dcvclopent had continued to displnce agrlculmral uscs from existing "prhc" lands. forced to more marginal, less economical growing locatforis. Accordingly, agricultural producers have shifted to high income specialty crops, and the variety of San Diego County's dgrlcul- tural base has noticeably narrowed.
Through the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Pllliamson), the California Coastal Act, and the Knox-Nisbet Act, the Calif- ornia Legislature has clearly established the priority of pre-
scrving the state's most productive (prime) agricultural lands. Both the Willinnson and Coi1st31 Acts hove placed the rcsponsfblity for identifying significant agricultural open space lands with local general purpose govorrunents and established stdndards by which to identify such lands. that local governments identify prime agricultural lands within their jurisdiction by designating ''Agricultural ' Preserves," which are those lands eligible for use-nssessment contracts (Section 51201(d)), The Coastal Act, through the Local Coastdl Progra, .requires local agencies to identify both "prime agricultural land" 'and "potentially prime agricultural lands" (lands in agricultural : use within the last twenty yenrspwithin their jurisdictions. Few local governments have designated Agricultural Ptescrves or "prime agricultural lands'' within their jurisdictions thus far,
4nd tho mandated Local Coostal Programs will not be completed Yet even where prima lands may already bc identified
the local juriadiction often has not designatcd appropriate agricultural or open space land uses or zoning for the tcrritory.
Tho Knox-Nisbet kct requires LVCO to determine whether saricultural preserves or prime ngricultural land would bo adversely affected ff a proposed annexntion were approved. ever, WRCA and Knox-Nisbet establish different definitions of prime agricultural land for city and district annexation pro-
"prfme Agricultural land" a8 land qualifying under any of the five Williamson AcC,crlt:otia (60il qua1ity.nnd cconomic pro- ductivity). However, for district ptopoea:~, Government Code Section 54775(p) (Knox-Ni.sbet) defines "prime agricultural land" in rem of only the pvo Williamson Act soil quality
If the Commission uses only soil quality critertr to 'identify "prime agricultural lands" which are affected by an ann~-
of Laportnnca for UFCO crctionr.
The.result is that agricultural operations have been
'
) The Williamson Act encourages
' until 1980.
Hov-
posals. For city proposals, Section 35046 (HOXCA) defines 1
.. .- criteria. - - tion proposal, virtuftlly no agricultural land would ba cmidctad
* "PoLentfally prlisdL agrfculLura1 land is doflnmd in tha "Clty of Carlsbad's Issue Identification and Oork kograa," pg. 9 (Adopted by San Diego Regional Coast Conmission, 7/7/78).
mile LUFCO is mandated through Government Code Sections 54774, 54796, and 54790.2 to encourage the preservation of designated Agricultural Presewes, prime agricultural land, land in agri- culturnl use, and open space land, thc Comaission has no authorsty to directly regulate land use or to initiate boundary changes. fnstcnd , thc Commission, in approving or disapproving an annexo- tion proposal, is authorized to consider that agency'o Ccncra1,or Specific Plan which bcst carries out the ngricultural and open apace policies established under Knox-Nisbet.
for MFCO's Fmplcmcncation of thesa policies, the affected
lnnd usc ngency first must hove identified prime agricultural lands and have developed measures to maintain designated agricultural lands in agricultural use. Consequently, it is both necessary and
reasonable that MCO insure these steps have been carried out by the affcctcd local govcrnmcnts prior to your Comlssion's committing a specific arccl of "prime agricultural land " or open space land to ugan uses as the result of annexation.
To provide a bnsis
Pol icz
0 .
2.
I 1. !. .. '
.
Tho Cdssion finds there ta need for a consistent definition of prima agricultural land by which to evaluate both city and diatrict-related proposals pur~uant to Government Code Section 54796, and to Implement: the policies set forth in
Section 54790.2. Accordingly, in determining whether a city or district-rekted proposal may affact prime agricultural
land,' the Comission ahall apply the definition of "prfme agricultural land" ca tablishcd undor Section 350t6 (MORCA) .
35046. "Prim: agticultural land" mons an area of land, vhcther a single parcel or contiguous pnrcols, which: (i) has not been developed for a use other than an agricultural use and (ii) meets any of the following qualifications:
(A) Land which qualifies for rating as clots I or class I1 in thc Soil Conservation Scrvice land use capability classification; (b) Lnnd Qhich qualifies for rating 80 through 100 Storie Index Rating; (c) Land which supports livestock used for the pro- duction of food and fibcr and which has an annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre as defined by tha United States Depart-
E?:?: af Agriculture in the Nat5onal Handbook on Range
pursuant to Public Law 46, December 1935;
I
* 3. .'.
' . .
.and ihlatcd Grazing Lands, July, 1967, developed
-3-
\
\
>\ (d) Land pfantcd with fruit or nut-bexrfng trees, vines, bushes or crops which have a nonbcaring period of less than five years and which will normolly return during the comcrchl bearing period on 4n annual basis from tho production of unprocessed agricultural plant production not less than two hundrcd dollars ($200) per acre; Land which has returned from the production of unprocesacd agricultural plant products in annual gross
value of nor less than tno hundred dollars ($200) p?r acrc for three of thc prcvlous five years;
cormncrcinl purposes.
(E)
(f) Land which is used to maintain livestock for
In considering tha land usa aopccts of a proposal purguant
to Section 54796(a) and applying the policies under Section 54790.2, the Commission shall determine whether thc affcctcd agricultural territory is classificd 01) "potcntiallg prime"* by the Coastal CommLesion or as "Good to Fair" for any onc of the five major crop types by the Son Diego County Soils Survey. Lands so classi- fied will be considered of significant agricultural value ond subject to tha policies established by Covernmcnt Code Section 54790.2, in the Conmission's discretion.
.
Annexutioa proposals leading to the conversfoo of prfme agricultural land or land in agriculturxl we during the past five years will be discouraged by the Cotmission unless tho affected land uoe jurisdiction (either cicy or .County) hfi~ accomplished the following:
(a) Identf fied "prim ngricu2tural lands" as defined in Section 35046 or any lands in agricultural
U~C ns defined in Section 51201(b) within their respective General Planning Area?,;
Dcloonstratcd to UIFCO that the ngcncy has adopted effective measures to maintain those lands identified in (a) €or agricultural use. include, but not be limited to, ercablishing Agricultural Pteserves pursuant to the California hnd Conservation Act, designating land for agricultural or compatible open space uses by means of that jurisdiction's general planning powers, public acquisition progroms, purchase- lease back arrangements, or ochtr feasible means;
(b)
Such measures may
8
*Reference pp,. 9, "Carlsbod Inroe Identification and Work Program, adopted Regional Coast Comisslon, 7/7/78.
'u d
(c) Prczoncd (City only) territory purauant to CovcrmPcnt code $act. S4790 (a)(3) within the agency's general plaanin8 area to bc'maintafned €or agricultural us4, and the annexa-
tion proposal Arcd te indicate the antfcfpated level of dcvclopment and thc level of serviccs which will bo required.
4. In reviewing an annexntion proposal which would lead to tho con- version of agricultural or open space land to urbon uses, the Cormnission will consider the following procedures and criteria to determine whether the annexation would (a) not adversely afPect the agricultural resouees of the community, and (b) would not lead to prmture, ,"leap-frog" development:
c Determination by thc County Agricultural &missioner of the agricultural significance of the proposal area relative to other agricultural lands io the region (soil, climate, and water factors).
(or capitalization of income value) Versus tho market
VR~W of the proposal area and surrounding parcels,
I - Detcnnhation by the County Asecssor of the use value
i
,! - Determiaation by LAFCO of:
(f) Whether there is agreement betveen the affactcd city and the county (based on adopted lnnd use plana and budget documents) that conversion of the territory from agricultural to urban r&sidentiol uses is appropriate and properly timcd.
(U) Whether public facilitiea would be extended through or adjacont to any other agricultural lands to provide services to the development anticipated on the proposal property.
(iii) Whether thc proposal area is adjacent to or surrounded by existins urban or
residential development.
'5.
'\ (v) Whather natural or man-made barriers would senre to buffer the proposal area from existing incompatible (urban) uses.
\
5. Follow€ng adoption of the Ssn Oiego County General Plan Agricultural Element, the Commission shall discourage an annexatidn proposal which is likely to result in the conversion to urbon use of those lands identified by the Agricultural Element a8 sui table for long-term agricultural use
*I
i
1
(iv) Whether surrounding parcels ma7 ba expected to develop to incompatible uses within the next five year&.
. -5- Revired 9/6/78 -4-
------ . - - ---- --r---.--_ . . -.--.T.---C-I-P--. ,--v
!. .
Subiec::
Purpo s e :
Discussion
AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION POLICY
.SAN DIEGO TAFCO
Disposition of annexation' proposals which involve
the conversion of agricultural or open'space lands
to urban uses.
To establish guidelines far the Commission's
implementation of Government Code Sections
54774, 54790.2 and 54796 (Knox-Nisbet Act).
These sections set forth priorities and policies
for LAFCO's maintenance and preservation of
agricultural and other open space lands.
The Knox-Nisbet Act (Government' Code Sections 54774 and 54796)
requires that LAFCOs consider the effect of maintaining the physicaL
and economic integrity of designated agricultural presentes when
determining an agency's sphere of influence or reviewing an
annexation proposal .
with respect- to agricultural and open space lands to be used by LAFCOs in reviewing, approving, or disapproving proposals: first,
that development shall be guided away from existing prime agricul-
tusal lands toward areas containing non-prime agricultural lands,
unless such an action would not promote the planned, orderly,
efficient development of an area; and second, that development
within an agency's existing jurisdiction or sphere of influence should be encouraged before approval af any annexation to that
agency which would lead to conversion of existing open space lands
to other than open space uses. State law provides no more speci€ic
criteria or guidelines by which to implement the agricultural and open space land preservation policies established by the
Knox-Nisbet Act. However, through Government Code Section 54774.5,
the Legislature directed that LAFCOs "establish policies and
exercise their powers ... to encourage and provide planned,
well-ordered, efficient urban development patterns with appropriate tt
consideration of preserving open space lands within such patterns.
Section 54790.2 establishes two policies
Documents issued by the San Diego County Department of Agriculture
and Integrated Planning Office, the San Diego Regional and State
Coast Cormnissions, and various other State agencies have established that San Diego County is a producer of statewide and national
Adopted Nov. 6, 1978 =1-
significance for tomatoes, avocados, and cut field flowers.
Through the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson
Act), the California Coastal Act, and .the Knox-Nishet Act, the
California Legislature has clearly established the priority of
preserving the state's most productive agricultural lands.
the Williamson and Coastal Acts have placed the responsibility
for identifying significant agricultural open space lands with
local general purpose governments and established standards by
which to identify such lands. The Williamson Act encourages that
local governments identify prime agricultural lands within their
jurisdiction by designating agricultural preserves. The Coastal
Act, through the Local Coastal Progkams, requires local agencies to identify both "prime agricultural land" and "potentially prime
Both
agricultural lands. 11
A
The Knox-Misbet Act requires LAFCOs to determine whether agricul- -
tural preserves or prime agricultural land would be adversely
affected if a proposed annexation were approved. However, the
MORGA and the Knox-Nisbet Act establish different definitions of
prime agricultural land for city and district annexation proposals.
For city proposals, Section 35046 (MORGA) defines "prime agricul-
tural land" as land qualifying under any of the five Williamson
Act criteria (soil quality and economic productivity) .
for district proposals, Government Code Section 54775 (p) -(Knox-
two Williamson Act soil quality criteria. This apparent incon-
sistency is eliminated when Section 35150 (end) is reviewed. It
states "Except as otherwise provided in this part (all of MORGA
is Part 2), such powers and duties shall be exercised in accordance
with the provisions of Chapter 6.6 (&ox-Nisbet Act is Chapter 6.6).
To the extent of any inconsistency between Chapter 6.6 and this
part,
However,
Nisbet) defines 11 prime agricultural land" in terms of only the
the provisions of this part shall control. 11
. 1. In determining whether an annexation or incorporatfon proposal
may affect prime agricultural land, the Commission shall apply
the definition of "prime agricultural land" established under
Section 35046 of MORGA.
2. Annexation or incorporation proposals which would allow or
likely lead to the conversion of prime agricultural
land or other open space land (as defined in Sections 35046 and
65560) to other ^&an open space uses shall be discouraged by
Adopted Nov. 6, 1978 -2-
-.. , . . * .- - - A the Commission unless L ,h an action would not prt Bte the planned,
orderly,. efficient development of an area, or the affected land use
jurisdiction (either city or county) has accomplished the following:
(a) Identified within its sphere of influence all "prime agricultural
lands" as defined under Government Code Section 35046;
(b) Demonstrated to LAFCO that effective measures have been adopted
to preserve for agricultural use those prime agricultural lands
identified in (a). Such measures may include, but not be
limited to, establishing agricultural preserves pursuant to
the California Land Conservation Act; designating land for
agricultural or other open space uses on that jurisdiction's
general plan, adopted growth management plan, or applicable
specific plan; adopting an agricultural element to its general
plan; and undertaking public acquisition of prime agricultural
lands for the purpose of leasing back such lands for agricultural
use;
Prezoned- (city only), pursuant to Government Code Section
54790(a)(3), both territory within the agency's general
planning area to be maintained for agricultural use, and also
territory within the annexdtion area to indicate anticipated
level of development .
a
(c)
3. In reviewing an annexation proposal which will lead to the conver-
sion of agricultural or open space land to urban uses, the_Commission will consider the following criteria to determine whether the annexa-
tion would (a) adversely affect the agricultural resources of the
conmmunity, or (b) not promote the planned, orderly, efficient
development of an area :
(a) The agricultural significance of the proposal area relative
' to other agricultural lands in the region (soil, climate, and
water factors);
(b)
(c)
The use value of the proposal area and surrounding parcels;
Determination as to whether any of the proposal area Is
designated for agricultural preservation by adopted local
plans, including Local Coastal Plans and the County Agricultural
Element;
(a) Determination of:
(i) Whether public facilities would be extended through or
adjacent to any other agricultural lands to provide
services to the development .anticipated on the proposal
property;
Adopted Nov. 6, 1978 -3-
- - (ii) Whethe. the propo:,al area is adjt nt to or
surrounded by existing urban or residential
developmeht
(iii) Whether surrounding parcels may be expected to
develop to urban uses within the next five
years.
.(iv) Whether natural or man-made barriers would
serve to buffer the proposal area from
existing urban uses.
Y
..
(Revised 10/17/78) Adopted Nov. 6, 1978 -- ---- ---..-.%P%-, "-----I
- -.vr--,", *- -____
AGRICULTURAL LANDS PRESERVATION POLICY
DEFINITIONS
A
The following California Government Code Sections will be cited.
in the Agricultural Lands Preservation Policy Those Sections are
reproduced here in full to enable the reader to more clearly
recognize LAFCO's responsibility for maintaining open space and
agricultural lands.
§ 35046. Prime agricultural land
"Pri.ule agricultural land" means an area of land, titiether a single parcel or contiguous parcels, which: (i) has not been developcd
for a use other than an agricultural use and (ii) meets any of
the following qualifications : *
(a) Land which qualifies for rating as class 1 or class I1
in the Soil conservation Service land use capability classification;
(b) Land which qualifies for rating 80 through 100 Storie
Index Rating;
(c) Land which supports livestock used for the production of
food and fiber and which has an annual carrying capacity equiva-
lent to at least one animal unit per acre as defined by the United
States Department of Agriculture in the National Handbook-on Range
and Related Grazing Lands, July, 1967, developed pursuant to
Public Law 46, December 1935;
(d) Land planted with fruit or nut-bearing trees, vines, bushes
or crops which have a nonbearing period less than five years and which will normally return during the commercial bearing period
on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural
plant production not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre;
(e) Land which has returned from the production of unprocessed
agricultural plant products in annual gross value of not less than
two hundred dollars ($200) per acre for three of the previous five years;
(f) Land which is used to maintain livestock for commercial purposes.
8 54774. Purposes; powers; sphere of influence; recommendations;
financial assistance
Among the purposes of a local agency formation commission are the
discouragement of urban sprawl. and the encouragement of the orderly formation and development: of local governmental agencies based
upon local conditions and circumstances; One of the objects of
the local agency formation comtnission is to make studies and to
.
obtain and furnish information which will contribute to the logical
and reasonable development of local governments in each county and
to shape the development of local governmental agencies so as to
advantageously provide for the present-and future needs of each
county and its communities.
In addition to its other powers the local agency formation commission
shall initiate and make studies of existjng governmental agencies.
Such studies shall include but shall not be ZijniteJ to inventorying
such agencies and determining their maximum service area and service
capacities. In conducting such studies, the commission lqay ask for
land use information, studies, and plans of cities, counties,
districts, including school district's, and regional agencies and
state agencies and departments. Cities, counties, districts,
including school districts, regional agencies, and state agencies
and departments, shall camply with the request of the commission
for such infoination and the commission shall make its studies
available to. public agencies and any interested person. making these studies, the commission may cooperate with the county
In
. planning commissions.
In order to carry out its purposes and responsibilities for planning
and shaping the logical and orderly development and coordination
of local governnientaf agencies so as to advantageously provide for
the present and future needs of the county and its communities,
the local agency formation commission shall develop and determine
the sphere of influence of each local governmental agency within
the county. As used in this section "sphere of influence'' means
LI plan for the probable ultimate physical boundaries and service
area of a local governmental agency. Among the factors considered
in determining the sphere of influence of each local governmental
agency the commission shall consider: I
(a) The maximum possible servfce area of the agency based . upon present and possible service capabilities of the agency.
(b) The range of services the agency is providing or could
(c) The projected future population growth of the.area. (a) The type of development occurr€ng or planned for the area,
provide .
including, but not limited to residential, commercial, and
industrial development.
(e) The present and probable future service needs of the area.
(f) Local governmental agencies presently providing services
to such area and the present level, range and adequacy of services
provided by such existing local governmental agencies
interaction betwmn the area within the. boundaries of a local
governmental agency and the area which surrounds it and whicll
could be considered within the agency's sphere of influence.
(8) The existence of social and economic interdependence and
--
I ..
(h) The existence of a: ricultural preseri es in tlic area which -A
could be considered within an agency‘s sphere of iiiflucnce and the
effect on maintaining the physical and economic integrity of such
preserves in the event that such preserves are within Y sph*rc ut’
it: Elumce of a local governmental ageniy .
The Commission shall periodically review and update the sphcrus
of influence developed and determined by them.
The spheres of influence, after adoption, shall be used by the
commission as a factor in making regular decisions on proposals
over which it has jurisdiction.
governmental reorganization to partlcular agencies in the county,
using the spheres of influence as the basis for such recommendations.
Such recornendations shall be made available, upon request, to
other governinental agencies or to the public.
The commission, or the board of supervisors on behalf of the
commission, is authori‘zed to apply for or accept, or both, any financial assistance and grants-in-aid from, public or private
agencies or from the state or federal government or from a
local government.
The commission may reco&end
-
6 54774.5. Urban development patterns; preservation of 2’
open-space lands
It is the intcnt of the Legislature that local agency formation
commissions- establish policies and exercise their powers pursuant
to this chapter in such manner to encourage and provide planned,
well-ordered, efficient urban development patterns with appropriate
consideration of preserving open-space lands within such patterns.
ci 54790.2. Conversion of open-space lands to other uses;
-policies and priorities
In reviewing and approving or disapproving proposals which could
reasonably be expected to induce, facilitate or lead io the
conversion of existing open-space lands to uses other than opcn-
space uses, the comniission shall consider the following policies
and priorities :
(a) Development or use of land for other than open-space uses
shall be guided away from existing prime agricultural lands in
open-space use toward areas containing nonprime agricultural lands,
unless such an action would not promote the planned, orderly,
efficient development of an area.
1.. ;,-a ;* .. k 2 SI I. A
* (b) Development existing vacant or nonpr .e agricultur,ll
'lands for urban uses within an agency's existing jurisdiction or
within an agency's sphere of influence should be encouraged bcforc:
any proposal is approved which would allow for or lead to the
development of existing open-space lands for non-open-space uses
which are outside of the agency's existing jurisdiction or out-
side of an agency's cxis'ting sphere of influence. s
8 54796.. Factors to, be considered
. Factors to be considered in the review of a proposal shall
include but not be limited to:
(a) Population, population densi'ty; land area and land use;
per capita assessed valuation; topography, natural boundaries,
and drainage basins; proximity to other populated areas; the
likelihood of significant growth in the area, and in adjacent
incorporated' and unincorporated areas, during the next 10 years.
(b) Need for organized corn unity services; the present cost
and adequacy of governmental services and controls in the area;
probable future needs for such services and controls ; probable
effect of the proposed incorporation, formation, annexation, or exclusion and of alternative courses of action on the cost and
adequacy of services and controls in the area and adjacent areas.
As used in this subdivision, "services" is to be construed as
referring to governrncntal services whether or not the services
are such as would be provided by local agencies subject to this
chapter, and as including the public facilities necessary to
provision of serivces .
(c) The effect of the proposed action and of alternative
actions, on adjacent areas, on mutual social and economic
interests and on the local governmental structure of the county.
.
effects with both the adopted commission policies on providing
planned, orderly, efficient patterns of urban development and
the policies and priorities set forth in Section 54790.2 of
this code.
(e) "lie effect of the proposal on maintaining the 'physical
and economic integrity of lands in an agricultural preserve
in open-space uses.
(f) The definiteness and certainty of the boundaries of
. the territory, the nonconformance of proposed boundaries with
c
(a) The conformity of both the proposal and its anticipated
. lines of assessment or ownership, the creation of islands or
corridors of unincorporated territory, and other similar mattars
affecting the proposed boundaries.
specific plans
be applicable to the proposal. being reviewed.
(g) Conformity with appropriate city or county general and
(h) The "sphere of influence" of any local agency which may
.- . . ,-:*a , .. * * -_ -
7 a 8 '65560. Definitions ..
(a) "Local open-space plan" is the open-space clement of ti I county or cite' i;eneral plan adopted by the board or council,
either as the local open-space plan Qr as the interim local
open-space plan adopted pursuant to Section 65563.
(b) "Open-space land" is any parcel or area of land or watcr
which is essentially unimpi-oved and devoted to an open-space use.
as defined in this section, an.d which is designatcd on a LOCQL,
regional or state open-space plan as any of the following:
(1) Open space for the preservation of natural -resources
includinq, but not limited to, areas required for the preservation
of plant and animal life, includink habitat for fish and wildlife
species ; areas required for ecologic and other scicntif ic s tiidy
purposes; fivers, streams, bays and estuaries; and coastal beaches,
lakeshores, ballks of riyers and streams, and watershed lands.
(2) Open space used for the managed production of resource's
including bGt 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; bays,
estuaries, marshes, rivers and streams which are important for
the management of commercial fisheries; and areas containing major
mtneral deposits, including those in short supply.
(3) Open space for outdoor recreation, including but not
limited to, areas of outstanding scenic, historic and cu-Itural
value; areas particularly suited for park and recreation purposes,
including access to lakcshores , beaches, and rivers and streams ;
and areas which serve as links between major recreation and open-
space reservations, including utility easements, banks of rivers
and streams, trails , and scenic highway corridors.
(4) Open space for public health and safety, including,
but not limited to, areas which require special management or
regulation because of nazardous or special conditions such as
earthquake fault zones, unstable soil areas, flood plains,
watersheds, areas presenting high fire risks, arcas required for the protect-ion of water quality and water reservoirs arltl
areas required for the protection and enhancement of qir quality.
A
Oral Summary LAFCO Ag Policy
It is not necessary to review the entire LAFCO staff report at
this time. However, there are a number of general conceptual
problems that should be addressed. Before any details of an agricultural
policy can be specifically addressed, the overall premise of what LAFCO
is proposing should be examined. Our primary concerns are the following:
1. LAFCO does not have the authority to expand the existing
definition of "Prime agricultural land".
2. LAFCO is attempting to impose land use controls indirectly, and thereby limit local-government decision making capabilities.
3. The City of Carlsbad is best qualified to determine those areas
in the community most suited to accomodate agriculture
within the context of the existing conditions. This is
evidenced by the establishment of the only agricultural
preserve in any incorporated City (in S.D. County) in Carlsbad.
(ECKE preserve - about 400 acres total)
4. If the state legislature finds that is necessary to pursue agricultural protection more intensly than at present, they
should develop statewide techniques, policies, definitions,
and legislation to accomplish that end. At present, the
legislature must consider the area identified as "prime" in S.D.
County and the techniques to preserve it adequate
5. LAFCO is making a primary mistake in its attempt to protect
agriculture. They are confusing field agriculture with open
space. They are not the same. Agriculture is a commercial
land use. Are they attempting to preserve only field
agriculture for its visual open space? How about greenhouses -
shown recently in Leucadia that residents object to greenhouses. LAFCO does not differentiate between attractive field flower production and intensified greenhouse carnation production.
will they meet the same needs as field agriculture. It has been
. .. SCO?E OF AC;HER43!T
The Regents of the University of California agree to provide the California
Coastal Conmission (hereafter called the Commission) with a study of specified
issues in coastal zone agriculture.
to use the.following agents to carry out the study: Tim Wallace, George GQldnlai
ad David Strong; the Conunission retains the right to refuse services offered by
other than the persons. designated above.
The Regents of the University also qree
SpecLfically, the Contractor shall submit the reports in accordance with the
athached rmrk prograin which is an integral part of this Agreeinent.
developed by the Contractor shall also become an integral part oil this Agreement;'
budget changes of over $5,ooc1 line items must be approved by the Arhinistrative
Officer of the Commission.
The budget
Tnis Agrement is deemed to be entered into in the County of San Francisco.
-- California Coastal Cmmission - .~
h
The work program is arranged by geographic arcas within the coastal zone., and
includes_the following tasks: .-
I
1. Tia Juana River Valley, in San Diego County.
a,
in the Ea Juana River Valley area within the coastal zone.
inc1ude.a review of the feasibility of the subsidization of agricultural
water costs by industrial developnent on parcels in the area.
shall be submitted in writing to the Commission no later thm August 15,
One report on .the current costs of water used for egricultural purposes ..
The report shall
. The report
b. One report on possible crops, based on soil t@es an3 wter quality
which could be raised in the Tia Juana River Valley, and the acreage require-
ments for those crops.
Comission no later than August 15, 1$78.
The report shall be submitted in writing to‘thc
2. Ehcinitas, in Sa. Diego County.
a. Progress reports reviewing documents which are generated in the Local
Coastal Program process, address- the existhg or proposed land use pat’r;ems
of the Ehcinitas areas within the coastal zone 5n.terms of the potential
consistency with the agricultural policies of the Coastal Act of 1976, and
b
are submitted to the Contractor by the Commission for review. The repo.rts
shall review the methodology ‘followed; assumptions taken, data relied upon, .
and conclusions reached in the submitted documents for consistency with the
generally accepted standards set in agricultural economics.
suggest, where possible, alternative methodologies, assumptions, and data
The reports shall
sources. Tne reports shall be submitted in writing to the Cmiission no later
~ .. .. .. .
. ..._ -:
-. . . .. .. Ij - 1- .~- A -=2
a. Progress reports reviewing docieiits which are generated-in the Local .-
Coastal Program process, address the eesting or proposed.land use patteks
.*7 I . ...
of the coa2tal zonk between Agua: Hedionda And Eatiquitos lagoons in"t;erms of
- '. - --
-- owed, assumptions ._ taken, data-
of t
the
of 3
The
.*7 I . ...
,he coa2tal zonk between Agua: Hedionda And Eatiquitos 1 -.
...
1 .- -I . - -. repohs shall review the methodology 'followed, -- assumpt ._
agoons in" .- - -- of the Coa
sion f0r.r
.-
ions taken . .. -
.. .. . .. ~
.- ., -- . --
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
I-
COUNTY OF SAN i-EGO -
Integrated Planning Office
County Admini-ration Center, 1600 Pacific Highway. !%an Diw, thlifornh 92101 . . . Tekphbnm: 2384597 PAUL C. ZUCKER
Aulstant Chid
Mrninirtratluo Officr
Intrprmtd Planning
August 29, 1978
Mr. James Hagaman
Director of Planning
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California .92008
Dear Mr. Hagaman:
I have reviewed the San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission's
Resolution of June 5, 1978, adopting the Sphere of Influence for the
City of Carlsbad.
as follows:
Recommendation (b) on Page 2 of the Resolution reads
"The City (should) adopt specific land use policies and
incentives to encourage the location of new residention
and commercial development on vacant or non-prime
agriculturd lands within the City prior to annexation
of existing open space or agricultural lznd within the
City's Sphere which would lead to the development of
such lands for urban uses.
in accordance with the Commission's responsibilities
under Government Code Sections 54774(h) and 54790.2)"
(This recomendation is made
I would like to coordinate our Agriculture Element and Coastal. PJ.an
projects with you in the area south of Carlsbad presently devoted to
annexations of agricultural land with Carlsbad's Sphere of Influence
should be reflective of City and County policies and incentives to
preserve and protect coastal agriculture.
I would like to suggest a meeting to gain a better understanding of the
City's.policy in this area.
Use Planning Director, at 236-2110.
/1
- agricultural use-. Our future recommendations to LAFCo regarding proposed
I If you concur, please contact Bud Gray, Land
Integrated Planning Office
PCZ : BC: kd . ..
_. i
-.
t
Cepitat Facilities Planning . . . Environmental Pbnning . . . bnd Use Planning . . . Transportation Planning -~
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
I 4
chairman at. Rex Gorton Pablic Member
executive officer
secretary
counsel
members:
linicliael J. Gotch .
Porter D. Crsmans
Donald L. Clark
r;dph W. Chapman
i:tay Municipal
uVater District
Torn Hamilton
!,<,unly hard of
Supervisors
:~i!ium J.. Kam . .;$brook Public I;itlity District
. iiip McClollirn
:'Ancilwomen, ..:,cy of Vista
..erlle V. ruloura
~~pervirors
AI Morgan \:yor, City of
:i'~ tionel City
.iJnty Eodrd of
iternate ..:inhers: . ' .
.,x L. Adamr
Water District
Padre Dam Municipal
Deli Leke Councilman, City of Lsmon Grove
Stanley A. Mshr i Ssn Mercor County Water pistrict
Lee R. Taylor County Board of Supervisors
(714) 236-2015 san dicga
coca1 acmcy formation commission
1600 pad IC highway san dicgo. ca. 92101
TO: Addressees
FROM: Execbtive Oificer
SUBJECT: Revised Agricultural .Lands Policy
Based on comments received during the past three
weeks, LAFCO Staff has revised the Drafr Agricultural
Lands Policy to address two main issues:
1, Estab1ish:wnt of a consistent definition of
prime agricL:Itural land's" for review of 11
both city aria district i-cinexa t ion proposals .
2. Clarification of local I overmrients ' responsilj11ities to ideilrify and protect
agricul tr7:al lands within their gc!icral
planning area. prior tu annexation of
agricultural or open space Lands.
This revised policy will be presented to the Commission
at .its September 11, 1978 meeting. If you have couunents
or suggestions rcllatiiig to this policy, please contact
Jay Stewart oE my Staff.
MICHAEL JUCG'EM
Executive Officer
MJC: : 33s : dg
Distribution List for Revised. Agricultural Lands Po1,icy:
' City Planning Directors
Carlsbad
Chula Vista
Coronado
' Del Mar.
El Cajon
Escondido
Imperial Beach
La Nesa
Lemon Grove
Piationa J.. City
Oceanside
San Diego
San Marcos
Vista
-.- -San Jli.e;=o County
IPO - Paul Zucker, Lee Vance
LUER - Jim Gilshian
RGM - Dave Nielsen
DOA - Ken Little, Tom Escher
Assessor's Ofiice - Ralph King
Comprehensive Plaiini rtg Organization - Stuart Shaffer "_..
San Diego Coast Regional Commission - Bruce Warren
i
California Coastal Commission - Jim McGrath
Fam Bureau - Charles Wood
Farm Advisor's Office - Vic Brown .-
---/.- .
Association of Resource Conservation Dists - Bob Dresselhaus
Office of Planning and Research - Peter Detwiler
Special Districts Advisory Cnnirxittce
Cities Advisory Comrnfttee
..
..
- . . . .. - .
.i l.
AGH ICULTURAL LANDS POLICY
SAN DIEGO LAFCO
Subject: Disposit' on of annexation proposals which involve
the conversion of agricultural or open space lands
to urban uses.
To establish guidelines for the Commission's imple-
mentation of Government Code Sections 54774, 54790.2
and 54796 (Kiwx-Nisbet Act). These statutes establish
priorities arid policies which are ai.med at the
maintenance and pxeservation of agricultural and
apen space l.mds for use by LAFCO in its delibcr-
ations.
- Dis cuss ion
The Knox-Nisbct Act (Government Code Sections 54774 and 54796)
requires that your Commission consider the effect of maintaining
the physical and econorntc intcgrity of designated agricultural
preserves when adopting an agency's sphere of inEluence or con-
sidering an aimexation proposal. Section 54790.2 establishes two
policies with respect to agricultural and open space lands to be
used by LAFCOs in reviewing, approving, or disapproving proposals:
First, that development should be guided away from existing prime
agricultura L lands toward areas containing rron-prime agricul t-ural
lands; and second, that development withfn an agency's exisl-ing
jurisdiction or sphere should be encoaraged before approval. of
any annexation to that agency which would lead to conversion of apen space or agricultural lands to urban uses. State law pro-
vides no more specific criteria or guidelines by which to imple-
ment the agricultural and open space laild preservation policies
established by Knox-Ni: bet. However, through Government Code
Section 54774.5 the Legislature directeld that LAFCO " establish
policies *and exercise powers ... to encourage and provide planned,
consideration of preserving open space lands within such patterns.
* well-ordered, efficient urban development patterns with appropriate
I1
Reports and policy docui,ients issued by the San Diego County Depart-
ment of Agriculture and lntcgrat,cd Plartiiing Office, the Sail Diego
Regional and State Coast Commissions, and various other State
agencies have established thn: Sail Diego County is a produ-er of
statewide and national signif i iance for tomatoes, avocados, arid cut
field flowers. While rota1 agricultural acreage may have actually
..
A -,
.'
4. I
incrcased in Sa; Diego County, new residential development h:t.i
continued to di ,place agricultural uses from existing
lands
forced to more margina? , less economical growing locations.
Accordingly, agricultural' producers have shifted to high income
specialty crops, and the variety of San Diego Cotlnty's agricul-
tura-; base has sroticeably narrowed'.
*
II prime''
The rrlsult is that agricultural opcratiu IS have bec.11
'
Through the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson),
the California Coastal Act, and the Knox-Nisbe-t Act, the Calif-
ornia Legislature has clearly established the priority of pre-
serving the state's most productive (prime) agricultural lands.
Both the Will.iamson and Ccas La1 Acts have placed the responsiblity
for identifying significant agricultural open space lands with
local general purpose governments and established standards by'
which to identify such lands.
that local governments identify prime agricultural lands within
their jurisdiction by designatjmg "Agricultural Preserves ," which
are those lands eligible for usc-assessment contracts (Section
51201(d)). The Coastal Act, thiough ihe Local Coastal Prograiiis,
requires locaF agencies to identify boch "prime agricultural land"
and "potentially priine agricultural lands" '(lands in agricultural
use within the last twenty ye;;r:;)ikwithin thcir jurisdictions. Few
local governments have designated Agri'cultural Preserves or
"prime agricultural lacds" within thpir jurisdictions' thus far,
and the i;ianclated Loci11 Coastal Progranis will not be completed
until 1980. Yet even where prirw lands may already be identified
the local jurisdiction-often has not designated appropriate
agricultural or open space land uses or zoning for the territory.
The Williamson Act encourages
The Knox-Nisbet Act requires LAFCO to determine whether
agricultural preserves 01- prime agricultural land would be
adversely affected if a proposed annexation were approved.
ever, IfOKGA and Kizox-Nisbet establish different definitions of
prime agricultural lane for city and district annexation pro-
pdsals. For city proposals, SecEion 35046 (MOICA) defines
:'prime Agricultural lard" as. land qualifying under any of the
five Williamson Act criteria (soil quality and economic pro-
ductivity). However, for district proposals, Government Code
Section 54775(p) (Knox-Nisbet) defines "prime agricultural
land" in ternis of only the two Williainson Act soil quality
criteria. I To complicate the task of identifying the productive
* agricultural lands, thcrcl are a variety of definitions used
by local, State, and Federal agencies for such agricultural
lands. These definitioiis include "prim , potentially prime"
good to fair," and "unique," which are applied differently
within and outside the Coastal zone.
How-
11 'I
11
* "Potentially prime" agricultural land is defined in the ."City of Carlsbad's Issue 1dentifica::ion arid Work Program, 11 pg. 9
(Adopted by San Diego Regional Coast Commission, 7/7/78). I
-. '.I .-
5, -,
While LAFCO is mandated through GoverrunckLLt Code sections 54774,
54796, and 5475.3.2 to encor rage the pyc.servation of designated
AgriculKural Preserves, prime agricultural land, land in agri-
cuitural use, and open spai' . !and, the Commission has no authority
to'directly regulate land use or to initiate boundary changes.
Instead, the Ccmni.ssiun, in approving or disapproving an annexa-
, tion proposal, Is authcrized to select that agency's General
Plan which best carries out the agricultural and open space
policies establkhed under Knox-Nisbct. To provide a basis
for IAFCO's impleinentation of these policies, the affected
land use agency first must have identified prime agricultural lands
and have devei.oped measures to maintas n designated agricultural lands
reasonable that LAFCO insurc) these steps have been carried out
'by the .affected local goverliments prior to your Commission
committing a specific parcel of agriculturally productive land
to urban uses as the result of annexation.
* . in agricultural use. Consequently, it is both necessary aid
Policy
1.. The Commission finds there is need for a consistent definition
by which to evaluate both city and -' of prime agricultural ?.and
dis tri-ct-related proposals pursuant to Government Code
Section 54796, and to implement the policics set forth in
Section 54790.2. kcordingly, in determining whether a city
or district-related proposal may affect prime agricultural
land, -the Commission shall apply the definition of "prime
agricultura; land" established wder Section 35046 (MOKGA).
35046. "Priix agricaltGra1 land" means an area of land,
whether a single p8lcel. or contiguous parcels, which:
(i) has not been developed for a use other than an agricultural use and (ii) meets any of the following
qualifications :
(a) Land which qualifies for rnting as class I or
class 11 in the Soil Conservation Service land use
capability classifization;
Storie Index Rating;
duction of food an4 fiber and which has an annual
carrying capacity equivalent to at: least one animal
unit per acre as detined by the United SLates Depart-
ment of Agrfculture in the National Handbook on Range
and Related Grazing Lands, July, 1967, developed
pursuant to Publfc Law 46, December 1935;
1
(b) Land which qualifies for rating 80 through 100
(c) Land which supports livestock used for the pro-
.. i
-. . .-
T,
(d) L~:-C: planted with frrjit or nut-bearing trees, vines,
bushes or zrops wh!'.ch havc a nonbearing period of less than
five years and which will nonnally return during the
commercia. jearing period on an annual basis from the
productior 3f unprocessed agricultural plant production
not less '..'-an two hundred dollars ($200) per acre;
Lai:d which ],as returned from the production of
unproces2 I' agricultural plant products in annual gross
value of nct less fihan two hundred dollars ($200) per
acre for ?hE,-ee of the previous five years;
commercia? Turposes .
(e)
(f) Lanri which is used to maintain livestock for
2. 1n.considcring the larid use aspects of a proposal pursuant
to Section S4796(a) and applying the policies under
Section 54790.2, the Commission shall detcnnine whether
the affected agriccltural territory is classified as
potentially prime"" by the Coastal Commission or as
"Good to Fair" for any one of the five major crop types
by the San Diego County Soils Survey. Lands so classi-
fied will be considered of significant agricultural value
and subject to the policies established by Government Code
Section 54790.2, if thc. Commission so determines.
II
.r
3. Annexatior proposals ff;ading to the conversion of prime
agricuLtura7- land or
past five years wi2-1 L
unless the affected land use jurisdiction (either city
or County) have accomplishec the 'following:
-:nd in agricultural use, during the
discouraged by the Commission
(a) Identified "prime agricultural lands" as defined
in Sc>clsion 35046 or any lands in agricultural
use as defined. in Section 51201(b) within their
respec tivc Cei-c~al. Planning Areas ;
Demonstrated to LAFCO that the ,igency has adopted
effective measures to maintain those lands identified
in (a) for agricultural use. Such measures may
inclutl 3 , but not be limited to , establishing
Agricvitural Preserves pursuant to the California
Land conservation Act, designating land for
agricultural or crmp:~:~ble opcn space uses by
means of that jurrsdi.ction's general planning
powcrs , public acquisition programs, purchase-
lease back arrangements, or oLlier feasible means;
(b)
t
2k Reference pg. 9, "Carlsbad Issue Identification and Work Program, adopted Regional Coast: Commission, 7/7/78.
-4-
- -
J 1. (c) Prezoned (City ocLy) territory wikhiri the agency's
generz.', planring a.rea to be maintained for agricultural
use, arid the annexation proposal area 'to indicate the
anticipated level of dzvelopment and the level of 7
services which will be required. - 3
4. Where the affected land use jurisdictions have satisfied
(3) above, San Dipgo LAFCO will accept for evaluation an
annexation proposal leading EO the couvers.ion of agri-
.cultural lands to urban or residential uses. In reviewing
* such an annexation proposal, the Cornmission shall apply
the following procedures and criteria to determine that
the aniiexatlon would (a) not adversely affect the
agriculturai resources of the community, and (b) would
not lead to premature, "leap-frog" development:
. - Determination by the County Agricultural Commissioner
of the agricultural significance of the proposal area
relative to other agricultural lands in the region
(soil, climate, and water fwtors).
- Determination by the County Assessor of the use value
(or capitalization of income value) versus the market
value of :he proposal area and surrounding parcels.
- Determination by LAFCO of:
(i) '%ether there is agreement between the
affected city and the county (based on
adopted land use plans and budget
uocuments) that conversion of the
territory from agricultural to urban/
residential uses is appropriate and
properly timed.
(ii) Whether public facilities would be
extended thnugh or adjacent: to any
other agricultural lands to provide
services to the development anticipated
on the proposal property.
(iii) Whether the proposal area is adjacent
to or surrounded ~y existing urban/
residential development.
(iv) Whether surroundirig parcels may be
expected to devcldp to incompatible
uses (as defined in Section 51201(c))
within the next five years.
t
' '*
-5-
(v) Whether natural or man-made 'barriers
would serve to buffer the proposal
area from existing incompatible
(urban) uses.
Where a combination of these factors indicates that the
agricultural uses of the property can be physically and
economically maintained, that the proposal area is a
I 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.
5----
-6- ..
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
August 7, 1978
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.
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,
It
The background report is divided
into the
I.
11.
; I110
IV 0
V.
following Chapters:
California Statutes Relating to Agricultural
Land Preservation
Agricultural Activity in San Diego County
Problems in Identifying Significant Agricultural
Lands
Factors Leading to the Conversion of Agricultural
Lands
Local and Regional Planning for Preservation of
Agricultural Lands and LAFCO Responsibilities
ri- %$#.
Staff Analyst:
7/27/78
.. MJG: JRS : rm
. ---.I ..
H
/- I.. California Statutes Relating to Agricultural Land Preservation
Knox-Nisbet Act
Three separate provisions within the Knox-Nisbet Act establish
LAFCO's responsibilities with respect to the preservation of
agricultural land.
Maintenance of Agricultural Preserves - Spheres (Sec. 54774)
In adopting a Sphere of Influence,
consider ... the existence of agricultural preserves and the
effect on maintaining ae physical and economic integrity of
such preserves if they are included within a Sphere.
the Commission shall
(2) Factors to be Considered in Review of Proposals (Sec. 54796)
"Factors to be considered (by the Commission) in the review of 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. 11
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)) :
II
rf 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: 1 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
>
-1-
f.
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 agriFultura1 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 I1 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-
(3) Open-space for outdoor recreation; 1
(4) Open-space for public health .and safety.
(Sec. 65560 paraphased)
. 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) .
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.
restricted to agricultural, recreational, open-space, or
compatible uses for a minimum period of 10 years.
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
Lands under contract are
As compen-
.
-3-
h ,
t! 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:
I? 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.
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 .
Such
The Williamson Act (Government Code Section 51201(c)) establishes
the following criteria to identify "prime agricultural lands"
which is eligible to be placed under use value contracts:
(1) All land which qualifies for rating as class I or
capability classifications.
* class I1 in the Soil Conservation Service land use
(2) Land which qualifies for rating 80 through 100 in
I' the Storie Index Rating.
(3) 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 . t
-4- ..
_.
H (4) 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 commercial bearing period on an annual
basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural
plan production not less than two hundred dollars
($200) per acre.
(5) 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:
Q 30241. Prime agricultural land; maintenance in
agricultural production
The maximum amount of prime agricultural land shall be
mhintained 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) agriculture prior to the conversion of agricultural
lands.
*
By developing available lands not suited for
(d) By assuring that public service and facility
expansions and nonagricultural development do not
impair agricultural viability, either throusli
increased assessment costs or degraded air and water quality. ..
--
c A'
(e) By assuring that all divisions of prinie 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.
. .. /.-- c
.
-6-
... I .
H
11. Agricultural Activity in San Diego County
Apricultural Preserves and Lands in Production1
Within San Diego County 411,000 acres are currently designated
Agricultural Presenre" lands, of which 89%, or approximately
365.,790 acres, is devoted to dry farming or rangeland. By
.comparison, only 138,605 acres are now hnder 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
I1
Based on this dat=a,only about ten percent of
11
The Williamson Act has not been employed
Prime" farmlands within the County was under Williamson II
Act contracts . 3
11 Acreage Qualifying as Prime" Farmland under the Williamson Act ._
Only six percent of the land in western San Diego region qualifies
as Prime" farmland under Williamson Act soils criteria (Class I
or 11 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-pyimg soils (Class 111).
I1
These are primarily
Acreage in Production Trends
The County Department of Agricult,ure 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 fanning (grazing, dairy, poultry)
California Apriculture, "Use Value Assessment," 3/77
Does - not include
..
Most observers attribute this increase to expanded avocado
planting on smaller,rural-residential estate -type lots,
particularly in North County. However, vegetable growing
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:
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
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 €or 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
0 Acreage 12,800 18,500
Toma to Value $26.7 million $55.8 million
Acreage 4,000 5,000
Nursery Value
Acreage
$16.6 million $68.7 million
not available 3,553
Production Costs (not available)
Production costs are currently the subject of a consultant
study for the County IPO .
I ..
W'
13,000
12,000
..
I1,OOO
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
PEAR
i
SAN DIEGO COUNTY VECETABLIS GROWING ACREAGE
I ...
I I I i.i I i.'
rn rD In VI 0 ? I A -3 ln OI
ob U vs
I
Points shown are three-ymr nvcrai:es,
Source: San Diego County
Dept. of Agriculture
-9-
-.
111 . Problems in Identifying Significant Agricultural Lands
"Prime Agricultural 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. Most agricultural land in production
within San Diego County falls in the Class I11 soils category
and therefore does not qualify from a strictly soils standpoint
as prime" Earmland under the Williamsan Act. Many agricultural
operations are usually intensive and small-scale and yet qualify
as
I1
I1 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, racing
soils as fair 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: lands which have the capacity
of being made prime through normal agricultural investment and
management practices.
I1
I1
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
z,ones 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
critical to the long term viability of agriculture within San
' Diego County. Anticipating substantial energy cost increases
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. .
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.
(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."
I?
(2) The Legislature's intent as expressed in Government
Code Section 54774.5 is that LAFCOs 'I.,,. establish
policies and exercise their powers pursuant to this
planned, well-ordered, efficient urban development
' chapter in such manner to encourage and provide
patterns with appropriate consideration of preserving open-space lands within such patterns. I1
(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 1AFCO:i.
Undcr such an approach the policies es tabl-ished 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
locations in San Diego County are of statewide
significance under both Williamson and Coastal Acts
definitions.
soils criteria contradicts the established significance
of San Diego County's role in California agriculture.
Due to this productivity, growing
To claim that such productive agricultural lands in San Diego County are not I1 prime" based on
"Prim& 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 Coinmission 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
hgve 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-
A -,
,I 'requirements for prgservation 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 TAFCO's conversion of valuable
agricultural lands which another agency may deem appropriate for
preservation.
II
I
.
I -4
' 1.
.(
. IV. Factors Leading to Conversion of Agricultural Land H
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 If
"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
I
If
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.
Parcel Size and Ownership Patterns
Property taxes on the affected
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
(perhapsless 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.
'
I4
.. -14-
(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.
area, where formerly productive flower fields have been removed
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.
These problems are evident in the Carlsbad
potential Coastal Zone development , from production due to
H
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 'e
San Diego County or 1 du/ac in the City of San Marcos.] Agri-
cultural designations of this type are really less restrictive
residential zones rather than true agricultural use zones.
such designations, parcels which surround agriculturally used
land can develop to more intense,
uses, resulting again in higher urban use values for the nearby
agricultural parcels.
Under
incompatible residential
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
vegetable crops are raised, residents may complain of noise from
machinery, dust;and pesticides.
air pollution, vandalism and trespass.
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.
areas can and should be maintained versus those which are more
suited for residential development in the long term. However,
*resident population creates for agricultural production. Where
Crops, in turn, suffer from
Historically, agricultural
.
To
The principal task is to determine which' agricultural
..
-15-
*. c H I
most local governments have not designated and mapped specific I
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
Some proposed programs
- 'land acquisition to the local government, along with the
probability that additional public assessments are required to
finance preservation programs. As an example, while there are
currently 55,000 acres of farmland in Suffolk County, New York,
the approved $SO 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 program 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 .
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
t
* California Agriculture, March, 1977.
-16-
- ?. H .. .
indicated that many counties were reaching a ceiling in land
likely to be placed under contract and conclude4 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. It is clear that
the Williamson Act by itself cannot be relied upon to maintain
and preserve existing productive agricultural lands.
The County Assessor's Office has reconfirmed
?
-17-
- -. .. .. .
V. Local and Regional Planning for Preservation of'.Agricultural
Lands and LAFCO Responsibilities
H
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. Once certifieqthe 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.
Element is not expected before July 1979.
Under provisions of the Coastal Act,
Currently the Coastal Commission and
Adoption of the Agricultural
. 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-
1 -.
I -. b
(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 agricul-~ural
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
fringe to residential uses.
which would
involving agricultural land 'may irretri- eveably commit an entire It 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 prior to committing any potentially
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.
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
land within an agency's Sphere of Influence.
adverse effects of including productive or I1 prime'' agricultural
-19-
AGRICULTURAL LANDS REPORT
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Analysis of Agriculture on the Oxnard Plain and the Urban/Rural
Interface, California Coastal Commission, South Central Coast
Region, 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.
Clawson, Marion, If Preservation of Prime Agricultural Land."
Environqental Comment, Washington, D.C. , January, 1978, p. 10.
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., 11 Keeping Farmers Farming. I1 Environmental Comment,
Washington, D.C.: January, 1978, p. 9.
Klein, John V.N., It 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 Frin,F;e Area: an Analysis of Suffolk County's Development Rights Purchase Program, Cornel1 University, A .E. Res . 77-3, Tthica,
iew York: March, 1977.
Local Agency Formation Commission, County of Santa Clara,
Guidelines and Policies, approved February 1, 1978, San Jose: 1978.
Mundie, Roberta M., "Managing Conflicts in the UrbanlRural Fringe.
Environmental Comment, Washington, D.C.: January, 1978, pp. 6-8.
11
I1 Sampsor, R. Neil , Environmental Comment, Washington, D.C.: January, 1978, pp. 4-6.
Development on Prime Farmland . I'
San Diego, County of, "Agricultural Referrals .I1 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 Plan" amendment 75-1D to
General Plan Land Use Element, adopted December 2, 1975, Tulare
County Board of Supervisors.,
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.
€i 51200 "Agricultural Land."
West's Annotates Government Code B 30000 "California Coastal Act
(New) ." Public Resources Code.
,
-21-
- -
PHONE 726-1340
P. 0. BOX 188 200 W. BROADWAY 8 VISTA. CALIFORNIA 92083
IAFm 1600 Pacific Highway
San Diego, CA 92101
October 18, 1978 OCT 20 1978
CITY OF CARLSBAO PIann i ng De pa rtmen t
RE: Draft Cararrission Policy - San Diego LAFYX)
Agricultural and open Space (Annsation)
Please accept sane of my reflections, cornnents and general corcerns regardm the
propsed referenced policy.
Since Propsition 13, the impact of such a policy is reduced because the Vista
City Council is generally taking a passive policy towards annexation.
to not encourage or discovrage annexations, ht to let the interested persons make the appropriate application and have the City require adequate fees arrd fiscal impact reparts b assure the annexation will not txlrden the City.
Also, because mst of the agricultural uses are generally outside our sews dis-
trict(s) , the prospects of macations in the near future remains slight,- Ha?-
ever, there are some ramifications of the policy that should be analyzed philo-
sophically, insofar as agricultural/op space uses and annexation to cities are
concerned.
That is,
It is clear that the agriculkral definition proffered is an all encompassing one, taking in many categories of land. It also appears that the philosophy behird
the policy is that agricultural use should rgOain in the County, while annexed
territory sbdd be inaxprated for urban developent; and consequently, identi-
fied significant agriculbnzd property should not be annsed into a city for any reason.
My first concern is that hecause of the prospect of having vacant land labeled significant agricultural land, "interim" agricultural uses on the City fringe tmld he discouraged. A person desiring to hold land for developent 5n the fut- ure, muld be reluctant to use it agriculturally in the interim for fear it would
later prevent him from follaving up on his original plan; and secondc I have res-
ervations about the Urban-City/Rural-County philosophy. like Vista is a mi-rural comnznity that needs and desires agricultzlral uses to ccmplement its chosen kge. Clusters of agricultural residences can be aSSbI6-
late3 into a ccxmunity; they can require and use City services and prticipate in a local govemnt to protect their way of life. The respective City Councils
of the county are equally capable of preserving agricultural use, as is the Bonrd of Su,oervisors.
There is an issue of assurance necessary if agricultural land is to be annexed
to a city, ht reasonable annmation conditions could ensure that the agricul- tural integrity would not be hediately destroyed.
In my opinion, a city
i "
__ . m 2. October 18, 1978
Obviously, San Diego County has products that cannot easily he gram elsewhers
(nust notably, avocados). ize.
in these cases.
These uses mist be protect& ard not allow4 to urban- Considerable effort need be employd ~ arrive at a just taxation program
In other cases, the passage of Proposition 13 skmvld reduce developnent pressure on vacant land sanewhat. Interim aqricultural uses shauld be encouraged and ad-
dressed in the proposed @icy.
At least all of us seem to desire the same end product.
very truly yourst
William H. (;utgesdl
Director of Plannhg
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
L61 R. Taylor Cwotv brd of hw-
AU~US~ 7, 1978
Ref: CA78-10
TO: Local Agency Formation Commission
FROM: Executive Officer
S taf E Analyst
SUBJECT: Proposed “East Carlsbad (2.27) Annexation”
to the City of Carlsbad
Subinitted by petition oE Robert Sonneborn for Chandler-
Zimmerman investments is a proposal to annex 186 acres
to the City of Carlsbad. Annexation would provide for
the extension of municipal services to the area and allow
for subsequent development. The location of the territory
is: north of Palomar Airport Road; east of El Camino
Heal; 2nd south of Route 78 and Rancho Carlsbad Road.
The territory is a portion of a large unincorporated
island surrounded by the City of Carlsbad.
The property proposed for annexation is an area known
as the “TootsLe ‘K’ Ranch.” The Tootsie K Ranch
property is open, hflly land with slopes ranging from
5 to 25 percent.
east segment of the property, the views to the south and
east toward the undeveloped hills and canyons are
unobstructed. Visible from the highest one-third of
the property is the Palmar Airport to the southwest.
From the higher elevations in the north-
Approximately 50% of the land proposed for annexation is
currently vacant.
agricultural production. Adjacent territory to the
north is also under agricultural production. Rrritory
to the east and south is vacant, to the west of the
Ranch arc some scattered rural residences. The closcst
significant residential development is a small mobile
home park located on El Camino Real, approximately 1?~
milea northwest. The mobile home park is surrounded
an all sides by vacant land.
The remaining 50% is used for
.. "'East Car'lsbad"
August 7, 1978
Page Two
- ,- 3'
Extending southeasterly along the property is the Dawson Los Monos
Canyon Reserve. The Dawson Los Monos Canyon Reserve is one of 23
such reserves in the Natural Land and Water Reserires System managed
'by the University of California.
to maintain. undisturbed natural habitats and outdoor laboratories
oE the ecological process as long as possible. The Dawson Reserve,
established in 1965, is one of the original reserves in the system.
The reserves have been protected
. The Environmental Impact Report prepared €or the proposed East
Carlsbad annexation states :
'The unique value of the reserve centers upon the bio-
logical resources of Los Monos Canyon.
supports a perennial stream; dense southern oak wood-
land-riparian woodland; and surrounding, dense chaparral
* and coastal sage shrub stands. The number of permanent
water sources within the coastal region is extremely
limited and only a small fraction of these have sus-
stained minimal human disturbance. Dawson-Los Monos,
then, represents literally one of the last opportunities
within coastal San Diego County to preserve an undis-
turbed functional example of coastal/riparian/oak/shrub
community.
The canyon
The current County General Plan- designation of the Ranch property is
medium residential, which would allow subdivision of the land. How-
ever, the County zoning of the territory is A-1-8 (Agriculture),
. requiring a min-imua lot size of eight acres.
The City Gener'al Plan designation of the area is residential low
medium, which allows a density of 0-4 dwelling units per acre.
The City has prezoned the territory LC (Limited Control). City
planning staff indicate that the likely zoning to be placed on
the territory after annexation will be RE (Residential Estates).
a minimum lot size of one acre and places certain other lot size
restrictions according to slope.
There is one major consideration associated with this proposal
which your staff feels should be of crucial concern when determining
. the appropriateness of annexation at this time. Annexation of this
territory is the prelude to development. Development of this land
wiZZ irreversably eliminate the current agricultural production of
. an estimated sixty to eighty acres. Perhaps even more important
than the loss of this particular agricultural land, is the precc-
dent which will be established and the resultant pressure that
the development of this area will have on surrounding open-space
and agricultural lands in the Carlsbad unincorporated islands.
. This is a new zone, recently approved by the City, which requires .
\
* "'East Carlsbad" 1 August 7, 1978
.Page Three ,.
3
The territory proposed for annexation is within the City of Carlsbad's
Sphere of Influence adopted by your Commission in June of this year.
Your Commission, in approving the Sphere of Influence for the. City,
adopted specific policies to mitigate the potential impacts of
including additional open space and agricultural lands within the
City's Sphere, and to "discourage annexations which might premaurely
cormit productive agricultural lands in the Carlsbad Sphere to
rcisidential or urban uses." At that time, your Commission directed
Staff to prepare a proposed policy to address annexation of productive
agricultural lands within the City's sphere. This draft policy is
included in your agenda for review. An agricultural background c
report has been prepared which outlines major concerns regarding
,our agricultural lands in California and in San Diego County.
AGRICULTURE IN THE PROPOSAL AREA
The most predominant agricultural commodity grown within the Carlsbad
Agricultural Subregion is tomatoes. Fresh market tomatoes are the
most valuable food crop produced in San Diego County, and the county
is a large contributor to the nation's fresh market tomato industry.
Sixteen percent of the national tomato production is grown in San
Diego County, on only 4% of the national tomato growing acreage.
Sophisticated production methods and the County's, native physiographic
advantages combine to produce a higher per acre yield, and because the
climate allows production during the off-season, a higher price per
unit volume contributes to the great economic value of this crop.
The centers of this prolific agricultural enterprise are the coastal
areas around O'tay Mesa in the south and Carlsbad in the north.
According to the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the County's
Regional Growth Management Plan, these areas serve as the centers for
tomato production because the climate-soil conditions found there
simply do not exist elsewhere. that acreages in San Diego County which are used to produce tomatoes
will also produce other coastal dependent fresh market vegetable
craps such as "snap" or green beans, cabbage, cauliflower; celery,
cucumbers, peppers, lettuce, soft squash and strawberries, which are
also grown €n the Carlsbad area.
the same. "agricultural environment .I"
Approximately 2,600 acres of an estimated 4,000 acres of land in
agricultural production in the Carlsbad General Plan Area is
cultivated for tomatoes.
78,000 tons of tomatoes in 1977, ox: 47% ot the County's total pro-
duction. The following chart, provided by the County Deparfincnt of
Agriculture, shows thac the Carlsbad area' is responsib1.c for tile
The Department of Agriculture notes
All these crops require essentially
The entire subregion produced approximately
.' -3 9 "East Carlsbad"
August 7, 1978
. Page Four
* production of 8% of the nation's supply of tomatoes, grown on only
2% of the national tomato producing acreage.
tomato 'production generated a gross value of $26,343, ZOO.
In 1977 Carlsbad
.
county 165,000 16% 48% 30 tons 5,500 4% 18%
Zarlsbad
Sphere
Area' . 78,000 8% 23% 30 tons 2,600 2% 8.8%
- -
The character of agriculture is shaped by four primary elements; soils,
climate, water and an increasing- population.
elements in San Diego County is discussed in the agricultural back-
ground report prepared for this agenda. The property proposed for
annexation may also be generally assessed in relationship to these
four factors.
The impact of these
Soils -
The predominant soils found in the area are cieneba coarse sandy loam
(ClD2) and (ClGZ), and Bonsall sandy loam (BZC). The cieneba series
of soils is characterized by excessively drained, very shallow to
shallow course sandy loam.
avocados, range, wildlife habitat, recreational areas and watershed.
The C1D2 soil is rolling to hilly; runoff is low to medium'and the
erosion hazard is slight to moderate. The Bonsall series soils
consist of moderately deep sandy loams with a heavy cloy subsoil.
Bonsall soils are used chiefly for range. Small acreages are used
for dry formed barley, irrigated citrus, tomatoes and flowers.
BlC is gently sloping to moderately sloping soil on concave slopes.
Neither of these two soil types is rated good or fair for truck
crops or tomato growing under the,San Iliego County Soils h.~rvey
(see figures 1 & 2).
Cieneba soils are used primarily for
.i ...... ...... .... ..,_ ........ ~ - ._.I ........ ..............
.h -
3
FIGURE I
..
I
__ .- *-
* 0- General location of the soil types found on'the
. _. Tootsie K Ranch.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conscr%ition Service, Map 22,
Based on the Soil Survey for-San Dj.ego Count.y,
San Luis Rey Quadrangle. No scale..
Source :
Environmental Impact Rcport for the
Too tsic I< Ranch Prezoning & Anncxat ion
City of Carlsbad Planning Dept.
c i'
FIGURE If
CROP S UI TAB I LXTY .
t
i' Only arable soils are listed. Dashes indicate that the soil. is poorly suited or not suited t'o the specified crops. versely affect suitability for a specified crop. Numeral 1 refers to slope; 2 to surface layer texture;-7 to permeability rate: and 9 to depth to hard rock, or a hardpan, or ony 1aye.r that restricts perrneqbility. sified as agricultural land. , considered to be "prime" agricultural soils.
Numerals indicate soil properties or qualities that.ad-
A soil rated good or fair for any one crop is clas-
Only soils with a Capabilityit rating of I or IS are
SOIL TYPE CAPABILITY UNIT CROP SUITABILITY Avocados Citrus Truck Crops Tomaroes Flowsrs
B1C Fair9 !
~airg C1D2 ?air9
CIG2 VfIe-l(l.9) Fair
Cn2 : Fair . . Cieneba VIe-7 (19)
Fa 11 brook Vie-7 (19)
Rock 9~t- crop VIIIS-l(l.9)
Val3
VaC
vsc
A+D
IIe-I (19) Good Goad. Good Fair2 Good . *,
)I
i ! Good Good IIe-l(l9)
1 .. Good Fair9 Fair' Fair' CoOd
:J
Faid
r
Source: i
Environmental Impact Report for the
Toutsic K Ranch Prezonins 6 Annexation
City of Carlsbad Plmning kpt.
d
. , .. . . . . . . , . .. . . . -.--. .-- . ._ -_..-_- .. - ..
# c - .. *.
L, "East Carlsbad"
August 7, 1978
Page Five 3
\ . Two other soil types complete the overall soil characteristics of
Vista course sandy loam (VsC). Both these soil types have. either
.the subject; property, These are Visalia sandy loam (VaB/ VaC) and
t# good'' or fair" ratings for each of the five major crops grown 1:
in the county.
Climate
Climate is the primary reason for successful agriculture production
.coastal plains, which has the most equable climate of any area of
the County, As is noted in the agricultural policy background
report, it is not by coincidence that fresh vegetable crops arc
confined to the coasfxl area.
produces conditions in the maritime and coastal plains which are
especially mild, and allow the production of vegetable crops during
months when few sections of the country can produce such crops
outside greenhouses. Moderate temperatures prevail in this area
with a frost-free growing season that ranges between 280 and 360
days per year. Sloping areas, which have the best air drainage and
least: amount of frost: are best for growing avocados, citrus,
vegetables and other frost-sensitive crops. Annual rainfall ranges
from 10 to 16 inches; fog along the coast contributes humidity to
the amsphere which reduces loss of moisture by transportation.
Water
Water for this area is supplied by the Carlsbad Municipal Water
District. The district charges its residential customers 33~ per 100 cubic feet and irs agricultural customers 22~ per 100 cubic feet. .
.* Xn order to qualify for the agricultural rate several criteria must
be met: there is to be no residential unit connected to the meter;
the parcel must be at least five acres in size; and, the land must
yield a product that is sold.
' in San Diego County, The subjecc property is located in the
The County's southern location
-
' Population Pressures
5 While urbanization pressure is not the oiily reason for the decline
in productive crop acreages in San Diego County, it certainly. exerts
a strong influence. The Carlsbad area is experiencing phenomenal
. growth pressures due to inmigration. The City of Carlsbad had an
estimated population of 23,300 in January, 1977 with a population .
growth rate between die years 1970-77 o€ 57%. The Comprehensive
Planning Organization's proj ectcd population for thc City in 1995
is 60,900, with a corresponding growth rate between the years 1977-95
of 161% -- the second highest growth rate projected for citics within
the county,
I
-------- -... ---_ ~
~ - ----.. . -4 .. .+
' ' - "East Carlsbad"
August 7, 1978
. Page Six *3
\ - To accommodate the increased population growth in the Carlsbad
area, land which is currently under agricultural 'use or lying
fallow will need to be converted to urban uses.
arise during this process, and which must be addressed by all
involved agencies at the local, regional and state levels, include asking what: patterns necessary development should follow and what,
if any, lands should be preserved due to their value as important:
local and regkonal resources.
Questions which
E;
The purpose of annexation of this property is to allow development.
It is estimated by the property owner chat 108 homesites will be
developed on the 186 acres (average lot size 1.72 acres).
result of development: would be the conversion of agricultural land
to residential use. An estimated 60-80 acres of productive lands
would be lost as a result of development,
nately,4% of the estimated tomato-growing acreage in the Carlsbad
Gener J. Planning Area,
An additional concern which must be considered in the determination
of this proposal is the precedent it will establish and the
* ' resultant pressures that new development in this area will have on surround3ng eerritory and other agricultural Lands. The EIR
. for this annexation proposal outlines the' latter problem:
The
This represents approxi- .
At325
- Growth Inducement. Prezoning the subject property for
.. . residential use and then annexing it to the City of
Carlsbad. can be considered grow&-inducing.
El Cmino Real is the eastern boundary of the coastal
zone, pressure to develop lands east of El Camino Real
already runs high. Therefore, annexation carrying a
. residential zone will. most probably lead to development
on the Tootsie K Ranch property. This would, in turn,
induce development of neighboring parcels
Residential developments are growth-inducing largely
Since
*
1
.. .. .
1. ,
because they increase *population in a localized area.
Growing populations require corresponding quantitative
increases in c0nrmunit.y services, employment opportunities,
and commercial facilities and extension of utilities
nearer to previously uninhabited land.
Tootsic K Ranch area will, ultimately require expansion of
some utility facilities and communi-ty services not yet:
extant in that area. This expansion nuy spur further
Growth in the
e.. 4 .. * - . - "East Carlsbad"
5, August 7, 1978
Page Seven
development.in surrounding areas.
, Services which the City will be required to provide include fire
protection, law enforcement and street maintenance , A City fire
station is located on Chestnut'and El Camino Real approximately
2% - 3 miles from t7he territory.
response time for fire, Police response times are estimated at 4 to 7 minutes For emergency calls.
New access roads will be necessary to support development on the
Tootsie K Ranch,
time is SUMY Creek Road, a dirt road extending from El Camino
'Real, west of the proposal property. City planning staff have
.indicated that this road would be abandoned as an access road and
probably will be converted i.nto a horse trail,
be developed, most likely from the south.
provided to the property, they will necessarily extend through
currently vacant territory, which will provide access for further
expansion of residential development in the area.
The City estimates a five-minute
The single access to the property at the present
New access would
Whatever roads are
Even when new development docs not require the extension of new
residential facilitics and services, conflicts almost always arise
where agricultural lands and residential areas are in proximity,
which create pressure for further conversion of existing neighboring
agricultural lands.
farming often causes to nearby homeowners, and problems which a
new resident population creates for agricultural production. As
noted in your agricultural background report, where vegetable crops
are raised, residents may complain of noise from machinery, dust
and pesticides..
and trespassing, Annoyed citizens may not consider that farming
operations contribute to the well-being of the caminunity and that,
particularly in San Diego County, unique climate features require
that certain crops can be grown only in certain locations.
These conflicts arise, from the annoyance
C~ops, in turn, suffer from air pollution, vandalism
COMMISSION RESPONSIBILITY FOR P~~ESERVATION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS
\
The State of California has expressed the need for prescrvation of
agricultural lands and open-space in much of its legislation.
agricultural background report discusses in detail the responsibility
which is placed directly on LAE'CO under four separate starutory
provisions in the Knox-Nisbet Act.
express legislative concern for open-space and agricultural lniids,
Your
These statutory provisions
. cncouraging LAFCOs to consider cLoscly e1iei.r importnncc when
. dctcrniining policies and caking, actions which affect: land-use
..
..
..
..
. ,"East Carlsbad"
August 7, 1978
Page Eight
patterns.
utilizing developable land within City boundaries prior to lands
outside the City, creates a more logical, preferrable land-use
pattern. This coincides wiCh the Legislative declaration of the
California Land Conservation Act, advocating the discouragement of
if premature and unnccessary" conversion of agricultural land
(California Government Code 8 51220).
It is .clear that contiguous residential development,
CITY AND COUNTY DESIGNATIONS OF IWORTANT AGRTCULTURAI, LANDS
The City of Carlsbad has addressed Agricultural lands in the
Open-Space and Conservation Element of tlhe City's General Plan.
The following is excerpted from that plan:
Objective:
.agricultural. land and preserve said lands wherever feasible.
To prevent the premature elimination of prime
. Guidelines:
1. -_.
2.
..
3.
4.
Urban development should take .place in those areas that:
are the least: productive.
Agrhxltural use should be encouraged as a permissible
land-use in those areas designated in this document as
open space.
The City should support and utilize all measures available,
including the Williamson Act, designed to reduce the
financial. burdens on agricultural land, not only to
prevent pGemature developments, but also to promote the
economic viability of lands permanently zoned €or
agricultural uses.
Proper design criteria should be utilized to maximize
the preservation and future options of prime agricultural
lands .
I
More recently the City has been required by the Coastal Commission
to closely examine preservation of agricultural lands in the.
Coastal zone during preparation of the City's Local Coastal Plan. In addition, the pennit from the Coastal. Conmission for the expansion of the Encina Wastewater Treatment Plant has been conditioned
upon not extending sewer service for development within the
agricultural and steep slope .exclusion area as designated by the
Coastal Conmission, except sewer service necessary to support I1
.. . -I. . . . . ._ . -..- ~ ..__ ., . . .- . . .. -- -- -. ..
-4
,.&.
-.
4 3 , "East Carlsbad"
August 7, 1978
. Page Nine
h existing or proposed agricultural uses or to. proposed developments
which have received all necessary coastal development: permits.
..-
I1 .
The City of Carlsbad is re-exakining its valuable agricultural
lands for an additional purpose. The City Council is currently
considering a water reclamation program,
reclamation .raises the issue of conserving agricultural lands
which can benefit from the reclaimed water. Agricultural lands
will be an important element in such a program because the reclaimed
water may not be used for domestic purposes and there must be a market for the water once reclaimed.
The potential Cor
* The CoAty of San Diego is also in the process of examining the
preservathn of agricultural land.
currently preparing an Agricultural Element for the County General
Plan.
Supervisors on June 6, 1978, which outlined the assumptions upon
which the Agricultural Element will be based.
the report and adopted the staff assumptions as the basis for
continuing work on the Agricultural Elentent (these are outlined in your agricultural background report). This elenlent of the
General Plan wil.1 identify, using physical, cultural and ecor~omic
criteria, which areas of the county are mast; suited for long-term
agricultural production.
The IPO report: approved by the Board of Supervisors indicated that
the existing trends of urban development in San Diego County pose
Integrated Planning smff are
A preliminary staff report was presented to the Board of
. The Board approved
t
' a.direct threat tx agricultural production in the county, thar
. some areas in San Diego County are better suited for agriculture
. than others, and that the County nay reduce the threat of develop- mentin agricultural areas by developing a growth strategy which
. limits *leapfrog' development. This corresponds once again with
the ph€losophy that contiguous residential, industrial and
, commercial development. promotes efficient use of land resources; whereas and suburban sprawl, prematurely committing important land resources for development purposes. \
tf
11
11 leapfrog," or non-contiguous development encourages urban
Your StafE referred this proposal to the Integrated Planning Office
for review and comment with refererice to the Agricultural Element
now underway.
proposal territory appears to meet the criteria developed to date for lands to be protected by the proposed Agricultural Element.
Tlzh comment: is, however, based solcly upon the approved physical
and cultural. criteria. IPO staff is in tlie process of a.n analysis
of economic criteria, the third factor in cletunnining which lands
should ba SO dusignated in the General Plan. TPO estimates that
Integrated Planning Office staff indicated that the
, F. "East' Carlsbad"
'August 7, 1978
Page Ten
this task will. he complete in October of this year.
As your Cormnission is aware, the County is in the process of
preparing a growth management strategy,
comments from the County's Office of Regianal Growth Management
with respect to this proposal, The following comments were
offered by that department:
i..
Your staff requested
- Our Local Government: Structure Policy designates this
area as Urban Development Area with Potential to Annex,
- The Regional GrowthManagement Land Use Plan designates
the area as a future Urban Development Area (FUDA) in order
to reserve the island for development at: the City of
Carlsbad's discretion,
.
3
- The area was also designated FUDA because it received
'a Low rating as a Candidate Growth Area in our preliminary
analysis last October.
existing access; the lack of sewer capacity; the presence
of high quality (tomatoes) agricultural activity and the
growth inducing effect of development of any island before
more than 80% of the undeveloped areas already within
Carlsbdd are improved.
This was due to its relative
. isolation from existing urban development; the lack of
These remarks indicate that the East Carlsbad area is an area which,
when developed, should be developed under the jurisdiction of
the City of Carlsbad. Once again, however, the question arises
concerning the appropriateness of development at this the of an
area which is non-contiguous to existing development, while much
vacant territory is available €or development within existing
City boundaries ,
The Comprehensive Planning Organization reports that in 197 5 the
City of Carlsbad had a- total of 18,362.88 acres within its boundaries.
A total of 12,271.35 acres was developed, including: residential,
commercial, manufacturing development; public and military development;
lands designated for recreation and open-space and wildlands
preserves; and alL Land under agricultural production. The xotal
vacant: territory available ~ for development within the existing
City boundaries included 6,091.53 acres. Of that vacant territory,
1,531 acres is currently sewer served" (within a reasonable
dismnce eo a miin for lateral hook-up). , '
I1
The concluding remarks in the 'Regj:onal. Growth Management referral
letter specifically addressed the presen.t agricultural use in
the proposal area.
preparing an Agricultural. Element for incorporation into the
.Noting that the County 5.s in the process of
+ -@'Ea s t Carlsbad" i- +. .. . August 7, 1978
Page Eleven .
General Plan, it: was recommended that our analysis of this
proposal include a discussion of this issue.
o'r H E: rt CONS I DERA TIO NS
It is clear thac Staff believes that your Commission has a
responsibility with respect to preservation of agricultural land
in this county.
by encouraging orderly land-use patterns and discouraging
leapfrog or noncontiguous development of areas outside existing
city boundaries when substantial land within city boundaries is
available for development. There are, of course, other factors
to be considered concerning this proposal.
The East Carlsbad area, or Tootsie K Ranch, is nut contiguous to
any existing development,
Ranch the coastal development of the City of Carlsb'ad can be seen
about two miles west. To the south, approximately three miles is
the Rancho La Costa development.
development which begins approximately bo miles to the north in
the Cities of Vista and Oceanside, and San Marcos development which
lies approximately four miles easterly from the property.
We feel that this responsibility can best be met
11 (1
Standing at the highest point on the
Not visible from the Ranch is
Development is in the planning stage for some areas around the
Tootsie 'k" Ranch (see Figure 111).
€or development of approximately 1,500 homes on 409 acres has received
approval from the City of Carlsbad. prepared under old City ordinances, is in the process of being revised
for resubmission to the City. No specific subdivision permits have
yet been filed for.
South of the Carlsbad Oaks planning area is a second masterplan area,
Carillo Ranch. This comprises approximately 800 acres and is
planned primarily for low medium to medium high residential uses.
North of the Tootsie K Ranch, approximately two miles, is the
Calaveras Hills masterplan area, also approved by the City.
The status of the timing of the development proposed in e&h of
the masterplan areas in the City of Carlsbad is uncertain because
of a lack of sewer capacity in the area. Insufficient capacity
. available at the. Encina Wastewater Treatment Plant has necessitated
a City sewer moratorium, and there is no indicacion at this time
of when the plant may be expanded.
To the southeast a masterplan
(Carlsbad Oaks). The masterplan,
.
. ..
..
FIGURE IT1
PLAN N ED D EVE LO I’M ENT S
. . ._ - ... - - , . . . . *# . . , "East Carlsbad" .. August 7, 1978
. Page Twelve
.. i.
4
a.
The &laveras Hills developers have proposed the use of a
satellite treatment plant. This proposal has initiated study
.. by the City of the possibility of developing a satcl.lite treatment
plant which would incl udc a sys tc?m for water rcclann tf on.
dternativc will rcquirc datai1c.d rt'scwrch and, if acccptcd by
the City, niust go through a lengthy process of City review and
pemiirs. It: will be some time in the future before it will be
known if this is a viable alternative for Carlsbad developments.
'111i3
-.
.A
- If the Encilia Wastewater Treatment Facilities are to be used to
' provide sewer sewice to the Carlsbad Oaks masterplan area (proposed.
development closest to the Tootsie K Ranch property), major
line which is planned to serve this area of the City, the South
Agua Hedionda Interceptor, is not projected for completion until
some time after 1995. Stages 5-9, including the western portion of
the line and the pumping station, are projected to be built between 1990 and 1995. Stages 1-4, the eastern portion.of the interceptor,
are-projected for construction between the years of 1995 and 2000
(see Figure IV).
Upon construction of the South Agua Hedionda Interceptor, the
upstream 3,000 feet of the North Agua Hedionda Interceptor will
be abandoned.. The South Agua Hedionda system will connect with
.the Calaveras interceptor system to the north.
are shared by the Vista Sanitation District and the 'City of Carlsbad.
The total cost to construct the South Agua Hedionda system (including
pumping station) is estimatcd at $3,791,258. The City of Carlsbad
portion of the cost amounts to $3,396,300.'' Although construction
dates and costs are estimates, this infonnation indicates that ic
is highly unlikely 'that the South Agua Hedionda Interceptor System
will be constructed at any time in the near future, which will defer
planned development.
* construction of new sewer lines will be required. The interceptor
.
Both these systems
The proponent: for the proposed East Carlsbad annexation plans to
use septic systems for development of the Ranch property.
Environmental Impact Report prepared for this annexation indicates
that there are severe septic tank effluent disposal limitations
,throughout the property, due to eicher steep slope or slow somil
The
9; W'astewnter Treatment System- Needs and Manageincnt Responsibilities ,
Areawi.de Water QuaLity &na[:eacnt: Plan, Comprchcnsive Planning
Organization, February 1978, a.nd; City of Carlsbad Sewerage
Sys tern Improvement Program, Brown and Cbldwcll , Consulting Engineers,
November, 1976.
\
* - A * "East Carlsbad" 0, '
3 August 7 j ,1978
Page Thirteen ,
permeability rates. The report states:
Septic tanks could damage one of the only, although
untapped for drinking purposes, ground water supplies
of potable water.
produces fresh water of high quality .... These springs
do help to flush the effluent as it seeps from the septic
tanks, ,but they would drain the effluent into Agua Hedionda Creek, part of which runs through Dawson Los Monos Canyon
Reserve. In the reserve, the effluent: could disturb the
natural balance of the ecosystem.
The Agua Hedionda Hydrologic Subunit
The proponent for the proposed East Carlsbad annexation has stressed
that he has been working closely with the City of Carlsbad on this
proposal for the past eighteen months. City staff has indicated
that this restdential estate development has been encouraged hy .
the City. Because the deve1oprnen.t: planned is estate rather than
urban, and because residential development for surrounding areas
already in the City is in the planning stage, City planners do
not view this as leapfrog development..
City s.taff have also expressed the concern that if the Ranch is
not allowed to develop at this time, prior to the availability of
sewer, strong pressures will be exerted in the future which will
demand that: the property be developed at higher densities.
Residential Estate (RE) zoning which the City plans to impose at: this time has been established to provide for large lot development which would retain the natural terrain of a unique area. Carlsbad
planners feel that this type of development is important to the
City, and that postponement of this project may jeopardize the
RE zone. St should also be noted here that City planners hope
that the larger lots will encourage fie continuation of agricultural
pursuits on a smalhx,
The
I1 suburban farmer" scale.
CITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE REVIEW
Your Cities Advisory Committee discussed this proposal at their
July 21 meeting, annexation would promote leapfrog development, the majority o€ the Committee was not convinced that the land was an essential
% agricultural resource because of the low soil rating and the
abundance of tomatoes produced throughout the coastal climate
zone. The Committee also indicated that if development did
not occur prior to the availabilicy of sewer, tho LOW density
planned by the City would be threatened by future urban encrortch-
Although some rueriibcrs of the Committee,felt that
. meat and economic pressures. The Committee voted to recommend that
. I_ '. - '\
I.
I -, '%as t Carlsbad"
August 7, 1978
Page Fourteen
-.
3
(\ your Commission approve annexation of the territory.
SUMMARY AND EXECUTIVE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Your Commission must consider the conformity of the proposal with
applicable General and Specific land-use plans. (Government Code
§ 54796). Both the County and City have designated this area for
residential uses in their General Plans.
other policies or plans, however, which may conflict with these
land-use designations.
. that: the area received a low rating as a candidare growth area
because of its relative isolation from existing development; its
'lack of access and sewer; and because of the existence of agricultural
activiky in the area. A new element of the County General Plan is
currently being prepared, the Agri.cultura1 Element, which will outline agricultural areas of County concern and what steps the
County should take as a result of that concern.
The City General Plan currently includes a policy on agricultural
lands in the Open Space Element, with the stated objective
prevent: the premature elimination of prime agricultural land and
preserve said lands wherever feasible. As is discussed in your
draft Agricultural Policy, the definition of what constitutes
prime agricultural land is e1usi.ve and interpretations vary from
agency to agency. Less than 6% of western San Diego County's lands
can be classified as prime" based solely on soils criteria, but
virtually all. agricultural lands in production may be classified as
prime based upon the economic criteria of the Williamson Act.
to the San Diego County Department of Agriculture, in the Carlsbad
area the average planting cost for tomtoes is $11,00O/acre.
The average tomato yield generakes approximately $14,00O/acre.
This translates into a net gain of $3,00O/acre per planting.
Both agencies have prepared
The County Growth Management Plan indicates
tf to
I1
I8
According
Most
. farmers plant tomatoes twice a year.
In the draft Policy it is stated that it is not LAFCO's
role to establish Agricultural Preserve areas, compatible use
designations, or protective ordinances. That is the role oE local
general purpose governments. However, it is LAFCO's mandated
responsibility to insure that- such Steps have been carried out by
the affected local governments prior to the annexation of agriculturally
the City of Carlsbad planning staff has prepared maps identifying
what they believe to be prime agricultural lands which lie within
the coastal zone. There has not yet been, howcvor, comprehensive
identification of iinportan agricultural land resources in tlzc entire General Plan area for the City. Your Staff feels that a
. productLve land. . As part of their Fs-ork on a Local Coastal Plan,
. . '.
.... ................ ... -- ..-=. --1 ..... I * ..-..... _._ -". -., -.- ....... .---. ._ .. " .. ..... ..... 0 .... b --.. .-,- .__._. ......- 2.. ..... 4
_-e--... -. ~ --
. %as t Carlsbad"
August 7, 1978 -
....
..
Page Fifteen 3
significant effect of annexation of the East: Carlsbad proposal
area at this time would be the premature conversion of 60-80 acres
of productive agriculture land into residential uses, depleting
additional land from the alrea'dy diminishing coastal agricultural
resource base. Annexation at this the would precede the identifica-
tion by the general purpose agencies, the City a'f Carlsbad and the
County of San Diego, of what lands should be considered of prinw
importance for agricultural production.
Development of the territory at this time will provide an example of non-contiguous, leapfrog residential development.
that contiguous development pxomctes the efficient use of land
resources, whereas non-contiguous development encourages urban and
suburban sprawl, prematurely comitting valuable qpen-space resources. Your Commission has been given the responsibility to
urban sprawl,
boundaries prior to annexation of additional vacant land for
development purposes.
Although plans are being prepared for residential uses near the
Tootsie K Ranch, development in this area will not occur until
sewer is available. City engineering staff has indicated that they
do not see a resolut=ion of the sewer problem in the near future.
Projected dates for the Agua Hcdionda Interceptor, which should
serve the area, indicate that even if capacity were available, the
City does not contemplate construction of' the interceptor line until
after 1990, with completion of the eastern portion projected to be
built between 1995 and 2000.
Your Staff believes
If discourage
It and the tools to promote development within City
It was noted previously that there is a serious question Surrounding
the use of septic systems on the property.
proposal has indicated that he does not believe there will be any
difficulty in "perking" for septic, due to the large lot: sizes.
Your Staff is concerned that this question be answered prior to
annexation because of the effect that septic systems may have on
the groundwater sources (as described in the Environmental Impact Report) and the effect of sewer availability upon the tiding of
development. -. _---
The proponent for this
In June, 1976 your Commission adopted Policy GP-5 which seeks to
clarify the responsibility of a proponent seeking a change of
it is the policy of the organization. That policy reads: ...
Local Agency Fornmtion Commission that it shall be the responsibility
of the proponent: to demonstrate to this Commission's satisfaction
that the proposal in question will further the ob3 ecrivas and
policies of this Comiission and that it: is consistent with the
standards and criteria established by State Law."
II
Your Staff feels
h 4 **
\ '-''"East Carlsbad"
August 7, 1978
Page Sixteen
.
that annexation of the Tootsfe 'k" Ranch property is a premature
commitment of agricultural lands, will promote non-contiguous
residential development, and would not be consistent with tlhe
responsibilities set forth for LAFCOs by tzhe State Legislature.
It is, therefore,
RECOMNENDED: That your Commission adopt a resolution
disapproving thd proposed "East Carlsbad
Annexation" to the City of Carlsbad.
.Respectfully submitted,
.. 7/28/78
MJG:WM:m ... . ..
* .
.. .
. 4 '.
August 7, 1978 chrirmrn
exuuftiva afficer
Wehd 1. Gotch TO.: Local Agency Formation Commission
Or. Rex Oorton PuMk Wmk
s%Ct??tGY Pone3 0:ihbm~
CaUtld FROM: Executive Officer
Environmental Administrator D;OW L. Ucrk
SUBJECT: Environmental Review Summary
Ten proposals on today's agenda have Environmental Impact
Reports (EIRs), In several cases, an EIR applies to more
than one LAFCO action. Remaining proposals are either
exempt from CEQA environmental review requirements or
have Negattve Declarations as indicated on the agenda.
If you approve the proposals, State law requires that
your Cominission make certain findings regarding the
mitigation measures identified in the ETRs. The specific
findings required are included in the Executive Officer's
recammendations on the agenda.
alter msmLn: ttte CA78-10 Proposed "East Carlsbad (2.27) Annexation"
Alex L. &&ma to the City of Carlsbad Padro &em Hiunklpal wacr Dlctrkt Proposed is annexation of 186 acres to provide municipal
ment. Approximately 50% of the territory is currently in
1 MI Lake
Councllmn. City services to the area and permit future residential develop- vt LIm0n Grove
' ssnfbbmua Sunlcy A. Mrr agricultGra1 use, and the remainder is vacant. The
County Iyfut Didptrlct location is: north of Palomar Airport Road; east of El
Lw R. Tlym
srYwr*bm
CamLno Real; and south of State Highway 78 and Rancho
. Carlsbad Road. Couny ciorad ot
The City of Carlsbad has prepared and certified'an EIR
for the project, which identified the following major
environrnenta1 issues :
1. Development of the property will eliminate
current agricultural. use and could affect
scientiftc research being conducted by the
University of California at: the adjacent
Dawson-Los Monos Reserve.
' Environmental Review Summary
.August 7, 1978
Page Two
2.
3.
4.
' 5.
Erodibility and septic tank effluent disposal
limitations for much of the site are severe.
In addition to incremental loss of native vegetation,
development of the site could destroy one rare and
endangered plant species and would also impact the
biological resources of the adjoining Dawson-Los
Monos Preserve
.
The only access to the site is an unpaved private
road, Development of this site would require
construction of adequate access, with the consequent
impac ts on adj acent . lands
Future residential development on the territory could
be impacted by noise from Palomar Airport, Carlsbad
Raceway, and roads constructed to serve development
in the area,
the Limited Hazard Zone for Palomar Airport.
A portion of the territory falls within
The ETR identifies migigation measures for all of the impacts, and
it would be'the responsibility of the City of Carlsbad to adopt
them.
CA78-14 Proposed "Bonita Haciendas Annexation"
to the City of Chula Vista
DD78-16 Propmed "Bonita Haciendas Detachment'' from
the San Diego County Flood Control District - Zone 3
Proposed is annexation of 10.0 acres to provide sewer and other
municipal services to part of a planned 30-acre, 57-unit residential
subdivision. The remaining 20 acres are already in the City of
Chula Vista, which has 'approved a tentative map for the entire
project. Concurrent detachment of the same territory from the San
Diego County Flood Control District - Zone 3 is proposed to avoid
duplication of flood control responsibility upon annexation to the
City. The location is: north of Bonita Vista High School; east
of Otay Lakes Road; and south of Acacia Avenue.
The City of Chula Vista prepared and certified an LIR for the
project, which identified the 'following environmental concerns :
1. Construction of thc project will result in an . irreversible and significant change in the land
form of the area.
.- .. . . a. .L. .-.> . ~.,. ,, --.;. - .-- .... . z ___-. 1. ' -.?r > ,.. .. .., .._. .... ., ... .. .. ._ .. -- __ _. . . .. . .. .. . .. . . . - -. - ----_-.. - .'
i r
'Environmental Review Sunmary
August 7, 1978
' Page, Three
'.
2. The site contains rare and endangered coast barrel
cactus which will be impacted by project construction,
and the project will cause an incremental loss in
natural vegetation in the area.
The project will result in increased attendance at
5ChOOk3 which are currently overcrowded.
3.
. Mitigation measures have been identified in the EIR for all of the
impacts, and the City of Chula Vista has adopted them as conditions
* of project approval.
R078-17 Proposed "Weld Boulevard No, 2 (231) (Chilcote)
Reorganization" (City of El Cajon)
Proposed is reorganization of 35.4 acres to provide niunicipal services
to a portion of a G5-acre, 159-unit residential subdivision. The
remainder of the project site is already in the City of El Cajon.
The location is: north of Weld Boulevard; east of Fanita Drive;
south of Prospect Avenue; and west of Cuyamaca Street.
The City of El Cajon prepared and certified an EIR for the project,
which identified the following environmental concerns :
1. The project is located in an area which has a
'history of soil instability causing landsliding
and structural damage.
2. Low areas of the project could be affected during
flood conditions in Fanita Creek.
3. The project will generate increased traffic and as
proposed could be subject to circulation problems. ..
4. Construction of the project will remove all native
vegetation, including specimens of two rare and
endangered plant, species and riparian habitat along
Fanita Creek.
5. The project will increase. enrollments at area
schools which are already overcrbwdcd.
6. The project is relatively rcrnotc from established
public services and is beyond the desirable 5-ini.niite
fire response time .
- _.. . . ..
8 - id
Environmental Review Summary
August 7, 1978
Page Four
The EIR proposed measures to mitigate the impacts of the project,
and it is the responsibility of the City to adopt them.
DA78-30 Proposed "Vista del Lago Estates Unit No. 3
Annexation". to the Spring Valley Sanitation District
DA76-43 Proposed "Vista del Lago Estates Unit No. 3
Annexation" to, the Otay Municipal Water District
DD76-11 Proposed "Vista del Lago Estates Unit No. 3
Detachment" from the South Bay Irrigation District
Proposed are -three actions to implement the Vista del Lago E:.tates Unit No. 3 residential development of 126 units on 32 acres:
(1) annexation of the entire property to the Spring Valley
Sanitation District to provide sewer service to the project; and
(2) concurrent annexation and detachment of approximately 10
acres so that water service may be provided to the entire develop-
ment by Otay Municipal Water District. north of
Sweetwater Reservoir; east of Lakeview Avenue; south of San Andres
Street; and west of Sacramento Avenue, in La Presa.
The .County of San Diego prepared and certified an EIR on the
tentative map for the project, which identified Ltie following
significant impacts:
The location is:
1. Surface runoff from the project, unless intercepted,
would drain directly into Sweetwater Reservoir and
thre'aten the use of the reservoir as a domestic water
supply;
2. Portions of the project will be impacted by noise
from State Highway 54, if and when the highway is
constructed along the northern perimeter of the
development.
Construction of the project would destroy a significant
archaeological site.
'
I
-_* 3,
4. The project will result in adverse impacts on the wild-
eliminate 80% to 90% of the on-site coast barrel cactus,
which is designated rare and endangered.
' life habitat value of Sweetwater Reservoir arid will
5. Traffic on Lakeview Avenue, a resider~tial street, will
be increased by approximately 400X as EL result of tho project.
'5 1, Environmental Review Anmary
August 7, 1978
Page Five
The EIR proposed mitigation measures for most but not all of the
significant impacts identified in the EIR and it would be the
. responslbility of the County to adopt them.
DA78-35
to the San Marcos County Water District
DA78-42 to the Bueno Colorado Municipal Water District
Proposed "La Costa Northeast Annexation"
Proposed "La Costa Northeast Annexation"
DD78-7
from tzhe Carlsbad Municipal Water District
Proposed is annexation of 4.85.56 acres to the San Marcos County
Water District to provide water service to future residential
development within a portion of the La Costa Master Plan area.
Also proposed.is annexation of 5.83 acres of the same territory
to Bueno Colorado Municipal Water District and concurrent de tach-
ment from the Carlsbad Municipal Water District - This concurrent
annexation and detachment would allow an entire proposed
. residential subdivision to be served by one district, San Marcos
.County Water District. The remainder of the territory proposed
for annexation to San Marcos County Water District is already
within the boundaries of Bueno Colorado Municipal Water District.
The purpose of annexation at this time is to include the territory
within an assessment district being formed by the San Marcos County
Water District to finance an aqueduct connection and distribution
facilities for a 2,400 acre area, including the annexation territory
and acreage to the east in the City of San Marcos and the County.
The location is: north of La Costa Avenue; east of El Fuertc? Street;
south of Questhaven and Meadowlark Road; and generally east of
Rancho Santa Fe Road, in Carlsbad.
Proposed "La Costa Northeast Detachment"
L
1
The City of Carlsbad prepared and certified an EIR for the La
Costa Master Plan and General Plan amendment in March 1976.
ETR covers future development of 3,610 acres of La Costa,, of
which the territory included in the proposals on today's agenda
is a part. The EIR is supplemented as individual subdivisions
within the plan area are reviewed. Staff has reviewed the Master
Plan E'TR and supplements and has determined that they are adequate
for LAFCO' s purposes in considering the arhiexation and de tachrxn t
proposals
The
on' today ' s agenda.
#, r' Environmental Review Summary *.
August 7, 1978
Page Six '.
The Master Plan EIR identified the following environmental concerns
relevant
1.
2.
3.
4'.
.. 5.'
..
. 6.
-
to, these annexation and detachment proposals :
Build-out of the Master Plan area.wil.1 result in
elimination of much of the native vegetation and
will increase the destruction or displacement of
wil.dlife
The project
runoff into
The project
will. increase pollutant and sediment
San Marcos Creek and Bataquitos Lagoon.
will contribute to degradation of
regional air quality.
The project will require expansion of sewer, water,
solid waste, and energy facilities.
The projkct will generate approximately 5,100
school age children and increase the demand for
police, fire, and other municipal services.
Much of the project area has not been surveyed for the
presence of archaeological resources, which are likely
to 'be affected by project development.
The City of Carlsbad identified mitigation measures in the EIR,
and it is the responsibility of the City to implement them.
22..4.&
WILTJTAM D. DAVIS
Environmental Administrator
July 25, 1978
:a .
MJC : WDD : dg
-;-=---
I