The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1981-12-15; City Council; 6770-1; Update on Agricultural preservationCITY . - CARLSBAD — AGENDA >. LL AR# £770- */ MTG. 12/15/81 DEPT PL TITLE: rnDnftrni? HM afOTrrrrTTTDRT T3T3i7Ci?OT7zypTPKiUJrlJAllj UN AlaKH^ULiJ-UnALi irrsJCiOCiKVHllUlN PROGRAMS IN THE COASTAL ZONE. DFPT. HD. -&&• CITY ATTY Y^J niTY MGIV -^C T1 -J o oo RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the Council direct staff to discontinue work on a substitute agricultural plan. ITEM EXPLANATION On October 13, 1981 staff and the Agricultural Advisory Conmittee made a recommendation to the City Council proposing an alternative to the Coastal Commission agricultural subsidy credits program. The City Council did not react altogether favorably to the proposal and suggested that staff modify the program. In addition, Council directed staff to meet with the Coastal Commission staff to explore the possibility of substituting a program designed by the city for the current LCP subsidy plan. City staff met with the Coastal Commission staff on November 18, 1981. The Coastal staff indicated substitution was possible, however, they presented specific criteria that must be met in a city program. The attached report addresses some of the pros and cons of the two apparent choices which are: 1. Pursue a substitute. 2. Allow the existing program to remain in effect. Staff is concerned that the costs of pursuing an alternate program will potentially outweigh the results. FISCAL IMPACT Option 1; Pursue substitute agricultural program: Staff Associate Planner Principal Planner Planning Director Time 1/2 1/4 As necessary Length of Study 1 Months 7 Months 7 Months Approximately 5 City Council hearings. Option 2; Allow the existing program to remain in effect; no cost. ATTACHMENTS A. Exhibit 1, Discussion MEMORANDUM DATE: December 7, 1981 TO: Frank Aleshire, City Manager FROM: James Hagaman, Planning Director SUBJECT: DISCUSSION REGARDING SUBSTITUTION OF A CITY AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION PROGRAM FOR THE CURRENT LCP PROGRAM. At the City Council meeting of October 13, 1981, the Council ex- pressed some concern regarding a proposed city wide agricultural preservation program. They directed staff to concentrate only on the coastal zone and to pursue agricultural preservation only as a possible substitute for the current LCP subsidy program. Potential changes in the program suggested by Council were the following: 1. Make the program less restrictive on identified agricultural land in the long term (explore using only zoning as an approach). 2. Address what would occur on agricultural lands after pro- duction died out. 3. Investigate making the program totally voluntary. In addition, Council directed staff to meet with the coastal staff to discuss the possibility of substituting a city program for the LCP program. City staff met with the coastal staff on November 18, 1981. A number of conclusions were reached, they were: 1. The coastal staff indicated that they would consider a "mixed use" (in which a portion of a developed site would be re- tained in agriculture) substitute for the LCP subsidy pro- gram. 2. They would not consider the program as presented to the Coun- cil on October 13, or a program modified in the manner sugge- sted by Council to city staff. 3. A substitute program must contain the following components at a minimum: a) It must cover all lands identified in the LCP as agricul- tural (see attachment 1). No soil type criteria may be used to identify agricultural land. b) Any substitute program must preserve at least the same amount of acres of agricultural land as the LCP program (about 1100 acres; the plan presented to Council on Oc- tober 13 would preserve about 400 acres by mixed use). c) The program must be mandatory and binding on all affected property. d) The program must incorporate land use control more bind- ing than zoning, although zoning could be used in some areas. The binding method suggested by coastal staff was an open space easement in perpetuity. Subsequent to the November 18th meeting the city staff was in- formed by the Commission staff that if the city wished to propose a substitute they would have to do so prior to January 1, 1982. They indicated a possible extension if this deadline could be granted up to 6 months. The LCP subsidy program is scheduled to begin operation on January 1, 1982. Given the circumstances, there appears to be two alternatives; continue pursuing a substitute program (based on the Commission's "minimum" requirements,) or allow the existing LCP program to re- main in effect indefinitely. There are positive and negative aspects to the apparent choices, they are: Pursue Substitute Program PROS: a) Provide a more equitable approach to agricultural preser- vation. b) Resolve one of the major conflicts in the LCP disa- greement between Carlsbad and the Coastal Commission. c) Eliminate the subsidy payment scheme which is complex and unique to Carlsbad's LCP. CONS: a) May never be agreed to by the Commission. For example, some conflicts in the Agua Hedionda LCP have not yet been resolved, although negotiations have been going on since 1978. b) May be difficult to acquire support from all affected property onwers. Some property owners are already com- mitted to the Coastal Commission's subsidy plan. -2- c) New land use restrictions would be imposed by the city. d) May force the Council into a position of enforcing a pro- gram in which, under normal circumstances, they would not participate. Do Not Pursue a Substitute Program PROS: a) No commitment of staff or City Council time (including program preparation and continuing administration). b) Clearly maintains identification of the Coastal Com- mission's LCP as the "problem document" (this would be important in the case of litigation). c) Does not draw the city into the debate between property owners and the Coastal Commission over an issue which is now clearly a Coastal Commission policy. Property owners who felt a change was necessary would be channeled directly to the Coastal Commission for relief. d) No new land use restrictions would be imposed by the city. CONS: a) The subsidy program would continue to be imposed on prop- erty within Carlsbad's current and future areas of juris- diction. b) A major LCP conflict would not be resolved. The choice between the two alternatives is not a clear one in staff's opinion. It is natural to set goals of clearing up con- flicts and to pursue regaining lost land use controls. However, the judgement must also take into consideration the practical side of attainment. It is at this point the details are numerous and cloudy. Staff has two major concerns, recognizing the substantial amount of time required to attain success. These concerns are primarily based on previous experience in dealing with the Coastal Com- mission. Agua Hedionda LCP contains issues that have placed the city and Coastal Commission in similar negotiating position. Staffs two concerns are: 1. The Coastal Commission may never concede to a substitute for the agricultural subsidy credits program. In effect, the Commission has a very restrictive program ready to go now. Even though it will not take effect until January 1, they have been negotiating with some property owners for months. Some of these property owners are now committed to the LCP program. Staff does not see the negotiating process as expe- ditious. As a practical matter, the Coastal Commission has all the bargaining chips. They can hold out for the "best" proposal from the city with little lost except time. 2. The concept of agricultural preservation in perpetuity is solely the Coastal Commission's. Within the effected area there are two distinct groups of property owners. The group is polarized on the for and against sides. This is a potentially volatile situation for the city to participate in, particularly when litigation seems almost assured. To attempt to anticipate all the potential consequences of embarking on a negotiating process as briefly outlined above would be impossible. However, given the experience staff has acquired over the years with the Commission, and the primary concerns expressed here, staff cannot justify recommending continued work on a substitute agricultural program. Attachments; Map of agricultural lands TH:ar 12/8/81 -4- scale I =! ATTACHMENT A AGRICULTURAL LANDS LANDS PRESERVED TO ROY SUBSIDY