HomeMy WebLinkAbout; Agriculture Committee (1981); Program Report; 1981-01-17.-.
JACK LIEPSTER CALIFORNIA COASTAL l?oor.lrr~ss~o~ 631 HOWARD STREET
SAN FRbNcIsco, CA. 94.6195
DEAR h4R. LIEDSTER:
qELJERALLY SPEAK1tJG WE FEEL THE CO:jCEPT OF TRA'JSFEP OF DEVELOP-
MENT R I GHTS \VI TH I I\' OWNEESH I PI t.:ORE APPEAL I iJG THAF! DETWEE?J OWNERSH I PS
HOk'EYE4 t:El THER ACCOi-:PI SHES A'JYTHI ?JG THAT COULDtJ' T- BE MORE EASILY
ACCO::PL I SHED @Y LOCAL TO!: I WG.
I'OOST LOCAL FARt2ERP FEEL THE P.f?.C, TOUP? PLAN OF T.D.R. IS
FOCIO-ECOr~.'OtJlCAL GIC.:':ICRY C'HICH TRA:dSFEP: THE COST5 0F"LIPERATIfJG"
AGRl CULTUPAL LA'!DS TO THE HOUSING I EJDUSTRY AMD TO THE CITY BY
CREATIIJC UF!DESIRABLE HIGH HOUSING DEPJSITIES. ALL PERSOFJ.5 I HAVE
CONTACTED HAVE EXPRESSED THE O.PI.P!lON THAT THEY WOULD :JOT \'OLUYTF,RlLY
PAHTlCl PATE IN SUCH A SCHEr!E APJD WOULD RESIST A rtAIJDATORY I'~'P~5ITION
OF T.D.R,, LEGALLY IF ',!ECESSPRY.
IN ADDITIOF:, WITt!OUT EXCEPTIO:.J, THEY WILL RESIIT DCEDlfJG- DEVELOP-
:,'E?T FIGHTS, AGRICULTURAL EASEMENT?, ASRICULTURAL REPIDUALS, ETC.
TO f,NY Sr)VE?F!L;E:.;TAL AGEtICY, RE IT LOCAL, STATE OR FECERAL, WITHOUT
ADEnUATE COt.:PENSATION BY THAT AGE!!CY.
IT IS THE FEEL ItJG OF :.:OST LOCAL RESIDENTS THAT URBANIZATION AND
HI GH LAFJD PRICES HAVE LOPJG PAST THE PO I F!T OF ECONOF4lCALLY JUSTIFY! NG
AGRICULTURAL USE OF MOST OF THE SOUTH CARLSRAD AREA AND AMY EF!DCAVOR
TO LOCK THESE LANDS INTO AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE WILL DO ?q@RE HARf.!
THAfJ GOOD.
DESPITE THE ANGUS FJCDOVALD REPORT PAI!!TI!-!G qUCH A RO5Y PICTURE
OF THE ECONOMIC FEADlBlLlTY OF THIF AREA,AGRdlCULTURE EPfDFFVORS AI'E
VEFY PRECARIOUSLY RALANCED. THE I~,?o POLE TO;'ATOE EIJDEAVOR WAC THE
THIRD FTPAGHT YEAR OF LOSS. F9UR OF OUR SIX LOCAL CARt!ATIOr? BROI'.'EEP
HAVE GO!JE BELLY-UP DUE TO CHEAP FOPEIGH IYXPORTS PRD ?EVEGAL LARGE
GRO\.'ERS OF FL@\:'ERS AiiD P!URGERY :.4ATERIAL HAVE OFTED Tn LnCPTE ELFEV.'HEcE
\'.HERE THEY COULD E::JOY THE IYFLATIO;! OF LAr'D PRICES AL(31rC VITH THEIR
C,(:['I CULTUr:AL EL-!DEAVORS.
F'OST GGOWERS ARE EXPERI Ef!CIl'IG MORE FORI ECrJ Ct3''PETlTIOL', Lo!:'ER,
I F PrIY PROFITS, HIGHER LABOR A.!D V.'ATER COSTS. LI TTLE V!O'IDER THEY
ARE EELUCTAr!T TO SEE THEIR CAPITAL IUVESTMEGT 1:' LAIID CUT PY 2&
VIHICR 0':LY.CUTS THEIR AGILITY TO OORROV.' TO CARRY THE'' OVER THE LEAFJ
OF? L"?" YEARS.
Tt~IE BOTTO:: LI K!E ISSUE OF THE SOUTH CARLSPAD AREA IS: ''1 S AC2l-
CULTUFf i'CO!l@I:IICALLY FEAEIELE 1:d THIS AREA ?"
THE COA~TAL COUI~!ISSIOY OBVIOUSLY THIYKS IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
THE CITY AFJD ClTlZErJS OBVIOUSLY THtNK NOT. IT WOULD SEEt4 THAT AN
EPUITADLE SOLUTIO' TO THIS WOULD BE TO GIVE THE COMMISSION THE
AUTHORITY TO DESIGNATE ANY LAND OF IT'S C.HOOSlNG AS AGRICULTURAL
PRESERVE. HOWEVER, THE COl.ib!lSSlON SHOULD ALSO ACCEPT.RESPOb!SIBILITY
FOR THE ECOrilOUlC VIABILITY OF SAID AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE. THIS
CTlULD A€ DOtJE BY GUARAMTING INCOKrE I ?I THE AMOUt<T C)F TAXES PLUS 1%
OF i.'ARKET VALUE OF THE LAND. THE 12< @Elr.!G CONSIDERED A FAIR
RETUXN Or! CAPITAL I !JVEST'.!ENT. IT WOULD RE THE STATES RESP9b2Sl?l-
LITY TO SUPPLY LEASES TO EQUAL THAT REFJTAL RATE OR PAY THE DIFFEREFfCE
TO THE OVJfJER.
IF LEASEE REIJTAL YEILDS IdET THIS ERUlTbnLE CRITEnIL) IT WOULDPI'T
COST THE STATE A CEtJT. IF NOT, IT COULD COST THE STPTE A OUr.!DLt.
IF THE OW'JEGS CO::LD 6E ASSURED I Pr; Or! THE1 R IYVEST!!E*.!TS THEY
WOULD HAVE k:O KICK C31.:ING.
THIS PROP~SAL HAS THE OPNOXIOUS CHARACTERISTIC OF rt@.~~b~~
EVERY OF!€ PUT THEIR t5ONEY WHERE THEIR F.10UTH IS; RUT I'LI AFRAID
THIS IS THE ONLY WAY THESE Dl FFEr'EF'ICES KILL RE SETTLED.
THANK YOU FOR ALLOW1 1dG U9 TO C@"r:EF'T Ar!D IF 1 CAhl DO AF!YTHING
FURTHER TO FACILITATE A VIABLE L.C.F. DON'T HESITATE TO CALL Or.'
!: E .
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES
0 Assistant City Manager (714) 438-5598
0 Building Department
0 Engineering Department
0 Housing & Redevelopment Department
(714) 438-5525
(714) 438-5541
(714) 438-5611
0 Planning Department (714) 438-5591
Citp of darls'bab
1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
January 21, 1981
To: AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FROM : Joyce Crosthwaite, Planning Department
SUBJECT: Advisory Committee Meeting
Monday, January 26, 1981
7:OO P.M.
Engine-ering Conference Room, Carlsbad City Hall
3.
AGENDA
1. Review minutes of January 19th meeting (Attached).
2. Review and revise objections to LCP (Attached) NOTE:
Also attached is memo on water prices 1980-1990.
3. Discuss "should agriculture land be preserved as a
resource even though production may cease?"
5. Set next meeting dale.
CITY OF CAFULSBAD
Minutes of: AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Date of Meeting: January 19, 1981
Time of Meeting: 7:OO P.M.-
. Place of Meeting: Engineering/Planning Conference Room
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Mackauf -at 7:07 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
The following Committee members were present: Peter Mackauf, Eric Larson,
Victor Kato, Ben Hillebrecht, John Frazee, . Guy Moore, +ul Tarango and
Girard Anear.
The following staff members were present: Tom Hageman and Joyce Crosthwaite.
Tom Escher, Deputy Agricultural Commissioner for the.County of San Diego, was
present also.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the meeting of January 12, 1981, were approved as presented.
DISCUSSION: 18
As an aid, staff displayed maps of the area showing those gxtions desigxiated by
Toups for agricultural preservation, and a map prepared by staff displaying the
different sail types for a portion of the City.
It was noted by the Coxknittee in comparing the two maps that a great deal of the
land designated by Toups as agricultural preservation areas, was in fact displayed
on the soils map as soil that is marginal or unsuitable for agriculture.
. ..
Chairman Mackauf referenced an area on the map designated for preservation, south
of Palomar Airport Road and north of La Costa Avenue, and stated he had previously
farmed that particular area. He further stated, as shown on the soils map, that
the soil is marginal. With reference to the fact that it is still being farmed,
he indicated that better soil is not available to the individual farming the area.
Mr. Mackauf suggested that the best method for retaining agricultural would be to
encourage farming on those lands designpted on the soils map as the better agri-
cultural soil. <
Discussion by the Committee reflected the need for evaluation of the Toups
recommendation, determination of areas of disagreement, development of a recommenda-
tion for the Coastal Commission, and development of an agricultural policy on a
City-wide basis.
The Committee discussed the fear prevalent in land owners regarding leasing of their
land for agricultural purposes due to the threat of then being restricted to that
usage of their property.
Page 2
January 19, 1981 Meeting
Agricultural Advisory Committee
Mr. Mackauf noted the economic and governmental conditions which have forced the
farmer to farm the areas where the soil type is marginal. He also suggested the
possibility that some areas might be considered for farming for a period of a
couple of seasons prior to actual development.
Mr. Hillebrecht noted the importance of a good farmer on any type of land,
The Committee expressed the desire for viewing'maps of the area prior to the
adoption of the Coastal Act, and since its adoption, to see the effects of same
on the number of agricultural uses in the City.
The Committee agreed to continue by listing the areas of disagreement with the
Toups proposal. Those are as follows:
1. Uncertainty of Transfer of Development Right concept.
2. Disagreement with the Toups premiss that agricultural use is economically
viable in the City forever. The Committee noted that agricultural use
is economically fragile due to:
a. water costs
b. labor costs.
C. Angus MacDonald report noting no better than 5% return on investment,
d. Shrinking Market Window
3. Toups proposal does. npt preserve the best soils 'fok agricultural purposes.
a. The area designated by the Committee as the Palornar Properties.are
marginal, with slope and erosion problems, and access problems.
b. Preferred properties west of the first coastal ridge is not preserved and
would- provide better yield and more economical production.
I
4. Study does not take into consideration all the agricultural lands in the City.
5, a. Purchasing land from farmers at less than market price weakens the
. industry intended to be preserved.
b. Purchase of land from anyone at less than market price is inequitable.
6, Toups failes to provide incentives for land owners to lease land for
agricultural purposes (80% leased land).
a. Three out of five year provision has forced land out of production.
J
7. ,Toups does not recognize the ability of, San Diego County agricultural to
co-exist with other development,
a. Agriculture is compatible with existing coastal property development.
The Committee. noted the above list woul'd assist them in formulating recommendations
for Council and the Coastal Commission,
Page 3
January 19, 1981, Meeting
Agricultural Advisory Committee
Additional discussion by the Committee related to opposing views as to whether
it would be desirable to retain land as open space after it no longer is
viable or economical to farm same, in the event it may be required in the
future .
The Committee concluded by noting that the particular issue needed further
discussion and consideration
ADJOURNMENT:
The Committee adjourned at 8:46 P.M. to Monday, January 26, 1981, at 7:OO P.M.
in the Engineering Conference Room.
Respectfully submitted,
City Clerk
..
ROUGH DRAFT
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Agricultural Advisory Committee's Objections to the LCP
The concept of transfer of development r.ights' (TDR) is
too new and controversial to assess its-potential to
be effective.
The Committee questions if a program based on the use
of TDR's would still be effective if agriculture were no longer economically viable. They also question the
use of TDR's in the coastal zone only. To be of last-
ing value an agricultural preservation program should
encompass the entire city. They believe that the
administrative mechanism for TDR's might not prove
feasible.
.The basi.c premise of the LCP .is that the agricu.l'tura1
economy is healthy; however, current facts suggest
tha.t faxmina is economicallv fraaile.
The.Committee cites the steep rise in water and labor costs as severe determinants to a healthy agricultural
economy. The markets for San Diego County products
have shrunk; the products have lost their off-season
advantage. For these reasons the Committe believes that any agricultural preservation program needs a
mechanism to frequently review current circumstances
and status. ..
The LCP plan does not 'recommend lands that are avail-
able or have suitable soils for preservation. c
a. The bulk of lands recommended for preservation
south of Palomar Airport are marginal due*to steep slopes, high erosion potenti'al, and a lack of access.
b. The lands west of the first coastal ridge are pre-
ferred for preservation because of their soil and flatter terrain. Those lands have better yields and are more economically feasible.
A viable agricultural plan should, include all of Carlsbad's agricultural land. -,
Compensation for land owners
a. Purchasing lands from farmers at less than market
- price weakens the farming industry by not encour-
aging farmers to continue.
b. The purchase of farm land at less than market
price is inequitable.
6. The LCP fails to provide incentives for land owners to lease land.
The Committe noted that 80% of the local farm land is leased; therefore, any effective agricultural preser-
vation program should provide incentives for land owners
to lease land or, minimally, to remove any barriers for
leasing.
7. The LCP does not recognize the ability. o'f San Dlego
County agricultura1"to to-exist with development.
The committee believes that agriculture.is compatible
with existing coastal property development. Agriculture
does not present undue hardships to neighbors because of local agricultural practices, such as hand spraying.
JC: jt
1/21/8 1
P
V
c
81 -005 !
January 9, 1981
MEMOkANDUM
.'
TO : City Manager
FROM: Director of Utilities & Maintenance
SUBJECT: Price of Water, '1980-1990 , ..
I have just received a copy of the MGlD letter to all member agencies regarding projected water costs over the next decade. MWD currently charges $90 per acre-foot to member agencies. This. wi 11 rise to about $1 60/AF in 1985 and to $255/AF by 1990, or an increase of about 280%. A large part of this increase is, of course, due to the accelerated increase for energy costs.
The ,City presently charges about $205/AF to the retail customer, or. a $115 mark-up over the MWD price. This'mark-up i.ncludes all of the costs and charges added by the San Diego Water Authority, CRMWD and the O&M costs of the City department. The mark-up won't be impacted by energy costs to the same degree as the MWD costs since energy is a smaller percentage of their overall O&M costs. However, it is reasonable to assume that these costs will increase at about the same rate as the national rate of inflation. Assuming inflation wil'l increase at about I ., . 10% per year, our water price to the customer will look like this:
Met. . Customer '' Per Charge Mark-Up cost Unit
.. :
1980 $ 90/AF . $1 10/AF $205/AF ,$ .47
k
1985 $1 60/AF $1 77/AF $337/AF $ .77 .
1990 $255/AF 8285LAF $540/AF $1.23
Agricultural water costs will track similarly to that above. Currently $39/AF is rebated to the agricultural customer. I do not anticipate that this rebate will be increased and, in fact, could be deleted during this time frame. The basis for the agricultural rebate is because it'is "surplus water" and as urban demands increase to the point that there is no longer a water surplus, it follows that there will be increased pressure to charge a flat rate to all customers.
..
* %.e Di ctor of Utilities & Maintenance
RWG : pab -. .
cc: Assistant City Manager - Development 4".
' City Engineer . - Planning Department ,. (Pat Tessier) J 1
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
January 26, 1981
TO : Supervisor Paul Eckert, Chairman (A500) Glxx 055;
Supervisor Jim Bates, Vice-chairman
Supervisor Paul W. Fordem
Supervisor Tom Hamilton
Supervisor Roger Hedgecock
F ROM : Kenneth K. Little, Jr. (01 1 565-5789
Agricultural Commissioner
SUBJECT: Review and Recommendations Concerning the
Agricultural Element (DRAFT)
Attached is a draft of my letter to your Board concerning your
referral to me regarding the Agricultural Element.
On February 5, 1980(58), you directed staff to "Reconsider
issues raised re the Agricultural Element and report back to
the Board on February 10, 1981, witn encouragement given to
the Agricultural Commissioner for review and recommendations
as he deems appropriate."
Because of the questions my recommendations may raise, I am providing you with this copy in advance of the regular docket
date.
The final letter will not be substantially changed. It will
be on your agenda February 10, 1981.
Agricultural Commission&r
KKL:it
Attachment
cc: C>iO (AG) ; DCAO Ruben DomincJuez (A249) ; Director, Department
of Planninq and Land Use (A651)
-* -
C. ~
,-.. c ..-
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
WEIGHTS & MEASURES Bullding 3. 5555 Overland Avsn;:.,
Son Diego, Cslifornls 921 23
January 26, 1981
TO : Board of Supervisors (A451
F ROM : Kenneth K. Little, Jr. (01) 565-5789
Agricultural Commissioner
SUBJECT: Review and Recommendations Concerning the Agricultural Element
On February 5, 1980(58), your Board directed staff to recommend issues raised concerning the Agricultural Element with encourage-
ment given the Agricultural Commissioner for review and recommendations as he deems appropriate. Staff was to report
back to your Board February 10, 1981.
Therefore, it is my
RECOMMENDATION: That your Board
1. Discard the Agricultural Element of the County General Plan.
2. Adopt and strongly support a County agricultural
policy which will encourage the continued use of the County's
agricultural resources for that purpose. The policy should include the following items:
a. Allow owners of land with agricultural resources to pur-
sue any use of that land consistent with economic consideration and existing County ordinances.
b. Establish a "Right to Farm" ordinance whereby a farm
operation, having been in operation for at leas,t a year and not creating a nuisance when it began and
not being operated negligently or improperly, shall
not become a nuisance due to cfianging local conditions
alone.
Board of Supervisors -2- January 26, 1981
c. Allow full and complete use of land by the owners with-
out imposed encroachment by dedicated easements for the
specific use of special interest groups.
d. Encourage the continued agricultural use of agricultural
resources by:
(1) Allowing landowners to transfer development density
if the remainder of the land is retained in agricul-
tural production for a specified period of time and administered by a conservancy or other appropriate
organization.
(2) Purchase of development rights of small parcels of
land where deemed necessary to create continuity of
the resource.
e. Encourage leasing of agricultural resources to growers.
f: Review the permit fee structure for on-farm labor hous- ing for possible reduction or elimination of such fees.
g. Support property tax incentives which would benefit agricultural land use.
h. County involvement in the development of water projects including Federal or State projects with local benefit,
in-County development and use of reclaimed water. -’
i. Encourage a higher priority for agricultural water delivery
by water districts as well as subsidized rates for agri-
cultural use.
j. Support agricultural power rates for off-peak electricity use. ,
k. Encourage workshops throughout the County to acquaint
other political entities with this policy and with existing agricultural resources and preservation methods,
1. Consideration of additions to this policy when new pres- ervation methods are developed which would serve the purpose of the policy.
Discussion
The proposed Agricultural Element raised great furor and was not
adopted by your Board. The general.objection was the fear that
affected landowners would be denied their right to use this land
i
' Board of Supervisors - 3- January 26, 1981
as they wished and it would be locked into an agricultural use category long after it was not an economically viable use. I
have recommended that your Board adopt a policy which encourages the use and preservation of agricultural resources rather than
legislate its use.
San Diego County contains agricultural resources of nationally recognized uniqueness. There is a rare combination of market, transportation, water, land, labor and climate, which makes this
resource unique. Of these, the most important single element is
climate. Without this, County growers could not compete with their counterparts elsewhere. The climate has not changed, but
the other factors have. Water costs are nearing the prohibitive
level. Energy costs have risen markedly. Land is very expensive.
Slowly the competitive advantage formerly enjoyed is now approach-
ing zero.
The fine growing climate is having a negative effect on the County's agriculture. People find it attractive. The best agricultural
resources in the County have been or are being eyed for develop- ment to accommodate people and industry. Yet, agriculture is the County's fourth largest industry with a gross return of $365,000,000 in 1979. Additionally, from a property tax standpoint, agriculture
is the only land use that pays for itself when industrial and com- mercial property is given a cost based on local urban expenditure by government.*
A brief item-by-item discussion follows:
Item a.
This irreplaceable resource should be protected. However, it must not be protected by legislating land use restrictions which become a financial burden to the owner. If it is, government must be prepared to provide economic,sanctions which will provide
the grower with the return from his land he should rightfully receive.
Item b.
Growers of row crops must continue to move to less desirable lands which are more costly to farm. There have been incidents
where growers with their backs to the wall, so to speak, found
themselves harassed by neighbors who find that suburbia isn't all that good since they moved in the same neighborhood with an agricultural operation.
*"The Economics of Conserving Agriculture in Ventura County,"
Ventura Planning Department, 1970.
!
January 26, 1981 Board of Supervisors -4-
Item c.
The imposition of deeded easements, for instance for riding and
hiking trails, must not be made a condition of some unrelated use permit sought by the landowners. These easements interfere with the operation and result in crop or tree damage and theft of produce.
Item d.
A reasonable approach to agricultural use preservation involves
transfer of density rights. Part of an agricultural resource
planned for development could be retained by holding a percentage
of that parcel for agricultural use and allowing a corresponding
increase in the development density of the remaining land. The entire resource is not lost and the developer can build the same number of units. It might become incumbent upon the County to
obtain development rights of small parcels of land to preserve the continuity and value of an adjacent existing resource.
Item e.
Encourage the leasing of agricultural resources for farming which
is owned by developers, eliminating the concern by the owner that
the land could not be used for any other purpose in the future.
Item f.
Growers could be aided by a reduction or elimination of construc-
tion or improvement permit fees for on-farm labor housing.
Item 9.
The highest and best use of an agricultural resource may not necessarily be agriculture. Yet, the land is assessed for tax
purposes at that rate. The Williamson Act is no longer a tax
shelter since Proposition 13.
Item h.
County support and even involvement are necessary in water pro-
jects which would benefit County growers. Lacking is a concentrated
effort to develop in-County water resources and distribution. Of particular need is the development of waste water usage for
3
- agriculture.
Item i.
Agricultural
there is any the first to
be resolved.
water is "surplus" water and of a low priority. If
curtailment of water delivery, agriculture will be suffer. This misappropriation of priorities must
I
Board of Supervisors -5- January 26, 1981
Item j.
Off-peak rates for electricity would encourage growers with their own pumps to use them late at night and not in competition with domestic and industrial use.
Item k.
The County should take the leadership in acquainting cities
as well as the ger.era1 public in agricultural resources, their value and means for continuing their use for that purpose.
Item 1.
To regain its effectiveness, the County must be willing to amend, by deletion or addition, this policy so it will remain
abreast of the very latest methods of agricultural resource use
and preservation.
The County's irreplaceable agricultural resources deserve pro-
tection. However, "protection" should not be legislatively imposed. If it is, then the legislators must be prepared to subsidize the landowner. It is then my opinon that protection can best be accomplished by your Board taking a stand and direct- ing a Countywide leadership to encourage agriculture use of these
resources and protecting this use from government and public
intervention and inequity in treatment.
Agricultural Commission& .
CONCURRENCES :
None required.
Reviewed by: Not needed:
CAO
OM8
FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT :
Program: Overhead
Remarks: There is no fiscal impact as a result of this action.
The degree of your Board's involvement in the preservation of farm
lands will delineate the parameters of future costs.
CITIZEN COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Mot deemed neoessary.
BOARD POLICY APPLICABLE: None
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
..,.- .
County of Sm Diego
Coun!y AdminisIralion Csnlrr
San Diugo. Cdlilolnia Dl101 lGO0 P.scilic tiictllww. Rwm 207
Telephone: 17141 2364597
Paul C. Zuckrr Diluetor
February 2, 1981
TO: ' Board of Supervisors (A451
PROM: Department of Planning and kd Use (MSO)
SUBJECT: Agriculture Element Referral
t' , , , , ..
! I
n
TO : Board of Supervisors (A451
FRON : Kenneth X. Little, Jr. (01) 565-5789 Agricultural Commissioner
SUBJECT: Review and Recommendations Concerning the
Agricultural Element
On February 5, 1980(58), your Board directed staff to recommend
nent given the Agricultural Commissioner for review and issues raised concerning the Agricultural Element with encourage-
rcccnr~e!~lations as hc deems appropriate. Staff was to report bzck to your EoarE February 10, 1981.
Therefore, it is my
RSCO?L'!PSDATION: That your Board
1. Discard the Agricultural Element of the County General Plan,
2. AL?ogt and strongly support a County agricultural pclicy whic!? will encourage the continued use of the County's sk;ricclturai resources for that purpose. The policy should include the following items:
a, Allow ovncrs of land with agricultural resources to pur- sue any use of that land consi,stent with economic consideration and existing County ordinances.
b. Establish a *Right to Farm* ordinaxe whereby a farm operation, having been in operation for at least a
* year and not creating a nuisance when it began and
Rot become a nuisance due to chanying'local conditions not bciny operated negligently or improperly, shall
alone.
.. .et-
..
Board OS Supervisors -2- January 26, 1981
?. Allow full and complete use of land by the owners with- out imposed encroachment by dedicated easements for the specific use of special interest groups.
,
d, Bncourage the continued agricultural use of agricultural resources by:
(1) Allowing landowners to transfer development density if the remainder of the land is retaiaed in agricul- tural production for a specified period of tb.e and administered by a conservancy or other appropriate organization,
(2) Purchase of development rights of small parcels of
the resource. land where deemed necessary to create continuity of
e. Encourage leasing of agricultural resources to growers.
S. Review the permit fee structure for on-farm labor hous- ing for possible reduction or elimination of such fees.
g. Support property tax incentives which would benefit agricultural land use.
h. County involvement in the development of water projects including Federal or State projects with local benefit, in-County development and use of reclaimed water.
i. encourage a higher priority for agricultural water delivery by water districts as well as subsidized rates for agri- cultural use.
j, Suppart agricultural power rates for off-peak electricity use.
k. Encourage workshops throughout the County to acquaint other political entities with this policy and with existing agricultural resources and preservation methods,
1, Consideration of additions to this policy when new prer- rrvation methods are developed which would serve the purpose of the. policy.
Discussion
The proposed Agricultural Elonent,raised great furor and was not adopted by your Board. The general abjection was the fear that affected landowners would be denied their right to use this land
I
,n
Board of Supervisors -3- January 26, 1981
as they wished and it would be locked into an agricultural use
have recommended that your Board adopt a policy which encourages category long after it was not an economically viable use. I
the use an6 preservation of agricultural resources rather than le,-islnto its use.
San Diego County contains agricultural resources of nationally reccqnizcd uniqueness. There is a rarc combination of market, transportation, water, land, labor and climate, which makes this
climts. Nithout this, County growers could not compete with rescurce unique. Of these, the most important single element is
their counterparts elsewhere. The climate has not changed, but t::s other factors have. Water costs are nearing the prohibitive level. Enerc;y costs have risen markedly. Land is very expensive. S1ox?y the competitive advantage formerly enjoyed is now approach- ing zero.
The fine growing climate is having a negative effect on the County's agriculture. People find it attractive, The best agricultural
...r-.LL t3 zccornodatc people and industry. Yet, agriculture is the ~osxr:os in the County have been or are being eyed for develop-
Ccanty's fourth larcest industry with a gross return of $365,000,000 in 1379. additionally, from a property tax standpoint, agriculture is the only land use that pays for itself when industria2 and com- zorcial property is given a cost based on local urban expenditure by goverrment.
A Srief iten-by-item discussion follows;
Itc.?: a.
%is irreplsceable resource should he protactad. Xowever, it
mst nst be protected by legislating land use restrictions which beccne a financial burden to the owner. If it is, government must be Fregared to provide economic sanctions which will provide
Lhe crover with the return from his land he should rightfully receivL'.
-.,.. +
" Itez 5.
Grcders of row crops must continue to move to less desirable lands which are more costly to farm. There have been incidents **here Growers with t!!eir backs to the wall, so to speak, found
all that good since they moved in the sane neighborhood ritb an theaielves harassed by neighbors who find that suburbia isn't
ayrtcultural operation.
*"The Economics of Comerving Aariculture in Ventura County," Ventura Planning Department, 1970,
n bk.", ,"
.. . : -. ,....
..
Board of Supamisore -4- January 26, 1981
Item c.
The imposition of deeded easements, for instance for riding and hiking trails, must not be made a condition of some unrelated use permit sought by the landowners. These easements interfere with the operation and result in crop or tree damage and theft of produce.
-
I Item d. -
A reasonable approach to agricultural use preservation involves transfer of density rights. Part of an agricultural resource planned for development could be retained by holding a percentage of that parcel for agricultural use and allowing a corresFonding increase in the development density of the remaining land. The entire resource is not lost and the developer can build the sane
obtain development rights of small parcels of land to preserve number of units. It might beccme incumbent upon the County to
the continuity and value of an adjacent existing resource.
Item e.
Encourage the leasing of agricultural resources for farming which
the land could not be used for any other purpose in the future. is owned by developers, eliminating the concern by the owner that
-
Item f. -
Growers 'aould be aided by a reduction or eliaination of .construc- tion or improvehrnt permit fees for on-farm lahor housing. I
Item 9.
The highest and beet use of an agricultural resource may not necessarily be agriculture. Yet, the land io assessed for tax purposes at that rate, "he Williamson Act is no longer a tax shelter since Proposition 13.
Item h.
County support and even involvement are neceisary in water pro- * jects which would benefit County growers. Lacking is a concentrated effort to develop in-County water resources and distribution. Of paFticular need $9 the development of waste water usage for: agriculture,
-
Item i. -
Agricultural water ir "surp1us' water and of a low priority. If there is any curtailment of water delivery, agriculture will be tho first to sufzer. This misappropriation of priorities nusf be resolved. f
t
i
I
Board of Supervisors -5- January 26, 1981
Item i.
Off-peak rates €or electricity would encourage growers with
with domestic and industrial use. their own pumps to use them late at night and not in competition
Iten k. -
The County should take the leadership in acquainting cities as well as the general public in agricultural resources, their value and means for continuing their use for that purpose.
Item 1. -
. amend, by deletion or addition, this policy so it will remain To regain its effectiveness, the County must be willing to
and preservation. abreast of the very latest methods of agricultural resource use .
' The County's irreplaceable agricultural resources deserve pro- tection. However, "protection" should not be legislatively imposed. If it is, then the legislators must be prepared to I
can best be accomplished by your Board taking a stand and direct- subsidize the landowner. It is then my opinon that protection
ing a Countywide leadership to encourage agricultura use of these resources and protecting this use from government and publia interventioa and,inequity in treatment.
Agricultural Commission
FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT:
'.
Program: Overhead
Remarkar There ie no fiscal impact as a result of this action. y The degree of your 8oard'e involvement in the preservation of faw lands will delineate the para-eters of future OQStS.
*. :..$
CITIZEN COMMITT&E STAT3MENT8 Not deemed nece88aryp I, I.
BOARD POLICY APPLICABLE8 None '. 1 I
RXt:it
CC) CAO (A6) I DCAO-1 (A2493 I Office of Management c Budget (A2141 . . .LC .. .I ,
P.
There is presented to the Board a letter, Board of Supervisors Doc,ment So. 597608, from the Department of Planning and Land Use @PLU) concerning Agriculture Element referrals and proposed amendment of the San Diego County Code regarding agricultural subdivisions, and recommending that the Board reaffirm strong support for the conservation, management and developttent of the County's water resources to provide an adequate ,s:"pply tomeet agricultural needs; reaffirm intention to direct DPLU to )prepre a water resources component of the San Diego County General Plan 1090 (General Plan) during Fiscal Year 1980-81, such document to include strategies for the long term provision of water for agricultural use; request the Planning and Land Use Advisory Board to consider one or more representatives of the Agriculture Element Citizens' Advisory Committee
as possible candidates for membership in any citizens' advisory committee
f.~~c.! to assist in the preparation and review of the water resources . corponent of the General Plan; note and file the submitted Environmental
Revia; Board (ERB) Policy regarding environmental significance oP effects
317 .lgriculture of projects proposed in the County; rescind Board Policy 1-72, Interim Policy to Encourage the Leasing of.Agricultura1 Lands; and find,
i:1 .!czc*rdmce with the submitted Negative Declaration, that adoption of .!:: or.?inmcc amending Title 8, Division 1, of the County Code to expand the eligibility for agricultural subdivisions to lands designated Agri-
c::lt:~rnl Preserve by the General Plan will not have o significant effect .-:: t!:c environment; and adopt said ordinance,
T!wtc slso Is presented to the Doord e letter, Doaxd of Supervisors hvum!nt,No. 597995, from the Valley Center Citizens. Committee for Responsible Decisions, written in opposition to the DPLU prOp0SalS and c'.*z.=.:c:lcing upon the function of ERB.
'I There also fs presented to the Board a letter from Frank B. Xarrimen,
. Scsrd of Supervisors Document No. 598287, opposing the Agriculture Element,
There also fs presented to the Board a memorandum from Ann Barnfcoat, Board of Supewisors Dccument No. 598108, recommending deletion of the recomenda'tion concerning ERB Policy and indicating support for the retention of Board Folicy 1-72,
A representative of DPLU 0rally:revfews the rcco~n~endations and responds to questions concerning the'inclusion of the Otay Subregional Area end the Agriculture Element text: and map; the poa8ib.bFlity of cm- pronfse on the economic issue of agricultural designation with certain . cotpensetion; w5ether or not authority ezists for the Board to adopt en ordinance that gives transfer of developrnant right8 to agricultural property; a proposed study of incentives and different. approaches Fn orler to preserve agricultural land,
KOS. 55-59
2/5/80
Page 1 of 4
James C. Roberts, President of the Farm Bureau and Chairman of the Citizens Agriculture Element Cotunittee, addresses the Board speaking in Opposition to the reconnwndations and states that.need does not exist for another water resources study.
Charles P: Woods, representing the Sen Diego County Farm B:reau, appears before the Board speaking in opposition particularly to the water resources component recommendation but indicating approval of Board support for water conservation, management and development and for the proposed citizens' advisory committee, He further indicates support for retention of Board Policy 1-72.
Robert H. Pankey, representing the Fallbrook Community Planning Group, and Robert L. Small, representing the Valley Center Citizens Cmittee for Responsible Decisions, appear before the Board speaking in opposition to certain recommendations.
Art Danell, representing the County Land Use Council, speaks in opposition to rescinding Board Policy 1-72; end Michael C. Spata, re- presenting United Enterprises, Xnc., expresses opposition to the fnclusion of certain economic factors in the ERB policy and raises ,certain questions concerning the ERD.
Xen Knust, representing Valley Center Citizens for Responsible Decisions, appears before the Soard speaking in opposition to the time factor in presentation of the reco~unendntione and states that more time is needed for consideration of the issue, Q
Alex Struthers, Jr., representing Otay Mesa Property Association, addresses the exclusion of Otay Mesa from agricultural use and relates certain abjections to the ERB policy,
There are on record requests to speak in opposition to the recommend- ations from Ann Barnicoat, representing the Greater San Dieguito Twn Council, Orville Evans, Vic HanSen, Charles Lloyd and John J. HcTighe, representing Construction Induetry Federation; although they do not in fact gddress the Board,
Discussion ensues concerning objections raised, suggestions made for detetions and modification, and the time frame for further consid9ration.
No. ss
OS MC)TXON of Supcrvisoz Eckett, seconded by Supcrviror Moore, the Board of Superrisors reaffirms support for conservation, management and
development of the County's water resources to provide adequate water
NOS. 55-59 2/5/80
ih Page 2 of 4 pages
f
supply to meet agricultural needs; reaffirms intention to direct the Department of Planning and Land Use (DPLU) to prepare a water resources component of the San Diego County General Plan 1990 during Fiscal Year 1960-91, such documcnt to include strategies for long-term provision of water for agricultural use, work program to be submitted; requests the Planning and Land Use Advisory'Board to consider one or more representatives of the Agriculture Element Citizens' Advisory Coonuittee as possible 'ndidates for membership in any citizens' advisory conanittee formed to .sist in preparation and review of the water resources component of the 1
General Plan and requests submission of suggested citizens' conanittee composition; concerning the Environmental Review Board.(ERB) Policy, deletes Item 5, Page 1, concerning Agriculture Element text and map, and Item l.d, Pege 2, concerning the Otay Subregional Area, and added as Item 5, Page 1, that all testimony submitted at hearings, particularly st Planning Commission hearings, be submitted to ERB; and notes and files the ERB Policy.
Roll call on the foregoing motion results in the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Hedgecock, Bates and Eckert
NOES: Supervisor Hamilton
ABSENT: Supervisors None - No. 56
ON NOTION of Supervisor Eckert, seconded by Supervisor Moore, the 503rd of Supcrvisors de:ennines not to rescind Board Policy 1-72, Interim Policy ta Encourage the Leasing of Agricultural Lands.
Roll call on the foregoing motion resulte in the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Hoore, Hedgecock, Bates and Eckert
ROES: Supervisor Hamilton
1
ABSENT: Supervisors None
No, 57
ON NOTION of Supervisor Eckert, seconded by Supemisor Moore, the Board of Supervisors determines not to adopt an ordinance amending the County Code relating to expanding eligibility for agrisultural subdivisions to lands designated Agricultural Preserve.
Roll call on the foregoing motion results in the following votes
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Hedgecock, Bates aad Eckert SOES: Supervisor Hamilton ABSENT: Supervisors None
NOS. 55-59 2/5/80 9
ih Page 3 of 4 page8
No 58
ON MOTION of Superviaor Eckert, seconded by Supervisor Moore, the Board of Supervisors directs staff review of Agriculture Element referrals and report back €or Board consideration February 10, 1981, with encourage- ment given to the Agricultural Commiasioner for review and XecomPendatiOn as he deems appropriate. I Roll call on the foregoing motion results in the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Hedgecock, Bates and Eckert NOES: Supervisor Hamilton ABSENT: Supervisors None
No. 59
ON MOTION of Supervisor Hamilton, seconded by Supervieor Hoore, the Board of Supervisors refers to the etaff €or examination the suggestion
that the Director of Cooperative Extension, University of California (Farm Advisor) be included in the membership of the Environmental Review
Board. .e Roll call on the foregoing motion results in the follwing vote:
AYES: Supervisors Hamilton, Moore, Hedgecock, Bates and Eckert NOES; Supervisots None ABSENT: Supervisors None
"I
I
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
- -, . kr
DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES
Assistant City Manager
(71 4) -
Building Department (714) 43&6525
Engineering Department
Housing & Redevelopment Department
(714)
(714) 4385811
Planning Department (714) -1
1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
TO : AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FROM : PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE January 29, 1981
SUBJECT: Coastal Act Policies
The following quotes the sections of the Coastal Act per-
taining to Agriculture:
Section 30241: The maximum amount of prime agricultural land shall be maintained in agricultural production to assure the protection of the areas’ agricultrual economy, and conflicts shall be minimized between agricultural and urban land through all of the following:
By establishing stable boundaries separating urban and
rural areas, including, where necessary, clearly de- fined buffer areas to minimize conflicts between agri- cultural and urban land uses. 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 establish-
ment of a stable limit to urban development.
By developing available lands not suited for agri-
culture prior to the conversion of agricultural lands.
By assuring that public service and facility expansions
and non-agricultural development do not impair agricul-
tural viability, either through increased assessment costs or degraded air and water quality. By assuring that all divisions of prime agricultural lands, except those conversions approved pursuant to subdivison (b) of this section, and all development adjacent to prime agricultural lands shall not diminish the productivity of such prime agricultural lands.
Section 30242: use shall not
(1) continued
All other lands suitable for agricultural be converted to non-agricultural uses unless or renewed agricultural use is not feasible, or (2) such conversion would preserve prime agricultural land or concentrate development consistent with Section
30250. Any such permitted conversion shall be compatible with continued agricultural use on surrounding lands.
Section 30243: The long-term productivity of soils and timberlands shall be protected, and conversions of coastal
commercial timberlands in units of commercial size to other
uses or their division into units of noncommercial size shall be limited to providing for necessary timber processing and related facilities.
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
-.
Agricultural r-) Lands Project
t
May 7, 1981
Ms. Joyce Crosswart
Ca rls bad P1 ann i ng Department 1200 Elm Avenue Carl sbad, Cal iforni a 92008
MAY 14 1987
Dear Ms. Crosswart:
I enclose the text of several "right to farm" statutes. The
North Carolina law has been adopted without significant changes in
Mississippi, Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Georgia and probably a
few other states by now. As my article points out, I do not believe
that this kind of law in its present form is a very good model.
If I can be of further help, please let me know.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES RESEARCH FOUNDATION, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., NW WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006.202/785-9577
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
Febraury 23, 1981
Honorable Ron Packard City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Street Carlsbad, California 92008
RECEIVED
CITY OF CARbSBAD Planning Department
Dear Mayor Packard:
The Conservancy has been informed by the Commission staff that this agency has been suggested as a possible administrator of an Agricultural Subsidy Program as part of LCP implementation for the Carlsbad area. The Conservancy is willing to mutually explore. with the City the feasibility of such a program and any alternatives the City may be considering .
I understand that the City Council will consider the LCP and the Commission staff's response to it on March 10. Prior to that meeting the Conservancy will submit a more detailed response to the Commission's suggested Agricultural Subsidy Program.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding how the Conservancy could be of assistance please feel free to contact me or Kick Maedler or
JEP:m
cc: Jim Hageman, Planning Director, City of Carlsbad d' Chuck Dam, San Diego Coast Regional Commission
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
. ”
DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES
0 Assistant City Mul8gW (714) 438-5596
0 Building DepUmmrt
0 Englrtedng 0.putmnl
0 Houdng a DapWtInOnt
0 Plannlng Doputmmt
(714) -
(714) 438-5541
(714) 438481 1
(714) -
March 19, 1981
W. Allan Kelly. 4912 Via Arequipa Carlsbad CA 92008
1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Dear Mr. Kelly:
At the Ir-cf City Council meeting, it was recornended that your name be z55.3.d as the ninth member of the Agricultural Advisory
Committe?. The Council unanimously ?-DPROVSD tk;e recommendation.
If you 6c. aot wish to be named as an official zlember, please call Joyce Crss5hwaite at 438-5591.
Respectfallg,
JAMES C. FAGAMAN
Planning Director n
+sistant Planner
J
JCH: JC : 1s
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
DEVELOPMENTAL
SERVICES
0 Asslstant City Manager (714) 438-5698
0 Building Department (71 4) 4386525
0 Enginearlng Department (714) 438-5541
0 Houslng 8 Redevelopment Department
dnnlng Department
(71 4) 438.581 1
(714) 438-5591
1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
March 31, 1981
Peter MacKauf c/o Ukegawa Brothers 4218 Skyline Road Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mr. ?acKauf:
Attach55 Ls a copy of the City Council amendments to Carlsbad’s LCP. ---t~se note the sections regarding agriculture on pages 2 and 3. I?-s Local Coastal Commission approved the plan on March
27, 195:. It is exFectld that the State Coastal Commission will hear t5-2 &CP in May. You will be informed of the exact date as soon L- is known.
-. -
-
If accc;-z.’zle, the est Agricultural/Advisory Committee meeting will bs ::?;duled Eftar the State Coastal Commission hearing.
CITY OF :.l.liLSBAD
JAMES C* EbGANAN Directzr 3f Planning
JC : 8r
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
.
DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES .
0 Assistant City Mmrgsr
(714)
0 Building 0-
0 Englnmlag Doputmat
(71 4) UBWZS
(714) 436-5541
0 Housing b ReckwWmM (714) -11
0 PlannlngDlpwlmm(
(714) -
. ._ -. - .. 1200 ELM AVENUE- CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
May 28, 1981
Mr. Steve Horn California State Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105
SUBJECT: Coastal Agriculture
i Dear Steve:
At the May 21, 1981 public hearing on the Cartsbad LCP, I was asked
by several Commissioners to further work with you on the development of a meaningful agricultural land use plan.
There is no question in my mind, and in those of the other diverse agricultural interests who served on the Carlsbad Agricultural Advisory Committee, that the preservation program proposed by PCR TOUPS, and modified by your staff, is a disaster far our agriculture in short as well as long term. The Toups proposal completely ignores the intent of the Coastal Act by failing to recognize 1) the uniqueness of local agriculture, 2) the historical and future forms of local agriculture, and 3) the fundanental resources necessary to support prof i tab1 e food producti on .
If local agriculture is to have any possible chance of Tong term survival, it must operate on preferred soils which in our case is Class I11 since no prime soils exist here. Class I11 soils provide a higher probability of profit to today's farmers in what is already a fragile economic situation. These soils consistently produce 20-30s higher yields than Class IV soils.
". ..
But, of even greater significance, Class I11 soils are the only re- sources which can encourage agricultural survival in the future. Let me explain. Historically, local agriculture is based on export eco- nomics wherein off-season produce (primarily tomatoes, strawberries, flowers) is grown at great expense (high water, costs, intensive labor, poor soils) for marketing at premium prices. Over 90% is ex- ported out of the county. This agricultural program cannot survive in an era of high transportation costs much as we have today and project for the future. In short, export economics cannot survive. Then what? The future is "regional agriculture" whereby local' producers supply local consumers. Local agriculture in Carlsbad will decrease its acreage of export crops and diversify into a variety of fresh produce for local markets. However, and here is the heart of the issue, only Class I11 soils can support a crop diversification program. CE IV soils are marginal and cannot. Without Class 111 soils our local agriculture is doomed!
..
Fortunately, a substantial portion of our Class 111 soil is in the , Ecke agricultural preserve. The bulk of the reminder lies west of the first coastal bluff along the 1-5 corridor, where some urban improvements exist. Toups rejected moving any portion of these lands for reasons of urban impact. While this is no doubt a reasonable approach in a traditional urban-rural setting, it does not consider the unique cultural practices .of local agriculture which has demon- strated compatibility with urban neighbors. In addition, the high density "garden-type" farming practiced here permits economic use of small parcels (10-20 acres). As crop diversification increases to supply local market needs, the economic parcel size would tend to de- crease with the introduction of "multi-crop'' practices (growing more than one crop per year on an acre of land). It is of utmost impor- tance that this unique character of Carlsbad agriculture be accepted by Coastal Commission's land planners and utilized in their local land use plan.
No meaningful short or long term goal on behalf of agriculture can be accomplished by the Toups/Coastal staff proposal to preserve the in- land sites of Class IV and poorer soils. While some of these areas are under cultivation now, it is not by grower preference due to lower yields. Farmers are cultivating these soils because the preferred C1 ass I11 soils along the coast were removed from the leasing market (80% of farmed acreage is leased) by developer/owners when the Coastal Act was passed. The Coastal Act scared these owners away from agri- cultural leasing. Unfortunate, isn't it!
So, what to do? For purposes of encouraging agriculture in the future, it is imperative that quality soils be preserved, not quantity of acres. The following land use proposals would meet the needs of local agriculture and, I believe, comply with the full intent of the Coastal Act:
-2-
t
1) Preserve the bulk of Ecke's property except along Pasco del Norte as we discussed in our meeting on May 15 in your office.
2) Apply a "mixed-use" land plan to the 1-5 properties with some ratio of agriculture to developed land, but identify those areas of non-agricultural suitability (some areas have drainage and alkalinity problems) irrespective of parcel boundaries and concentrate development accordingly. Perhaps a landowner could get a higher density. if he had more agriculture land to be pre- served. Maybe a minimum number of units per gross acre is alloned with the resulting density depending on the amount of agricultural land preserved in a parcel- Also, minimum residua? agricultural parcels sfiould not be less than 10 acres.
3) Sites 11, 111, IV in the Toups report should receive the same "mixed-use" land plan wherever a parcel contains Class I11 soils for preservation.
4) The only ''buffer" requirement between agricultural and development use as a parcel needs to be a minimum 6 feet high solid wall separatipon.
Steve, I trust you will find this information helpful and I can sympathize with how difficult it must be to disregard established land planning principles. However, you must in order for our local agriculture to survive.
Please call on me if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely A ,
Peter G. Mackauf .~ Chairman, Carlsbad Agricultural Advisory Committee
PGM: PT: wl
cc: Lenard Grote, Chairman
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
A. GIESBRET, M. D.
( family practice & surqery 1
LA CANADA Profess. Bldg.
LA CANADA, Calif. 91011
1433 Foothill Boulevard
( 1-0 Ca Med. CI. - a profess. Copp.
June 4, 1981
DAILY 9 a.m. - 6 p.m.
Sat. 9 a.m. - I p.m.
8.1
RECEIVED
JUN 8 1981
City of Carlsbad
Elm Street Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: City of Carlsbad LCP Area Parcel %l5-O5O-l3
Dear Sirs:
This parcel is proposed for development in the near future and agricultural zoning is not acceptable (map descri$rbion #36).
Please include this parcel and together with possible parcel 35 designation (parcel #215-050-12) as to be included in "potentially developable" agriculture land.
Consider this as a formal appeal to prevent any
alternative plan except developmental purposes
Respe.etf ly Yours , cJ&-
AAesbret, M,D,
AG/ j r
I I.00AC4 W
0 9.27 AC.
9
5.07AC
@ 5.06 AC
(8 5.07 AC.
10.08AC. ...... .. . : ... .., .. ." .......
n 5 5 i
(3 10.06AC.
PM 2244 N A9"5 5'40"E 1344.b7 2
hl
@
20,34 AC.
u
5 IO.OOAC. r\
r) P D i .
0 20.00 AC.
POR.PAR.3 PM. I I88
I-
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
MEMORANDUM
, .I.
DATE : June 5, 1981
TO: Mlchael J. Hol zmi 11 er, Pri nci pal P1 anner
FROM: Joyce Crosthwaite, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: DENSITY BONUS
Two committees, the Agricultural Advisory Committee and the city Energy Committee, are both interested in using the incentive of a density bonus. The Agricultural Committee would li ke the policy to state that any developer willing to lease land for agriculture prior to construction or to cluster development and leave land for permanent agriculture or open space would receive a density bonus. If possible, the Agricultural Committee would like you to attend their next meeting to discuss these possibilities.
The city Energy Committee would a1 so 1 i ke to encourage energy conservative design by offering density bonuses. They are willing to prepare a list of preferred design criteria and to help in assigning priorities.
JC:ls
6/8/81
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES
0 Assistant City Manager
(71 4) 438-5596
0 Buliding Department (714) 438-5525
0 Engineering Department (714) 4386641
0 Houslng & Redevelopment Department
(714) 438481 1
D[ Planning Department (714) 4386481
1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
DATE : July 6, 1981
TO : Agricultural Advisory Committee
FROM : Joyce Crosthwaite, Planning Department
The last Agricultural Advisory Committee was held June 24, 1981. The topics of discussion were a memo from the City Attorney and an implementation program for preserving agriculture in Carlsbad. The memo is attached; if you have any comments, please call me before July 14th. The committee members present
approved, in concept, a program to encourage the preservation of
agricultural lands. This program would require, on land with
Class I11 soil or better, applicants to cluster 100% of their development potential on 50% of their site. The remainder would be permanently left for agriculture. On Class IV soils or
worse, the program would be encouraged but not required.
The next meeting will be held in late July. At least one week
before the meeting you will receive an agenda and a detailed
implementation program. The proposed program will be discussed at this meeting.
vanuing Department
JC : ar
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
SEPT. 4, 1981
PETER KACKAUF - CHAIRMAN
CARLSRAO AGR I CULTURAL COMM I TTEE
CITY OF CARLSWAD
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
DEAR PETE:
IT IS WITH SOME RELUCTANCE THAT I HEREBY TENDER MY RE-
HOWEVER, I AN@ MY NE1 GHB3R I F!G FARMERS, F I FJD WE CPFJ NE 1 THER
ENDORSE OR SUPPORT THE AGRICULTURAL PLAN AS DEVELOPED FOR
THE CITY'S ?TA~~~~~~~~~~~ ELEMENT" OF THE GENERAL PLAN. IN
FACT, WE FEEL \!)/E WILL HAVE TO OPPOSE THE PLAN AT ROTH THE
COUhlTY AND STATE LEVEL, 6ND FOR bdE TC: FlJRTMEP SERVE ON THE
COMMITTEE WOULD SERVE NO USEFUL PURPOSE; IT WOULD EVEh! etE A
COMFL I CT OF I NTEREST.
FEEL THAT THE PLAN OOES LITTLE OR NOTHING FOR FARMERS, DOES
NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUES OF ECONOMIC FEARIOILITY, OR PETURPI OF
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS TO THE RI GHTFUL OWNERS WHEN AGRl CULTURAL
PURSUITS ARE NO LONGEP FEASISLE OR POSSIRLE.
\'dE FIND THIS RE-HASH OR THE "ANGUS-MCDONALD " REPORT NO
MOPE PALATAWLE WHEN THE CITY COUNCIL GUARDS THE ??HEN HOUSE^^,
THAN THE STATE COF;ST~,L COMMISSION. FURTHER, WE FEEL FOR THE
RES1 DUALS 1 S DE-FACTO INVERSE CCJYDEWhlATIOFJ.
hnOST PESlOEhlTS ARE OF THE OPlhllOM THAT TO MA,KE P POLlTl,CAL
AND MOST CERTAI PILY WILL Dl SCOURAGE RATHER THAN EhlCOURAGE
FUTURE ARNEXATIUNS TO THE CITY.
PETE, I HOPE THE C01,4MITTEE, THE CITY cOUP.tCIL AND THE CITY
STAFF, WILL NOT TAKE THIS IN A PERSOMPL VEIN, BUT AS A HONEST
DIFFERENCE OF OPINIO~I. I HAVE ENJOYED WORKING WITH ALL OF
YOU AND STILL CONSIDER YOU ALL AS FRIENDS.
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
.*.". *
DATE: September 14, 1981
TO: City Council Planning Director
City Attorney
FROM: City Manager
AGRICULTURAL SUBSIDY
Coastal Conservancy has scheduled a meeting for Wednesday,
September 16, 7:OO PM - Council Chambers to explain . agricultural subsidy program.
Attached is a letter to City outlining the.proqram and inviting city participation.
This letter is being sent to City Agricultural Policy
Committee for recommendation.
Report will be on Council agenda in October.
.FRANK ALESHIRE
City Manager
FA: gb
attachment
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor
STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY
1212 BROADWAY
ROOM 514
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612
September 2, 1981
Mr. Frank Aleshire, City Manager The City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carl sbad, Cal i fornia 92003
(4 1 5) 464-1 070 '. ATSS 561-1070
Dear Mr. Aleshire:
I am writing in follow-up to the .August 26 informational meeting with Conservancy staff that you attended along with James Hagaman and Tom Hageman, at which it was suggested that the City of Carlsbad might have an interest in the administration of the Agricultural Improve- ments Fund portion of the Agricultural Subsidy Program mandated by the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program (LCP). This fund may eventually total as much as $2.5 mill ion or more, depending on the extent and timing of development of the 312 acres of land in the 1-5 corridor which would pay a conversion fee to fund the Agricultural Subsidy Program as a condition of receiving a coastal development permit. The LCP provides that the Improvements Fund, comprising about one- third of the total program budget, shall be used for physical or institutiocal improvements needed to facilitate long-term agricultural production on lands designated for agriculture within the LCP-area.
As you know, the Conservancy has been named- in the LCP as the potential administering agency for the overall Agricultural Subsidy Program in the event that the City does not indicate its intention to undertake that role. We would be pleased to further discuss how the Conservancy and the City of Carlsbad might work together to implement the Agri,- cultural Subsidy Program, if the City so desi res.
In order to assist you in exploring this possibility, I have enclosed a copy of a memorandum sent to the Conservancy board on July 9, describ- ing the general nature of the Agricultural Subsidy Program, together with a map showing the 1 ands el igi ble to participate in the program. You will note that the recommendations for using the Improvements Fund monies are due for submittal to the Executive Officer of the Coastal Commission for his review and comment within twelve months after approval of a payments schedule for administering the other component of the Agricultural Subsidy Program, the Subsidy Fund.
*,
', L
.-
Mr.. Frank Aleshire September 2, 1981 Page 2
With regard to the Subsidy Fund portion of the program, it is our understanding based on the recent meeting that the City does not wish to administer this portion, Therefore, the Conservancy will undertake this role and will submit to the Executive Officer of the Coastal Commission for his review and comment a proposed schedule for disbursing the cash subsidy amounts specified in the LCP for payment to el i gi ble agri cul tural 1 andowners.
Members of my staff will be in touch with the Planning Director shortly to discuss the Agricultural Improvements Fund portion of the program. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to call me, Allen Meacham or Rick Maedler of my staff
' at (415) 464-1015. "&
J s h . Petrillo Ixecuti ve Offi cer
J
JEP: rm
Enclosure
STATE OF CAllFORNlA4ESQCIRCES AGENO EDMUND G. BROWN JR., &-r -
STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY
1212 BROADWAY
ROOM 514
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 91612 (415) 4dc1070
July 9, 1981 ATSS 561-1070
TO: All Conservancy Members
FROM: Joseph E. Petrillo, Executive Officer
SUBJECT: Agricultural Subsidy Program, Carlsbad LCP
On June 18, 1981 the 'California Coastal Commission'completed certification of the City of Carlsbad LCP (San Diegp Coastal Region) which requires the establishment of an Agricultural Subsidy Program,' The LCP requests that the Conservancy administer the program in the event that the City of Carlsbad does not indicate its intention to do so. Although the Coastal Commission would prefer the City of Carlsbad to be the administering agency for this program, the Ci.ty indicated throughout the LCP hearing process its intention not to implement the LCP as adopted by the Commission. Staff is, therefore, beginning preparation of a program to imp1 ement the Agricultural Subsidy Program.
The Agricultural Subsidy Program is intended to promote the long-term agricultural use and preservation of about 670 acres of most-ly unincorporated lands designated as "subsidized agricultural lands" within the Carl sbad LCP. The program would be financed by up to $7.5 mil 1 ion of agri cul tural development fees, which would be paid by private .developers as a condition for obtaining a coastal development permit to convert to urban use approximately 312 acres of incorpor- ated lands designated"as "potentially developable agricultural lands. " In the absence of payment of the development fees, the "potentially developable agricultural lands" could only develop to a density of 1 unit per 10 acres and would be required to cluster development and to record a permanent agricultural use easement over the residual, undeveloped portion of the land. However, with payment of the development fees, these lands would be permitted to develop to a maximum density of 12 units per acre and, in certain locations, could develop general commercial uses. The agricul- tural conversion fees are computed on the basis of $24,050 per gross acre of land to be devel oped ($7,500,000 divided
by 311.85 acres = $24,050).
-29-
A1 1 Conservancy Members July 9, 1981 .Page 2
' . The LCP provides for the Agricultural Subsidy Program to a1 locate two-thirds of the development fees received to an Agricultural Subsidy Fund, with the remaining one-third to be reserved for an Agricultural Improvements Fund. Subsidy cash grants would be made avai 1 able from the Subsidy Fund to owners of "subsidized agricultural 1 ands" who voluntarily elect to participate in the Agricultural Subsidy Program, by recording an irrevocable offer to dedicate a permanent agricultural use easement over their land in favor of the administering agency. The offered easement would prohibit future land divisions, limit the use. of partici- pati-ng parcels to agricultural uses as defined in the LCP Land Use P1 an include an agricul tural management plan and. could allow one single-family residence on each legal parcel in existence as of the date of the offer. The amount of the cash grant for which each parcel of "subsidized agricultural lands" would be eligible is specified in the LCP in accordance with a complex formula developed by Commission staff based primarily on the difference between each parcel.'s assessed value and estimated agricultural value. The Improvements Fund monies would be invested and administered by the administering agency in consultati.on with local agricultural landowners for such uses as area-wide irrigation equipment, water conservation devices, loan funds, cooperative marketing, and roads to assist agricultural production. The LCP also provides for up to'l percent of development fees that are received to be used for administration of the program.
The LCP calls for the Agricultural Subsidy Program to be ayailable for landowner parti.cipation beginning on January 1, 1982, and for the administerfng agency to submit a program for its implementation to the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission for his comment by A program for using the Improvement Fund monies is requi redA- months later. Staff will be working with the Commission, the City of Carlsbad, and landowners in the affected area to develop an implementation program for Conservancy approval this fa1 1 and subsequent submittal to the Executive Director of the Commission for his comment.
CARtSBAD AGRICULmAt PRESERVATION PROGRAM R
5UBSlDlEED
AGRICULTURAL LANDS
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
,"-
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 6, 1981
TO: City Attorney
FROM: Planning Director24
SUBJECT : AGRICULTURAL ORDINANCE
You indicated in the note accompanying your draft of the
agricultural ordinance that you still had some problems with
sections of it.
I would like to schedule a meeting for all the staff who worked on the ordinance and ourselves to discuss these differences
before the Council Meeting on October 13.
JC:ms
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
4-4,
I
..
~MoRANDUM
DATE: October 16, 1981
TO : Planning Director
FROM: City Manager
SUBJ: AGRICULTURAL SUBSIDY
Please prepare a recommendation to Coastal Commission to adopt Carlsbad Agricultural Incentive Program as a replacement for the Agri Subsidy Program.
Also prepare recommendation to Coastal Conservancy and
Coastal Commission that the policies on handling subsidy program require money to be spent in Carlsbad.
Find out if ConservancF adopted subsidy rules on October 8. Do we have any comments on the subsidy rules?
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
h
DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES
0 Assistant Clty Manager
(714) 438~~8
0 Buildlng Department
(714) -
0 Engineering Department (714) 4385541
0 Houslng 6 Redevelopment Department (714) 438-581 1
0 Planning Department (714) 4386681
1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
OCTOBER 9,1981
TO: PLANNING CO"MISSI0N
FR0M:PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM
Attached is a copy of the agricultural program which
was developed by the Agricultural Advisory Committee. It will be presented at the joint City Council/Planning Commission workshop on October 13. We are sending you a copy early to ensure that you have adequate time to review the program.
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 8, 1981
TO : Agricultural Advisory Committee
FROM : Planning Department
SUBJECT : COASTAL. AGRICULTURE .
Attached for your review is a staff report regarding coastal ag-
riculture, to be considered by the City Council on December 15, 1981. The report addresses alternative approaches for dealing
with coastal agriculture, and possible amendments to that portion
of the Carlsbad LCP. It analyzeqthe relative pros and cons of amending the LCP, and requests Council direction on this matter.
If you have comments regarding the attached material, please con- tact Pat Tessier or Tom Hageman in the Planning Department. Com- ments may be verbal or in writing.
We will keep you informed of progress on this matter, Thank you for your cooperation,
PF7T : ar
Attachment
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 cusrent 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 prograq 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.
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).
The program must be mandatory and binding on all affected property.
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 Nmember 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, 198.2.
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
Provide a more equitable approach to agricultural preser- vat ion.
Resolve one of the major conflicts in the LCP disa-
greement between Carlsbad and the Coastal Commission.
Eliminate the subsidy payment scheme which is complex and unique to Carlsbad's LCP.
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,
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-Proqram
PROS:
a)
d)
CONS :
a)
No commitment of staff or City Council time (including program preparation and continuing administration).
Clearly maintains identification of the Coastal Corn- mission's LCP as the "problem document'' (this would be
important in the case of litigation).
Does not draw the city into the debate between property owners and the Coastal Ccpmission 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.
No new land use restrictions would be imposed by the
city.
The subsidy program would continue to be imposed on prop- erty within Carlsbad's current and future areas of juris- diction.
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
Cornmission has a very restrictive program ready to go now.
Even thouqh it will not take effect until January 1, they
have been negotiating with some property owners for months.
-3-
2.
To
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.
The concept of agricultural preservation in perpetuity is solely the Coastal Commission's. IJithin 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.
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
12/8/8 1
-4-
,' .i ? ." 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSEAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Office of the City Manager
December 4, 1981
Douglas S. Draper
Attorney at Law
3325 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Dear Mr. Draper:
-.
Mayor Packard has asked me to answer your letter of
November 30, concerning the Coastal Comission's Agri- cultural Subsidy policy.
I expect to present a report to Council in January
suggesting some options to the Commission's policy.
The "mixed use" approach appears preferable to the "subsidy" program. Another City option is to do nothing. The LCP is not approved by the City. There are many objectional features including agriculture.
I am not optimistic that the City 970Ul6 ever be able to persuade the state to our way of thinking. So perhaps our best course is to take no action and let
the Coastal Commission administer its own land use plan in Carlsbad.
When the 'City's rep0r.t: is.. prepared, we will; send you a copy. We would welcome your comnents.
"-2 *<: ..
Respectfully youKS,
FRANK ALESHIRE City Manager
FA: gb
cc: Mayor Packard Planning Director
City Attorney
TELEPHONE:
(71 4) 43&5561
DOUGLAS S. DRAPER
ATTORNEY AT LAW
3325 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD. Sa -E 70,1
LOS ANGELES, CXLIFORSIX 90010
(2131 383-3801
November 30, 1981
Mr. Ronald C. Packard Mayor of the City of Carlsbad
3965 .Monroe Street Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Mayor Packard :
This letter is written on behalf of my client,
Joseph Sherman, who is the oher of a 30 acre parcel
of land designated as number eight in the Carslbad
Agricultural Subsidy Program.
As you are probably aware, my client along with most other property owners in the area, is adamantly opposed
to the Agricultural Subsidy Program set forth in the Carlsbad LCP. Mr. Sherman is of the opinion that the concept of transferring development rights from his land to the "developable agricultural lands" amounts to
a taking of his property without just compensation.
Further, since this program will allow development on
lands with class I11 soils and prohibit development on lands with class IV and worse soils, it is a nonsensical way to preserve agricultural productivity in the area.
I was in attendance at the October 13, 1981 Carlsbad City Council Meeting and was gratified to hear you and several council members express opposition to the Agricultural
Subsidy Program. I was also interested in the statements
which you made concerning the possibility of property
owners bringing a legal action to challenge the overly
restrictive zoning contained in the Agricultural Subsidy
Program.
Following the certification of the Carlsbad LCP last June,
my client requested that I look into the feasibility of bringing a legal action to attempt to invalidate the
Agricultural Subsidy Program. There are apparently two
possible legal challenges to this program. The first
Page 2 November 30, 1981
involves a claim that the Agricultural Subsidy Program is unconstitutional on the grounds that the zoning
regulations mandated therein exceed the commission's regulatory powers. This would be most difficult to prove in light of the statutory mandate to preserve agriculture within the coastal zone. The second approach would be to claim that the agricultural zoning restrictions amount to a taking of the property and that the subsidy offered by
the program is inadequate compensation for that taking.
This "compensation" approach appears to have a better chance
of success then the "invalidation" argument. However,
a lawsuit based on either theory would be a long, expensive, and up hill battle.
Under the circmstances, my client supports the "mixed use" proposal setforth in the draft dated October 19,
1981. Such a proposal will leave the property owners with an economically viable use of their property while providing a sensible plan for preserving agricultural production in the area as long as it is feasible. Such
a proposal will also spare the property owners from the
expense, delay, and uncertainty of either legal action
or legislative action on the state level.
7.
Therefore, my client will enthusiastically support an amendment to the Carslbad LCP along the lines of the draft
proposal of November 19, 1981. Thank you for your consideration
of this matter.
DSD:mm cc: Joseph Sherman