HomeMy WebLinkAbout; Coastal Agriculture Info (1981); Program Report; 1981-01-29Lt Col. E.H. Jose, Jr.
2099 Truesdale Lane
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Victor Kat0
2004 Subida Terrace
lBmndido, CA 92025
John Frazee
2410 &pian Road
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Raul Tararqo
1070 Buena Place
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Claude Lewis
2030 Basswocx3 Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Gird Anear
1728 Calavo Circle
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Peter McKauf c/o Ukegava Brothers
4218 Skyline Road
Carlsbad, CA 92008
w. Allan %lly
4912 Via Arequipa
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Tan Escher
Dept. of Pgriculture, Bldg. 2
County of San Diego
555 Overland
San Diego, CA 92123
Mr. Guy S. Moore, Jr. - Mr. Etnanuel 0. BackPnann
6503 El Cdno Real 94-30 Cresta Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008 ms Aqeles, CA 90035
Mr. Ben Hillebrecht
2170 Skyline Drive
Ebaondido, CA 92007
Frances Alverez
6491 El canin0 Real Carlsbad, CA 92008
Mr. Joseph A. FUdvalis
1638 Valleda Lane
Ehcinitas, CA 92024
Mr. Andrew McReynolds 2315 Calle Chiquita
La Jolla, CA 92037
Mr. Jmeph Sbrman
7423 Garvey Avenue
Rxxmead, CA 91770
Mr. David B. Thanpson
P.O. Box 576
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Mr. Manuel Hidalgo
6511 El Camino F&al
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Mr. George Bolton
6519 El Camino Real
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Akira and Joyce Tabata
Noboru and Evelyn Tabata
8210 Legion Place
Midway City, CA 92655
michi aru3 Masako fitsuudhi
c/o E.H. Sellmeyer
4353 Wean de Ville
St. Louis, MO 63129
Ms. Dorukhy Thanpson
P.O. Box 388
Carlsbad, CA 92008
. * Paul ark3 Peggy Hadley
4743 W. Hoffer Street Bannirq, CA 92220
Yujiro an3 Doris Yamamto
1201 Via La Jolla
San Clemente, CA 92672
Arnold and Betty Giesbret
14 3 3 Foothill Baulevard 6112 W. 75th Place
LaCanada, CA 92011 Las Argeles, CA 90045
Wallace and Eliz. Aitchison
Alfred and Elsie van Dam
Ms. Carla Silvers Daljit and Elaine Sarkaria
P.O. Box 5986 Betty Grunewald mqe, CA 92667 1131 Melba Road mcinitas, CA 92024
Thurio and Dorotbe Schindler Miguel Padilla and
Det. 2, 504th MICO Cleofas A. Gonzalez
ApONew York, NY 09326 754 Del Riego
Leucadia, CA 92024
mrt and Evelyn Weidner Richard and Kathleen Dennis 6505 EL Cdno Real
537 Ocean View Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 mcinitas, CA 92024
Willim and Virginia Wjan
?Icm Bevilacqua, Dona mff David and Karen Thanpdson
Gregory and Debra Nelson P.O. Fkx 1487
755 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Gilbert and Mary Kaiser
1615 Calle de Cinco Street 221 Prince me Lane
La Jolla, CA 92037 Ehcinitas, CA 92024
Mra and Whiko &roya
Robert and Nina whitney President
P.0. BOX 2564 Berm Corporation
Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 7090 Miramar Rfxd, Suite F
San Diqo, CA 92121
Masao and Ikuko Sugino Mppon wS, Inc.
2050 S. Del Dios Highway c/o Hajime Kat0
E?scordido, CA 92025 17 Horseslme Lane
Rollirg Hills, CA 90274
R3bt. and Anita Downs
Geo. and Sarah Schuttle
10780 San Gdbriel Way
Valley Center, CA 92082
Geo. ardMildredMUrphy Vista Laria Investments
P.O. Box 1185
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Pelican Land Canpany
609 Via Lido Scud
Newport Beach, CA 92663
- A. P. Graff
P.O. Box 674 Fhnclm Santa Fe, CA 92067
Pres., White Water Realty, Inc. 602 Avdda Victoria
San Clemente, CA 92672
Carnation Properties Corp.
c/o Victoria Fernardez
P.O. Box 395 Cardiff, CA 92007
Pres., McMur~?hy Corp.
1541 Wilshire Blvd., Roan 206
Los Aqeles, CA 90017
Dwight Spiers
17941 Mitchell St.
Irvine, CA
Joe Sandy
P.O. Box 590
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Doug Draper 3325 Wilshire Blvd., #700
Los Aqeles, CA 90010
mck DaMn
61% Mission Gorge lid., Ste. 220
San Diego, CA 92120
Linda Breeden
San Francisco, CA 94105
631 Hm St.
Soil Conservation Service
1523 E. Valley Parkway, Ste. 201 Elsmndido, CA 92027
Eric Larson 1355 Forest Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
Jclnl-iery 22, 1991
Gin Hagaman Pl ami ng Di rector
Ci t.y of Carl sbad 1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 32005
Subject:
kdr Mr.
In order into the critical
RECEIVED
FEB 2 1981
Preliminary Joint State and Regional Coastal Commission Staff Response to thc Initial Craft of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program (LCP) Prqaxcl by PRC TOUFS~ :€,orporation
Hagaman :
V
to pwiide the City of Carisbad, as well as other interested parties, insight. *-
direction wh.ich the Coastal Commission staff is taking with reg3rd to the issues in the Carlstad LCP, the following preliminary joint State anti Reqiaaai
.
Coastal Ccn:mission staff response to the initial draft of the-Carlsbad LCP, as prcpared by PRC. Tcups Corporati on, i s bei ng transmi tted. It shoul d b? cl early understood that that this prelirinary staff response is -intended to generate comments, ana does nct constitute the staff recomnendatio~ to the San Diego Coast Regimal ComissIon. Neither does it constitute any official pcsition of either the State or Regional Conimissions. Hmevc, this raspoxs is intended to prnvicie the rea.der with gi!idanc.s as to the pcxiitiw of the Coastal Comiission staff, at :,his time, concerning the fol'Iowing fwr issue/policy groups : agr_i cu.jZyra1 preservation, prctecti on of envi ronmnta? 'iy sensi ti ve haoi trtts , geq1,gjlC .hazards, arid--af;fordaSl - -_-.-..___ e housing. . - "hi le stFff "may have spine concerns'-Fegarai rig other policy groups in-'the-FaC Tou>S..draft of the LCP, these cwcwns ax viewed by us .
c as. 'less gub-stantial than those wi tt: regsrd to the spcci fi2Tgrciufj5 ;-'this sta.Ff'-'?ZY$xtse wtTl-therefore address only the four groups noted. Should the City or other intzrested parties have coments rega'rdiiis any of the policies described in the PRC T~IJLS wport, or any comments upon the contents of this staff letter, such Coilmeats are sncc:.iraged to be submitted, as soan as possible, to: Sat1 D<ego Coast Regional Commissiun, attention: ChLick Dam, €154 Mission Gorge Rgad, Suite 220, San Diego 92120.
-
The City of Carlsbad LC? is expected to be scheduled for hearings by the San Diego Coast kgi'ona? CGnNiSsion, bcginnir;g in late Februilr,y or early March; at least two hearings by the Reyicnal Cmtniission are expected, Commission rev'iew and approw the Carlshad LCP by July, 1981, Gt* the ecti1-e area will be excluded from tk? coast3i'l zone. Tin:.ing is thus critical, and Vie ~ould eficourage the City and- other isterested parties to subzii t cr;mn;ents as soon as possiblc. Staff viill evaluate all coments received, and ?rcFGre an initial staff rcport for suLr!:itial to the Regional Conimission; this report wi'l? be released for public review at It?d~f; we
week prior to the initial Regional Omxission hearing. Notice of the ?;lcJii;;ial Coinmissfcr. hsring schedule will be made 7vai13tle t-o al'I persons and ageiicies known to hvc 2n interest in this natter approxin;atcly 8-13 days prior to the first heai.:t\!1. t4riti:eti comments rece'lved .from any person Cil tiiis matter will be tranmitted to tiic mnibers af the Coinni.ission.
.
State law (AB1371) requires that the State.
-
letter to Jim Hagaman, Planning Director, City of Carlsbad January 28, 1981 page 2
The preliminary staff response to the PRC Toups draft of the LCP is orgafiized according to the "policy group" format (i.e., agriculture, environmentally sensitive habitats, geologic hazards, and affordable housing).
an overview of the background, findings, and recomnended policies contained in the PRC
for policy modifications, additions, or deletions, to the policies contained in the PRC Toups draft LCP.
Staff appreciates the opportunity to provide you with the following reponse to the initial draft of the Carlsbad LCP. Council or Planning Commission wish to discuss this response with staff, please contact Chuck Damn at the Regional Commission office.
Discussion of each policy group includes:
Toups draft LCP; identification of relevant Coastal Act policies; summary of prior
-- Coastal Comission actions on precedential permit and LCP decisions; and staff suggestions
Should you have any questions, or should the City
A- I Tom Crandall , Executive Director, San Diego Coast Regional Commission
. c
Jim Hagaman , Planning Direcbr.
January 20, 1981
Page 3
The following staff response cocsists of four major sections:
discussed on pages 3-16; Wetlands and other Environnentally Sensitive Habitat,
pages 17-22; Geologic Hazards, pages 23-28; and Affordable Housings, pages 29-
32.
Agriculture is
AGRICULTURE
A.
Initial Draft of the Carlsbad LCP - Overview of Policies Recommended and Findings Regarding Agriculture in the A.
Initial Draft of the Carlsbad LCP - Overview of Policies Recommended and Findings Regarding Agriculture in the
1. Background and Findings - The PRC Toups draft of the LCP notes that there
is approximately 1,550 acres of land within the Carlsbad LCP study area which
qualifies as prime agricultural land utiPizing the Williamson Act definition (pg. 18 Of
draft.LB). Another 400 - 500 acres within the Carlsbad LCP has historically
been farmed but does not qualify as prime agricultural land under the Williamson
Act because the land has not been in production in recent years.
Within the PRC Toups draft of the Carlsbad LCP, or in the technical support paper
for agriculture prepared by PRC Toups, the following information is provided.
Agricultural crops in the Carlsbad coastal zone consist primarily 3
of field flowers and a variety of vegetables, particularly tomatoes.
Relatively few greenhouse operations occur in the Carlsbad coastal
western portion of the study area.
is unique in that the crops which are grown can be grown in very few
other places during the same time of year. This significantly reduces . domestic competition, although the area does compete with Mexican
growers for markets for certain vegetables.
,' zone; the largest islocated off Poinsettia Lane within the south-
Production in the Carlsbad area
Pole tomato production is the most significant vegetable crop in the
Carlsbad area and in San Diego County, both in terms of revenue and
planted acreage. The tomato industry has a high "multiplier-effect".
That is, it generates a substantial amount of direct and indirect
economic activity. Revenues from pole tomato production tend to
fiuctuate widely from year to year, primarily because of competition
from other areas, adverse weather conditions, and disease problems.
Disease resistant varieties, however, have increase yields sub-
stantially during recent years.
. . ._..._..__..._ ~., . .-
t
C.
1
Jim Hagaman, Planning Director
January 20, 1981
Page 4
Other crops noted in the PRC Toups LCP draft .;is being either currently cjrown
or capable of being grown in the area include: chcrry tomatoesl strawberries,
snap bcans, cabbage, cauliflower, celery, cucumbers, chives lettuce and squash.
Additionally, field flowers are a significant nursery crop grosm in the Carlsbad
coastal zone.
As stated in the Toups LCP draft and technical support document, climate is the
major factor which has determined the success of the areas agriculture. The
soils, while not defined as prime by the Soil Conservation Service of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, are nevertheless (for the most part) class I11 and
IV soils which are'well suiced for growing truck crops, tomatoes, flowers and
* other crops. This is supported by the following data contained in Appendix 6
of the Toups technical support paper relating to tomato production.
PRODUCTION
AREA
Nationwide
California
San Diego
County
Carlsbad
Sphere of
Influence
PRODUCTION
IN TONS
~~
1,000,000
333,000
165,000
78,000
% NATIONAL
PRODUCT ION
100%
33%
16%
8%
% STATE
?RODUCTION
N/A
100%
48%
23%
AVERAGE
Y IELD/ACRE
8 tons
11 tons
30 tons
30 tons
HARVESTED
ACREAGE
125,000
29,400
5,500
2,600
40 NATIONAL
ACREAGE
100%
23%
4%
2%
% STATE
ACREAGE
WA
100%
18%
8.8% .
As found in the City of Carlsbad Mello Bill Properties (AB4621 Local Coastal Program,
informative agricultural statistics can be extrapolated from the chart. The
. Carlsbad area produces approximately 8% of the nation's fresh tomatoes on only 2%
,of the national acreage; and, the area produces 23% of California's fresh tomato
crop on 8.8% of State's acreage devoted to tomato production.
indicate the high productivity of the Carlsbad agricultural area.
the extrapolation is to indicate the real capability of non-prime soils to support
agriculture. Soils, in combination with the other unique locational factors, such
as the moderating coastal climate, make coastal agriculture unusually productive-
Such statistics clearly
The purpose of
As with much of the agriculture in the State of California, the Toups LCP draft
finds that there are a number of factors which will influence the agricultural
economy of the area. These include availability and cost of water, energy costs,
and labor costs. While advisory and supportive policies can be developed in the
LCP regarding these issues, the issues are broader in scope and should be resolved
at the state and or federal level and not in the LCP. However, the key planning
issues which must be addressed in the LCP are identified by PRC Toups as: pressures of urbanization; urban/agricultural conflicts; and, regulation of agricultural lands-
These three issues are discussed in the following suhheadings.
a. Pressures of Urbanization - Much of the agricultural land in the Carlsbad - area, particularly within the coastal zone, is experiencing extreme development
pressure. According to the PRC Toups LCP draft (pagcs 18 and 29), land owncxrship
patterns are not consistent within the Carlsbad coastal zone. Soine very large
parcels arc owned by large corporations who intend to lcase the land to growers
--. -.
' Jim' Hagaman, Planning Direct
January 20, 1981
Page 5
until development of the land is possible.
and fragmented,
other ownerships are extremely small
The basic principal underlying much of the land use canflict is
that market value of vacant land increases as demand for urbanization
increases.
izing area has a market value in excess of its value as an agricultural
resource. As constraints to urbanization decrease, land values in-
crease. Any number of factors, such as improved access, increased
sewer capacity, residential zoning, 'and increased water availability,
can contribute to such increases. This situation has led to land I
speculation in many areas of the Carlsbad coastal zone.
agricultural land owners rely on the future value of their land as
the basis for their investment strategies. (pg. 20, PRC Toups LCP
Agricultural land which is in close proximity to an urban-
Many
. draft).
Because of this urbanization pressure and land speculation &ich has occurred in the
Carlsbad area, the economic feasibility of agriculture takes on added importance.
At the request of PRC Toups, Dr. Alan P. Kleinman at Great Western Research
prepared a report entitled The Economic Viability of Agriculture in the Carlsbad
Coastal'Zone. That report states:
Based on the derivation of the expected costs and returns
as derived for the area, profitability of production on
the average is in a reasonable range for farm operators of
specialty crops in the coastal zone.
have been years of very high returns and years of significant
losses dce to market factors and yield variance.
in the study area was by owner-operators who had not more than
Historically there
If production
. $3,500 per acre invested in land, it could be concluded that
.. agricultural production would continue into the forseeable future.
However, based on the current land tenure, a host of economic
pressures are at work which will ultimately result in abandonment
of agricultural production. The question then becomes one of
the economics of land ownership rather than the econdcs of
agricultural production.
.
In addition, a report prepared by Copley International Corporation titled Analysis
of Agriculture on the Spiers Study Parcel Regarding the California Coastal Act
concludes that :
Xn terms of Section 30242 of the Coastal Act, the study
parcel does not represent a case where renewed agricultural
use is feasible.' From an economic point of view, ownership
of the parcel for agricultural activities is.not viable, The
value of the parcel assessed at $26,654 per acre does not
represent an agricultural land use. As shown in the General
Agriculture section above, the agricultural value of the land
is approximately $4,000 (Page 32 of the Copley Rqort).
4
Jim Hagaman, Planning DirectoL
January 20, 1981
Page 6
-4
The Spiers Parcel is one of the Occidental Land, Inc. parcels in the Mello Bill
Properties (703462) LCP which the Coastal Comission has approved.
As concluded by Dr. Kleinman and PRC Toups, the quesiton becomes one of the
economics of land ownership rather than the economics of agricultural production.
Agriculture in the Carlsbad area does provide an adequate long term economic
rate of return if the land were purchased at approximately $4,000 an acre. If
purchased at a much higher speculative value, the long term economic rate of
return for continued agricultural use becomes problematic.
In conclusion, the PRC Toups draft of the Carlsbad LCP states that what is
economically beneficial to the individual landowner is not necessarily beneficial
to the regional economic fabric.
document supports the above statement by indicating that continued agricultural
operations result in a net positive impact on the area as a whole:
The following excerpt from the LCP technical
Planning methodologies have been developed to compare the
costs and revenues associated with placing different land
uses on individual parcels of land, particularly comparing
agricultural and residential uses. In conjunction with
preparation of the County's Agriculture Element, County
planning staff conducted a computer analysis using the
Demographic ad Economic Forecasting Model to analyze the
relative importance of agriculture to San Diego County.
As part of that study, an analysis of replacing 80 acres
of'tomato production with low density residential develop-
ment was conducted which found that greater long run
personal income would accrue to the region if this land
remained in agricultural production. This analysis assumed
that 108 houses built on this land would be a net temporary
addition to the County's housing stock in 1979. In other
words, it was assumed that the development would have oc-
curred elsewhere in the region over the long run. What the
results indicate is that the building of low density re-
sidential homes on agricultural land generates "temporarily"
about $2 million in income to the region (direct and indlrect).
Over the long run, however, the region could effectively lose
an annual $303,000 in personal income due to the elimination
of agricultural production. Hence, at the end of about seven
years, the residential "one time" gain in the regional income
is offset by the loss in agricultural income (County of San
Diego, 1979).
.This example indicates that the eventual long run displacement
of certain types of high yield agriculture with low density
residential development is likely to result in a net negative
economic impact upon the region.
._
(P. 13 City of Carlsbad, Technical Support Paper: Agriculture)
Because of the above firidings, and the requircments of the California Coastal Act
of 1976, PRC Toups recommcrided policies in thc initial draft of the Carlsbsd LCP
directed towards preserving viable agricultur,il parcels. These policy re-
comendations are discussed under subheading 2.
- - Jim Hagaman, Planning Direct
January 20, 1981
Page 7
b. - Urban/Agricultural Conflicts - Page 21 of the draft LCP prepared by PRC
Toups states the following:
Conflicts between urban and agricultural land uses are strong in
the coastal area of Carlsbad because scattered residential develop-
ments have been allowed to occur within agricultural areas south
of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Agricultural operation in close proximity
to an urban area would have to contend with increased vandalism,
complaints from residents about noise from machinery, dust and
pesticides, and possibly damage to plants from urban pollutants.
This type of urban/agricultural border results in lost productivity
and increased cost to farmers in the Carlsbad area.
In order to minimize potential conflicts between adjacent urban
and agricultural uses, the concept of "buffer" areas is appropriate.
Such areas must be wide enough to effectively separate the two
conflicting uses. The Carlsbad area offers many natural and
existing buffer areas.
separates agricultural land to the south from the northern, populated
portion of the City. Interstate 5, and steep sloping lands exceeding
25 percent. offer the potential of providing additional effective
buffers. However, buffers of approximately 300 feet in width seem
to be necessary to separate residential uses from potential aerial
spraying of pesticides utilized on row crops. Smaller buffers can
be utilized where aerial spraying does not occur.
Currently, Agua Hedionda Lagoon effectively
Policies proposed by PRC Toups with regards to buffer areas are discussed. under sub-
heading 2. ---- -
c. Regulation of Agricultural Lands - The initial draft LCP for C3rlsbad includes
the following on pages 21 and 22:
Several agencies have jurisdiction over land use and
agricultural land conversion in the Carlsbad coastal zone.
Federal controls are generally indirect, but may be significant
as in cases of the effect of capital gains and inheritance
taxes on individual owners. The state has direct control over
agricultural land use through the Coastal Commission and LAFCO.
Both of these agencies support the preservation of agriculture,
but WCO policies are confined to prime agricultural land
as defined by the Williamson Act while the Coastal Commission
policies also cover non-prime land. The current policies of
the City of Carlsbad would ultimately allow conversion of
nearly all the coastal agriculture to residential uses. However,
the Carlsbad general plan introduces the concept of the "Urban
Reserve Area". These are areas which will be subject to
increasing urban pressures through time.
property owners to "land bank" their holdings with the City and
phase the development of the land. The intent of the program is
to provide the City with the ability to temporarily preserve
agricultural uses and open space areas and not prematurely '
commit land to urban uses. Development is not expected nor
encouraged to occur in thcsc areas in the immediate future.
The County position is similar to the City of Carlsbad although
Iinder recently proposed amendments to the North County Metropolitan
'
This program would allow
' Jim' Hagaman, Planning DirectL
January 20, 1981
Page 8
Subregional Plan, the conversion could not cccur under County .
jurisdiction until 1995.
The basic policies of the California'Coastal Act of 1976 (Sections 30241 and
30242) and the policies of the City of Carlsbad with regards to long term pre-
servation of agriculture are at odds. The City's policles allow gradual
conversion of agricultural lands (including both prime and non-prime lands)
while the Coastal Act restricts conversion of any agricultural lands except
as permitted in Sections -30241 and 30242 of the Act.
Act mandate to preserve and protect agriculture, PRC Toups developed the following
draft LCP policies,
2. Initial Draft Carlsbad LCP Policy Recommendations - The staff response will
highlight the policy recommendations prepared by PRC Toups in the initial draft
of the UP as concerns agriculture.
draft .
Because of the Coastal
Staff will follow the format of the Toups LCP
Policy 2-1: Agricultural Site 1 - This site comprises approximately 490 acres of
contiguous land south of Agua Hedionda lagoon, north of Palomar Airport Road and
east of Interstate - 5 (ref. attached map) Most of the site is commonly referred
to as the Ecke Preserve.
PRC Toups recommends that the Ecke Preserve be preserved as agriculture under the
Williamson' Act for as Long as is feasible. If the contract is not renewed, the
owner will be assigned agricultural subsidy credits similar to the program defined
in Policy 2-2 or some other alternative program.
through the LCP amendment process. The portion of the site not in the Ecke Preserve
is recommended for the agricultural subsidy credits techniques.
The 6etails would be determined
'The 15 acre secpent located between 1-5 and the frontage road is recommended for
visitor-commercial uses.
Policy 2-2: Agricultural Sites 2 and 3 - Site 2 is located just south of the Ecke
'Preserve' and north of Poinsettia Lane.
and there are relatively few individual owners.
Poinsettia Lane extended.
nursery crops as a typical use of the land.
contiguous land devoted to agricultural purposes comprise Sites 2 and 3.
Row crops are the dominant farming operation
Site 3 is located just south of
There are many individual small farming concerns with
A total of approximately 575 acres of
. The
agriculture,
transfer of the
land.
be considered to consist of the title to various rights.
of ownership is the right to develop or improve property.
agricultural subsidy credits concept, this right is separated from the other rights
of ownership and may be purchased by others.
compensation is not required to preserve these lands for agriculture. Coastal
Commission policies stipulate that a strong regulatory position alone would be
enough to preserve these lands. However, the purchase of agricultural subsidy credit
is recommcndcd here to incorporate some measure of equity into the land use planning
Toups LCP draft recommends that the land in Sites 2 and 3 be preserved, as
This recommendation shall be implemented through the purchase and
agricultural subsidy credits associated with this agricultural
The principle on which this method is based is that: land ownership may
One of the normal rights
Under the purchase of
'*
It should be emphasized here that
-
-
Jim'Hagaman, Planning Direct\
January 20, 1981 .,
Page9 5
process.
throucjh a compensatory program designed to establish stable urban/rural boundaries
and minimize conflicts.
It represents an effort by the public to preserve agricultural lands
The details of the PRC Toups Agricultural Subsidy Credits Progrm are provided
on pages 24-33 of the initial draft of the Carlsbad LCP.
Policy 2-3:
of the City of Carlsbad and northeast of the Batiquitos Lagoon. The site includes
approximately 265 acres of agricultural land, the majority of which is on the Rancho
La Costa landholding which was included in the Me110 Bill Properties (AB 462) LCP.
The draft LCP for Carlsbad recommends that these agricultural lands be preserved
either through the agricultural subsidy credits program or in-the case of Rancho
La Costa with an internal transfer of development rights scheme (ref. pg. 34 of the
Agricultural Site 4 - This site comprises areas near the southern boundary
'
. draft LCP for details).
Policies 2-4, 2-5 and 2-8 - These two policles discuss prfme and non-prime agricultural
land suitable for production but wh2ch because of urban conflicts, or because of the
inability preserve them for long term production, PRC Toups recommends their conversion
to urban uses.
agricultural subsidy credits program (ref. pgs. 34-37 of draft LCP for details).
Policies 2-6 and 2-7 - PRC Toups recommends in Polfcy 2-6 of the draft LCP establish-
ment of a 100 foot buffer between urban uses and agricultural uses where no aerial
spraying of crops occurs.
recommended. Polfcy 2-7 recommends temporary agricultural use of land not permanently
protected for agriculture (ref. pg. 37 for additional information).
Most of the acreage converted would be required to participate in the
Where aerial sprayhg does occur, a 300- foot buffer is
B.
Act of 1976 deal with preservation of agricultural lands.
Relevant Coastal Act Policies - Two policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal
These policies are found
\ . In Sections 30241 and 30242 of the Act and are quoted below.
Section 30241 - The maximum amount of prime agricultural land shall be maintained in agricultural production to assure the protection of the areas' agricultural
economy, and conflicts shall be minimized between agricultural and urban land
uses through all of the following:
(a] By establishing stable boundaries separating urban and
rural areas, including, where necessary, clearly defined
buffer areas to minimize conflicts between agricultural and
urban land uses,
(bl By limiting conversions of agricultural lands around
the periphery of urban areas to the lands where the viabllity '
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.
- ..
Jim Hagman, Planning Directo,
January 20, 1981
Page 10
(c) to the conversion of agricultural lands.
(d) non-agricultural development do not impair agricultural viability,
either through increased assessment costs or degraded air and water
quality .
By developing available lands not suited for agriculture prior ~
By assuring that public service and facility expansions and
(e)
except those conversions approved pursuant to subdivision (b)
of this section, and all development adjacent to prime agricultural
lands shall not diminish the productivity of such prime agricultural
lands.
By assuring that all divisions of prime agricultural lands,
Section 30242 - All other lands suitable for agricultural use shall not be
use is not feasible, or (2) such conversion would preserve prime agricultural
land or concentrate development consistent with Section 30250.
conversion shall be compatible with continued agricultural use on surrounding lands.
.converted to non-agricultural uses unless: (1) continued or renewed agricultural
Any such permitted
C.
LCP Decisions - The Coastal Comnission has a long track record in San Diego County
of efforts to preserve agricultural lands or protecting existing agricultural lands
from urban encroachment. Past precedential permit decisions include denial of the
Summary of Previous Coastal Commission Actions on Precedential Permit and
.
t following pernit applfcations : .-
Reglonal Commission State Commission
Project Title Location Pile No. Appeal No.
MCS Development Tiajuana River F5702 @ 284-77
Madonna Const, Tiajuana River F5676 285-77
Valley
Valley
Playmor North Encini tas P5031 55-77
Takara International Leucadia ' F5251' 110-77
Pacesetter Homes Carlsbad P5040 58-77
Standard Pacific Carlsbad
John Lusk and Son Car lsbad
P5449
F5613
144-77
244-77
Additionally, the Commission in appeal No. 15-76, conditioned the expansion of the
Encina Sewage Treatment Plant to prevent sewering of agricultural lands prior to
certification of the Carlsbad and County of San Diego u3ps.
All of'the above permit decisions have several things in common which exemplify the
Coastal Commission's concern to protect the viabil'ity of agriculture in the coastal
zone. First, the land involved in each permit decision was either in field crop or
greenhouse production or had traditionally been so. Second, the projects all involved
subdivisions which would introduce additional urban encroachments without formally
establishing sound/stable urban boundaries. Third, in each case the applicant claimed
that agriculture was not feasible; (except for the sewage treatment plant) but, the
projects were all reviewed by the Commissior. 3-4 ycars nqo and agriculture continues
to be viable in the area even though some of the property owners have withheld land
from production. Fourth, in all cases the land was zoned for agriculture prior to
- -
Jim Hagarnan , Planning Director
January 20, 1981
Page 11
tentative subdivision approval; therefore, purchase for future urban' development
was speculative.
It should be noted that in the LCP process the Commission has allowed conversion
from an agricultural land use designation to an urban use designation for some of
the above properties (i.e. blCS, Madonna, Standard Pacific 1 ; but, only after
detailed and comprehensive agricultural protection issues had been addressed.
With regards to precedential LCP actions, the Tiajuana River Valley Land Use Plan
(a segment of the City of San Diego's LCP) and the Mello Bill Properties (AB4621
LCP for a segment of the City of Carlsbad are of importance to the draft Carlsbad
LCP.
a central issue.
of agricultural land; it also allowed conversion of some land suitable for agriculture
in order to establish stable urban boundaries and to attempt to guarantee long
term agricultural production. In general, the Commission's attitude in the LCPs IC/) ,
ha6 been not just to preserve land for agricultural use; but, to also encourage --'
agricultural production through incentive
In both LCP actions by the Commission, preservation of agricultural lands was
In response to this issue the Commission required preservation
programs such as the mixed use concept.
D. Staff Suggested Policy Modifications, Additions or Deletions to the Policies
of the Initial Draft Carlsbad LCP - In presenting this portion of the staff response,
the comments are directed towards the coccept of an agricultural subsidy program;
elaboration of the TRC Toups findings in the draft Carlsbad LCP; and finally, major
policy modifications, additions, or deletions as suggested by staff. This last
portion references a iengthy attachment to this letter titled: "City of Carlsbad LCP
Agricultural Cox2onent" (Attachment - A) The attachment provides detailecl infomation
as to the direction staff is proceeding.
Coast Regional Commission has not been prepared, and the staff position regarding the
-complex issue of agricultural preservation remains flexible. Again, it is urged that
any comments be submitted to our office as soon as possible.
However, the staff report to the San Diego >xJ'
1. Agricultural Subsidy Program - Staff concurs with the basic concept of an
In reviewing
the program, staff is of the opinion that considerable refinement is necessary; but,
we agree with the concept.
is - the land is suitable and designated for agricultural use. Participation in the
Agricultural Subsidy Program is strictly voluntary.
participate, the staff position is that the land remain designated for agriculture.
.agricultural subsidy program as recommended in the draft Carlsbad LCP.
A very important fundamental point must be noted - that
If a property owner does not ----- - ---
2. Elaboration of the PRC Toups' Draft Carlsbad LCP Findings - The PRC Toups
draft of the LCP and the technical support paper on agriculture prepared by Toups
provide a substantial amount of information regarding the agricultural economy of
coastal San Diego County. In seciton "A" of the staff response on Agriculture, the
Toups findings are sunpnarized. In addition, staff has reviewed a number of other
documents related to the feasibility of agriculture in San Diego County, prior land
use decisions and court cases. Staff would recommend the following findings to .
buttress PRC Toups' findings in the draft LCP for Carlsbad.
. . 1 ..- .. .
..
Jim Hagaman, Planning Direct.
January 20, 1981
Page 12
a.
\. i
Zoning - Clearly large lot or agricultural zoning could be applied to all
lands suitable for agriculture between Aqua Hedionda and Batiquitos Lagoon.
this land is still zoned for agriculture (A-1-10 zoning), and where down zonings have
been required in the past by government action, the State Supreme Court has made
note that there is no vested right to zoning and that a reduction in value resulting
from urban use designations to an agricultural use designation does not constitute
a conpensable taking. The possibility of change in zoning to a different use is
a calculation risk to buyers of vacant land and that purchase involves varing
degrees of speculation. The fact that some property owners may have paid a speculative
price for agricultural land with the hopes that it would be zoned and permitted for
more intense urban use is not sufficient reason for allowing conversion of suitable
agricultural land.
Much of
b.
report titled Analysis of Agriculture on the Spiers Study Parcel Regarding the California
Coastal Act, and the report prepared by Great Western Research titled The Economic
Feasibility of Agriculture - As previously noted, both the Copley International
Viability of Agriculture in the Carlsbad Coastal Zone, indicate that long term product-
ivity and adequate economic return from agricultural operations could be realized if
the amount invested in land costs was commensurate with an agricultural land use
designation (i-e., approx. $4,00O/acre). The Commission found in the Mello Bill
Properties (AB4621 LCP that while technically an analysis of feasibility of agriculture
may not be required for prime agricultural lands under Section 30241 of the Coastal
Act, that nevertheless, a feasibility analysis similar to that required for non-pi%’m-
lands in Section 30242 is appropriate since removal from production for three yea_r_s-_-----
would result in all the agricultural lands in Carlsbad being designated as non-prime
under the Williamson Act definition.
The Commission noted in the Mello Bill Properties (AB462) LCP that there is con-
siderable difference of opinion on the type of economic analysis to be used in
determining the feasibility of agricultural-operations on non-prime lan&. Such
analysis could be based on cash flow from year to year, -annual income, land-purchase - -* --
price (variable from individual to individual depending on date of purchase) appraised -4 -
value, current lease rates or other factors which would all produce different con- ’
clusions as to feasibility ..,.
Economic feasibility based solely on purchase price is only one of many means to evaluate the continued economic feasibility of agricultural lands, If this test were
years ago, it would mean that his operation was economically viable (regardless &€---
other factors such as net income or capitalizatlon) and therefore he could not convert
his land to a non-agricultural use.
the same land provided that he paid a high purchase price.
subject to Section 30242 could determine the suitability of the parcel for agriculture
sinply by setting the purchase price. Section 30242 requires an objective test that
can be applied to all lands rather than a subjective test whose results can be
predetermined by the parties themselves. Because of the lack of logic of a subjective
approach based on purchase price,the Commission, in the Mello Bill Properties- (AB4621
LCP, rejected the use of purchase price as the sole basis for determining economic
feasibility of continued agricultural operations.
..
--3
applied to a long time California farmer who purchased or Enherited his land many --
However, a buyer of his operation could convert
In effect a buyer of land
-.
Jim Hagaman , Planning Directc.
January 20, 1981
Page 13
The landowners of some of the land within the Carlsbad LCP agree that agriculture
would be feasible if land prices had been $4,00O/acre, but argue that agriculture
is clearly infeasible because they paid well over tFat mount for the land.
value, and that such speculative values should not be considered the overriding
factor in dealing with the question of feasibility.
Even assuming that purchase price were an appropriate test for economic feasibility
in some circumstances, it then becomes appropriate to consider the circumstances
surrounding the purchse.
Again; 7
the Commission has found that the price paid by the landowner reflects speculative <
Looking to the facts surrounding development in Carlsbad, annexation and zoning
policies have been an issue of major controversy throughout the 1970's.
annexation of this area into the City of Carlsbad was highly controversial, and
1100 acres were deleted from the annexation. When the annexation and zone change
to allow development came before the City of Carlsbad, the Planning Commission on
April 24, 1973, denied the zone change. In that denial the Planning Commission
found :
Initial
Development ... could adversely affect the City's ability to provide
adequate services.. .and.. .the City is currently developing its General Plan Revision,.. -- c.---, -
miat denial xas appealed to the City Council, ad the City Council overruled the
Planning Comnission and granted the zone change in May of 1973.
area was still without the necessary public utilities to develop.
construct a sewer line along the edge of Batiquitos Lagoon to serve the area was
denied by the predecessor State Commission because of concern that premature sewer
services would undermine planning efforts to protect agricultural lands and prevent
adverse effects on Batiquitos Lagoon (Appeal No. 215-73, Rancho La Costa). The
sewer line was subsequently permitted by.the Regional Commission under conditions
Similar
conditions preventing sewering of agricultural lands were attached to expansion
of the regional sewer plan (Permit No. A-15-76, Vista).
Land Development in the area north of Batiquitos has been fraught wfth problems.
When the regulatory process established by the Coastal Act of 1972 began, the
land in question was without sewer service, was not zoned for uban development,
and had not been annexed to the City of Carlsbad. All of these approvals were
discretionary, and all were highly controversial. No developer who began the
process of seeking approvals could be assured of final approvals, even without
seeking permits from the Coastal Commission.
However, the
A permit to
5 -
-= 'iz ;a --Z?at prevented the use of sewer capacity for serving agricultural lands.
In addition to the economic analysis of feasibility prepared by Copley International
and Great Western Research, it is noted that "feasible" according to the Coastal -
Act is defined as follows:
Section 30108 - "Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a
successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into
, account ec@nOmic, environmental, social, and techrlological factors.
Thus an analysis of feasibility undcr khc Coastal Act must consider environmental,
social and technological factors. Eased on environmental considcrations, continued
agricultural operations is clearly more compatible with natmal resources than
.-
.. - .. . .._-. . - . . . - . . .
'ih _-
Jim Hagaman, Planning Director
January 20, 1981
Page 14
conversion to residential uses.
ing Agua Hedionda Lagoon has shown that pesticide use on agricultural lands can be
much more effectively regulated than pollution resulting from urban development and
that agricultural uses serve to limit potential sediment impacts in contrast with the
sediment and accelerated runoff problems created by urban development. A marked
increase in sedimentation of Batiquitos Lagoon has been documented subsequent ta
urbanization of portions -of the watershed.
more environmentally com2atible with the surrounding lagoon.
use itself, the size and location of the parcels do not present any significant
environmental limitations on agricultural activities,
Experience with agricultural use in the areas border-
Agricultural. lands also provide a habitat
In terms of agricultural
Social factors require the Commission to balance the need for housing against the
populated area of more than 38 square miles characterized by haphazard islands of
low density residential development.
' residential development remains a problem and a moratorium on construction has been
in effect for many years. In contrast, the excerpt from the LCP technical document
as quoted on page 5 of this staff response indicates that continued agricultural
operations result in a net positive impact on the area as a whole.
. regional benefit of continued agricultural operations. Carlsbad is a sparsely
Financing of urban services needed for additional
Technological impediments to residential development (such as sewers) have been
discussed. Alternatively, continued agricultural use is technologically appropriate
because the climate, soils and relatively large parcels make agricultural operations
economic and social impacts favoring agricultural use of high yield lands reinforce
the prior discussion of the positive benefits of agricultural use compared with
urbanization in terms of the overall public costs (e.g. lagoon sediment$tion) in-
Thusr social and economic
factors also favor agricultural use.
In summary, the Commission found in the Mello Bill Properties (AB4621 LCP that the
--&wironmental, social and technological elements of the feasibility test contained
In Section 30108 of the Coastal Act favor continued agricultural use of the agricultural
lands in the Carlsbad area. The Mello Bill LCP concludes that,, ,A -_ %2 - I
The substantial uncertainties in planning, market conditions, and
availability of services make it clear that EtcquisLtion of land at
prices well above the capitalization value of agriculture was
speculative, and did not reflect reasonable expectations of develop-
ment within the reasonable future, The lack of unconditional
land sales in the intervening period confirms the speculative nature
of land prices; all sales have been purchase options, contingent
upon all necessary approvals to allow development. These speculative
land prices, reflecting substantial uncertainties, must be compared
to the substantial value of the land in continued agriculture.
Carlsbad, the combination of a coastal climate and soils give the
area an average productivity of 30 tons/acre of tomatoes compared to
8 tons/acre nationwide. The coastal climate also gives the area the
.
b fn this area iitore profitable Llan in many other areas of S~R Eiego. The .long-term
,
~ herent in the physical impacts of developing the area.
-#
:a*-.- -.? +
1
Within
ability to market tomatoes during other times of the
tomato growing regions, giving producers the highest
year than most
possible price.
- . Jim Hagaman, Planning Direct
January 20, 1981
Page 15
Similar climate advantages, although not as marked, exist for other
crops. The Commission finds that the great advantages of the coastal
climate and the Carlsbad soils give the land an inherent productivity
far in excess of the $200/acre required €or the prime designation
under the Williamson Act. The Commission further finds that the
speculative price paid by the current landowner does not reflect any
such inherent values in the land, but rather reflect hopes for develop-
ment in an area where both public policy decisions and market con-
ditions involves substantial risk. Weighing these two factors, the
Commission cannot find that the price paid for the land under such
speculation outweighs the very real, and substantial value that the
land has in continued production. Therefore, the Commission finds
that continued agriculture is feasible.
3. Major Policy Modifications, Additions or Deletions Suggested by Staff - Staff
recognizes the importance of certainty in real estate and the future of renewed
egriculture in this area. In order to assure renewed and continued agricultural
production, staff is suggesting a planned zone approach that will assure renewed
and continued agricultural production.
incentives in exchange for preservation of agricultural opportunities either
through a mixed/supplemental use concept or an agricultural subsidy program.
In staff's opinion, the approach provides economical, feasible development
opportunities consistent with the preservation of agriculture. Staff believes
that planning designat5.ons that enhance economic feasibility by allowing develop-
ment of portions of the property may be m9re.protective of agriculture becawe
they provide a mechanism for permanently protecting agricultural land - and for
removing the land use uncertainity and resulting speculative value from that
agricultural land.
agricultural land is permanently protected through agricultural conserv;&ion
easements. These methods enhance the existing feasibility of agriculture by
allowing landowners a return on their speculative hopes as well as on the realistic
there can be no question of the overall feasibility of permanently protecting
agricultural land in the area covered by the Carlsbad Le.
It would allow additional development
.
i
Therefore, staff has included within the land use plan two
.methods for allowing development that further enhance feasibility if the remaining
.$slue of the larid to remain in agriculture. In staff's view, with these policies,
There are several significant dlfferences in the staff proposal for agricultural
preservation and the proposal in the PRC Toups draft of the Carlsbad LCP.
the staff proposed planned agricultural zone (PA21 differs with the Toups proposal .
in the following ways:
In summary,
- The word "credits" is removed from the "Agricultural Subsidy Program"
since the word is a misnomer resulting in confusion.
agricultural land, no credit to property owners 2s required. However,
to encourage long term preservation of agricultural lands and continued
agricultural production, an agricultural subsidy program as outlined
in the attached draft of the planned agriculture zone appears very
desirable.
To preserve
- -
Jim Hagaman, Planning Direct&,
January 20, 1981
?age 16
- Staff's proposal makes it very clear that the agricultural subsidy
program is strictly voluntary. If the program is not implemented,
all suitable agricultural land remains designated for agriculture.
- The staff suggested agricultural subsidy program involves a two
tier approach :
1. The prope-rty owner whose land remains designated for
continued agriculture could apply to receive a sub-
sidy equivalent to the difference in the agricultural
value of the'land (i.e., $3,40O/acre) and the market
value (i.e., assessed value multiplied by 4).
to be used for improvements such as agricultural access
roads, irrigation, etc.
2. An agricultural improvements fund would be established
The funds for the subsidy program would result from development fees on agricultural
lands allowed to convert to urban uses which are located along the 1-5 corridor.
The development fee would be equivalent to $24,050 per acre or approximately $2,000
per unit if the site is development at 12 dwelling units per acre. As yet, staff
has not 'determined appropriate densities for lands along 1-5 which are allowed to
convert to urban uses. Ultimately, Commission determination of density levels - would influence development fee per each dwelling unit.
- Planning Commercial/Agricultual Permit: Staff suggests that the ,
area qexrally shown as Site I in figure 3 of the PRC Toups draft of
the LCP, and commonly referred to as the Ecke/Carltas property, be
designated for planned commercial/agricultural development. In d, effect, staff suggests a mixed use concept similar to that discussed
in the Angus McDonald and Associates report titled Enhancement of
Coastal Agriculture.
Mello Bill Properties (AB4621 LCP. Approximately 1/3 of the land
along Palomar Airport Road and Paseo del Norfe would be allowed to
convert to urban use.
This approach is also similar to what the *- : - -. Commission decided on the Occidental Land, Inc. holding in the
In conclusion, attached is a draft of the agricultural component for the Carlsbad LCP
as prepared by staff. This draft builds upon the agricultural subsidy program outlined
in the PRC Toups draft of the LCP.
that it is realized that further refinements are necessary, and that there may be
preferable alternatives that meet the intent of Sections 30241 and 30242 of the Coastal
Act. The attached draft of the agricultural component is intended to provide the City,
and any other interested parties, guidance or to the direction the Coastal Commission
staff is currently taking regarding the complex issue of agricultural preservation.
It should be understood that this is only a draft,
-
' Jim Hagaman, Planning Direct
January 20, 1981
Page 17
WETLANDS AND' OTHER
ENVI RONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT
A. Overview of Policies Recommended and Findings Regarding Environmentally Sensitive
Habitat in the Initial Draft of the Carlsbad LCP -
1. Background and Findings - Three significant wetlands: Buena Vista Lagoon,
Agua Hedionda and Batiquitos Lagoon are located within the Carlsbad LCP area or in
close proximity where direct and indirect impacts from u2land development within
the LCP area can affect the habitat resource value of the lagoons. The PRC Toups
draft of the Carlsbad LCP provides details on each of the lagoons (pgs. 44-48) and
indicates that each of the lagoons is unique due to salinity levels, water level,
urban encroachments and ownership patterns. Suffice it to say that each lagoon
does have significant habitat resource value. This assessment is supported by
the California State Department of Fish and Game which has designated the three
lagoons as important coastal wetlands and are, thus, given priority protection under
Section 30233(c) of the Coastal Act.
Additionally, certain terrestrial areas of the Carlsbad coastal zone as noted on page
51 of the draft LCP have very high habitat value. The Tosups draft states the following:
These areas are generally confined to steep slopes which are not suitable
for faming.
and animal species, several of which are threatened because of extensive
conversion of coastal mixed chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitats to
urban or agricultural uses.
vegetation is a major deterrent to soil erosion and attendant difficulties.
These areas exhibit a large number and diversity of both plant
Also, well-established and well-maintained
Maintenance of viable populations of rare plants and animals is dii%tly
dependent u?on maintenance of appropriate habitats.
habitats conprise the coastal mized chaparral and the coastal sage scrub
occurring primarily in the Evans Point area and the Palomar Airport Hills
area. These two areas have been designated as Resource Conservation Areas
by the County.
stands of trees, and wildlife populations which are to be protected by the
use of sensitive resource regulations and/or appropriate land use controls."
(pg. 50 of PRC Toups LCP draft),
Significant upland
This designation is characterized by "significant vegetation,
Another resource issue addressed in the draft Lcp is soils management.
and 49 of the draft LCP, PRC Toups states the following:
On Pages 42
Soils of the upland areas are fundamentally important resources and
require study and management to prevent both loss through accelerated
erosion and degradation of downstream areas through sedimentation.
Very large areas of erodible soil exist within the Carlsbad coastal
zone. . .
The removal and disturbance of natural vegetation, especially on hill-
sides, should be minimized so that the erosion process is not accelerated.
Intensive erosion removes rich topsoil and inhibits the regrowth oi
vegetation. Eroded hillsides are also aesthetically displeasing.
Jim FIagaman, Planning Director
January 20, 1981
Page 18
Another major effect of erosion is excessive sedimentation in reservoirs
down stream and the tranport of associated pollutants,.-such as phosphorus
into the receiving waters. Excessive sedimentation disrupts the natural
ecosystem in a number of ways including the destruction of natural habitats
for certain species of animals.
2. Initial Draft Carlsbad LCP Policy Recommendations - The staff response Will
highlight the policy recornendations prepared by PRC Toups in the initial draft of
LCP as cor.cerns wetlands and other environmentally sensitive habitat. Staff will
follow the format of the Toups LCP draft.
- Policy 3-1: Slopes and Preservation of Vegetation - In this policy Toups Recom-
mends that the City of Carlsbad prohibit development on slopes greater than 25%
except for minor encroachment for the provision of roadway or-utility access.
Property owners with land having slopes in excess of 25% would be allowed a density
transfer of one extra unit to be built on the developable portion of the site for each
acre of 25% and above slope area.
Policy 3-2, 3-3 and 3-4: Buena Vista, Batiquitos and Aqua Hedionda Lagoons - Stringent
erosion and sediment controls should be implemented to decrease sediment loads into
the lagoons according to the PRC Toups draft of the LCP.
Policy 3-5: Resource Management Guidelines - It is recommended in the draft-LCP that '
Resource Managzment Guidelines similar to the Statewide Interpretive Guidelines for
Wetlznds and Cther Environmentally Sensitive Habitat areas he merged into the City's .. ~ permit review process.
Policy 3-6:
provisions of the Carlsbad Master Drainage Plan and strict erosion and eediment controls
shall be implemented.
Site Specific Review - In reviewing site specific projects, appropriate
B, Relevant Coastal Act Policies - Several pollcles of Chapter 3 of the California
Coastal Act of 1976 are directed towards preservation and protection of wetlands and
other environmentally sensitive habitat.
30231, 30233, 30236, and 30240 of the Act. Essentially all these provisions of the
Coastal Act are concerned with the preservation and protection of environmentally sen-
sitive habitat areas. Environmentally sensitive habitat areas are defined as "any
area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially
valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystein and whfch could
be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments."
Section 30107.5).
These policies are found in Sections 30230,
(Coastal Act,
Enclosed as Attachment - B is a complete set of Chapter 3 Coastal Act policies for,
purposes of reference.
C. Summary of Previous Coastal Commission Actions on Precedential Permit and LCP
Decisions - Similar to the agricultural issue, the Coastal Commission has a long
track record in San Diego County of efforts toprotect the wetlands and other
environmentally sensitive habitat areas. Past prccedcntial permit decisions include
either: denial or conditional zpproval of the following permit applicatiQns in which
hc&itat protection was a significant issue:
Jim Hagaman, Planning Directe
January 20, 1981
Page 19
Project Title
Moshtaghi
$
Wm. Lyon Co.
A. K. Enterprises
Central Breen
So. Cal.
Standard Pacific
Zanderson
Regional Commissiog
Location File No.
Carmel Valley area of F7453
City of San Diego
Mira Mesa West
area of City of San Diego F9139
County of San Diego F5286
County of San Diego F5401-E
County of San Diego F8101
Carlsbad F5449
Oceanside F7815
State Commission
Appeal No.
NO appeal
NO appeal
109-77
233-78
196-79
144-77
90-79
- Additionally, the San Diego Coast Regional Commission has approved numerous projects
with conditions regarding erosion control, hydroseeding of all graded areas, and
limitations on the time of year for grading (no grading during the rainy season) I
The above permit decisions have several things in common
area, especially the area between Agua Hedionda and Batiquitos Lagoons. First, the
land involved in each permit included some steep slopes in excess of 25%. Second,
the projects were all located within drainage areas which discharged directly or
indirectly into one of the north San Diego county lagoons-.
through conditions on the projects approved, required all slope areas (with very
minor exceptions) in excess of 25% to be left undisturbed. Fourth, detailed drainage -
and runoff control plans were required, landscaping requirements imposed, and' the
season for grading restricted.
with highly erodible soils which drain to the lagoons,
With regards to precedential LCP actions, the La Jolla Land Use Plan (a segment of
the City of San Diego's LCP and the Me110 Bill Properties (-462) LCP for a segment
of the City of Carlsbad, are of importance to the draft Carlsbad LCP. J$ both LCP
actions by the Cornmission, preservation of habitat and steep slopes and erosion
control were central issues. In response to these issues, the Commission required
preservation of steep slopes and preparation of detailed drainage and erosion control
plans prior to development. Finally, the Coastal Commission has expressed similar
habitat protection, steep slope preservation and erosion control concerns in the
issue identification for the San Dieguito LCP and the LCPs for the north city areas of the City of San Diego.
with the Carlsbad LCP
Third, the Commission
Much of the Carlsbad area consists of steep Slopes
D..
the Initial Draft Carlsbad LCP - In presenting this portion &the staff response,
the comments are directed towards elaborating on the PRC Toups findings in the
draft Carlsbad LCP and on policy modifications, additions or.deletions as suggested
by staff. As with agriculture, these staff comments do not constitute the staff
report to the San Diego Coast Regional Commission; but, they are intended to provide
direction as to staff's position.
is urged to submit comments to our office as soon as possible.
Staff Suggested Policy Modifications, Additions or Deletions to the Policies of
Anyone having concerns regarding this policy group
1. Elaboration of the PRC TOUPS' Draft Carlsbad LCP Findings - In general staff
agrees with the findings in the PRC Toups draft of the LCP and the technical support
paper on Environmentally Sensitive Habitats, Water and Marine Resources prepared by
Toups. In section "A" of the staff response on Wetlands and Othcr Environmentally
Sensitive Habitat, the Toups findings are summarized. In addition, staff has reviewed
other documents related to protection of cnvironmcntally scnsitivc habitat.
Jim Hagaman, Planning Director
January 20, 1981
Page 20
Staff would recommend the following findings to buttress PRC Toups' draft LCP.
The findings are primarily related to drainage and erosion control and aimed
at protecting the lagoons.
As noted by PRC Toups,to protect the lagoons fron increased sedimentation as a
result of urbanization, PRC Toups recommended conEomance to the draft Carlsbad
Master Drainage Plan and restriction of construction on slopes in excess of
25%. The Carlsbad Master Drainage Plan proposes phased incremental construction
of underground sewers along all of the drainage course in the Carlsbad LCP area.
The Master Drainage Plan also proposes a new grading ordinance that provides
controls over urban runoff, but does not contain any restrictions upon grading
season.
As noted in the Mello Bill Properties (AB4621 LCP, there are two problems with
sedimentation that are of special concern to the Commission because of their
effects on the lagoons:
and increase streambed erosion resulting from paving and storm drains in urbanized
areas.
caused by urbanization, "Effects of Urbanization of Sedimentation and Floodflows
in Colma Basin, California" by J. M. Knott USGS notes an increase in sedimentation
to 130 times pre-development rates.
Evaluation and Control of Soil Erosion in Irbanizainq Watersheds by Chang-Ning Chen
while even more dramatic increases are related in "Control of Sediments Resulting
from Highway Construction and Land Development" by the U.S. Environmental Proteccion
Agency, 1971. The Commission has observed these effects throughout the San Diego
County, and has found that stringent controls over the timing of grading and policies
to assure revegetation are necessary to minimize these increases.
the Mello Bill Properties (AB462) LCP provide controls and policies analogous to
those required by the Commission in its permit decisions.
The second major problem with sedimentation, and the major long term concern, is
increased flood flows due to urbanization.
Prestegard, in "Stream and Lagoon Channel of the Los Penasquitos Watershed, California,
with an Evaluation of Possible Effects of Proposed Urbanization," reported that
increased urban runoff can cause steambed erosion for periods of twenty to thirty
years, and is the major cause of increased sediment deposition in San Diego County.
The problems of stearnbed erosion have been dramatic in San Diego, notably at Crest
and Lux Canyons, and also within the watershed of the lagoons in the Carlsbad LCP,
and in the dramatic increases in deltas at eastern end of the lagoons. The Commission
has found that phased construction of storm drains is not sufficient to mitigate the
effects of urbanization because unlined portions of drainageways continue to erode at
an even more rapid rate after construction upstream. The Commission has also been
concerned that construction of artificial drainageways avoids the benefits of filtration
of urban runoff accomplished through natural drainageways.
As a result of the concerns expressed in the draft LCP, plus additional concerns and
previous actions by the Coastal Commission on permit and LCP matters, staff would
suggest the following modifications to the draft LCP policies regarding wetlands
and other environmentally sensitive habitat areas. For clarity, policy-nunbcrs
correspond to the policy numbers in the PRC Toups draft of the Carlsbad LCP.
.
increased sedimentation from the urban development process,
Several publications note the dramatic increase in sediment production
Increases of 100-fold are also noted in
The policies of
The Commission's own consultant, Karen
I
. Jim Hagaman, Planning Direc :
January 20, 1981
Page 21
1. Policy 3-1 Slopes and Preservation of Vegetation - Staff recommends
clarifying language that the Policy on steep Slopes applies only to areas not
specifically addressed in other policies and that the last sentence of Paragraph
2 and the remaining paragraphs be deleted- Revised policy would read as follows:
this
Certain areas of the Carlsbad coastal zone have very high habitat value.
These areas are generally confined to steep slopes which are not
suitable for farming. These areas exhibit a large number and diversity
of both plant and animal species, several of which are threatened
because of extensive conversion of coastal mixed chaparral and coastal
sage scrub habitats to urban or agricultural uses. Also, well-
established and well-maintained vegetation is a major deterrent to
soil erosion and attendant difficulties.
Unless specifically addressed in other policies of this Land Use
Plan, the vegetation on steep slopes shall be maintained so that
natural habitats are preserved and soil erosion is minimized.
The City of Carlsbad shall prohibit the development of slopes
greater than 25% except for minor encroachments for roadways or
utilities.
on flatter lands.
Land Use Plan, such credit may allow one extra drelling unit to be
built on developable land for each acre of 25% and above slope land.
A development density credit may be provided for use
Unless specifically provided elsewhere in this
2. Policy 3-2:
policy as follows:
Developments located along the first row of lots bordering Buena Vista Lagoon,
including the parcel at the mouth of Lagoon shall be designated O-%
dwelling units per acre not medium density as is shown in the Toups map.
Such developments shall be required to submit additional topographic,
vegetation and soils reports as a part of the permit application.
reports shall be required in addition to the Environmental Impact Reports
and shall be prepared by qualified professionals in the respective fields
containing sufficient detail to enable the City to locate the boundary
of wetland and upland areas and areas of steep slopes.
shall be submitted at a scale sufficient to determine the appropriate
developable areas but no less than 1"=100' having a contour interval of
5 feet with overlays delineating the proposed project's location. The
permit application shall include the computation of the density of develop-
ment. Criteria used to identify wetlands shall be based on the Coastal
Act, Section 30121 and the adopted LCP Mapping Regulations.
Buena,Vista Lagoon - Staff would suggest a comFlete rewrite of
The
Topographic maps
Developments shall be clustered to preserve open space for habitat protection.
Minimum setbacks of 100 feet from the wetlands, in order to provide a
buffer between the development and the wetland shall be required. The open
space and buffer areas shall be permanently preserved for open space
uses through a requirement of a conservation easement. If the wetland
is bordered by steep slopes in excess of 25% which acts as a natural
buffer to the wetland, the development need not be setback 100 feet.
Page a The California Cmstui Councr) -
I 1 - AGRICULTURE IN THE
-n A nT A I 7nn I’r
designated -. - With the adoption of the €oastal Act of 1976 the Coastal , thesocall& Zone was extended inland far beyond the IO00 yard limitation
esiablished by Proposition 20. A considerable number of is produajvt tinued existe farms and potential agricultural land, both prime and
, primary ab1 marginal, now falls under the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission. ‘* A reading of the Coastal Act of 1976 led many of us ’f I ’ ~~~$~a~~~l~~
’, &e “family” owns agricuhire and ranching to believe that co,.~,i -I..,,.--.I.. i ...rcrrl.ne.~n~~~ and me live with the AH. If
tion for coastal r~O~rCes and to insure public aaess -- ...- beach. - L’
--l__l_ - 7- - --
a small price to pay t,, JC~.UIF
5Y “ ERN0 BONEBAKKER .
The commission emphasizes over protection of nparfa
habitat by the creation of 100 ft. buffer zones adjacent to the *’significant” areas. On land used for agnmkurr, buffer zone area is usually the best area for farm-
M, it is the only or major portion of the farm that :. In addition, there is no protection for the Con- nce of the family farm. Local governments arc the
isers by refusing -to permit additional separate
- -‘-de parcel, and the Coastal Commission mhv. We, who would like to perpetuate Ad owrated Tms, are viewed’ Bs
Y‘V. .Glucr+lr,&‘y,
n e-..-., protec-
rn th-
u,,Jb.l ”,, Y.VII ___ -..sky subdividers. There is an emphasis on . - L. ~ *-: the concept of tenant farm-
* ing. If they had their way,
. covernment agencies would The reality of the Coastal Act. as it is interpret4 and,&‘ ministered by the staffs and commissions. is a far P- from the
hnes
UVYL~ by the ese regulations - __.
P- -. *prefer that we all remove
ourselves from our farms and
live in the urban areas. Our homes and barns undoubted-
ly ‘clutter the landscape. The Agricultural sections of the ‘ coastal ~ct protect.the
and make the farm- irrelt
vant. and guidelines were not subject to legislative review. The Act
permitted the commissions to adopt such rules as were I left my native land in the necessaiy for the conduct of their business. The public hear- 1930’s to escape the rWnnY ings surrounding the adoption of the extra-legislative regula- of *‘the end judfYb the tions ignored the input of the working agricultural communi- means** and the Hitlefian
tY. philosophy of denying the The staffs of the coastal commissions are long on theory &d propefiy rights Of one class of ideology and short on agricultural expertise. Like good peoi)le for the ‘‘Public bureaucrats everywhere, they constructed a complex and un- I good.** I see it happening workable regulatory system which only ensures self- again in my adopted land: perpetuating full employment for themselves. Marching pitting class against class, behind a banner of agricultural protection, the staffs have pro- neighbor against vided us with their definition of agriculture, which bears little neighbor - I he Young resemblance to the working farmer’s reality. It is like a trip bureaucrats do not weer through the looking glass to confront a text book bureaucrat brown shirts-Yet. with clean hands and no callouses on the subjects of irrigation, I fear for the future. 1 fear pest control, weed abatement, food production, drought, and that there Will be such a the economics of farming. sweeping backlash against It is impossible for working farmers to explain their plight to bureaucratic tyranny that commissioners who sit in judgement, not because they are that we have achieved to necessarily qualified to do so, but because they are either Secure individual liberty Will politically active or because they are vocal supporters of the be lost and will not easily be
regained. Coastal Act. Neither of these activities justifies a decision making position. Only a farmer understands the complex and
often difficult judgements he must make in order to survive. .~.~.:.r.~.r.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.!.!.~.!.r.~.~.~.!.:.r.:.r.:*~.:*~.
Farmers. by their very nature, are true environmentalists by belief and by necessity. They are independent businessmen and well educated to the dictates of the land and its product.
Without these traits, a farmer could not survive. (1 would like to Uiefld mY To the farmer, the Coastal Act means locking marginal sincere appreciation 10 hfary farms into an economically infeasible use; preventing the ‘cloyion. Women for fanner from designating the highest and best use of his land in AgricullUrP, for her order to secure financing for capital improvements; and usiu asststance in the prepa~lion agricultural preservation as a means to secure uncompcnsatd open space “The farmer works twelve to fifteen hours a day
on marginal land with a deficit return so that the ‘environmen- talist’ can drive by in his polluting machine and enjoy the vim. What we are engaged in is scenic farming” says a colleague.
I
___.-.............-----.------.
I
- of (his orrick.) E.B.
CI - --
Even if water were piped to Los Angeles from the
Sacramento River or any other plausible new source,
Mckser says, it would not descend to L.A. from the
height of the Mono Basin and would therefore not
generate as much electrical power on the way.
LADWP has found that each acre-foot of Mono water
generates power equal to five barrels of oil on its way
to L.A., while an acre-foot of California Water Project
water involves consuming the equivalent of five bar-
rels of oil for pumping, and an acre-foot of Colorado
River water consumes the equivalent of three.
According to Wickser, replacing the electricity that
would be lost if 85 percent of Mono Basin water were
cut off-the equivalent of 425,000 barrels of oil a year
-would cost much more than the task force’s estimate
of 54 cents, and, he doesn’t see why the LADWP’s
“three-and-a-half million ratepayers” should have to
foot the bill.
Wickser makes that point emphatically, but he
doesn’t want to seem too hard-nosed. As he and Babb
prepare to leave he says, “Dave and I hate it that
Mono Lake is shrinking, but I think the trade-off is
worth it, at least until we learn something new. That
may sound cold and heartless, but that’s the way it is.”
Needless to say, the Mono Lake Committee views
the trade-off differently. It is trying very hard to per-
suade people-especially those in Los Angeles-that
the lake is worth paying a price for. On the front of
49
--
Jim Hagaman, Planning Direct .
January 20, 1981
-Page 22
The density of development shall be based on the net developable
area which exclude the wetlands, and the water areas of Buena Vista
Lagoon. A density credit as prescribed for Policy 3-1 is available
for steep slopes.
Storm drain alignments proposed in the Master Drainage Plan to be
carried either through or emptying into Buena Vista Lagoon shall
be constructed only in compliance with the requirements of Sections
30230, 30231, 30233, and 30235 of the Coastal Act by maintaining or
enhancing the functional capacity of'the Lagoon acceptable to the
Department of Fish and Game.
Further Land divisions shall only be allowed on properties bordering
the lagoon in compliance with master development plans which implement
the policies of this plan.
create new parcels except in compliance with this Plan.
Land divisions shall not be allowed to
3. Policy 3-3: Batiquitos Lagoon - Staff suggests that an additional paragraph,
as follows, be added to policy 3-3.
Erosion, drainage and sedimentation of Batiquitos Lagoon were previously
addressed in the certified Local Coastal Program for Occidental,
Standard Pacific and Rancho La Costa properties also located in the
Batiquitos Lagoon watershed. Developments in this LCP located in the
watershed of Batiquitos or Aqua Hedionda Lagoons will also be
required to meet those policies. '
in this LCP is designated for continued agricultural use which does
not require coastal perinits. When permits are required, however,
conditions shall be imposed which assure that development will be D
carried out in a manner that assures protection of the water quality
of the Lagoon.
agricultural operations requires a coastal permit and such activities
shall be conditioned with appropriate measures, including, but not
limited to, manner, time, and location of vegetation removal and types
of contour plowing to minimize soil erosion and thus assure protection
of Batiquitos Lagoon.
Much of the Batiquitos watershed
Removal of major vegetation for- expansion of
Developments shall be clustered to preserve open space for.habitat
protection. Minimum setback of 100 feet from the wetlands, in order
to provide a buffer between the development and the wetland shall be
required.
4. Polic?es 3-5 and 3-6 - Staff would suggest that these policies be deleted as
they are incorporated in other policies or the new policy recommended below.
5. New Policy Kelly Point Area - Staff suggests that policies designating the
above referenced lands for planned residential/agricultural development similar to
those previously approved by the Comwission affecting property known as Rancho
La Costa be adopted. Enclosed as attachment - C is a draft of such policies. The
reasons for this special policy (as with Rancho La Costa) are related to the sen-
sitivity of the area from the standpoint of protecting habitat values in and adjacent
to Aqua Iicdionda Latgoon, the steep slopes on the site and the potential far severc
erosion, prcscrvation of agriculture and protection of the visual amenities afforded
the bublic.
I .. Jim Hagaman, Planning Directc
January 20, 1981
Page 23
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
A.
the Initial Draft of the Carlsbad LCP - Overview of Policies Recommended and Findings Regarding Geologic Hazards in
1. Background and Findings - The PRC Toups draft of the Carlsbad LCP found
that geologic hazards in the Carlsbad area can be grouped into four basic categories:
coastal bluff erosion; landslides, slope instability and soil erosion problems;
flood hazards; and, seismic hazards. In general, the data and findings prepared by
Toups in the geologic hazards component of the LCP (ref. pgs. 56-68 of the draft LCP)
are considered by staff to be adequate. A quick synopsis of the PRC Toups findings
reveals that:
a. Shoreline erosion is a serious problem due to loss of beach sand
which has been accelerated by urban development such as construction
of dams which have sharply reduced sand transport to the beaches,
improper design of coastal bluff top structures resulting in drainage
problems which erode the bluff, and excessive irrigation which has
created groundwater seepage concerns.
b.
north facing slopes along'creek channels: slope stability problems
are generally considered to be caused by human activity such as
grading and increased amounts of groundwater (irrigation or wet-year
rainfalls) and can occur at any location.
c.
time.
Landsltfdeareas have been mapped and are 1ocated.mainly on the
Flood hazards potential is minimal in the Carlsbad area at this
P
3) d.
Carlsbad area.
There is a "relatively very high" earthquake hazard in the
2. Initial Draft Carlsbad LCP Policy Recommendations - The staff response will
For'greater detail see pages 69-73 of the
summarize the policy recommendations prepared by PRC Toups in the initial draft of
the LCP as concerns geologic hazards.
draft LCP. Staff will follow the format of the Toups LCP draft.
Coastal Erosion
Policy 4-1:
(CEH) adjacent to the coast which would prohibit building new structures or re-
Toups' recommends establishment of a Coastal Erosion Hazard Overlay Zone
placing existing ones. The zone would be defined as 200 feet landward of the MHHW
(Mean Higher High Water) or 100 feet landward of the top of a coastal bluff, whichever
is greater.
Policy 4-2:
by both erosion and down zoning should be initiated for the CEH overlay zone;
A financial program to compensate property owners for losses suffered
Policies 4-3 and 4-4:
address the cause of beach sand erosion.
Policy 4-5: This policy limits construction of shoreline protective devices to those
necessary to servc coastal dcpcndent uses or to protect existing structures or public
beaches in danger from erosion.
Toups' suggests that the City pursue mitigation measures which
Jim Hagarnan, Planning DirecL -A-
January '20, 1981
Page 2 4
Policies 4-6 and 4-7:
top lots and what development nay occur on the bluff face.
These policies are aimed at insuring proper drainage on bluff
Landslides and slope Instability
Policy 4-8:
identify with specificity areas of landslide and instability.
Detailed soils investigations shall be required for all subdivision to
Accelerated Soil Erosion
Policies 4-9 through 4-14:
requirements include:
This series of policies developed by Toups' in the draft
. LCP involve methods to control runoff and erosion. In summary form the policy
- compliance with the Carlsbad Master Drainage Plan; - Slopes in excess of 25% shall be left undistrubed; - onsite soil erosion control practices such as landscaping,
mulching, special grading procedures and diversion structures
shall be used; - Sediment control devices shall be used to prevent sediment from
leaving the site; - provide for increased volumes of storm runoff In downstream water
courses ;
Flood Hazerd
Policies 4-15 through 4-20:
the means to control flood hazard potential are recommended.
In this group of policies contained in the draft LCP
These means include:
- storm drainage facilities should be improved in accordance with the
- in order to reduce sediment in downstream drainage facilities, the
Carlsbad Master Drainage Plan;
City's grading ordinance should be amended to greatly reduce the
extent of onsite and offsite erosion; - drainage improvement districts should be formed to implement the
Master Drainage Plan; - no permanent structures or filling shall be permitted In floodplains; - adopt the provisions of the Master Drainage Plan to ameliorate flood
and drainage hazards within the Carlsbad area.
B.
Coastal Act of 1976 are most relevant to the geologic hazards issues. These policies
are found in Sections 30253 and 30250(b) of the Act and are noted below:
Relevant Coastal Policies - Basically, two policies of Chapter 3 of the California
30253 New development shall :
geologic, flood and fire hazard.
create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability,
or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way requi?-e
the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter
natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs.
(1) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high
(2) Assure stability and structural integrity, and neither
. 30250(b) Where feasible, new hazardous industrial dcvelopmcnt shall be located
Jim' Hagaman, Planning Direct- _.
January 20, 1981
Page 25
away from existing development areas.
C.
Decisions - The Coastal Commission has reviewed a number of permit applications
in San Diego County where various geologic issues were analyzed. Past precedential
permit decisions include denial or approval with conditions of the following permit
applications :
Project Title Location File No. Appeal No.
Summary of Previous Coastal Commission Actions on precedential Permit and LCP
Regional Commission State Commission
Eller, et a1
Erskine Johns
Wm. Lyon Co.
Self Realization
Fellowship
Standard Pacific
Kemp, et a1
Expansion of
San Onofre Power
Plant
La Jolla (seawall) F7616
Sorrento Valley area
of San Diego F5179
Mra Mesa West
area of San Diego F9139
Encinitas (seawall) F9172
Carlsbad F5449
Oceanside (seawall) F7654
San Onofre F0670
No Appeal
85-77
No Appeal
No Appeal
No Appeal
144-77
183.73
The Coastal Commission has also reviewed numerous seawall projects for individual ocean
front lots and projects on sloping lands where drainage and erosion control. issues
were addressed. If the projects involved seawall construction the Coastal Commission
consistently required that the seawalls be constructed as far landward as possible,
that public lateral access easements be dedicated, that detailed geologic reports
be prepared ar,d that a waiver of public liability be recorded.
volved subdivisions on sloping lands with erodible soil, the Coastal Commission re-
quired mitigation in the form of preserving slopes in excess of 25%, limiting the
season of grading to the non rainy months, immediate landscaping of graded areas,
and sediment traps or other erosion control mechanisms where necessary as determined
by a detailed drainage and erosion control study prepared by a licensed engineer
qualified in hydrology and hydraulics.
I
Where pr%jects in-
With regard to precedential LCP actions, the Oceanside Land Use Plan (LUP) and the
Mello Bill Properties (AI3462) LCP are particularly relevant. The Oceanside LUP
addresses in considerable detail the shoreline erosion issue which is critical in
that City; and, is taking on increasing importance in the Carlsbad area. The Mello
Bill Properties (AB4621 LCP addresses the grading and erosion control issue in detail
as related to the Rancho La Costa property.
D. Staff Suggested Policy Modifications, Additions or Deletions to the Policies of
the Initial Draft Carlsbad LCP - The following staff comments are directed towards
the policies of the TOUPS' report concerning geologic hazards. In general, staff
considers the findings in the PRC Toups' draft of the LCP complete, and that no
further significant elaboration of findings is needed. Again, the following
suggestions do not constitute the staff report to the San Diego Coast Kcgional
Commission; but, they are intended to provide information as to the direction staff
is proceeding. Comments are encouraged. Staff's suggested modifications follow the
format of the Toups' report.
Jim'Hagaman, Planning Directc,
January 20, 1981
Page 26
Coastal Erosion
Policy 4-1: Staff would recommend a complete rewrite of this policy. Information
available to staff indicates that FE.m has no plans to offer insurance in shoreline
erosion areas. Therefore, implementation of the CEH overlay zone as recommended by
TOUFS' is not likely. Additionally, no special policies are proposed regulating
development on the remaining vacant parcels within the proposed zone other than
those included in the Master Drainage Plan erosion control- ordinance. Until insurance
is available, staff would recommend against the CEH overlay zone approach and would
suggest the following :
For all new developments and additions to existing development along the
shoreline, a site specific geologfc investigation similar to that required
by the Commission's Geologic Stability Bluff top Guidelines (ref. attachment
I)) shall be required and must demonstrate bluff stability for 75 years or-
the expected economic lifetime of the structure, whichever is greater. Ad-
ditionally, development shall incorporate sub-drainage systems to remove
groundwater from bluffs and shall use drought-resistant vegetation in land-
ordinance in the MDP).
of stability cannot be given.
:.scaping plms (as well as adhering to the standards of the erosion control
A waiver of liability shall be required when assurance
Policy 4-2: In view of the revisions suggested for policy 4-1, staff would recommend ~
deletion of policy 4-2.
Policy 4-3:
"The mitigation measures should be adopted, and lmplemented where feasible, by the
City of Carlsbad.
Staff would recommend that a sentence be added to this policy -stating -
Policy 4-5:
of the draft LCP . The following language Is recommended by staff to be added to policy 4-5
As a condition of approval, such projects may be required to replenish
the beach with imported sa7d. Furthermore, dredging projects may be
required to dispose sand on the beaches if the dredged material is
suitable for sand replenishment. Provision €or maintenance of seawalls
shall be included as a condition of development.
.. Policy 4-6:
the draft LCP:
The following language is suggested by staff to be-added to pollcy 4-6 of
The policies in the model erosion control ordinance will contribute
greatly to this end; however, as mentioned in the comments to policy
4-1 above, subdrainage systems should be required where necessary to
increase stability, and drought-resistant vegetation shall be used
in landscaping plans to minimize irrigation and addition of water.
Policy 4-7: Staff would recommend that the phrase "engineered structures" be eliminated
from this policy.
Jim Hagaman, Planning DirectL,
January 20, 1981
Page 27
Landslides and Slope Instability
Policy 4-8: Staff would recomnend that the Toups' policy be modified as follows:
Currently soils investigations are only required for subdivisions.
Any development proposed for areas prone to landslides shall have a
geologic investigation indentifying appropriate measures to be taken.
The geologic report shall be in substantial compliance with the
Commission's adopted Geologic Stability Bluff top Development guide-
lines.
Accelerated Soil Erosion
Policy 4-9:
similar to that contained in the Mello Bill Properties (AB462) LCP. The policy would
then state:
a. For areas west of the existing Paseo del Norte, west of 1-5 and
along El Carnino Real immediately upstream of existing storm drains,
the following policy applies:
Staff would recommend that the PRC Toups policy be replaced with a policy
A site specific report prepared by a qualified professional shall be
required to provide the necessary mitigation for increase runoff and
sedimentation.
Model Erosion Control Ordinance contained in the Appendix to the June
1980 Carlsbad Master Drainage Plan and the additional requirements
contained herein.
of the project and shall be installed prior to the initial
grading. At a minimum, such mitigation shall require construction
of all ixgrovements shown in the Master Drainage Plan between the
project site and the lagoon (including the debris basin), restriction
of grading activities to the months of April through October, re-
vegetation of graded areas immediately after grading, and a mechanism
for permanent maintenance if the City declines to accept the responsibility.
Construction of drainage improvements may be through formation of an
assessment district or through any similar arrangement that allots cost
among the various landowners in an equitable manner.
b. For the remaining areas within the LCP that contain slope areas in
excess of 25%, the requirements outlined in attachment "C" shall apply.
The report shall be subject to the requirements of the
:-
Such mitigation shall become an element
Policy 4-10:
4-10 can be eliminated.
With revisions to policy 4-9 suggested above, the Toups' proposed policy
Policies 4-11 through 4-13: No changes suggested by staff
Policy 4-14: With revisions to policy 4-9 suggested above, the Toups' proposed policy
4-14 can be eliminated.
Policy 4-15:
in the LCP" be added to this draft policy.
Staff suggests that the phrase "incorporating the changes recomncnded
Jim'Hagaman, Planning Direct
January 20, 1982
Page 28
Policy 4-16:
City's grading ordinance to be amended.
Policy 4-17:
the first sentence of the Toups' draft. Also, an additional sentence is suggested
which would read:
Staff would recommend that this policy be modified to require the
It is recommended by staff that the word should be changed to shall in
Upstrean areas in the coastal zone shall not be permitted to develop
prior to installation of the storm drain facilities downstream, in
order to assure protection of coastal resources.
Policy 4-18: No changes suggested by staff.
Policy 4-19:
"100 year floodplain areas".
Staff would recommend that this polidy be clarified as referring to the
Policy 4-20: No changes suggested by staff.
Policy 4-21: The LCP identifies areas prone to liquefaction (map #12), stating that
"Those portions of the study area...underlain by unconsolldated, saturated sediments
could experience damage due to even a minor earthquake" (p. 66, LCP). Yet, no
policies are suggested to approach this.
language be added to policy 4-21:
Staff would recommend that the following
. Most development in liquefaction-prone areas should have site-specific
investigations done addressing the liquefaction problem and suggesting
mitigation measures.
commercid, induatrial, and public facilities shall have site-specific
geologic investigations completed in known potential liquefaction areas.
New residential development in excess of four units,
.-
A
Jim Hagaman, Planning Director
January 20, 1981
Page 29
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
A. Overview of Policies Recommended and Findings Reqarding Affordable Housing
in the Initial Draft of the Carlsbad LCP -
1. Background and Findings - The PRC Toups draft of the LCP contains detailed
information and findings regarding low and moderate (affordable) housing opportunities
in the Carlsbad area, and in particular in the coastal zone (ref. pgs. 131-137 of the
draft LCP).
contains supplemental data. In general, staff considers the inforamtion and findings
on affordable housing in the draft LCP adequate. One correction should be made. On
pages 134 and 135 of the draft LCP,reference is made to the estimated housing needs
for low and moderate income households.
document prepared by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG, formerly CPO)
titled "Lower Income Household Needs" in the San Diego region. This document does
not take into account moderate income household needs as verified by a SANDAG staff
member.
Additionally, Toups prepared a technical support paper on housing that
However, the data provided is based on a
In summary, the PRC Toups' draft of the LCP found the following regarding affordable
housing in the Carlsbad coastal zone:
1.
in the City (approximately 1,700 units) is located within the coastal
A majority of the existing low and moderate income housing stock
1 zone in the older northern coastal strip.
2.
estimated 43% of the housing stock within the coastal zone is
mu1 ti f ani ly .
About 31% of the City's housing stock is multifamily, but an
4
. 3. A little over half of the City's households (52.9%) are renters
(an increase from 47.1% in 1970)
4. Census tract 180 along the coast is the most densely developed
area of the City, with nearly 87% of all households in CT180 being.!
renters. This comprises the City's largest stock of older, rental
housing.
5. If current trends continue, the existing supply of low and
moderate income housing stock may be lost through escalating prices
and rents, private redevelopment, conversion to other uses and
demolition.
6. The south coastal area contains about half of the City's mobile
home stock. Many of these units constitute an important source of
moderate income housing.
7. Approximately 90 units within the coastal zone providing low and
moderate income housing opportunities are in need of rehabilitation.
.a. Providing new affordable housing was a primary goal of the City
Housing Element revision.
.-
L
Jim Hagaman, Planning Director
January 20, 1981
Page 30
9.
coatal zone.
be an additional demand for 290 lower income units in the coastal
zone.
There is currently a need for __ 845 lower income household units in the
For the period 1980-1985 it is projected that there will
10. The feasibility of providing future affordable housing in the
coastal zone will depend largely on the availability of higher density
combined with other incentives and financing techniques.
11. Current cutbacks in federal funding and possible state cutbacks
may mean an even further decrease in outside assistance for cities to .
provide affordable housing.
2. Initial Draft Carlsbad LCP Policy Recommendations - The staff response will
highlight the policy recommendations prepared by PRC Toups in the draft LCP as
concerns affordable housing. Staff will follow the format of the PRC Toups draft.
Policy 9-1:
rehabilitation shall be sought.
Funds to finance rehabilitation of the 90 units in the coastal zone needing
Policy 9-2:
shall generally not be permitted.
placement housing shall be provided on a one for one basis.
Demolition of existing units which provide affordable housing opportunities
Where demolition is permitted, affordable re-
Policy 9-3:
when :
Condominium conversions shall not be permitted in 'the coastai zone
- the convsrsion would displace predominantly low/moderate income households.
01: 8 - the vacancy factor for the City is less than five percent of the total
available rental stock. ,
Conversions may be permitted if neither of the above conditions pertains and and units
meet the City's conversion standards ordinance and 15 percent of units are reserved
for low/moderate income housing.
Policy 9-4:
use.
MoSile home parks in the coastal zone shall be permanently zoned for such
Policy 9-5:
the City's affordable,housing needs.
Available federal and state programs shall be used to assist in meeting -
Policy 9-6:
Element is encouraged.
Use of the Housing Development Fund established in the City's Housing
Policy 9-7:
higher density zoning (20+ units per acre), low/moderate income housing, and mobile
home/modular housing.
Suitable sites in Coastal.Zone Master Plans shall be identified for
Policy 9-8: Local concessions and incentives shall.he given to developers to assist
them in producing afforchblc housing. These may include, but not be limited to the
following:
t
Jim Hagaman, Planning Director
January 20, 1981
Page 31
- Density bonus of up to 20 percent - Reduction by as much as half in off-street parking requirements - Waiving all or portions of facilities, services and valuation fees - Preparation of Citywide Master Environmental Impact Report to reduce
time and detail of reviews.
Policy 9-9:
mandatory inclusion of low/moderate income units, where feasible. (Inclusion in
Housing Element is voluntary.)
the density bonus listed in 9-8. One or more of the other concessions listed in
9.8 may also be applied.
Developers of five or more units in the coastal zone shall meet 15 percent
Mandatory inclusion shall require the City to provide
B. Relevant Coastal Act Policies - Section 30213 of the’coastal Act is that Chapter .
3 policy of the Act that deals with low and moderate income housing. It states:
Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities and housing
opportunities for persons of low and moderate income shall
be protected, encouraged, and where feasible, provided.
Developments providing public recreational opportunities
are preferred. New housing in the coastal zone shall be
developed in conformity with the standards, policies, and
goals of local housing elements adopted in accordance with
the Government Code.
. the requirements of subdivision (c) of Section 65302 of
C. Summary of Previous Coastal Commission Actions on Precedential Permit and LCP
Decisions - The issue of protecting existing affordable housing and’providing new
affordable housing has been a complex issue which the Coastal Commissiodhas dealt
with on many occassions over the last several years. Past precedential permit - - decisions involving the affordable housing issue
Project Title
Caster
Gregory
Wilson/Mayberry
Sheldon .
Wm. Lyon Co.
Shape11 Ind. .
Mozart Partners
Degen
Zandcrson
Location
Pacific ‘Beach area
of City of San Diego
La Jolla area of
City of San Diego
Ocean Beach area of
City of San Diego
Del Mar Heights area
of City of San Diego
Mira Mesa West area
of City of San Diego
Encini tas
Cardiff .
Leucadia
Oceans i de
The Caster project involved demolition
Coastal. Comniission required relocation
have included the following projects :
Regional Commission State Commission
File No. Appeal No.
F8656
F8189
No Appeal
No Appeal
F8712 No Appeal
F8086 No Appeal
F9139 No Appeal
F6604 73-78
F9374 291-80
F9142 276-80
F7815 90-79
of existing,.sound affordable housing. The
of the units within the coastal zonc in the same
general area, and that they be rented at affordable rates. The Gregory, Wi-lson/Mayberry
, . and Sheldon projects involved condominium conversions in which thc Coastal Co:nmission
Jim Hagman, Planning Director
January 20, 1981
Page 32
required that approximately one-third of Le units be set aside for low and moderate
income housing. In the Lyon, Shapell, Mozart, Degen and Zanderson projects, new
affordable housing was required (between 15% and 25% of the units depending on
environmental constraints) in the subdivision approval -
Concerning precedential LCP actions, the Oceanside Land Use Plan LUP and the Mello
Bill Properties (AB4621 LCP addressed the affordable housing issue. In both of
these LCPs affordable housing was required in new residential development. In
the Oceanside LUP, replacement housing and condominium conversion policies were
also approved. The Mello Bill Properties (AB4621 LCP was comprised only of vacant
land so there was no need to'address replacement or conversion issues.
D. Staff Suggested Policy Modifications, Additions or Deletions to the Policies of
the Initial Draft Carlsbad LCP - This portion of the staff response is directed
towards what, in the staff's opinion, would be necessary changes in the draft LCP
policy recommendations in order for the Carlsbad LCP to be consistent with prior
LCP and precedential permi% decisions of the Coastal Commission.
comments do not constitute the staff report to the San Diego Coast Regional Commission,
and the staff position regarding resolution of the difficult issue of affordable
housing remains flexible. Public response to the PRC Toups draft of the LCP and
the staff comments is solicited.
Once again, these
Before stating staff's suggested changes in the draft policies on affordable housing,
as previously mentioned, one correction should be made in the Toups' findings.
shoald be made clear that the estimated housing needs for low and moderate income
households, referenced on pages 134 and 135 of the draft LCP, actually does not take
into account mderate income household housing needs, The data used in the draft
LCP is based on a document prepared by SANDAG titled "Lower Income Household Needs"
-in the San Diego Region, and according to SANDAG, the document contains to estimate of moderate income household needs.
Generally, staff has few concerns with the policies recommended in the draft LCP
.regarding affordable housing. However, because moderate income household housing
needs were not addressed, as noted above, staff would suggest that in Policies 9-3
and 9-9 (ref. pgs. 138-139) that the reference to 15% be changed to 25%. This
would result in taking into account moderate income households as required by Section
30213 of the Coastal Act.
be to restrictive and that perhaps the minimum size of a project in which mandatory
inclusion of low/moderate income units would be required should be raised.
It
9-
- -
Additionally, staff would suggest that Policy 9-9 may
..
c I 1
. ..
I
I. .. 1
.. t.
I
.. .
i
A. Policy 1 - Basic Am-icilltural Policv
..
,
..
2.
..
In order to protect and pmimtz the long tcix viability of agricuL-
turc in tl1hi.r; arc2 of sirdl Pr~~z~ontcrd o-mcrships, an agricultural subsidy
program shall bc cstablishcd.
ngricultxirc Ly subsicilzini; :qricul.turaI. usc of tlic sLibsidizcd agricultxral
lurirls.
varying fiurn qpm~hmtely 1 to 20 acres, but arc. Located in lagcly im-
cl&elopEd conLig.xus areas.
such as smrers, serving tlic sirbsidizccl agricultural lands. In contrast,
the devel.opablc agricultural Lands zre locatcd adjacent to 1-5 and my
contain public scnicc Lnprovenent.s. allow 2dditioild dwelopnmt L-centivcs to the dcircl_op&le agricultural
lands if such .lan.ds participate h. the progm.
-.
the agricultural subsidy prograi, they will be required to pay an agricul-
tural ikwelopmnt fee. agi'icu Iturrcl GI $11 sat 2 id y p ~y2.1 Zc to ki22.d.d~l sibs idi z c i-; , agricul tu& fam.cmms us :~IOWI in tho Tnblas 3-6, 3-7 and 3-8; md' for an agricultu-ral
iiirckTzzents fm-d to be used for zgricultural access roads, irrigation
jqmb7aents or other capitd outlays intended to prc;mte assurc long -.
ten? zgricdturai operations on "he scbsidizcd zgriculixral lands.
agricultural developnent fee will be .cor;r,uted based on the gross nmibcr of
acres of the dcvelopable agriculkil land to be converted, as speci2icd i.r~
Policy 9.
dcvelopnat fee.
cified in Policy 9 includes slopes over 25%, he shall suhrtit d9curnntation
prior to certification of this UP.
figures of Policy 9 arc final.
or other appropriate agency as approved by the EhccutsCve Director of thc
Coastal Cmission shall bc responsible €or the ndniinistration of tlae
prograrn.
'Thc pmgrain is \vI-mtary and cncouragcs
'file tn:bsldlzod ugrlculkiral I:,~r,ds trx hi irrig~:icn tccl ormcrships
There are no improved roads or public sc.ni.ces,
'ikc agricultural sxlbsiciy pmgran rmuld
If landamers of developable agricultura-l lands elect to participate in
The dcvelopnent fee will be used j-ri 2 ways: an
The
S&;les over 25% will not be assesscd for an a&xultural
If any lw-dovner believes that the acrcage fiw-e spe-
After certification, the acreage
The City, County, Coastal Coziscmcy,
F.
Xn the abscrice of participation Fn the ngrlcultural sulx;l.@ propain,
the pcnnittcd ucs of the Plarmcd Agriculture Zone arc as adopted by tlic
Coxmission 0x2 Septcmbcr 30, 13S0, when it ccrtificd rlic Zoning Ordj-rniiccr, for the City of.. Carl.sLxtd.
Brie os follows:
PoLicy 6 -' Pci-niLt tcd Uses on&y3.cuI.fura.l Iaxrls
.?
I
The pcruuttcd uses arc defined irr l'ut.111 of that
-.
A. Class I thmugli Class rV Apiculturd. Janci.
e
fcct of any FitbLfihl o strxcturo, nor sh.?lZ thcy bc IGCCL~C~ within tlirco
hundred fcct of Q h&it&Lc structure on ai acijoinimg parcel zoned for
residential uses, nor shall they be located within one huxdrcc! feet of a
parcel zoilccl for rcsidential uses wlicn a habitabh structmrc is not irivolvcd.
In any cvcnt, the distance fmx thc pzrcel zoriccl for residential uscs slsI.1.
€E the greater of. the distances so indicated;
c
o
I (2) cmp production;
' (3) Fhriculture;
(4) Grcenliouscs less than two thousand square feet, pmvided all
requirements for yard set backs and height are met;
-. (5) IIorses, private use;
(6) Nursery crop pro&ction;
..
... .
_-
I
-_
..
(7) Poultry, rabbits, chinchillas, hamsters and other small animals, pmvided not more tha twenty-five of any one or combination
thereof sImal.1 be kept within fifty feet of my h.abit&le stmarre, ror shzu
they be located tithin three hundrcd feet of a habit&lc structure on an
adjoining parcel zoned €or residential uses, nor shall.. they be located
within one hundred feet of a parcel zoned for residential uses when a
habitable structure is not involved.
parcel zoned for residential uses shall be the greater of the distances SO
indicated ;
In any event, the distznce from the
(8) Roadside stands for display and sale of p~~ducts pdcd on the s2Qe premises, prwided that the floor area shall not meed t7,~ hundred square feet and is Located not nearer than twenty feet to any
street or bighay; 4..
(9) Tree f&;
. .. .. (IO) Tmdk farms; :. .-.. -
.>.. - .. (11) Wildlife refuges. and. game preserves; .-.... .
(12) Other uses or enterprises s.Mlar to the above customarily carded on in the field of gcneral agriculture includhg'accessory uscs d
similar uses required €or the conduct of the cnmcmted uses abne;
an silos, tcmk hcniscs, shops, hams, offices, coops, stablcs, corrals, and
-
(13) One single family ch~clling per: existing legal buil.&ng parcel.
I
I B. Class V through VI11 Agricultural hd.
. (1) M.1 of the permittcd uses listcd above; ..
(2) Conuncrcinl rccrcution;
..
..
-.
-.
.
.. .. - ..
(C) Grcgnhouscs greater than h;o thour;and square f cct, provided
0.11 rcquircnlcnts for yard sctbacks 2nd licight 2s spccificd in Ch. 21.07
me met. * ,* .. ..
.G. Policy 7 - Conditional Uses p-rld Lm3 --- Di.vj.sions of' Agrta11.txml Tands
, In +31c ab:;cnce of. pa-ticipition in *Lo. asricultura2. ,nibsic\y pmgrm ~IC
fol.lo~-.&ig conditional uses sktll be zlludcd, subject: to it Pla;-mc=! 1GricuLture
E'crruit . '
! 1. UcvcXoprtblo Agrlculturd h1d8.
Residential development shall be~assigicc? 2 raxhrm dcnsity of X unii p2r IO acrcs.
agricultura.1 lads, all such permitted developmnt shall be lomtscl adjacat to existing mads, and all devcloped lots sh11 he clusterEd on onc prtion
of tlie total parcel-.
on a seprate scindividecl lot, but ezdi mch lot shall not exceed one acre
overall dmsity not less than 1 unit per acre.
agrimltural. 1m.d skiill be preserved for agricultural use through recordation
of <an opm space CoilserJ~tion easmxnt ad ;t required Lgricilltaal rnmagmtcnt
p~m as ii condition of' appmval of resicientiai ctlrisixuctim-1.
~lok~cvc'r, to conscrvc eicsc pc>tcntiaUy pm&ilct-Ltrc
I?urtlier, each pemittecl rcsidcntiaf. miit rray bc developed
. k size; as an cd.ternative, all developzent n~ay be 012 a sir'gle lot at an
The rcxindzr of the developable
-._ hnd &v€sions shall not be permitted below a rninlm2 parccZ six .
which ~wdd provi.de a rrasonahlc opporturity €or viable inclc:.cndcnt fanns, and in r.0 czse shnll divisions be pcqriittccl cr&thg ngri.culturd. p1rccI.s
less t3z.n 20 axes ix- size for field cmns and 10 acres in size for grccn-
house operations. To inform potential purchasers of such divided lands of
the plmried. Long-term agricuL-tum1 use of the pmperty, divisions dial1 be permitted only qx)n remrdation of an offer to dediczte ZT agricultural wnserwtion easement pcmmcntly Lixiting use of the rerrYzinder of the property not dcvelopcd for residcritial use to agri.mlturc.
shall include a long-tcmi rrwagment plCm for tlie continued prcservcrtion of
.
The instrmcnt
agriciltural portions of the property.
.I . .*
*.
c
11. Pblhy S - h(!tIi.t j orla1 r)fr;r\l.opmcnt hpp-I.J.ccb1 c to Occl den tril
Occldcrital is a l~?aclowr,cr of appror5ratcly 157 acres of developclhlc
A Ikxd Coastal Pmgrm qJpliC&lO to Occidental was agricultlird1. land.
certified Scptcmbcr 33, 1989. Occidtmtal has 3 dndopriicnt options if it
elected to cftvelop accorciirig to a iimster plai as spccjfied in the certified
Local Coastal FYmgrzrn. Gption V1.C. incliidcd partici.?ation in thc agri-
cultural subsidy prcgrm. If Occidental elects Option C, it nciy dtsvclup
according to the Icvlc! uses specified bclaq. If Occidental cleces not to
participate in the agric-lltural subsidy prgrm, Options VI. A & ID of the
Local Cozstal Progmn certified Scptder 30, 1980, axe avrrilzble to i-t.
I. Foliq 9 - Additional Developmy&t Nhcd on-kk&k! A&- &- -- ivon ~ii!hncr;t. .or ?ipnronriate sccuriu ob arp + aprieuituml, drvc2opnient fcc.
1. Occidcntsl - 157 acres.
to lhster Plan rtw-uircincnts QS specified in the certtficd PAZ with the
following changes tro Option W.C.:
The piqerty owners shall dmclop according
A. Comercial Uses. ?%e allowable conrrmercial uses are as specified
in Section VI.J3(2)
adopted on September 30, 1980.
of the PA2 in the Zoning Ordimnces certified and
' B. Residential Uses_. * * I
I-. 1
Upon both appmval of a naster plan aid after payment of the
Offer t& Dedicztc - mcn .$x~a. ~>pmxinxitel.y 82 acres located Nortli of Poinsclttin Iaic on brstfi sides of 1-5 nro subject tb a rcmrdcd
offer. agricultxuzl devclopncnt fee, the Comissicn will rescind the offer to
dcdicoto qpllcublo to this property.
priate for residential construction at a maxirmrm - density of 12 units/acre.
Tho arm iFj dc~ipatcd a:+ appro-
9. 1;~cisting legal parcel of 53 acres located cast of P~SCO Del The maximum density of residential uses shall be 12 dwelling nits Norte.
per acre.
AS a condition of qpmit of a Master plan, the applicants' shall provide affordzble housing s?por.tunitics to the full range of low- and mderatc-hcomc pcr:ons according to thc rcquirments of Section 9 of the Coastal Resource Overlay 74nc which bas certified by the Comussion when it adopted +Lhc 7~nirtg Ordhunccs for the City of Carlsbad on Scptarher
30, 1980.
3.
.
C. Appliccibil. Lty. All luiids, rcgardl.cns of own3rship, which are sceklng
to bc dcvclcped with residc?tial or miimcrcial uses i~s specified in (A) or (B) above shall be dcerncd devclopablc agricultural laad svbjcct to the
payment: of m agriadturdl dLvelopmcnt fee.
Note: For purposes of the staff response,
used. Actual determination of nppropristc
decided and staff has no recommendation at
a density of 12 units/acre is
densities as riot yet been
this timc. '
* ..
c .. .’
I 2. Txisk - 93 ~CTCT;. (Assessor PArccls 214-150-16, -17, -18)
The parcels :.hall bc reqdrcd to dcvclop according to the master plan
rcquircnicnts as dcscribcd in (31.21.38.06 of th? Carlsbad Zoniq Oxiinxxc and skal-1 also ir,cliirde the following additionzl infomation and dqJelop- ment standards specified bclow. or other appropriate security of t’ric agricultural dmelopmnt fee, the
follmcing addition21 dme.’Lopnent shall Le allowed on developable agricul-
turdl lands:
Upon .?~jpmval of a cnster pLan and payttent
- Maximurn Density. The w&m density of development shall be 12 units
per acre. t
_I- 2bne. The underlying zone shall be P-C Ch. U.38 of thc Carlsbad Zoning Ordinances (utd a11 thc requirements of the Coastal. Resource Overlay
Zoile shall apply. Sorric of these requircmnts ere highlighted helm.
-- Emsios SedI.mcnt.at-lon, rtraf.nnR:c.. Thc rquircmcnts of tho Coastal
Kesourcc Overlay Zoric or Policy 4-9 as applicable shall aFpl.y.
..
_II- Buffer. P.djacent agricultural uses, if any, shall be Dlrffered by a sturdy fcncc czpable of attentating noise and &st hipacts, general.ly to
.be a concrete block ~~11, a minimum of 6 feet in height.
- €ions-. As a condition of zppmval of a Master Plan the applicants shall prsvide affordclble housing opportunities to the full range of low aid
xdcizte kcme pcrscTs zccord-hg to the rccpirenients of Section 9 of the
Coastal Resource Overliiy Zone.
..
3. Sell Oil (Asscsgr Pzrcel. 211-040-13) - 35.41 acres
&nkers Life and Casualty (214-020-060) - 26.45 acres
,
M;tUimm Densitv cad Zone. The underlying zone shall be R?Hf with a
maxir;~~ density of 12 dwelling units per acre. The requirements of the
Coastal Resource Overlay Zone, unless modified herein shall also apply.
These specifically include erosion, sedimentation, dr-gc, houaiig and
Mfer requirements if located adjacent; to existing egricultural lands.
J. Policy 10 - _Role su;d TXlhcs of Administerinp Arency
Within three months of certification, the adrninistering agency in cons&€%tkm with tho *sut)3%MkI Iandwmers 3ha3.1 prcparo a cash subsidy
paymnt: schedule. Director of the Coii?rnission for r&cw and apcroval consistent with the
certified Iand Usc Plan.
years that cadi subsidized lanclomer dxircs to participate in the Prngza~
and s1d.l. allocate cash subsidy payments as each developcnt fee is paid or nppmpriatcly scctired, bccausc 1/3 of the Total. ProEr?.m is to pmvidc
agricultural irnprovcrncnts. of cach pdd dcvc.lopmcnt ice for thc aC;ri.cultural in2pmve:ricnt fimd.
rca~or!d>l.c portton at the discrctiorl of thc atlnlinistcrinc agcncy my dso
be rcscrV~cd for the costs of ndn;.inist rliti.on.
‘t>c Il-i&cr jJi th:: t)r:giruiing of t!iz pi~~;r~~rg, SO t!l-lt the portioi1 resewed
:.!moult1 {tccourlt for this and gx;~(icinLljr tal)cr off Its 1112 i>ro.iimrxi cWrlt.fll:lt>Y.
?’he schedule shall bc submitted t:, tlic Exemtivc
Thc schcdulc shall. acsLme within the first five
Ihc allocation dtcclulc shnli resenre one-third
A
Costs of xhinistration \+lL
.I .. . --
year of cor t if ication , thc ac?dn is tcring agency, in con.su2-
:;ubsidizcd Jonrlmmc CY, shall prcparc u report clctailing
U::C:I OP tho ngrfcultumf Fnrprovcnicrit fu~~d.
the Executive DLrcctor of thc ComnLssion for rcvlcw and ??IC report uhall.
approv.1 consi.stcnt with the certified Imd Use Plan, along 1Ji.t.h a schcdulc indicating when the uses are to be fmded.
.. K.
Prior to the issuance of a development permit allowing the additional
Policy 11 - Payment and Computation of ARricuZtural Dcvclopmcnt Fee
dWelopei1t as specified in Policy 9, the applicants shall pay or prwidc
appropriate security for the payment of the agricultural d~~cl.opmmt fce
to the aclninistcring agency. The devcloprncnt fee shall be $24,050 per-acre, which is the total nurnber of dcvelopctble acres specified in Policy 9 divide8
by the om of the agricultural cash subsidy specified in Policy 12 and the agricultural improvements €und specified in Policy 13..
L.
Subsidized agricultural lan6owners bho elect to participate in the Program
' shall be entitled to a cash subsidy totalling $4,352, 647 as specified in
Tables 3-6 through 3-8. payment of each sepa-mte development fee according to the paymrit schedule
as specified under Policy 10.
use continues on the subsidized agricultural land, the landowner shall
record if^ irrevocable offer to dedicate a permanent open space casement fox agricultxra 1 purposes mer contiguous agricultv.tal lands under single owner- ship of a form 'and content approved by the caAninistcring agcncy in consul-
tation with the Executive Director of the Coastal Comdssion. I'he offer
shall 1-ave a term of 21 years, shall run in fawr o,C the State of California, shall bc prior to all other endrances except tau liens, and shall run
wLth tile laid, binding all successors in interest.
an easeiient shall prohibiit future land divisions, lMt the use of the parcels to agricultural uses as defined in the certified Larid Use Plan,
include a nanngcnicnt plzn, and may include a term which allows cnc farm- awner-occupied rcsidence on legal parcels in existence as of the ckte of
the offer.
' The subsidy shall be paid in proportion to the
In order to aswe that: long-term agricultural
The offer tddcdicate
The irrevocable offer shall be recorded prior to pqment of . any agricultural cash subsidy.
M. Policy 13 - Ap,ricultiiral Irr-rprovements Fund
An agricultural. irrprovmcnts fund of $3,147 353 shall bo established to be used for long term impm-cmcnts such as area tdde irrigat.t.on equip-
roads to promtc 'and zlssurc agriculture on the subsidi.zcd lands.
shall be invested and otlienrisc! admlnistcrcd by thc adnhistcrlng agency
.merit, water conservation devices, lorn funds, cooperative nnr'ceting, or . llic funds
. in consultation with the subsidized lanclmners.
..
..
11.
c
.* .. c .t
Planned AoriCul tural Areas
Po1 icy 1 - 0evcloi)ii:cnt Standards ‘Appl icsble to the approxtmatcly 500 acre Ares shown generally as Site I, in Figure 3, PRC Toups .
Contiquws lands shown gcncrally as Site I an also irtcluding the additional
-
13.46 acres bordering. Pdseo del Nortc and any other contigugiJs land owned by either Carl tas or Ecke shall be designated for planned conimercial/sgricul tural developnicnt to allow additsonal conwzrcial development incentives to encourscje the retention of agricultural uses on those portions that are either subject to the blilliamson Act cr are being currently fanned. Permitted uses in the zone shall be primrily agri- cultural uses with conditional additional comercia1 uses allowed subject to the issuance of a planned coniniercial/agricul tural permit. All Land divisions require s. planned commercial/agricul tural permit.
-
.- A. Permitted Uses on Existing Legal Parcels
The coastal development application will require additional titTe information in order to determine the precise number of existing legal, not assessor’s parcels, in the zone. detttiied additional sails information showing the class of soils as defined in SCS Land use c+xiipati bil i ty system and currently cul tivated areas prepared by a qualified soils engineer at a detail sufficient to determine the appropriate land uses shall
also be submitted as a part of the permit application. -Existing legal parcels containing aqricultural lands as described in Policy 3 - of this LUP shall be allowed the permitted uses as specified in Po?icy 6 of the Agricultural Subsidy Progrem (i.e., -- Part I.F. of this Land Use Plan), including an allowble density for residential construction of 1 unit per 10 acres. However, to conserve these potentially produc- tive ay-icul trJrai lands, a?l such perixittcd development shall be located adjacent to
existing rcads, and sll developed lots shall be clustered on one -portion of the total parcel. Further, each permitted residential unit may be developed on a separate su5divided lot, but each such lot shall not exceed one acre in size; as an alternative, all development i;iay be on a single lot at an overall density not less
than 1 unit per acre. The remaining acreake shall be required to be preserved permanently for agricui ture conservation easement shall be recorded prior to i,ssuance
of a developreat permit. A management plan detailing how agriculture is to be maintained in the remaining area shall also be required.
Class IV - in the USDA SCS Land Use Capability Classification shall be assigned a density of two units per acre, provided that residential use shall also be clustered
In a manner to minimize a1 teration of natural landform, preseryc existing agrjcul tural operations, and adjaccnt to existing roads as described ahovc. The remaining acreage shall be rcqui red to be preserved pernlanently for agricultural use. An irrevocable offer to dedicate an agruicl ture conservation easeinent shall be recorded priot. to issuance of a developrncnt permi t. A management plan detailing how agricul tuw is
to be naintained in the remining area shall also be required.
Current LllP inforination indicates that tht? sols arc all class 1-IV, but
..
Residential development on existing legal parcels with soils rated below.
-
B. Additional Uses if Existing Legal Parcels arc Developed as a Single Unit According to a Master Plan
1. Conmiercial uses may be developed on approximately 40 acres of existing
agricultural land as described in -.
-2-
c
2. Residential uses at a density of acre.
3. recordation of an irrevocable offer to dedicate an open spJcc easerlient for exclusive agricultural use and an agricultural imnageiwnt plan. .
The rciiialning laiicfs in thc ZO!IC' shall bc pcrmdncntly protected througt!
'* 4.
of - of ..
The Master Plan shall include all informition required in Ch. 821.38.060 the Zoning Ordinance arid the additions1 requirements of VI1 A, B, C, D the Planned Agriculture Zone, certified September 30, 1980.
'. ....... -- .. _. . .. I .. .__. ... .-. ............ __ ... .'-i
f.
Table 3-6
Agricultural Subsidy Program, .
Agricultural Cash Subsicfy Assigned to Landowners' in Sitc 11
RIll Esthat cd Totd Value Agricul turd
Owncr Jcrcnm &sc.:,smcnt (a) Asscssnent (b) Difference
NcRcynolds 34.30 * $194,820 $116,620 $ 78,200
Vista Lona Invest. 64.53 432,938 219,402 213,584
msidy
S166,732
313,650
Parccl P
211-040-14
212-040-22
212-0&0-25
2
3
L%cgnka 1 . 13.89 108,220 47,226 60,994 67,519 4
6 214-140-07 Nappion KTS Inc.'
Hillebrecht :
61.27 432,988 . 208,318
,64.84 595,372 220,456
224,670 , 297,833
374,916 . 374,916 7
7
214-140-08
214-14049
214-140-13
17,536 IIFllebrecht 3.63 28,968 '12,342 16,626
Shennan 30.00 400,000 102,000 298,000 298,000 a
9 214-140-40 Schoppe I__ 28.35 291.516 96,390 195,126 195,126
$1,462,118 (c) $1,731,342 ., 300.81 $2;4a4,872 4 $1,022,754. TOTAL.
! (a) Fbll Valve Asscsm.ent .I Asscsscd Value times 4.
(b) Agriclllrs-a1 Value is calculated by using $3,4OO/acre as the average value of agricul&l land. (cj >.wage I?gricultxrit Asscssncnt equals: ..
I. I
1'4c.2'1E = $4361 based on policy 303.81 I
!
: I. ... , ...- ....._.._.........*.. ...... ............. , ..
.I: . . .. '. ' , I c I .I
1
..
,* .
..... ... ........ ..-- -. _.__ ...... ... -- -- - ........
I . Table 3-7.
Agricultural subsidy Aogram
Agddturnl Cush Subsiw hsigwd to Iandowners Fn &ricultWe Site 111
RiLl '* Estimted
TO tall V-Jue Agricultural Owner Acreaee hsessnent (a) hsscsmicnt (b)
Thompson 20.00 * $225,112 s 68,000
Thompson 10.00 129,844 34,000
.'
-P Desimatim
10
10
11
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
%?IS i&
$157,112
95,844
57,424
47,972
165,512
32,640
101, 132
Mffcrcnce
$157,112
95,844
F.zrcel
214-170-09
214-170-36
214-170-46 .
214-170-47
214-170-66
215-070-04
2 15-0 70 -0 6
215-070-08
215-070-03
215-970-10
215-070-12
215-070-13
2 15-0 70-1 4
2 15-0 70-1 6
Weidner 5.40 75 784 18,360 57,424
Thompson 5.00 64,972 17,000 47,972
72,148 165,512 Tabata Brothers 21.22 237 , G60
8. ':
Faldvalis 5.03 46,512 17,102 29,410
Carnation Prq. 10-05 135,352 . 34,170 , 101,182 I
Iuvarcz .
Lu Jan
Cardosa
KUmDli
Schindler
Padilla
Ba-
Aitchison
c 1,oo
2.03
5.02
20.17
10.08
10.09
...
..
32,436
32 , 436
68,236
166,588
51 915
86,800 -
373,420 ,
. 17,340
83,536 r
6,120 26,316
25,534
51,163
98,010
, 17,643
52,694
267,850
13,940
. 26,316
25,534
51,163
ga,oio
65,812
. 65,877
267, $50
13,950'
6,902
i7,o~a
68,578
,34,272 .
* 34,306
105,570
' 3,400
24 106
31.05 I
i 215-070-18
215-070-19
SUBmAL
1.00
7.09 Martin 59,430 59,430
$768,231 . S1,331,624 4
.. a. ..
.? .
t
.- ... .. ..
.. .
m Desimstim
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
!' ,' 1.
'i, : 'I' ,. .. . . . -^ . ... . . L .. .... .. - -.. *. . .. . ..-. . . -- . . . .I_. .
Tdle 3-7 oont'd
*.
FU11 Total Value Parcel # Owner -- Acrca Asscsmcnt (a)
215-080-01 Pelican Land Company * 32.90 . $151,571
215-080-04 Beuilacqua 5.17 42,124
215-083-09 Kaiser 12.95 122,296
215-080-11 Hadl cy 15.33 142,900
. .- - . .. 215-080-15 ' Tabato Brothers 2.83 39,280
215-080-1 6 Wrc 1.05 ' 25,000
215-040-03 mays 20.00 ' 141,780
Est inut cd Agricultural ksesmcnt (b)
$111, 870
17,578
44,030
52 , 122
9,622 .
3,570
68,000
_,_ .-_. .- . . .... ~
..
Diff ercncc 3>sic?v
$39,701 $214,804
24,546 33 , 755
78,266 84,551
93,778 100,030
i 29,658 29,658
21,430 21,430 *
73,780 130.580
31 215-040-04 Tabata Brothera 5.30 67,116 17,000 50,116 50,116
32 215-040-05 YamamOto 5.00 64,972 17 , 000 47,972 . . 47,972
33 215-040-08 sugina ' 2.50 27,028 8,500 18,528 18,528
33 215-040-09 SllgFnO 2.50 23,764 8,500 15 , 264 16,323
.
33 215-040-10 SuSh 2.50 29,272 8 , 500 20,772 20,772
33 215440-11 - 2.50 28.152 8,500 - 19,562 J.9.562
TOTAL * 275.26 252,733,198 $935: 884 $1,797;304 (c> $2,120,055
1
(a)
(b) (c) Average Agricultural Assessment equals:
h11 due assessment equals assassod value times 4. Agricultwxd value is calculated by using $3,400/acro 8s the average value of agdcultunl land.
c I
'. .
......
.. ,. I i .- Table 3-8
I i ..
.......... . .... - -. .- - 34 215-050-11 ; 10.07 *-.-$ 96,000 .. .. :.$,3dD238 . ... S 61,762 -.- Silvcrs-G&&rti- .-_- ' I - ------ -- -
. 35 215-050-12 *
t - 36 215-050-13
.. van mzl
Schutt c-caxls-Muqhy 10.10 67,115 . 34,310
Larson-WWd .. 10.08 . 60,583' . . 34,272
tihitncy ' 10.06. 54,160 . .. 34,204
I.:&turphy COT. . . 18.73 108,220 63,692
>!:dlurphy Corp . 20.00 119,032 68,030
Nitsuuhi Kolchi 22.77 160,OCO 77,618.
Hitsuuhi. Kolc! . : 6.93 116,000 23.562
¶
L. 103.74 $781 , 110 ~369,716
I
_.
i i I i
L
1
I I
32,775
26,311 ' -. *.
37 : 215-050-14
33 215-051-04
38 216-121-01
39 ,. 216-121-02
39 216-121-03
19 , 956
51,032
.. -. . Si,592 _-
52.433 ..
.. $4U,34i(C) MTAL .. ... -. ..
.I
.-
,
>.. .. ... .. .. .. . *.
... ..
...... ........ .. .. .. .. .. .. c I .I ... ..
... ..
.. t , *. 1.' . I. . ,'
i
CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT OF 1976
CHAPTER 3
COASTAL RESOURCES PLANNING AND
MANAGEMENT POLICIES
Article
1 . .... -* ...... . _,___-.. L -
GENERAI,
Section
30200. Policies as standards
1. Genefal ..................... 30200
2. Public Access ............... 30210
3. Recreation .................. 30220
4. Marine Environment .......... 30230
5. Land Resources .............. 30240
6. Ikvelopment ................. 30250
7. Industrial Development ...... 30260 .
.
Section 30200.
Consistent with the basic goals set forth
in Section 30001.5 and except a5 may be
otherwise specifically provided in this
division, the policies-of this chapter
shall constitute the standards by which
the adequacy of local coastal programs
as provided in Chapter 6 (commending with
Section 30500) and the permissibility of
proposed developments subject to the pro-
visions of this division arc determined.
All public agencies carrying out or support-
ing activities outside the coastal zone that
could have a direct impact on resources
within the coastal zone shall consider thB
effect of such actions on coastal zone
resources in order to assure that these
policies are achieved.
* 1 1 i -
I s
c
c
SEC. 30210 ARTICLE 2
PUBLIC ACCESS
Sect ion.
30210.
30211.
30212.
30212.5.
30213.
30214.
Access: recreational opportunities;
posting.
Development not to interfere with
access.
New development projects; provisions
for access; exceptions.
Public facilities; distributio3.
Development of facilities; low cost
housing; preferences.
Public access policies; implementation.
I '.
.I.
. ... *'.
In carrying out the requirement of Section *
4 of Article X of the California Constitution,
maximum access, which shall be conspicuously
posted, and recreational opportunities shall '
be provided for all the people consistent
with public safety needs and the need to pro-
tect public rights, rights of private property
owners, and natural resource areas from overuse.
SEC. 30211.
Development shall not interfere with the public's
right of access to the sea where acquired through
use or legislative authorization, including, but
not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky
coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial
vegetation.
SEC. 30212.
(a) Public access from the nearest public
roadway to the shoreline and along the coast
shall be provided in new development projects
except where (1) it is inconsistent with public
safety, military security needs, or the protec-
tion of fragile coastal resources, (2) adequate
access exists nearby, or (3) agriculture would
be adversely affected. Dedicated accessway =
shall not be required to be open to public use
until a public agency or private association
agrees to accept responsibility for maintenance
and liability of the accessway.
II- (b) For purposes of this section, "new
development" does not include;
._ *. . . -. . .
(1) Replacement of any structure pursuant
to the provisions - of subdivision (g) of Sec-
tion 30610.
- -- --
-- The denolition cntn reconstruction of (2) - a sfngle-family residence; -- provided, -- that - the
either the floor area, heiqht: or bulk of the
former structilre by more than 10 percent, and
that the reconstructed residence shall still
be sited in the same 1ocat.i.on on the_ affected
property as the former structure.
' reconstructed residence: shall not cxcwd_ -- --- - - - ---- ---- -- -----
(3) Improvements -- to ax structure which - do not change the intensitx of its use, which -- - do not increase either the floor arm, height,
or bulk of the structure by more than 10 per-
cent, which do not block or impede public
access, ai which do not result in a second
encroachment the structure.
-- ---- . - ---__---
-
(4) Any repair or maintenance activity for - which the commission - has determined, pursuant -- to Section 30610, that. a- coastal development
permit will be- required unless the regional I
comnission or the commission determines that
such activity will have an adverse impact on
lateral public access along the beach.
-- -- --- --
As used in this subdivision-, "bulk" - means
I ---- total interior cubic volume as measured from .- - the exterior surface of the structure.
I_ -7
(c) Nothing in this'division shall restrict
public access nor shall it excuse the performance
of duties and responsibilities of public agengies
'which are required by Sections 66478.1 to 66478.14,
inclusive, of the Government Code and by Ssction.4
of Article X of the California Constitution, .
(Amended by Cal. Stats. 1979, Ch. 919)
:+
. SX. 30212.5. --
Wherever appropriate and feasible, public
facilities, including parking areas or
facilities, shall be distributed throughcut
an area so as to mitigate against the impacts,
social and otherwise, of overcrowding or over-
use by the public of any single area.
SEC. 30213.
Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities
and housing opportunities for persons of low
and moderate income shall be protected, encour-
aged, and- where feasible, provided. Develop-
ments providing public recreational opportuzi-
ties are preferred. New housing in the coastal
zone shall be developed in conformity with the
standards, policies, and goals of local. hocsing
elements adopted in accordance with the requirc-
ments of subdivision
the Government Code.
5EC. 30214.
(c) of Section 65302 of
-- The public access policies of thi. arti- (a)
cle shall be implemented in a manncr that takes
into account the need to regulate -_I the tins,
place, and manner - of public access dependinu on
the factsand circumstances. ----- in each case includ-
-I____. --
_c_-----
--- ing , but not limited to, the following : .- - - ----- --
- (1) Topographic .- and geologic site charszter-
isticts.
(2) The capacityof ---- the site to sustain use -- and at what level of intensity.
---_I_-
._. . - . . .. . . , .I . . . . .. .. . . .., I
.. .
i
(3) The appropriateness of limiting public
access to the right to pass 3 repass depending *
on such factors =_the fragility of + natural
resources in the area and the proximitl of the
access area to adjacent residcntial uses.
I--- - 7- I - -I_--_I -- - --
(4) The need to provide for the management'
of access areas so as to protect theprivacy of
adjacent property owners and to protect - the - -- ,
P.
aesthetic values of the area by 'providing for
the collection - of litter. ---- t
I - I'
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature -. that I ', , 'I. the pub1i.c access policies of this article - carried out in a reasonable
considers the equities and that balances the
riqhts of the individual property owner with - the public's constitutional right of access
--- - ---
pursuant to Section 4 of
California Constitution. Nothing section
or any amendment thereto shall be construed as
a limitation OR the riThts quaranteed to the-
public under Section 4 of Article X of the
California Constitution.
-- - -- ---
(c) carryinq out the public access policies
of this article, the commission, reyional
corimissions, Lnd any other rasponsiblc public
aqc!ncy shall considcr and cncourac~a the utiliza-
tion of innovative access management techniques,
including, but not limited to, agreements with
private organizations which would minimize
I -- _I_- - ---
- - -- - -- -
management costs and encourage the use of
voluntecr.programs. (Added by Stats. 1979,
Ch, 919)
-
I
ARTICLE 3
RECREATION
Section
30220. Protection of certain water-oriented
activities.
'30221. Oceanfront land; protection for re-
creational use and development.
30222. Private lands; priority of develop-
ment purposes.
30223. Upland areas.
30224. Recreational boating use, encourage-
ment; facilities.
c
.
Section 30220 -
Coastal areas suited for water oriented
recreational activities that cannot readily
be provided at inland water areas shall be
protected for such uses.
(
Section 30221
Ocean Cront lznd suitable for recreational
use sx;?11 be protected for recreational use
and dcvelopnent: unless present and forsee-
&le future demand for pubXc or commercial .
recreational activities that could be accom-
modated on the property is already adequately
provided for in the area.
Section 30222
,I The use of private lands suitable for visitor-
serving commercial recreational facilities
designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private residential, general industxial, or
general commercj.al development, but not over
aqriculture or coastal-dependent industry.
&
Section 30223
Upland areas necessary to support coastal
recreational usm shall be reserved for such
uses, where feasible.
.
. .
I .& . i' SEC. 30224.
Increased recreational boating use of
coastal waters shall be encouraged, in
accordance with this divisicn, by develop-
ing dry storage areas, increasing public
launching facilities, providing additional
bcrthing space in existing;harbors, limit- .
ing non-water-dependent land uses that .
congest access corridors and preclude
boating support facilities, providing
harbors of refuge, and by providing for
new boating facilities in natural harbors,
new protected water areas, and.in areas
dredged from dry land.
ARTICLE 4
MARINE ENVIRONMENT
Section
30230. Marine resources; maintenance.
30231. Biological productivity; waste water.
30232. Oil and hazardous substance spills.
30233. Diking, filling or dredging.
30234. Commercial fishing and recreational
boating facilities.
30235. Revetments, breakwaters, etc.
30236. Water supply and flood control.
I 6
.@
. :’
SEC. 30230.
Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced,
and where feasible, restored. Special protec-
tion shall be given to areas and species of
special biological or economic significance.
Uses of the marine environment shall be carried
out in a manner that will sustain the biological
productivity of coastal waters and that will
maintain healthy populations of all special of
marine organisms adequate for long-term commer-
cial, recreational, scientific, and educational
purposes.
SEC. 30231.
The biological productivity and the quality of
coastal waters, streams wetlands, estuaries,
and ltrkes appropriate to maintain optimum pop-
ulations of marine organisms and for the protec-
tion of human health shall be maintained and,
where feasible, restored through, among other
means, minimizing adverse effects of waste
water discharges and entrainment, controlling
runoff, preventing depletion of ground water
supplies and substantial interference with
supplies and substantial interferences with
surface water flow, encouraging waste water
reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation
buffer areas that protect riparian habitats,
and minimizing alteration of natural streams.
.
SEC. 30232.
Protection against the spillage of crude oil,
gas, petroleum products, or hazardous substances
shall be provided in relation to any development
or transportation of such materials.
containment and cleanup facilities and procedures
shall be provided for accidential spills that
do occur.
c
Effective
Section 30233
(a) The diking, filling, or dredging of open
coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes
shall be permitted in accordance with othcr
applicable provisions of this division, where
there is no feasible less environmnetally damag- I I '
ing alternative, and where feasible mitigation
i measures have been provided to minimize adverse
en~irom~ental effects, and shall be limited to !
I the fol lowing:
1
I (1) New or expanded port, energy, and coastal-
degendent industrial facilities, including com-
mercial fishing facilities.
(2) Maintaining existing, or restoring
previously dredged, depths in existing naviga-
tional channels, turning basins, vessel berthing
and mooring areas, and boat launching ramps.
(3) In wetland areas only, entrance channels
for new or expanded boating facilities; and in a
degraded wetland, identified by the Department
of Fish and Game pursuant to subdivision (b) of
Section 30411, for boating facilities if, in
confunction with such boating facilities, a sub-
stantial portion of the degraded wetland is
restored and maintained as a biologically pro-
ductive wetland; provided, however, that in no
event shall. the size of the wetlarid area used
space, turning basins, necessary navigation
channels, and any necessary support service ,
facilities, be greater than 25 percent of the I
total wetland area to be restored
i €or such boating facility, including berthing !
(4) in open coastal waters, other than wet-'
lands, including streams, estuaries, and lakes,
I
.1
new or expanded boating facilities. I
I
I
(51 Incidental public service purposes,
including, but not limited to, burying cables
and pipes or inspection of piers and mainter&-
ance of existing intake and outfall lines.
(6) Mineral extraction, including sand for
restoring beaches, except in environmentally
sensitive area.
(71 Restoration purposes.
(8) Nature study, aquaculture, or simiiar
resource-dependent activities.
(b) Dredging and spoils disposal shall be
planned and carried out to avoid significant
disruption to marine and wildlife habitats and
water circulation. Dredge spoils suitable for
beach replenishment should be transported for
such purposes to appropriate beaches or into
suitable longshore current systems.
(c) In addition to the other provisions of
this section, diking, filling, or dredqirig in
existing estuaries and wetlands shall maintain
or enhance the functional capacity of the wetland
or estuary. Any alteration of coastal wetlands
identified by the Department of Fish and Gme,
including, but not limited to, the 3.9 coastal
wetlands identified in its report entitled,
"Acquisition Priorities for the Coastal Wetlands
of California", shall be limited to vsry minor,
incidental public facilities, restorative rneasures,
nature study, commercial fishing facilities in
Bodega Bay , and development in already developed
parts of south San Diego Bay, if otherwise in
accordance with this division.
For the purposes of this section, "commercial
fishing facilities in Bodega Bay" means tnat
no less than 80 percent of all boating facilities
proposed to be developed or improved, where
such improvement: would create additional berths
in Bodega Bay, shall be designed and used for
-..--hrd nl C+chZnn activities.
Section 30234
'I
Fsci litics scrvinq the comiercial fishing and
recreational !JoatincJ industries shall be pro-
tected and, where feasible, upgraded. Existing
commercial fishing and recreational boating
harbor s2ace shall not 'sc reduced unless the
aemand for those facilities no longer exists or
adequate substitute space has been provided.
Proposed recreational boating facilities shall ,
where feasible, be designed and located in such
a fashion as not to interfere with the needs of
the coarcrcial fishing industry.
Section 30235
Revetments, breakwaters, groins, harbor channels, 1 seawalls, cliff retaining walls, and other such ,
construction that alters natural shoreline
processes shall be permitted when required to
serve coastal-dependent uses or to protect
existing structures or public beaches in danger
from erosion and when designed to eliminate or
niticjatc adverse impacts on local shoreline
sand supply. Existing marine structures
causing water stagnation contributing to ,
pollution problems and fi*shkills should be
pnased out or upgraded where feasible.
!.
Section 30236
Channelizations ,. dams , or other substantial
a1ter;lions of rivers and streams shall incor-
pora2e the be.;: mitigation measures feasible,
and be Ilnited to ill necessary water supply
projects, (7) flood control projects where no
other method for protecting existing strtictures
in the flood plain is feasible and where such
protection is necessary for public safety or
to protect existing development, or (3)
developments wnere the primary function is
the improvement of fish and wildlife habitat.
- - . .. - . ". - _. . ... . . -. -.
ARTICLE 5 Section 30240 -
LAND RESOURCES
Section
302411 Environmentally sensitive habitat
areas; adjacent developments.
30241 Prime agricultural land; mainten-
ance in agricultural production.
30242 Lands suitable for agricultural
use; conversion.
30243 Productivity of soils and timberlands:
conversions.
30244 Archaeological or paleontological
resources.
e ..
(a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas
shall be protected against any significant dis-
ruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent
on such resources shall be allowed within such
axeas.
(b) Development in areas adjacent to enviror.-
mentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and
recreation areas shall be sited and designed to
prevent impacts which wonld significantly degrade
such areas, and shall be compatible with the con-
tinuance of such habitat areas.
Section 30241
The maximum amount of prime agricultural lan6
shall be maintained in agricultural production
to assure the protection of the areas' agri-
cultural 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.
4-
(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 neighborhacd
and contribute to the establishment of a stable
limit to urban development.
*
(c) By developing available lands not
suited for agriculture prior to the conversion
of agricultural lands.
(d) .By assuring that public service and
facility expansions and nonagricultural de-
velopment do not impair ayricultural viability,
either through increased assessment costs or
degraded air and water quality.
(e) By assuring that all divisions of
prime agricultural lands, except those con-
versions approved pursuant to subdivision (b)
of this section, and all development adjacent
to prim agricultural lands shall not diminish
the productivity of such prime agricultural
lands.
Section 30242
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 development consistent with
Section 30250. Any such peraitted conversion
shall,be compatible with continued agricul-
tural use on surrounding lands.
(
Section 30243
The long-term productivity of soils and timber-
lands shall be protected, and conversion6 of
coastal commercial timberlands in units of
comrnercial size to other uses or their division
into units of noncommercial size shall be
limited to providing for necessary timber pro-
cessing and related facilities.
Section 30244
Where development would adversely impact
archaeological or paleontological resources * as identified by the State Historic Preserva-
tion Officer, reasonable .mitigation meascres
shall be required.
..
c
arid enhance visual quality in visually degraded
Ereas.
such 3s those designated in the California
Coastline Preservation an2 Recreation Plan pre-
psxed by the Department of Parks and Recreation
azi! by local 9overnmer.t shal1,be subordinate to
the character of its setting.
::ai developxent in highly scenic areas
SEC. 30252.
The.location and amount of new development should
maintain and enhance public access to the coast
by (1) facilitating the provision or extension
of transit service, (2) providing cominercial facili-
ti2s within or adjoining residantial development
or ir. other areas that will minimize tine use of
coastal access roads, (3) providing nonautomobile
circulation within the development, (4) providing
adec_uate parking facilities or providing substitute
mans of serving the develo;?ment with public trans-
portation, (5),assuring the potential for public
transit for high intensity uses such as high-rise
office buildings, and by (6) assuring that the
recreational neeas of new residents will not over-
load marby coastal recreation areas by corxelating
the amount of eeveloprnent with local park acquisition
asci development ?lam with ths provision of onsite
recreational facilities to serve the new develapment.
SEC. 30253,
New development shall:
(1) Minimize risks to life and property in
areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard.
(2) Assure stability and structural integrity,
and neither create nor contribute significantly to
erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of.
the site or surrounding area or in any war require
the construction of protective devices that WGU?~
substantially alter natural landforms along biuffs
and cliffs.
. (3) Ee consistent with requirements iqbsec!
by an air pollution control district pr the Stiita
Air Resources Control Board as to each particular
development.
(4) Minimize energy consumption and vehicle
miles traveled.
(5) where appropriate, protect special cox-
munities and neighborhoods which, Secause of their
unique characteristics, are popular visitor desti-
nation points for recreational uses.
c SEC, 30254.
New or expanded public works facilities shall be
designed and limited to accomnodate needs gcnsra-
' ted by development or uses pernitted consistent with
the provisions of this division; provided, howevar,
that it is the intent of the Legislature that %ate
Highway Route 1 in rural areas or' the coastal zo2e
remain a scenic two-lane road. Spccizl Cistricts .
shall nht be formed or expaneed except where asses-
nent for, and provision of, the service would not
induce new development inconsistent with this Where existing or planned public works
:I
.i .division.
ARTICLE 6
DEVELOPMENT
Section
30250. Location, generally.
36251. Scenic and visual qualities.
30252. Maintenance and enhancement of
public areas.
30253. Safety, stability, poliution,
energy conservation, visitors.
SEC. 30250
t
30254. Puhlic works facilities.
30255. Priority of coastal-dependent
developments.
(a) ?Jew resi<ential, cowcrcial or --- industrial develcprnent, except as otherwise
provided in this division, shall be located
within, contiguous with, or in close proximity
to, existing developed areas able to acccm-
modate it or, where such arens are ncK able to
accommodate it, in othcr areas with adequate
public services and where it will not ha:ia
significant adverse effects, either indivi-
dually or cumulatively, on coastal resources.
In addition, land divisions, other than
leases for agrlcultural uses, outside exist-
ing developed areas shall be permitted only
where 50 ;?ercont of the usable parcels in the
area have been developed and the created
parcels would be no smaller than the average
size of surrounding parcels.
(b) Where feasible, new hazardous indus-
trial development shall be located away from
existing developed areas.
(c) Visitor-serving facilities that cannot
feasibly be located in existing isolated de-
velopments or at selected points of attraction
for visitors. (amended by Cal. Stats, 1979,
Ch. 1090.)
SCC. 30251.
The scenic an3 visual qualities of coastal
areas shall be considered and protect& as a
resource of public importance. Permitted
development shall be site6 and designed to
protect views to and along the ocean and
scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration
of natural land forms, to be visually COIR-
patible with the character of surrounding
areas,,and, where feasible, to restore
c
facilities can accomnodate only a limited amount
of nc.+i ckvelopment , sc-vices to coastal dependent
lcnd use, essential public services and basic
industries vital to the economic health of the
recjion, state, or r.akiio:i, ptlblic recreation,
coinr,ercial recreation, dnd:visitor-serving
land uses shall not be precludbd by other
deve lo;-.ment.
SEC. 30255.
Coastal-dependent developments shall have
priority over other developments on or near
the shorcljne. Except as provided elsewhere
in this division, coastal-dependent develop-
ments shall pot be sited in a wetland. - ICien appropriate,-coastal-related develop-
nmts should be acconmdated within reasonable
2roxirnity to the coastal-&Fendent .-- uses they
support. (mended by Cal. Stats. 1979, Ch. 1090.)
- -- --- - - --
c
,
!:
SEC.. 30260.
ARTICLE 7
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
Section
30260. Location or expansion.
30261. Use of tanker facilities; liquified
natural gas terminals.
30262. Oil and gas development.
30263. Refineries or petrochemical
facilities.
30264. Thermal electric generating plants.
I
Coastal-dependent industrial facilities shall
be encouraged to locate or expand within exist-’
ing sites and shall be permitted reasonable
long-term growth where consistent with this
division. However, where new or expanded
coastal-dependent industrial facilities cannot
feasibly be accommodated consistent with other
policies of this division, they may nonetheless
be permitted in accordance with this section
and Sections 30261 and 30262 if (11 alternative
locations are infeasible or more environmentally
damaging; (2) to do otherwise would adversely
affect the public welfare, and (3) adverse
environmental effects are mitigated to the
maximum extent feasible.
SEC. 30261.
(a) Multicompany use of existing an2 new
tanker facilities shall be encouraged to the
maximum extent feasible and legally permissable.,
except where to do so would result in increased
tanker operations and associated onshore develop-
ment incompatible with the land use and environ-
mental goals for the area. New tanker terminals
outside of existing terminal areas shall be
situated as to avoid risk to environmentally
sensitive areas and shall use a monobuoy system,*
unless an alternative type of system can be
shown to be environmentally preferable for a
specific site. Tanker facilities shall be
designed to (1) minimize the total volume of
oil spilled, (2) minimize the risk of collision
from movement of other vessels, (3) have ready
access to the most effective feasible contain-
ment and recovery equipment for oilspills, and
(4) have onsore deballasting facilities to
receive any fouled ballast water from tankers
where operationally or legally required.
(b) Because of the unique problems involved in
the Importation, transportation, and handling of
liqief ied natural gas, the location of termiaal
f ciciiities therefore shall be dctemined solely
anc! exclusively es provided in Chapter 10 (con-
1ncncFr.g with Sectisn 5550j of Division 2 of ch@
Public Utilities Code and the provisions of this
division shdl 3ct apply unless expressly provided
in such Chapter io. I
SEC. 30262.
Oil and gas development shall be permitted in
accordance with Section 30260, if the following
conditions are met:
(aj The devel.opment is perforned safely and
consistent with the geologic conditions of the
well site.
(b) New or espanded facilities related to such
development are consolidated, to the maximum
extent feasible and legally permissible, unless
consolidation will have adverse environmental
consequences and will not significantly reduce
tlie number of producing wells, support facilities,
or sites required to produce the reservoir
econoiically and with minimal environmental impacts.
(
(c) Environmentally safe and feasible subsea com-
pletions are used when dril.ling platforms or islarLds
wculd substantially degrade coastal visual qualities
unless use of such structures will result in sub-
stantially less environmental risks.
(e) Such development will not cause or
contribute to subsidence hazards unless it is
determined that adequate measures will be ander--
taken to Frevent damage from such subsidence.
(f) With respect to new facilities, all oil-
field brines are reinjected into oil-producing
zones unless the Division of Oil and Gas of the
Department of Conservation determines to do so
would adversely affect production of the reser-
voirs and unless injection into other si;baurfsce
zones will reduce environiner.ta1 risks. Exceptions
to reinjections will be granted consistent with
the Ocean Waters Discharge Plan of the Statu
Water Resources Control Board and where acfequatc
provision is made for the elimination of pet-
roleum odors and water quality problems.
Where appropriate, monitoring programs to record
land surface and near-shore ocean floor movements
shall be initiated in locations of new lzrge-scale
fluid extraction on land or near shore before opera-
ticns begin and shall continue until surface con-
ditions have stabilized. Costs of monitorins ana
mitigation programs shall be borne by liquid and
gas extraction operators. c
(d) Platforms or islands will not be sited ,
where a substantial hazard to vessel traffic might
result from the facility or related operations,
deternincd in consultation vith the United States
Coast Guard and the Army Corps of Engineers.
SEC. 30263.
(a) Pm?w or cxp;~ndcd refineries or petrochemical
facilities not otherwisc consistent with the pro-
visions of this division shall be permitted if
(1) alternative locations are not feasible or arc
more environmentally damaging; ' (2) adverse environ-
mental effects are mitigated to the maximum extent
feasible; (3) it is found that not permitting such
development would adversely affect the public wel-
fare; (4) the facility is not lochted in a highly
scenic or seismically hazardous area, on any of
the Channel Islands, or within or contiguous to.
environmentally sensitive areas; and (5) the
facility is sited so as tp provide a sufficient
buffer arei to minimize adverse impacts on sur-
rounding property.
(b) In addition to meeting all applicable air
cpality standards, new or expanded refineries or
petrochemical facilities shall be permitted in
areas designated as air quality maintenance areas
by the State Air Resoclrces Board and in areas
where coastal resources would be adversely affected
only if the negative impacts of the project upon
air quality are offset bf reductions in gaseous
missions in the area by the users of the fuels,
ar, in the case of an expansion of an existing site, total site emission levels, and site levels
for each emission type for which national or state
ambient air qilality standards have been established
do not increcse.
(c) New or expanded refineries or petrochemical
facilities shall minimize the need for once-through
coo1i:ig by using air cooling to the maximum extent
feasibie and by using treated waste waters from .
inplant processes where feasible.
iA
SEC. 30264.
Notwithstanding ar,y other provisior. of c::Ls
division, except subdivisrons (5) a:?d (c) of
Section 30413, new Gr expanded tilerrial electric
generating plants may be constructeE in the
"CC-s been determined by the State Engergy i?esoL-
Conservation and Development Conrnission to have
greater relative merit pursuant to the 9rovisiofis
of Section 25516.1 than available alternative
sites and related facilities for an applicat's
service area which have been determined to be
acceptable pursuant to the provisions of
Section 25516.
. coastal zone if the 2roFosed coastal site hts
c
.. I. 0 a'. 2. - Kelly Point /?A- I
A. Maximum Density of Development
.l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Agricultural Land but no more 'than '89% of the acres in cultivation in the 1920 tax year shall result in an
allowable development intensity of 1 dwelling unit per ten acres. The remaining 20% shall be allowed a rrtaxirnum intensity of development based on the slopes'as specified.
All slopes greater than 25 percent shall result in an allowable development intensity of 1 dwelling unit per ten acres;
All slopes greater than 20 percent but less than 25 percent shall result in a development intensity of 1
dwell i ng uni t pcr f i vc acres ;
All slopes greater than 15 percent but less than 20 percent shall result in a development intensity of 1 dwelling unit per acre;
All slopes greater than 10 percent but less th2.n SF, percent shall result in a development intensity of 2 dwelling units per acre; *
All areas with a slope of less than 10 percent shall result in a dcveloyincnt intensity of C uiilts per acre.
8. Agricul ture/Planned Development
The property shall be developed using the existing planned community zone with the additional requirements contained in the Policies herein. All developments as defined in the Coastal Act, expressly empsasizing land divisions, are conditional uses and rcquire a coastal develophent permit and master plan. As a condition of approval of any master plan for the entire area, the city shall require that a minimum of 80% of thi! existing agricul- tural area as specified abovc shall be permanently restricted to agricultural use.
C. Drainage, Erosion Control
b,. Under thc P-C requireiricnts and the dcvelopmmt intensities established in +-*, the development shall conform to the following additional devcloprnent standards:
1. Grading, natural vegetation retioval, and placement of structures shall be liiiiited to areas of less than 20% SlqJc; or where highly erodible soils arc involved, to JrCiIS of less tha'n 10% slopc. Upon review to dctcrrninc! the 1wst envitvtmeiital ly dimaging road aligrmcnt, cxccptions nny be nndc on!y for roads absolutely
I.
*,
..
, ncccssary to providc access to dcvelopable land surrounded by such steep slopes, the placement of underground public utility links, and fire roads.
Drainage and runoff shall ,be ‘controlled so as not to cxcccd at any time the rate associated with property in its present state, and appropriate measures shall he taken on and/or off site to prevent siltation of lagoons and other environmentally sensitive arcas.’!
.I *
2.
3. The appropriate veasures shall be installed priro to
on-si tc grading.
4. All undevelopable slopes shall be placed in open space easements as a condition of development approval.
5. Modification of these standards and criteria may be granted to portions of properties where strict appl ica- tion of the standards and criteria would, even after application of clustering and other innovative development
techniques, result in less than one-half of the develop- ment potential that would be atta-inable under the slope density formula.
Such iriodification shall be limited to the standards and criteria expressed in (I} (2) (3).’(4) above, and shall not exceed khat necessary to the attainmentiof said one-ha1 f of the developrwnt potential.
Where such modification niust involve grading or otber disruption of lands of 20% slope or greater, such .
grading or disruption shall be limited t+ not more than one-fourth of the land area of the property which is of 20% slope or greater.
In selectin areas within the property of 20% slope or greater which will be subject to modification of standards and criteria, 1znd.s with the following characteristics shall receive perference. *
- Land with the lowest relative degree of environmental sensitivity.
- Land with the relatively gentler slopes.
- Land which will require the lcast arnount of cut and fill, and upon which runoff and erosion can be most cf fec ti vely con tro 11 cd.
- Land with the least amount of visual impact when viewed from a circulatiun elenicnt road or public vista point.
- Land which, when graded and developed, would have the least cnvironnicntal and visual impact on the stccp- sloped land form upon hich such grading or dcvclopmcnt
is to take plicc.
r. ,
I
6. A.site specific technical report shall bc required addressing the curiiulrltive effects of developing each
subwatershed and rkconiincnding measures to mi tigate both increased runoff and sedimentation. It shall be reviewed and prepared according to +the,,ibdel Erosion Control
Ordinance coritaincd .in the Master Drainage Plan, wl th the additions and changes adopted 'herein, such that a natural drainage system is preserved.
..
7. Mitigation measures tailored to project impacts and consistent with the control of cumulative development shall be implemented prior to development in accordance with the following additional criteria:
(a) Submittal of a runoff control plan designed by a 1 iccnscd cnginccr. qual ificd in hydrology and hydraul ics, which would assure no increase in peak runoff rate from the developed site over the greatest discharge expccted from the existing undeveloped site as a result of a 10-year frequency storm. Runoff control shall be accomplished by a-variety of measures, including, but limited to, on-site catchmcnt basins, detention basins, siltation traps and energy dissipators and shall not be concentrated in one area 0r.a few locations.
(b) Detailed maintenance arrangements and various alternatives for providiqg the on-going repair and
maintenance of any approved drairLdgc and erosim
control faci 1 i tics. 1
.
(c) All permanent runoff and erosion control devices shall be developed and installed prior to or con- current with any on-site grading activities.
(d) All grading activities shall be prohi'bited within the period from November 1st to March 31st of each year.
(e) All areas disturbed by grading, but not completed during the construction period, including' graded pads, shall be planted and stabilized prior to November 1st with temporary or perinanerit (in the case of
finished slcpes) erosion control measures and native. vegetation. measures, such as berms, interceptor ditches, sand- bagging, filtered inlets, debris basins and silt traps, shall be utilized in conjunction with plantings to minimize soil loss from the construction site. Said planting shall be accomplished under the supervision of a licensed landscaped architect and shall consist of seeding, mulching, fertilization and irrigation adequate to provide 90 percent coverage within 90 days. Planting shall be repeated, if the required level of coverage is not establ ished. This requirement shall apply to all disturbed soils, including stock- p i 1 e s.
The use of temporary erosion control
.._- , ...- .. .
I
,
Caiifornia Coastal Conmission
I'
..
..
I
-. .. - , . .-._. . . -. - .
2xss Stacevide 1a:erprctfve Guideline9 were adopted by the Callfornta
Csastai Cimrrrrion pursvanr to Pubtic Resource3 Code Sactlon 30620 (b)
and act "d.siEr.ed to assist total governments, the reeionol comnlsslons,~
the c::missim, and ?ersans subject to the provlsions of this chapter
in $ccer.ir.ixq how :he policies of chis division shall be applied ln the
coastal zone prix ta certification of local coestal programs."
The juidelices shouLd assist In apptyfnq various Coastal Act policies
to pcrift iecisims; they in no case 9upersede the provisions of the
Coastal Act ao? rnlarp or diminish the pov.rs or authority of the Comissions or other pcblfc agencies.
*
'
..
'
interpretive pideliaes for the regional emairsloas are published rr?irate Ly.
I I
I*
As of February 20, 1980
(Supersedes J~ily 16, 1979 edition)
.
e ,.
Page
I
5
6
7
LO
12
21
47
66
-i- 'I I
I
.- --- GE;af&IC $'l'A"Y OF BLUFFTOP DETECF"
Section 3X53 of the 1976 Coastal Act provides that "Now developed skaC: geolcgc, Clod w.2 Tire hazard; (2) Assurc stability and structural -kte><>y, geclc:lc ixjta>i.LV;-, or dcstrzct5on of the site -or surrounding area or :+-, ' ...... ....., .'.., . ,._I -i,.ko tt? constructicn of protoctive devices that
ii31LJrd x>ct;?tiGly alt?r i~zt,ur?l lscdfcrns al0z.r: bluffs and cliffs". Sccticn CGi Frwides that: "Fcnnittxi dcvelopmcnt shall be sited
(1) IL-2si-e rj.sks to life 2nd pTopertj in areas of high
neither create nor contribute si&ficantly to erosion,
..to ni;..hix thc dteraticn of nattmaJ landfotms..."
0;- cX.l'f is 9 scaq or steep face of mck, decomposed rock,
02 resdtix:: frcm erosion, faulting, fo1dir.g or exca- .
face or it nay be steplike in section. For the purposes of this Ta5.delL:e, "cliff" or "blilfftt is lirrdted to those features hav',.rg *llqrzicaL ni%f of ten feat or more, and "seacliff" is a diff s'ncse toe is or mq be subject to nai3.x erosion. "Bluff edge" or
fl;ut-~ thc. tq &.;? of thc cliff is rounded away from the face of the cliff as a result of crcsiond proccssas related to the prsscnce of
t?.c sten? CiiYC Pace, the cdp shrJJ. be defined as that point ncarest
A'-:, *..- ir.crcxsr; ZCK cr 1css cmtimouslp wtil it reacttes the general .
pdiezt of ;he c2.i::.
'.'? of $5: ciif: face, the lanadard edge of the topmost riser
ImG Gass. 'he clCf or bluff say be sinple planar
, "&"" ~ __" is ,he upper tomination of a blrtff, cliff or seacliff. ..
2::': ke:rc,:?ci irhxcn thc d~?,A..r~rl gradient of the land. surface ._
I in a case whxe there i3 a steplike feature
t- t&cn to ba tae cliff edse.
To nxt the rcqzreaent; of thc act, bluff and cliff developments
MS~ kc site5 ad desisca to assure stcbbility snd structural integrity fcr *LO< -..--I- ex;ectiC eccnc,:idc lif+spms. xhhile dniizing alteration
Gf 3axrzl h.-.Csxs. Sluff and cliff developments (including related ' jtcm z.:oX, foct trafzic, site preparation, construction activity, irrisztion, uast? water disposd and other activitie~ and facilities acco.rpanyirq such de*rclogaent) sust not be allowed to create or con- tr5blte siaficmtl? to problems of erosion or geolo'gic instability cn th? site or cn surroundins g2ologically hazardous ar9as.
Xteraticn af cliffs and bluff..tops, faces, or bases hy excavat-ion or
nllon.ed 2:Ly to stz5ilize slopes, or sea iraUs or sea walls at the toe
of sencli:'f; or to check marine erosion where there.is no less environ- mer.tc&.+c.zz&-ic alternative and when required:
Lis be aqknhizecl. ClSf retaining wall should be
111 ti miitcLin pu~lic redreational area3 or necessary put.lic sed-cas
pwtfzt port areas; such as protection of coascd highways or energy facility) or to
4
_I_ ..
-2-
(2) to protect principle stxuctums in existing cevehp,w.tu thdi aie in danger from erosion; or
(3) in os Angeles, orange, and sari Diego Couiies, to ~fi szali sections of wall in subdivisions where a predwninant. portion of a XU is already in place, provided t'nat such Muin& mild have 30 rmbstantial adverse environmental effects.
A geolo& besti&ation and report will be requ2red when a devslop ment is proposed to be sited within the =ea of dmonstration as defined below.
As a general rule.. the area of dmonstration of staki3t.y (I13.ustration A) includes the base, face &. top rrf all bl.223 and clffrs. The sxtcnt of the bluff top considered sr,cul.i -kcl:..lc the ama between the face of tho blufr .ma a 2k.e %?scribe& cn 5r.t bluff top by the intersection of a pianeincl3ea at 3 Zo mgls f.3 horizontal passing through the toe cf the bldf or,cllff, or 53 fe?t bland from the edge of the cliff or bluff, srhichever ,is ceater. However, the Conmission may desig.ate a lesser 31'2s of .',e-cr+traticn Jn specific Y'eas of known ~-,ologic statilitjr (as ieterLiied'5y adequate geologic evaluation and historic eTidence ; 3r .&her*
a greater area of demonstration or exclwic? devslopment entire1.j A areas of known high instability.
'he report should hdricate the location 'of ths c.C'f or 51.51'5. ~~ge, the toe of the cliff or bluff and other sigificmt jeo;o@c features by distance from readilj identified fixed mor,unents wch
M the centerbe of the road nearest the blilff 3r cliff. ,
' adequate protective works beady exist. The Comrrdssion nay deslqate
a
i
-3- 1.. -4-
c me appliC;?t for a pemit for blufftop development should be '
rec,&e.l to dexcnstrate that the area of demonstration is stable fcr de:.el;r.:ent and th;t the development will not create a geologic
L--... A.G.,GLi or di~LrLsh the stability ?E the area. The applicnnt should
Xie a r-cort evdactL?~ the gc.oloriic conditiom of the site md the effcst of tbe le:-eicpent prepared by a registered geoloci.st Or
prcfczsisn" cbii enrir,eer with expertise bl sous or foundation er.*,eerL?S, or by a cerbified enmnerixg geologist. Thc report
sk2d De baser! cn M cn-site jnvesti:ation in addition to a review
* or tk cxerzl character of the area. "here there is a dispute over the dcq.:ocy cf the report, the Carmission may request that tho .. r-C:-C be rsriexcd by a state Zeoloqist from the Division of hes xi C..olcq, the costs of tkt reAw and my necessary site Lx-;ecticr.s ta 5.: Scxm by the aqlicant.
(1) cllff g+>?et,:y 2nd site togogqhy, e.xt,ending the surveying work
tey'cnd tk+ site as needed to depict unusual geomorphic conditions thx zi&t aL'fect the sics;
(2) h,lstofic, current ;?d forseeable cliff erosion, Fncluding hvcsti- $&lcn r?i reco-ded izd surreys and tax assessment records in addition to tke use cl' bitoric ma?s r.d photographs khere available and ;csrijle changes in shore confi3xation and sand transport;
(?) $xJo~c cor,t5.tior.s, Lmlndkg soil, sedinent and rock types' s.i chaacteristlcs ir. ad",icn to structural features, such as
The report should consider, et.<--. ,,.14c ax! xSyze the fullo.&;:
.. .
bo<A<-z ;oL~--,ts, and fd.ts;
(4) ei-l,.'encn of 3ast or potential lxdslide conditions, the inpli- c3tisr.s of silch conditions for the prCpOsed development, and the
p:?ntlal el:ects of the development on landslide activity;
(5) iTsct of corstxction activity on the stability of the site and adJtcx~t ares;
(6) gcmd md .swface voter conditibs and variations, including
t.yL-sLo@c :bx.ges czuscd by the development (Le. introduction of Se:i,i<': efl.;s:i: r-.d irri&ion water to the ground water system; Ltcrsciox L? sur:'ace drainage);
(7) pstentisl ercd5iity of site and mitigating measures to be used to en.?L-e .z2-Anized erosicn problems during and after coytmction (Le. lmdsca?bng and drdage design);
t
(A) effccSs of marine erosion on seadiffs;
(9) pctentiai effects of seismic forces redting from a rn- ' creCc:e earthquake; E
(10) any other factors that might affect shpr 8tdb~tp *
6
The report should evaluate the off-site LTact:: of cevc:?oy.rtr,: (e.g. development contributin.: to geoio@cal LxtabfiiVy 3" ~CCYS~ mads) and the additional impacts that might occur drie to the ;r='ljcsed
development (e.& increased erosion &on$ a footpath). The repcrf should also detail mitigation measures for any potential %ack and should outline alternative solutions. P.e repcx-t s5culd P:F~.:S.-LJSS a profcssional opinion as to whether the project cante desiged sa that it will neither be subject to nor contribute to si&f:cint peohgc
instability throughout the lifespan of the project.
should use a currently acceptJble engine?rL?Z st&ilitj xiy:i3 method and should also describe the Cegee of uncenA~tjy oi ~?&fu:cal results due to assumptions and unknowns. The de,--.* of z&ysis required should be appropriate to the &gee of potential rick presented by the site and the proposed project.
In areas of geolo@c hazard, the Commission nay re@-$ tint a 5e-ielcp- ment peimit not be issued until an qpiic3nt has slged a ud;ier of all claim against the public for future liabi3t.r or am,axe resul5.x fxx
7% =.:p-t
'
permission to build. Recorder's Office. ALl such waivers shod be recoraed with tie hwjr
Adopted Msiy 3, 1977
I.
I.
I
-6-
Section :E51 of the 1976 Coastal Act states that "the scenic and
yisd q-i;14iti.cs. of ccait4 areas shAl be considered ani protected as a reso-ce ol' ;.:blic iz?srtame. sited ml Icslpd to protect views to and along the ocean and SCC~C coastL 3rfx . . .I1 The prixrji 'concern mdcr this section of the
Act is :be ;m.tcc:;cr, cf ozem x.4 cosstaf. view fmm public areas
~4th 3s hip:::$, roads, bOiCkC3, pX'k;, COStd trai.h ad OCCB66- .._.._ ,,c,al ... ,Lata L
T~~OCB, sa cti:er gibiic prcse.?cs rather than coastat view frOm private residences wherc no p-&lic vistas are knrolved.
?emi.Lted devclopaent shall be
>O~LS, cca~tal strcrlris md aatcrs used for recreation& (
Adopted W 3, 1977
.. - POBLIC TRUST LANDS
.
Section 3O601 and 30603 of the 1976 Coastd kt r-taLn the. Conunissionts jurisdiction over titielanis, wbrnerpsa is-.&, and public trust lands even aftcr local govsrments have :i+n over the coastal development per&: gstem or hav5 reczi-red certification of their locd coastal ?rogms. 3.h ck.,r>~ emphasizes statewide pubiic iqcjrtjnee of these trqzs. hcticr. 2W1.5 states that m0r.q ths basic zoais 3f the s%ts a.r? 5.3 fhaximine publa0 access opportmLties in the coastal ::E? :oasis- tent -dth sound resources consenation >rir.cipies.. , *, mi "asgce priority for coastat-dependent developments.. . I'
Thus, development proposals that nay bvolve pssent or hiszr?.: tidelands, aubmerpd lands, ard public txust lar.2~ scLa be >or- mitted only if consistent wLth the jublic txst. Ec %at? La=$ Division will delineate on maps of the Coastal Ccm.issiGzis jurisdictional ezea a landward line 5eysr.d xhic?. t-2Li.c t~zz :zis cmot reasonably be aqected tc exist. .'?J ;enit3 S;r ?rc~cx< dcvelopnents within the =sa so deiineatea, cr in e.2~ ztii5 :sr which public trust status is docmeateti, stould be ;~-C~VC.C 3:r the Commission, the Attorney General's Offflce u,d the State Lar.:s Commission to detehe wnethcr public tmst consilerstiocs =e involved and have been Ujr considered. specific findings as to .whether the develcp;lent is Lq an =?a potentidy subject to the pubiic trdst mi either (1 j taat :?e project wuuld be consistent .dth :he ;ub2,c tmst =r.'.er the S;z.-=' Act and with established rights of the Ac;eral go-ier-?,ea% to :sgLa$e commerce ami navigation on navigabie waters or (2) :?,at prs:ec% should not be appmed until the question of the pwEc trmi caii >e resolved. . .
rZdoptad May 3, l9Tl
3.e Cor.3l;;icn shC zak?
..*&
-a- -. - .-
- .-- . from the Department of H~usir.g and Conmnitj Developncnt z:! to whether the >L<-.&*&
mat Code requires that the !!ousLng ELemznt "k~J.3. rr&c aC.1-7~:c ;Z..=XC:. ..
sites for housing". Any such ana~jsis .&I2 be sat to the local ;os-eF.?e::t ior
tions have adopted housing standards, policics ar.d gcals 2; acccrj-ilce h-Lth zx- division (c) of Section 65302 of the Govex-nent Code.
housing necds of all economic se,-ncctts ci the c;cmmi:;r" ad ''~x~.<~:x oi hisq-tc
its conunents before any permit action is taken by the Comissicn.~
5. Cocdominium Conversion
Rental units that provide housing for persons oi low and moderate ixorze ~27 be converted to condorLnims if (a) tenants are first given at leacf 122 %--is ?.stice of the proposed conversion, (b) current tenants are @m the Xz-st ~;r.~c" ;o purchase units, (c) the buil.ldin5 meecs cLymt sta.&ks Lj LG-,x-- ".-....-.5 ~-8-- - ~ I> J. safety codes, etc., ana meets cmmt off-str-et >ar:<T< :eq--z~r.:s, L:Z ;i) other units are availabie Li the same general coastal area at.:czraraSic :YE:: (a3 evidc-xed by a 5 gercent rectal *racancjr factor for th.- 6 zonzis >r?:e?L:; the convcrsion) .
6. Redevclornent Pro.fects
In an redevelopent project under Stat* liu --cpse:! i.: tk :c,~L,al z:z?, 23 :.?-E
men', financing should be used to inprove or LwMase tke s~~y of .'.cus-L-.z 2-3: persons of lo.& and moderate i..come. An Sxce-dion to this rPy&r?nEr.tl 321: 5e Taa!e cnly if the Commission finds that the local r,ovem.ent is raL-*3 a ;lios-,cu;sfal effort to meet the housing needs of persons of lw md =cde.-te L:c>r.:.e k tte coastal zone as evidenced by obligation of funds mTentl;. a-.-a-Xabl? for t5i.s purpose from State, local and Federal sources. h~ redovelop,ent ;njec; ?=posed within the coastal zone should not be aIAwed to displace hou.sLi< :*a- anrsccs of low and roderate income unless at least an etpi-mlcyt .?.-r,ier 2.f :~?hc~!-~est units are provided within the coastal zone.
necessarily be within the pmject area.
7. Definitions
In accordance with the rpwtions of the CsLifoPia Xcvsi~3 FL-zcc? dgczcy, "prsc-3 of low and moderate incorr,e't are defir.ea to ixluci. 311 of cic f'cI.lc.;rrL---.
(1) A "very low income fzmilp is a famL& &oc? kcme Goes no: 4;';0'3d fC tezect of the median income for the area, as detennijjed by hZml with ad$stz:e!xtc for smaller and larger fandlies.
(2) A tt:ow hcma fani:;JI is a fanciLy wkme izccmc ~DIS zot weed 25 ~?~qr;: c:
the median income for the area, as detennbed by hUDi in'Yh ad$trar,',s' fer
' smallcr or larger families, except that income Limits hisher or icver t?.&-, percent my be established on the basis of its fbdings that mch variations are necessary because of the prevailing levels of constxction costs, -n!s high or low incomes, or other factors.
Tils ~ctim of tnc ?~*:*x- f?r the
?
*.
.
. than 20 percent of all taxes allocatea tc th~ ?.ecievelc+xz: .-..=-.__ -c-...{ I - .', ~ ,n :.x L:cze-
!
The replacment u<ts need mc
-5
hneraUy defined by HKl as county; 'Adjustments as msde by Fa
(3) A "rxknte bncssc fmily" is a family wnose income docs not exceed 120 p:ccr.t or' ;he cdkui incore for the arm, 03 detemined by HUDl with ad.$~;txn:j~ :or smllcr and Lrgcr fadies.
disd151-c~ or Lisplaced.person axid the renainir.g member of a tenant family
as d"f2,cd ir. Section 201 (a) of the Xousing and Conmunity Development Act
.
(L) For p;;oxs cf this sectior. "fdlyil inchdcs an elderly, handicappsa,
of 1774.
SITIMG NEU 'D~hLOP.~~k~
Basic Policy lor Siting Rew Demlcrzsnt
Section 30250(a) of the 1976 Coastal Act provides that "fleii dc*r+13?:z.Lrl cxr-t -r as othedse provided in this division, shsji be located h'_$>k+ ,2z~Ligs~s Ltk, ti in close proximity to, exist- developed areas able to accorr.m%te it or, .,.?.~r: such areas are not able to eccmodate it, i? other areas srit)i %de,-;;:.- jx2.i~ zz-,
vices and where it will not have sipificmt aherse effects, either i+.&-.-'-- ,_--.--y.~7 sr cumulatively, on coastal res%-ces. in acFiti.cn, lad diyisicrs, othnr ::.z. lexi3 ' for 8gricultua.l uses, outside efistir.,; developed areas shall 5" peritzed :rL:i i::.fr=z 50 per ccnt of ths usable parcels h the ar?a have Oenn d~sclcpPd i-.: ',ne ::%:e< parcels would be no smaller thcui the amr;c? size of SUI-*.*-^'- .-SA.*-.>> * . E~Y-I --*a:* -
I. .. -.
A. Concentrition of Devslotn?.~
The basic purpose of this section of the Ccasal Act is $0 CC~CY&T:~.: :.:-a '
development by promoting infill of eAd;ting urban center3 on the :CZY,, >bLi,~?; sprawl and providing lor orderljr, pl,lrJ;ed'qnxsion, oi ic~elspei a:o~s and whero tho aqsn;icn will be cenzistcn'i wii; the section speciiies that dcve1cyer.c should developed aroas able to aceomrodate it, i.e., %her? n?ccssa:>- ;er?-l~?s roads, water, and hportnnt cminercial serrices, x? a-.d.l:kl$ L-.i *..--e e.. - - &- .. . . .I.. A-
tional development will not -5npa.i: coastd i'esmrces or *L: ?cics5 ',G tF.2 ::xt. Yhcre D. developed area is sub3tantidiy Ofit up JF c;r.not 1cic7~~0~3t-2 :ir:?.s developmmt bccauuae of EciteJ. public sex-rics ca2acf:ies O? .ihcrsi. -#?*::..j ?r. conot,al re8ource3 or pubI2.c access, deveiopaent ahdi cw!! imnediate peripherj of such amas. cnlj. where contigmus &v-dopxzt xdz :rLL.cr with the provisions of the Coastal. Act, should nw Gereloperrt be LCXE~ L: :>YO distant arPas w.ii:h can accomodate it.
aastd kc: ?olici?s. st os cha-.r<eled kto
,
c?..?r,?&& 75. :tc
.I
For vposes of this section, areas iht skaL! be ccr.;lcersZ ie*e:~;*< L-,-PBS are the rna:or urbvl centers of the coast 2nd the lads .ktkir, ?arc i7 TL:..z?z. communities that constitute distinct, identifiable and g?cdr;liy cc~&:t, ::.-E= :r
CU.ages. generally urbanized charactcr, ana the ader;uaq of pSLc s.d :C to support the comnmity. Isolated suburban sub&fisicr.s 3r'.d ?i clusters rhich lack necessarJ serrices shdd cot, be sscsitersa tzvnla?e; :ex ::F the purposes of this section because it is just, sdch -qranita ;r.d $czt;e?1 ie:.zl:ys rnent that the policy seeks to avoid.
Such areas may be recc;;nized by thdr relati:-el;r kL;> C~isit::, ::-.=-:
.
Appropriate aseos for care,fulIpphased ekTansion frm six?.. :.-cl;ce4 %-?as should be identtfied as follows: areas where development would provide a logicJ1, resmrccc~~~z-.~L-~r',-.; dW~:.zlf:: c: the present de-reloped area because (a) coaszal resources -&t?.h 2.5 .~ ?XXE::L are permanently protected; (5) the iaris arb rdativelj Gear eqloj7ncr.z :e:: (c) necessarj services are either a-raikble or ca ;e ?mkde$ h<;>cit si,-.; dnmage to or interference with coastal resjurccs or p.blAc acces:; !t) L:?zai'.r*~cl sites for urban developrent would invo;ve grc;ter iaaage to nazixrd rrtmc%s, of M:md; and (e) doveloprnent pmposed for the area is c~sistc?.?: kizk ;:;.e: 3:?z:al Act roquircmcntti.
laads adjacw.: 07 clsseljr ?n&ate t.2 :.-:Gc;cd
- -c a*. -Ab-- iy
The general provlsiona of this section nondiy should not a2pu to k523zl lots zoned for single-family residences, as of the dfective date of the iv 5 -2astal
-11- .: .
INTERPRETIVE GUIDELINES ON CON30:4iilIUM &'ID STOCK CCCPE?ATISrZ CC':7;EiS:C:lS
AND GENERAL DEFINITIONS
The following Interpretive Guidelines were adopted by tie California Cautal Comnission on July 16. 1979 pursuant to Section 3G620 Of the Coastal Act of i976. That section provides in part that:
The Commission shall ... prepare interim procedures for the s.&-.--.-i 1. -a,.--. , review and appeal of coastal development Fenit appiicat;ons ... :iacis~;-7)
Intcrpretive Guidelines designed to assist local qoverrxent;, the re?;-..r,ai cmnissions, the commission, and persons subject ta ti& provzsic.?s cZ i2e
coastal zone prior to certification of local coastal prcqrcims: grsvieed, however, that such guidelines shall not superseie. enlarge, cr 5in;nisn the powers or authority of any regional camission, the xxmi;sion. or arj other public agencf.
. Act) in detezmining how the (Act's1 polisles shall be applied in :.'.e
These guidelines, then, are intended to provide a guide for pemic a;;lizJ;.zs, locai
governments, and the Commission in interpreting the requirements of 5sct;cr. 30213 of
the Coastal Act, which states in part that:
... housing opportunities for persons of low and noderats inccne shall be protected, encouraged, and where feasibie. >rovided ...
Interpretive Guidelines adopted by the Coirmizsron are ;;.t~rx qxie:;:.es '.> to scc -- prior to the adoption of local caostal programs (iC?'z1 by hcai 7over.r.er.t~ rd certification of the local coastal progrms by the Comnissicn..
superseded by the LCP's and are not intended to be the test :or Lye 23's !al:?tc.J:k local governments will need to address the issues considered b'i 1nter;ratim :.:zieiizes,
it is expected that local programs will reflect local nee& and c0ncerr.s vnic-,,:dy c: may not be reflected in statewide guidelines).
xe cjx;eiir.cs w:i- ;e
.. Finally, the Conmission wishes to make clear t'3 appiicants m4 ot.'..ers ::3: ?:izeAxes
are merely w, not regulations or law. The final test on pernit <e,c>zixs r-r.-n;ns
tlle terms of the Coastal Act; the guidelines are intended to hel; int2r;r.t 25 ;.it. but they are not binding on thc Conmission. which will consider pro;ects in I;;?.: 3: all
circumstances and all of the policies of the Coastal Act.
These guidelines replace guidelines on cor.daninium convsrsions and definitizns adopted October 4, 1977. Other guidelines on new constncticn rnd dm?lt:x a:cpfel at that time remain in effect; however, proposais for new Tdideiznes in ".csa L-eas u;;i
be considered by the Conmission in the near kt3re.
I .. purchnoed or rcnted by low- and-modorate-hcome nousefiolds, 3r are occqi3?;:7 :Tf- or moderate-income households. the median income as established annually by the il. S. &partm.r.t 9f 5ouL-g c.? ';r5?...
Development (W) for the Standanl. Metmpolitan Statistical Area witfii-. iiC.;.*. :?..e ;c- posed development is located, as adjusted for the number of nmbers of ::.e :.C.SST.;~. A moderate-incane household in one which earn3 81 - I& of the median i?cme (as 2s-
tabushed above).
A lori?come household is one .&ch euzs 3 - - 9r -e55 3f
l
e .. ..
-13-
. (1,) ZAc x;;tc; cn the 'wits sh,lll be 'fixed at a rsrrt which is a,''s-"--'., * -,a ,
ta ::::e:: c:.~~=i.;+s k, *,ne nd2n hcoae; or,
2.. ...rxd ,~c:sor.s; this ~.nt my be adj'usted annually
(2) 3.e unit; shall be rc,lted at the Fah :.far!cot rwt for
e?5:L-.; k.zsi-4 as establijked by the tcpa-tment of Housing and WIJL? :e~elsy,en: (X%) either to persons who meet the standards
estaS;ish.-..l by XLl for r9nt subsidy under Section 8 of tha Housing Act of l?3?, as menled, or a3 it may suhequentljr be amended, and. z;$ic3:1? x6gulstior.s; or persons wb meet the rcquirw,ents of my
otker rent subsill gr hi&< progrm that provides rental housing
for kx-hcome households. . The applicant shall made best efforts to
. ..
-%
-14-
b. Sals Ilnits.
to an agreement with the Commission, .or its designee, to ~YY~Z :nit z~osq:';-:r.t sL:: folloKing the initial sde of the unit srill be at a prics ~nicn is d'foe'a-l- t3 z~iz- holds earning substantially the saize percentage of the zedan L~slcom PB 2.5 L-z.t:L purchaser3 of the units and shall be recorded as a covenant tci rm xi:n tie k-d, iL',>. no prior liens other than tax Uens. lowing conditions :
If the low- cr noderate-cincsxs hxsL-4 mpc?x-L;;<; :? 52 ;? develosed as sale units, prior to the issarce of a penit, the Ce-i$lzaer s.:;~, .. !;:.;E: 2;-
The agEernent shall inchde substantiGy '..".e 5;-
(1) The appucant, his sacceszarsl ana WJ sabseyent ;:irx;5ss EIIL ci-;? a govemmcntal or nonprofit ageacy, rjubjcct to :he ;pprwd of ::.e L:ex:z,-~ -:;;c:.s;, -.
an option to purchase the units. The agency or its dcsipoe na;r essi~. ;kz q-.i-n :a an individual private purchaser who ciudfies as a low- or mderate-i.-.co:.P ;ezors 21 substantially tho same Fncome range as tne person for whm tne L-itial i&:S +,-e .-as intended to provide a housing opportunity.
Whenever the applicant or any subvewent wmer of %he sell Jr trmi31'er the units he/she sh&l fi0Sii-y the ;,-sncjr c= it; :$si<. intcnt to aoll. Tile agcncy, its desigec, or its assi;nee shall :.;x. .i to exercise the option .within EO days in the event of :he i-itai si% by the developer, or within 93 days' for subseqient sdes. FoSllcvi.-~ :h the option, escrow shall be opened and closed vithin R) dap dter CLi-rerf s: ;.L.s notice of exercise of the option.
Following the notice of intent to s5ll the unit, the 3g9nc7 si its designee shall have the right to i?spect tSe ?rdsas 't~ detcmiye :~.d:.:c ie3Cz jr rehabilitation beyond the requirements of noxd n&?ter.ar.co ("ief~:.-~-r: ~--,X:.LX~"~ is necessary. If such repair or rehabili;a;ion is noccssLTr, tiio- g?:.zy its f::i?c= shall determine the coct of repair, and such cost shall os decwted fxa ttr ?L-:!&%
prim and paid ,to the agency, its designee,.or scch contracton i5 the >~?~r.=,z.: L-.& chuoso to cnny out the deferred maintenance and shall be eqended LT aziL-~.; YXT. --p&..~.
The agency or its designee may charge a fee, to be dc&:t& :=--a the purchase price paid by the assignee for its reasonable costs of qdiPyi.-g 3.i cnw&o&4
purchasers, exercising the opticn, and adnhistering this resal9 ccntm; pm,~a.
(2)
(3)
(4)
..
-15- I. -16- - ..
2. 31 my convcrsbn which is approved, the foUoKing requirements should be met
F-, or",c: :J pmtect, encourage, and provide housing opportunities for low- md modeate- ia:%zs pe.rscr5. -E
a. All current tenants are given at least 12;) days notice of the prxjosed
conversion follo market rate and 3moderate ("affordable") units (if the current tenant Ldfies rs a law/mc=ierate income person.
income housing op ortdties, either through a controlled rental FrngF? (51k M tk.? Section 8 pmgm~, or a sale program with resale controls to prevent SpW'd~ti%? to gumtee contimed affordaoil,ity (as defined in these &deli?es). the units shall first be offered for sale to the currmt tenz.ts. than two-thirds (2/3) of the units are ?urchesed at market mtes by the currrrf- tsrA-.tC, the low/moderate set-aside requirement swill be satisfied by whatever cd!zSer 3f *siz3 ?g- main unsold to the current tenants. (For exanple, if -3. W-udt pmjnct is p?:sE CS?' conversion, 30 units should be dedicated to low/noderate incone tir3sbz; if ?3 Y'2 ZLX . purchased at market rates by the ant tenants, the lou/koddcmte reqdrscer.t .aiL. b.6 met by dedlcathg the remaining 20 Units.)
In unusual. situations, where the applic&t can demonstrate that the d&.katim ?f low- and moderate-income units within the building t5 be converted is infeasible iec%Se of circumstances which make the on-site provision hmaossible, ae lou/moderaca k,tus;r.g
requirement may be mer. by the provision of new lua/modesate incane hsusing cFrjortwL7rcres
off site within the coastal zone in the project market area. Tn considering t?;s ~€5-
site provision, the Commission will consider the off-size and on-site W.L% ds one
Project in determining the nunber oi units 10 be provided off-sire.
the issuance ofthe pennit and are given a first opti93 to prcrase
--cI;.-Ite ke-third of the units in the project are dedicated to low- md .-- b.
h ZLX cCE37erS:&7.*, Ira the ?7p=.t LLat rJre
c. Provision i% made to prevent or mitigate displacm~ent of elZerkl md
handicapped tenants, and tenants who must relocate are given reasonajlc assiscs..-e zn seeking comparable housing.
..
-17-
STAFF h'iTZ:
J,., Cnnstal Act Reauireme~ts
Section 30213 of the Castal. Act of 1976 rewres that:
Exhibit (1) - Housing Opportunities . ..
-19-
..
i
-20-
Adopted July 16, 1979
' Exhibit 2
-21-
-22- .. . _. _- .e--. .. . . .. ..: . -9s
.. ..- -. .. .. - .- -_. - ..
. - -.w .* .- . --
SW3PSI s
The follcwx.-.g TA5elir.e was aCogted by ;he Caiifomia Coastal Co!mirsi.Yn On
J&:'-37 2:. ;?a:, prsuan: to Section 3G620 of the Csnscal XC: Of 1976.
k%re resa'ential Ceveiocnent is proposed, priority should be qiven to prs;csa?s char incide housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate i nL-..e, ---
S..hr'i;-3
t& no~r.t of r.ew resiceztial devcio;ment in an area is limited by availability
cf 1x2, SE'A'B:, rotd, cr "ate: cagacr:y, :.?e housinp needs of persons of
lcv x3 :s-lc:are ix::.e j?.ouX zcccil,'e full consideration in any resulting al:Jt.xrrq. s:-.:.:~n Crvclc~ ,d :or xsi2cntiai cano:ruction. :.su;.>; ::: ;<.. 3 cf ::,d and nicd-ratc incor.ic in the coastal :one should be c3n;ilc:xi: *.C'?rr. irfrc:+rl~tc, :>,,cse ins1 include dcnsity bonuscs, reduced
rj ;xticularly vhere goverxncnt funds arc available to help finance or .
:or these perscns (e.q., WJD Section 8 Program). where .. -_,-_.--_ .av"
Incentives for buildinq
w.cinq rsqxrcx:,:.;, and sther incentives consistont with public accc$s and ( ..i --*- -.,1 ---,..- ...c.h..el.... --..+.-i~::3.
-. a&::;2 :!x 3Cqzi2: of this guideline, to:.i Stztc and Regional Ccnunissions have
soe;n: :: -;ir?,c.: ;dc:;on 30;:3 <7:3Ucjh ap?l/ing conditions to pernits for new re5:ie:tiai ::?~:rxr;cn rhicS require the inclczion of houiinq opportunities for
low- UrC xder3te-in::ne 9e:ions ("dfforchbie units"). Affordable units have been re,ydi:ni fs a ccn&::cn of .any new residential proleeta in che coastal zone: current
(Gasaz: i. ?%IC) estimtcs show nearly 400 affordJble unit.; have been built, and 1500
~gr3 aze ex;?ac=ad :a be built, as a result o€ coastal Fernit conditions.
-L.-*,. ...--.-q :. :%e Cxd:s:=n's sz-nit expricscc, it has become evident that tthe current
qui?.>iir.~~ 2s =o= ;.;:;'r;:-.nt is qxide i?piicmts in glanning a projecr. The rovised
c;uifcL;.as 3-e 27, aczzy: :a 6ls:iiL the Coz-~~isslon's exgerience with numerous
pr3;t'::: :j f:z*.':2'-1 ;str.t:;: s;?:ic=zts, 1c;:ai goveranents. and concerned citizens * tfrrlr ..-r...r--.-r'.^+ of ;.,e P-,-Ti- _i..I.. asisn's qxii an2 approacres to impismentation of " -.___ i/-l.4_..* -, .--. , -- _-&.
fzcn 3 STC :.-..^:scgh 9i;:sssion of approachPs to housinq policies, and the applicants
ui;l tc=.:i:: frz- a :,ore i~xfcrz. at31 hcgefu11:J expedited, procedure. 9y providing rr-li -_..-- ... C- _A_.._) -:..a a KC;. clsaz$= ~vicrstmdinc of Csastil act requirements, these
pidei>:es szculi hela to ?re*vent zLsur.Cezr=anCinqs and su-qxise and should allow
' ap?1:zx.to fa ;rcaira pe:.-lt agpliration; for proyecrs with some certainty they will
ace: 2aszAi Xcr kousing Soiicies.
c. c:?z.-issIcn ?recoden's
--.. ... zcdi:rsn, CJasta1 Cjmissicn stsif w.d Canmissloners will beneZit
' ,
.- I
s,-dier sroject; nave ALSO 3een required to pzoviae lower-cost housing oppor-
tlin~t:~~. Sx;-p:es ;nc:ude Aspeals so. 2:J-77 (2ordan1, which required that on0
unit of six ae a fecticn a rental (and ailowed tSe develoger nore units Ghn he
had a-,?;rzd for as d "der.-,ic.f hnus"1 and So. 502-78 (Lind and Rogers), which
A. Zousfaq as Xceess
-26-
-.?.e s>sr:i:a sf affor&Sle housing is Forticularly acute within the coastal zone '
?t.:i.:rs zf :::2 .::'cAt trmnc! for housing near t!!e coast:.demand for coastal housing has
beer. -2:;c.i >? T.::.:: fict>rs, ~nc?uding health reasons, developwent of malor employment
CI?::C~:-L, 2.72 rc:re~:rscal czpartunities. Suih factprs created severe market pressures
ieJ2i.Y; :a :i5?:ac%1enr of affordable housing both before and after the passage of ?r::>s::i:a 25 xi :-.e.Ccast;ll Xit. aecause of this demand, housing prices have .
izczs3se.i rr?:arniaus:y in recent years, eliainatinq a great deal of affordable houslnq.
:;ew wr-5 33t a:$ ;ro?osei within the coastal zone are raroly priced for the low-
ant miez3:e-:?.c~e zarket except as a condition of a coastal permit,
Sec:xn 23213 of the czasta: Act is a recoqnition that neaninaful access to the The CY^'.? --- :,?:':~:=s ?:cs:r.o =czartxici45 a9 well as other forms of ccasral access.
._._. _.._.. ___.> ____-_ ,n qxzxcess access t3 the coast to all California residents.
.'cnc ;ZJZC :s :.a: :s exciule =.e :rss affluent members of iociety and become bn
escl.;sr:-G x=lavr of :he wealthy, affordabb',e housing must be "protected, encouraqed,
aad, ~ner? ieas;b?e, Iroviled."
.~~ -... .-_.- .-., -..
r~35zn chat 5scsir.q costs are so high in the coastal zone--intense
3 ~t feisi>;:+ :cr cew Cevelcpnents to provide aPfordJble housing while
it::: ::::L::.; ievsk;cs I reison&le retxn on investzent.
a ?%SIX :zt;'~:~e vnich ills e~ ~5c valce of land in the coastal zone, it is appropriate
:hac :5e ;:-:L= valx be ledzcated co pAlic pcrposes--such a9 access, through
Since tho coast is itself
3i:::53.5:* ..:ocsr.?q.
.?..r.y ~;pliculzs :;me arccei! that afforkble housing can be pmvided outside the .. . ccaszd :=.-.e, ;n othi!: areas of a crty, or in mother city.
-I----.-- .=f ::cusi?.p i~ ~cess '3 ?>.e .=.=sst m.C.?t :he Coastal Act.
>scsi.-.< ??%xzt Law, &ve::..:.en= Csce jectron d53O2iclI the Coastal Act's housing
;.i--~_-3 3~5 7.2: :n:enfed :o address csr.3ral commie'{ or rcgional housing needs but
c3e s;ec;L:c ?,edc fzr housi25 -.e ccas:a; zcne.
Such arqwents miss the
i ^^___ -- -- Unlike the ; ' --,. -. - .
In .,. recent iou:c- dacisions--~~:etrocolitan Sousiza Ccvslooment Con. v.
.A:LL~:::~. Z?L:??~ 533 522 1233 (7th Cir. 1377) ; ~ssociatad H!xnecuille:B 'I. Clt-1 of
..-.C-..d-- ---e l2 -3:. 32 5Ji. 135 Cal .Qtr. 41 (1976); and SAC? V. !4t. Laurnl 67 N.J.
. 1JL, 3:G A22 7:3 (1I-iSi c~onu.oG?rrs--lndicate that requlatlon of communiries which . 312~ te.:+lxx+r.r Es cccu: ?rovzle for a fair share of a:fordable housing to tc =.=--.--,..-
~z:visxr,s I: :?e C. 5. C:nsc'-** ---ticn. The requrrenento OF Section 30213, therefore.
a:$ :.:;z::s.c r.0: only to secure access to the coast but also co comply wit:? consti- c;::tr.zL i-.c 3~~rzror-f Sail hoykrq requirezents.
3. CT?..;: ::3s-.11 Act Rousinq .:.eauL:im?n:;
..=->-;.a- 'xzr3 :'Le fecerai :'air iiousinq .IC= and the due process and eaual orotection
::>e: jec1x.s of t~o coas:al ~ct in addition to Section 30213 imply dn afL2rf:rls :.~'x ing :e,q~i:exn:. Coastal Act policies which encouraqe ViSitOt-SeWinq
c:::-x:::z: :s-,.elz:-ezz lsczricns 10:':0-?3:?3) , iqricultural producr-lon (Sections
jJ2GL-:2ZG2!, sct csaszal-&e~er.lent hc!Jszr) (Srctions 30707-307081 have the effect Of
i~ze35:zrj ana zaintaininq e-F?oynent cp?ortcnFties in the coastal zone which are
cL'3" .. .-. --.i:y kri-~ayinq.
affc::ak;s :ocs:aq in the coastal zone, the viability of such Coastal Act policies wuld be oer:ous?y threatened. cr *ioul2 ks forced to ;ay vases which would make the accivicg economically infeakble.
If scch lcw- aia acderate-income workers are unable to find
Employets would have difficulty securing a labor force
;I
even if sutficient affordable housing was avai1ahLe outsids :!e coast42 tDce fzr
such workers, the impacts on transportation corridors caused 2y fzr--' ----.'-a- --..:- impact coastal access routes.
is a logical corollary of the agricultural, visitor-ser~ing cccercial,
provisions of the Coastal Act. .
--- _-_. ..__-i -_- I The pmvisicn of af_'rrrda-'le bcu5;n:.i.i ::e :zaz-.al L.: -
:.-.c,:s:: -4-
..
Long comutes caused by a lack of aZfor.'able housiyq for coasza: 2cr.e WG::~.~:S have additional Ccastal Act impacts.
Board LARJ3) "may recornend ways in which actiox of tbe Cimission ... can cz t...a:=zzr.z or assist in the implemcntation of established air qca1ity ?rocrss," zzi zect;:r.,
30253 requires that peait actions "te ccnsistent wi:h zoq~~rsenzs r=.~osc? ... 2:~ --'.c
ARB."
developencs that where "=!!ere is an imdeqacr? supp:? of Lev- i-.C roCet-re- :T.C:ZJ
housinq.. .and t!!er% are slqifiimt ana tQ?asldsr.q 3p~or--i~l:tz~s $2: :;:e- =-a ' -. -9-
Under Secticn 3041J(b), Lkie Stat: ;I;t ?.esc~-t=5
The XaB has, in fact, detemir.ed in =he context of :r&z.qe C:.L:Y] .-.:'is::;
-.- i I.__ ~
To mitrgate ch air quality hpacts 3f forcrc c;Dctes cacsed j7 u. L->ds-.ce Setwen employment and bowing op?ortxit:es, -..'.e ,AS >.as r~~~;rrC ::.a: ----+---
within the ALSO water Y!aqexenr Agency -iis:r:c= ?rovii? :=:x 25 - ZCx.:: (.-.-
68 affordable housing. Iursuant eo Secticns 3C31Jlb) and 3C;Ej 0 -.:e :;&b-al ACZ,
t.!e Am's actions and findings iadicate :hat :he ;t?viszc:: of aifor5wla :ccs~?-p ts an important metsod of arocecting and ennancinq or.vrzJnxental Val&:! ~n :.'.e :taszai
zone. in order to comply wiL5 :hose sec:ions and fa "2r:tsct. xamcak3, %?e z'zers CeasiSle. enhanco- (as provided in Section 10001.5i, arIf?rdabL* housrn.; shccid, te 2:zvi:eC ~7 ovorr L=*a whic!! shows an *1M\et need rnsofar as such ?rwisrorr is .'sas>:le.
C. Balanced Ceveloment
"--_--.a
-.--S
and testcrt lie overall quali:y of .tSe coas:al zone %nv:=xzezt"
-27-
...
ir,dustr~* XssociJticn sto:cd at the orgmiration's recent annual meeting, "the locking
act" of icKer-ir.czr.e kniiies from the housing market today tepresents "a threat
to the ver! :i!x: cf society and to i:s prospects for social proqress." reiult is ia:=nsi;:cnt Yith the basic'goals of the Coastal Act and can be prevented
only if a?f,-:hble housing is provided in the California coastal zone as well as L? L?R res: s: tic State.
Such a .
I
3. Tke kiP.:l:icns>i? cf t!y Housinc- zle-ent t3 Coastal Act Wquireaents
A >*=der of >?rscns ha:.e srqucd tht the sentence in Section 30213 which provilcs <:a: "?EL* ?,cus:;;q ia ti..? ccastal roile 3h~X be developed in confonnitp with...
luazl >;usin: -JLS:X~;" xms =\at the ~smissicn my not requjte housinq provisions
: ;a !xy:r,d :t 4;far ::en
2: .I! .h:::,:il 35:?3 i.cui;i wan thz: :he initial sentence, whic!r State5 that
dlcpccd l6ca.l housing element. Such an lnterprr-
"h3~31y $?:c::~:~:ies fgr pezr;cns of low and moderate income shall be protected, *.,'^"' ----3qc?, 3:: onere feasible, proviZBd ...I(, wcrufd be entizely superfluous.
A;art f:sn :?.e fx: 'S.a*, a sore natural readinq of the two sentences together 1s tb give dei::,: :a both requirements, there are tvo basic reasons why such a reading LS L7co:rect.
Firs:. ta say t!!at the housing element r4quirement supercedes the "provide where
feas!Jle" hyd3p .auld :%&r ',he first sentcnce of Section 30213 entirely superfluous.
2: 1s. howeve:, J basic jrd well-setzled rLe 6f statutor'] construction that C :t~t.:z$ 2,~ z:?.s:?ied so as :a qive effect to of its provisions. and to avoid
:c~.s::':ct:=zs x.:zn .iculL ronCer srcvxions s-perfluocs. ISes, e.g., Stewart v. .- __ .:,lit., .:.s;:;:?nca $0 Cal. XGp. ?d 172, 179 (1978): V3n !his v.
::??=e, 3 :znsrr;c:icn mic.1 renlers Lle first scntence redundant or
. ... .. ,..,-J. 3d 222, 226-229 (19731 I. In construing Section .. ._ --
su;ezil.mus LS :o be avoided if it is :oss%l.: to give effect to both provisions.
.%!:e ':.e na:.~ral rexlii?g is t!!e one vnich is also legally correct -- that developnents
5-. :?e :;c?~:il 2-n" mst c=~.:om ,w:=\ local housing elenents and nusc provide new
t.o;l;i;.q c;;or:.:ni:ies :sr lsw- m1 modcrate-incoxe ;ersons, where ZeASible.
Eecc:l, :.?e s,&szanci're policiss expressed by :he two sentences are quite different.
?.e T.CC;X= sld.:eil: La is 2es;sned ta irovlde Ecr general conmunity-wide or regional
..~ pr3visr;r. far zie hccc;sir.g r.eods uf all ecxcmic secn\ents of the cornnunit:?,"
c:z.~.:z:~j, L3.i- and :~Zcr3te-Lxme Fersons. an2 :.JC ta tr i;x;:zed 5y relying on the adcption of local housing elements. C' 5c.-T .,.,dci :a x:? ;e:a:l :n :ne Letter listrihtcd on October 10, 1979, a:rac!led
;h.i:cies f:r the coastai :me, as vetl ai :he rest of a city or county, the adoption
of a Ccus::.? ckzent does not autcmatic,lly assure that the policies and progrms Of L\e housin; slezcnt will mcdt the requirements or' the Coastal Act."
tkc zequrexr.: chat "housing oppcr:mitics for persons of low and moderate lncome shall be ;rotected, encouraged. and where Eeasible, provided.'
e:-?- se~.:zzc* of Secticn 33213 is cjncerned with a particular scqent of the
Clearly these d! fferences are significant,
AS
-.,, :..\,.- .-it 1, "iiniid :.'.e ?.ousinq elenen; is an appropriate place to develop housing
Thera iS Still
-20-
- - 29- - 30-
pmvidinq units.
Smaller projects lack economies of scale in the cur.;cXcticr. -?r2c?rs, :&*e greater develoment cost, ad ;:ovide a lower awke: sf za:!<e: :I:$ 'L?;:S VI;:::
fixed costs nay be distr9uted. . ir: a small ?rs:cc=, tks a-izis::ntz,:e e:qar.se% 5;.
the Commirisicn and local 5over:;r.en~ agencies to estdbiii?. ami L?G::T~: ??.LcT. :?.z22s:::ja:?
site are as qreae as for a proqran vitn z laxge ;mer 0: *L?::s.
,. . -31- ' -32.
The jttu31 provision of affordable units in a projcct is preferred over the use of an in-lieu fee and should be invcstiqated before turning to the feo alternative.
In the event that the actual development costs of affordable unit5.h a particular eo=z-rz?i:y can be shcwn to bc less than 6%. the applicant may, after verifying such
developent costs, use such cost as the in-lieu fee.
In bot! larqe &:d sxll jrojccts in which affordable units are provided, the
miis should qcner3il:r rrfiect a ranqe of &?it sires (i.e., number of bedrooms, though
not ne:essaril:i square fso:dce) .siailar to that of the narket-rate units.
3. Szall Prs:ects: I.?c?wion Ejot Senerally Peauired. In projects of Pour units of less. :he Zcxzission will not ispose an inclusionary requirement, except
;urszy.t 13 a resolution of a Rcqional Cornissicn for a particular reqion as provided
in Secti-n C below, 3s projects 0; this site have not generapy been found io have
bh 4 rq=;lf=e.?enf f=r ;ro;ec:i of fewer than 3 units uould be feasible. That the State
Leq;slat:;i has :ini:sd extensive rqulation of land divisions under the Subdivisfon Xaap At: to Close tnstmccs were 5 or mre units dre being created, pr0vides.a ZUrthet
Lxlicatim tta: t.is ia an appropriate threshold size for the qencral policy ot State
Livolvexn:, reccqnizinq Lkat small individual developers do not have the economic 21exibility -5 2:av:de :or the inclusion of low- and moderate-inccme housing within the lists of fzasibility as provided in Section 30213.
?cc.'.c.ax f?exiSi:ity to make inclusion feasible. From both the economic and
~strstive ?oxat; Qf vis^, zte C;mission cannot find that a qencral inclusionary
In scze zstznces, on-sire constrxtion of inclusionav units by a permit appli- ca.?t.
i.:feaai51* or ~zxirsirJhle due to t!e >r?ject's location.
be c?nsilnred in such cases:
ac:srtance with %e Csmrssion's -nclusionarf goals. nay be either economically . Several alternatives should
1. On-Sita ieCicacicn of Land. Cecisions of the State Commission have determined
-L -.3t where d ?ro;ecr's environnental 6cnstraints do not allw for d density increase
k?d rkere on-si:e 2eveicpcer.t of a sufficient number of affordable unit3 is therefore nit fessbie 5: :%e arivate &vologez, and vhere substantial other public amenities
are, p:=vi:ed by =\e po;ec:, %lfill--.ent of the inclusionaq requirement through dedich:ion of iand alone to a public or private non-profit aqency which will constmct
afforCar;l* ui:s xould 2roviCe reasonable confomance with the intent of Coastal
Act Section 39213.
I
affortable ?i:lil;i:.y T-ian ac>;a: cznstrxtion of 'units.
is -"c..j: ---? ..a :a car:! o'jt ansc-crisn and may be unavailable or 1imi:ed as to the
C.. -:?e 0.' nr3:ecr 5&-..lobie. iiiirional local pver;-Jnental aFprovals will be required,
Cedi:a:icn of land 3:cne ?rocl;ca; a substantially smaller contribution to
7uSlic or Frivate financinq
u?.i:h nay 2e:zi 3: cbstrxt Frsjcct comgletion. lccai appxw.lS :3rthccmlnq, a siqnificant contribution of local administrative effort
will >e required to jfinq the gr0:ect to the construction stage; such a staff effort
cculd axceed t2e cagability of local qoverxment3 operating on severely limited budgets.
7cr all of these reasons, t5e grobable result of which will be to produce fewer units,
at a greater cast. than weze they constructed by the developer, the dedication of land alone is not a very attractive alternative.
has found that Lmd so dedicated should be sufficient under current zoning to aCCOmmoddt@
at ieast twice the'amount of affordable housing which would be required if constructed
by the developer.
Even if Ehancinq is available and
Where it has been permitted, the Commission
- . ....-,
-33-
Spzificaily, the Csmission rncoqnizes that there may be comuniticr; in which
d.i i.:-li~g :;.e s:.s:ea would not adec;uatcly maintain,coastal access; where a direct
inclcsi-nary ?rsq:.m nay be feaible axi necessary in projects of 5-15 units.
Xlterxtivrly, a QCi0:?31 Ccmission may find that in particular neighborhoods or ccrxni:ics lscal wrkrt cond:t:ons make a contribution to affordable housing econom-
rc3l:y f.:isAlo ir. zro]ects of fever thn 5 units through use of the in-linu foe systcm,
an,: -?a: p:.Jtection of the character of a particular cominunlty makes such an inclusio~i-
a?: d;?z:a:n -.asr.:-,;al.
t!!x in z;ec>i:e< cmmrrities or nergWorkcods inclusion would be aporopriate in
projects s:.i;ld= 573s 5 ~~11:s or that direct inclusion rather than in-lieu fees will
reqxed fsr ps3;ects cjreater :nan 5 units,
hSeru such cixmstnnces occur. a Rcgional Commission may, t,.-,..- ---\-., -.L=---.. I-_rCI -" .--f a resoluticn after ?ujlio hearing, adopt a policy which provides
h?.cr= a ?.ec~xal C-mission ~OQCS such a resolution, it shall make findings
as.co w.y :.-.e Cz=:ssrsn's ;%eta1 Txdelines would not alone result in full compli-
axe xi5 :x.s:al htt ?gliy 26213 1.1 sFeciiic coastal coaynitres. This resolution
XJ': 3s xiz?-.el t:r Lye 2qiana1 Ccrzissicn >rior to the imposition of any inclusion-
ari rx.cx::.e?.z :: ~:~~o-s~ si rkse specified in these guidelines and shall be trans-
m;=rri t~ tke ;na:z?an of :.le ioznrss;on. Such a resolution shall constitute a Re-
cj2ct-a: :==~ZF~~ZLYE Gui2elir.e an6 a?dend.m to this Statewide Guideline, unless speci-
€iully re:ectea by the C::=ission after subiic hearing'.
5.
af iiser31 ?*3lic access oolicias contained in Article 2 of Chapter
3 of %?.e Zsasral .ict, frsv:sion of housing o??orraitier for Fersons of low and
-,.ze....-- _-._ _..__.._ ..-.zul -' =oc be nurssed to the detrinent of alternative means of
eck.=n:r.q ac:?ss. In con5ieerir.g ?roeosed ;leu Tievelop.ent, ',ereEore, the Ccmis-
sxn v:ll ccnsilar PmiTe ?evelo-3er.t CCS:S LTQosed by access-related conditions and
puilic ':er.cf::s t? >e deri:.sd ::om such conditions and will seek :o achieve an
L-.skrr.c*. :.h~s :iuld =,em 5sre:oir.q c:m?liilrce with acme ?art of the Commission's
:xi3x-:-.~rf ;ea1 in favor of dev-lopr concslbution ta hproved transit, provision
05 's:c;.;e .'4:z:c3l aciess dedications, installation of access benefits such as public ' ?arkin?, 3: ;railar access izprovemen:;.
I
'!
I a---=s --*- ;ac::ae" zkzh jravides the urzates: overall ?uSlic benefit. In a particular
.
:be ,:xn:ssicn r5coFires that Ln sone circumstances, unique problems of
~vels-=.ir.r r"su::i.nq fxn csmllance vi:.? Coastal Act policies nay reduce the ec3ncnic fs3si3ilFty ci providi:? Jffard.a6le unic.s. The Commission finds that where
such A.r-l.------3 -.---.a-....-~s x:~r,
cer:3in I~::is f:.zn 2cveioFmcnc cr in?ose unLqw <cvelopment costs should take priority
:-co:t" ~1:crnativcs vhrch wculd pcwit full conformance with the
Cx-is.;izn's i.?ci-~siocar( sools. :a raking its findings on pemit arplicacions, the
L-L..ic>i~r. .-- -.
reluc- 3.- e:xlna:e ir.clcsionar1 requircnents accordingly if necessary.
ccr.fornit.( with other Coastal Act policies which may constrain
v::l seek :o doc~~cnt the cost inpacts of unique land constraincs and
E. C?c?~.r.irv !:red .-
Vr.Ccr %!c Coastal A:t. the definition of feasibility in Section 30108 requires :>,a: C-mission "rake into account economic, environmental, social and
tccknj:c:l;>l fx:crs". ;n order to address the social :actors which determine tSe
' feas:billt-! af ;rsvidinq affordiSlc h0usir.g in new developments, projects within
, ecrni~?ities vicb low needs :or affordable housing will not be required to meet the
251 inclusionarf target. If an applicant argues that a development should not be
-34-
required to meet this tarqet because the co.munity bas a low zeed for aff:rJzls
housing, an initial assessment will be made of ccmu.i:rf neet. 'isxi; ger.erL::z
available statistics, Wherever possi!ale the Csm-ssicn will 'use <-.e CC-T.ILX:::'s
"r.otal need" for affor-le housinq, as det:zmined 3y re.;iona; 5-c:ls of <.le-?,-
ments, taking into account the fair share allocations g1ar.s ;re?ar%d ;u:suu.z z3
the State housing element guidelines.
Where a cominuniFy shows a relatively ?cv ZeeC fst aff?riak,"le i.sasL?q. zf-9:
considoration OP the effects of f3tue deva1osnar.t z.72 2c-..ar.d, 2r:~czei <e.r?;::.=cr.zj
will not be required to meet the 25? inclusionar( tzrye:. :ns=eii?, a ::.der ;erca.-.tage.
depending on the need of the comuniq, will be rewired. If a CCCaS.iTi Is 2x=
to have "0 need. for new affordable housing, either mder ccr:ent :oddi~:cr.s :II &s
detemined by esthtes of Eutzre,demand, ttie Comussion will not r%=-;ize zny L?cl-s:on
of affordable units.
It is the intent of these guidelb.es that Comi;s;cn jezx-. x~;:T.s st;.;li d95:.5t
all coastai jurisdicc,ions ir. ?alZiXhy tiaeir res?ecti're :es;or.s;jiLr:es -de: State sousing Laws.
F. ?uSlic Semice Constrsincs
.*ere public services (e.?., :oa&, water, sevez, ;GXC __ .a*-, , .,-- ---.: ', 3ZS
limitad by technoloqical, fiscal, or envr=crmenta; c~ns:z3i.1~2, ?:gvs;::n 35 :sc;zq opportunities .'or .sersons of iow and mder3te ix=u.e skalL be caicsl2erad 1 ;:::rLy! use in any alloution of remairing cspac:tjr :a residentui '2s<5.
1. ~ssurmc ?er:ooancs. In order zi assure '-*.e Serfo-ance :f 35f=r:zz:*
housing condiEions,, deed :estzictlcns, ?ezfsZZ.ance $on&, or %..e: 3rYz1S~113f.s icc-5-
table to t%e Executive Direcmr to assure perfonance shail 3e zeq~zpd ;z:zz 2: :-.a
issuance of the pemic.
2. DePinitions. "?,ow-income ?ersons," ";+acerats-inc:=e ?erscr.s. '* a.-.i "affordable housing <or aersons of Low md .-aderaze wcqe" a:$ iof~11r.eC i-. 'x:::*,J~.cE
vith the Commission's Interpretive GuideiLie on Cccccrr.innm Zsnvazsicss, aC=s~sc
Zuly 17. 1979, vnic% are attached for reference ;u-qxses.
Adopted January 22, 1980
I
-35-
CALIFORNIA 'COASTAL COMMlSZliOPl
631 Howard Slrcec, Sun Francisco 94105-(415) 543-8SU
July 16, 1979
The Csl:swzq inter;?retive Guidelines were adcpted by the California Coastal couzissi-,a 23 A:.:. 16, 1979 pwsuant to section 30620 of the coastal Act of 1976. Thr: scc;ian ;::vr2ccs in sa:: that: - &..c i. c.mlx:.in ::,all,, .pccparn interim proc:-duras for the submission,
. r*'::Cw %-,a +~e~l 3: ;ca--.al jovclcpncnt pmit applicaticns., I (includinpl
rr-'i. _.b., J~Acrri, : L!C :xr.is$izn,
A::) ~i 2tt:minxq hm %e (Act'$) policies shall 50 appliad ia th? c~asrai :s.c SrrJr 23 ceeiftcaticn of local coastal programs: Trovided. kcxever, ttat su~t quidelines shall not su?ersede, enlarge, or diminish
L?C ;o*de:s or aut?.ority of any regional co~ssion, t!!e comission, or any ocher public aqenc].
p.ese g';itclL?es. *en, are htended to jrovide a quide for pennit applicants,
' :8-.t--yz:;:'s xlcci;:e~ d,.siq14 :O assist iocai govcrnsenks, the regional '
and je:;cns subject to the provisions of, (tho
lcm: qa*ve=%?x?,-,c~, .K.C the Cc,mission in intergrctiag the requirements Of Section
:021? of L?IC ~~ai-,nl ACC, vhich states ~n ;ar: :>,&c:
'
shall te ?:ocected, enczuraqrd, and %here feasible, provided ...
:ntc~retivc Zui2eii:es aicpted Yi thc Coimission are interim quidelines to ba
The quidelines will
. . .>.cxsiy cgcczt.~r.it:es fo: persons ci low and noderate income
, CSCC i-.-- .-L_ -Y t?.c acs?,t;cn of Lsc31 csasta: JKO?:~~ (LCP'S) by local governments and c---' __._-_c J:::?, si 2e ;ccL cs~trl prr,gra.-.s by :he Comission.
be s'~:o:iesc? >! L-.s X?'s a;,d 3:: n3t intended to be the test for tte UT'S (although
:ccal gcce:?.=cnts irill zced 20 address zhc ;;sues considered by intecretive
q;:?e;-nes, :: LS e-ec-ei t.at local prcurm will reflect local needs and concerns
..&.i;h zay or zay zoc be reflectsa in statcwrte guidelines).
- .
rinaily, the Ccaaissim vishes to sake char to apglicantr and others that
The final test on pennit
t
qiileli;.es are screly gulos, noc requlations or law.
decisix; r-zsbs Lke :e:zs of the castal Act: the guidelines are intended to
he:? :;?zc-~:rat >?e Act, but t!e:r are not bindin? on the Comission, which will
ccnsiter ;rc:ecrs t? 1i;ht of all circucistances and all of the policies of the
caast3.i A;:.
These .y:d-?z~cs replace pi.ielir.es on condominium conversions and definitions adoFtcs' Cct-tcr 4, 1Pi7.
at at ti:c rer.aia in effrcc: howeve:, proposals for new guidelines in those areal
Wiii be c3r.e:der~d by t:.e Cotaissicn in :he near future.
A*' l.pe:-:..--
Other quidelines on new construction and demolition adopted
____I* -___. 85
1. Lov- ar.3 ?!oc!orite-:?:sr.e :jou$inc Cppor%nitiss. LOW- and moderate-income
housiag c-,por;a?it:cs are ncreby defined as dwsllrng units which are Capable of bchg I
prchased 0: rented by low- and,noderate-incme households, or are occupied by low-
-3b-
(1.1 Tha rents on the units shall ce fixed ai a rer.t .xz;z?i is affordable to lor-inccne persons; this ~$3'; nay La aCj:nrsT: i:.z.:al>]
to rJflacc ciianges id Ckr median inccne: or,
(21 The units rhal: be ren:ed at tne ?ai: :+b-i+t rr-t E?: existhg housing as established jr :.'.e 3e;ar:%ent of Xoasi:.: ~-,i
Urban Developnent (WD) either to perscns Y~O 3eet the ;-.&?Carts
established ;Cy ilUJ :or rent rAsidy mce: SecZicn 3 c: :?.e 3z.;sx;
;37- - 38-
(41 ?.e agency 0: its desiqnee nay char?e a fee, to be deducted from the
;.A~z-.~Ec psice paid by Lie assignee for LCS reasonable costs of qualifying and counssllng .' j'A-c>*a;ers, ex"--' ----sin$ cle option, and aC7inLster:ng this resale cone-ol program.
39- -40-
d. All current tenants are given at least 120 days notice of the proposed
cc3vc:si:n f2lic~ixj the issu3r.ce of the pernit and are given a first option to purChJSe
rarie: :a:* azd hu/-cccrate ("a:ford&le")' units (if tie current tenant qualifies as a lov/=.cdc:a:e incszo .;c:scn. ) , ..
b.
1nccr.c ?.cuszr.c: a:: c:tu,nzci~s, eithcr thrsuqir a controlled rental program (such as the 5cc:icr. 5 >zy:z:;, or a sale progrm vith resale controls to prevent speculation and
tc ;-a:ir.-.ee c?r.T;:.wcJ affsrlability (a; defined In these quidelines).
csr.:-?r5~zr.s, :.-.e ';T.L:S shll Eirst be offczed for sale to the current tenants. In the
Cne-thi:Z 0: the &?its in tSc project are dedicated to lov- and moderate-
In such
ever*t -L?- -.-* ...*._ .i. ... tiis-thirds iZ/31 a:' :he units are pirchased at market rates by the
-tCr,t - .La.. ,. ,.*- ..-.., - :ne :sw/:.zCcrsta ~at-;sito requitzmont wiii b9 satis tiad ~y whatever ( be: :< a23 e:-ain $mssld 23 =.e C::rz;nt tmants. l~cr example, it a go-unit project
ti ;rqaed :'or zar.vc:s~cr., 30 anits should bu dedicated to low/rnoderate incone bousi.:qi ;I 3 a:* ;urchased at zarket tatcs by the mrrsnl tenants, the low/
%x!e:a:e requrrirezr vili So ?.et by dediciltmq LLie remaininq 20 units.)
In unusual sit-ati;ns, vhere t?a is?!icsnt can demonstrate that the dedication of iccs- ar.d a=de:itc-ixcc.e mi:; uit-iin the buiidinq t3 be converted is infeasible
tecaue of ti::%:.star.ces wh::h ?.&e the In-sito provi,sion impossible, the low/noderate
tsmk;.4 :nq2i:o?,%t xay 3e liet by rhe pxwislon of new iov/moderats incone housinq c~sc:t.ast:cs off :--a within '1*.e coastai :one in :he prolect mrket area. :cnSl%!:Li; tSis >%-Sit? provlsisn, chc io.rmsrion will consider the Ofl-site and on-
$::e %?its a; cne ;:aje== in 2ets-mmlilg :Sa nuclber of units to be privided of:-rite.
In
C. Pro.-'- .,=ion is sade to prevent gr mieigate displacement of elderly and bmcicip;ei tei.a..:s, and tmants who mst relocate are given reasonable assistance in I scekiq ;;q.l=aole hu-slag. . ..
.I
-42-
5hm of California
Memorandum
-44-
'i .
To ' Interested Parties
fim I California Castal Commission
Mchael L. ilscher, Executive D:rec:cr
'* . .. -45-
.. .. .
t
.. *4?-
,
17 v:!m a Pswm IS A "xaq DWELC'IPZ:IT*, WWT PRCYISICES TOR PUBLIC
ACW Ai6 T~iIXED TO FDID THE ffiW" WLSTOIT WIlX TllE Am?
A. Lateral Access 1. &scr:aticn of Lateral Accessway a. i~scr191r,9 an accessway :rm a fixed inland point b. &scribing an accesmay frm the high water line
turckrs of the propxed pro)cct on public access
3. T~S of uscs of an accessway a. F;ss and rqass b. Pxsive and recreaticnal uses
C. Rcreational uses
2. jddi2:cnal prGV1S:GXS for pUbllC access to Offset
4. Privacy Euffer
1. Ccscripticn of t5e accesshay 2. ?q:,rcoriate L'ses 3. nimq &Ser
1. Lccation of vertical accessways 2. kscripticn of vertical acccsswaya 3. be of :hc accessway 4. i?i\;acj &fer .
9.- mccs:icr.s cf %e rqiimnt that access be provided in "~EV deve1q:i.n:"
8. Eluff Tq Access
C. Vertical Access
. i. Cetcmning ptential adverse iiicts of public acicss cn resuzIrces
2. Possible dtlgation masures 3. kkat constitutes adequate access nearby
Q
.. 1 . -.
1
N. KW SHcuIl, CESICATIOIS OF PUBLIC ACCSSWAYS BE ACCCWLISHFD?
A. & restrictiors D. Crmt of Fee fnterest . C. Crant of an Zasenent D. Offers of Mication
. . , . . , . ,
,
I. ~WCPIMI - ~J~GTIWICNAL mSIas mx PLBLIC ACCESS
The California Coastal Act requires that public access to and alom the stare- line be nwimized. consistent with the provisions of Article X Section 4 of the Cailfornia constitution vhich states:
'Ibis legislative randate s:ated in Section ?OG01:5(c), is
No individual, partnership, or cuqmration clabiing or ;;oszessirq ',".e frcnt- age or tidal lads of a harbor, ky, inlet, estuar!, or other nzvi-;arLe uatec in this state shall be 'pmitted to excluie the riqht sf way to suck ;;:e: whenever it is required for 3 public pu-se.. . and the 7Lzqislature srali enact such law as will give the rust litxzal C,xtriction to ',.is zrovision
50 that access to the navigable waters cf t'lia state snail alwals 2 at- tainable for the people thereof. (L-hasis MSed)
In reviewinrj prolects to determine consistency wiLh the Caastal Act of 1375, the Coastal Garsnission is required iir,ccr Secticn 3G2i3 to carrj cut tc.e Ccn- stitutional rqiremnts for provision of pcblic access tc the :avigxie .x+i~xs of the state by mimizing such access. 3.e access -mlicies of t:e Zaastzl Act should be read to give literal interpretation to t.!ie Constitut-cna; prc'ris;cn that access to the shoreline should "always be attainabie." Section 30210 cf the Wstal Act provides that:
In carrlinq cut the rquirment of Section 4 of aticle X cf %e Caaliforxa Constitution, maxinuin access, whic. shsii te cmspicccosiy Fsted, xd re. creational cppxtunities shall be provided :or all the p2Opk ccnsistct w1t.h pibiic safety, and the necd to protect pl;blic rights, ri5k.Z of FrYJace prqrrty owncrs, and mtural resource areas fm over use.
&2d )
(Lrphasis X-
Additimal provisicns of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act (Sections 20211 - 5Of;i; set forth requirerents for the provisicn or' p&lic access which rust Se ret in order for the Carmission to find a prolect cuffiistcnt with t?e prmisicrs azo policies of the Act. 'Ihe follcwing qi6elines have been prepire3 tc e;GlaL? t:e public access provisions of the Act. access provisions are applicable to a given yxolect and the ty?e (verticd znd lateral) and mount (includitq area and apprqxiate uses) of access *+hi& shculd
be provided.
19767
These guidelines indicate *,,en t:e pmiic
11. WTOI PKUDXS ARE SuaTEcp TO IIE PccESs KILICXES OF THE CCWSTAL ACT OF
All pmjects rrequirlrg a Coastal kveiqxnt Pennit mst cq;;t wit\ the Nlic
i
-29- - 50-
rlc';ir.s gc~::icx cf Chzpter 3 of the Casta1 Act of 1976. * ..,. c-.--L. ..... .:\, -.,L C;nstitctimal provision anda at in^] that access to the public
t:.?cL.?:.k kc rnsizixd [Cccticn jC210), Scctiom 30211 and 30212 provide ;:~:f:s ::?.;d:x-cn= to ke xt prior to findiw a pcojcct consistent with the ;ic''zs .-.-I.*. >.L..=.L~& . i . of tyc Cmstal Act.
In addition to set-
i
i?
for equivalent area and use of tke accessways.
Where Jpprcpriate, the Cdssion shculd investigate the i:sct~al ksls Gf <+.e
prcscriptiw rights claim ard inciGe, in the ymit file, ar;( infcration available to dwumnt the historic pcolic use of tk sab?cn site.
of the site showing public use ad affaddnvits of those CLLTL:~~ to ha& LX< me area in questlon stuxlld SC included. preliminary data, should r~p~st the Attomq Gmeral's office :o 2vkc +"e Carmission on what actions, such as litigation to quiet title in t?e FGiic, should bc taken.
Evidence of prescriptive use a1so.indicate.s tke ne& for 6edication areas re- quired under Section 30212 of the Act. Wqcirircrj dedication; of hist.sric use
arras undcr Section 30212 would protect any 3kiic r:cjhti \bLe aoidir.,: pELic and private litigation costs over +&e issue cf. Frescriptive ric;nts in a cF:et title action.
?,c;ctyrzp'x
me Cmfiission, FWri ccpi1ir.q S~~CR
6. *'New Develqnnent"
Section 30212(a) of the Coastal Act provides that:
?&;blic access fran
t\e coast shall be povided in E it is inconsrstcnt with public s protecticn of frqi:e co,xtjl re nearby, or (3) aqric.Jlture wou:d accessway shdl not 5e rcquir-d
public qenq or private =sa-iaticn ;.;:rccs to c;cce;;t :-es:mnsbil:ty for mintenanm and liability of the accessday.
tie nearest public ~O;.J.-CIJ to L\e'shorelinc cni ah9 .
A review of the histoq of develcpnwt along the California cwstiire &?d tc..c rv1atot-i pmcess relntinq co that urve?qwnc P&SS xe basis fnr t::c BC;C.SZ rcquirswnt clear. Tlie Fublic vote eraccir.q t!ie Cailfornia Coastal :or.? ,3r.- setvaticn Act of 1972 constituted a clear 1ci;is:ative finciing twi mrquLz& devclpnt was irKlividUJlly and cmulztively paciuriirq pLn1:c accnzs tt <;e state owned tideiands. Uncier the 1972 Coastal Act, dl ymtr. 3s +.;rc,-,r:ace were t!ierefore cond:tiond to require Lie pxxsion (2 pwirc 3ccoss. 2.e predecessor Curmission's '+wit ewrience (e.g.,,Sea kif:, Limy Sta:c- ?3.+ -.I el 1'2ar fdotel, Venice Bikeway, etc) and its plannirq cTeriecce !:<?e Zxstsl Pian, pqes 152-158) also confirred th:t pr:vztc <cvelzv;rer.t cn <'.e xlc~'c~;ne caw& adverse impacts on the us2 of L?e state am< t:di.Lr?s Si t-..?? y~r.,:rL plblic.
In adqltinq the histal Plan, thc Cni:mission
'Nonq the i;mdi~tc shoreline, I~arcs, xu intlastrics have
oEtcn cut off existiw public acccss tn available road capacity and off-street pxkinq, ard have preclerd use G€ the ccastline area for recreation. Rvelqxent be. fzcn the sr.cre,ire also affect the abilitjr of residents and to4uists to qet to and i;se t.?e coast. In addition to its hpxt on trmqortation systes serviq we cwst, developrcnt can reduce uplard recreation qprtnities +&.at wwla otherwise relieve denand an the s.%re:inc."
cmstlir.e, have uxd GQ
-51- -52-
i:
I
. -53- -5L-
- 55- -56-
establish an effective nuintenance program for these access areas.
Por the purpose of these guidelines, the dally hkjh watcr line is dc:.r,xA as a line running parallel to the shore ilnd N~G the m7;ar/ ktsqen vie
"ef and dry saarul.
2. . project on pubiic access. As noted pre+~i~~~?y, in accorckcc wltn ~KS'>~S;G:; 0; Article X Scction 4 of the California Constitution, Secticns 33iiO of tbae
Additional provisions for public access to offset I.XIKC?TIS of tk pymc~2
-tal Act rqires that pblic access to ar,d &on$ the shorsiine b rdxi~,:x4. Although in irany situations a 25 ft. acccss~iay or is qdm:cnt fir pass:vr? re creacional use oE the shorelinc is scffxient t~ preserve tic: pziic r:~:,: cf access, thcrc are projects whae hir&?.-s ori purilc access XY.! :xi m successfully mitigated with an accessway cE +this nature. additional area for public access my be rajuird.
In an application for a ponnit to anstmct a seajlall, for emie, an ad- ditional beach area generallg, up to the fmt of the wall 1s rW+i& tz M granted for public access and use to offset the hrdens cn actcss t.%t iiiil r~ sult fran the construction of ttie rctainirg device.
?he burden on pliblic access by such devices stem ffon Lee i~xcts of zem.ik in tb,e availability of sandy bcach. Shcrellnc protectlv? ckricec, prt!ciL<:2{ wrtical seawalls, have serious adverze effects on cs5:ai mzo-xes. J-L... acawiills increase sccur frm their kase and, thus, cr.cr?a;e t-..e ;rc3 sf Z-?LI:C; bcactics. landward prqreas of erosicn, they tend co def:ne t!!e sr.c:e~ix i.7 I to erosion. As such, they tend to :kit p1~?1ic p&..sr~q.? ~7% tex:.~.'!; * high tides and storm conditions. Ebrther, ccr,;trxt;on of sxre~:?: ;+r::~~::.:~:e deviccs eliminates dune nuterials as a scut? of ;kcac,i sar.c:, :SX fx:?:-.:- 1;-tts the ability of the shore1ir.e to migrate 8s it muld in a carirai sts.t.2. these additional direct burdens on the availability 5f san&y kach a~ t.-.e
additional provisions for public access t?at this bwcen can ;7e s;ffic:er,tly mitigated md thus that constmctim of such devices can ie found ~=~6:5ti.~.t with Section 30212 of the CoJStJl Act !See. inran, DJwiss. ZUTaq/ ?L~X-: -f Man's 1r;oacts on California Coastal Zone, Sta:e of Califcrnia, 2% ?.ex~:-z:s n(lenc1, kpartxnt of Xaviqation and Ccean Wielopnt, :bvm&r 1976, U.S. Any Cops of Eryineers. Shoreline Protection ?'anJal.i
In addition, here cwtruction on prcels b?h3 histor;cal>] hzle zeen s's-,c-c- to large amxults of public use, or, propals to construct on prceb ,&ers mulative @acts 0: hrildcut wld resdt in li+ting public acc'.cs ?l?e t5 overcrowdi,q of major -tal access roads (e.g. 3i$way 1, ?ac::ic Zc?;r :%?r.- way, Camel Valley Road) or due to wercradi5 of exiatiq p&lic Seam ares, the applicant may also be required to dedicate a5di:ional acccsshqJs or dr%s
for support sewices (e.g. parking areas) to hiance the turckkrs co e.c ?:zlic with the bPncfit to the applicant. Such additional dedications ral also k TC- quircd to €id development consistent wit.. the provisions of Section 30252 of the Cmstal Act which provides, in part, that:
in such CirC-SZZ%?CiS,
_-
Al?,, kcausc shoreline protective devlces are ir.rexks -0 ::a:: t::'
?r:ez
resultant hpacts on pwlic access to the sta:-,c& tidelanls, it is O-': 14-1 ...LL 11-1 '
32.
. ."
-57-
i
In cc;siJrL?; :?.a ?.Xen-,iai L?,pacts a nw develcprrrnt mj' have on public ac- cess, <-.e h~~ssicn skcdd revim Lie Fro.=sals in light of the Coastal Act prcv:sicrs w,i&. gi.;e ~icrie! to specific e;ps of develcpwnt on oceanfront
piKC2i;.
Cccxfrcnt Lard suitable for recreational use shall bc protccted for nsrr?nticxL use ard cevnlqxxnt onloss present and foreseeahle futurc &-x? Ex F&:ic CK ccr,wr;io? rccrcztiond activities that could bc acx4:m%~tcd cn tte pxpr=y is already adqiately provided €OK in the
3-3. (3C?2.!
5s cse of Frivare lnr.2~ suitable for visitor-senting camrercial recrcatxxai faczlities deslFtd to enhance public cpprcunities for
ccatd recreation cnall ha;.e criorit:? over private residential, general in:;.xtrid?, QK qxeral carrcrcial develcprent, but mt wer agriculture or
m-.s.st& depccenr inciustrf.
Sections 30221 and 30222 of tie Act provide that:
. I
3. "2,~ri of vvs cf a 3ccessw-c.
di.tr~~-f.:.~--tjr,d~cf uses aFprqriate for a givcn ~CCCSWJY, c?.::+.:'.icx~ s?ctL: :c givcn to t!!e protection cf habitat values of thc site, K?>?r~c'C:c crztrsintr. cf the site, the recreational nceds of the public and
t5e :ris.~c: :i.;:ts cf Lie 1ar.hmc:. &Gic>tcd in axm&nce with pnit ccnditiom my be iq.mscxj by ttic acccptiq
ar;er.cjicr;?xc!s:isn with the appmval of thc Executive Director to pmvidc foe
!pcrr4 effective wintcnana of t3e accessway. Ex~glc oL use lidtations are:
:n accord with Section 30211 of the Act, in .
scstricticffi on uses 05 accessways .E
,
a. pass and KC!XE~. mere topqraphic constraints of the site rake us-: of the tcad1 &qerms, where habitat volum of d:e skrclinc t.+x~ld kc ad.,crrely. iqactcd b public use of the srczeline or ~hcro Lie accc.rr;.zy ~qr ':.T.C~ZZC:I clcsec than 20 feet to a residentia1 st.rxtur.?, the acccsr;iq my :e l~lited
to the right of the ptblic to pass and repxs olon'] tk.c ~CT~SS &res. the Wses of these rjuidelines, pass ard rqas:; is clefici8 as cr.e rL9r.t t3 walk ard tun along the shoreline.
aloq the shoreline but 'mid not allw for any Adition31 use of t?e ac- cessway. adjacent state w.ed tidelancis 'q restrictinq the .mtent:al 252 cf ti,,c ac cess ar'ess, this fom of access dedicaticn shwld
saty to prntecr the habitat values of the site, &.here :wz,^bic nc- straints warrant t!e restriction, or where it is necessary to r;rsta-t privacy of the ladmner.
,.
;or
This wuld provide for public access
mcausc *Ais severely iiniits the public's ZbiliyJ *A cn:rr/ :re
us& on21 mer? :.,:css-
b. Passive and recreaticnal uses. Passive recreational tis25 mcludc t-.c,~c
activities nomlly as;ociat.ed with besch use (e.rj. walkinq, sw~-rinc, . F3- giq, r,wu?bathirvj, fish;q, surfirq). TniS Sees rct ir.clcr!e se ;f t?,e 3c- ccssvay for oqanized SpXtS activities, cxpfircs, or .;i:nCcslor access fcr
:-kst acc.r-sr,;:;:/s ZC~Z::~ :: met the provisions of Section 30212 of the Cws:~? hc: 61:c?.lid crv,ii52 f:r at least tfis rarrje of uses unless &e t~(lrjoiiic..~cn~:r~:ncs, rjciut values, or privacy needs warrant KC rcstric:ivs FrovisLcrG -,n ?;.e xc cF the accessway. strictions on use during spcific seasons in order tc crotect bs=icit rmi-es my be included where sxh sitc specific impacts have ken xkncifi&..
. other than mcqenLy or ir.3incen~r.c~ pcrp.xc;.
kbre restrictive uses such as limitaticcs in tars or re
c. Active recreational uses. Recreaticnal uses i.?c?uoe fu?? rmje 3f &ac, orienteci activities. "his of me bf a given acc~sswav mv :e :.x:~::zd .~ *ere the t*lr&ns of the pr&sd projects wila se1terci.i zqmc: ~m~lic re creaticnal .use of the shoreline, &,ere the ?rnpscd c!ee-els:xr?nt :s ncr ~7.e of the prioriw uses specified in Section 30222, chere the cses ref:+c: t':e historic public use of the parcel (see prior diSCJsSiGn on >rescc:?tl-c rights), where the uses a1l-d mld SC consiscenc with :hc se zf L,~C propsed project (e.5. where the yc-;~r,fd deve1cGr.t is fcr -i CTXKL~~ or visimr serving faci1it;t or a Lrqe sudivision vhem the ,x-+cl are3 :s pr~p~scd as a recreation ccntcr for ~c stkdivisicn, etc.), uses wuld not significantly lnterfct-e wiC7 tie ;ris/sci c5 C7c kxs-r.er (e.g. where the project is sited on a biuff nmve t7e eccesxday, CL' wr.ere the project is physically separated :ran the i~cc-smq 3: &.*a, cr B retaining device, etc.). ?he accept& acjenq/association witi. tke concurrence of the Exemtive Director my rcstrict me of -S.e;e uses to facilitate mintenance of these accessways.
'
~xc.g~-r. sx?,
' ,
8
-59- -60-
4. _-___.--- privs,:. P\:FEcr. , In tctenininq the spcific siting of an accessway, the t.6: privxy of *e ad;accnt hxhner stlculd tc con-
Icntisi striicture is locited on the txach with no physical 311 sc9aratir.q t!x residcntial sttxcturc fran the ac-
skciild not extend any closer t!on 10 fcct to the occupied
frLm t".:? czqi-~? strxture xy additiomlly te limted wherc the Carmission de
r. 4% , i ..,. I .-. . .. . - 0 ft. line available for
XCTSS bcftcr, the need ritjht to ootain rlccess
vcl __ -.-,.. ,.L,.~ c ... -LC. : .A3 :;ity2 a suf5icier.t distince lGan&ard frcn the oceanfront to
aLTat tkt tk ~iL~lic'~ aqnt of xcss and use of the acccss easmnt is prot- cctei!. T?.cs, .xi<? 3~:Tqzldte sitiq imiting tic encoachmt Of Structures scz,f.:r2, kth ?.e pcbix's right cf access ard the residents ricjht to privacy an LY pn:.:t:x?.
'
?;:e raiqe or' uses within *e area €rm 10 to 20 fmt
f the residents. In tiai structure my bc
act to preclrxje the d tidelands. tlcw dc
access and my' mitigation masures, which my tc? urd to prwide acc%S coffiistentwith We protection of such habitat values and a.;r:cult;ra? ~3% such as restricxicns on the nunker of prsom usiq the accccesswsl; &-.d sem of the year during which access my kc ap-,ropziate: an5
privacy ricjhts of the subject kndacicr and an/ iutiqatirrj :CLXK*:S ,kick may be hpleiinted to offset kur&ns the access ray have on prlvAq, 2x.l LS the use,of a buffer area betwen residential structures ard the a:cr;
%ere the Cdsaion determines that bluff tw accesz~j is appzqriatt. a.%i rr- quire3 under ttx! provisians of the C0asQ1 Act, the w&ideratiw& sot fszh ;?. the previms discussion of lateral access provisions ray & a::plicsclr to 3.e bluff tcp accessday cor?ditions.
1. The oli;f:: tq view arm skxl2 3;' ~:scz;L.*! as an area beginnirq at the cut+ent bluff ecjc extendirq appox~~aieiy 25 :c-.: inland (the width of the accessq my ce increzsd to jrW;tic :;r arc+; .,.T,c:o heavy public use is anticipated or where use in addition to .w'est::z accisz :s pmposcd). mcausc of the ptential for emion of c?e bluff &;c, tnc .?.X'ZPX
shall be allcwd to be adjusted inland to the current bluff c=$e as ',?e e:(>:> rc cedes. cccupid residential structure to assure an idequate pr~vxy cuffer :". sidents. me easonent area should be ltqallg described 'at? t:e fxr".est L?.-i?2 extent of the easemnt possible referenced (i.e. bginnirc of ';?e %:fer ar?a s a distance Erm d fixed mnwnt (e.q. center-line of a pbl~e rcaal.
2.
EIxctlon of a coastal bicycle trail systm, the use of the acce;;z,.'x~ -a! provide €or brqcle access if stich ~jx is cc,nsiatent wrt? :>e pkiX zhfz-t:i ~r.6
bluff top acccss&qp should & review5 in ;:?kt of <"re srLiif:c EY% cf 2.c area and the constraints existing on the prc;cct site.
3. here tne prqmsc*l project is for the corstrr;ction of a resxhtid strxtsre, the accessmy sllculd ke sited and cksigned to n;-wide a jiffer area :c:~~cPT, t-.F: accessway and the residential structtire. accesr;way and the stillctwe will protect tne residents rqnt to pry;; the accessway is for pedestrian use. '&ere additicnal uses fcr %P access arca are pruposcd, additional txffeK area my be prwided to offset t.?e ~rpcf3 :%if the additional uses, such as bicycle traffic my have on tie resideztia: i;se 3f the structure.
(i
c.
ascription of the accesswav.
Ihever, the easmnt should nct exzmc' a,? clzer thu ;G fie: frT i~.
--r LP.p re
hpmpriatr? Ikes. strian access and coastal viedirq purpzes. 'ihe use of bluff tap accessways xculd s ~?Lz% t3 >ke:e the accessis-r :s XcL5?5
tho protection of resource values of *e sit,:. ;cy ;c;dit:c;:al ;L--:& i.>-J si
Privacy Duffer. "F,ere a residential stmcture exiscs cr. %?e 2r::ec: si:? C:
cer.crall./, a 10 ft. iuuf5.r ke~~ec C.e
C. Vertical Access.
Verticle access dedications are rcquirci! to Frovide access 2rm the first ~2;:: roarhay to thc shoreline. Nw dcvclopwnt FLT~~C~ cr. sites Lcca:& ze\lti.c..s 2% first public ccud ~1x1 the sea may be rcquirrid to prcjvide vert~ti; zcccx LT..L; thc mmdckcs ot: Scction 30212 oE the Coastal Act. In detecaining were .;c.~;:d dccrsn should be rguired, the Curmission skwld consider, tke nirtiire of P..c txlrdcn on public acccss created by thc project (see previats discussim 0;: r.m developrent), the public need to gain access to t!!e shoreline in a given area, the physical constraints of the site including ht not limited to, safe?;,
-61- -62-
I
. . . . . ._ - .. ,
,
-63- -6G-
,: hs discussed previmsly, the ac?quacy of available vertical access is detcrir~d by the mimt of public use of the area, avaiiability of s;iprt scr:ics:., ITK-W tion oE wkct beaches, etc.; fGZ a mre cmplete disassion, we Zi,c-s,;cn 03 siting of vertical acccccsmsys.
E. Grant of Fee Interest.
-65-
Adopted 3, 1977
I
.
,
.-
I
.. 1
-.
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
--_ SACRAMENTO ADDRLSS
5175 STAtC CAPITOL
SACRAMENTO 95814
TELEPHONE: (916) 445-2390
DISTRICT OFFICE 550 WEST VISTA WAY
SulTe 201 VISTA 82083
-HONE: (714) 726-7678
8 % % e m &r g
'\+ WILLIAM A. CRAVEN
SEVENTY-SIXTH DISTRICT
MEN1 COMMllTEE
u,
-\:
March 14, 1978
COMMrnrPS
PUBLIC EMPLOYF.ES AND RETIREMENT
COMMUNITY DEVCLOPMSNI
SPECIAL SU.COMMIlTEL ON
MEMORANDUM
John G. Tennyson, Associate
TO : Perry Lamb
FROM :
SUBJECT: Definition of Agricultural Land in Cddtal Bill
Pursuant to our recent conversation and your request that we look into the problem of making the definition of agricultaral land
in the coastal zone equivalent to that for other areas, as covered by any perspective agricultural land use planning bill, I have done some preliminary research.
As you indicate, the Coastal Act provides for the Williamson
Act definition of prime agricultural land use, which is:
All land qualifying for rating as class 1 or class 2 in the Soil Conservation Service land use capability classification;
Land qualifying for a 80-100 rating in Storey Index Rating ;
.Land which supports livestock used for the production of food or fiber, which has the carrying capacity of at least one animal per unit acre annually:
Land planted with fruit or nut bearing trees, vines, bushes or crops which return on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant production not less than $200 per acre;
Land which has returned from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant products an annual
gross of not less than $200 per acre for three of
the previous five years.
< Perry Lamb -2- March 14, 1978
The question is whether this is a broader definition of prime agricultural land or agricultural land "than" that found in AB 1900
or SB 193.
AB 1900 provides that prime agricultural land means single or contiguous parcel over ten acres in size which fall into the following category:
(a) Prime farmland as defined by the United States Depart- ment of Agricultural's criteria for inventorying farmland:
(b) Unique farmland which is that suitable for the pro- duction of high value food and fiber crops which is economically significant California agriculture, as determined by the Agricultural Resources Council, established by AB 1900;
(c) Prime rangeland which is defined in almost the same terms as those found in SI3 193.
SB 193 defines commercial agricultural land as that capable of producing food, fiber,. feed or plant material broken down into the
following four categories:
(a) Prime agricultural land -- defined as being land meaning specific criteria of soil depth, soil pkr-
meability, depth of water table, water holding
capacity, salinity, alkalinity, a slope of less than nine percent, a climate with 100 or more frost-
free days, and an adequate supply of water for eight out of ten years:
(b) Prime commercial rangeland -- defined as that with a soil depth of twelve inches or more, soil texture of find, sandy loam or clay, soil permeability of rapid to slow, soil with at least 2.5 inches of available water holding capacity, land with a slope of less than 30 percent, a climate with more than 80 frost- free days per year, and ten or more average inches of annual precipitation:
(c) Non-prime commercial agricultural land -- includes that which is producing food, fiber, feed or plant material, which during three of the past five years, has returned sufficient revenue to cover all direct costs, including property taxes and debt service;
(d) Croplands of economic significant -- include those which are capable of growing crops including rice,
citrus, avocados, asparagus, artichokes, and varietal wine grapes.
L
I Perry Lamb -3- March 14, 1978
In reviewing these definitions, it would appear to me that the definition under the two legislative measures now pending are more restrictive than that of the Williamson Act. This is because both
bills are more specific in their definition of prime agricultural land.
I do not have information available to me at this time to determine whether class 1 or class 2 in the Soil Conservation Service or an 80-
100 rating in the Storey Index is more stringent in terms of including
additional lands than definitions called for in SB 193 or AI3 1900.
However, under the coastal bill, if the land in question does not meet the Storey Index or Soil Conservation Service criteria, but was in production, the owner could stop production for a little over two
years and slip out the Williamson Act definition. This is not the
case under AB 1900 or SB 193.
It would appear to me that AB 1900 is the more stringent of
I all these definitions, especially when you take into consideration
that the Agricultural Resources Council in Sacramento will be making the determinations as to what land qualifies for agricultural use or an agricultural preserve under the meaning of the bill. Under SB 193
which, incidentally, Assemblyman Craven favors, agricultural use will
be an element of the general plan and identified agricultural land
specified in the bill will be zoned and enforceably restricted by a
city or county unless such local entity finds that such regulations
make it infeasible for owners to make economic use of the land, or
such land is needed for urban development. Moreover, a city or county
can exempt lands if it is needed for reasonable urban growth-projected I -
I through 1989 -
If SB 193 passes, it is certainly logical to assume that land-
owners may be better off with that approach than that of the coastal zone, if for no other reason than local government rather than some higher unit of government will be making decisions as to what agricul-
tural land can or cannot be developed. However, according to sources
whom we have contacted, the agricultural land use planning bills are not designed to supercede the CoastalAct and there will be considerable
resistance to such attempt. In fact, the Coastal Commission is opposed to any change in this regard. This does not mean, however, that the definition of prime agricultural land as found in the Coastal Act may not be changed. .If it is changed, however, to conform with AB 1900, the more likely candidate for enactment at this time, it is, at least,
doubtful to me whether you are better off under the definition of prime agricultural land as provided in AB 1900 than under the Coastal
Act.
In any event, legislation to modify the Coastal Act is pre- mature at this time, since we are unsure which, if any, of the two ag- ricultural land use planning bills will be enacted. It is possible that neither one may be enacted. Even more likely are the prospects
.of the definition of prime agricultural land being changed in any com- promise bill which comes out of the Legislature in this regard.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to go over this matter
with you, and given the fact that things are in such a state of flux
at this time, Assemblyman Craven does not feel that an amendment would be appropriate.
JGT:cw
1
Brondcastcrs: English nnd
Spnnish frcds svailablc April 2
on UC Audio Ncws.
DAVIS - \Vith a prime farmland frcscrvation law of
some kind Jrcwing in the lcgis-
laturc, many Califoniians are
still asking a familiar qucstion:
\t’Ii:it is “prime” raririland,
TIICTP arc soil classification
systems that dcliiicatc tlic pro-
ductivc cnpnl~ility of various
soils for most crops. A~id this
innps for inrich of C;ilifornia,
altliou 111 inore surveying is
ncctlcck Ilut whcn thc cru-
cial public policy cluestion is askcd-Shoilld tlris part icu1:ir
acreage be prcscrvcd as ‘!pi iinc” f ;win I2 n d?--pcopl c in- sist on considcriiig other fac-
101-5. Avail;tbility of water, for
exaniplc, or the economic im- pact of ccrtain cinps.
This issuc has lwcn csplored by ‘t\vo soil scicntists at the
Uiiivcrsity of California at D:i-
vis, hlicl~ac~l j. Singer and ohn
. port to the, Lcaguc of Cali-
’ anyliow?
. inforilintioii is availatle en soil .
’
P. Iicganold, in a spccin 1 rc-
fornia Cities.
A diffcrcnce id dcfiriition
Iikc most soil scientists,
Singer and Rcganold 1)clicvc that the public piicy dcii-.
nitioii or “primc fnrm1;ind
slioultl tlepcnd as much 2s pos- sii~lc oii c~1inr;ictcristics that arc
scicntifieall~* mcnsuralJlc. Hut
cvm sidi tcc1iiiic;il 1;uitl clas-
sificatinii systcms, thcy point
Ihklly, the Ic;itliny, systcnis arc’ tllc’sc:
t1SD.A I.md Cnpbility
CIossifilctrlioir Sy~/cwi. The “uSI>Ii Systcni” gr~iips soils
inlo C1.w I thiougli <:l;iss \’Ill,
out, v;\r.y n good tlcnl.
according to I~C coml)iiictl cf-
fccts of climate and pc:rm::ncrit
soil chnractrristics on (1) ngri-
cultural production and (2)
risks of crrvironnicritnl dninnge
siicli as erosion. “Soil chnrnc- tcristics” iilclutlc slopc, tcstiirc,
rooting depth, permeability,
tosicitics, salts, alknli and wa- tcr-holdirig capacity.
USDA Class I (virtunlly no
liniitation on use) and Class II
(sonic limitations: gentle slopes, slight. salinity, ctc.) ;ire
oftcii luiiiped togctlicr as one
tlcfinitinn of “prirnc” far:iil;ind.
‘illis system is oriented toward
soi1,‘cliniatc f:ictors. It docs
riot take into account lack of
irrigation \vnt&r, distnncc to
mnrkct, ctc.
The Sloric Indcx. Long in
use, ~spccially in California
u.licrc it \\*as dcvcloped, the
Storie Index gives a nurneri-
cnl ratiiig to various soil chnr- acteristics. It has been uscd
mostly to grade agricultural
IancIs-for cxnmpic, “ex&l-
lerit” farmland rates bctwceri
80 nnd 100 on the irid,os.
Strictly soil-oricntcd, the Stor- ie Iiider docs not consider
climate.
Soil Conscruation Scrcicc “Land Itiucntory and Monitor-
ing” Sys/cm. Thc more rcccnt
“LlhI systcm” is the only one
with a specific “prime” land
c1:issification c1ctcniiiii.d nc-
cording to a list of soil /climate
cli;iractcri%tics. ncsirlcs that;
the Llhl systcm allo\vs for: - J1rsigri;iting iioii-priinr land “iiniquc” \vlicn it is uscd €or ccrtaiii higli-vdiic crops
such as artichokes, avocntlocs, dates :irid wiiic grapcs.
-“Adilitional farnilaiitl of
statcwidc iriiportancc,” drich
is othcr land uscd for impor-
tant crops such as ricc. ‘fhcsc lnnck arc to bc dcsignatcd by state agencies.
--“Addi~ionnl f,mil;ind of local importance,” to be dCSig-
nntcd by local ngciicics. Thcrc nrc othcr land ckssifi-
cation systems but thcw three proviclc most of the tcchnical irnput on land capability that
is part of tlic debate ovcr f:irrnland preservation in Cnli-
forniil tothy.
Othcr dimensions
It nppciirs that tlirre typcs
of possible criteria for “prime”
farinlantl arc untIcr debate:
(1) soil/~vatcr/clini;~tc factors, (2) cconornic factors and (3)
iirhanization factors.
Singcr arid Reganold rcslize that policy makers pro!nbly
can’t stkk errtirely to tcchnical distinctions, but thcy point
out: “Dc[initio!is h;twd on ph!.sical alld chemical criteria
arc fixed &tI test::l)Ic: in a
scicntific scnsc, whcrcas a defi-
nition brrscd on ‘important crops’ or otlirr economic cri-
trria are not fixed and will
change ovcr time.”
Furthcrmorc, the hvo char-
nctrristics that largely dcter-
iniiic farmland productivity in
California are strictly physical -quality of soil aid nvnil-
nl~ility of \va[rr. In f:ict. tliffer- ciit wciglits put on thcsc two
factors ;iccorint for sonic ini-
port;\lit tlilfcrciiccs :IIIIOI~~ pos-
siblc clchiitions of “piinic” f;irni hnd.
hfillions of ncrcs
For cs;irriple, iiiitlcr the L1ht
system of “l>rirnc” :itid “uiii-
(pic” fnrrriland, al)out 9 million
news in C:iIifoiiii:i \\wilt1 I)(!
due for spccial. protibction,
whcrcas the tot;tl of USDA
Class I and Cliiss II land iii
tho stato (oftcn coiisidcrcd “prime”) is 8.7 mi1lion acres.
Those totals may nppmr rcasoriably closc, but there’s ;I c;ltch. ‘Ih LIhf sptcm would
prescrvo closo to B million
acres of “unique” farmlnnd
that isn’t rated very high by
the USDA s).steiii; and thc USDA “prirnc” category in-
cludcs about 4 million acrcs of
noli-irrigated Imd wliicl: is
dowii-gradcd by thc LIki sys-
tcni.
(llicrc arc about 100 mil-
lion acrcs in Califomia. Over half of the total is clcscrt,
Eorcst and rnngclnnd. Crops,
irrigntcd arid drylai~l, are
groir~ today OII ;i1)out‘ 11.5
inillion acrcs.)
Singer and IicganoId com-
merit: “Our inclination is to
rcscryc tlic best, most iicsiMc
Iaiitls. Pcr1i:ips a practical sys-
tcm to use for prcscrving a maxiinurn ainourit of high
quality apicultiuxl iand v.~oulcl be the LlX systcni plus thc USDA Class I ant1 iI dcGni-
lions . . . fur a total of 13
inillion acccs.”
ThRt may souid like a lot
of “prime” land, but it’s less
thnii woiild IJC prcscnrcd un-
der sonic othcr np~x-oachcs.
For CX:I~KI~~C, uiidt:r thc
“pririic:” 1;iiicI dcfi!ii(ioii wi-itttm
into tlic Cn1iforiii:i I.,:iiid Con- scrwtioii Act--whicli cord-
crs 1)oth soil propei-tic~, :irid
ccoiioiiiic output--lIit.rc are
niorc tlinn 2O inillioii ;~crcs of
“priiiic” :ind “po~cnti:iI pririrc”
hicl iii 11ic st;itc. Ail(] if, ;IS
soiiic siigf;cst, tlic &fir~itioii
wcrc l~ro:i~l~~ii~~~I rvc‘il IIIOI’C to
iirc.liitlo tii:iIIy ;ill I:uitl \\*it11
pottw1i;iI ;i~ricultiir:iI vnlric
.Y .+4 * I. ou~tpsweetens its Plan , I to Save Coastal Farmland I
A new county plan would substi- tute kindness for coercion icr trying to save some of the San Diego area’$ ir an existing farm. most productive coastal farmland .-. rich in tomatoes and flowers. The plan would offer fanne;s:’ “density bonuses” to owners. of coastal agricultural land if they de- economic incentives rather than the veloped only part of their land and mandatory land use policies that kept the rest in fanning. That is, the sparked why county would let the owners put a: posed last year. -The county can take the lead greater number of houses than nor. ‘
maiIy permitted on a parcel and allow them to make the same profit supporting agriculture by 3 being more lund ta it,” said County Agri- cultural co~~~ioner K~~~~& they would rap from fewer houses.,
spread over the en Little, who has dram up the plan. The Board of Little’s plan, to be made public hear the plan Feb. todayp asks that farmers’ be Qven , 3n his to water and electric rate discounts, ca the reductions in property taxes and re-
, ~ Little’sproposai
milLion annual ~ - -- lief from suburban hksment over PIC- wb FUMLAND, Page 8
ContinudtromFWFIyQ return from agriculture - the county’s st
industry - “an irreplaceable resource” if coastal areas with the proper climate for growing ape entirely de- veloped. - Fanning from the coast inland 10 miles - with its
18% of all county farmland but almost 50% Of the gross return.
- Planning officials had insisted that the county could not offer enough economic incentives for a non-coer- _I cive program to be successful. But a majority of supervisors accepted the arguments
of farmers, who said that mandatory use dealt only with the demands on farmland for development, such as
Additional problem of the price and availability of labor and water and of taxes could still make farming unprofitable, they said, even with a freeze on land
sell their land for other uses.
Opponents of controls conceded that a voluntary pta. gram might not work either, but ad farmeft at leas! would have a better chance to continue planting cmp profitably without losing property rights, if and whei
tittle’s propod attempts to answer the farmers’ con cerns. Supervimr J~ am, who the fight ember t
freeze ail agricultural lands, now says that the Littlz approach is more realistic.
high-yield tomato and flower fields - accountsfor only industry ar housing. ,-
But Little acknowleged the furor raised b and landowners last year over a Planning De propod that would have severely limited dev development In such a case, the land would simply be- come open space and farmers would lose the ability ta of any land now owned or leased for farming.
“(Agriculture) must not be protected by lemla land USe restrictions Which become a financial buKiento the owner.” Little said “There was fear that (farmeft) would be denied their they wished and it would be
locked into an agricultural use CWPV long after it was not an economically viable use.” Little said that protection is best done by “pmtWting agricultural use from government and PUbllC interven- tion and inequity in treatment.” He added that, if protection is legislatively i “then the legislators must be prepared to subsi landowner.” Supervisors referred the question of an policy for county unincorporated- areas to February 1980 after turning down the Planning ment’s proposal.
right to use this land economic problem arose later.
1. -
ri _- -
...
“Let’s be practical.” Bates said in endorsing the plan. L “Let’s do like we did with the Ekke proposal (plan by$ flower grower and landowner Paul Ekke to allow devd-j opment of haif his North County land and keep the-” other half for agriculture). “Let’s consider trade-offs, let’s be selective. Before.! we were asking to take on all agriculture, even all those, hillsides with avocado8 that can never be developed anyway.”
operation for more than a year could not be labeled a nuisance under county regulations when a housing development law is built n plain about odors or noise- ‘ Said Little: “There hav growers with their backs to the wall, so to speak, faund themselves harassed by neighbors who find that subur- bia isn’t all that good since they moved in the same neighborhood with an agricultural operation.” -Elimination of requirements for riding anb hikitrg truls, bike paths or other easements as conditiaas Fot farmers wanting or renewing a permit to operate. The requirements are costly and could result in damage to crops, Little said. -The density bonus program: Little said also might want to buy land rights to small parcels &@- cent to agricultural lands, at market value - land that otherwise would be developed, making continued farm- 3ng more difficult. -Reduction or elimination of fees that the coun $/now charges farmers who maintain on-site labor how- ing. Farmers have been criticized by he& officials for unsanitary living conditions of their farm hands, many. of them illegal &ens, who Iive in nearby canyons. Rut the farmers say the permit process for housing is W. complicated and that, in any event, they run afoul federal laws if they house illegal aliens.
Supervisors Tom Hamilton and Paul &kert plan introduce a proposal. next month to ease problems of using illegal aliens as workers. -Support of reguests to give farmers special electric rates during off -peak hours and to assure them redued water rates and guaranteed supplies in case of futw shortages.
chunks of agricultural lands - such as $an Beg Carlsbad and Oceanside - take similar steps.
Major proposals in Little’s plan include:
-A “right-to-farm” law, whereby any
Little said he would like to see cities with
.m
.“.,
,
wad.- MAS,. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
631 Howam+-- met. San Frsncrwx, 94105 - ($15) 391-6800
FROM: BIU BOYD I
.- . that the Coastal ;Aot-&cawragea prhe land to reau~ in production in order to -wintain-Yle a&dM ~COILO~~. The policy does not allow a judgment of what _- __ __
lwel 02 pm-hction ID'&~ area might be necessary to protect the econorng+ut._
hects tha%'t&e- maxinnrm amount of prime land is to be m&nt&i.ned in pmchaction,
- -- - ~ . -_
--- -- -_ - . - ._. - - --- The aecond policy statement in Section y241 requires that conflicts be
minimized between a@cultaral and urban land uses.
land uses,--On hth --and nonprhe Isnd..
It should be noted that this
policy is direated tovards conflicts beheen urban land we8 and all agriciltuml
The second policy statement states five methods of rainie, <zing conf2iL-b--:a--
-- -
__-._ --- -
z- __-_-- I --
__ - - .. -_
- .- betweenurban-and agricultural land uaea: --
-_ - -9 first Section 30241(a) discusees *e eetabllshment of stable bounm-eF-. .
and clearly defined buffer areas between urban and agricultural ufjes.
mbsection app2Aes to agricultural ues on both prime and nonp,rime agricultural lands.
Ag9in, this -
._
Second, Section p241(b) Umitrs convemiom of agricultural lands on the-- -.
pedpheq of urban developent.
convert;-only if the lands art on the peripherp of urban developant
viability of the lands have been and are mucrently severelp limited by conflicts
---with *e man uses (such as destructive partici~ates in *e air fram industrial
Agridaval lands, either p&e or nonprbe, ?xay
the
-L-
I I
developnent or high levels of Mndalism)
and stable neighborhood - AND conversion would establish a stable limit
developwnt.
agricultural land are limited to those conversions which &d constitazte infill
viable neighborhood and would help establish a stable urban 1-t line.
ditional conversians should be necesearp in the futaazre t0 complete-Be neighbop
hood or to establish the urban limit line in that neighborhood,
conversion would complete a logical
urban The last tam criteria &.e it clear that conversions of prime
developent inta an already developed area: the conversion vauld complete a - No ad-
In other words
the Act does not contemplate a continually moring line, - - Third, Section 30241(c) requi'rea that lands not suiuble for amcultural
use be developed before either prime or nanprime agricultural lands can be developed. - Fourth, Section 9241(d) requires that the Viability of agridtake on - bo&
- _- - -- - '.= &--- -. - --
prime and nonprime lands remains unimpaired by nonagricultural develoentar - the expansion of public services and facilities. -:=-
--- -- _- . - -< -, Fffth Section j0241(e) explicitly protects the productivity of prime a@- cultural lands.
(eitber prime or nonprime) nnrst diminish the pmductivity of the prime lands. only exception allowed in if 8 conversion of prime lands on the periphery of urban
developnent meeta g the criteria set foe in Section 3247(b). It should be
noted that this subsection emphasizes the protection of the prodLlctiety of the
prime lands, regardless of whether or not the lands are in actual production.
Divisions of prime lands and any developwnt on adjacent lands -
The - -
II. Section 3242 contains the standards for determining whether aonprhe -_ agricultuzml. lands shauld be presemed or converted to urban developnent, - The - .. .. use of t!!e tera "all other lands" in the first sentence of Section 30242 clearly
limit3 the sectfon to lands that are not governed by Section 324l--and accordiigu
cannot be used to detendne conversion questiom relating to prime lands,
Section j0241(b) limits conversions of prime lands to infillinq and ti10 establish- ment of stable urban boundam 'es, Section 30242 allows conversions of nonprise lamb
wfiich may result in the expamion or a developed area, Thus, Section 324.2 could- - ---
be used for purposes of phasing t!!e contiguous expansion of a developed area or to absorb development in rem for the adoption of local govement-policies .- --- -
providing for tbe permanent protection of prime lands,
_- -: .-
Whereas
-
- ._ - -
-- It shad be emphasized that Section 3242 is *&e only section of the
agricultural policies which uses the word "fe8sibleN: a feasibility analysis is - -1
even if a proposed conversion of nonprbe lands meets the criteria- set.by Sectio-ns-- - --
3241 (1 ) or 9242(2), the conversion mst also be found to be coqatible Kith the ._- -- --= continued &grid- use or the -SUrrOULZdlPg" (not merely ad,jace?i€).Tpr5n&%h& - - - -*-
nonprime agricul+=ral lands.
not appropriate for lands governed by Section 3241. It should also be noted that - --
-- -- ----= -T=Y-;r -. -__ -- - -_
III, Section 30243 directs ttraf the long tern productivity of soils in the
However, marrg soils which do not coastal zone be protected,
there might be little pmductivity to protect. met the Williamson Act standards for prime lands are quite productive for
certain clcope:
avocado trees gmw well in certain Class Vu: soils,
productivity which Section 39243 states mt be pmtec-d.
If +&e soils have little demonstrable productivity,
- -
tamataes grow well in certain Class I11 soils, for ewvle, and
Such soils have a long-tern
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
TEXT FOR TELEGRAM TO STATE COMMISSION
DATE : February 4, 1981
TO : Chairman Grote
California Coastal Commission
FROM: Ronald C. Packard Mayor, City of'carlsbad
SUBJECT : APPEAL NO. 294-80
APPLICANT: GROSSE '
The City of Carlsbad urges the Commission to amend the appropriate findings and conditions to allow payment of
funds for provision of low and moderate income housing to be made to the Carlsbad Housing Authority rather than the County of San Diego Housing Authority. This will
ensure that the required funds remain and are applied within the jurisdiction of the city.
SEND' TO: HOLIDAY INN 2600 Sand Dunes Drive
Monterey, CA
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
I
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Minutes of: AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Date of Meeting: January 19, 1981
Time of Meeting: 7:OO P.M.
Place of Meeting:
CALL TO ORDER:
Engineering/Planning Conference Room
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Mackauf.
ROLL CALL:
The following committee members were present: Bud Lewers, Guy Moore, Victor Kato, John Frazee, and Ben Hillebrecht
The following staff members were present: Patrick Tessier, Joyce Crosthwaite
Allan Kelly,Tom Escher, and Mary Casler were also present.
APPROVAL OF MIJSUTES
Minutes of the January 19, 1981 meeting were approved.
DISCUSSION
Mr. Hillebrecht asked that No. 3 of the rough draft of hhe objections to PRC Toups program be amended to include a reference to the increased sedimentation in the lagoons.
Mr. MacKauf noted the contribution and attendance of Allan
Kelly and asked that it be noted in the discussion.
Discussion by the Committee reflected the need for a agri- cultural preservation policy for the entire city that in-
cludes recognition of resources and productivity. Mr. MacKauf also noted that the policy might be more success- ful if agriculture accured on the best soils. He suggested phasing development on good soils over a number of years. The Committee also discussed the fragile economic market for agricultural products. They noted that a permanent agricultural policy would preserve the resource but not necessarily ensure production.
Mr. Frazee noted that many crops grown in Carlsbad are labor-intensive and that labor is becoming restricted and
more expensive.
k
Mr. Hillebrecht also noted the competition of foreign mar- kets as a deterrent to continued local production.
The committee discussed the length of time an agricultural
policy should be in effect. Mrs. Casler suggested a 20 year development program with 25% of the land developed every 5 years. City Council contain 3 categories:
1) Recommendations for which lands are best for preservation;
Mr. Kelly suggested that the report to the
2) Alternatives to the Coastal Commission's LCP; and
3) A list of items (i.e. buffers, water) the city needs to implement on property around agricultural land to help the farmer.
The Committee expressed the need for the city to lobby against
the criterion used now to determine agricultural lands. They also expressed a need for the city to provide incentives for land owners to lease land, Mrs. Casler expressed her concern over an agricultural policy that would conflict with state policies and would therefore be useless,
Mr, Tessier asked that the criterion for determining economic
feasibility be clarified. crops and should be evaluated over several years. Elr. Hillebrecht
said it should be left up to the farmer/owner.
Mr. Kat0 said it should be keyed to
Mr. MacKauf asked each Committee member to state their preferred method of agricultural preservation.
Mr. Hillebrecht
The state should buy the land at fair market price if they
rezone it to agriculture.
Mr. Frazee
The strongest plan might include arbitration; therefore, the city should not propose any plan to counteract the
Coastal Commission's LCP which is too restrictive.
Mr. Kelly
The city should annex the county islands and gain control
over those lands. A positive approach should be developed by the city to encourage annexation and to make control by the city attractive. Changes in land use and zoning, phasing development, and lobbying efforts by the city to change legislation should all be included.
Mr. Kato
Agricultural lands should be partially zoned as such or as open space. A higher density or a density bonus should
be permitted on the remainder of the property. There should be a limited period for agricultural use. The policy should include the entire city.
Mr. Moore
The state should pay the property owner taxes plus 12%, of
a fair market price as holding rent if their land is limited
to agriculture.
Mr. Escher
Agricultural land should be viewed as a resource. The best
should be preserved, The policy should include the pur- chase of development rights, Agriculture should get reduced water rates. Clustering dwelling units or a land trust conservancy are also alternation.
Mr. MacKauf
Any lands preserved should be economically feasible, The
policy should be city-wide. The policy must recognize that agriculture is fragile and may not be viable in 20 years. Agriculture should be encouraged on preferred soils, Leasing should be encouraged on lands slated for development. An agricultural review committee should be established to annual review the economic situation of lands designated
for agriculture. Land owners with land designated for ~
agriculture should be fairly compensated.
AD JOURNEiENT
The Committee adjourned at 9:20 P.M. to Monday, February 2nd,
1981 at 7:OO P.M. in the Council Conference Room.
c c
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
'. . c- e. --
DEVELOPMENTAL
S ERVl C ES
Assistant City Manager
Building Department
Engineering Department (714) 438-5541
Housing (L Redevelopment Department
Planning Department (714) 438-5591
(714) 438-5596
(714) 438-5525
(714) 438-561 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.
c. -
Section 30242: All other lands suitable for agricultural
use shall not be converted to non-agricultural uses unless (1) continued or renewed agricultural use is not feasible,
or (2) such conversion would preserve prime agricultural
land or concentrate development consistent with Section
30250. with continued agricultural use on surrounding lands. Any such permitted conversion shall be compatible
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.
3
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
* ,
3 I’ATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY
Staff Recommendation
October 8, 1981
C ARLSBAD AGRICULTURAL SUBS I DY PROGRAM
File No. 81-38
REQUESTED ACTION: Authoritati on to implement the Carl sbad Agricultural Subsidy Program, i ncl udi ng approval of mechani sms to receive agricultural development fees accept offers
of dedication of open space easements over eligible agricultural lands and make cash subsidy payments to el i gi bl e 1 andowners.
SHOZT DESCRIPTION: A program to encourage continued and renewed agriculture on 670 acres of Subsid’zed Agricultural Lands designated i.n the Carl sbad Local Coastal Program (LCP) by 1) providing cash subsidy payments to landowners in exchange for . offers of dedication of open space easements, to be financed from agricultural development fees paid by developers as a condition for the development of an additional 312 acres of LCP-designated Potentially Developable Agricultural Lands; and 2) by the develop- ment of a program of areawide physical or institutional improvements needed to facilitate long-term agricultural production within the planning area.
.
LOCATION: Generally, between 1-5 (west), El Camino Real (east) Agua_Hedionda Lagoon (north) and Batiqui tos Lagoon (south) in the City of Carlsbad (see Exhibits 1,293 and 4).
PROGRAM CATEGORY: Agricultural Preservation
ESTIMATED COSTS : Revenues Received from Development of Potenti a1 ly Devel opabl e Agri cul tural Lands $7,500,000
Administration Expenses - 75,000
Subsidy Payments to Subsidized Agricultural Landowners - 4,350,000
Areawide Agricul tural Improvements . - 3,075,000
NET COST 0
--
STAFF RECOI’JVENDATION: The staff recomnends pursuant to Sections 31104.1 and 31150 through 31155 (Conservancy Act) of the Public Resources Code that the State Coastal Conservancy adopt the following resolution:
?
)” 1 ,- -228-
"The State Coastal Conservancy hereby authorizes staff to take the steps necessary for the implementation of the Carlsbad Agricultural Subsidy Program, including:
1. Submittal of the payments schedule set forth in Exhibit 5 for disbursing cash subsidy grants to eligible landowners to the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission for review and comment as to its consistency with the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program (LCP) as required
by the LCP;
2. Execution of agreements satisfactory to the Executive Officer of the Conservancy with the developers of the Potentially Developable Agricultural Lands identified in the Carlsbad LCP for payment of agricultural develop- ment fees to a Special Deposit Account established for receipt of such fees;
3. Acceptance of offers of dedication of open space easements for agricultural purposes over lands designated as Subsidized Agricultural Land in the Carlsbad LCP, provided that such ea.sements are of a form and content satisfactory to the Executive Officer of the Conservancy;
4. Disbursement of cash subsidy payments to eligible participating landowners in accordance with the payments schedule set forth in Exhibit 5; and
5. Expenditure of up to $75,000 of the agricultural' devel- opment fees received for project administration purposes.''
Staff further recommends that the Conservancy make the following findings based on the staff discussion which fol 1 ows :
"1. The Carlsbad Agricultural Subsidy Program is consis- tent with Chapter 4 of the Conservancy Act (Public Resources Code Sections 31150-31155) , which authorizes the Conservancy to undertake projects to prevent the loss of agricultural lands to other uses;
2. Specifically, the project is consistent with Public Resources Code Section 31152, in that a) the subject lands are specifically identified in the Carlsbad LCP as agricultural lands, and b) there is no other reasonable means, including the use of police power, of assuring continuous use of these lands for agricultural purposes;
3. The acceptance of open space easements under the program is consistent with Public Resources Code Section 31104.1, since acceptance of these interests is necessary to meet the policies and objectives of the Coastal Act .and the Carlsbad LCP."
-229- i
_-
STAFF SUMMARY: The Carlsbad Agricultural Subsidy Program is mandated
by the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program (LCP) to promote the long-term a ral use and preservation of the approximately 0 acres o Subsidized Agricultural Land, as identified - in y making cash subsidy pay- ments in amounts specified in the LCP to landowners in exchange for voluntary offers of dedication of permanent open space easements for agricultural purposes, and by a program of areawide physical or institutional inprove- ments to agriculture, such as areawide irrigation equip- ment, water conservation devices, loan funds, cooperative marketing, roads to assist agricultural prodL;ction, etc.
The program will be financed by up to $7.5 million of agricultural development fees, which would be paid by private developers as a condition for obtaining a coastal permit to develop approximately 312 acres of other Potentially Developable Agricultural Lands, as identified in the LCP.
The LCP designates the Conservancy as the administering agency in the event that €he City of Carlsbad does not indicate its intention to do so by six months from LCP- certification. Although the Coastal Commission indicated a preference in the LCP for the City of Carlsbad to be the administering agency, the City has indicated its intention not to implement the LCP as adopted by the Commission (Exhibits 7, 8 and 9).
Staff therefore recommends that the Conservancy undertake the implementation of the program by authorizing the Executive Officer to: 1) submit to the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission a payments schedule as shown in Exhibit 5 for disbursing cash subsidies to eligible landowners; 2) enter into agreements substantially under the terms described below with the developers of the Potential Iy Developable Agricultural Lands for payment of the agricultural development fees; 3) accept on be- half of the Conservancy offers of dedication of permanent open space easements for agricultural purposes of a form and content satisfactory to the Exective Officer (Exhibit 10); 4) disburse cash subsidy payments to eligible participating landowners in accordance with the payments schedule in Exhibit 5; and, 5) spend up to $75,000 of the agricultural development fees received for project administration purposes.
STAFF DISCUSSION: Site Description - The land subject to the Carlsbad Agricultural Subsidy Program is in’Northern San Diego County between Agua Hedionda Lagoon (to the north) and Batiquitos Lagoon (to the south) and between the ocean and El Carnino Real (See Exhibit 1).
-230-,
--
Project History -
The land in the program totals approximately 982 zcrzs, of which approximately 670 acres have been desigcated as Subsidized Agricultural Land and about 312 acres have been designated as Potentially Developable Agricultural
Land (See Exhibit 2).
All of the Potentially Developable Agricul tursl Land lies within the City of Carlsbad, while most of the Subsidized Agricultural Lands lie in unincorporated "islands" surrounded by the City of Carl sbad (See Exhibit 3). Seven parcels of Subsidized Agricultural Land are within city limits (see parcels 2, 8, 9, 38 and 39 in Exhibit 2). All project lands are within the Carlsbad LCP jurisdiction.
The Potentially Developable Agricultural Lands are located along the coastal plain near Interstate 5, whereas the subsidized Agricultural Lands are on a plateau-area east of Interstate 5 and the coastal plain. The Subsi- dized Agricultural Lands are topographically more varied than the Potentially Developable Agricultural Lands, ranging from level areas to steep hillsides, with mcst of the lands having a slight to moderate slope.
The Subsidized Agricultural Lands are divided by the LCP into three geographically distinct sites, labelled Sites 11, 111 and IV, with Site I referring to agricul- tural lands not designated.as Subsidized Agriculiwal Lands and therefore not eligible for cash grants but which are, instead, subject to a Mixed Use Program based on the same concept of agricultural land preservation as was evaluated by the Conservancy's recent SuppleEental Use Study. The soils of Sites 11, I11 and IV consist primarily of Class IV lands with a small amount of Class V through VI11 soils and a very small amount of Classes I1 and I11 soils. The soils are thus predoni- nantly not those defined as "prime" by the Soil Conser- vation Service. The Class I11 and IV soils are, however, well suited for growing truck crops and flowers and are highly productive due to the mild coastal climate, according to the LCP. (Exhibit 4)
The Coastal Commission has reviewed a large number of development permit applications in this area and, of the various issues which have thereby arisen, preservation of agriculture has been the most controversial and difficult for the Commission to resolve, with several large-scale residential development projects on Potentially Developable Agricul tural Lands having been denied development permits pending completion of an overall plan for this area.
..
c
Development of an overall plan through the LCP process has not, however, been an easy task. tially indicated an intent to conduct this planning, and received approval from the County of San Diego to also conduct the LCP planning for the unincorporated "islands" within the Carlsbad sphere of influence, but later deter- mined not to develop an LCP at all. requested the Commission to prepare the LCP for this area.
The City of Carlsbad ini-
In 1979, the City
The Commission certified the LCP on June 3, 1981 for the Land Use Plan and on June 18. 1981 for the Implementa- tion portion. Principal among the recommendations of the consultant hired by the Commission to perpare a draft LCP was the creation of an "agricultural subsidy" program,
- which provided for the conversion of designated agricul- tural parcels to urban use, with a program of monetary subsidies to agricultural lnadowners who woul d not be permitted to convert their lands in exchange for receipt of the subsidy.
' The San Diego Coastal Regional Comission held public hearings on the LCP in February, March, and April 1981 and the Regional Commission persented its recommendations to the Commission. In mid-March the Carlsbad City Council transmitted to the Regional Commission its recommendations for modifications to the consultant's plan. The City proposed a mixed-use program, based on the same concept of agricultural land preservation as was evaluated by the .Conservancy's recent Supplemental Use Study, which would perni t partial conversion of agri cul tural 1 ands in exchange for enforceable restrictions on the residual , unconverted portion. The Regional Commission recommended that the agricultural conversion policies of the consul tant's plan be deleted and replaced with policies identical to those contained in the County of San Diego Land Use Plan, which called for a mixed use program, but one somewhat different from that proposed by the City. The Agricultural Subsidy Program described below, as contained in the final adopted Car'lSbad LCP has been based primarily on the consultant's proposed program and incorporates many of its features.
The Commission indicated in the LCP a preference for the City of Carlsbad to administer the program, but designated the Conservancy as the administering agency in the event that the City does not indicate its intention to do so by .six months from LCP-certification, The Executive Officer wrote the City of Carlsbad (see Exhibit 7) indicating that ,it would be most desirable for the City to administer the program. The City responded that it does not intend to administer the program (see Exhibit 8). Staff met with City officials to discuss the program. City officials reiterated that they were not interested in administering the cash grants program, but indicated that the City might have an interest in the administration of the Improvements Program (see Exhibit 9).
-232-
Program Description - The Carlsbad Agricultural Subsidy Program is intended to promote the long-term agricultural use and preservation of an approximately 670-acre area by making cash subsidy payments in amounts specified in the LCP (see Exhibit 11) to landowners in exchange for permanent open space ease- ments and by making areawide agricultural improveflents. These lands are designated in the LCP as Subsidized
Fees up to $7.5 million of agricultural development fees, which would be paid by private developers (Exhibit 6) as a condi- tion for obtaining a coastal permit to convert to urban use approximately 312 acres of incorporated 1 ands designated as Potentially Developable Agricultural Lands. In the absence of payment of the development fees, the Potentially Developable Agricultural Lands can only develop to a density of 1 unit per 10 acres and will 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 will be permitted to develop to a maximum density of 12 units per acre and, in certain locations, could develop general commercial uses. The agricultural conversion fees are conputed on the basis of $24,050 per gross acre of land to be developed ($7.5 million divided by 311.85 acres = $24,050) to be adjusted annually in accordance with the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
*
Development Agricultural Lands. The program would be financed by
Agricultural The LCP provides for the Conservancy, as administering Improvements agency, to reserve one-third of the development fees td Fund an Agricultural Improvements Fund, with the remaining
& two-thirds of the development fees to be allocated to Subsidy Fund the Agricultural Subsidy Fund. Subsidy cash grants will be made available from the Subsidy Fund to owners of Subsidized Agricultural Lands who voluntarily elect to to participate in the Agricultural Subsidy Program, by recording an irrevocable offer to dedicate a Dermanent open space easement for agricultural purposes over their land in favor of the State of California. As required by the LCP, the offered easement will prohibit future land divisions, limit the use of participating parcels to agri- cultural uses as defined in the LCP (Exhibit 12), includ- ing one single-family dwelling per existing legal parcel, and wi 11 include an agricultural management plan assuring the availability of the land for agricultural lease in the event the owner chooses not io use it for agriculture. The easement wtll be of a form and content substantially as that shown in Exhibit 10.: The amount of the cash grant
for hich each parcel of Subsidized Agricultural Landwill beeligible is specified in the LCP (see Exhibit 11) in accordance with a complex formula developed by Commission staff based primarily on the difference between each parcel's assessed value and estimated agri cul tural value. The Improvements Fund monies will be invested and administered by the Conservancy in consultation with local agricultural landowners, farmers, the City of Carlsbad and other inter- ested parties for such uses as areawide irrigation equip- ment, water conservation devices, loan funds, cooperative
marketing, and roads to assist agricultural production.
The LCP provides for up to 1% of development fees received to be used for administration of the program and permits a greater percentage to be set aside for this at the initiation of the program. schedule (see Exhibit 5),as required by the LCP, regarding the disposition of the development fees. for setting aside 2% of each fee received into.an Adminis5 tration Fund until the monies received by the Administra- tion Fund total $75,000, i.e. 1% of the roughly $7.5 mil- lion of fees that would be received if all Potentially Developable Lands paid during the first year of the pro- gram. Then, no further monies for the Administration Fund will be set aside unless the total of fees received exceeds $7.5 million due to Consumer Price Index adjust- ments. set aside into the Administration Fund.
Administrative costs
Staff has prepared a payments
It provides
At that point, 1% of each fee received would be
!
Disbursal of Grants
Regarding payment of cash grants, the payments schedule provides that, twice yearly and not later than the first day of April and October each year beginning in 1982 and continuing through 1986, the Executive Officer will solicit grant requests by notice to the owners of record of Subsidized Agricultural Lands who have not yet received such cash grants. .
received in response to the notice than there are monies available in the Subsidy Fund as of the deadline for receipt of requests, the monies in the Subsidy Fund will be paid on a first-come, first-served basis to the land- owners who have made requests.
In the event that more requests are
.
Developer Agreements Staff intends to use substantia7 ly the following procedure and terms for payment of fees by developers: 1) the permit applicant shall post adequate security for the fee for the area for which a coastal permit application has been sub- mitted; 2) such security shalt be posted prior to the issuance of the permit; 3) 15% of the fee for any of the parcels for which a coastal pemit has been submitted shall be paid within six months of the approval or conditional approval of the coastal permit or of the tentative map by the City of Carlsbad, whichever comes last; 4) the en- tire fee,or portion remaining unpaid, shall be paid prior to or concurrent with the issuance of a coastal permit based on the acreage subject to the permit application for which the permit is issued, adjusted for changes in :the Consumer Price Index. In the case of the Occidental properties, the agreement will be entered into prior to submittal of a coastal permit application, as required by the LCP (see Exhibit 13), whereas in the case of the other Potentially Developable Agricultural Lands, the agreement may simply be made a part of the conditions of the coastal permit. The LCP's different treatment of the Occidental parcels stems from certain legal concerns arising from prior subdivision permit applications on
-234-
certain of these parcels.
Program Imp1 ementat ion The LCP calls for the Agricultural Subsidy Progran to be avai 1 ab1 e for 1 andowner participation beginning on January 1, 1982, and for the administering agency to submit a payments schedule for its implementation to the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission prior to that date for his review and comment as to the payments schedule's consistency with the LCP.
In order to implement the above program, staff therefore recommends that the Conservancy authorize the Executive Officer to: 1) submit to the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission a payments schedule for disbursing cash subsidy payments to eligible parti- cipating landowners; 2) enter into agreements with the developers of the entire 312 acre area designated as Potenti a1 ly Developable Agricultural Land for the payment of agricultural development fees to fund the program; 3) accept on behalf of the Conservancy offers of dedication of permanent open srjace easements for agricultural purposes, of a form and content satisfactory to the Executive Officer; 4) disburse cash subsidy payments to eligible participating land- owners in accordance with the payments schedule in Exhibit 5; and 5) tural development fees received for project administra- ti on purposes.
spend up to $75,000 of the agricul-
Improvements Report The LCP requires that a report detailing appropriate uses of the Improvements Fund be prepared within one year of the Conservancy's. approval of the above payments schedule and transmitted to the Executive Director of the Commission for his review and comment as to its consistency with the LCP. Staff will therefore be returning to the Conservancy by late summer 1982 with a program recommending implementation uses for the Improvements Fund.
CONS I STENCY HI TH THE COASTAL ACT: In adopting the LCP, the Coastal Commission found that Carlsbad agricultural lands should be governed by the provisions of Section 30242 of the Coastal Act.
. Section 30242 provides that all other agricultural
land not covered by Section 30241 of the Coastal Act shall not be converted to nonagricultural uses unless continued or renewed agricultural use is not feasible or such conversion would preserve prime agricultural land or concentrate development consistent with Coastal Act Section 30250. that any such permitted conversion shall be compatible with continued agricultural use on surrounding lands.
It further provides
-235-
Section 30250 of the Coastal Act provides, in part, that new development shall be located within, contiguous with or in close proximity to existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services and where it will not have si gni fi cant adverse effects , either indi vi dual ly or cum1 ati vely, on coastal resolrrces.
The Commission found that the lands described in the
LCP' s planned agri cultural area desi gnation, a portion
of which includes the lands subject to the Agricultural Subsidy Program, may feasibly be used for continued or renewed agriculture and must be so designated to carry out the requirements of Section 30242 of the Coastal Act. Subsidy Program addresses the agricultural development pressures in the Carlsbad area by establishing a defined and rational boundary between agricultural and residential development and noted that the balance struck between allowing limited conversion in exchange for a program to preserve the Subsidized Agricultural Lands carries out the policies of Sections 30242 and 30250 of the Coastal Act. The Cotmission also declared that the program enhances the agricultural outlook of Carlsbad by establishing a fund to be used to promote agriculture by a program of areawide physical or institutional improvements to facilitate long-term agricultural production.
CONSERVANCY ACT: Section 31104.1 of the Conservancy Act provides that the Conservancy shall serve as a repository for lands whose reservation is required to meet the policies and objectives of the California Coastal Act or a certified local coastal plan or program. It further provides in part that, pursuant to this authority, the Conservancy may accept dedication of fee title, easements , development rights or other interests in lands.
The Commission found that the Agricultural
COtSISTENCY WITH THE
The Conservancy's acceptance of offers of dedication of open space easements for agricultural purposes is required to meet the purpose of the program, as stated in Policy 2-1 of the Commission-adopted and certified LCP for the area, namely, to promote and assure the long-term use of agricultural lands for agricultural production.
Conservancy administration of the Carlsbad Agricultural Subsidy Program is consistent with 'the purposes of Chapter 4 of the Conservancy as set forth in Public Resources Code Section 31150, which authorizes the Conservancy to acquire interests in part to prevent the loss of agricultural land to other uses and which .authorizes the Conservancy to undertake improvements
-2364 .
to and development of such lands where such action is required to meet that purpose. voluntary offers of dedication of an open space easement for agricultural purposes would preserve the land for agricultural use, thus preventing its loss to other uses. The administration of a program of areawide agricultural improvements would also help prevent the loss of the Subsidized Agricultural Lands to other uses by enhancing the economic viability of agricultural use of these lands.
Acceptance of
Conservancy administration of the Carlsbad Agricultural Subsidy Program has a high priority based on the priority for agricultural preservation projects set forth in Public Resources Code Section 31151, which provides that the Conservancy shall give highest priority to urban fringe areas where the impact of urbanization on agricultural lands is greatest. Some of the Subsidized Agricultural Lands are located adjacent to lands presently developed for urban use and near the Potentially Developable Agricultural lands which it is expected will be developed. Existing urbaniza- tion of these adjacent lands has impacted the Subsidized Agricultural Lands through speculative pressure on their value, thus reducing landowner expectations as to their potential for remaining in agricultural use and increasing the pressure on the City of Carlsbad and County of San Diego to permit their conversion to urban use.
Acceptance of offers of dedication of open space easements for agricultural purposes would meet the two criteria set forth in that chapter in Section 31152 for acquisition of interests in land to preserve it for agricultural use. Section 31152 provides that the Conservancy shall not act to acquire interests in land in the Coastal Zone for agricultural purposes unless it finds that the following two criteria are met. in a certified Local Coastal Plan or Program as agricultural lands. Second, there must be no other reasonable means, including the use of police power, of assuring continuous use of such lands for agricul- tural purposes. With respect to the first condition, the Subsidized Agricultural Lands have been specifically identified by Assessor's parcel number in the LCP which was adopted and certified by the Coastal Commission in June 1981. Concerning the second condition, in adopting the LCP, the Commission found that agricultural zoning alone is inadequate to address the agricultural policies of the Coastal Act, essentially since many of the parcels designated as Subsidized Agricultural Land are already
First, the lands must be specifically identified
-237-
below the minimum parcel size of the City of Carlsbad's own exclusive agriculture zone. The Commissicln also determined that a mixed use approach would not be appropriate at this tine for areas south of Palomar Airport Road essentially because of the small size and large number of ownerships. The Commission found that the Agricultural Subsidy Program addresses the agricultural development pressures in the Carlsbad area by establishing a defined and rational boundary between agricultural and residential development and declared that the program enhances the agricultural outlook of Carlsbad by establishing a fund to be used to promote agriculture. Staff, therefore, finds that there is no other reasonable means, including the use of the police power of assuring continuous use of these 1 ands for agri cul tural purposes.
PROGRAM /N
- ..
? i - EXHIBIT 5
page l.of 2
Payments Schedule
Carl sbad Agricultural Subsidy Program
The Carlsbad Local Coastal Program (LCP) as adopted and certified by the Coastal Conmission pursuant to Section 30171 of the Coastal Act in June of 1981 provides that the Carlsbad Agricultural Subsidy program shall be funded by agricultural development fees of 524,050 per gross acre of Potentially Developable Agricultural Land, to be adjusted annually in accordance with changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) beginning January 1, 1982, the date for commencement of the Agricultural Subsidy Program.
Since there are approximately 312 acres of Potentially Developable Agricultural Lands within the program area, the fees would total approximately $7.5 million, not counting adjustments for the CPI. Total fees received will depend on the timing of receipt of agri- cultural development fees and changes in the CPI before the fees are received.
The LCP provides that a reasonable portion of the transmitted devel- opment fees may be retained by the Coastal Conservancy to cover the actual costs of administration, up to a maximum of 1% of any fees. The LCP further provides that, since costs of administration will be greatest at the beginning of the program, a proportion greater than 1% of any fees may be reserved at the initiation of the program for this purpose. Therefore, from each incremental fee it receives, the Conservancy will set aside 2% in an Administration Fund, until the monies received by the Administration Fund total $75,000, and will use nionies in the Administration Fund only for actual costs of ad- ministering the Agricultural Subsidy Program. After the Administra- tion Fund reaches the $75,000 level, no further portion of the incre- mental fees received by the Conservancy will be set aside into the Administration Fund, unless the total of the fees received exceeds $7.5 million. From that point on, the Conservancy will set aside
in the Administration Fund 1% of each incremental fee received until the termination of the program. Prior to or upon termination of the Agricultural Subsidy Program, any nonies in the Administration Fund in excess of actual program costs or in excess of 1% of the total fees received as of the date of termination, whichever amount is larger, wi 11 be transferred to the Agricultural Improvements Fund.
The Conservancy, after setting aside a portion for the Administration Fund in accordance with the procedure described above, will , as pro- vided by the LCP, reserve one-third of the balance of fees received for deposit in tk Agricultural Improvements Fund.
During the first quarter of 1982, the Cash Grant Program component of the Carlsbad Agricultural Subsidy Program will not be open to the participation of Subsidized Agricultural Landowners, so that agricul- tural development fees paid by applicants seeking permits to develop Potentially Developable Agricultural Lands may accrue in the Cash Grant Program's Subsidy Fund. Twice yearly thereafter and not later than the first day of April and October of each year beginning in
-243- :
EXHIBIT 5
page 2 of 2
1982 and continuing through 1986, the Executive Officer will solicit grant requests by notice to the owners of record of Subsidized Agri- cultural Lands who have not yet received cash grants as specified in the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program. amount of monies in the Subsidy Fund as of that date and will further sp2cify that the amount deemed to be available to eligible Subsidized Agricultural Landowners will be the amount in the Subsidy Fund as of the deadline for cash grants.
The notice will specify the
Since the volume of development fees from applicants seeking to develop Potentially Developable Agricultural Lands cannot be predicted with any certainty, the Executive Officer will specify in the notice that, in the event that more requests are received in response to the notice than there are monies available in the Subsidy Fund as of the deadline for receipt of requests, the monies in the Subsidy Fund as of the deadline will be paid on a first-come, first-served basis to the landowners who have requested grants. The deadline for submittal of grent requests for each round such requests are solicited will be not less than 30 days nor more than 45 days from the date of mailing of the notice of solicitation of grant requests. No later than 60 days from the nailing of the notice of solicitation, the Executive Officer will forward a request to the State Controller or to the Department of General Services, as the case may be, to arrange for a State warrant check to be issued and sent to each eligible landowner awarded a grant pursuant to the procedure described above. At the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Conservancy after the deadline for submittal of grant requests, the Executive Officer will present to the Conser- vancy a list of those Subsidized Agricultural Landowners, if any, from whom requests have been received by the deadline and those requests which can be satisfied out of the Subsidy Fund as of the deadline for receipt of such requests.
e
EXHIBIT 6
KEY - TO POTENTIALLY DEVELOPABLE AGRICULTURAL LARDS
CAR LSSAD AGR ICWTURAL PRESERVATION PROGRAM
Occ i den ta 1 Assessors ' Letter Parcel No. Parcel No. -
A
A
B 3
1 214-171-36 Occidental Land, Inc ./Dwight 214-171-37 Spires Assoc.
1 214-351 Pacesetter 'Homes, Inc.
214-352
214-171-03 occidental Land, Inc./Dnight 214-171-16 Spires Assoc.
C 4&5
0 6,738
E 9
F
Om er
G
n
214-171-34 R.C. Jewitt Company
214-150-15 Cecil A. Smith
214-170-20 Occidental Land, Inc./ R.C. Jewitt Company
214-150-16 John Lusk & Son Carp. 214-150-17 21 4-1 50-18
214-010-09
through
Bankers Life & Casualty CO.
214-031-03 -
2 1 4-0 6 5-01
211-Q40.-13 . Sea Gate Assodater Ltd, Cfornerly Shell Oil 1
t
STATE Oi'C~llF09~lA-RES0U~~ES AGENCY
STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY
1212 a?04DWAY
R30.H 5ld
OAK'LA<D. CAlliO?NlA 94612
' July 17, 1981
EXHI8IT 7- 1 of 2
(415) -1070
ATSS 5614070
The Honorable Ronald C. Packard, Mayor .
City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carl sbad , Cali forni a 92003
and Members of the City Council
Dear Nayor Packard :
As you know, the California Coastal Commission adoption and certification of the final Carlsbad Local Coastal Program (LCP) for those areas included within Section 30171 of the Coastal Act occured on June 3 far the Land Use Plan and OR June 18 for Impleinentation. aware, the State Coastal Conservancy has been named in the LCP as a potential administering agency for an Agricultural Subsidy Program, in the event thaf the City of Carlsbad does not indicate its intention to administer the program within six months from adoption of the LCP.
Si.nce the City of Carlsbad administers local land use permits and is closest to the famsrs, landowners and the agricultural lands to be preserved, I believe that it would be most desirable for the City to administer this progran. City of Carlsbad has, throughout the LCP hearings process, expressed jts Intention to not administer the program or implement the LCP in general.
As you are also
-
However, it is my understanding that the
Accordingly, Conservancy staff are no$$ beginning to develop specific guide1i.nes for administering the Agricultural Subsidy Program. The . cooperation of the Council and City staff would be very beneficial to making the program a success. For example, the LCP stresses the need to invol ye local agricultural landowners and other interested parties in the development of the program. bfe believe that the City's Agricul- tural Advisory Comittee could play a valuable role in this process, and
we would appreciate the opportunl'ty to discuss the program with then as soon as possible. As another example, City cooperation and approval may be required for certain uses of the Agricultural Improvements Fund, such as wastewater reclamation or road improvements to assist agricultural production.
Members of my staff will be in touch with the Planning Director shortly
-246-
* ... -. ..-.. r. - -. ._. - July 17, 1981 I Page 2 EXHIBIT 7- page 2 of”
to discuss the progran. feel free to call me, Allen Meacham or Rick Naedler of my staff at
If you have any questions or concerns, please
(415) 464-1015.
.. Y JEP/RH: drg
cc: Members of the City Council James Hagaman, Planning Director
- 247 -
%
C, EV E LO PM E NTAL SERViCES
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Joseph E. Petrillo
State Coastal Conservancy
1212 Broadway, Room 514 Oakland, CA 94612
Dear Plr, Petrillo:
r* ne city of Carlsbad is interested in preserving agriculture, but
not through a subsidy program as imposed by the State Coastal Coxmission. Our Agricultural Advisory Committee and city staff
are currently developing a program which addresses agricultural protection. This program reflects a concept initially proposed by the County of San Diego in its San Dieguito LCP.' Subsequent-
ly, the concept was supported by Carlsbad and ultimately the San Diego Coast Regional Commission,
As you know, the Carlsbad City Council has expressed its dis- agreement with the process and product of the Carlsbad LCP (Mello Bill 1 and 2). The City does not intend to administer the pro-
gram or implement the LCP as approved .by the State Commission.
I feel you can appreciate the fact that the Planning Department and/or the Agricultural Advisory Committee cannot participate or aid in the preparation of a subsidy program. Participation would
bi completely inconsistent with the City Council's position. It
woald also subvert the developinent of the agricultural program on which we are currently working.
Yours very truly,
Septezber 2, 1981
Mr. Frank Aleshire, City Manager The City of Carlsbad
3233 Eiir, Avsnue
Csrlsbad, California 92003
Dtci- Mr. Aleshire:
I a;;l writing in follow-up to the August 26 informational meeting with Conservancy staff that you attended along with James Hagaman and Ton kstman, at krhich it was suggested that the City of Carlsbad might
ha.:e an interest in the administration of the Agricultural Improve- nenb Fund portion of the Agricultural Subsidy Program mandated by tk Carlsbad Local Coastal Program (LCP), This fund may eventually total as much -as $2.5 .million 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 Prograiil as' a condftion of receiving a coastal development permit. The LCP provides that the Improvements Fund, coqwising zbout one- third of the total program budget, shall be used for physical or institutional improvements needed to facil itate long-tern 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 undertzke that role. tk 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 desires.
ATSS 561-1070
..
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 tbe general nature of the.Agricu1 tural Subsidy Program, together with a map showing the.1ands eligible 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
Co.mission for his review and commEnt within twelve months after approval of a paynents schedule for administering the other component of the Agricultural Subsidy Program, the Subsidy Fund.
-249-1
EXHIBIT 9 page 2 of 2 blr. Frank A1 eshi re Septeinber 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 do25 not wish to administer this portion. Therefore, the Conservancy wilJ undertake this role and will submit to the Executive Officer of ths Coastal Comnission for his review and com2nf a proposed schedule for disbursing the cash subsidy amounts specified in the LCP for payment to el i gi bl e agri cul tural 1 andownqs.
Members of my staff will be in touch with the Planning Director shortly to discuss the Agricultural Improvements Fund portion of the program. feel free to-call me, Allen Meacham or Rick Maedfer of my staff at (415) 464-1015,
If you have any questions or concerns, please
Very truly yours,
Joseph E. Petrillo Executive Officer
3EP:rm
Encl osui-2
c
EXHIBIT 10
Recordi nq requested by and please return to:
Legal Counsel State Coastal Conservancy 1212 Broadway, Room 514 Oakland, CA 94618
IRREVOCABLE OFFER TO DEDICATE
OPEN SPACE EASEMENT FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES
THIS IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION OF OPEN SPACE EASEMENT FOR AGRICULTUFLAL PURPOSES ("Offer") is made this - day of 3 198-3 by , ("Grantor") to the STATE OF CALIFORNIA acting by and through the State Coastal Conservancy ("Grantee").
I. WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner in fee simple of certain real property located in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, more particularly described in the attached Exhibit A, attached hereto and
11. NHEREAS, the Property is located within the Coastal Zone as defined in Section 30103 of the California Public Resources Code ("the Code"); and
incorporated herein by this reference ("the Property") ; and !
111. WHEREAS, the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Section 30000 et seq. of the Code) requires the preparation of a Local Coastal Plan or Plans for every jurisdiction within the Coastal Zone, in order to irnplerctnt the policies and objectives set forth in Chapter 3 of said Act; and
IV. WHEREAS, the Local Coastal P1an.for the City of Carlsbad ("the Plan") requires the establishment of an Agricultural Subsidy Program ("the Program") and requests that the State Coastal Conservancy ("the Conservancy") adr;.ini ster the Program in theevent that the City of Carlsbad fails to declare its intention to administer the Program itself; and
V. WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has not indicated its intention to adninister the Program and the Conservancy has accordingly agreed to do so; and
VI. WHEREAS, the parties desire to assure that long-term agricultural use is practicable on the Property, which constitutes a portion of the "Subsidized Agricultural Lands" designated in the Plan; and
VII. WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that, pursuant to the Program? funds will be made available by Grantee for areawide physical and/or institutional
improvements to facilitate long-term agricultural production within the City of Carlsbad; and
VIII. MHEREAS, the parties intend that this Offer, upon acceptance by
Grantee, shall constitute an "enforeable restriction" within the meaning
250 a
3PEN SPACE EASE;-IENT
Carlsbad Agricultural Subsidy Program
Page 2
of Article XIII, Section 8 of the California Constitution, as well as Sections 402.1 and 422 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code;
ii3lrl THEREFORE, for and in consideration of a subsidy cash grant to be Kade available to Grantee
Fund upon recordation of this instrument, Grantor hereby irrevocably offers to dedicate a perpetual agricultural use easement on the Property to Grantee, in gross, subject to the following terms and conditions:
from Conservancy's Agricultural Subsidy
1. USE OF THE PROPERTY. The use of the Property shall be limited to the uses as described in the Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit B and incor- porated herein by this reference. allowed within the Property. No further land divisions shall be
2. RIGHT OF ENTRY. Grantee or its agents may, following reasonable advance notice in writing, enter on the Property to monitor Grantor's compliance with the terms of the easements granted herein.
3. AVAILABILITY OF LAND FOR AGRICULTURAL LEASE. When the Grantor is not engaged in use of the Property for agricultural uses as set forth in Exhibit B hereof for three growing seasons or one (1) year, whichever is less, Grantor shall make the Property available for agricultural lease, by pub1 ic advertisement .at rents substantially equivalent to those charged for agricultural land in the City of Carlsbad and adjoining areas. Grantor shall send written notice of said advertisement to the Executive Officer of the Conservancy within ten (10) days of first publication. If the Property has not been leased or rented at the expiration of sixty (60) days from the date of the first advertisement, the Grantor shall at that time notify the Executive Officer of the Conservancy in writing of the Property's availability and of the exact manner in which the property was publically advertised. Upon such notification, the Conservancy may specify that the property be advertised through the local Farm Advisor or a local realty firm or by other appropriate means including listing the property with the Conservancy.
4. TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS. Grantor agrees to pay or cause to be paid all real property taxes and other assessments levied or assessed against the Property. the existence and effect of the easement granted herein for the Tax Assessor of the County of San Diego.
Grantee agrees to cooperate with Grantor in documenting
5, ENFORCEMENT. The parties shall have available to them all legal and equitable remedies to enforce their. respective interests in the Property. In the event that either party is found in a judicial proceeding to have violated its obligations under the terms of this Offer, the prevailing party shall be reimbursed for any costs or expenses incurred
250 b
OPEN SPACE EASEKENT Carl sbad Agricultural Subsidy Program Page 3
thereby, including court costs and attorneys fees. Any forbearance on the part of either party to enforce the terms and provisions hereof in the event of a breach shall not be deemed a waiver of that party's rights regarding any subsequent breach.
6. MAIrlTENANCE. Grantee shall not be obligated to maintain, improve or otherwise expend any funds in connection with the Property or this Offer, except for administration of the Agricultural Improvements Fund as provided in the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program. expenses for maintenance, irnprovement,use or possession of the Property shall be borne by Grantor or its lessees.
7. LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION. Grantor agrees to indemnify, defend and
hold harmless Grantee, its officers, agents and employees from all liability, loss and claims for damage arising out of or in connection with th2 Property, except matters arising out of Grantee's negligence while entering upon the Property. The right of Grantee to enter upon the land is strictly limited to preventing uses inconsistent with the interest granted, and does not include the right to enter upon the land to correct any dangerous condition as defined by California Government Code Section 830.
All other costs and
8. MODIFICATION. The restrictions set forth in Paragraph 1 hereof may be modified 'for good cause demonstrated in a written application by Grantor to the Executive Officer of the Conservancy or its successor agency and the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission. Such nodificationsshall be within the Executive Officer's and Executive Director's sole discretion, provided that said modifications shall in no case be inconsistent with the Plan and the policies and objective of the Act. Both approvals are required to modify the easement.
9. CONSTRUCTION OF THIS EASEMENT. Should any provision(s) of this Offer be held invalid in any adjudication, or otherwise become unenforceable,
rio other provision hereof shall be thereby affected or impaired.
10. OFFER IRREVOCABLE FOR TWENTY-ONE YEARS PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE. Prior to its acceptance b.y Grantee, this offer shall run with and burden the Property and all obligations imposed herein shall be deemed to be covenants and restrictions running with the land and irrevocably bindin the Grantor and its successors or assigns for a period of twenty-one 9 21) years.
11. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. Upon acceptance of this Offer by Grantee, the terms, covenants, conditions, exceptions and obligations contained herein shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of Grantor, Grantee, their assigns,heirs and successors in interest as a perpetual open-space easenent for agricultural purposes.
12. ASSIGNABILITY. Grantee shall have the right to transfer, convey, or assign all of interest hereunder.
13. NOTICES. Any and all notices or other communications required or perdited by this instrument, or by law to be delivered to, served on or given to any party to this instrument by the other party, shall be in writing and shall be deemed properly delivered, given or served when
. 250 c
OPEN SPACE EASEi4ENT Carl sbad Agricultural Subsidy Program Page 4
personally delivered to the parties as named below or in lieu of such personal service when deposited in the United States first class, postage prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested at the addresses shown hereinbelow.
Executed on this day of at , California.
Grantor:
.(address)
CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE - STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY (Not shown)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (Not shown)
250 di
6 21Cl40-07
7 214-140-08
7 2 14-1 4U-09
I) 2 14-140-1 3
9 2lh-140-40
TOTAL
Tublo 1
Agdcullural Jztbrrfdy Procram
AgrlcutturLd Cash Subyldy AooLgned to IPndoMlore in Sito I1
Wl eathatad To tal Vuluo Agricultural ormar Acrcofio An!irs!mont (a) A!;~cr;nncnt (b)
McRuyno Idu 34.30 ~194,020 $116,620
Viota Ionrn Itwest. 611.53 i4x,9t1n 219,402
Nappion XTS Ino. 61.27 432,908 208,318
Ililfolrrccht 64.04 595,372 220,456
-Tbb h3. ~~3.63 28,968 12,342
glOlmUrr 30.00 4J0,OOO . 102,000
ptfforcnca SllbHl&
!78 , 200 $166,732 -
213,586 313,680
224,670 297,833
.374,316 374,916
16,626 . 17,536
298,000 238 , 000
. .. . ,. '. ! 'e: ., ! *:
.20,35 291,516 96.390 . 195.126 195,126
kll Valuo Ayavsslnunt I) Ansunsod Valuo tho$ 4. Agrlcullural vuluo im oolculalod by uving S3,4M/acra (LO the avcrago mho of ogrlcultura1 land. Avuragu A1;rlculLural Arauumrnt qtlols I
1gh'2'110 E $4061 basud on policy 300,tll
'8 ., ,# I
.
!
i
1
I i !
I i
1
$1 .*
* I
i i
0
MOP
10
lQ
11
10 *
12
13
Dcslmcna tton
I 14
N v\ N I
1s
- 16
' 17
10
19
20
21
22
23
-- -
9.
0
ramal #
224-17049
214-170-36
2116170-46
214-170-47
214-170-66
21567044
215470.06
215-070-08
225070.09 ,
215470-10
Total Omor borcclp.o
llwmpeon 20.00
d
-' 5.40
- 5.00
21.22
- 5.03 .,
10.05
* 1.80
' 2.03
5 e02
h11
Vllluo
$225,112
Asaccrmant (a)
129,844
75,784
64,972
237,660
46,512
135,352
32,436 ,
32,436
611,23B
166,5011
32,915
06,UOO
373 ,c20
17,340
83,536
34,000
18,380
17,000
72,148
17,102
34,170
6,120
6,902
17,068
60,570
34,272.
34,306
105,570
3.1.'
niCfar@nco
5157,112
95,844
57,424
47,972
165,512
29 , 410
101,182
26,326
?5,534
9n,oio
51,lGtl
17,643
IC'
$157,112
95,844
57,424
47,972
165,512
32,840 .
101,182
21,316
25,534
51,16U
90,UlO
65,UIZ
65,[177
267,850
13,940
.- "I I
:
i
* :I t . .... ~.. . ..
25 215-000-01 Dcul lacqua
26 215-000-09 KRf nor
*' 27 215-000-)(1~ Ilaclloy
20 215-0004tr \% Tabta Dmt!ters
29 215400-16, Mooro
30 21544043 tdya
31' 215-Ob044 Thta Bmthora
32 21544065 Yaruamoto
33 215-040-08
5.17 42,124 .
12.95 122 , 291
15.33 142,900
2.83 39, zoo
1.05 25,000
20.00 141,700
5.00 67,116
5.00 64,972
2.50 27,028
17,570. 24,546 33 755
44,030 70 , 266 ni1,m
52,122 90,778 100,030
9,622 29,658 29,651)
3,570 21,430 21,430
68,000 73 , 780 im,500
17,000 50,116 50,111
27,000 47,972 47,972
8 , 500 18,528 18,528
33 215-040-09 sugfno 2.50 23,764 8,500 15,214 16,323
33 215646-10 2.50 29,272 8,%0 20,772 20,772
33 215-040-11 heb + 2 50 2n. 152 8.500 19,562 19.562
mrAb 275.26 . $2,733,190 ~3!i,oa1~ $1,797 , 304 (c) $2 I 120,055
(a) Rtll vnhio onsoament equals ossosnod vaho thoa 4. @) A~rlculhiml vuluu in calciilatocl by ushg S3,400/auto an tho avorncu voliio of agrkutturnl Lancf.
(0) Avorul;o AgrlculLuruL AsuosunciiL qiuils:
-134-
I
m x I
W
4
i-J )--.
c-(
U
I-
w
0 -h
P
.. .
35
36
37
38
JU
' 39
3')
Parco1 #
215-050-11
215-050-12
215-050-13
215-050-34
2 15-051-04
216-121-01
216-1 21-02
2 1 6-1 21-03
wrrAt,
c
Tublo 3
Agtl.cu1 turn1 Suby ;Cry Progrum
Agtloultiirul Cydi SubaLdy Aoofgnod to Lunclomors In Agriaulturo Sfto Xv
Full , Esthtod Vuluo AgrfouLtural Ascsment (a) Assussmcnt (b)
S 96,000 s 36,238
67,115 34,340
60,583 34,272
54,160 34,204
100,220 63,602
L1!?,032 68,000
260,000 77,418
316.MO 23.562
$701. ,110 8 JG9,716
ti) kl~ vaiuo oaratovmunt - Aossecr ~llua thus 4. (b) Agrlculluml vukir Lar calculntod by uufrrg $J,rlOO/acto UB tho uvorago valuo of ogrLclrltural lanrl, (c) Avcrugu Agrlculturul AYYcumcnt cqualbl:
411*594 1118.74 IS3713
I
. -n-n-
C'*'
e. . . . .. ... . * . * . ... .
pfer'mao
S 61,762
32,775
26,311
19,956
44,538
02,582
s411,394 (0)
51,032
92.438
Subsic&!
S 61,762
30 , 208 ..
38,132
38,056
70,855
75.660
86,139
92.47~
S501,250
m x I n UJ
-i
w c-' I
U a, ln rD
P
0
3,
P
U
I
-- A I !
EXHIBIT 12
2.
'3.
4.
5.
6.
. I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
-255-
I/- -
.
z
Mght \I. Spiers Spi ers Enterprises
Irvins, Cal ifornia 92714
D23r Hr. Spiers: ..
I am writing to confirm the major business'points agreed to between py staff and yourself to be incorporated into an Agricultural Subsidy Payment Agrement governing those properties in Carlsbad referred to in the Ciirl sbzd Local Coastal Program as the "'Occid&ttal I' lands .)
- 17541 t4itchel'l Street
-
t 20 are prepard to recomnend tbat the CORSWV~~C~ authorize the Executive Officer to enter into an agreement which includes the following basic points:
(1) The agreement will be entered into prior to subnittal of any Coastal Divelopnent Permit Application for any of the Occidental lands and shall
b2 drsfteed and recorded in such a manner-as to bind and give notice to 211 current omers and optionees of Occidental parcels and successors in interest .
Pernit Application for one or more Occidental parcels, and prior to the issuance of a Coastal Development Permit for a71 or any portion of the area eppl id for, the applicant shall post adequate security for the Payment of the Agricultural Subsidy Payment in the amount required for that area
shall be in one of the forms specified in the July 22 draft agrement, except that the use of 'liens or other security interests in real'property sha77 bz at the discretion of the Conservancy.
Coastd Developmmt Pennit Application for the parcel (s), or approval or conditional approval of a tentative subdivision map by the City of Carlsbad for that parcel($), whichever comes last, the applicant shall pay to the Conservancy 15 percent of the total amount of the Agricul turat Subsidy kynient due for the parcel (s) for which the goastal permit Spplication hzs been submitted.
Permit for any portion of the area subject to the application, the Ayicultural Subsidy Payment for that area shall be paid to the Conservancy ~
t2sed on the acreage for which the permit is issued, adjusted for changes in the Consumer Price Index as required by the'LCP-
.
-. .. .- (2) Following approval or conditional approvaT of a Coastal DWelopment
- - for which the d_ooastaf permit &plication has been submitted. Security
.
(3) Within six months of the appmva'l or conditionaf approval of a
-
(4) Prior to or concurrent with the issuance of 2 Coastal Development . .
EXHIBIT 13
page 2 of 2
c
Please let Allen fleacham or Rick Maedler of my staff know as soon as passible if the zbove terms do not represent your understznding of
the agremznt you reached last week, as MS would like to present the subsidy program to the Conservancy at its October 8 meting.
xezutive Officer
JEP: rl
-257-
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY
1212 BROADWAY
ROQM S14
OAKUND, UUw 94612
MEETING NOTICE
Mary Ann Graves (Director, Department of Finance) Naomi Schwartz (Chairperson, Cal ifornia Coastal Comnission) Jerome Snyder (Publ ic Member) Margaret Azevedo (Publ ic Member) Vice-Chairperson Huey Johnson (Secretary, Resources Agency)
Susan'ne Mor an (Designated Representative for the Department of Finance) Hal Waraas 9 Designated Representative for the Resources Agency)
Senate Representatives
Robert Beverly Barry Keene Henry Mello
Assembly Represhtati ves
Terry Goggin -L~o McCar'thy Marilyn Ryan
Joseph E. Petrillo, Executive Officer Pat Peterson, Deputy Attorney General
AGENDA
DATE: October 8, 1981 TIME: 1:OO p.m. LOCATION: Berkel ey Marina Marriot Inn Angel Room 200 Marfna Boulevard Berkeley, California
I. Roll Call
11. Approval of Minutes
111. Chairperson's Report
IV. Deputy Attorney General's Report
V. Executive Officer's Report
VI. Consideration and Possible Conservancy Authorization to Grant Funds Totalling $19,310 for the Purpose of Operation and Maintenance of the Following New Coastal and Bay Accessways: c. A. Santa Cruz Accessways City of Santa Crut $5,150
XIV. Consideration and Possible Conservancy Approval of a Grant of up to $280,000 to the City of Oceanside for Construction of a Stairway for the Strand at Tyson Street, Installation of Four Parking Spaces for. the Disabled and Acqui s i ti on of Adjacent Land for Devel opment of a Pub1 i c Recreation Area in the City of Oceanside, San Diego County, San Diego Coast.
XV. Consideration and Possible Conservancy Authorization to Implement the Carl sbad Agricultural Subsidy Program, Including Approval of Mechanisms to Receive Agricul turaf Development Fees, Accept Offers of Dedication of Open Space Easements over Elegible Agricultural Lands, and Make Cash- -- .- Subsidy Payments to Eligible Landowners to Encourage Continued and Renewed Agriculture on 670 Acres of Agricultural Lands Designated in the Carlsbad LCP.
--
XVI. Adjournment (After conclusion of the Conservancy's meeting there will be an open house at the Conservancy's offices at 1212 Broadway, Room 514 in Oa kl and. Everyone' s i nvi ted. )
-3-
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 2, 1981
TO: City Manager
FROM: Planning Director&#-
SUBJECT: AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE' S RECOMMENDED
AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM
This item is scheduled for the City Council/Planning Commission workshop on October 13th. The City Attorney's office was given
the final draft on September 8th in order to put the program on
the proper legal format. Due to the Attorney's heavy schedule,
the final legal form will not be ready until Monday, October 5th or Tuesday October 6th.
However, we are sending you the final draft which is substantially the same as what the Attorney will produce. We
hope this will give you some additional review time.
JC:ms
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor STATE OF CALIFORNIA-RESOURCES AGENCY
STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY
1212 BROADWAY
ROOM 514
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612 (415) 464-1070 INFORMATIONAL HANDOUT - Carl sbad Agricultural Subsidy Program - September 16 ,AB891-1070
Attachments: #1: List of properties, owners of record and subsidy amounts for Subsidized Agricultural Lands as designated in the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program (LCP)
Carlsbad LCP planning area
Subsidy Program
#2: Permitted uses on all agricultural lands within the
#3: Map showing lands affected by the Carlsbad Agricultural
#4: Draft Payments Schedule . ....................................................................................
What is the State Coastal Conservanc.y?
The State Coastal Conservancy is a division of the Resources Agency of the State of California created by the Legislature of 1976 at the same time that the Coastal Act was passed, establishing the Coastal Commission as a permanent agency. to take affirmative steps for the preservation, enhancement, and restoration of coastal resources through a variety of planning, acquisition, and development techniques. include agricultural preservation, lot consolidation, coastal resource enhancement (particularly wetlands) , reservation of key coastal resource sites, restoration of urban waterfronts, and the provision of public accessways. consists of the Coastal Zone and lands adjacent to the San Francisco Bay. program areas in response to requests for action from local govern- ments, state agencies, the Coastal Commission, private organizations, and individuals.
The Conservancy was established
Its program areas
The Conservancy's jurisdiction
The Conservancy generally undertakes projects in its various
What is the difference between the Conservancy and the Coastal Commission?
In the past, it has been found that people are occasionally confused as to the difference between the functions of the Conservancy and the Coastal Commission. They differ in that the Commission is an agency which regulates development in the Coastal Zone through the permit
process, while the Conservancy is an agency empowered to buy, sell, or develop land (or provide grants for these purposes), and develop project plans for these activities. The Conservancy was created to take positive skps to resolve site-specific land-use problems. projects are subject to the regulatory review of the Coastal Commission and the Local Coastal Programs now being prepared.
The Conservancy's
-2 - -
What is the Carlsbad Agricultural Subsidy Program?
The Carlsbad Agricultural Subsidy Program was established by the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program( LCP) that was prepared in accordance with Section 30171 of the Coastal Act and adopted and certified by the Coastal Commission in June of this year. The Agricultural Sub- sidy Program consists of two components: a cash grants program and an agricultural improvements program. The purpose of the Agricultural Subsidy Program is to promote and encourage the long-term use of agricultural lands for agricultural production.
Why is the Conservancy involved in the administration of the Carlsbad Agricultural Subsidy Program?
The LCP specifies that the program be administered by the City of Carlsbad in consultation with agricultural property owners and other interested parties including the Coastal Commission. It further specifies that, in the event that the City does not indicate its intention to administer the program within six months ft-om the adop- tion of the LCP, the Conservancy shall be designated as the adminis- tering agency. The City of CArlsbad has indicated that it does not wish to administer the Cash Grants Program. The Conservancy is presently preparing the necessary administrative mechanisims to carry out the Agricultural Subsidy Program and is conducting this meeting to consult with the owners of lands eligible to receive cash grants over the terms of a proposed Payments Schedule for disbursing the cash grants.
What is the Cash Grants Program?
Under the cash grants program, cash grants in amounts specified in the LCP will be made to each of the owners of certain lands designated in the LCP as “Subsidized Agricultural Lands” provided that they comply with the requirements of the LCP. The purpose of these grants is to promote and encourage the long-term use of agricultural lands for agricultural production.
What is the amount of the cash grant for which I am eligible as an owner of LCP-designated Subsidized Agricultural Lan&l
The amounts for which owners are eligible are specified in the LCP, as shown in Attachment #1 at the end of this informational handout. The LCP provides that the grants may be adjusted to reflect assess- ment changes.
What must an owner of Subsidized Agricultural Lnad do in order to receive such a cash grant?
1
The LCP requ-i’res that, in order to receive the cash grant, the owner must voluntarily elect to record prior to receipt of the grant an offer, irrevocable for 21 years, to dedicate an easement running permanently with the land in favor of the State of California. Thus,
once the offer of dedication is accepted by the Conservancy as the administering agency, the easement will bind the land and the owner or his/her successors in perpetui4;y.
- - 3-
What is the purpose of the easement?
The purpose of the easement is to assure that long-term agricultural use continues on the subsidized agricul tural land.
When is the easement required?
The easement will be executed and recorded prior to payment of the cash subsidy grant. The Conservancy staff is presently developing the administrative mechanisms by which the recordation of the ease- ment and the payment of the cash grant will be made and will notify eligible property owners of the specific procedures that will be used.
What type of easement would this be?
The LCP provides that this shall be an open space easement for agri- cultural purposes and that it shall run in favor of the State of California.
What would the actual terms of the easement be?
The LCP provides that the offer of dedication of the easement shall have a term of 21 years, shall run in favor of the State of California, shall be prior to all other encumbrances except tax liens, and shall run with the land binding all successors in interest. It provides that the offer to dedicate the easement shall prohibit future land divisions, limit the use of tRe parcel to agricultural uses as defined in the certified Land Use Plan (see Attachment #2), shall include a management plan, and may allow one farm-owner-occupied residence on legal parcels in existence as of the date of the offer. The irrevocable offer must be recorded prior to payment of a cash subsidy grant.
What is the purpose of the agricultural management plan and what would it require?
The purpose of the agricultural management plan incorporated into the easement, according to the LCP, is to provide a mechanism for managing the land to foster and preserve its agricultural productivity in the event that the owner does not wish to use it for agriculture. The LCP requires that the management plan specify that if an owner chooses not to use the parcel for agricultural purposes, the owner must offer use
of the parcel to agricultural operations at rents not to exceed that charged for agricultural lands in the Carlsbad vicinity.
When will I be able to obtain a copy of the easement?
The Conservancy staff is presently drafting the easement language and is required under the LCP to consult with the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission as to its form and content. Staff anticipates
that a copy of the easement agreement will be available to interested parties and will be distributed to the owners of "Subsidized Agricultural Land" during the month of October.
Am I required to participate in the Carlsbad Agricultural Subsidy Program's Cash Grants Program?
No. The program is strictly voluntary.
-4-
i
If I do not choose to receive a cash grant and offer to dedicate an easement over my land, what use will I be permitted to make of my land under the Drovisions of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Proaram?
The LCP provides that, if an owner of Subsidized Agricultural land does not elect to receive a cash subsidy grant, the land shall be restricted to those agricultural uses specified in Attachment #2, with one dwelling unit permitted per each existing legal parcel. Land divisions would be allowed only if they would facilitate continued or renewed agricultural production, with a minimum parcel size of 20 acres for field crops and 10 acres for greenhouse operations, subject to an easement limiting future use to agricultural purposes only.
What is the source of the funding for the Carlsbad Agricultural Subsidy Program?
The Carlsbad Agricultural Subsidy Program will be financed by as much as $7.5 million or more of Agricultural Development Fees which, prior to the issuance of a coastal development permit, will be paid or whose payment will be secured by permit applicants seeking to develop for urban uses approximately 312 acres of land designated by the LCP as "Potentially Developable Agricultural Lands".
What is the other component of the Carlsbad Agricultural Subsidy Program, the Agricultural Improvements Program, for?
The LCP provl'des that, under the Agricultural Improvements Program, one-thi rd of the agri cul tural development fees received by the Conservancy, will be invested and administered by the Conservancy in consultation with local agricultural landowners and other interested parties to provide physical or institutional improvements needed to facilitate long-term agricul tural production i n the Carl sbad LCP planning area.
The LCP provides that, within one year following the approval of the' subsidies schedule by the Conservancy (anticipated to occur next month) the Conservancy in consul tation with agricultural landowners shall prepare a report detailing appropriate uses of the agricultural improye- ments fund and transmit the report to the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission for review and comment regarding the consistency of the proposed uses with the provisions of the adopted LCP.
The Conservancy will be consulting with the City of Carlsbad, local farmers, agricultural landowners and other interested parties in coming months regarding how these monies should be used.
- NOTE: The discussion in this handout of the open space easementjfor agricultural purposes is not necessarily identical to the language that will appear in the easement instrument. Conservancy staff anticipate that eligible landowners will be provided a copy of the easement instrument in October 1981.
..
.-. \ .. . .. . .... .
Agricultural Cash Subsidy Aoslp;nrd to IondocJnon, in Site XI
m11 . EstLMted
TO t81 Vllluo Agricultural
I =ai& Acrcano Asnesnont, (a) Asscsnncnt (b) pifforcnce WP Dusiramtian Parco1 # mor
2 211-040-14 HoReynolds 34.30 $194,820 $116,620 $ !78,200 S166,732 --* >I cr nJ 0 3
3 r+
CI
3 212-040-22 Vista Lorn Imreat. 64.53 432,988 219,402 213,586 313,680 - 2i
6 214-140-07 Nappion KT3 fno. 61.27 432,988 224,670 297,833 208,318
7 214-140-08 Ilillebrocht 64.84 595,372 220,456 ,374,916 374,916
7 214-140-09 3.63 28,968
9 214-140-40 ffchmr6,BvFm~P- . , 28,3J 291.536 . 96,390 1
-*L -T&b b5. I r ",- --
# .. 12,342 16,626 17,536 H 1
'0 *,.
ul
-e
, 8 214-14043 SIIOnnW 30.00 400,000 102,000 ' 298,000 298,000 nJa: . m 1. "i 195.126 , . 195.126
I.
* 286.32 S2#376,652 * $1,401924 (e) 51,663,823 0' *i 1WAh 8 975,528
I
(3 IUI VOIUO ~stloamarit - krertsod Valuo timos 4,
(b) Agricullural wlue L aalculated by uving S3,4OO/acre a8 the average valuo of agrhlnuol land., (a) Avorage Ay,rlcullural Assoemcnt eqtcnlsi
I ,
..
,. I. ,
..
I
4
'.
..
, '.
I
e ..
-12-
,
'. , : * e
I'
I I
10 -
12
13
14
' 13
* 16
' 17
18
' 19
20
21
22
23
8
I
Tabla 2
Agricultural sub'hfy Program
Agrfcultural Cadi Subsf@ Asafgnned to ZMdmors ln Agrlculturo Slto 111
hll E8thtOd Total Valuo Agricultural Parco1 t Mor hartwe Asocssmcnt (a) AsRcasment @) Dlffcrmco
.214-170-09 llmpson 20.00 !j225,112 s 68,000 , S157,112
21rb.170-36 ltmmplan 10.00 129,844 ' 34,000 95,844
214-170-46 Wolher 5.40 75,784 18,360 57,424
214-170-47 l%qson 5.00 64,972 17,000 47,972
224-170-66 T8bats Dmthera . 21.22 237,660 72,148 165,512
215-07044 lludvalfs 5.03 46,312 17,102 29,410
21347066 CMnatim hop, 30.05 135,352 34,170 101,182
21547099 hjam . ' 2.03 32,436 6,902 3,534
21547048 AIwrer: . 1.80 32,436 . 6,120 26,316 .
215-070-10 cambra 5.02 68,236 - 17,OGU . 51,168
* 21W70-12 *M sbk*,u$t 5 20.17 166,508 68,5713 . ' 98,010
2154701~3 ScIcLfndlor 10,ou 51,915 34,272 17,643
I
I 215470-14 Pad Lllo 10.09 06,UOO 34,306. 8-
' 32.05 , 373,420' ,, *.. 105,570
Subel*
$157,112
95,844
57,424
47,972
165,512
32,840 ,
101,182
26,316
25,534
' 51,118
* 90,OIQ
65,812
65,877.
267,850
13,940
59,430
a24 -
*
z
I
).W bsfnrotfon rarcet #
24 215-080-03
25 215-080-04
26 21548099
' 27 . zis-oao-p'tq
211 2154ao-fs 1%
29 215-000-16.
30 219-04043
32 215-04064
32 2154404S
33 215-04648
33 215-04049
33 2154hO-10
33 PlE.040-11
1WAb
Total, Aarcar.?
32.90
5.17
12.95
15.33
2.03
1.05
20.00
5.00
5.00
2.50
2.50
2.50
\
mu Vdub hscamnont (a)
'$151,571
42,124 .
122,296
142,900
39,2130
25,000
i41,7ao
67,116
64,972'
Ut Jna t od Agrlbl turaL
Asscosmcrrt (b)
Slll,870 '
17,578 .
, 44,030 .
52,122
9,622
3,570
68,000
17,000
17,000
27,028 , ' 8,500
23,764 8,500
29,272 8,500
Dlfrcrcncc
S39,701
24,546
78,266
90,778
29,658
21,430
73,780
50,116
47,972
ia,xa
15,214
20,772
- ShJb?rldJ
$214,804 -a+
33,755 .
84,551
100,010
23,658
21,430
130,500
50,116
47,972
18,528
16,323
20,772
2.50 213.152 A. 500 19.512 11.562
L
(a) F\rll valt~e aaeosnmcnt equate assasrod value thao 4. @) Agricultural vuluo lr eaI.ci11alud by uolng $3,4OO/aote as tho avorngu vahio of agrlcuttuml lond. (c) Avorugo Agricultural AsooawaoliE cquula;
-13-A-
..
31,797,304 (C) S2,120,055
. E
I *
I
8 i
i 1
.
!
# I
!
I
. Wirlnotion Parco1 #
34 2 15-050-11
35 21S-QH)-12 -
36 2LS-050-13
37 215450-14
. 38 21565144
30 226912141
* 3') 216-12142
3'1 216421-03
,
. . ... .. . , * . .. I ,
c
Tublo 3
€bLl , Esthtad Vuluo Agri0ttLt~r8&
Asscstlnmt ffcrmao (a) Aseoasmmg (b) pf
S 96,000 S 34,238 3 61,762
67,115
60,583
54,160
108,220
119,032
160,000
,Jlfi,~O
s7es,iio
34,340
34,272
34,264
63,682
68,000
77,418
,23.562
$319,716
32,775
26,311
19,956
44,538
51,032
02,582
Sl;l1,394 (0)
92,438
. 108.74 I s,,tli 411.394
S 61,762
38,208 *.
38,132
'CI
(D 70,855 cu
75,660 iD
i
:' ..
..
i I I.
I'
I .
*. . -
c
Attachment 2
On Class I through Class IV agricultural lands:
1. Cattle, sheep, goat, and swine production, provided that the number of any one or combination of said animals shall not exceed one animal per one half acre of lot area. Said animals shall not be located within fifty feet of any habitable structure, nor shall they be located within one hundred feet of an adjoining parcel zoned for residential uses;
2. Crop production;
3. Floriculture;
4. Horses, private use;
5. Nursery crop production;
6. Poultry, rabbits, chinchillas, hamsters, and other small animal production, provided that not more than twenty-five of any one or a combination thereof shall be located within fifty feet of any habitable structure, nore shall they be located within one hundred feet of an adjoining parcel zoned for residential use;
7. Roadside stands for display and sale of products produced on the same premises, provided that the floor of area shall not exceed two hundred ---- feet and the structure is located not nearer than twenty feet to any street or highway; /
,-I
c ‘I .. I
8. Tree farms;
9. Truck farms;
10. Wildlife refuges and game preserves;
11. Other uses or enterprises similar to the above and customarily carried on i’n the fteld of general agriculture, including accessory uses such as silos, tank houses, shops, barns, offices, coops, stables, corrals, and similar uses necessary for the conduct of the enumerated uses above; and
12. One single-family dwelling per existing legal parcel.
Class V throuqh Class VIrI agricultural land:
1. All of the uses permitted on Class 1 through Class IV lands;
2. Commercial recreation;
3. Hay and feed stores:
4. Nurseries , retai 1 and who1 esal e;
5. crops, provided such activities are not located within one hundred feet of any lot line; and
Packing sheds, processing plants, and cmercial outlets for farm
6. Greenhouses.
The Carlsbad Local Coastal Program (LCP) as adopted and certified by the Coastal
Commission pursuant to Section 30171 of the Coastal Act in June of 1981 provides
that the Carlsbad Agricultural Subsidy Program shall be funded by Agricultural
Development Fees of $24,050 per gross acre of Potentially Developable Agricultural
Land, to be adjusted annually in accordance with changes in the Consumer Price
Index (CPI) beginning January 1, 1982, the date for commencement of the Agricultural
Subsidy Program.
Since there are approximately 31 2 acres of Potentially Developable Agricultural
Lands within the program area, the fees would total approximately $7,500,000, not
counting adjustments for the CPI. Total fees received will depend on the timing
of receipt of Agricultural Development Fees and changes in the CPI before the
fees are received.
The LCP provides that a reasonable portion of the transmitted development fees
may be retained by the Conservancy to cover the actual costs of administration, up
to a maximum of 1% of any fees. The LCP further provides that, since costs of
administration will be greatest at the beginning of the program, a proportion
greater than 1% of any fees may be reserved at the initiation of the program
for this purpose.
Conservancy will set aside 2% in an Administration Fund, until the monies
received by the Administratian Fund total $75,000, and will use monies in the
Administration Fund only for actual costs of administering the Agricultural
Subsidy Program.
portion of the incremental fees received by the Conservancy will be set aside
into the Administration Fund, unless the total of the fees received exceeds
$7,500,000.
Fund 1% of each incremental fee received until the termination of the program.
Prior to or upon termination of the Agricultural Subsidy Program, any monies in
the Administration Fund in excess of actual program costs or in excess of 1% of
the total fees receiyed as of the date of termination, whichever amount is larger,
wi 11 be transferred to the Agricul tural Improvements Fund.
Therefore, from each incremental fee it receives, the
After the admfnJstration Fund reaches' the' $75;00c) evel, no further
From that point on, Conservancy will set aside in the Administration
The conservancy, after setting aside a portion for the Administration Fund in
accordance with the procedure described above, will, as provided by the LCP,
reserve one-third of the balance of fees received- for deposit in the Agricultural
Improvements Fund.
I
.,- 1 ,____.- - -- - ,_____ ---.-- -- -17 - - <' .-
*-. 3 -.*
During the first quarter of 1982, the Cash Grant Program .omponent of the
Carlsbad Agricultural Subsidy Program will not be open to the participation of
Subsidized Agricul tural Landowners, so that Agricultural Development Fees paid by
applicants seeking permits to develop Potentially Developable Agricultural Lands
may accrue in the Cash Grant Program's Subsidy Fund. Twice yearly thereafter
and not later than the first day of April and October of each year beginning in
1982 and continuing through 1986, the Executive Officer will solicit grant requests
by notice to the owners of record of Subsidized Agricultural Lands who have not
yet received cash grants as specified in the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program.
The notice will specify the amount of monies in the Subsidy Fund as of that
date and will further specify that the amount deemed to be available to eligible
Subsidized Agricultural Landowners will be the amount in the Subsidy Fund as of
the deadline for receipt of requests for cash grants.
Since the volume of development fees from applicants seeking to develop
Potentially DeveJopable Agricultural Lands cannot be predicted with any certainty,
the Executive Officer will specify in the notice that, in the event that more
requests are received in response to the notice than there are monies available
in the Subsidy Fund as of the deadline for receipt of requests, the monies in
the Subsidy Fund as of the deadline will be paid on a first-come, first-served -
basis to the landowners who have requested grants. The deadline for submittal
of grant requests for each round such requests are solicited will be not less
than 30 days nor more than 45 days from the date of mailing of the notice of
solicitation of grant requests. No later than 60 days from the mailing of the
notice of solicitation, the Executive Officer will forward a request to the
State Controller or to the Department of General Services, as the case may be,
to arrange for a State warrant check to be issued and sent to each eligible
landowner awarded a grant pursuant to the procedure described above.
next regularly scheduled meeting of the Conservancy after the dead1 ine for
submittal of grant requests, the Executive Officer will present to the Conservancy
a list of those Subsidized Agricultural Landowners, if any, from whom requests
haye been receiyed by the deadline and those requests which can be satisfied out
of the Subsidy Fund as of the deadlime for receipt of requests.
At the
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
DATE: September 14, 1981
TO: City Council Planning Director City Attorney
FROM: City Manager
AGRICULTURAL SUBSIDY
a meeting for Wednesday, Council Chambers to explain
Attached is a letter to City outlining the program and inviting city participation.
This letter is being sent to City Agricultural Policy Committee €or recommendation.
Report will be on Council agenda in October,
FRANK ALESHIRE
City Manager
FA: gb
attachment
- c
*
STATE OF CALlFORNlA-RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Go-
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 Carlsbad, California 92003
Dear Mr. Aleshire:
(415) 464-1070
ATSS 561-1070
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 million 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 institutional 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 pleasedto further discuss how the Conservancy and the City of Carlsbad might work together to implement the Agri- - cultural Subsidy Program, if the City so desires.
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 lands eligible 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.
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 Comnission for his review and comment a proposed schedule for disbursing the cash subsidy amounts specified in the LCP for payment to eligible agricultural landowners,
Members of my staff will be in touch with the Planning Director shortly to discuss the Agricultural Improvements Fund portion of the program. feel free to call me, Allen Meacham or Rick Raedler of my staff at (415) 464-1015.
If you have any questions or concerns, please &
s h . Petrillo Pxecutive Officer
J
JEP: rm
Enclosure
- c
STATE OF CALIFORNIA~ESOURCES AGENCY EOMUHD C. MOWN JR.. c;or+ma
STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY f' Q 1212 BROADWAY
ROOM 514
OAKUND, CALIFORNIA 94612
July 9, 1981
TO: All Conservancy Members
FROM: Joseph E. Petrillo, Executive Officer
SUBJECT: Agricultural Subsidy Programr Carlsbad
On June 18, 1981 the 'California Coastal Commission-completed certification of the City of Carlsbad LCP (San Diego Coastal Region) which requires the estabTishment of an Agricultural Subsidy Program. The LCP requests that the Conservancy administer the program in the euentthat the City of Carlsbad does not indicate its intention to do so. Although the Coastal Comission would prefer the City of Carlsbad to be the administering agency for this program, the City 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 implement the Agri cul tural Subsidy Program.
The Agricultural Subsidy Program is fntended to promote the long-term agricultural use and preservation of about 670 acres
of mostly unincorporated lands designated as "subsidized agricultural lands" within the Carlsbad LCP, The program would be financed by up to $7.5 million of agricultural 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 designate&-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. development fees, these Sands would be permitted to develop to a maximum density of 12 units per acre and, in certain locations, could develop general comercial uses. The agrfcul- tural conversion fees are computed on the basis of $24,050
per gross acre of land to be developed ($7,500,000 divided by 311.85 acres = $24,050).
However, with payment of the
-29-
All Conservancy Members July 9, 1981 Page 2
The LCP provides for the Agricultural Subsidy Program to allocate 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 available from the Subsidy Fund to owners of "subsidized agricultural lands" 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- pating parcels to agricultural uses as defined in the LCP Land Use Plan, include an agricultural 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 primari ly on tRe difference between each parcel 's assessed val ue and estimated agricultural value. The Improvements Fund monies would be invested and administered by the administering agency in consultation 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 1 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 participation beginning on January 1, 1982, and for the administering agency to submit a program for its implementation to the Executive Director of the Coastal Conmission for his comment by th<t&& A program for using the Improvement Fund monies is required- months later. Staff will be working with the Conmission, the City of Carlsbad, and landowners in the affected area to develop an implementation program for Conservancy approval this fall and subsequent submittal to the Executive Director of the Conmission for his comment.
-30-
c
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
c-4
MEMORANDUM
. DATE: September 9, 1981
' TO: Mayor Packard and City Council Members
FROM : Agricultural Advisory Committee
SUBJECT: AGRICULTURAL PROGRAM
The City Council formed the Agricultural Advisory Committee in
December 1980. The Committee's primary responsibility was to
recommend an agriculture program which would be acceptable to the City, the Coastal Commission and the local farming community.
The Committee agreed upon an outline of an agricultural program.
The City Council presented this program to the Regional Coastal
' Commission in March 1981. The Regional Commission approved the
program for the city of Carlsbad and a similar one presented by the County of San Diego for the San Dieguito area. Both the City's and the County's agricultural programs were rejected by
the State Coastal Commission in June 1981. A program based on
the transfer of development rights was approved but was not
acceptable to the City or the farming communityb
The Agricultural Committee believes that there is a need to
implement the original program they recommended on a city-wide
By doing this, three purposes 'will be accomplished. They basis.
are :
3)
Address the Local Coastal Plan. The possibility of a
successful change to the State Coastal Commission agri- cultural plan would be increased. Carlsbad could prove that its agricultural program was city-wide and was
supported by the City, the Regional Coastal Commission and by the local farming community.
Satisfy the Requirements of LAFCO.
islands within the City to annex, Carlsbad must have an
agricultural program. LAFCO (Local Agency Formation
Commission) must approve the agricultural program before
annexation takes place.
For the County.
Maintain a Viable Agricultural Economy. This
agricultural program is intended to provide a unified,
city-wide method of ensuring the most viable
agricultural economy. There would exist one set of
standards for the entire city. Also the lands best
suited for agriculture would be preserved thus
providing the best conditions .for production.
An additional benefit would be the retention of
Carlsbad's unique character and identify which is
partially the result of its open space and agriculture.
The Committee and City staff have designed a three-step imple- mentation process for the agricultural program. The steps are as follows and are explained more fully in the accompanying
sections:
1) General Plan Amendment t
2) city County Policy Statement
3) Zoning Ordinance Amendment
I. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
I
. I. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
Two elements of the General Plan would be amended - the Land Use
Element and the Open Space Element. Amending both would ensure
consistency among all the elements. The purpose of amending the
General Plan is to state the general goals and policies of the
policies.
Staff would process this amendment like all other GPAs. It would
be scheduled at the next available General Plan Amendment hearing
and would be required to have environmental review. The amend-
ments to the Land Use Element are as follows: '
' agricultural program within the context of other City goals and
Goal C now states:
"Promote the economic viability of the agricultural and
horticultural industries .'I
This Goal would be amended to read:
"Promote the economic viability o'f the agricultural and
horticultural industries by concentrating agriculture on
land with suitable soils and by encouraging development
on land with less suitable soils. Suitable soils are
defined as Class 1,II or I11 based on the United States
Department of Agriculture soil survey.
A new policy M would be added and would gtate:
"Require all owners of land wXth suitable soils to
participate in the agricultural program while
encouraging owners with land of less suitable soil to
voluntarily participate. It
A new progam would be added to Implementation (page 15-
16) to describe the agricultural program. It would
state:
I' ( f) Agricultural Program The Zoning Ordinance shall be amended to state that if
an owner has land with a significant amount of Class I,
I1 or I11 soils, as defined by the United States Depart-
ment of Agriculture, he must participate in the agricul-
tural program.
L.
-.
Also, land meeting this criteria shall concentrate 100%
of their development potential on the portion of their
land not having the suitable soils. All plans proposed for such land shall be reviewed by an Agricultural
Review Board prior to regular .processing.
That land which is not developed will be encumbered by
an offer by the applicant to dedicate an open space
easement to the City. Maintenance of the easement will be the responsibility of the project applicant.
Efforts will be made to consolidate all the easements
of adjoining areas into a contiguous agricultural area.
The City Council shall develop guidelines for offering
the applicant flexibility in'development standards.
4) Finally, in the Open Space Element under Agricultural
Lands (page 12), number 4 would be eliminated and the
following substituted:
"4) Class I, I1 and 111 soils will be preserved
through participation in the agricultural program
as described in the Land Use Element."
11. CITY COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
A policy will be recommended for adoption by the City Counil to
unify all parts of the agricultural program. The policy will
.provide a concise statement of the objectives of the program in
a form readily available to the public. The policy shall state:
-
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT
Poli'cy NO.
Date Issued
Effective Date
General Subject:
Specific Subject: Cancellation Date
Supersedes No.
Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and
Division Heads, Employee Bulletin Boards, Press File
I
Purpose
.To establish a policy that will preserve the unique character of Carlsbad's agricultural economy; to preserve the best natural re- sources: and to encourage .agriculture .by all feasible means.
Background
Traditionally Carlsbad has .had a strong agricultural economy due to
its mild coastal climate and unique land forms. Flowers, fruits and
vegetables can be grown all year and shipped to the rest of the
country. For example, the north county area of San Diego has
produced 16% of the nation's tomato crop on 3% of the available
farmland.
However, as the City develops and more pressure is brought to bear upon what was once productive farmland, a special policy must be
implemented by the City Council. 0ne.purpose of this policy is to
preserve the best agricultural soils. This is necessary, according
to the Agricultural Advisory Committee, to preserve the most cruci-a1
of all the natural resources necessary for continued agriculture. Preservation is needed as local agriculture shifts from an export
business to a local business producing goods for the local market.
Procedures for Agriculture Program
The City shall require all owners of land comprised of a
significant amount of Class.1, I1 or I11 soils, as defined by the
USDA, to concentrate up to 100% of the develbpment potential on the
50% of their property which is less suitable for a agriculture. The development poeential shall be calculated on the entire acreage. The remaining one-half of the property shall be encumbered by an
easement and shall be made available for agricultural activites .
Property owners shall concentrate such easements to form contiguous
agricultural areas. All other land owners are encouraged to
participate in this program. The City shall offer some flexibil-ity in development standards for all lands participating in the Agricultural Program. The City Coun'cil shall adopt appropriate
ordinances to establish guidelines for allowing flexibility in the
Standards.
AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATTON ORDINANCE
SECT1 ONS
I.
11.
111.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
XII.
XIII.
XIV.
xv.
XVI .
XVII.
XVIII.
INTENT & PURPOSE
APPLICATION OF CHAPTER
EXCEPTIONS
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION
MAILING NOTICE OF DECISION OF AGRICULTURAL REVIEW BOARD
TIME FOR APPEAL
TRANSMISSION OF RECORD TO THE CITY COUNCIL
APPEAL HEARING
DECISION OF CITY COUNCIL
TRANSMITTAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE AGRICULTURAL REVIEW BOARD
REGULAR & ADJOURNED MEETINGS
DUTIES OF THE AGRICULTURAL REVIEW BOARD
SPECIAL EXEMPT1 ONS
GENERAL PROVISIONS
DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
PERMITTED USES
USES PERMITTED BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
I. INTENT AND PURPOSE:
It, is the intent and purpose of this chapter to:
A. Protect land suited to agriculture and encourage
B. Recognize that agricultural activities are a necessary
C. Assist the continuation of healthy agricultural economy
agricultural production and use where feasible;
part of the character of Carlsbad;
in appropriate areas.
11. APPLICATION OF CHAPTER:
Compliance with the provisions of this Chapter shall be mandatory for a11 property, other than those zoned industrial and commercial,
comprised of a significant amount of Class I, I1 or I11 soils, as
defined by the United State Department of Agriculture. An owner of
.any other land may utilize the provisions of this C.hapter.
111. EXCEPTIONS:
The following are exempted from the processing requirements of this
Chapter:
A. The following uses, if permitted by the underlying zone:
1. One single-family residential structure may be
constructed or enlarged on any residentially zoned lot where no new lots are created;
2. Off ice buildings ;
3. Accessory us'es to agricultural operations, as
permitted by this Chapter;
B. 'The following areas:
1. The infill are3, as shown on Exhibit X;
2. Properties with soils deemed not appropriate for
agriculture by the Agricultural Review Board.
IV. AGRICULTUWL DLVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION
All landowners with properties containing a significant amount of
Class I, I1 or I11 soils shall make application to the Agricultural Review Board, established by this Chapter, and obtaih an Agricultural Development Permit prior to any request for
entitlements or discretionary approvals. No decision-making body
'shall take action to authorize any entitlements without a valid Agricultural Development Permit approved for the property. Other
developments utilizing the provisions of this Chapter shall also
obtain an Agricultural Development Permit.
Application for an Agricultural Development Permit shall be made to
the Agricultural Review Board through the Planning Department in
accordance with. the procedures set forth in this Chapter.
A. An application for an Agricultural Development Permit
may be made by the record owner or owners of the
property on which the project is proposed. The application, after payment of required fees, shall be '
filed with the Planning Director.
Applications shall be filed upon forms provided by
the Planning Director and shall be accompanied by
plans in sufficient detail to allow review pursuant to this Chapter, a legal description of the property
involved and an explanation and description of the proposed project. prescribe the form and content for such applications.
indicating the site plan of the proposed development.
The site plan shall indicate topography and the ,
portion of the property to be reserved for agricultural purposes.
B.
The Planning Director shall
C. The application shall be accompanied by drawings
D. The City Council shall, be resolution, establish an
appropriate fee schedule for permits and appe,als.
V. MAILING NOTICE OF DECISION OF AGRICULTURAL REVIEW BOARD:
Not later than seven (7) days following the rendering of a decision
orderkng an exemption or the granting or denial of an Agricultural
Development Permit, a copy of the decision shall be mailed ta the
applicant at the address shown on the applicatioi filed with the Planning Director.
VI. EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDER FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT OR
EXEMPTION TIME FOR APPEAL:
The order of the Agricultural Review Board in granting or denying an Agricultural Development Permit or exemption shall become final and effective ten (10) days after the rendering of its decision
unless within such ten (10) day period an appeal in writing is
filed with the City Council by either an applicant or opponent.
The filing of such appeal, within such time limit, shall stay the effective date of the order'of the Agricultural Review Board until
such time as the City Council has acted on the appeal as hereafter
set forth in this title. The determination of the City Council
shall be final.
VII. TRANSMISSION OF THE AGRICULTURAL REVIEW BOARD'S RECORD TO
THE CITY COUNCIL:
Upon receipt of a written appeal filed with the City Council by the
applicant or opponent, as provided in.this chapter, the clerk of the City Council shall advise the secretary of the Agricultural Review Board who shall transmit to said clerk of the City Council
the complete record of the case. .
. . .-
VIII. APPEAL -- HEARING :
Within and not to exceed sixty (60) days following the receipt of the written appeal the City Council shall conduct a public hearing,
public notice of which shall be given as provided in Chapter 21.54.
IX. DECISION OF CITY COUNCIL:
The City Council may grant, deny or modify, subject to such
conditions or limitations that it may impose, the Agricultural
Development Permit. Any action by the City Council shall be final and conclusive; provided, however, that any action reversing the decision'of the Agricultural Review Board on such matters shall be
by the affirmative vote of at least three members of the City
Council.
X. TRANSMITTAL TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
For all developments requiring discretionary action by the Planning
Commission, the Planning Director shall transmit the application,
together with his recommendation and the recommendation of the
Agricultural Review Board, 'to the Planning Commission when all
necessary reports and processing have been completed. No '
application, for discretionary action by the Planning Commission,
shall be accepted for lands containing a significant amount of Class -,
I, I1 or 113 soils without a valid Agricultural Development Permit
approved for the project.
-. When an application is relative to another discrktionary permit, it
consideration of the discretionary permit. The planning Director
shall notify the applicant of the date and place at which the Commission will consider the matter at least seven (7) days prior to such consideration.
' may be considered by the Planning Commission concurrent with their
XI. ESTABLISHMENT I OF THE AGRICULTURAL REVIEW BOARD:
An Agricultural Review Board is hereby established to consist of
five (5) members to be appointed by a majority vote of the City
Council, and a sixth member to be a Planning Commissioner appointed
by the Planning Commission..
The first board to be appointed shall, at its first meeting, so
classify its members by lot, that one shall serve for a term to expire in one year, two shall serve for terms to expire in one year and six months and two shall serve for terms to expire in two
years. The representative member of the Planning Commission shall
serve for a term of one year. At the expiration of each of the terms so provided for, a successor shall be appointed by a majority
vote of the City Council, for a term of two years. Each successive
Planning Commission member of the Agricultural Review Board shall
serve for a term of one year. The Agricultural Review Board shall
adopt rules of procedure and shall select a chairperson from among
its members, who shall act as presiding officer.
Vacancies on the Agricultural Review Board, other than by expiration
of term, shall be filled by appointment by a majority vote of the
City Council for the unexpired portion of the term. Each member
shall serve until reappointed or a successor is appointed and
qualified. A majority vote of the City Council shall be required
to appoint or remove a member of the Agricultural Review Board.
Members of the Agricultural Review Board shall be residents of the
city and shall be knowledgable in the field of agriculture. The
representative Planning Commission member of the Agricultural
Review Board shall act as liason between the Agricultural Review Board and the Planning Commission. No other person shall be
appointed to the board who holds any salaried office, employment or
appointive position with this city.
XII. REGULAR AND ADJOURNED MEETINGS:
A regular meeting shall be held at least once a month, or more often
if the Agricultural Review Board may by rule adopt. Any meeting
held pursuant to rule of the Agricultural Review Board, or any
special meeting advertised as a public hearing, shall be deemed a
regular meeting. The Board may adjourn any regular meeting from
time to time to meet at a time and place specified at the regular meeting and any such adjourned meeting shall be deemed to be a regular meeting.
XI11 .DUTIES OF THE AGRICULTURAL REVIEW BOARD:
The Agricultural Review Board shall determine the order of business
of its meet,ings. A majority of the members of the Board shall
constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.
The Board, as provided by tI& Chapter, shall determine exemptions,
grant Agricultural Development Permits and act in an advisory
capacity to the Planning Commission and City Council on
agricultural matters on developments requiring discretionary
actions to which the provisions of this chapter are applicable.
XIV. SPECIAL EXEMPTIONS:
The Agricultural Review Board shall have the authority to grant special exemptions from this Chapter for any property which, for
. .agricultural reasons, does not meet the intent or purpose of this
Chapter or for any use which does not preclude the fulfillment of
.the intent of this Chapter.
XV. GENERAL PROVISIONS:
Properties comprised of a significant amount of Class I, I1 or I11
soils, and requesting any entitlements from the city of Carlsbad,
.shall be
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
subject to the following provisions:
The applicant shall offer for dedication, to the city, an
open space easement for that portion of the subject property with soils suitable for agriculture as determined by the Agricultural Review Board. The city shall have no responsibility to maintain, improve or farm the land subject to the easement.
Properties complying with the processing requirements of
this Chapter shall be entitled to the full development
rights of the underlying zone for the entire property.
Potential density of a project shall be calculated based
on the entire prop'erty and concentrated on that portion of
the property unencumbered by the open space easement.
The open space easements shall be concentrated wherever
possible.
Properties complying with the processing requirements of this Chapter may be considered by the Planning Commission
for modification of these development standards only; height, coverage, setbacks. The Planning Commission shall establish guidelines for modification of these development
standards. ..
Should an agricultural easement remain unused and by
reason of lack of maintenance become a public nuisance,
the city shall have the right to maintain the property at the expense of the property owner.
XVI . DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA:
In granting an Agricultural Development Permit and in making
recommendations to the Planning Commission regarding a proposed
development, the Agricultural Review Board shall consider the
following: -
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7'.
8.
Prior leasing of land for agricultural purposes;
Concentration of agricultural easements ; Access to the land: Provision of suitable soils for agriculture;
Availability of water and fertilizer;
Suitability of the pr'operty for agricultural purposes;
i.e. terrain, climate;
Provision of suitable buffers between agricultural
easements and other developments (walls, fences, open
areas, roads) ;
Compatibility with all surrounding potential and existing
land uses.
1.
XVII. PERMITTED USES:
m
Within an established agricultural easement, only the following
uses and structures are permitted subject to the provisions of this . chapter:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Storage shed less than 400 square feet in size;
Crop production; Floriculture; Greenhouses less than two thousand square feet;
Nursery crop production; One horse for each ten (10)' thousand square feet in the easement provided; however, that any such horse may be kept only if it is fenced and stabled so that at no time
is it able to graze, stray or roam closer that fifty (50)
feet to any building used for human habitation, other than
buildings on the lot or lots, and as to those buildings,
no closer than forty (40) feet;
Roadside stands for display and sale of products produced
on the same premises, provided that the floor area shall
not exceed two hundred (200) square feet and is located
not nearer than twenty (20) feet to any street or highway;
Tree farms; Truck farms;
Other uses or enterprises similar to the above customarily
carried on in the occupation of general agriculture.
XVIII .USES PERMITTED BY CONDITI0NP.L USE PERMIT:
Subject to the provisions of chapters -21.42 and 21.50, the following uses are permitted by conditional use permit:
1. Cattle, sheep, goats and swine production, provided that
the number of any one or combination of said animals shall
not exceed one animal per half acre of lot area. Said
animals shall not be located within fifty (50) feet of any
habitable structure, now shall they be located within three
hundred (300) feet of a habitable structure on an
adjoining parcel zoned for residental uses, nor shall they
be located within one hundred.(100) feet of a parcel zoned
for residential uses when a habitable structure is. not
involved. In any event, the distance from the parcel
zoned for residential uses shall be the greater of the distances so indicated.
animals, provided not more than twenty five (25) of any or combination thereof shall be kept within fifty (50) feet of any habitable structure, nor shall they be located within one hundred (100) feet of a parcel zoned for residential uses when a habitable structure is not involved. In any
event, the distance from the parcel zoned for residential
uses shall be the greater of the distances so indicated;
2. Poultry, rabbits, chinchillas, hamsters and other small
.\
3. Wildlife refuges and games preserves;
4. Packing sheds in excess of 400 square feet;
5. Labor housing:
6. Other uses or enterprises similar to the above customarily
carried on in the field of agriculture.
.. .
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
P
' c- .) vp
EOMIHD C. BROWN JR, - ST ATE OF CAUFORNILESOURCES AGENCY
STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY
1212 BROADWAY
RoaM 514
OAKUND, CAUFORNIA 94612 (415) *la76
September 2, 1981
Mr. Frank Aleshire, City Manager The City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carl sbad, Cal i fornia 92003
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 mil-lion 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 institutional 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
j 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 desires.
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 lands eligible 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.
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 Comnission 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. feel free to call me, Allen Meacham or Rick Maedler of my staff at (415) 464-1015,
If you have any questions or concerns, please
Pxecuti ve Officer
1
3EP:n
Enclosure
c- STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY
1212 WADWAY
Rm 514
0AIUND.CAUFOWU 94612
k
TO: All Conservancy Members
FROM: Joseph E. Petrillo, Executive Officer
SUBJECT: Agricultural Subsidy Pt=grm Carhbad Lcp
On June 18, 1981 the 'California Coastal Comission'compfeted certffication of the City of Carlsbad LCP (San Diego 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 Comnission would prefer the City of Carlsbad tu be the administering agency for this program, the City 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 progrm 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 mostly unincorporated 1 ands designated as "subsidized agricultural lands" within the Carlsbad LCP. The program would be fipanced by up to $7.5 niltion of agricultural development fees, which would be paid by private -developers as a condition for obtaining a coastal development pernit to convert to urban use approximately 312 acres of incorpor- ated lands designatekas "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. 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 comercia? uses. The agricul- tural conversion fees are computed on the basis of $24,050 per gross acre of land to be devetoped ($7,500,000 divided by 311.85 acres = $24,050).
However, with payment of the
'
-29-
All Conservancy Members July 9, 1981 Page 2
The LCP provides for the Agricultural Subsidy Program to allocate two-thirds of the development fees received to an Agricultural
h Subsidy Fund, with the remaining one-third to be resewed for an Agricultural Improvements Fund. Subsidy cash grants would' be made available from the Subsidy Fund to owners of "subsidized agricultural lands" who voluntarily elect to participate in the Agricul turd Subsidy Program, by recording an- frrevocable 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- pating parcels to agricultural uses as defined in the LCP Land Use Plan, include an agricultural 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 specffied in the LCP in accordance with a complex fomla developed by Comission staff bared primari ly on the di f ference between each parcel 's assessed value and estimated agricultural value. The Improvements Fund monies would be invested and administered by the actmfnistering agency in consultatfon 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 1 percent of development fees that are received to be used for administration of the program.
~
.
The LCP calls for the Agricul turd Subsidy Program to be
and for the administerlng agency to submit a program for its lmplementation to the-Executive Director of the Coastal Cdssien for his comnent by that&,& A program for using the Improvement Fund monies is requiredemonths later. Staff will be working with the Comnission, the City of Carlsbad, and landowners in the affected area to develop an imp1 mentation program for Conservancy approval this fall and subsequent submittal ta the Executive Director of the Commission for his conunent.
ayailable for landowner participation beginning on January 1, 1982, -
-30-
c
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
DEVELOPMENTAL SERVl C ES 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Assfstant City Manager (714) 438-5596
Bullding Department q14) 438-5525
Engineering Department (714) 438-5541
Housing & Redevelopment Department (714) 438-5611
dlenning Department
(714) 438-5581
March 20, 1981
Tom Crandall, Executive Director
San Diego Coast Regional Commission 6154 Mission Gorge Road, Suite 220 San Diego CA 92120
Dear Tom:
Attached are the Carlsbad City Council's amendments to the PRC Toups Proposal for the Carlsbad Local coastal Plan. cil took action indicating that the Toups Plan, incorporating the recommended
changes trmsmitted herewith, would be acceptable to the city and will satisfy the city's requirements for a Local Coastal Plan.
I hwe also outlined, for purposes of clarification, other miiten camments that have been forwarded to your staff from the Aty.
On March 10, 1981, the Carlsbad City Coun-
These are as follows: .
1. Carlsbad Local Coastal Plan: staff comments and recommendations on the Toups Report and Coastal Staff comments, focusing on major issues of substantial concern.
Staff Surmnary provides a summary af ciQ
2. Carlsbad Local Coastal Plan: 'by Carlsbad City staff of the Toups Report and Coastal staff comments. Staff Analysis provides a detailed &pes,
3. Carlsbad Local Coastal Plan: Staff Summary: Council action provides a re- vised version of item (l), pursuant to City Council action on the matter.
I hope the recommendations transmitted herewith will allow the city and Coastal Commission to resolve differences regarding Local Coastal Plan issues, and reach agreement on an LCP document acceptable to both the ciQ and Commission.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. tance in this regard, please don't hesitate to contact me. If I can be of further assis-
Very truly yours,
Planning Director
JCH:PT:ls .
x
I. Irvld Use Map
Policy 1: Macario Canyon
The city requests that the ma car^^ Canyon Area be redesignaA as "open spacet1, specifically indicating a park use.
Policy 2: Agricultural Buffers
The determination of agricultural buffers should be made on a project-by-project basis; they should not be included in the Land Use
MP-
Policy 3: Agricultural Lands
Agricultural use should be protected with an "Agricultural Resource Overlay Zone" recognizing that agricultural production may not continue indefinitely
Policy 4: Savage Property
Downzoning Savage Property is inequitable; environmental resources would best be protected through application of design criteria/mitigation measures and utilization of planned unit development standards as a means to protect the lagoon ecosystem and provide for public access/view points on the lagoon shore.
.Policy 5: Open Space
0.
An open space designation should be applied to BuenaVista Lagoon and is necessary to protect lagoon resources.
Policv 6: Mello Bill
Plan should delete mention of Mello Bill Properties.
11. Land Use Text
1. Coastal Element 1 : Agriculture
The city proposes deleting the policy recommendations contained in the Toups report regarding agriculture, and substituting the following policy r ec ommendat om :
General Findings: The city makes the following general findings regarding agricultural production/preserva$ion in the Carlsbad
There are no substantial prime soils (Class I & 11) in the Carls- bad Coastal Zone.
'. Coastal Zone.
. . The city recognizes the importance of agricultural lands as a uni- que resource, and supports the continuance and enhancement of agricultural production. . The city recognizes the variability and constraints on contikued
' agricultural production, and supports a program directed towards encouraging continued agricultural product ion, recognizing the inherent relationship between preservation of agricultural lands and the economics of production.
Policv 2.1 : kricultural Buffers -,
The need for agricultural buffers should be made on an individd basis; should be the responsibility of encroaching developnent; and
should be "adequatet1 to mitigate potential land use conflicts.
Policv 2.2: Protection of kricultural. Resources
The city shall develop an "Agricultural Resource Overlay Zone," respec- ting the current underlying general plan designations, to be applied to those generally indicated in the Toups Report as suitable agri- cultural lands. lands
A.
Carlsbad
Class I11 Soils. Iand containing Class I11 soils, or better,
shall be considered "most suitablef1 agricul-tAral lands, and may be allowed to develop subject to a master development plan for the entire property. Such plan shall not be approved by the city un- less a finding is made that continued exclusive agricultural use is no longer feasible or that to dlow development .on a portion of the property will enhance the continued agricultural use on the undeveloped portion. The master development plan may allow up to onehalf of the property to develop with residential uses, shall cluster developnent on the least agriculturally suitable portion of the property, shall include a management plan for continued agricultural production, and shall provide appropriate restric-
tions to protect agricultural lands.
bcal Coastal Plan 2
B. Class IV-VI11 Soils. Shall be considered rrimpacted" agriculture, shall be encouraged to continue in production as long as feasible, and shall be allowed to convert subject to conversion criteria (Policy 2.3) .
Policy 2.3: Conversion Criteria
The city shall develop detailed conversion criteria to allow conversion of "impacted" agriculture (Class IV to VIII) , considering the follow-
ing:
A. Relation to encroaching developent and surrounding densities.
B. Impacts on adjacent agricultural production.
C.
D. Occurance of deteriorated structures.
Occurance of diseased soils and/or poor drainage.
E. Documentation of declining profitability.
Policy 2.4: Agricultural Incentives
The city recognizes the need to protect and encourage agriculture on a city-wide basis, specifically noting the following: . The city has formed an Agricultural Advisory Committge to formu- late recommendations regarding the preservation/protect ion of agriculture on a city-wide basis. . The city supports the enhancement of agricultural production through incentive programs including: adopting a Right to 'Farm Ordinance; preferred water rates for agricultural lands; develop ment of a reclaimed water program, giving preference to agricultu- ral lands; encouraging agricultural leasing on Master Plan areas slated for phased development; support tax incentives for agricul-
turally designated properties.
Policy 2.5: Utility Extensions
The city shall act to protect the premature disruption of agricultural uses by not allowing growth inducing utility extensions into agricultu- ral. lmds until such lands are designated for urban conversion, and agricultural production has been proven unfeasible, subject to Policy 2.3.
Carlsbad Local Coastal Plan page 3
. . . . . . . - -1
Coastal Element 2. EnvironmentallV Sensitive Habitats. Water and Marine Resources
Policy 3.1 : Preservation of Slopes and Vegetation
Although the city has reservations regarding prohibiting all steep slope development, the city recognizes that not all steep slope areas .are appropriate for developnent, and proposes the following: . In areas of special resource/habitat value or highly ercdable soils, developnent of steep slope areas may not be appropriate. . The city shall develop criteria relative to disturbance of steep slope areas, including the following:
(1 ) Use of Planned Community Zone and &nerd plan density ranges to encourage protection of steep slopes in natural state, and to minimize a3teration of natural land forms.
(2) Developent of design criteria directed towards minimizing disturbance of steep slope areas, including cluster develop- ment, innovative construction techniques, combination drive-
ways, limiting grading to area necessary for driveway utility and roadway access , encoura&g development subordinate to
natural land forms.
(3) Development of a Hillside Ordinance directed towards regula- ting developent on steep slope areas of significant 0, environ-
mental sensitivity.
The city supports density crdit for steep slope preservation areas based on the density allowed for the entire property as a means of providing an economic incentive for steep slope preservation.
(4)
The city shall develop a Lagoon Management Program for inclusion in the
Caslsbad LCP. At a minimum, such a program shall address the follow- ing: . .structuring a joint-powers committee to develop a maintenance/
'. kccanmendations regardie specific trails, viewpoints and access
. Structuring program to periodically review and monitor the lagoon
. Specific designation of local, regional and state responsibilities
and duties regarding lagoon management.
enhancement program.
improvements; discussion of potential funding sources.
ecosystem.
.
Carlsbad Ucal Coastal Plan
Coast& Element '3. GoIonic Hazards
Policy 4.1 : Coastal Bluff Erosion (p 69) .
!l'!he city proposes utilizing Coastal Commission bluff-top development guidelines, requiring certification of bluff stability and appropriate mitigation measures including subsurface drainage systems and drought resistant planting. Toups Policy 4.1, 4.2 and 4.4 should be deleted.
policy 4.3: Beach Erosion Control' Measures (p 69)
The city shall incorporate into the LCP recommendations regarding the establishment of a regionally-.based beach erosion control regulatory mechanism, proposed mitigation meamres, and a discussion of possible funding sources to reestablish and protect the sandy beaches.
Policy 4.10: Steep Slopes (p 71 )
The development of mitigation/design criteria proposed by city in Policy 3.1: Environmental Resources shall be substituted for Toups Policy 4.10.
The city finds that the existing Municipal'Grading Ordinance, incorpo- rating the policies of the Model Erosion Control Ordinance and the re- quirements of the Master Drainage Plan are generally adeqkite to con- trol soil erosion. In areas of identified highly erodable soils condi- tions, additional hydrology/soils studies shall be required, and appro- priate mitigation measures shall be applied.
Coastal Element 4. Public Works
Policy 5.6: Cannon Road (p 95)
The city supports the Cannon Road alignment as proposed in the PRC Toups Plan, and feels that road construction may be necessary at an earlier date than indicated in the Toups Plan.
'- c
Carlsbad Local Coastal Plan page 5
Coastal Element 5. Recreation and Visitor serving Facilities
The city fully supports the PRC Toups recommendations regarding recreation
and visitor serving facilities, and finds no'areas of substantial. issue with the policy recommendations made in the Toups Report.
Co&tal Element 6. Shoreline Access
Policy 7.6:
The city supports Toups Policy 7.6, but recommends deleting the refer- ence to eminent domain.
Buena Vista Nature Trail (p 116)
Policy 7.17: Access Improvements
The City shall investigate the funding, maintenance, jurisdictional responsibilities and timing of construction for the access improvements recommended in the Toups Report.. '
Coastal Element 7. Visual Resources
The city fully supports the policy recommendations relative tg visual re- sources contained in the Toups Report.
Coastal Element 8. Housing
The city recommends deleting the policy recommendations regarding Housing contained in the Toups Report, and substituting the following:
Policy 8.1:
The city regards the Carlsbad Housing Element as the primary document guiding the provision of affordable housing throughout the city, in- cluding the Coastal Zone, and incorporates the Housing Element into the local Coastal Plan by reference.
Provision of Affordable Housing
, Major provisions of the Carlsbad Housing Element include:
Cmlsbad Local Coastal Plan . Page6
c
A.
B.
C.
b.
E.
P.
G.
H.
Maintain and rehabilitate existing stock of lower incme housing.
Develop and implement a Mobilehome PaPk Zone to protect existing
and proposed mobilehome park developments (accomplished 3/81 )
Btablish a Housing Development Fund to assist in the provision of affordable housing.
Identify suitable higher density sites in Master Plan Areas for low and moderate income housing.
I.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Seek Article 34 Referendum authority for the construction of 150
' units of elderly/handicapped low/moderate income housing (accm- plished 1 /81) .
Btablish Condominium Conversion Ordinance (accorpplished 1 /81) .
Revise municipal codes and procedures to expedite the processing of applications for affordable housing (underway) .
Participate - in HUD Local Area Certification Program, to reduce rocessing time and costs for "A funded housing developments P complete 2/81 )
Provide incentives to assist in the provision of low/moderate in- come housing, including the following for projacts pqoposing 25$ inclusionary housing:
Density bonus of 25% over otherwise allowable residential density, or two of the following;
Exemption from park dedication requirements,
Construction of public improvements adjacent to development, including, but not limited to streets, sewers and sidewalks.
Utilization nues to provide land cost writedown. of federal or state grant monies or local reve-
Exemption from local ordinances which may cause an indirect increase in the cost of housing (reduction' in off-street prking requirements, reduction in processing/permit fees, etc.) . -..
Carlsbad Local Coastal Plan page 7
111 . Implementation
Recognizing the inherent relationship between the formulation of a Land Use
Map and text acceptable to the city, and the resulting implementing ordi- nances, the city will defer comprehensively addressing the implementation
aspect of the Local Coastal Plan until substantial issues regarding the land Use Map and text have been resolved.
-..
Carlsbad Local Coastal Plan me 8