HomeMy WebLinkAbout; Agricultural Advisory Committee Gen Info (1980); Program Report; 1980-12-23DEVELOPMENTAL
SERVICES
0 Asslstant City Manager (71 4) 43&6598
0 Bulldlng Department (714) 438-5525
0 Englnwrlng Department (714) 43645541
0 Housing & Redevelopment Department (714) 438-561 1
0 Plannlng Department (714) 439-5591
1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
December 23, 1980
TO : AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
PROM : JOYCE CROSTHWAITE, Planning Department
SUBJECT: ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
Monday, December 29th, 1980
6:OO P.M.
Council Conference Room, Carlsbad City Hall
AGENDA
1.
2.
3.
Review Goal and Objectives of Agricultural Advisory
Committee.
Presentation by Patrick Tessier on Agricultural recom-
mendations in Local Coastal Plan (Attached)
Setting of meeting date for January.
W city council charged the agricul-hxal M.visory Wttee with one
task - to prepare a written report for the City C~YUIIC~~ on the proljlesns
of agriculture in Carlsbad. % report is to include a reccanneraded
pmanent agricultural policy.
n-Le Council also directed the camnit- to investigate all wssible solutions. Transfer of develo-t rights, special agricultural dis- tricts or zoning and an agricultural developnent oouncil were speci- fically mentioned a~ll~ng other solutions.
It was resolved by the Council that the Cannittee would consist of no mre than nine ms. Anyone my at- the meetings but only the camnittee mepnbers will have the right to vote. The Carmittee will met and will reprt to the Council at least once a mnth. The Cannittee
will be tenninated within 12 mnths or upon presentation of the per- manent agricultural policy.
“E Council has the autbrity to appoint, replace and remnre mgnbers.
The appointments are voluntary and do not entitle Cannit- msnbers to any canpensation or reimbursment for expenses.
QAm: December 22, 1980
SUBTECT:
In order to provide a clear basis for discussion and to provide the
necessary background for an evaluation of the local Coastal Program, the
following information is offered.
One method of providing ccsnpensation to owners of land restricted to
agricultural use is a proposed system known as "transfer of develo-t
rights ,I1 or 'IDR. The principle on which ?DR is based is that land
ownership may be considered to consist of the title to various rights. One of the mml rights of ownership is the right to develop or improve property. Under 'IDR, this right is separated frcan the other rights of
awnership and may be purchased by others. Under one type of developnent rights transfer, a governmental agency would purchase develomt rights
of land the agency desired not to be developd. This kind of program is
often called PDR, "purchase of developat rights, I' Except for this case, TDR involves the establiskanent of a market for developent rights to be sold by owners of land planned not to be developed to owners of
land planned for developwnt, Thus, goverranentl actions to restrict
the developent of certain lands muld not necessarily have their usual effect of lowering the value of the owner ' s investments in those lads.
A portion of those investments muld consist of the developat rights,
the sale of which would provide ccanpensation to the owners of lands
restricted froan developnent.
-
In order to set up a TDR program, the governmental jurisdiction managing
the program muld designate sites for agricultural preservation and for
developent and would issue certificates of developnent rights. Each mer muld receive certificaes based on sane equitable principle of
distribution. One systgn mld be ta issue certificates corresponding
to the maximum nmkr of dwelling units each owner might have been
pemcitted prior to the adoption of the plan to be implemented by the 'IDR
proposal. Then owners of developable land would be required tm purchase
developnent rights fran the owners of Unaevelopable land in order to
develop their land at mre than a minirman intensity.
Transfer of developnent rights has both advantages and disadvantages as
listed below:
1. Consistent with established c=onstituti~nal principles.
2. More politically acceptable than public aoquisition or stringent zoning without ampensation.
3, mr expenditure of public funds.
4. Alleviates "falls" and "wipeouts"; pramotes equity,
5. Flexibility; can protect any resource fran market forces.
Disadvantages
1. !bo new and Cmplex.
2. Will not mrk without proper eooryxnic conditions.
3. May not work unless adopted city-wide.
4. Requires significant political camnittment to be credible to
participants.
5. May conflict with existing mning and plans.
6. Imlves administrative and bookkkeeping problgns.
7. Imlves questions of property taxation of developent rights.
I. RIVERSIDE
The Arroyo Group, consultant for the City of Riverside, California, recently prepared a document entitled "TDR: An Evaluation of the
Potential for Utilizing the Transfer of Developnent Rights as a Means for Implema~tion of the Arlington Heights Plan and Growth Mmagement EWgram.'' This report proposes that TDR be used in the
Arlington Heights area for the following reasons:
1. Tb amre greater equity for propty owners by eliminating or minimizing windfalls and wipeouts, and
2. As a llbeazls of acquiring or preserving plblic open spaces and
environmental r-urces.
This consultant's proposal includes draft legislation and a city ordinance. Legislation may be necessary for a nmbm of reasons, as listed belaw:
1. So that developnent rights can be considered estates in real
propexty which can be transfered, reaorded, ard insured;
2. So that lard will be assessed for tax pzlrposes based on the
density and type of use permitted after developmmt rights
transfer;
3. m permit local agencies to require the recordation of ?DR
certificates to evidence the existence and txansfer of develop ment rights.
Suffolk county is a prototype urbanizing area in tk shadow of the eastern megalopolis, taking up the far erd of long Island.
Its population has increased six-fold since Wrld War 11, and during this period it lost over half of its original 120,000
acres of farmland to developent. Still, gross agriculture sales
in Suffolk total about $70 million per year, ranking the county
first in New York State.
In 1972, Suffolk county embarked on a program of purchasing the
developnent rights to farmland. A "developnent right, as the term
implies, is simply the legal right to use farmland for mnagri-
cultural purposes such as residential developwnt. The county pays
farmers, who voluntarily offer their developrmt rights, the dif-
ference between the assessed value of their acreage for develo-t
and its value for agriculture, a price that has averaged about
$3,000 per acre in Suffolk. By selling developnent rights, farmers retain ownership of the land itself and can continue farming on a
mre solid financial foundation, mt only because they receive a
cash payment, but also because their property tax assessment is reduced.
The county selects parcels for purchase very carefully, trying to secure an agricultural core in each key area of its jurisdiction.
Soil suitability, present land usage and developwnt pressure also enter into the equation used to select farmlands fram among those whose owners suhnit bids for purchase. Tb date, Suffolk has ac- quired the developmlt rights to 3,200 acres of its best agri-
cultural land, and has plans to double this figure. Wing for
the purchase of developnent rights has came fram general revenue bonds sold by the county.
W Suffolk programthe f irst of its kind in any U. S . county-is a
relatively conservative approach to farmland preservation that can
get expensive where it is necessary to protect large areas of agricultural land. But, despite the expense involved, the purchase
of develo-t rights is attractive to farmers and can help obtain
their cooperation and swrt for other multifaceted approaches to
farmland preservation. In Suffolk County, it seans to have had an
encouraging effect on the entire agriculixral amnunity, because it
has demonstrated that local govemnent cares about its native
industry and wants to help ensure it survival.
located midway between the metropolitan areas of Bdltinrore and Washington, D. C. , €bward County has experienced the same pressures for growth as has Suffolk, losing mughly half of its farmlard
since 1950. The existence of the planned "new town" of Columbia in the center of the county has scanahat mitigated the effects of
sprawl developrmt in Hownard, but intensive subdivision activity
continues.
Howard, too, has adopted a local prqram of purchasing developent rights ~ familand, funded presently out of real estate transfer
taxes. But what distinguishes this county is its diligent pursuit of farmland preservation, using all its available policy tools, and
its close cooperation with the State of Maryland, which has a develomt rights purchase program inspired by Jikxmrd county officials.
The county is actively enaxraging the formation of agricultural districts under -land law, which qualifies farmers for sale of their developnent rights. The agricultural districts, once estab lished, will becokne a formally constituted element of the county's cmprehensive plan, 1y3w Unaergoing a major rev2sion to achieve this goal. Cooperation with the state in what mounts to a joint develop ment rights purchase progrmn gives Hmard great flexibility and a
broader financial basis for ensuring permanent protection of its
fannland.
JC: jt
3.2 AGRICULTURE
3.2.1 ”- Coastal Act Policies
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 through all of the following:
By establishing stable boundaries separating urban and rural areas,
including, where necessary, clearly defined buffer areas to minimize
conflicls between agricultural and urban land uses.
By limiting conversions of agricultura! lands around the periphery of
urban areas to the lar.ds 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 establishmenr of a stable
limit to urban development.
By developing availabk lands not suited for agriculture prior to the
conversion of agricultural lands..
By assuring that public service and facility expansions and non-
agricultural development do not impair agricultural 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 subdivision (b) of this
section, and all development adjacent to prirne agricultural lands
shall not diminish the productivity of such prime agricultural lands.
” 30242.’ All other lands suitable €or agricultural use shall not be
converted to non-agricultural uses unless (1) continued or rcncwed agri-
cultural use is not feasible, or (2) such knnvcrsion would preserve prirne
agricultural land or concentrate dcvcloprncnt consistent with Section
30230. Any such pcrrnitted conversion slmll be cornpatible with continued
agricultural usc: on surrounding lands.
'. .
..
" 30243. The long-term productivity of soils and tirpberlands shall be
protected, and conversions cf coastai commercial timberlands in units of
commercial size to other uses or their division into mib of noncommer-
cial size shall be limited to.providing for necessary Timber processing and
related facilities.
3.2.2 Feasibility of Agriculture "- jn the Carlsbad Coastal - Zone
Agriculture in the Carlsbad coastal zone 3s dependent upon a wide variety of
factors which vary in quality and quantity. The soil resource is not as ideal as that
imother parts of the state, but is well suited to the existing agricultural operations.
(See Figure 1) The climate is the major factor which has determined the success of
\he area's agriculture since it a!lows proaucriol? during months when agriculture is
-. .> precluded in competing areas. Water is a critical factor, but the potential for
water reuse in Carlsbad is real and could alieviate problems caused by shortages
.. and high costs of imported water. Both direct and indirect energy costs contribute
significantly to agricultural costs. Labor also represents a substantial proportion
of costs; its future depends to a large extent on government policies toward
undocumented aliens. P.cccss to certain Carlsbad agricultural areas is difficujt
during certain times of the year. Improvement of access would involve a trade-off
between production gains from better access and increased vandalism and pressure
for urbanization.
k
,. '0 .
Agricultural crops in the Carlsbad coastal zone consist primarily of field flowers
and a variety of vegetables, particularly tormtocs. Relatively few greenhouse
operations occur in the Carlsbad coastal zone; the largest is located off Poinsettia
Lane within the southwestern portion of the study area. Froduction in the Carlsbad
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.
Pole tomato production is the most significant vegetable crop in' the Cxlshad 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 fluctuate widely from year to year, primarily because of
Competition from other areas, adverse weather conditions, and disease problems.
Disease resistant varieties, .:. however, have increased yields substantially during
recent years. 2'.
Cherry tomatoes are also an important crop in the Carlsbad area. Growing
practices and harvesting times zre similar to pole tomatoes. Costs (especially
labor) associated with cherry tomatoes tend to be higher due to the small size of
the fruit and the number of pickings required. Cherry tomato growers have
indicated that revenues are typically equal to or higher than the revenue associated
with pole tomatoes. Compared to other coastal crops, tomatoes generally exhibit a
high rate of return and are considered to be a high revenue crop.
As is the case with tomatoes, strawberries countywide currently show a positive
rate of return on capital investment and are considered to be cconomically viable.
Overall, strawberry production in the County (including the Carlsbad coastal zone)
is expected to grow and to continue to be profitable. -. -,
A variety of other vcgctables can be grown in the coastal zone. These include snap
beans, cabbage, cauliflower, celery, cucumbers, chives, lettuce, and squash. The
advantage of growing tlme crops in thc coastal zone is that thcy can be timed to
reach the market whcn produce from other areas is in short supply. Vcgctztblc
plantings in many areas are rotated among several different crops; more than one
type may be grown on an individual parcel during the year. Of these vegetables,
only celery shows a negative rate of return.
Field flowers are the predominant nursery crops in the Carlsbad coastal zone,
although scattered greenhouse operations also exist. Horticulturzl crops which are
grown include gJadiolus, bird of paradise, chrysantharnums, anemone; ranunculus
and various types of foliage plants. Flower and vegetable growing land in the
coastal zone is generally similar; flowers can be grown on most "tomato" lands and
vice versa. Individual plants and flowers have different rates of return but all are
considered economically viable. ..
In summary, most of the major crops in the Carlsbad coastal zone are economically
viable with regard to their return on capital investment.
3.2.3 Coastal Planning Issues
1. ., Pressures of Urbanization
Approximately 1,550 acres of land within the Carlsbad LCP study area qualifies as . ..'
prime agricultural land utilizing the Williamson Act definition. (See Figure 2)
Much of this land, particularly within the coastal zone, is experiencing extreme
development pressure. Land ownership patterns are not consistent within the
Carlsbad coastal zone. Some very large parcels are owned by large corporations
who intend to lease the land to growers until development of the land is possible.
Other ownerships are exlemely, small and fragmented.
..
SC;IIC 1"=3000'
The basic principal underlying much of the land use conflict is tlj;it market value of
vacant land increases as demand for urbanization increases. . .Agricultural land
which is in close proximity to an urbanizing area has a market value in excess of its
value as an agricultural resource. As constraints to urbanization decrease, land
values increase. Any number of factors, such as improved zccess, increased sewer
capacity, residentid zoning, and increased water availability, can contribute to
such increases. This situation has led to land speculation in many areas of the
Carlsbad coastal zone. Illany agricultural land owners rely on the future value of
their land as the basis for their investment strategies.
..
I
Although urbanization pressures raise land values and, therefore, mise taxes, they
also increase the owner's equity. The owner can use the equity as collateral on a
Joan to buy additional land or to finance improvements, or the owner can sell the
property and receive the equity in cash. Restrictive land use designations and
zoning requirements which prohibit agricultural conversions will reduce the appre-
ciation of the land, giving the owner less equity, less ability to borrow to finance
his operation, and less retirement security. Although many crops have positive
rates of return on capital investment, clearly such agrjcultural lands in the coastal
zone would sell for a much higher price if sold for non-agricultural use.
Dr. Alan P. Kleinman in his report entitled, "The Economic Viability of Agriculture
in the Carlsbad Coastal Zonelt, finds that agricultural production in the Carlsbad
area is profitable for the tenants who fzrrn there, but for landowners, the private
costs of not developing lands in the area are high enough that all agricultural
production will ultimately cease because of attempts to circumvent the laws which
restrict development. Kleinman shows that rental rates for agricultural land are
too low for a landowner to reap a positive return to the land (especially for
recently purchased land). If development of the land is totally precluded in the
duture, there is no reason for the landowner to sustain a negative cash flow in the
short-term through agricultural production.
What is economically beneficial to the individual landowner is not necessarily
beneiicial to the regional economic fabric. In conjmction with the preparation of
the County's Agricultural EIcrnent, County phning staff conducted an analysis of
the relative importance of agriculture to San Dicgo County. Thc result of the
yield agriculture with very low density residential development is likely to result in
a net negative economic impact upon the region. The implication is that if overall
growth of higher intensity uses is constrained by not developing agricultural !and, it
follows. that there might be negative impacts on jobs and income in the region.
2. UrbanlRgricul tural Conflicts
Conflicts between urban and agricultural land uses are strong in the coastal area of
Carlsbad because scattered residentjal developments 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 increa~c,ed vandalism,
complaints from residents about noise from machinery, dust and pesticides, and
possibly. damage to plants from urbdn 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 appropriare. Such areas must be wide enough
to efiectively separafe the two conflicting uses. The Carlsbad area offers many
natura! and existing buffer areas. Currently, Agua Hedionda Lagoon effectively
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 3CO
feet in width seem to be necessary to separate residential uses from potential
aerial spraying oi pesticides utilized on row crops. Smaller buffets can be utilized
where aerial spraying does not occur.
3. Regulation of Agricultural Lands
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 case.s 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 LRFCO. Both of thcsc agcncjcs support the
.i , - -.- ...... ... ... ... ... . - ...... .-. . _.._. ___.. . " . _.- "_.... ~ . " ""
preservgtion of agriculture, but LRFCO 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 conversation of nearly all the coastal agriculture to residential
uses. However, the Carlsbad general plan introduces the concept oi the "Urban
Reserve Area". These are areas which will be subjcct to increasing urban pressures
through time. This progrsrn would allow property owners to "land bank" their
holdings with the City and phase the devr!opment 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 !and to urban uses.
Development is not expected n3r encouraged to occur in these areas in the
immediate future. The County position is simi!ar to the City of Carlsbad although
under recently proposed amendments to the North County Metropolitan Subregional
Plan, the conversion could not occur under County jurisdiction until 1995.
3.2.4 Policies and Implementation
Policy 2-1: Agricultural Site 1
A. DescriDtion and Location
This site comprises approximately 490 acres
Agua Hedionda Lagoon to Palomar Airport
of contiguous land. It lies south of
Road between Interstate 5 and the
dissected hills to the east. This area is gencrally well buffered from urban areas,
except on its western edge. About 368 acres of Site 1 is known as the "Ecke
Preserve" and it is the only land within the Carlsbad coastal zone under the
WilIiamson Act (California Land Conservation Act).
,
'i
!
.' ;-
Through this legislation, compensation is provided to owners of land restricted to
agricultural use. In this program, land which is restricted is assessed based upon its
value for agricultural uses rather than its rnarke't value. Such contracts 'restrict
the use of the land and limit its potential for subdivision in an exchange for a
reduction in the property tax. The attractivcncss of \\'illjamson Act contracts has
been decreased by the passage of I'roposition 13. This tax initiative significantly
reduced the propcrty tax incentive of the act. Although the rncchanisrn for
implementation of the Williamson Act is well established, its potential for success
in preserving agriculture within the Carlsbad coastal zone is limited.
B. Policy and Implementation
It is recommended that the "Ecke Preserve'? be preserved as agriculture under the
Williamson Act as long as this is feasible. If the contract is not renewed, the
owner of this property will be assigned agricultural subsidy credits and the
purchase. and transfer of these credits will take place as explained later in this
section. Other programs might also be investigated should the land be removed
from the preserve. This would be decided upon through a future amendment
process. The segment of Site 1, which is not part of the "Ecke Preserve", is
presently recommended for the agricultural subsidy credits technique.
I
i
It is also recommended that the 15-acre segment of Site 1 located between the
Frontage Road and the freeway be permitted' to develop for visitor-commercial
mes.
Policy 2-2: aricultural Sites 2 and 3
A. Description and Location
Site 2 is located just south of the "Ecke Preserve" and north of Poinsettia Lane.
Row crops are the dorninant farming operation and there are re!atively few
individual land owners. Site 3 is located just south of Poinsettia Lane extended.
There are many individual small farming concerns with nursery crops as a typical
use of the land. A total oi approximately 575 acres of contiguous land devoted to
agricultural purposes comprise Sites 2 and 3.
B. - Policy ar,d Implementation -
It is recommended that the land in Sites 2 and 3 be preserved as agriculture. This
recornmcndation shall be implemented through the purchase and transicr of the
agricultural subsidy crcdits associated with this agricultural land. TIE principle on
which this mcthod is based is that land owncrsllip may be considered to consist of
.. .
the title to various rights. One of the normal. rights of ownership is the right to
develop or improve property. Under the purchase of agricultural subsidy credits
concept, this right is separated from the other rights of ownership and rnay be
purchased by others. It should be emphasized here that 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 credits is recommended here
to incorporate some measure of equity into the land use planning process. It
represents an effort by the public to preserve agricultural lands through a
compensatory program designed to establish stable urban/rural boundaries and
minimize conflicts.
*
The specific procedure of implementation is as follows:
C. . Framework for Implementing the Purchase and Transfer of
Agricultural Subsidy Credits "
Calculate the total number of dwelling units permitted on each of the
agriculturally designated sites. Each unit will be counted as one credit.
/
Determine the market value €or each of the four agriculturally designated
sites; then, determine the proportion of this market value held by each
landowner.
Assign credits io landowners in proportion to the market value which they ,
possess. &; i . \v v -. c;Jj '1 .* d ?=> c> L &. .J- ' "7
* The value of a landowner's credits will cqual: market salue of the land minus
the agricultural value of the land. The value of each credit will equal: the
value of each landowners' credits divided by the number of credits assigned to
each landowner.
The value of credits will remain fixed unless changed by an overall property
reasscssmcnt. ,8.; ' c ;**e
I
-!
f
6. Developers will be required to purchase a certain number of credits in order
to qualify to build in the Carlsbad coastal zone. The purchase price will be
$3,144 per credit (weighted mean value of ail credits). The City of Carlsbad
will determine the number of credits to be purchased by each deveioper in
accordance with land use policy and the general plan.
7. The City of Carlsbad will assess the developer an amount equal to the value
of the credits that are purchased. The proceeds wiil be placed in a separate
City fund. Those who own credits may then apply to the City to sell part or
ail of their credits. Preference will be given to landowners who own small
numbers of credits.
8, The interest earned by the special City fund will be used to pay for the
administration' of this program.
Tables 3-5 through 3-8 summarize agricultural'landowners by major site and parcel
size. These tables also show the number of credits assigned to each landowner, as
well as the value of these credits. Figure 3 illustrates the location of these parcels
in relation to the Agricultural Sites.
b
Table 3-5
The Number of Agricultural Subsidy credits and ?heir Unit Value Assigned to Landowners in AfyiCuIture Site 1
Map 56 of
Total Acres Total Market Designation Parcel # Owner Acreage Preserved Preserve6 Value(a)
1 211-021-15 Carltas Company 13.46 13.46 100.0 $ 261,936
1 211-021-18 Carltas Company 23.05 . 23.05 100.0 290 , 700
1 21!-021-20 Carltas Company 86 -00 86.00 100.0 :,004,700 - " -
TOTAL 122.51 122.51 100.0 1,557,336
x. (a) Market value. is calculated by multiplying each assessed value by 4.
(b) Agricultural value is calculated by using $3,40O/acre as the average value of agricultural land.
Dr. Alan P. Kleinman states that a price of $4,030 per acre is the top price which anyone would be willing to pay for land for which the fuli cost must be recotqed from agricultural production.
Number
Value(b) Credits Credit AgriculturaI of Value per .
..
$ 45,764 41 $5,272
. 78,370 46 4,616
292,400 _. 158 4,508
416,534 245 4,656
! I
Map Designation
2
3
4
5
5
5
5 .f-:
7
7
'8
+9
Parcel 8
21 1-040-14
212-040-22
212-04G-25
212-040-32
212-040-35
212-040-36
212-040-37
212-Ori0-38
21 4-! CO-07
214-140-08
214-140-09
214-140-13
214-140-40
TOTAL
Table 3-6
The Number of Agricultural Subsidy crcdits and meir Unit Value Assigned to Landowners in Agriculture site 2
Owner
McReynolds
Vista Lorna Invest.
Ukegawa
Kelly
Kelly
Kelly
Kelly
KelIy
Nappion KTS Inc.
Hillebrecht
Hillebrech t
Shermm
Schoppe
Total
Acreage
34.30
64.53
13.89
49.36
10.53
6.94
16.36
5.71
61.27
64.84
3.63
30.00
28.35
389.71
Acres
Preserved "-
18.00
64.53
13.89
49.36
10.53
6.94
15.36
1.71
46 .@O
64.84
3.63
30.00
28.35
358.14
% of
Total Preserved
52.00
!G@.OO
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
75.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
103.90
91.90
-.
Market _Value(a)
$ 101,306
432,988
108,220
373,420
75,784
48,756
259,792
4%, 756
324,74 1
595,372
28,968
4OU,OOO
291,516
$3,089,619
Agricultural
Value(b)
$ 61,200
219,402
47,226
167,824
35,802
23,596
55,624
19,414
156,400
220,456
12,342
102,000
96,390
$1,217,676
Number of Credits
23
io0
25
87 .
IS
11 '
60
11
75
138
7
93
68
716
-
.*
Value per Credit
$1,744
2,136
2,440
2,363
2,221
2,287
3,403
2,667
2,245
2,717
2,375
3,204
2,870
$2,6!4
(a) Market value is calculated by multiplying each assessed value by 4.
(b) AgriculWra1 value is calculated by using $3,40O/acre as the average value of agricultural land.
I
10
10
11
10
12
9
.9
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
214-170-07
zi4-170-36
214-170-46
214-170-47
214-170-66
215-070-04
215-070-06
215-070-08
215-070-09.
215-070-10
215-070-12
215-070-13
215-070-14
215-070-16
2i5-010-18
215-070-19
Thompson
Thompson
Weidner
Thompson
Tabata Brothers
Rudvalis
Carnation Prop.
Alvarez
Lujan
Cardosa
Kuromi
Schindler
Padilla
Rach mann
Aitchison
Martin
Table 3-7
The Number of Agricultural Subsidy Credits and meir
Unit Value Assigned to Landowners irl AgriCulture.Sitc 3
M2p Total
Designaticn Parcel # Owner Acreage
20 .oo
10.0G
5.40
5.00
21.22
5.03
10.05
1.80
2.03
5.02
20.17
10.08
10.09
31.05
1-00
7 -09
Acres Preserved "
15.00
10.00
5.40
5.00
21 -22
5.03
10.05
1.80
2.03
5.02
10.00
4.00
7.00 ..
31.05
1 .oo
7.0Y
% of
Total Market
" Preserved Value(a)
75.00 $ 168,834
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
50.00
40.00
70.00
100.00 '
100.00
100.00
129,844
75,784
64,972
237,660
46,512
135,352
32,436
32,436
68,236
83,894
20,766
60,760
373.420
17,340
83,536
Agricultural
Value(b)
$ 51,000
34,000
18,360
17,000
72,148
17,102
34,170
6,120
6,902
17,068
34,000
13,600.
23,800
105,570
3,400
24,106
Number of Credits
31
24
14
12 -
44
9
25
6
6
13
16
4
11
67
3
16
Value per Credit
$3,801
3,994
4,102
3,998
3,762
3,268
4,047
4,386
4,256
3,936
3,118
1,792
3,360
3,882
4,647
3,714
Map Designation
24
25
26
27
28
29
50
31
32
33
33
33
33
Parcel #
215-080-01
215-080-04
215-080-09
215-050-11
215-080-15
215-080-16
215-940-03
215-0110-04
215-040-05
215-049-08
215-9+0-09
215-040-10
215-O%O-11
TOTAL
Owner
Pelican Land Company
Beuilacqua
Kaiser
Hadley
Tabata Brothers
Moore
Muraya
Tabata Brothers
Yamamoto
Sugino
Sugino
Sugino
Sugino
Total Acreage
32.90
5.17
12.95
15.33
2.83
1.05
20.00
5.00
5 .OO
2.5G
2.50
2.50
2.50
275.26
"
Table 3-7 cont'd
% of Acres Total Preserved Preserved
15.00 45.00
3.00
12.95
10 .00
2.83
1.05
9.00
5.00
5.00
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
.2 I 4 .52
58 .OO
100. co
65.00
100.00
100.00
45.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
78.00
Market VaMa)
$ 63,207
24,432
122,296
'92,885
39,280
25,009
63, SO1
67,116
' 64,972
27 , 028
23,764
29 , 272
28,152
$2,307,987
(a) Market value is calculated by multipiying each assessed value by 4. (5) Agricultural value is calculated by using $3,40O/acre as the average value of agricultural land.
Agricultural Value(b)
$ 51,000
10,200
44,030
34,000
9,622
3,570
30,600
17,000
17,000
8,500
8,500
8,500
8,500
$ 729,368
Number' of Credits
13
5
23
17
7
5
12
12
12
5
4
5.
5
428
-
Value per . . Credit
$1,324
2,846
3,403
3,464
4,237
4,286
2,767
4,176
3,998
3,706
3,816
4,154
3,930
$3,688
Tab!e 3-S
The Number of Agricu!tural Subsidy Credits and meir
Unit Value Assigned to Landowners in Agriculture Site 4
Map Designation Parcel #
34 215-050-11
35 215-050-12
36 215-050-13
37 215-050-14
38 215-051-04
38 216-!21-01
39 216-12!-02
39 216-121-03
TOTAL
5% of Total Acres Total Market %mer Acreage Preserved Preserved Value(al
Silvers-Grunewald- Van Dam
Schutte-Downs- Murphy
Larson-Wood
Whitney
McMurphy Corp.
McMurphy Corp.
Miisuuhi Kolchi
Mibuuhi Kolchi
10.07
10.10
10.08
10.06
18.73
20.00
22.77
6.93
108.74
10.07
2.00
3.00
10.06
18.73
20.00
22.77
6.93
93.56
100.00
20.00
30.00
100.00
100.00
100.30
100.00
10c.00
86.00
$ 96,000
13 , 423
18, 175
54,160
108,220
119,032
160,000
li6,OOO
$ 685,010
(a) hhket vaiue is calculated by multiplying each assessed value by 4.
(b) ' Agricultural vafue is cdculated by using $3,4OO/acre as the average value of agricultural land.
Agricultural Vafue(b1
. $ 34,238
6,800
10,200
. 34,204
63,652
68, GOO
77,418
23? 562
$ 31S,104
Number of - CrediS
26
4
5
15
30
32
44
32
188
,
-
I
i Value per Credit
1,657
1 , 595
1 , 330
1,485
1,595
1,877
2,889
$1 , 952
,
.. . . ,- ""-""""" . I"" -
I
D. - Examp& Individual Case of Compensation through the Purchase
and Transfer oi Agricultural Subsidy Credits *
1. Site 2
. Parcel #214-140-08
2.
03.
4.
5.
Owner: Hillebrecht
Total Acreage: 64.84
Acreage Preserved: 64.81 (100%)
Market Value IT. $595,372 (assessed value of acreage preserved x 4)
Agricultural Value = $220,456 (acreage preserved x $3,400 (estimated value
of agricultural land per acre)) "
This owner holds with this parcel 19.2796 of tne total market value within
Site 2. Me will accordingly be assigned 19.27% of the available credits in
Site 2. (716). The owner is assigned 138 credits (.I927 x 716).
The value of these 138 credits is their market value less their agricultural
~al~e ($595,372 - $220,Q56 = $374,916).
The value of each of the 138 credits is the total value of these credits divided
$374,9 1 G
138 by 138 -- ---- = $2,717.
There are approximately 194 acres of well-located coastal land available for
development at a high intensity of residential use in the near future within the
. Carlsbad coastal zone. Table 3-9 summarizes the owners of this developable land,
as well as the size of each parcel. The supply of credits that must be purchased by
the developers of these 194 acres numbers 1,577. This implies that developers
must purchase an average of eight credits for each of the 194 acres that are
developed. The City of Carlsbad may determine that some land should be
developed more intmsely than other land, but the average density increase over
and above the original land use plan designation should average about eight units
per acre.
,
Table 3-9
Landowners Required to Purchase Agricultural Subsidy Credits
and Their Respective Parcel Sizes
_I
Parcel Number Acreage - Landowners
211-040-13 35.41 Shcl.1 Oil Corporation
214-171-03 11.09 Occidentai Land Corporation
214-171-16 29.16 Occidential Land Corpora tion
214-150-15 . 59.64 3ohn D. Lusk and Son Corporation
214-150-17 16.90 John D. Lusk and Son Corporation
214-150-18 15.48
214-(020-06O)-var ied 26.45
TOTAL 194.13
John D. Lusk and Son Corporation
Bankers Life and Casualty Company
This density increase of eight units per acre permits the city a great deal of
latitude in establishing land use patterns.
Typical raw land costs per dwelling unit vary between $6,000 to $15,000 per unit.
Assuming the lowest typical land use per dweJ!ing unit is approximately $6,000, and
. the cost per credit (or cost for each extra unit permitted per acre) is $3,144, it can
be seen that developers will have an incentive utilize the purchase of agricultural
subsidy credits program.
Agricultural landowners will receive equitable compensation for their land through
this program. By current land use law and in the absence of the proposed program,
agricultural landowners would receive no compensation for the market value of
their land.
Policy 2-3: Agricultural Site 4
\ A. Description and Location
Site 4 comprises areas near the southern boundary of the City of Carlsbad and
northeast of the Batiquitos Lagoon. The site includes approximately 265 acres
comprised of a large area of Rancho La Costa, as wcll as a few srnallcr parcels
with varying intensities of agricultural production. The area is also characterized
by steep slopes.
Land use recommendations for the Carlsbad coastal zone will be environmentally
consistent with the County policies in this region.
I
B. Policies and Implementation
In order to preserve the agricultural land in Site 4, several land use recommenda-
tions are' necessary. These recommendations are stated in the - Environmental!y
Sensitive Habitat Element (policy 3-11, but it is appropriate to state them here as
part of the recommendations regarding agricultural preservation.'
P-
,Owners of land which is currently in total agricultural production, shall be
preserved as such and agricultural subsidy credits will be assigned to these
owners.
Owners of land which is only partly in agricultural producticn will be
compensated as follows: The agricultural land will be preserved and the
o,wner will be permitted to develop on their non-agricr~lturally designated .
land with a density bonus of two extra units for every acre of agricultural
land that is preserved.
Assuming that the City of Carlsbad prohibits development on slopes greater
than 25 percent, a development density credit of one extra unit for every
acre of 25 percent and above slope land preserved should be provided to
owners for development on flatter land which they may own.
Policy 2-4
Lands not designated as ltprimeff according to the Williamson Act definition should
not be retained for agricultural purposes. This includcs several parcels which may
have been used for agricultural purposes in the past, but have not been in
prodl~ction within toe: recent five-year period. None of these parcels contains
Clils 1 or 2 soils or have a Storic Index rating greatcr than 80.
-
While' .many of these properties could be preserved under Section 30242 of the
Coastal Act in that they may be suitabk for agricultural use;the reconversion of
these properties to agriculture is not feasible due to extremely high property
values. That is, because these properties are not owned by farmers, preserving
them for agriculture would require that they be so!d at a fraction of their value.
This, of course, is not likely to occur. More importantly, these properties are
needed as developable land to facilitate the Purchase and Transfer of Agricultural
Subsidy Credits Program - a program which will enable the permanent preserva-
tion of 1,330 acres of agricultural lands presently in production within the Carlsbad
coastal .zone. This includes land preserved through the program, the "Ecke
Preserve", and agricultural lands within Rancho La Costa.
In summary, the gradual development of these vacant areas should contribute to
the. establishment of stable urban boundaries. Gradual expansion of urban uses
should be governed by the City's general urban development policies emphasizing
infilling, proximity to facilities 2nd services, and balanced development.
Policy 2-5
The following properties which have been in agricultural production for three of
the past five years should be devoted to urban land use:
(It should also be pointed out that all of the following sites are designated in the
MIC Soil Association with a Soils Capability Rating of I11 S-4 and a Storie Index of
I !
54, an indication of non-prime soil' conditions. Nonetheless, the properties are
farmable as evidenced from past agricultural production.)
1. The 20-acre parcel owned by the State of California located west of the AT
& SF railroad at the Palomar Airport Road/Carlsbad Boulevard Interchange
should be converted from agricultural use. This propcrty is surrounded by
major streets and the railroad with residential development intrusions on the
north and western boundaries. The site will be needed for beach parking
facilities as the demand for beach access increases in the future. The
property should remain in agricultural production until such time as parking
facilities can be constructcd by the State of California. Approximatcly 1,500
Policy 2-6
Adequate "buffer areas" between agricultural operations and new development
shouid be preserved. These buffer areas should be at least 100 feet in width and
where possible, the slope areas exc'eeding 25 percent should be used as the buffer.
Within areas where aerial spraying may occur, the buffer zone shall be 300 feet in
width. Development density on the remainder of the property can be increased by
the amount lost by the required buffer. A development credit can be transferred
to the remaining portion of the site on the basis of one unit for each acre of slope
land or buffer land that is preserved.
Policy 2-7
_I
..
The City of CarIsbad should adopt a specific policy and procedure for areas
designated for future development. This policy should encourage the temporary
agricultural use of this land until such time that development occurs. The concept
of "land banking", mentioned jn the Carlsbad General Plan, establishes the premise
for such a policy. Future developers cf this land should be required to purchase
credits as a requirement for urban development. These credits may be purchased
from owners of the "Ecke Preserve" who will be assigned such credits upon
cancellation of the Williamson contract.
Policy 2-8
Approximately 100 acres of agricuiture use are located in scattered parcels along
El Camino Real both north and south of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The small
individual size of these parcels coupled by the fact they are not contjguous
precludes their eifective use as agricultural land in the future. Therefore, the plan
, I' : i
i
! .
designates these areas for future residential developmmt.
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES
0 Assistant Clty Manager (71 4) 4386598
0 Buildlng Department (714) -5
0 Engineering Department (714) 4386641
0 Houslng 6 Redevelopment Department (714) 4386811
0 Plannlng Department (714) -1
I
1200 ELM AVENUE
' CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
December 30, 1980
To: Agricultural Advisory Committee
FROM: Joyce Crosthwaite
SUBJECT: Advisory Committee Meeting
7:OO - 9:00 P.M. Monday, January 5, 1981
Council Conference Room, City Hall
AGENDA
1. Review minutes af December 29th meeting (.attached).
2. Presentation of each Committee member's specific
recommendations for the PRC Toups program.
3. Setting of next meeting time; NOTE: Tentative meeting
dates have been set for January 8th and January 12th
at 7:OO P.M.
Agricultural Advisory Committee
December 29th, 1980
Members Present: Eric Larson; Victor Kato; Ben Hillebrechtt John Frazee; Guy Moore; Claude Lewis; Girard Anear; Peter MacKauf; Jim Hagaman; Tom Hageman; Joyce Crosthwaite; Patrick Tessier; Tom Escher.
Peter MacKauf was elected chairman.
Minutes
Jim Hagaman, Planning Director, explained the necessity for
a rapid recommendation from the Committee on the PRC Toups program.
Pat Tessier, Associate Planner for Carlsbad, presented the major recommendations of the Local Coastal Plan.
Girard Anear distributed a memo dated July 8, 1980 from the City Attorney in which the legality of a transfer of develop- ment rights program was questioned.
Ben Hillebrecht questioned the effectiveness of opposing the
PRC Toups plan. He noted that opposition in the past had met with little success. He also questioned the validity of any study which did not take economic feasibility into account.
Guy Moore requested that the Angus - McDonald report be distributed for the next meeting.
Peter MacKauf asked the Committee to consider the possi- bility of no action.
Ben Hillebrecht stated that the market value of the land in the PRC Toup program was not accurate. He said the value was usually 35-40% higher.
Victor Kato said the problem was to bring land values up and to create a continuing program to keep the benefits of transfering development rights coming to the farmer/ land owner.
Peter MacKauf agreed, stating that the development rights are fixed in price and do not go up. He also questioned the validity of preserving agriculture if it is not economically feasible.
Tom Hageman, Principal Planner for Carlsbad, stated that the
Coastal Act makes provisions for preserving agricultural land not for preserving agricultural production.
Peter MacKauf asked if the preservation of agricultural
lands was mandated. After learning that it was, he stated
that the Council should be more aware that agricultural
production may not be preserved but that the lands may become de facto open space.
The question of a definition of prime agricultural land was
discussed. It was agreed that a good definition was needed.
Peter MacKauf stated that there was no relation between the
viability of land and production. A profit is needed. The
land can not be disassociated from the economics of production.
Guy Moore stated that the cost of a TDR program would add to
the cost of housing. He thought this was in direct contra-
diction to the concept of inclusionary zoning.
Peter MacKauf stated that a fair market price, adjusted up
and down, was needed. He thought there were two goals for
the Committee-to respond to the Toups Program and to propose a better solution.
Tom Hageman said the Committee should also respond to the Coastal Commission changes in the Toups Program.
Peter MacKauf suggested meetings on the 5th, 8th and 12th of
January in order to have something prepared by the City
Council meeting on January 13th. It was decided that the
meetings would begin at 7:OO P.M. and end close to 9:00 P.M.
Guy Moore suggested that each Committee member outline their viewpoints for the next meeting.
Peter MacKauf asked that the next meetings have clerical personnel available to take minutes.
JC: jt 12/30/80
END OF PREVIOUS DOCUMENT.
ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS
,
Toni C. Hageman Planning Department
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Subject: Transni ttal of Carlsbad Pilot
Dear Tom:
Enclosed is a draft copy of the Carlsbad Pilot Study, which is
a portion of the larger study, Enhamement of Coastal Agriculture, which we are preparing for the Calitornia Coastal Commission ena Coastal Conservancy.
This &aft is preliminary. I am forwarding it to you became of your knowledge of the study area and your initial involvement in
prepsration of the study. I have appreciated your help, and ask that you critically review this draft and return it to me. I ho~e that yox eciirt, combined with other comments, will result in 6 proposal that is instrumntal in implementing the Local Coastal Plan for Carisbad.
-
Yours very truly,
ANGUS McDONPiLD & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Walter F. Kieser
Study Draft; 684
WFK: h
Enclosure
Planning Managenlent Economics
review draft
CARLSBAD PILOT STUDY
ENHANCEMENT OF COASTAL AGRICULTURE STUDY
Prepared for the California Coastal Commission and the California Coastal Conservancy
By Angus McDonald &]:Associates
25 August 1980
B. San Diego County -- Carlsbad
Th&Carlsbad Pilot Study Area is not a single parcel, as in
the case of the Galletti Ranch in Mendocino County. It is an
area, roughly 4,000 acres in size between Agua Hedionda and
Batiquitos Lagoon in Gan Diego County. The area contains several
hundred parcels ranging from large agricultural parcels to small
residential parcels and subdivisions. The area is predominately
within the City of Carlsbad, and is surrounded and interspersed
with urban development. A better example of agricultural land
I
I
i i use within a coastal urban fringe area does not exist. As such,
i the.South Carlsbad area is a good test area for the supplemental
i
I
i use concept. 1 A key premise of the supplemental use concept in this ur2,an fringe
f i area is that a coordinated planning effort, in cooperation with
landowners and developers, can result in a compatible mix of urban
and agricultural uses. A distinction must be drawn between the
application of supplemental uses in rural areas such as Mendocino
i
! County and urban fringe areas, such as South Carlsbad. In the
1
rural areas, supplemental uses are essentially an economic devel-
opnnent program, where the Coastal Conservancy or the local! govern-
ment facilitates improvements to an existing farm operation. In
this case, land use regulation is viewed as the main component
of the agricultural preservation program. Supplemental uses are
i.ntended to mitigate hardship situations and hopefully :kzm
I
-2
*. P . ,.. . ..
improve local agricultural economics.
The sitkation is entirely different in an urban fringe area. High
land values and urban conflicts and general decay of the business
infrastructure necessary for agriculture typically lead to a con- ..
tinual decline of agricultural operations. This process occurs
in many cases in spite of land use regulations which attempt to
hold the agricultural use. In these urban fringe areas, supple-
mental uses must be combined with innovative types of land use
regulations, including density transfer, planned unit developments,
etc. Under this scheme, the value of the agricultural land for
urban uses..is utilized to preserve a portion of the land for
agricultural use. This approach may not always be appropriate.
Also, there will be numerous problems to be solved regarding the
inherent conflicts between agricultural and urban uses. *The
appropriate application of supplemental uses to preserve agricult-
ural land on the urban fringe occurs when a unique agricultural
resource exists, or when the agriculture is a component ." of the
urban open space system, or contributes to stable urban boundar-
ies.
~. .. .
The supplemental use concept for urban fringe area.s is ess-entialQ --"
a density transfer approach for a single land ownership or group
of cooperating ownerships. The test as to the type of density
required in relation to the entire ownership would have to be
negotiated on a case-by-case basis, but general yuidelines can
i
be established for a given area. The essential rule is that the
total wrket value of the land -- with the development concentrated
upon a portion, plus the residual agricultural value -- must be
roughly equivalent to the original market value of the entire
holding.
Another key difference between the density transfer concept rec-
ommended for urban fringe areas, and the supplemental use concept,
as applied in the more rural areas, is that there would not neces-
sarily be an ongoinq relationship between the new "supplemental" -
use and the remaining agricultural use, which would generally be
'the case in rural areas. In fact, an existing landowner, who
may wish to sell off land, could put a project together in con-
cert with the local government, sell the supplemental use portion
of the land to one buyer and the agricultural portion to"'another
buyer. Land divisions will nearly always be involved.
The LCP being prepared for the City of Carlsbad is recommending
a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) plan called an "Agricult-
ural Subsidy Credit." The plan consists of assigning develop-
ment rights (or credits) to a "preservation" area that may be
purchased by a "receiving" area, typically different ownerships.
The density transfer concept implied by the supplemental tise
pgoram is intended to augment the TDR approach of other imple-
mentation efforts chosen by the City.
'- 4 ""
Tilree case studies within the Carlsbad study area have been pre-
pared for three different agricultural parcels. In general, the
agricultural parcels in the study area can be classified into
"'
three groups :
e Small, individual ownerships off main roads, less
than 40 acres in size;
a Large, individual or corporate ownerships greater
than 40 acres in size;
(D Individual or corporate ownerships adjacent to main
roads or the freeway, which may have market poten-
tial for commercial uses.
*.
One case study example will be prepared for each of these groups.
The following sections describe the study area, provide 2 market
analysis and 'a technical description of the mixed use proposals
for the Carlsbad Study Area.
The Coastal Conservancy would have two major roles in the supple-
mental use scheme for urban fringe areas. First, the Conservancy
would be the logical agency to receive the development rights or
easements on the dedicated agricultural residuals (although a
local land trust would also be acceptable). The Conservancy
could also purchase the remaining fee for consolidation or other
resale back to agricultural users. Secondly, the Conservancy
could also provide technical assistance to local governments
!/
interested in such a plan. For example, the Conservancy could \
'4.
prepareJthe pro forma analysis (such as suggested in Chapter 111
of this report), as a means of determining the most acceptable
mix of agricultural and supplemental uses. The Coastal Commission
would, especially following the institution of the Local Coastal
Plans, primarily have a policy function, that is, endorsing the
supplemental use concept as a means for securing agricultural
land.
-6 "
1. Study Area Description
a. Land Form, Habitat, and Resources
The South 'Carlsbad area transects the geonorphic unit which com-
monly runs parallel to the.San Diego County coastline, consisting
of beach, seacliff, and sea terraces. The natural landscape and
habitats have been greatly modified by human actions, including
urban development, transportation systems, and agriculture. Iie-
maining natural areas include the steep, coastal scrub/chapparal
areas, and the salt marshes surrounding the Lagoons. The littoral
zone is primarily occupied by Carlsbad State Beach, developed for
Irecreation and overnight camping. The grasslands occur upon fallow
agricultural land. Coastal scrub/chapparal occupies the steep
slopes and the arroyos. The coastal scrub/chapparal is inter-
spersed among the agricultural operations, which occupy the ter-
races and lower slopes.
d
b. Environmental Constraints
The land forms, habitats, and resources combine in nature to
define environmental amenities and constraints. Natural factors
create opportunities for, as well as'constrain human use. Natural
factors create an opportunity when a resource can be extracted or
,
I uti-lized. Natural factors constrain development, either because
of a need to protect or manage a resource or because they create
hazardous conditions. Environmental constraints in the South
Carlsbad Study Area include both resources and hazards.
\. ..
P
Major resources include the unique agricultural potential of
much of;the area, the biological resources surrounding the
lagoons, and the state beach along the ocean which is a valuable
recreation resource.
No major environmental hazards exist within the study area,
however, the area is subject to erosion problems. Sewer and
water problems are mitigated by existing public utilities.
The barrancas, in addition to having erosion problems, are
subject to landslides and fire hazards.
.~hese environmental hazards can be mitigated by responsive
t
project' siting, size, engineering and design.
c. Land Use Regulation
The study area is subject to the land use regulations of San 4
Diego County, the City of Carlsbad, and the California Coastal
Commission. The largest portion of the study area is within
the city limits of the City of Carlsbad. County of San Diego
lands include a bahd along Batiquitos Lagoon, and two large
"islands" in the center of the study area.
The portion of the study area under the jurisdiction of .Carlsbad
is primarily zoned for residential or commercial uses. The large
parcels narth of Palomar Airport Road are zoned for agriculture
and include an agricultural preserve. Carlsbad's general plan is
generally consistent with this zoning.
The co&ty lands are presently zoned for agricultural use with
permitted densities ranging from one acre. The San Diegito
Community Plan shows the county "islands" mostly in a low density
residential category. The land along Batiquitos Lagoon remains
in an agricultural classification.
Over the past eight years, the major influence on land use within
the study area has been the State Coastal Commission. This regu-
latory effort has emphasized preservation of coastal resaurces,
including recreation, scenic quality, natural resources and agri-
culture. This state regulatory effort is in the process of being
transferred Sack to the local agencies via the Local Coastal
.I
-- I
Plans (LCP's). These plans, mandated by the 1976 Coastal Act,
are currently being completed by the County of San Diego and for
9
the City of Carlsbad.
The Carlsbad LCP recommends an innovative method for preserving
agricultural land.. The method, called "Agricultural Subsidy
Credits" is essentially a variation of transfer of development
rights. In general, the LCP recommends that lands west of the
freeway receive development credits from agricultural lands east
of the freeway.
The rnariet assessment of the Carlsbad area was intended to esti-
mate the size and characteriskics of the market, and thereby de-
termine the land uses best suited for combination with agricult-
ural operations. Because of its location, the size of its market
and the strength of demand, it was clear from the start that the
area was economically capable of supporting almost any type of
urban use. As a result, the market assessment concentrates on
evaluating supplemental land uses within the Coastal Legislation's
guidelines for maintaining an agricultural economy in the area. :
fie uses.to be considered include:
01 Visitor Oriented Uses
Hotel/motel - convention facilities
Recreation and retail
Marinas and boat launching facilities.
ep Aqriculturally Oriented Uses
Produce market
Flower markets and shows
e Urban Uses
"
Industrial
Commercial
.Off ice
Residential
d
In analyzing these supplemental land uses, it is also important
to consider the variety of organizational structures under which
these land uses can be arranged - from those on small and
scattered individual parcels, to maj.or concentrations on the most
marketable locations. Each approach will result in varying de-
grees of disruption to the area, both social and environmental,
as well as significantly different levels of cost, revenue and
taxation. The market assessment intends to identify and analyze
all of these repercussions.
,,d t +& The subject area is located between Palomar Airport Road to the
north and the Batiquitos Lagoon to the south, and is bounded by
the Camino Real to the east and the Pacific Ocean on the west,
(Figure n-17) It is an area divided along its north-south axis
9
by both Interstate 5 (I-5), and the tracks of the Santa Fe
Railroad further to the east, and is bordered by Highway 101
(Carlsbad Blvd.), running parallel to Carlsbad State Beach.
The area east of 1-5 consists of low rolling hills, with the
Birtcher Business Park at the far northeast corner, and a condo-
minium project immediately to its south. Additional development
has already been approved for the adjoining properties to the
south, and will extend to the Spinnaker Hill single-family devel-
opment in the southeast corner. The remaining open land lies
primarily in two areas: in the southern half of the property
borderin-g 1-5, and a portion in the northwest section which
maintains considerable agricultural activity.
Another area of particular interest is the land along the Bati-
guitos Lagoon. Once planned for a county or regional park, it
has more recently been rezoned for agricultural cropland by the
San Diequito Community Plan. Visually, it is an exquisite sight,
though, to the east, lie portions of the La Costa developnent,
and, to the south, the Regional Coast Commission has approved two
residential projects for the near future.
I ." ,. .
A number of the study area's features detract from its value for
residential, as well as, in some cases, commercial and office use.
These include: 4
8 The tracks of the Santa Fe Railroad.
Q Two existing mobile home parks.
o The industrial uses to the north, including a sewer
treatment plant, and PG&E's visually obtrusive tower.
e The low elevation, which precludes a satisfying view
of the ocean from all but a few locations.
Q The lack of parking facilities available for users
of the South Carlsbad State Beach.
For the purpose of this study, the market - area will include the
Cities of Carlsbad, Oceanside, Vista and San Marcos.
Hotel/Motel - Convention Facilities
The demwd for overnight accommodations in the four city area con-
sists of tourism, business/commercial users, conventions and temp-
orary housing for Camp Pendleton assignees. For the Oceanside
market, studies indicate that 20% of the business is military, 20%
business/commercial, with the remaining 60% representing tourists.
Carlsbad, on the other hand, has a far heavier concentration of
tourist use.
Of significance to the area is the La Costa resort hotel. Unlike
the -area's remaining facilities, which are not full-service and -
dater primarily to tourists, La Costa's visitors are about 30% con-
vention-related, with the remainder consisting of long-term recre-
ational users. In addition, while the remaining .facilities have
an occupancy rate near 50%, La Costa's is quoted at 93%.
d
With the exception of La Costa's enviable success, growth €or the
area's hotels and motels has been relatively moderate over the
past 6 years. In fact, though growth in room nights was strong
between 1975 - 1977, it fell to 3.1% in 1978, and exper-
ienced a significant decline in 1979 (Table a-16).
In analyzing the potential for developing additional hotel/motel
accomnod-ations in the area, a number of significant facts arise.
First, as La Costa has proven, the northern San Diego area is
well accepted as a destination resort, as well as a convention
Table \ 8
Estimated Room Nights
Carlsbad 6r Vicinity/1972-79
-
SAN SAN
CARLSBAD OCEANSIDE VISTA MARCOS TOTAL % CIlANGE DIEGO CO.
1972-73 56,000 102,000 8,000 800 166,800 - 3,004,OO
1973-74 77,000 72,000 12,000 800 16 1,800 (3.0) 3,498,000
19 74- 75 76,000 78,000 15,000 800 169,800 4.9 3,767,000
,.
19 75- 76 96,000 93,000 17,000 800 209,800 23.6 4,218,000
1976-.77 129, 000 102,000 17,000 800 248,800 18.6 4,795,OQQ
1977-78 121,000 116,000 18,000 1,600 256,600 3.1 '5,165,000
19 78- 79 116,000 108,000 17,000 1,300 242,300 (5.6) 5,289,000
&
1/ Estimates based on growth in room tax collections and adjusted by the
Sm Diego Consumer Price Index; with information from the City and County
Treasurer's Office.
facility location. However, the San Diego Convention and Visitor's
Bureau wtes that, though business and touring groups accept the
North Coast as a stopping point, it is seldom regarded as a desti-
nation area. In addition, the increasing cost and decreasing avail-
ability of gasoline has encouraged the formation of group tours
organized around destination resorts. The area has the advantage
of being situated on a major thoroughfare, and it seems clear that
if the right incentives were provided - hotels, restaurants, recre-
ation, ocean access - the area could recapture and more than likely
expand its share of overnight visitors.
! ..' ..
At present, movement towards development of additional overnight
accommodations is limited, although Oceanside has included a major
facility in its redevelopment plans. The Pea Soup Anderson Company
has leased land at the corner of Palomar Airport Road and Inter-
state 5, and, in spite of its excellent location, the project is'
unlikely to incorporate the range of visitor attractions best suited
for the area's development.
Recreation and Retail .-
In the north county area, the most undeveloped potential lies in
the recreation market, with the Carlsbad and South Carlsbad State
Beaches being the principal attractions both for local residents.
and outside visitors. At present, the Carlsbad State Beach attracts
nearly one million visitors annually, while South Carlsbad, despite
being primarily reserved for campers, attracts well over 700,000,
(Table a- 19 presents the growth in visitor attendance over the -
past decade. )
Table a- \? -
Visitor Attendance
1970-79
South Carlsbad State Beach
Day Total Camping Drive-In Walk-In Total Camping Persons Turn-Aways
19 70- 71
1971- 72
1972-73
1973-74
19 74- 75
1975-76 ’
19 76- 77
1977-78
1978-79
1979 Year
41 , 420
42,385
N/A
N/A
39 , 828
30 , 379
28,358
36 , 354
25 , 999
21 , 843
75,532
57,323
N/A
N/A
107 , 752
147,450
179 , 205
551,501
556 , 080
513 , 122
116,952
99,708
N/A
N/A
147,580
177,829
207,563
587,855
582 , 079
534,965
155,757
160,050
N/A
N/A
169 , 175
337,827
199,006
181 , 858
182 , 150
203,606
272 , 709
259 , 758
311 , 804
287,350
316,755
515 , 656
406,569
769,713
764 , 229
738,571
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
15,313
25 , 016
20,098
14,476
20,055
10 , 408
Source: California Department of Parks and Recreation, Visitor Attendance
Monthly Totals. (R-48)
While these figures independently represent an already substan-
tial maxket, forecasts predict considerable growth in the demand
for recreational facilities for the area's beaches. The Cali-
fornia State Parks and Recreation's PARIS model, used by the
Comprehensive Planning Agency, assumes a local growth rate equal
to the growth rate in population plus a one percent growth in per
capita participation. This, by itself, represents a 10% annual
increase in demand, yet it is a figure considered low because it
doesnot include outside visitor participation - the San Diego
Regional Coastal Access Study indicated that over 40% of north
cQast beach patrons were from outside the north coast communities.
b ..
.. .I
Using these figures, in conjunction with historical records, con-
servative estimates would place demand levels at 2.5 million visi-
With the help of surveys made by the San Diego Convention and Vis-
itors Bureau, one can go a step further and estimate the levels
of visitor expenditures to be expected in the future (TableP-zo ). -
.
Visitor Expenditures - San Diego County (1979)
Miscellaneous Retail Entertainrent
Food, Liquor &
Hotel/Motel
Resident ' s Guests
Campers
Day Visitors
$17.39
6.59
6.59
8.70
$1.86
1.47
.73
2-70
Because local residents are such a large component of the total
beach users, $5 .OO was determined to be the average daily expendi- -,
ture. With this figure, visitors to the beach would be spending
between $12.5 and $15 million annually by 1985, The South Carls-
bad State Beach, were it to retain its share of the total visitor
load, would be responsible for $5 - 6 million in total sales.
Using a standard conversion factor of $100 of sales per square
foot area, beach visitors alone could support as much as 50,000 -
60,000 square feet of recreational/retail space by 1985.
Unfortunately, besides the beaches, the area offers few other recrea-
tional attractions. Only the San Luis Rey Mission in Oceanside, and
the Carlsbad Raceway have the potential to attract substantial
numbers of visitors. However, Carlsbad has made considerable
efforts to enhance and promote its downtown shopping facilities,
.
./
and Oceanside, because it provides the only berthing location
between San Diego and Dana Point, has the capability for ex-
pansion.
"
~. "__
Clearly, however, the beaches are the area's principal recrea-
tional asset, and the promot.ing of economic development will
necessarily revolve around them. At present, however, the
South Carlsbad State Beach presents a number of obstacles to
development of its full potential - most important among them
are the
beach's
.I .. .. The San
problem
lack of parking and accessibility, as well as the
designation as a primarily campgng facility.
Diego Regional Coastal Access Study regards the parking
at the South Carlsbad State Beach as severe. There are
only 226 off-street parking spaces with roughly 960 more along
Highway 101. The result is that the vast majority of day users
must walk onto the beach. (Table IT- 1'3 ) Further complicating
the situation is the existence
at the north end, the other at
venience from both the lack of
of only two access points - one
the southerly tip, The incon-
parking and accessibility inevit-
ably curtails the area's development. Added to this is the
thick shrubbery which hides the entire length of beach and,
thereby, restricts the connection between beach-goers and
potential hotel, retail or entertainment activities.
As one of only two major camping locations along the North
Coast, the South Carlsbad State Beach's camping facilities
P
are important to the area's development (see figures in
Table%- D). On the one hand, it is apparent from data col-
lected'by the California Department of Parks and Recreation
that the numbers of potential campers in the area could easily
support an additional thirty camping spaces, thereby increasing
visitor flow. On the other hand, it is equally clear that were
the area not primarily a camping area, the number of day visit-
ors would increase substantially.
_I_ .a
.. I
.I
c- - Marina and Boat Launching Facilities
The Oceanside Marina is the only berthing facility between Sari
Diego and Dana Point. Its 800 berths are presently filled to
capacity with a waiting list of over 400 people, and a minimum
one and a half year wait. Clearly, additional berthing facili-
ties would be well received along the North Coast.
With this in mind, the Xarbor Office is presently negotiating
with Camp Pendleton for the acquisition of land on which to con-
struct an additional 400 to 500 berths. However, negotiations
are complex, and actual construction will require numerous agency
approvals, as well as financing. For these reasons, it is unlikely
that capacity will increase in the very near future.
: ._.
.. .._I .
On a lesser scale, boat launching facilities are also in demand.
Snug Harbor is a small, privately owned launching facility on
Aqua Hedionda Lagoon, which is extremely busy during good weather.
The property was recently sold.
Quite besides their'boat handling capacity, these facilities pro-
vide the focus for other economic activity - supplies, repairs,
parking, storage, restuarants, and even some retail and hotel
units.
Agricultirally Oriented Outle'ts - Flower Markets and Shows
The principal agricultural products in Carlsbad are cut flowers and
bulbs, while the adjoining San Diequito area has extensive green-
house facilities for flower and house plant cultivation. There
.
. .' .
!
seems, however, to have been little effort to either organize a
flower market catering to visitors, or locally market the avocados
and citrus produce from Escondido. It would seem that efforts to
-
organize markets, shows or fairs, would probe not only economic-
ally viable, but also promotionally valuable to the area. The
flower and garden market could provide the focus for a number of
other visitor-serving facilities.
e. Produce Market
At present there are two natural food. centers operating in the
market area, providing specialty foods, bakery goods, fresh pro-
duce, meats, deli items and ethnic foods. These centers provide a
marketing focus serving both local residents and visitors., The
Hadley Orchard outlet, at the corner of Palomar Airport Road and
1-5, is a large facility offering a wide selection of edible goods
in a comfortable, interesting and non-institutional environment.
A similar center has begun operating in San Marcos under indivi-
dual shop ownership. Here, again, an attractive marketing concept
could serve as the focus for other vis.itor-serving facilities.
1 c. Commercial Uses
Currently, the total number of households within the study area is
too small to sustain a shopping center of any size. Centers
planned- for surrounding communities will serve them suffi.ciently.
However, if planned residential units are added to the total, the 2,500
units and 5,000 to 6,000 people, will be, by themselves, nearly
sufficient to support a neighborhood center of about ten acres.
Residential Units within Study Area
Existing
Alta Mira Townhomes 700
Spinnaker Subdivision 300
Mobile Home Park 300
P 1 anned
!.’ .. Covington Subdivision 300
Standard Pacific 400
Pacesetter Homes 300
Shell Oil 200
Total 2,500 units x 2.2
people/household =
Population Total 5,500
If the area were to be developed further into residential use, the
demand for retail space would become even more pronounced. Given
the potential of developing the remaining 1,700 acres within the
coastal zone, and assuming a density of three to five units per
. .. ”. . . - . . .” -
acre, would result in an additional 11,000 to 19,000 residential
with an additional 200,000 to 300,000 square feet of space. -
However, though this center be large enough to attract shoppers
from surrounding comztunities, it would also experience strong
competition from nearby regional centers. The Plaza Carnino Real
Regional Shopping Center is presentlyundergoingexpansion with a
fourth major retailer, while a second center with three major
stores is planned on Highway 78 near El Camino Real.
3. Industrial Uses
Construction for industrial use has averaged between 500,000 and
600,000 ‘square feet a year for the four city market area over the
past six years. (TableX-”Y -
Table - ?-t
Estimated Industrial Construction (sq.ft.)
Carlsbad and Vicinitv / 1974-1979
9
1974
1975
19 76
1977
19 78
1979
San Diego
Carlsbad Oceanside vista San Marcos Total County
163,000 48,000 - 78,000 289,000 3,491,000
154,000 24,000 - 148 000 326,000 1,875,000
200,000 11,000 - 142,000 353,000 1,653,000
56,000 66,000 27,000 295,000 444,000 2,809,000
98,000 308,000 - 800,000 1 206,000 4,96 3,000
508000 23,000 11,000 772,000 856,000 3,308 8 000
.
MOS~ of the new development took place in San Marcos where land
was readily and cheaply available, and where 678 acres still re-
main available. Oceanside also has large industrial areas near
...
Palomar Airport and along Oceanside Boulevard. Altogether, the
area has nearly 3,700 acres planned, or available, for industrial
development. TableD-*3 presents a breakdown of the area's land
available for industrial use.
Table E
Available Industrial Land
Carlsbad and Vicinity - May 1980
Name -
Carlsbad
Palomar Airport
Avenida Encinas
Carlsbad Oak
Koll Property
I -.: .. .
Oceanside
Oceanside Blvd.
Oceanside Airport
Vista
IMED
San Marcos
Size
Location Stage (Acres 1
Palomar Airport Road Under development
Coastal Zone Under development
Northeast of El
Camino Real & Palomar
Road Planned
West of El Camino and
north of Palomar Road Planned
Highway 5 to Vista Under development
Yission Avenue Under development
Sycamore, east of 78 Planned
1,200
75
400
300
80 0
100
100
San Marcos Indus tri a1
Area
Unnamed
Unnamed
San Marcos Blvd. Under development
78 and Bingahm Dr. Planned
Barham and Hill Dr. Planned
6 00
18
60
TOTAL 3,653
San Diego Regional Industrial Data Book (19771, by the Compre-
hensive Planning Organization. Updated by interviews with
City .Planning Departments.
.
,- .. ' . .. . .. ..
Using a 25% coverage rate, the available 3,700 acres converts in-
to 40 million square feet of industrial space. If construction
took place at the presently estimated 800,~~o square feet per year,
the land would be absorbed over the next fifty years.
The positive impact of industrial use is primarily on employment.
In fact, within the subject area , manufacturing employment accounts
for nearly half of total employment, and has more than doubled be-
tween 1972 and 1978 -- on average, an annual growth rate of over
14%.
Table 3 z4 - !.'
Manufacturing Employment
Carlsbad and Vicinity - 1972-78 .. .
San Diego Carlsbad Oceanside Vista San Marcos Total,$ County
1972 489 1,413 58 1 , 283 3,243 65 , 672
1975 1 , 301 1,765 421 1 , 836 5,323 75 , 080
1978 2,431 1,999 426 2,153 7,000 87,768
Source: Comprehensive Planning Organization
'The area, in general, has considerable potential for industrial use,
with, perhaps, the best locations along Interstate 5. 'With the proper
environmental protections, industrial use could prove extremely ben-
eficial in efforts to maintain and subsidize agricultural production.
i..
.
h. Office Uses
Over the past 6 years, the market area has constructed office
space at an average of 127,000 square feet per year. !lost of
the expansion has been used to serve medical and dental facil-
ities, as well as moderate quality bank branches. (TableT-zy) -
Estimated Office Space Construction
Carlsbad and Vicinity ,1974-79 (square feet)
San San Diego Carlsbad Oceanside Vista Marcos Total County
19 74 71,000 20,000 6,000 7,000 105,000. 1,532,000
1975 '11,700 - .13, 000 ,, 23,000 ~ .. 48,000 734,000
1976 30,000 - 9,000 21,000 60,000 1,045,000
1977 30,000 98,000 61,000 15,000 204,000 1,046,000
1978 134,000 13,000 87,000 31,000 266,000 879,000
8
1979 19,000 45,000 13,000 77,000 3,414,000
However, the area's expansion in office construction, representing
only 7% of the county total, compares very negatively with the
area's 218 share of the county's industrial valuations, 21% of the
population growth, and 11% of the employment growth.
In addition, and further emphasizing the area's "soft" narket for
office space, is the fact that even this level of developrnent is
.
not being fully absorbed. With rents typically averaging $.80 to
$. 85 gross per square foot, the occupancy rate for new build-
ings is about 80%, with very little pre-leasing.
.L
The soft condition of the market seems to prevail as far south
along Interstate 5 as Lomas Santa Fe Drive in the San Diequito
section of the county. i3elow this intersection, however, market
conditions are markedly different, with industrial land being
rapidly converted into high quality and high price office use.
In fact, there are roughly 155 acres of planned office expansion
located between the highly developed San Diego market and the four
$ity Carlsbad area - 100 acres at the intersection of Del Mar
Heights and 1-5, 25 acres at Camel Valley Road and 1-5, and 30
acres at the northwest intersection of Santa Fe Drive and 1-5.
Given existing community plan guidelines for the area, this con-
verts into between two and three nillion square feet of office
4
space - an area that could be absorbed, at present estimated rates,
within six to eight years.
Because of the high demand, escalating costs and rapid absorption
in this southern section, the Carlsbad area should begin to cap-
ture an increasing portion of the county's office construction.
Aided also by its growing resident and employment base, it is likely
that by -the mid-eighties the four city area will account for 12 to
15% of the county's office construction - 175,000 to 200,000
scpare feet per year.
(1) Including taxes, insurance, utilities and maintenance.
The likely locations for office development are the existing in-
dustrial-areas, and the downtown sections of Carlsbad and Ocean-
side. While, at present, there are no locations within the area
to compare with existing and planned office parks to the south,
and while such a development would be infeasible over the next
few years, an active program could certainly be possible mid-
decade.
i. Residential Uses
Both the number of building permits issued for residential con-
struction and the Comprehensive Planning Office's estimates for
housing .inventory indicate that the four city area has added an
average of 3,500 homes annually over the past 6 years. This
amounts to 158 of the county's permits and 18% of its change in
inventory.
1 ..:
." ., , I.. ,.I
-.
9
However, despite these seemingly healthy figures, residential con-
struction has been significantly limited by the Enciko'Water Pol-
..
lution Control Facility's April 1977 moratorium on sewer pernits -
- i. ". > a situation under which permits are available only when an alloca- 2
.' tion is available. Because the facility serves Carlsbad, San 1
., Marcos and Vista, but is not responsible for Oceanside, there
exists a drarnatic difference in the construction patterms of ., ',
/'
i. Oceanside and the other three cities (TableD"*-sG). In 1977, the
1 -
four cities issued an inordinately high total of 7,997 permits, of
which Oceanside accounted for. 428. By 1978, with the moratorium
fully in effect, the number of pernits fell. to a more normal total
of 2,957, and Oceanside now accounted for 58% of them, By 1979,
its share was a full 65%. Even more illustrative of the problem
4
is the situation in Carlsbad - while in 1977, the city issued
2,762 permits, the average for 1978 and 1979 was a mere 160.
Residential Building Permits
Carlsbad and Vicinity / 1974-79
1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 ' Tot-a1
Oceanside .. 2,036 691 1,038 3,331 1,707 1,472 10,275
! Carlsbad
Vista
619
290
335 .. 1,799 2,762
162 912 1,195
146
736
174 ', 5,835
503 3,798
San Marcos 149 198 553 709 368 1 cs. 2,078
Total 3,094 1,386 4,302 7,997 2,957 2,250 21,986
/
x. \: recently been allowed 9,000 new residential connections to be dis-
tributed in the following way.
.
.'
.' .
Carlsbad
Vista
L .San Marcos
Other Districts
2,246
2,646
1,571
3,537
Total 9,000 units
Unless these cities are able to purchase additional connections
from other districts, rates of growth, presently estimated at be-
tween 4,000 and 4,800 units per year, would exhaust these units
within two years. However, new plant improvements to be completed
by 1983 will allow for another 8,000 units, and it is expected .
that beyond that point long-run growth will be accommodated through
marginal additions to the plant.- %"': ..
As mentioned above, growth rates for residential construction, as
estimated by the Comprehensive Planning Agency, amount to an ave-
rage of 4,500 units per year through 1995. . These projections,
based primarily on expected levels of employment growth, compare
9
."
." .-
we with the number of developments either already planned or
with pending applications. The four city area presently sets these
projections at 47,000 units, which, over the next ten years, would
almost exactly cover the estimated demand. (Tablen's?)
I__
.’ . . ... .
Planned Residential Projects
Carlsbad and Vicinity
May 1980
St age
Carlsbad
La Costa (new sections of 2,500 acres)
Covington Bros. (part of suS ject area)
Standard Pacific (part of subject area)
Pacesetter Homes (part of subject area)
’ -. Shell Oil Option (200 acres in subject area)
Applications
!
Sub-To tal
Oce ansi de
Applications
Southridge Trails
Leisure Village
Collins Development Co.
Ivey Ranch
Sub-Total
Vista
Shadow Ridge by Doon rAs
South Melrose 422
San Marcos
Potential
Housing
Master Plan 10,669 !
Coastal Commis-
sion Case 300
Get sewer, then 400
Coastal Corn-
mission
Sewer & Coastal 300
Commission Ap-
proval
Have Regional
Commission
Approval
Approved
In-Process
Pending
Newly Filed
Newly Filed
Master Plan
Approved
Specific Plan
Processing
3,500
450
2 10
1,300
600
17,729
10,776
1,467
1,084
3,670
3,907
20,854
4,000
4,000
Approved Projects
Grand Total
Waiting for sewer 700
47,283
Source: Consultants Estimate, R-9, R-29, 1-31, 1-32, 1-33 and 1-34.
!
Projecting the breakdown between the various types of residential
construc?tion is a difficult problem, in that it involves changing
consumer preferences in both ownership and design characteristics.
Nevertheless, historical data does provide an analysis of trends.
Over the past 6 years, permits for single family units accounted
for 65% of the four city total, with the remaining 35% in multi-
family units. For the county, the breakdown was closer to 50/50,
Included in these totals were both townhouses and condominiums,
but their actual share is difficult to assess. While Security
Pacific indicated that condominiums accounted for between 2% and
4% of total construction for the four city area for over the past
6 years, Recorded Facts Magazine showed that residential sales of
condominiums amounted to 19% of the total in 1979. Despite the
disparity, the figures do show a steadily rising demand for
Bnd attached housing-. In
fact, planned projects for the area indicated that between 50%
and 70% of new units are to be attached housing,
Construction of apartments, on the other hand, continues to be
constrained by low rents. Added to this is the fact that apart-
ment demand is in many cases filled by the rental of condominiums.
The North Coast Village project in Oceanside - recently convert.ed
to condominiums - showed sales of 70% to owner/investors. The
.
investment in ownership involves short-term cash flow losses,
which wi+l,.be more than recaptured by the long-term appreciation
in property value.
I. ..
San Diego County.
Agriculture in San Diego County has been the subject of extensive
research over the last few years. The County commissioned a major
study, an economic analysis of agriculture in San Diego County
(R-20) in 1978. More recently, the County has completed a further
analysis of coastal agriculture as a part of their LCP (R-23).
A specific analysis of agriculture within the study area wa.s com-
I ..' pleted .as a part of the Carlsbad LC?. In addition to these public
agency commissioned studies, several analyses have been prepared
for specific parcels within the study area such as the sea bluff
properties (R-21). The purpose of the supplemental use study is
not to repeat these prior efforts. Data has been drawn from these
works that was useful in completing the farm unit analyses, and
other components of this study.
The major conclusions of the various agricultural studies with . .
regard to the study area are quite clear -- first, it is difficult,
.. " . -
in the long term, to expect agriculture to continue on land which
has a market value substantially above its value for agricultural
production. Second, in addition to land values often in excess
of $25,000 per acre, the area's agriculture also suffers operational
conflicts with the surrounding urban uses, and other problems such
as poor accessibility and high water costs.
Although the Carlsbad area is subject to urban development and .
. .. ..
growth, it remains an important agricultural area. Fresh market
tomatoea are the principal crop. Of a total 3,300 acres of land
under production in 1978, 2,600 acres were devoted to tomato pro-
duction. Other crops include field flowers, strawberries, and
vegetables such as snap beans, and squash (R-19). Tomatoes grown
in the Carlsbad area comprise 47 percent of the County's tomato
production and 8 percent of national consumption. Although there
are production constraints, such as sloping lands, soil limitations
and expensive imported water, production is very high for tomatoes,
averaging 30 tons per acre year, in comparison with 11 tons per
acre for the state as a whole (R-19). Many field flower varieties
are also uniquely suited to,growing conditions found in the area.
The primary resource is the maritime climate which provides a con-
I_ I 8.
tinuously moderate, frost-free environment.
The advantage of the coastal agricultural production is a function
9
of both an optimum plant-climate for certain crops, such as field
flowers, strawberries, etc., and the ability to producz crops at
an advantageous time in the crops' annual market cycle, as is the
case with tomatoes. Winter tomatoes bring a very high premium,
making coastal agricultural areas.competitive with foreign (Mexi-
can) markets. The competitive advantage of coastal agriculture
can also be expressed in terms of energy consumption. The mild,
moist climate leads to lower evapotranspiration rates and, hence,
lower water demand as compared with hot inland areas (this advan-
tage is more than offset by the high cost of irrigation water in
i
I
the study area). Also, cooling and heating requirements for
greenhou_ses. are much lower in coastal areas.
The continued availability of agricultural land is obviously the
key to preserving agriculture in the study area. From a market
standpoint, the competitive advantage of agriculture within the
study area will only improve as energy and foreign trade constraints
become more dominate. The greatest problem is the value of land
for other, non-agricultural uses. At present, most of the acreage
under production is leased to agricultural operators. Agriculture .
is viewed by many of the landowners as an interim use which re-
dgces the cost of carrying the investment. Landowners, including
farmers who have experienced .this cycle in other areas ,such as in
Orange County, are simply waiting for eventual converstion-to urban
use. The cost of the land leases are very favorable, averaging
around $200 per acre per year. This is a ve.ry low rent in compari-
son to other similarly productive agricultural regions. For example,
in the Pajaro region of Santa Cruz County, land which produces simi-
lar income producing lettuce, cole crops or strawberries leases for
over $500 per acre per year. The value of the crops produced in
the study area could probably support somewhat higher rents and by
extension, agricultural land values. What is occurring presently
-1~ is landowners are subsidizing agricultural operations with rclat-
ively inexpensive leases. Landowners are relying upon land value
appreciation as a primary source of economic return.
4. Farm Unit Analysis
The farfli unit analysis for the Carlsbad Study Area differs from
that of Mendocino County, as in the latter example, the basic
agricultGra1 activity was assumed to continue basically as is --
a dairy/beef cattle operation. The supplemental uses proposed
would simply augment the operation directly or provide an addi-
tional use which would have limited affect upon the actual oper-
ation's existing ranch (while providing a new source of income),
The Carlsbad-Study Area case studies, on the contrary, involve
land divisions which allow a "supplemental" use on one panel or
'parcels and agricultural use on the other larger parcel or parcels.
Another major difference relates to the manner in which existing
agricultural land is. farmed,. Existing operators typically farm
.. . ,
several units which may be in different locations. The minimum
ek . '\ economic size for a tomato farm unit was recently estimated to be
I 13 acres, based on the past five (5) years of price experience
\
.,
,/
(R-I).' For purposes of this study, a larger combined unit size is
utilized. This is' because existing operators tend not to farm
f? "minimum economic units", and a more representative unit was de-
>
- sired. For purposes of this analysis, the farm unit size under
consideration contains 90 acres of cropland. The description of
this farm unit applies to all of the subsequent parcel case stud-
ies. The "owner prototypes" would each operate a 90 acre farm,
of which the case study unit would comprise a portion of the entire
farm unit.
.
I
m inportant distinction must be drawn between the present farm
unit anZrlysis and other analyses, such as those contained in the
more comprehensive "An Economic Analysis of Aqriculture in San
Diego County'' (R-20). The present farm unit analysis is intended
to demonstrate .the actual economics of three hypothetical farm
units, each representing a unique owner prototype. The farm unit
analysis is essentially a cash flow pro forma analysis. Past
efforts at preparing economic analyses of farm units typically
are based on statistically derived information and are shown
only for a single year (usually the first year). Although these.
economic analyses are often useful, they fail to demonstrate the
broader implications of farm unit operations over time, including
tax advantages, the impact of inflation, and appreciation of
..,.
assets. They also fail to show the implications of farm unit
economics on owner/operators with various economic circumstances.
a. Description of the Farm Unit
For purposes of. the Carlsbad Study Area case studies, the farm
unit is a 90-acre unit composed of several non-contiguous parcels.
The actual land leased or owned may be greater than 90 acres and
include access roads, storage areas, non-arable land, such as
barrancas or other, steeply sloping land. The principal crop
of the farm is pole tomatoes. Supplemental croFs are grown on
land which is rotated out of tomato production every third year.
", .. .. -
In any given year, 60 acres are in tomatoes, and the remaining
30 acres in a legume, squash or green manure crop. The practice
4
of rotating crops, while not done by all current operators, is
considered a management practice which will promote long-term
productivity of the land, since tomatoes deplete soil nutrients
rapidly.
b. Owner Prototypes
The owner prototypes for the Carlsbad farm unit analysis include
an existing owner, a new owner, and a leaseholder. The lease-
holder is added to the "owner prototypes" because of the large ' ..:
proportion of land which is farmed by leaseholders in the Carls-
bad area. For purposes of conparison, each operator is assumed
,.
to operate identical farm units as described above: the same
acreage, same cropping pattern, similar machinery and equipment
and, in general, achieve similar operational costs. Each of the
owner types is purely hypothetical. The financial assumptions
regarding the existing owner prototype do not reflect the actual
finances of any particular current owner or operator. The pur-
pose of the prototypes is simply to illustrate the impact of a
range of owner types on the economics of the farm unit.
The differences between the owner prototypes are expressed in the
mechanics of the farm unit analysis. Assumptions are made con-
cerning each owner prototype's investments, costs of ownership,
tax advantages, etc. In general, the existing owner has a large,!
financial advantage in that his cost basis is low, relative to
."
the cost required to "buy in" at the present time. A new owner
must face substantial investments and debt service, and may ex-
perience losses, especially during the first few years of opera-
tion. The leaseholder, typically does not carry the total cost
of the land but at the same time does not enjoy benefits associ-
ated with ownership such as tax advantages, appreciation, etc.
c. Farm Unit Costs and Income Summary
The production costs and income associated with the farm unit
I :- .: are shown on Table 11- 18 . Figuresusedare derived from current
sources and represent the expenses and income of an actual' farm
-
,, . - ..
I...
unit. The cost and income summary includes only farm commodity
income and direct operational costs. Other costs such as debt
service, taxes, insurance, etc., are included in the subsequent
steps of the analysis. The gross operating margin of the Carls-
bad farm unit site is shown to be $134,700.
d. Investment Cost Analysis
Investment costs associated with the farm unit for each owner
prototype are shown on Table II-TY . The basic components of
machinery, equipment, and land are the same in each case, but
the cost basis, and method of financing varies,hence, three
.'. . ,
distinct cost estimates result.
-
.. . .
I
I !
I
I !
I
UNIT-
5-60
E 240
I
T ls(l
r
TEK 1
:YEA%) -
% ......
.......
.....
.....
5 . . - . .~.._ -
.- ....... '"
-..- . ..
.- .""_
.. t .
....... h.
.".... . . . .-. ._. ,
!' . .......
ll . . -..
e .' .. ""_.
#I
"
.. "
. I-
I a,-
.-
"
"
....
..
..
..
-... "
._
.. ...- "- .
...... - .
.. ."_ - :o;rsz - 20,252 -
..
...
..
.. i I I I
3 I
"
IPIVESI E 3 Y CAR YE ,o PkMt hl -
" - .
......
..
. ...
.......
.....
..
..
'7"-
.
_. .
...
LA40
- -
IrJFLApm, IVI
I
..
The existing operator is in the best position because the land
is fully owned. The analysis shows this owner purchasing new
equipment when, in fact, he would most likely have purchased
machinery some time ago. In this case, the overall machinery
cost would also be lower.
The leasehold operator has lower investment cost than the new
I land at its agricultural value, and is deed restricted to agri-
j \\ ,C.ultural use. It is estimated that this value is $4,800 per
e. Farm Unit Cash Flow Pro Forma
The farm unit gross operating margin and investment cost estimates
are combined on Table 11- 30 in a cash flow pro forma analysis is
intended to demonstrate farm unit costs and income over time and
-
project net economic return.
the new owner operator.
ThX f LO4
.,
..
8.
9.
10
1
I c74 .... k. .. .. .. .. .... .. ... .......
9.874 ,.. ~
2 I.
"_
27.
I
rhy PLOW
....... __ ._.. ...,.
- ., I ..
.:... :.., ,j . . ... .. .... .. .. ...
YEAR
I
.... ..
...
". .-..- ....... .,.-.. ......
.. .I
13 470
-. . Is
3-
IO00
:;.:. ! .,.,
-/
....... .: . cj ..: .. ... .....
2-356 7
U,67 I
I 478
9 87't /.
-
.. 1 . "D
9 874- / 9374 1.
q,35"
83349
. " -
I
...
The figures included on the pro forma analysis are expressed in
constant 1980 dollars. The annual inflation assumption for the
10-year period shown is 10%. Some costs and revenues are ex-
pected to keep pace with inflation while other costs will dimin-
ish. The costs which will diminish with inflation are those
associated with long-term loans. For example, a land payment
in 1980 dollars of $47,671 would equal $28,149 in 1985 if infla-
tion continues at its current pace.
Xnflation is advantageous to an operator, because major fixed
cost investments decline in then current dollar terms, while
gross operating margin tends to rise relative to the general rate
of inflation.
’.’
5. Mixed Use Programs
The nixed use programs for the Carlsbad Study Area consist of
three
found
8
8
e
.. *.
case studies, one for each of three classes of property
in the study area, which include the following:
Small individual ownerships off main roads, less
than 40 acres in size.
Large individual or corporate ownerships greater than
40 acres in size.
Individual or corporate ownerships adjacent to main
.roads or the freeway, which have market potential for
commercial use. -_ *." . .
Each case study involves a different type of use which relates
to the market potential within the class in which it falls. The
4
first case study involves the mix of low density single family
residences and agricultural uses; the second, a mix of commercial
and agricultural uses, and the third, a mix of planned residential
community and agricultural uses. No specific farm unit is de-
veloped for each of the case studies. Rather, it is assumed
that the agricultural residual of each would be part of a larger
operation as described in the farm unit analysis. This assumption
reflects current operations and simplifies the analysis of farm
unit economics. It does not imply that units smaller than the
100-acre unit described in the farm unit analysis would not be
. ~.- -?
economica.lly fe.as-.ibi.e-, A mixed use proposal on a parcel could
involve-a single farm operation under the right circumstances.
/,-” .~ -
The case studies are presented as examples. They do not repre-
sent detailed project proposals, and do not have approval or
San Diego, or the California Coastal Cortuttission.
a. Small Individual Ownerships
The first case study is directed at the relatively small (less
thh 30 acres) ownerships not adjacent to major roads. The main
concentration of these small parcels is located in the central
part of the study area, in a large county "island" within Carls-
bad's city limits. Because of the location, size, and agricul-
tural suitability of this area, low density residential develop-
ment is the most appropriate supplemental use. The basic concept
would be to restrict overall densities to reflect existing zoning, \
while allowing the creation of smaller - lots, down to one-half
acre in .size. Density .bonuses .would be offered for dedicating
i ;.:
(where environmental conditions permit) .
This concept is suitable for the area because the mix of agri- 9
cultural and residential use has already been established in the
area. The agriculture presently being conducted includes very
high value production from greenhouses and nursery crops, in ad-
dition to tomatoes, strawberries, and other row crops. The ad-
ditional residential use would have two major positive impadts
on agriculture in the area. First, roads would be constructed
whichwould.improve access to agricultural parcels (this is cur-
rently a very serious problem, since existing roads are not
surfaced and are prone to flooding and erosion.) Second, the
land dedicated to agricultural use would be valued by its agri-
cultural productive capacity. Currently, there are examples of
operators who have tried to enter agricultural operations by paying
for non-agricultural land values. While this may work for some
under the best conditions, over time, it will lead to financial
difficultiesorthe conversion of the land to other uses.
Negative impacts of the additional residential use would primarily
include operational conflicts with the remaining agricultural op-
erations. This problem must be considered in each case, The type
of agriculture being conducted and the overall density of potential
residential use under the coneept suggest that operational conflicts
can be managed by adequate siting, setbacks, etc.
1 ..: Figure XI- 3\ is a schematic diagram demonstrating the land value
implications of the density transfer concept. The parcel..shown and
. . 1 _. .. "
the specific values are hypothetical-and used only to demonstrate
the effects of density transfer on a small parcel. The%chematic
implies a method for estimating value of agricultural land subject
to some residential use demand. Each parcel (or potential parcel)
must be considered a building site. This building site is given a
value by the current market, regardless of the parcel's size (other
factors, such as access, visual amenities, etc., being equal) The
estimate, shown in Figure 11-3! -I for a rural, undeveloped building
site is $60,000, as an estimated average base value. Additional
value of a parcel is created by its residual value for agricultural
production, - and the possibility of the creation of
other building sites through future land divisions. The latter is
not a factor in this case study, since the proposed building sites
.. . ...
are small and the residual agricultural parcel is deed restricted
to agricultural use.
The significant aspect of the density transfer concept applied
for residential supplemental use is that market demand for rural
residential, and the land values which follow, can be realized
while maink.aining much of the most productive agricultural land.
The proposal, as shown in Figdre 11- 3\ , would result in the
following:
-
\ o 18.5 acres of the original 20 acre parcel would be deed
restricted for agricultural use (with no further divisions);
one building site would be permitted. This land could be
1 ..: ..
operated by the original owner or sold or leased td a
operator. a
e The three other building sites created would generate
new
$180,000 for the original landowner which could be invested
in a continuing farm operation,
Values shown are estimated and used for comparison and analytical
purposes. Actual values will vary with market conditions, and the
specific qualities of the site.
Implementation of a density transfer concept for the county "island"
area would require two main steps:
8 The existing county zoning, S-90 (lo), would have to be
amended. The S-90 zone is intended to hold areas such as
county islands within cities in parcel sizes which make
eventual urban conversion efficient. In this case, the
parcel size minimum is 10 acres. Amendment of the S-90
zone to allow density transfer would permit a moderate
increase in density. If it is concluded that the entire
area will be annexed at some future date, at which time
a higher density use would be permitted, a simple solution,"
6G"be to have the agriculturaa--deed restrictions - -. .." run . ,)
- __ . . .. --- " . ".._ -
. .~. .." " . .~- I /"-'
/' " ._._ .
\,, for a .given period, say 15 or 20 years: Increased devel-
~- . - 4 - . ,/
L"-""~". . " ." " opment should also be contingent upon annexation and the .
availability of public services.
- -. . ..
Q Second, the California Coastal Commission will ha ve:. to
accept the concept of residential supplemental use in the
area as a practical approach to preserving agricd%ural
land.
b, , Large Parcels with Commercial Potential
This case study considers a large existing agricultural parcel
which has potential for commercial use. Two areas within the
study area have potential for such a proposal, primarily because
of direct access to a freeway interchange. The first area sur-
rounds the 1-5 freeway. interchange at Poinsettia Lane. The
market study found this area extremely / attractive for developing
a visitor-serving commercial facility. The theme of the facility
would combine commercial facilities with access to the ocean (in-
volving redevelopment of the existing state beach), and local
agricultural production (particularly, flowers) . Several large
parcels exist in this area where a portion'of the entire facility
could coexist with ongoing agricultural operations. The agri-
culture would be a productive use as well as contribute ")to the
.,
: . .. ..,
theme of the overall development.
The second area where a mix of commercial and agricultural opera-
tions could exist is north of the Poinsettia site surrounding the
1-5 and Palomar Airport Road interchange. Visitor and local serv-
ing commercial facilities presently exist in this area, and further
development would simply be an extension of this.
The case study is presented for an actual parcel near the
Palomar Airport Road interchange. The parcel is currently in agri-
cultural use and surrounded :bn three sides by lands within an
agricultural preserve. The parcel has frontage on Palomar
Airport Road and Paseo Del Norte. It is shown on Figure 11- \L -
The parcel is 82.02 acres in size and owned by the Carltas Comp-
any.
The mixed use proposal for this parcel involves a single land di-
vision and rezoning of a portion of the parcel for commercial use.
As shown in Figure 11- ?L, a 200 to 300 foot deep strip along
Paseo Del Norte would be subdivided from the larger parcel, and
)n -
zoned for commercial use. The parcel(s) wou equal approximately
nine (9) acres, or 10% of the entire parcel at present.
The entire parcel pr-sently has an assessed market value of $2,822
per acre. Actual market value for the entire parcel is not known,
.. -.
but other largeparcels, zoned for commercial or industriaLuse,
in the area are on the market asking $.50 to $1.00 per square foot.
Since the parcel is zoned for agricultural use -- “(10) -- by a
the City of Carlsbad, its market value will be speculative, De-
velopment would require a rezoning, in addition to requiring a
State Coastal Commission permit.
Small undeveloped comercially zoned par6els in the area with
good access, similar to the case study parcel, are currently on
the market for $4.00 to $6.00 per square foot.
/ a-
For purposes of this analysis, the existing parcel's value is
assumed to be $.SO per square foot. The proposed commercial lot.'s
value is assumed to be $5.00 per square foot. A comparison of the
implied value of the existing parcel with the mixed use proposal
is shown on Table 11-.3% . Based upon the assumptions made, the
mixed use proposal would yield over $32,200 more than sale of the
existing parcel as is. The 60 acre parcel would be permanently
deed restricted for agricultural use. The commercial parcels
could be developed for visitor-serving uses, as an extension of
commercial development which currently exists in the area.
/
Table 11- $3
Comparison of Estimated Value, Existing Parcel :,
Versus the lrixed Use Proposal for Commercial Use
-
1. Value of Existing Parcel, 89.02 Acres
@ $. 50 Per Square Foot = $1,938,855
2. Value of Mixed Use Proposal
8 Two Commercial Lots, 4.5 acres, each
@ $5.00 Per Square Foot - - 1,960,200
t) Agricultural Parcel, 60 Acres
@ $5,000 Per Acre 300,000
Total $2,260,200
c. Larger Parcels with Primarily Residential Potential
The final category of parcels in the study are those that are
large (greater than 40 acres), and have potential for residential
use. The mixed use proposal for these parcels involves applica-
tion of a "planned community" type zone which allows clustering
of the development and mixed land uses. One positive note re-
garding this case study is that an appropriate zoning district
is presently applied to several of the largest ownerships in the
study area which fall into this category, most significantly the /
"Rancho La Costa," or the Ayres property just north of Batiquitos
&agoon. Implementation of a mixed use proposal on these sites
would involve the development of a suitable plan and approval by
the City of Carlsbad and the California Coastal Commissioi-. Sev-
eral parcels suitable for planned community-type develop5ent also
exist within the "county island." These parcels would require re-
zoning, and action by the County of San Diego,
..
Within the context of a planned community, the agricultural land
could be managed by a variety of techniques, including fee simple
sale to an agricultural operator, common ownership and lease to
an operator, or operation directly by members of the planned com-
munity. In each case, the development rights to the agricultural
residual would be deeded to the City, a land trust, or the State
Coastal Conservancy.
The case study is presented for a 65-acre parcel above the exist-
ing Alta Mira subdivision. The parcel is within the "county
island," and is owned by Mr. Hillebrecht. The parcel, similar
to the bulk of the "county islanc carries the S-90 zoning des-
ignation which is intended as an.urban development holding zone.
Minimum parcel size is 10 acres. The basic concept would be to
develop approximately 30% of the parcel for clustered residential
use. This would yield approximately 80 units at a gross density
of four units per acre. /
The actual design of the planned community development would
follow detailed site analysis. Figure 11-3Lf. is a conceptual -
design which shows the parcel before and after the subdivi-sion.
The economic return anticipated from the planned community de-
velopment will vary depending upon the current investment costs
and the value resulting .from the approved plan. Table 11-?c
shows some values associated with the design concept as pre-
9
-
sented on Figure 11- - 3* . The value added to the original parcel
is primarily created by the completion of a subdivision map,
which would be approved as a part of the mixed use program.
Table 11- _I_ 3r
Comparison of Estimated Value, Existing
Parcel Versus the Mixed Use Proposal for
a Planned Community Development
1. Value of Existing Parcel 65 Acres
@ $.SO Per Square Foot - - $1,415,700
2. Value of Mixed Use Proposal
e 20 Acres, Approved for 81)
Dwelling Units @ $2.50 Per
Square Foot
,.
8 Agricultural Parcel, 40 Acres
@ $5,000 Per Acre
Total
- - 200,000
$2,378,000