Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout; Agriculture Committee (1980); Program Report; 1980-04-30_. . - ".: c CITY OF CARLSRAD LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM TECHNICAL SUPPORT PAPER AGRICULTURE April 30, 1980 Prepared for: CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION This document was prepared with financial assistance from the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, under the provisions of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, and from the California Coastal Commission under the provisions of the Coastal Act of 1976. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION A. Background B. Purpose of This Report C. Provisions of the Coastal Act 11. EXISTING AGRICULTURAL SETTING ' A. Factors Affecting Production 1. Climate 2. Soils 3. Water a. Source b. Availability c. Water Pricing d. Use e. Water Re-Use Possibilities 4. Energy 5. Labor 6. Land a. Economics of Land Use Regulations b. Parcel Size c. Ruffers 7. Access 8. Summary R. Characteristics of Crops Grown in the Carlsbad Coastal Zone 1. Tomatoes 2. Strawberries 3. Other Vegetables 4. Nursery Crops 5. Summary C. Location of Agricultural Areas 111. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK A. Federal R.egulation of Agricultural Land Uses 8. State Regulation of Agricultural Land Uses 1 1 2 2 4 4 4 4 6 6 7 7 9 10 11 11 12 12 14 14 14 14 15 15 16 17 17 18 19 22 22 22 i c Page 22 23 26 27 C. D. I. Williamson Act 2. Coastal Act 3. Coastal Conservancy 4. Local Agency Formation Commission Local Regulation of Agricultural Land Use 1. City of Carlsbad 2. County of San Diego Summary IV. ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES A. Compensatory Management Strategies I. Preferential Property Tax Assessment: 2. Tr'ansfer of Development Rights 3. Purchase and Lease-Rack The Williamson Act R. Regulatory Management Strategies 1. Large Lot Zoning 2. Density Zone 3. Permitting Compatible Uses C. Summary V. CONCLUSION VI. LIST OF REFERENCES APPENDICES: 1. Soils Table 2. Explanation of Soils Classifications 3. Coast Commission Permit Decisions Relevant to Coastal 4. Compensating Programs for Preserving Agriculture 5. Available Techniques for Acquisition of Open Space or 6. San Diego County's Fresh Market Tomato Industry 7. Coastal Commission Evaluation of Transferable Development c. tion to Sell Credits Zone Agriculture Conservation Areas Credit Allowance to Coastal Conservancy and Authoriza- 28 28 33 33 34 34 34 35 37 37 37 38 38 38 39 40 ii LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Comparison with Competing Areas: Land Rent and Water Cost Effect of Increased Water Costs on the Return on Investment for Selected Crops Agricultural Water Application Land Value per Production Unit of Agricultural Land for Agricultural [Jses, San Diego County Vegetable Crop Projections: 1980 LIST OF FIGURES Soil Types Major Agricultural Areas Agricultural Preserve Carlsbad Sphere of Influence Carlsbad General Plan Special Treatment Areas Page 8 9 9 13 16 Page 5 20 24 29 30 31 iii I. INTRODUCTION A. RACKGROUND Historically, urban centers and agricultural areas have grown concurrently, each dependent upon the other. Trade between urban centers and farms was tradition- ally essential to both economies. Cities and farms have, however, lost their traditional ties to one another. Cities now consume food and agricultural goods from the entire continent and abroad; modern farms may obtain their machinery, tools, fertilizer, and seed from equally distant sources. As urban areas expand, adjacent rural agricultural areas come under intense development pressure. Pros- pective short term economic gains to current owners from conversion to urban uses weaken economic incentives to continue agricultural production (CEO, 1979). This stress on agricultural land is particularly acute in the Carlsbad coastal area. Land which is currently vacant and farmable is extremely attractive for develop- ment because of its gently sloping topography, proximity to major transportation corridors, and outstanding aesthetic qualities such as unobstructed views of the Pacific Ocean. Growth in the Carlsbad area is occurring very rapidly; the most recent growth forecasts from the Comprehensive Planning Organization indicate that the population of Carlsbad area will increase by more than 240 percent by 1995 (CPO Series V Forecasts, not yet adopted). This high level of projected growth represents a very real pressure €or conversion of agricultural land to urban uses and necessitates development of rational, responsive land use plans. The agricultural lands in the Carlsbad area are an extremely important resource. Over 3300 acres were in production in the area during 1978. Of these lands, 2600 acres were devoted to tomato production and about 440 were devoted to field flowers (Coast Commission, Pacesetter Homes staff recommendation, 1978). The remainder of the crops consisted of a variety of vegetables such as snap beans, strawberries, and squash. Greenhouses are also present but are not as numerous as in the San Dieguito area immediately to the south. Greenhouses in the Carlsbad area produce cut flowers (roses, carnations, and crysanthemums), foliage plants, and orchids (Agricultural Extension Service, 1978). Over 75 percent of Carlsbad's total agricultural resource is located south and southeast of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The Carlsbad area is significant to county, state, and national food production. This area produces 47 percent of the county's tomatoes, and comprises eight percent of the nation's fresh market tomato-producing lands. Production in this area is very high, averaging 30 tons per acre, compared to 11 tons per acre for the state and 8 tons per acre for the national average (Coast Commission Pacesetter Homes staff recommendation, 1978). The area is also unique agriculturally in that the climate permits vegetables to be brought to maturity when less competition exists from other producing areas. San Diego coastal growers can get a greater than average seasonal price for their crops by reaching the market earlier in the spring or later in the season than can producers in other competing regions (Copley International Corporation, 1978). Continued agriculture in the Southern California coastal area could ensure the availability of fresh vegetables in the region even during winter months. -1- B. PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT Agriculture in the coastal zone is a regionally significant activity. Its viability and continuation is dependent upon a large number of physical, economic, and regulatory factors. This report will examine each of these factors in detail. It will supply data on the status of the agricultural resource as an input into land use decisions which will be incorporated into the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program. This document will not define the viability of each existing agricultural operation. It will present and explain the variables which determine the economic profile of an operation and will serve as a planning tool in the location and planning of new development in the Carlsbad Coastal Zone. This report will address the following questions: , What is the status of factors influencing continued agricultural production? What is the current status of coastal agriculture in the Carlsbad area? What are the existing regulatory policies regarding the future of agriculture? What land use options are available given the constraints of the Coastal Act guidelines? .. An agricultural economist is in the process of preparing a detailed economic analysis of coastal agriculture in Carlsbad to serve as a supplement to this report. It will be distributed separately as soon as it becomes available. C. PROVISIONS OF THE COASTAL ACT The California Coastal Commission's policy toward development of agricultural lands is contained in Section 5 of the Coastal Act: "The maximum amount of prime agricultural land shall be maintained in agricul- tural production to assure the protection of the area's agricultural economy, and vLA\ conflicts shall be minimized between agricultural and urban land uses through all of 30 the following: (a) By establishing stable boundaries separating urban and rural areas, including, where necessary, clearly defined buffer areas to minimize conficts between agricultural and urban land uses. (b) By limiting conversions of agricultural lands around the periphery of urban areas to the lands where the viability of existing agricultural use is already severely limited by conflicts with urban uses and where the conversion of the lands would complete a logical and viable neighbor- hood and contribute to establishment of a stable limit to urban development. (c) By developing available lands not suited for agriculture prior to the % conversion of agricultural lands. (d) By assuring that public service and facility expansions and non- agricultural development do not impair agricultural viability, either -2- I through increased assessment costs or degraded air and water quality. (e) By assuring that all division of prime agricultural lands, except those conversions approved pursuant to subdivision (b) of this section and all development adjacent to prime agricultural lands shall not diminish the productivity of such prime agricultural lands." The provisions of the Coastal Act will be explained in more detail in Section 1118 of this report. c -3- 11. EXISTING AGRICULTURAL SETTING A. FACTORS AFFECTING PRODUCTION 1. Climate The climate of the Carlsbad Coastal Zone is well suited to agricultural production. The coastal zone experiences a maritime type of climate. It is continuously dominated by ocean influences and is characterized by narrow diurnal and seasonal temperature changes, ranging from 43 to 73 degrees. Fog occurs in the area nearly every night during the summer but dissipates by noon. Because of the fog, plants tend to grow more slowly than those inland, but crops tend to last longer in a season. Temperatures within the Carlsbad Coastal Zone rarely drop below freezing which offers a definite advantage to coastal agriculture. Within the coastal zone, certain llmicro-climatesll tend to be more favorable for agriculture than others. For example, sites which have east-facing slopes or are on valley floors tend to be much cooler than other locations. In the Carlsbad area, land west of the first ridge line is most strongly influenced by the moderating effect of ocean breezes and therefore is most suitable for growing a wide variety of crops. This flexibility allows farmers to alternate planting field flowers and truck crops when appropriate due to changing market conditions or due to a need to replenish soil nutrients .through the use of nitrogen-fixing plants such as snap beans. The climate is less than ideal in terms of precipitation. Rainfall averages only about 11 inches annually and most occurs during the winter months. Winter storms may be heavy at times and cause erosion damage in fields. The generally arid climate makes irrigation necessary for high production of plant products. 2. soils Soils vary widely within agricultural areas of the coastal zone (Figure I; Appendix 1). Most soils tend to be moderately deep, sandy loams, which are ideal for many types of farming. Very few of the soils, however, fall into the Soil Conservation Service Capability Class I and Class I1 or have a Storie Index of 80 or greater. (The Capability Class system and Storie Index rating are given in Table I and explained in the Appendix). This is primarily because their slopes exceed the requirements necessary for designation as Class I or 11. Only roughly 600 acres in the coastal zone between Agua Hedionda and Batiquitos Lagoons are considered to be within Class 11; no Class I soils are present. Roughly 2700 acres of the 6700 acres shown in Figure I are Class 111 soils; approximately 1400 acres are Class IV soils. The soil capability classifications and Storie indices are significant in that they are the prirnary factors which determine whether or not a soil is considered to be "prime". A "prime soil" is defined by the California Land Conservation Act (The "Williamson Act") as: > . . . an area of land, whether a single parcel or contiguous parcels, which: (i) has not been developed for a use other than an agricultural use and (ii) meets any of the following qualifications: (a) Land which qualifies for rating as Class I or Class I1 in the Soil Conservation Service land use capability classification; -4- (b) Land which qualifies for rating 80 through 100 Storie Index Rating; (c) Land which supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber and which has an annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture; (d) Land planted with fruit or nut-bearing trees, vines, bushes or crops which have a nonbearing period less than five years and which will normally return during the commercial bearing period on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant production not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre; (e) Land which has returned from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant products in annual gross value of not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre for three of the previous five years; (f) Land which is used to maintain livestock for commercial purposes. Very little land in the coastal zone falls into categories (a), (b), (c), and (f) since most soils are Classes 111 and IV, the Storie is generally below 80, and livestock is I not maintained in the area for commercial ,purposes. Category (dl does not exclude much of the planted acreage since most land can return $200 per acre per year. In order to qualify in this category, however, land must be planted; some owners have withheld planting on their lands to avoid classification as a prime soil because of the restrictive conversion policies of the Coastal Act. Similarly, category (e) has influenced growers to let their lands remain fallow for three of five years for the same reason. Agriculture has successfully occurred on I1non-prime1' soils in the Carlsbad coastal area. The advantages offered by the mild climate seem to outweigh any disadvantages of moderate slope or scattered shallow soils. The potential for successful agricultural operations in the Carlsbad area, then, is not limited to those soils defined as "prime" by the Williamson Act. 3. Water a. Source Recause western San Diego County is a semi-arid region and groundwater quality and quantity are not sufficient to satisfy demand, importation of water into the area is necessary. Water has been imported to Southern California since 1913. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) was formed in the 1930's to build facilities and import water from the Colorado River. The MWD sells water at wholesale prices to local water authorities. In San Diego County, the MWD sells water to the member agencies of the San Diego County Water Authority (CU'A) which distribute the water. The rights of the MWD to the Colorado River water were not well defined until 1963 when the United States Supreme Court decided Arizona v. California. As a result of that decision, the MWD will lose its entitlement to a substantial portion of its allotment upon completion of the -6- Central Arizona Project. Because of that decision, the MWD decided to partici- pate in the Feather River Project which is designed to import water from northern California. In May 1978, San Diego County began to receive water imported from northern California (Copley International, 1978). Water is imported to the County via four pipelines which receive imported water either at Lake Skinner in Riverside County or from the Colorado River Aqueduct (CPO, 1979). A fifth pipeline, intended to carry untreated water from Lake Skinner to the Escondido area, is fully authorized and financed. It is expected to be complete in the spring of 1983 (Lin Burzell, CWA, January, 1980). This will not increase the amount of water allotted to the CWA but will expand the distribution facilities. b. Availability At the present time, sufficient water is being imported to satisfy domestic, agricultural and industrial requirements. Law requires that domestic needs be satisfied first; any remaining water is allotted to other uses. In the region covered by the CWA, approximately three quarters of the total supply of water, both local and imported, was utilized for domestic and other uses in 1977. .Only about one quarter was used for agricultural production. Although water for domestic use places the highest demand on imported water, the dependency of the agricultural sector on imported water is highly significant. In light of the fact that approximately 85 percent of the vegetable and fruit production of San Diego County is undertaken within the CWA's boundaries, the availability of imported water represents a critical factor for the County's agriculture (Copely Interna- tional, 1978). c. Water Pricing The price which must be paid for water is as critical to many agricultural operations as is its availability. In some greenhouse operations, water expenses are relatively small compared to labor or energy. In field operations, water may represent a very high percentage of direct production costs. The MWD regulates the wholesale price of imported water purchased by the San Diego County Water Authority. The powers of the agency are sufficiently broad to allow it to incur a loss on its water sales to selected water consumers. Thus, while the wholesale price of water has increased 100 percent since 1967, agricultural rebates offered by MWD have doubled during the same period. The MWD is not required to offer lower water rates for agricultural users, however. Although it has been a policy of the MWD to offer a rebate, this policy is subjected to an annual review. If it were reversed, the wholesale price of agricultural water would increase dramatically (Copley International, 1978). Proposed rates for untreated water for 1980-81 are shown below (MWD, 1980): - 7- I Proposed 1979-80 Rates Rates Effective (Rates in $/Acre Foot) in Effect July 1, 1980 nomest ic and municipal 79.00 Agricultural 45.00 90.00 (+11.00) 51 .OO (+6.00) The cost of energy for pumping imported water through the aqueducts of the MWO is a major contributor to the increases in wholesale water costs. Pumping costs for delivery of state water to MW D are expected to increase from approximately $I 0 per acre foot to at least $61 per acre foot by the mid-1980%. The energy costs for pumping Colorado River water are also expected to increase. The contract governing the costs of electricity for pumping Colorado River water is scheduled to be renegotiated in 1987. The electrical rates are expected to increase by 200 to 300 percent at that time (Copley International, 1978). The retail price of water is determined by the CWA member agencies which must provide for the capital and operating costs of their water distribution systems. The recent passage of Proposition 13, which limited property tax assessments, has necessitated some rate increases. Agencies can no longer rely on financing their general obligation bonds by the assessed valuation method and must offset that loss by increasing water rates. The degree to which the San Diego County agricultural . sector is at a comparative disadvantage as the result of present water costs is illustrated below. County San Diego Imperial Monterey Ventura Table 1 Comparison with Competing Areas Land Rent and Water Cost Average/Typical Typical Cost per Acre Foot Land Rent $147 .OO $ 200 6.50 200 9.50 350 10.50 350 Source: Copley International, 1978 Tot a1 $347.00 206.50 359.50 360.50 The relative changes in agricultural income and return on investment due to higher water (and labor) charges has been analyzed by Copley International Corporation in their Economic Analysis of Agriculture in San Diego County. The table below shows that increase in water costs will affect the primary crops grown in the coastal zone to a lesser extent than crops such as citrus which are grown futher inland. -8- Table 2 1 Effect of Increased Water Costs on the keturn on Investment for Selected CroDs Tomatoes Cherry Tomatoes Strawberries Bedding Plants Foliage Carnations Floral Oranges Lemons Production 1977 +15% - 14.83% 22.53% 20.80% 28.17% ( 1.30%5)* ( 12.17%) 22.00% (13.13%) 1.78% 14.33% 22.08% 20.22% 27.67% (2.19%) ( 12.39%) 13.70% (13.98%) 1.02% +30% 13.76% 21.54% 19.54% 27.18% ( 3.06%) (12.61%) 3.57% (14.82%) 0.25% * 0 Indicates negative Return on Investment d. Use - Estimates have been made by the County Farm Advisor showing the annual water needs, per acre, for individual crops. The figures listed below are averages based on the use of furrow or sprinkler application techniques and other local irrigarion practices (County of San Diego, 1978). Table 3 Anricultural Water ADolication Crop Strawberries Tomatoes Other Row Crops Nurseries/Greenhouses Water Application in Acre Feet/Acre/Year 6 2- 4 2- 4 3-4 The County's Regional Growth Management program recently computed estimates of water use by residential categories. Overall, most residential classifications are comparable in their water usage to most of the agricultural water use: -9- Domestic Water Use (Acre-Feet Per Year) D.U./ACRE 43 29 14.5 8 7.3 5.8 4.4 4 2 1 TOTAL (DOMESTIC + IRRIGATION) 8.31 5.78 3.34 2.61 2.65 2.75 2.83 2.86 2.38 3.04 (44) Technological advancements have helped to decrease the amount of water neces- sary for irrigation of certain crops. For example, most pole tomatoes are irrigated with drip and trickle irrigation systems. Such systems are fairly costly to implement. e. Water Re-Use Possibilities The City of Carlsbad recently initiated a study of the potential for wastewater reclamation in the area. Water re-use would both partially relieve the City's current problems with sewer capacity and provide a supplemental water supply. The water supply aspects would become especially significant if increased domestic demand for water reduced the amount of water available for agricultural use. The Reclamation Master Plan calls for reclamation facilities at Lake Calavera Hills, at a site north of Batiquitos Lagoon, at a site near Palomar airport, and at the existing Encina sewage treatment plant (Lowry and Associates, 1979). These facilities would be inter-tied for maximum service flexibility. The City is currently progressing with implementation of the Master Plan. Environmental impact reports are in preparation and the City is negotiating with the Regional Water Quality Control Board for elimination of groundwater quality objectives in the area. During the course of the study, the market for reclaimed water was assessed. According to the study report, An analysis of existing land use and ultimate land use as determined by the City General Plan indicates that in the early phases of the reclamation program, agricultural reuse will be of primary importance. As land is urbanized and taken out of agricultural use, there will be a slight increase in the reuse market if all of the landscaped and open space areas mandated by present City regulations are irrigated with reclaimed water. This means that I the reclamation and reuse program is not necessarily dependent upon maintenance of agricultural uses in the City. -. - 10 - I Projections for the amount of reclaimed water available from the various inter- tied treatment plants indicate that sufficient water would be available for most agricultural needs. The cost of the reclaimed water is expected to compare favorably with that for imported water, especially when costs for additional transmission facilities for imported water are considered. 4. Energy Increases in the cost of energy will affect future farm operations both directly and indirectly. Direct energy costs to agriculture primarily involve fuel for farm equipment and, in the case of greenhouses, fuel for heating. Indirect energy costs include the cost to transport imported water and the cost of manufacturing fertilizers and pesticides. The relative percentage of an operation's costs attributi able to energy requirements would vary with the type of crop. 5. Labor While most of California has been experiencing labor pressures, these have been significantly less in San Diego County. This is partially due to the fact that the County is removed and isolated from the principal agricultural regions of the state, where pressure for unionization is strongest, and because San Diego County is in .close proximity to Mexico and a large supply of undocumented aliens (Copley International, 1978). Rising labor costs are, however, an increasingly critical factor. Labor in foreign countries such as Mexico, whose growers compete with San Diego growers for American markets, is much cheaper than overall average costs for labor locally. According to the Copley International study, labor costs are the major production factor costs in all crop categories. The relative changes in return on investment for various crops due to higher labor charges is given below. Effect of Increased Labor Costs on the Return on Investment for Selected Crops I977 +15% - Tomatoes 14.83% Cherry Tomatoes 30.11% Strawberries 20.80% Bedding Plants 28.17% Foliage Plants ( 1.30%) Carnations (12.17%) Floral Production 22.00% Oranges (13.13%) 8.02% 21.01% 8.30% 3.48% (7.83%) (13.12) 15.73% (15.33%) +30% (3.34%) 11.91% 4.31% (21.08%) ( 14.35%) ( 14.07%) 8.79% (17.52%) - 11 - 6. Land - a. Economics of Land Use Regulations Over 4,000 acres of land in the Carlsbad area have recently been used for agriculture (Lowey and Associates, 1979). Much of this land, particularly within the coastal zone, is experiencing extreme development pressure. This section examines the effect of land use trends on coastal agricultural viability. Land ownership patterns are not consistent within the Carlsbad Coastal Zone. Some very large parcels (e+, the "Mello" properties) are owned by large corporations who intend to lease the land to growers until development of the land is possible. Other ownerships are extremely small and fragmented. The basic principal underlying much of the land use conflict is that 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 access, increased sewer capacity, residential zoning, and increased water availability, can contribute to such increases. This situation has led to land speculation in many areas, including Carlsbad (Copley International, 1973). In this case, crops are being grown at a loss in order to realize future capital gains on the sale of agricultural land (County of San Diego, lP78). I. Many agricultural land owners rely on such market trends as the basis for their investment strategies. Their land represents security in retirement. This security is predicated on the ability to rent or sell the land for an anticipated degree of return. Although urbanization pressures raise land values and therefore raise taxes, they also increase the owner's equity. The owner can use the equity as collateral on a loan 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 certain crops have positive rates of return on capital investment, many of the agricultural lands in San Diego County would be uneconomical to farm given ourchase at today's market prices, resulting debt service requirements that would be incurred, and the revenue that the crops would generate in the marketplace. These land values could potentially change drastically, however, if zoning limits the extent of alternative land uses (County of San Diego, 1978). The figures below show the theoretical calculated value of agricultural land for agricultural production only. Clearly, such land in the coastal zone would sell for a much higher price if sold for non-agricultural use. Y - 12- Table 4 Land Value per Production llnit of Agricultural Land for Agricultural Uses San Dieero Countv Crop Name Value/Acre Cauliflower Cherry Tomatoes Gladiolus Squash Strawberries Tomatoes Nursery $ 2,500 7,500 3,300 2,100 3,400 3,700 12,300" * Value/1,000 square feet Source: County of San Diego, Agriculture Element - Basic Data Report, 1978. A related issue which has become extremely important in recent months is the effect of rising interest rates on agricultural operations. Growers borrow money ,.for both capital improvements and to pay wages before money from the sale of crops is available. Rising interest rates may make such loans too expensive for growers to obtain. Planning methodologies have been developed to compare the costs and revenues associated with placing different land uses on individual parcels of land, particularly comparing agricultural and residential uses. In conjunction with preparation of the County's Agriculture Element, County planning staff conducted a computer analysis using the Demographic and Economic Forecasting Model to analyze the relative importance of agriculture to San Diego County. As part of that study, an analysis of replacing 80 acres of tomato production with low density residential development was conducted which found that greater long run personal income would accrue to the region if this land remained in agricultural production. This analysis assumed that 108 houses built on this land would be a net temporary addition to the County's housing stock in 1979. In other words, it was assumed that the development would have occurred elsewhere in the region over the long run. What the results indicate is that the building of low density residential homes on agricultural land generates "temporarily" about $2 million in income to the region (direct and indirect). Over the long run, however, the region could effectively lose an annual $303,000 in personal income due to the elimination of agricultural production. Hence, at the end of about seven years, the residential "one time" gain in the regional income is offset by the loss in agricultural income (County of San Diego, 1979). This exarnple indicates that the eventual long run displacement of certain types of high yield agriculture with low density residential development is likely to result in a net negative economic impact upon the region. Two critical factors must be considered: (1) the degree to which such developments would have occurred elsewhere in the region, and (2) as a corollary, the amount of agricultural land which is needed for residential development in order to accommodate population growth. If overall growth is constrained by not developing agricultural land, it follows that there might be negative impacts on jobs and income in the region (County of San Diego, 1979). - 13- b. Parcel Size The effect of parcel size varies with different crop types and growing conditions. Crops such as vegetables which require a large degree of mechanization require larger parcels for economic production. Growers of such crops prefer acreages of 100 acres or larger. If agricultural operations are in close proximity to each other, economies of scale with regard to transportation of labor, machinery, and materials can be realized. The Copley International study calculated the "economic unit" for a variety of crops. This unit is the amount of land required to capture a return to management equal to the median family income for San Diego County. The study estimates that vegetables require 110 acres and floral production (gladiolus) requires 138 acres. These figures only indicate the amount of land needed for a certain return to management, not the return to the grower or land owner. Conflicts between urban and agricultural land uses are strong in the coastal area of Carlsbad because scattered residential 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 increased vandalism, complaints from residents about noise from machinery, dust and pesticides, and possibly damage to plants from urban pollutants. Such urban/agricultural borders result in lost productivity and increased cost to farmers in the Carlsbad area (University of California, Agricultural Extension Service, 1978). c. Buffers In order to minimize potential conflicts between adjacent urban and agricultural uses, the concept of llbufferll areas has been introduced. Such areas must be wide enough to effectively separate the two conflicting uses. Problems arise if an attempt is made to "createI1 buffers, because of a lack of willingness of land owners to allow a portion of their land to remain vacant to serve as a buffer. The Carlsbad area offers many natural 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, the railroad tracks, and Carlsbad Boulevard provide effective east-west buffers. 7. Access According to the study conducted by the Agricultural Extension Service of the University of California, access is a major problem in the area south of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Much of the area is served by dirt roads which are not easily passable during rainy periods. The study further indicates that crop and equipment damage occur even during normal periods because of potholes in roads. Road improvements would allow farmers to transport goods more easily but would also increase development pressure and could create more non-agricultural traffic. 8. Summary Agriculture in the Carlsbad Coastal Zone is dependent upon a wide variety of factors which vary in quality and quantity. The soil resource is not as ideal as that in other parts of the state, but is well suited to the existing agricultural operations. : - 14- The climate is the major factor which has determined the success of the area's agriculture since it allows production during months when agriculture is precluded in competing areas. Water is a critical factor, but the potential for water re-use in Carlsbad is real and could alleviate 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. Access to certain Carlsbad agricultural areas is difficult 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. Issues related to fluctuating land values are central to the Carlsbad agricultural situation. Agricultural land owners depend upon retaining the flexibility to sell their land for a market value which exceeds the value of the land as an agricultural resource. Any effort to restrict the potential conversion of agricultural land is contested by both large and small agricultural land owners. Characteristics of each factor of production tend to produce both positive and negative effects on coastal agriculture in Carlsbad. Because agriculture in the area is limited to a relatively few crop classifications, significant fluctuations in any of the factors could have a significant effect on local agricultural production. - 0. CHARACTERISTICS OF CROPS GROWN IN THE CARLSBAD COASTAL ZONE Agricultural crops in the Carlsbad Coastal Zone consist primarily of field flowers and a variety of vegetables, particularly tomatoes. Relatively few greenhouse operations occur in the Carlsbad Coastal Zone; the largest is located off Batiquitos Drive just south of Poinsettia Lane. Production 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. This section of the report discusses production factors related to each major crop grown in the Carlsbad coastal area and addresses crops' future economic profile. 1. Tomatoes Pole tomato production is the most significant vegetable crop in the Carlsbad area and in San Diego County, both in terms of revenue and planted acreage. The tomato industry has a high "multiplier effectf1; 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 have increased yields substantially during recent years. Competition is least during early spring and late fall, especially in eastern markets. During the spring, Carlsbad growers compete with Kern and King County growers and primarily with growers in Imperial County. Competition is greatest in mid-summer when tomatoes ripen in areas throughout the country. In fall, Florida represents the most significant competition (Copely International, 1978). - 15- Tomato lands are usually not owned by the growers but are leased to growers by landowners. Tomato lands are capable of producing other coastal dependent crops such as certain kinds of flowers and other ornamental plants, strawberries, dry lima beans and fresh vegetables including snap beans, cabbage, cauliflower, celery, cucumbers, bell and chili peppers, lettuce of various kinds and summer squash (Buckner, 1977). The tomato industry tends to be highly integrated; the grower also tends to be the shipper/marketer (County of San Diego, 1979). Small growers tend to sell through farm cooperatives. Tomato production also tends to be extremely labor-intensive when compared to other vegetable crops. Cherry tomatoes are also an important crop in the Carlsbad area. Cultural practices and harvesting times are 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 were typically equal to or higher than the revenue associated with pole tomatoes. Water costs for cherry tomatoes tend to be lower (2.43 percent of production costs versus 2.71 percent for pole tomatoes). Drip irrigation systems are widely used for both crops. Compared to other coastal crops, tomatoes exhibit a high rate of return and are considered to be a high revenue crop. The following 1980 projections illustrate this fact. Table 5 Vegetable Crop Projections: 1980 Dollars Yield per Acre Dollar Revenue Crop Name per Ton (Tons) Per Acre Tomatoes $ 425.00 Celery 207.88 Caulif lower 509.00 Cucumbers 272.92 Squash 362.00 Source: (Copley International 1978). 36.77 $ 15,627 29.93 6,222 6.00 3,054 29.79 8,130 8.90 3,222 Future trends for the coastal tomato operations will depend to a large extent on the degree of foreign competition which occurs. Continued expansion is predicted for the County's cherry tomato industry (Copely International, 1978). 2. Strawberries As is the case with tomatoes, strawberries county-wide currently show a positive rate of return on capital investment and are considered to be economically viable (County of San Dieqo, 1979). Harvested acreage in the County has increased steadily in recent years. Strawberry revenues over the last several years have shown mild fluctuations but a generally increasing trend. The harvesting season is from February to June. Early competition comes from Ventura, Orange and Los Angeles Counties, and later from northern California counties. - 16- Strawberry acreage in the County is expanding due to the profitability of strawberries throughout the County. Yields are rising because of technological improvements and the introduction of new varieties. Overall, strawberry produc- tion in the County is expected to grow and to continue to be profitable (Copley International, 1978). 3. Other Vegetables A variety of other vegetables can be grown in the coastal zone. These include snap beans, cabbage, cauliflower, celery, cucumbers, chilies, lettuce and squash. The advantage of growing these crops in the coastal zone is that they can be timed to + reach the market when produce from other areas is in short supply. Vegetable plantings in many areas are rotated among several different crops; more than one type may be grown on an individual parcel during the year. Although soil and climatic requirements for these crops are roughly similar, production trends vary widely. Celery production in the County has declined since 1967 by over 60 percent. Increases in local water costs, compared with competing areas, induced this decline. Cauliflower acreage in the County has increased significantly in recent years. Long-term revenues associated with cauliflower reveal a very profitable trend. Cucumber production has fluctuated during the last several years. The revenue/cost relationship presents a favorable outlook in the County. Total squash acreage is about equal to that of cucumbers. Although the “crops are culturally similar, lower revenues are typically associated with squash than with cucumbers. Squash has remained profitable in recent years, however. As competition for land increases rental rates, squash revenues will be likely to decline. High costs of production in the County will also tend to influence reduction of squash plantings in favor of more capital intensive crops (Copely international, 1978). Of these crops, squash, cucumber and cauliflower exhibit a positive rate of return on capital investment; celery shows a negative rate of return (County of San Diego, 1979; Copley International, 1978). 4. Nurserv CroDs Field flowers are the predominant nursery crops in the Carlsbad Coastal Zone, although scattered greenhouse operations also exist. Horticultural crops which are grown include gladiolus (both flowers and bulbs), bird of paradise, chrysanthemums, anemone and 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 Ittomatoll lands and vice versa (Buckner, 1977). The largest greenhouse operation is that of Thompson Rose Co., located east of Poinsettia Lane. That company has 15 acres of greenhouses and 20 acres of bare ground, not used for production. Scattered small greenhouses occur east of the Thompson operation to El Camino Real. The Carlsbad Greenhouse operation occupies a total of four acres off Jefferson Street near Tamarack Avenue. This firm grows mostly indoor foliage plants; the greenhouses occupy about 40,000 square feet of the total four-acre area. Important factors of production in greenhouse operations include labor and energy. Labor costs are the single most significant production costs and they account for between 30 and 50 percent of total production cost for San Diego County. The - 17- future of greenhouse operations also depends to a large degree on the extent to which fuel will be available to heat greenhouses in the future. Although many field flower crops can be grown in the coastal zone, gladiolus is probably the major one. Approximately 60 percent of the state crop is grown in the County, primarily in the coastal area. The cost-revenue picture for gladiolus has fluctuated widely. In the coastal area, gfowers are experiencing increasing land rents and competition from foreign competltors. Competition from imports is expected to continue to be a significant factor in the cut flower industry in general and in the gladiolus industry in particular. The present trend in gladiolus production appears to be a declining one in the County. Yield, price and planted acreage are expected to decrease significantly. The 1978 Copley International study listed both gladiolus and %ursery crops11 as economically viable. The nursery crop category is a composite of various kinds of operations including cut flowers, foliage plants, and stock for orchard development. Individual components of this category may have very different rates of return. 5. Summary Most of the major crops grown in the Carlsbad Coastal Zone are economically viable with regard to their return on capital investment. Increasing land prices and increasing lease rates, however, form a very real constraint to existing operations . and virtually preclude expansion. In the case of most operations, growers do not own the land they farm but lease it from large landowners. The crops which are grown are generally very high in value but are also very labor and/or capital intensive. The future for vegetable crops grown in the area is generally fairly bright from the standpoint of return in capital investment. Coastal growers in the Carlsbad area are able to market produce during months when other growers in other parts of the County cannot. Flower products have a poorer outlook, particularly because of foreign competition. The following table summarizes the amount of increase or decrease in gross revenue County-wide between 1977 figures and those projected for 1980. Crop Category Nursery and field flowers Gladiolus Vegetables Tomatoes Celery Cauliflower Cucumber Squash Percent of Increase/Decrease -12% -28% -20% -20% + 12% +34% -10% +12% - 18- . C. LOCATION OF AGRICULTURAL AREAS Major agricultural operations within the Carlsbad Coastal Zone are located entirely south of Agua Hedionda Lagoon (Figure 2). These lands were identified by the City of Carlsbad in 1978 as having been in production in three of the last five years. Area the largest continuous agricultural area (roughly 630 acres) lies south of the lagoon to Palomar Airport Road, between Interstate 5 and the dissected hills to the east. This area is generally well buffered from urban areas, except in the vicinity of "Car Countryt1 on its western edge. This does not represent a significant conflict since commercial areas are, in general, more compatible with agricultural uses than are residential areas. The presence of Car Country does, however, increase pressure for additional encroachment. If Cannon Road is extended to the east in conjunction with the Agua Hedionda Specific Plan, pressures for conversion would greatly intensify. Access does not appear to be a significant problem in the operation of this area. Dirt roads provide access into the fields; regional access is more than adequate with major routes immediately adjacent to the area. Area IIB,ll adjacent to Area A south of Palomar Road, is located largely in a Class 11 soil area. It is not significantly affected by urban development at the present time. -. Three small agricultural areas, llD1t, and lie east of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The western parcel has primary access from Hidden Valley Road; access to the portions farther east is via unimproved roads. A large, irregular agricultural area, Area llF,tl occurs south of Palomar Airport Road. This area consists of approximately 570 acres, most of which is relatively well buffered from incompatible land uses by vegetated slopes. Western portions of this area are not well buffered from recently-developed subdivisions. Areas G, H, and I are small parcels with access from La Costa Boulevard or El Camino Real. These also are buffered from existing development. ' Area J is a large, irregular area which is in the southern part of the study area near Batiquitos Lagoon. Existing development in the area is very sparse, and no significant land use conflicts currently exist. Certain portions of this area are more easily farmable than others due to topographic variations. Areas K, L, and M are located west of Interstate 5. A trailer park south of Poinsettia Lane has essentially bisected a formerly continuous agricultural area, leaving area llK1l and a large parcel south of the study area boundary. Urban- agricultural conflicts are significant along the eastern edge of area K. Interstate 5 reduces potential urban-rural conflicts between area ItLt1 and the reidential subdivision to the east. A vacant vegetated area buffers the northern part of area llM1l from a residential area to the west. Local roads, the Interstate 5 freeway and an industrial area form the rest of the agricultural borders in this area. This inventory shows that south of Palomar Airport Road, agricultural lands have been fragmented by residential subdivisions and trailer parks. Effective buffer areas do exist, however; these include the freeway and the railroad tracks. These - 19- major coastal agricultural areas run in a north-south direction. Buffers which extend from east to west, such as Palomar Airport Road, are not as common. North of Palomar Airport Road, one very large agricultural area still exists which does not directly abut any conflicting uses. The potential for access to this area from major roads makes it very attractive to developers, however. Several very small agricultural areas also occur. As parcel size decreases, economical farming becomes more difficult due to the absence of economies of scale. - 21 - 111. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK A. FEDERAL REGULATION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND USES The federal government does not directly regulate coastal agricultural land use except on federally-owned land or on land which is acquired for federal ownership through eminent domain. The government recognizes, however, the significance of growing pressure to develop agricultural land. The Department of Agriculture and the Council on Environmental Quality have initiated an 18-month federal study of the availability of agricultural lands and their conversion to other uses (CEQ, 1980). The study (the "National Agricultural Lands Study") will evaluate the economic, environmental, and social effects of the conversion or retention of agricultural lands and will make recommendations for consideration by federal, state, and local governments. The study is to be completed by January 1, 1981. The initial report from preliminary workshops in the western region is available from the Western Rural Development ,1 Center, Corvallis, Oregon 97331. Although federal activities themselves rarely directly use or convert large areas of prime land, federally funded projects and loan programs may exert powerful adverse secondary effects. For example, a federally supported regional trunk sewer line can be built with little, if any, permanent conversion of prime land. The . existence of the line, however, will be a key factor in determining regional growth patterns. If the line is built through an agricultural valley, urban development and loss of prime land are virtually guaranteed. Additionally, federal taxes, especially capital gains and estate taxes, may very significantly influence the decisions of owners of prime land or their heirs to hold or sell their lands. (CEQ, 1979). Federal jurisdiction over agricultural land also occurs under legislation directed at decreasing pollutant levels. Section 208 of the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act requires comprehensive areawide planning and management to control non-point source pollution from urban and rural land. These plans are approved by the federal government but formulated and implemented on the State and regional level. Federal regulation also occurs under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1947, as amended in 1972 and 1978 (CEQ, 1980). These laws have an indirect effect on land use by increasing some costs and emphasizing the conflicts between adjacent rural and urban uses. B. STATE REGULATION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND USES Direct state influence on coastal agricultural land use occurs through the William- son Act, the Coastal Act, policies of the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), and actions of the Coastal Conservancy. The state also indirectly influences agricultural land use through general land use regulations such as the Subdivision Map Act and requirements for preparation of general plans by local jurisdictions. 1. Williamson Act Caliornia Land Conservation Act, or the Williamson Act, was enacted in 1965. The Williamson Act permits participating counties in California to enter into contracts with owners of agricultural or open space land. The contracts restrict the use of the land and limit its potential for subdivision in exchange for a reduction in property tax. The contracts run for a period of ten years and are - 22 - renewed automatically each year. The amount of the tax reduction is based on the difference between the agricultural value of the property and its market value. (County of San Diego, Basic Data Report - Agriculture Element, 1978). The effectiveness of the Williamson Act in preserving agricultural land is discussed in detail in Section IVC of this report, Alternative Management Strategies. The Williamson Act encourages local governments to identify prime agricultural lands within their jurisdiction-by designating agricultural preserves. One roughly 320- acre agricultural preserve, the "Ecke Preserve", exists within the Carlsbad Coastal Zone (Figure 3). The Carlsbad guidelines for implementing the Williamson Act are included in the appendix to this report. In addition to providing a tool for encouraging the continuation of existing agricultural operations, the Williamson Act has proven to be highly significant in that its definition of "prime agricultural land" has been incorporated into Coastal Act and LAFCO policies. The criteria it uses to define prime land have been addressed previously in this report. 2. Coastal Act The Coastal Act contains three policy sections specifically directed at protection of agricultural resources in the coastal zone. These were explained in a memorandum issued by the Coastal Commission in 1978 (California Coastal .- . Commission, July 12, 1978). Section 30241 contains two protective policies. The first states that the maximum amount of prime agricultural land is to be maintained in agricultural production in order to maintain the agricultural economy of the area. This policy applies only to prime agricultural land, as defined by the Williamson Act. The policy emphasizes that the Coastal Act encourages prime land to remain in production in order to maintain the agricultural economy. The policy does not allow a judgment of what level of production in the area might be necessary to protect the economy but directs that the maximum amount of prime land is to be maintained in production. The second policy statement in Section 30241 requires that conflicts be minimized between agricultural and urban land uses. This policy is directed towards conflicts between urban land uses and all agricultural land uses, on both prime and nonprime lands. The second policy statement states five methods of minimizing conflicts between urban and agricultural land uses: a. The Act discusses the establishment of stable boundaries and clearly defined buffer areas between urban and agricultural uses. This subsection applies to agricultural uses on both prime and nonprime agricultural lands. b. The Act limits conversions of agricultural lands on the periphery of urban development. Agricultural lands, either prime or nonprime, may convert only if the lands are on the periphery of urban development and the viability of the lands have been and are currently severely limited by conflicts with the urban uses, if conversion would complete a logical and stable neighborhood and if conversion would establish a stable limit to urban development. ', Conversions of prime agricultural land are limited to those conversions which would constitute infill development into an already developed area; the conversion would complete a viable neighborhood and would help establish a stable urban limit line. No additional conversions should be necessary in the - 23 - FIGURE 3 s scale 1". 3000' Williamson act contract C. d. e. future to complete the neighborhood or to establish the urban limit line in that neighborhood. In other words, the Act does not contemplate a continually moving line. The Act requires that lands not suitable for agricultural use be developed before either prime or nonprime agricultural lands can be developed. The Act requires that the viability of agriculture on both prime and nonprime lands remains unimpaired by nonagricultural development or the expansion of public services and facilities. The Act explicitly protects the productivity of prime agricultural lands. Divisions of prime lands and any development on adjacent lands (either prime or nonprime) must diminish the productivity of the prime lands. The only exception allowed is if a conversion of prime lands on the periphery of urban development meets all the criteria set forth in item 2 above. It should be noted that this subsection emphasizes the protection of the productivity of the prime lands, regardless of whether or not the lands are in actual production. Section 30242 contains the standards for determining whether nonprime agricul- tural lands should be preserved or converted to urban development. The section is used to determine conversion questions relating to prime lands. Whereas Section 30241 limits conversions of prime lands to infilling and the establishment of stable urban boundaries, Section 30242 allows conversions of nonprime lands which may result in expansion of a developed area. Thus, Section 30242 could be used for purposes of phasing the contiguous expansion of a developed area or to absorb development in return for the adoption of local government policies providing for the permanent protection of prime lands. .. . limited to lands that are not governed by Section 30241 and accordingly cannot be Section 30242 is the only section of the agricultural policies which uses the word llfeasiblegl: a feasibility analysis is not appropriate for lands governed by Section 30241. The conversion must be found to be compatible with the continued agricultural use of the llsurroundingll (not merely adjacent) prime and nonprime agricultural land. Section 30243 directs that the long term productivity of soils in the coastal zone be protected. If the soils have little demonstrable productivity, there might be little productivity to protect. However, many soils which do not meet the Williamson Act. standards for prime lands are quite productive for certain crops. Such soils have a long-term productivity which Section 30243 states must be protected. The California Coastal Commission is responsible for implementation of the Coastal Act. It is responsible for approving new development within the Coastal Zone and regulates such development directly by issuing permits on a case-by-case basis. Upon adoption of a Local Coastal Program, the Coastal Commission will have a less direct role in the approval process and the local jurisdiction will assume the responsibility. In conjunction with its regulatory role, the Coastal Commission has commissioned a study of coastal agricultural viability in various areas of the state. One portion of -25- the study which was performed in 1978 by George Goldman and David Strong of the University of California Agricultural Extension Service, dealt directly with the Carlsbad Coastal Zone. Main findings of this report were general in nature and included : a. The area's climate is moderate and the soil of sufficient quality to support truck farming, field flowers and greenhouse operations. b. The farming operators generally do their own packing and packaging and market direct to wholesale and retail firms primarily out of the County, and thus do not rely on agricultural infrastructures. c. Urban/agricultural borders result in lost productivity and increased costs to farmers. Inadequate roadways present a major problem for access and contribute additional costs. Road resurfacing would increase agricultural productivity but at the same time would probably increase development pressure and non-agricultural traffic. 3. Coastal Conservancy The Coastal Conservancy was established by the California State Legislature in 1976 to help protect the State's coastal resources. It is intended to provide . alternatives to the adverse effects on landowners of regulation of coastal zone development and to the excessive costs of permanently transferring land from private to public ownership (Coastal Conservancy, 1978). The Conservancy's responsibilities cover six areas: preservation of 'agricultural land, coastal restoration, coastal resource enhancement, resource protection zones, reservation of coastal resource areas and public access to the coast. The legislative act which established the Conservancy granted to it certain powers with respect to each area of responsibility. In order to prevent loss of coastal agricultural land to other uses and to assemble parcels of land into sizes adequate for continued agricultural production, the Conservancy is authorized to acquire options, fee title, development rights and easements over land in the Coastal Zone. It may also undertake improvements to the land where such actions are needed to preserve agriculture. Because of the magnitude of the agricultural preservation problem, the Conser- vancy's approach is to initiate or otherwise participate in projects which are models for further agricultural preservation efforts. Conservancy projects tend to be demonstrations of effective responses to specific agricultural preservation problems and situations. Different combinations of methods for handling particular preservation problems are used. Such problems include provision of buffer zones in urban fringe areas, implementation of mixed use projects (e+, agriculture and, where feasible, recreational uses), consolidation of fragmented holdings if needed to maintain production, restoring idle lands to production, and aiding smaller farms in maintaining economic viability. The Conservancy attempts to use funds from federal and other state assistance programs in conjunction with its own funds. The Conservancy aids in channelling such funds, where appropriate, to local jurisdictions, private farmers, and private non-profit organizations involved in agricultural activities. - 26 - general plan map FIGURE 6 special treatment area map While the land use element determines ultimate land uses, policies directly addressing agriculture are contained within the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan. This element states that the policy of the City of Carlsbad is "to regard agricultural land and prime soil as a natural resource and as a significant Sontrasting land use to the urbanized environment of the city." The City's stated objective is "to prevent the premature elimination of prime agricultural land and preserve said lands wherever feasible." This should be accomplished according to the following guidelines: a. Urban development should take place in those areas that are the least productive. b. Agricultural use should be encouraged as a permissible land-use in those areas designated in this document as open space. c. The City should support and utilize all measures available, including the Williamson Act, designed to reduce the financial burdens on agricultural land, not only to prevent premature developments, but also to promote the economic viability of lands permanently zoned for agricultural uses. d. Proper design criteria should be utilized to maximize the preservation and future options of prime agricultural lands. Preservation of existing open space can be a very time consuming and costly procedure. The city has prioritized the order of importance for the protection, maintenance, and enhancement of open space and conservation resources as follows: a. Areas which would be maintained as open space in order to provide for public health and safety including floodplains, geologic hazards and water resources. b. Areas which would protect and enhance hillside and soil resources, wildlife habitats and unique vegetation. c. Areas most suited for agricultural production. d. Areas having unique and special resources including, but not limited to, visual amenities, recreational uses, landmarks, areas which provide buffers between incompatible land uses, and areas which provide linkages to larger open space areas and give form and identity to the City. The general plan also includes a list of techniques which are available for the acquisition and management of open space and conservation areas, both at the regional and local scale. These are discussed in Section IV of this report, Alternative Management Strategies, and the list is included in the appendix. - 32 - 2. County of San Diego The County of San Diego has jurisdiction over the unincorporated areas within the Carlsbad Coastal Zone. These County llislandslf are within the Carlsbad sphere of influence; both the City and the County have assigned land use designations to those areas. The County of the Carlsbad Coastal Zone are within the County's North County Metropolitan Subregion. The County is in the process of revising the land use map for that area. The proposed revisions propose both timing and type of development in those areas. Timing of future development is controlled by the inclusion of the areas in a "Future Urban Development Area" (FUDA) category. The FUDA designation is intended either for areas which will not have services to adequately support urban development until 1995 or, as in this case, for areas in which annexation to adjacent cities is encouraged. The FUDA designation serves to retain agricultural uses in the areas until annexation occurs. It encourages annexation because, once annexed, the city would allow development to urban densities. The underlying County land use designations for the County ltislandsfl within Carlsbad would be compatible with those of the City of Carlsbad's General Plan. (The existing North County Metropolitan Area Subregional Plan Map does not apply the FUDA designation and shows a variety of low to medium density residential uses for the County "islands".) County planning staff recently proposed an Agriculture Element for the General Plan. It was not approved by the Board of Supervisors. The unincorporated area of the County under the authority of the Coastal Commission was excluded from consideration by the proposed Agriculture Element because of the special land use constraints required by the Coastal Act. Since the County has jurisdiction over portions of the Carlsbad Coastal Zone, the County will be involved in the aom-oval Drocess for the Local Coastal Program. This will include Board of Supervisors' approval applicable to the County land prior to certification Commission. of the portions of the- plan of the program by the Coast D. SUMMARY Several agencies have jurisdiction over land use and agricultural land conversion in the Carlsbad Coastal Zone. Federal controls are generally indirect, but may be significant as in cases of the effect of capital gains and inheritance taxes on individual owners. The State has direct control over agricultural land use through the Coastal Commission and LAFCO. Both these agencies support the preservation of agriculture, but LAFCO policies are confined to prime agricultural land as defined by the Williamson Act while the Coast Commission policies also cover non- prime land. The policies of the City of Carlsbad ultimately would allow conversion of nearly all the coastal agriculture to residential uses. The County position is similar although under recently proposed amendments to the North County Metropolitan Subregional Plan, the conversion could not occur under County jurisdiction until 1995. - 33 - IV. ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES A. COMPENSATORY MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES Agriculture in the Carlsbad Coastal Zone is focused on a variety of high-value crops which have a competitive advantage over crops from other areas because of the continuous growing season in the coastal zone. Economic pressures are continually exerted on the industry because of increasing costs of essential factors of production, including water, labor and energy. In spite of these increases, major &-q?h& crops in the coastal zone do show a positive rate of return on capital investment. e.z,Q 3 Increasing land costs in the coastal area, however, are such that farming would be uneconomical given purchase of land at today's market prices. This is reflected in very high land rents and lack of expansion of existing operations. Restrictive zoning, which would prohibit conversion of agricultural land to more intense uses, would sharply decrease the appreciation of the land and would lower its market value. This would preserve agricultural lands but would very negatively affect land owners. Preservation of. agricultural operations might only be temporary, because the decreased equity would mean that growers would have less collateral to use to obtain bank loans to finance capital improvements to keep their businesses competitive. Also, most owners rely on their increasing equity as retirement security or as a means of financing a new operation elsewhere. Should '9 changes in certain factors of production make continuation of existing operations uneconomical, many of these financial factors will become even more significant both in terms of relatively small operations where the owner is actually the grower and in terms of large parcels of agricultural land which are owned by large development interests. It follows, then, that preserving agricultural uses in the coastal zone by conventional methods such as restrictive zoning and land use controls will have a negative economic impact on owners of both large and small pieces of agricultural land. Given the Coast Commission's policies toward retention of agriculture in the coastal zone, alternative methods of compensating owners whose land is effective- alternative strategies. In 1978, the County investigated these strategies and prepared a detailed critique of them for inclusion in the Agriculture Element Basic Data Report. The portion of that report pertaining to compensatory alternatives is included in the appendix to this report and is summarized below. Also included in the appendix and in this section are suggested means of acquisition or management of land in accordance with Carlsbad's open space and conservation policies, taken from the Carlsbad General Plan. ,' ly "down zoned" must be analyzed. This section addresses a wide range of 1. Preferential Property Tax Assessment: The Williamson Act As explained earlier in this report, one method for providing compensation to owners of land restricted to agricultural use is the preferential property tax assessment. In such a program, land which is restricted is assessed based upon its value for agricultural uses rather than its market value. In California, the state legislature implemented such a program as the California Land Conservation Act, or Williamson Act. This act permits local jurisdictions to enter into contracts with owners of agricultural or open space land. The contracts restrict the use of the - 34 - land and limits its potential for subdivision in an exchange for a reduction in the property tax. The only land under contract within the Carlsbad Coastal Zone is the 320-acre "Ecke Preserve." CarlsbadIs guidelines for implementation of the Williamson Act are included in the Appendix. Some of the provisions of the guidelines include: a. b. C. d. e. f. An agricultural preserve must be of benefit to the public. Such agricultural preserves must be compatible with the Carlsbad General Plan. Minimum size of a preserve should be 100 acres, unless exceptional circumstances exist in which case a 20-acre minimum would be allowed. Minimum ownership size for truck crops and field flowers is 15 acres. Zoning regulations must be applied which are compatible with agricul- ture. All land must be used only for agricultural purposes for producing agricultural commodities (or for recreational or open space uses), and non-conforming uses must be eliminated. The guidelines also contain a detailed procedure for processing agricultural preserve applications. The attractiveness of Williamson Act contracts has been decreased by the passage of Proposition 13. The tax initiative significantly reduced the property tax incentive of the Act. In some cases, the tax savings formerly achieved under the Williamson Act contract may now be exceeded by the savings attributable to Proposition 13 if no contract is signed. Although the mechanism for implementa- tion of the Williamson Act is well established, its potential for success in preserving agriculture in the coastal zone is limited. 2. Transfer of Development Rights "Transfer of development rights", or TDR, is another system of providing compen- sation to owners of land restricted to agricultural use. TDR is based on the principal that land ownership 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 TDR, this right is separated from the other rights of ownership and may be purchased either by a government agency or by land developers. The kind of program in which government purchases rights is often called PDR, I1purchase of development rights". Except for this case, TDR involves the establishment of a market for development rights to be sold by owners of land planned not to be developed to owners of land planned for development. Thus, governmentxactions to restrict the development of certain lands would not necessarily have their usual effect of lowering the value of the owner's investments in those lands. A portion of those investments would consist of the development rights, the sale of which would provide compensation to the owners of lands restricted from development. - 35 - Implementation of such a program could be very complicated. In order to set up a TDR program for the purpose of restricting certain lands to agricultural use, the governmental jurisdiction managing the program would designate sites for agricul- tural preservation and for development and would issue certificates of development rights. Each owner would receive certificates based on some equitable principle of distribution. One system would be to issue certificates corresponding to the maximum number of dwelling units each owner might have been permitted prior to the adoption of the plan to be implemented by the TDR proposal. Then owners of developable land would be required to purchase development rights from the owners of undevelopable land in order to develop their land at a more than minimum intensity. The County's Agriculture Basic Data Report lists the following advantages and disadvantages of such a program. Advantages a. Consistent with established constitutional principles b. More politically acceptable than public acquisition or stringent zoning without compensation. c. Minor expenditure of public funds d. Alleviates "windfalls" and llwipeoutsll; promotes equity e. Flexibility; can protect any resource from market forces. Disadvantages a. b. C. d. e. f. Too new and complex Will not work without proper economic conditions Would take years to study and implement May nor work unless adopted regionally Requires significant political commitment to be credible to would-be participants Ends may be more efficiently accomplished through less complex mechanisms May conflict with existing zoning and plans Involves administrative and bookkeeping problems Involves questions of property taxation of development rights. May require additional legislation - 36 - . TDR is a complex technique which has not yet been implemented on a large scale. The Coastal Conservancy and local jurisdictions do have the authority to purchase land and this authority could probably be used to purchase development rights if adequate financing was available. Because of the many questions which are still unresolved about TDR programs, they can best be regarded as potentially useful but experimental at the present time. 3. Purchase and Lease-Back Any attempt to preserve agricultural land via purchase and lease-back by a government agency would be quite costly. Based upon post-Proposition 13 revenue constraints and the methods available, the feasibility of preserving agricultural land via its acquisition is minimal on a large scale. Given the revenue constraints at the federal, state and local level and the market price of agricultural land in the Carlsbad area, preservation of agricultural land primarily via acquisition is impractical. Virtually any attempt to purchase agricultural land in San Diego County would involve a massive sum of money. As a corollary, this acquisition would entail foregoing other services and revenue (property taxes) by local governments. The number and flexibility of financial mechanisms available to purchase agricul- tural land is very limited. At the state level, the Coastal Conservancy has the ability to purchase land near urban fringe areas to preserve agricultural uses. It then can either lease the land to a grower or sell it to a farmer. Such a purchase by the Coastal Commission would be very costly. At the local level, purchase of agricultural land by a non-profit organization, leasing the land to a local agency, and in turn having the agency sub-lease to a grower tenant, may be the most practical means of implementing such a purchase and lease back system. Because of Proposition 13, local agencies virtually cannot issue general obligation bonds to cover the costs of such purchases. Because the potential lease revenue would be insufficient to cover debt requirements, the feasibility of issuance of revenue bonds by a local agency is questionable. B. REGULATORY MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES The City of Carlsbad has the power to regulate land uses directly through its zoning process. Several means are available for prevention of a agricultural conversion through zoning. These include large lot zoning, density zoning, exclu- sive agricultural zoning, and zoning to allow a compatible revenue producing use on a portion of an agricultural property. 1. Large Lot Zoning Large lot zoning is a very common technique for preservation of open space. When land subject to large lot zoning is subdivided, new lots can be made no smaller than some minimum size on the theory that private land would be more likely to remain as open space or agricultural if it is not divided into small lots. - 37 - 2. Density Zone Density zoning involves the subdivision of a parcel into several small parcels plus one large parcel on which agricultural uses could still be viable. This would allow the owner to sell a portion of the land at market value while retaining enough land to profitably farm. This is likely, however, to produce conflicts between urban and residential land uses. Incentives for this type of subdivision might be necessary, such as density bonuses which would allow greater density in the subdivided portion than would normally be allowed. 3. Permitting Compatible Uses As explained in Section IIIR, the Coastal Conservancy is currently studying the feasibility of regulatory programs to permit alternative uses on a portion of an agricultural parcel. Such uses would have to be compatible with continued agricultural operations on the site. The purpose of such a program would be to retain income to the agricultural operator to support agricultural operations and to make conversions to other uses less attractive. Compatible uses to be considered include campgrounds, housing, recreational uses and commodity processing indus- tries. The drawbacks to such a plan include initial costs for construction and additional costs to the landowner for maintenance of the facility. The Coast Conservancy's role in the process could be through reducing those drawbacks by making investments or loan guarantees that permit such operations to be initiated. The feasibility of compatible use regulations, the market for such uses, and the Coastal Conservancy's potential role in the process are in the process of study by a consultant to the Coastal Conservancy. C. SUMMARY A variety of regulatory and compensatory options are available for preventing the disappearance of agriculture in the Carlsbad Coastal Zone. Implementation of many of these requires substantial monetary investments by government agencies, complex agency coordination, and possibly even additional legislation. The feasibility of certain of these techniques is questionable at the present time. Because the continued existence of agriculture in the Coastal Zone is dependent upon both agricultural market conditions and land use decisions, the efficacy of various regulatory and compensatory programs cannot be accurately predicted at the present time. - 38 - V. CONCLUSION The Carlsbad coastal zone supports a variety of high revenue crops, m y of which are economically viable in terms of their return on capital investmenthressure to convert agricultural land to urban uses is continually increasing and causing market values for land to rise. Escalating land prices are negatively affecting agriculture by causing increased rents, land speculation, and a barrier to expansion of existing agricultural operations. Regulatory controls aimed at preventing agricultural conversions would lower land values. Such a decrease would limit a grower's ability to obtain financing for capital improvements, would reduce owner's income retirement security, and could reduce an owner's ability to begin a new operation elsewhere if he couldn't get the expected equity from land in the coastal zone. Aside from the direct and indirect effects of high land costs, the type of agriculture occurring in the coastal zone is well suited to the existing status of the various factors affecting production. Soil, climate, and access are all very good; labor costs and water costs appear to be the primary limiting factors. The potential for water re-use in Carlsbad is such that future water availability should not be a problem. Its cost may compare favorably with that of imported water; the extent to which price becomes limiting depends upon the willingness of consumers to pay higher prices for food. Labor cost is far higher than in many competing countries and its availability is dependent to a large extent upon policies toward undocumented aliens. If market conditions were allowed to operate without land use regulation, agricul- ture in the coastal zone would undoubtedly be eventually replaced by urban uses. This would be the result of increasing prices offered for land rather than inadequacies of other factors of production such as climate, soil type, or water. Given the Coast Commission mandate to avoid conversion of coastal zone agriculture, and the fact that land use regulations are necessary to implement that mandate, it follows that some form of land use control is necessary. Many options are available and have been outlined in this report. The most workable solution must be a combination of compensatory and regulatory techniques, must focus on areas which are large and relatively free from existing urban encroachment, and must contain the flexibility to respond to long term changes of community goals, changes in the status of essential factors of production, and changes in market conditions. - 39- VI. LLTT OF REFERENCES A. Publications Agricultural Extension Service, University of California, 1978. Carlsbad Report- Part 1; Berkeley: October. Buckner, R. J., 1978. San Diego County's Fresh Market Tomato Industry; Sari Diego California Coastal Commission, 1977. Staff Recommendations on Expansion of Encina Sewage Treatment Plant; San Francisco: September. California Coastal Commission, 1978. Staff Recommendation: Appeal No. 58-77 (Pacesetter Homes): San Francisco: March 5. California Coastal Commission, 1979. Draft Work Program, Non-Prime Agricul- tural Supplemental Use Study; San Francisco: November 5. California Coastal Commission, 1979. Draft Memo on Agricultural Policies; San Francisco: July 12. City of Carlsbad, 1978. Local Coastal Program: Issue Identification; City of Carlsbad: February 10. Coastal Conservancy, 1978. Functions of the Coastal Conservancy: Agricultural - Preservation: Oakland. Comprehensive Planning Organization, 1974. Comprehensive Plan for the San - Diego Region: Volume 3, Coastline; San Diego: April Comprehensive Planning Organization, 1979. 'The Water Supply System in California and Arizona and the San Diego Water Supply Pipeline No. 5.'' Board of Director's Agenda Report No. R-34; San Diego: Oct. 15. Copley International Corporation and Pacific Consultants, 1978. An Economic Analysis of Agriculture in San Diego County; San Diego: October 15. Council on Environmental Quality, 1977. Environmental Quality - 1977; Washing- ton: December. Council on Environmental Quality, 1978. Environmental Quality, 1978; Washington: December. Council on Environmental Quality, 1979. Environmental Quality, 1979; Washington: December. County of San Diego, Department of Planning and Land Use, 1978. Agriculture Element Basic Data Report; San Diego: May. - 40 - County of San Diego, Department of Planning and Land Use, 1979. Staff Report: GPA 79-02, Sub-Item 1, Agriculture Element; San Diego: October. County of San Diego, Department of Planning and Land Use, 1979. Draft Agriculture Element; San Diego: August 3. County of San Diego, Department of Planning and Land Use, 1979. Land Use Element of the General Plan; San Diego: January 3. County of San Diego, Department of Planning and Land Use, 1979. Draft Agriculture Technical Support Paper, San Dieguito Local Coastal Program; San Diego: September. County of San Diego, Department of Planning and Land Use, 1979. Land Use Plan, San Dieguito Local Coastal Program; San Diego: January 25. County of San Diego, Department of Planning and Land Use, 1979. Draft North County Metropolitan Subregional Plan; San Diego: January 30. County of San Diego, Department of Agriculture, 1979. Agricultural Crop Report, - 1978; San Diego. County of Ventura, Planning Department, 1970. The Economics of Conserving Agriculture in Ventura County; Ventura. Escher, T.L. 1979. Leasing Land for Agriculture; San Diego: June. Lowry and Associates, 1979. City of Carlsbad Wastewater Reclamation Master Plan Study; San Diego: September. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, 1980. "Recommendation of Rates for Water to Become Effective July 1, 1980"; Los Angeles, August. National Agricultural Lands Study, 1980. Report from the Western Regional Work- shops; Sacramento: January. San Diego City/County Water Reuse Study, 1978. Work Plan for Phase 11; San Diego: September. San Diego Coast Regional Commission, 1974. Coastal Land Environment; San Diego. San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission, 1979. Agricultural Lands Policy; San Diego: May 7. Soil Conservation Service, 1975. Soil Survey; San Diego: June. - 41 - I B. AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED San Diego Coast Regional Commission Mike Kennedy Coastal Conservancy Allen Meacham San Diego County Department of Planning and Land Use Maxine Spellman Ken Carlson San Diego County Department of Agriculture Tom Escher Cooperative Extension Service, UCSD Mr. Breece C. STAFF AND CONSULTANTS Members of the PRC Toups professional staff contributing to this report include the following individuals: James Fisk Project Manager Debra H. Marsh Principal Investigator Joni Curren Graphic Artist Mary Lou Jensen Production Typist - 42 - APPENDIX - 43 - APPENDIX 1 SOIL NPES - 44 - AID2 9-15 lll*-5(19) 2R 24-30 (eroded) AtE 1 I-30 IVC-5(19) 29 18-30 AtE2 19-30 IVC-5(19) 23 20-28 (eroded) Soil Association: Carlrbad Gravelly Loamy Sand C bB 2- 5 llle-S(l9) 23 36-39 C bC 5-9 lllr-8( 19) 21 32-39 CbD 9-15 IVe-8( 19) 20 26-39 CbE 15-30 IVe-8( 19) I5 20-37 -" SOIL TYPES Potcnttal Rutloll Erosion Hazard Fertility ACTCT F Crop Sultability medium Slow to Meduum Medium to rapid Medium to rapid Slow medium Slow to Medium to rapid Medium rnodcrate SIIght to Mudrratc Moderate to high Moderate to htgh Slight moderate Slight to Moderate Moderate to high Uedturn Medium Mrdium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium " " -- Good -- I Fair (1) - Fair Good - Good (9) - Fair Fair - Good (9) (1) - Fair - - Fair - Fair - (1) " - (I) Capability mio are explainned in the "Key to Capability Groupings" in Appendix 2. (2) The Stwie Index is explained in the "Key to the Storie Index" in Appendix 2. ('I Cmp Types: A F Avocados; C = Citrus; TC r Truck Crops; T = Tomatas; F = Flowers. Factors which adversely affect crop suitability: 1 = slope; 2 = surface layer texture; 7 = permeability rate; 9 I depth to hard rock. Soil Association: Chesterton-Urban Land Complex cgc 2-9 - Altered land usrd for home sites Soil Association: Coastal Reaches Cr - Vlllw-b(l9) IO Soil Association: Corralitos Loamy Sand CSB 0- I 111s-4(19) 6b csc 5-9 llIs-b(I9) 61 CsD 9-15 IVS-4(19) 52 Gravelly and sandy beaches along Pad ic Ocean 60 Slow Slight Medium Good Good Good - Good 60 Medium Moderate Slow to Slight to Medium Good Good Fair - Good (1) 60 Medium Moderate Medium Good Good - - Fair (If Soil Association: Diablo Clay DaC 2-9 lle-S(I9) 92 3-10 Slow to Medium DaD 9-1s n1c-5~~) 37 26-37 Medium DaE 15-30 lVe-5(19) 30 25-36 to rapid Medium DaE2 15-30 IVe-S(I9) 27 20-32 to rapid Medium (eroded) Modcrate Slight to moderate Slight to Hodcrate to high Moderate to high Medium to high Medium to high Medium to high Medium to high " - Good - - - - Fair - (2) - - - Fair - (1) - - - Fair - (1) hll Aswc~ation: Friant Rocky Flne \andy Loam -____._____ FrE 9- 30 Vlls-8(19) a 3-12 .Soil Association: Gaviota Fine Sandy Loam GaE 9- 30 Vle-NI9) I1 9- 20 GaF 30->O Vlir-8( 19) S 9-1 8 - Soil Association: Huerhuero Loam HrC 2-9 llle-I(l9) VI 50-72 HrD2 9-15 IVe-3(19) 36 m-40 (eroded) HrE2 I >30 Vle-3(19) 32 20-36 (eroded) "" Slrdlum to rapid Mcdlum to rapid Rapid medium Slow to lnrdlum 5lOW to Vedium Wedlum to rapid Moderate to high High Low Low Slrght to modrrate medium Low 10 moderate SIlRht to Low to medlum Voderate Low to medium Moderate to high medism Low to - - Fair Good Fair (7) 12) - -- Fair Good Fair (7) (2) - -- - Fair Farr (1) (21 LcD2 9-1 I IV?-3(19) 29 16-26 (eroded) LeE 15-30 v1e-N 19) 29 16-21 LrE2 15-30 Vle-3(19) 26 16-26 (eroded) LeE3 15-30 Vl1e-1(19) 24 Id20 (severely eroded) .. medrum vow to \ledrum to rapid Urdrum Wedium to rapid Medium to rapid mockratr Slrght to Moderate Moderate to hrgh Moderate lo high Moderate to high bil Association: Las Flows-Urban Land Complex LfC 2-9 - - Altered land used for home rites Soil Association: Loamy Alluvial Land-Huerhuero Complex LvF3 9- 50 VlllS-I(19) 23 - Rapid Severe (severely eroded) Soil Association: Marina Loamy Coarse Sand MIC 2-9 flls"r(l9) MIE 9-30 IVs-O(I9) - Area filled with material transported from lagoon Low lo medium Low to medium Low 10 medrum Low to medium Low to medium - " - - 60 Slow to Slight to Vedium Good Good Fair - Gobd medium moderate (1) 60 Medium Modcrate Good Fair - - Medium to rapid to high (1) - hi1 Association: Reddinp, CravellyLoam RdC 2-9 Vle-3(19) - Soil Association: Reiff Flne Sandy Loam R kC 5-9 lllC-1(20) llC-I(l9) 19 13-26 77 Soil Association: Roup,h Broken Land RUG vllle-l~l9,20~ 10 Soil Association: Salinas Clay Loam SbC 2-9 llC-I(l9) 73 Soil Association: Salinas Clay kA 0-2 11s-5(19) 62 Soil Auociation: Steep Gullied Land StC Vile-l(19.20) 10 ti0 medium Slow to moderate Slight to medium Slow to moderate Sllght 10 - very rapid Rapid to Very hiRh 60 medium Slow 10 moderate Slight to Very slow Slight Very rapid Very high LOU Mrdium Good Good Fair ''. Fair Good to high (1) (2) Very low High High Low - Fair Fair Good Fair (7) (2) (2) - - - Good - Map Slope Capabiviy Storie Depth Runoff Erosion Crop Suitability (2) Designation (%I Unit Index (!riches) Potential Hazard Fertility ACTCT F Soil Association: Terrace Escarpments Te F - VIIk(19.20.30) IO @-IO Very rapid High LOW "- - - Soil Association: Tidal Flats Tf - VIllw-6(19) IO Areas periodically covered with tidal water Soil Association: Tujunga Sand Tu0 0- 5 IVa-0(19) 39 60 Very slow Slight Low Cood - Fair - Good to slow (2) Soil Asociation: Vualia Sandy Loam Va0 2-5 lle-I(l9) 8 1-60 Slow Slight High Good Good Good Fair Good VaC 5-9 1k-7(191 73 60 Slow to Slight to High Good Good Fair Fair Good medium moderate APPENDIX 2 EXPLANATION OF SOILS CLASSIFICATIONS Capability Classes Class I Class I1 Class III Class IV Class V Class VI Class VI1 Class VI11 * Ca ability W S Soils have few limitations that restrict their use. Soils have moderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require moderate conservation practices. Soils have severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants, require special conservation practices, or both. Soils have very severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants, require very careful management, or both. Soils are not likely to erode but have other limitations, impracti- cal to remove, that limit their use largely to pasture or range, woodland, or wildlife habitat. Soils have severe limitations that make them generally unsuited to cultivation and limit their use largely to pasture or range, woodland, or wildlife habitat. Soils have very severe limitations that make them unsuited to cultivation and that restrict their use largely to pasture or range, woodland, or wildlife habitat. Soils and landforms have limitations that preclude their use for commercial crop production and restrict their use to recreation, wildlife, or water supply, or to aesthetic purposes. Main limitation is risk of erosion unless close-growth plant cover is maintained. Water in or on the soil interferes with plant growth or cultivation. Soil is shallow, droughty, or stony. Capability Units - 0 Sand and gravel in the substratum 1 Erosion hazard 2 Wetness caused by poor drainage or flooding 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Slow or very slow permeability of the subsoil or substratum Coarse texture or excessive gravel Fine or very fine textured soil Salts or alkali Cobblestones, stones, or rocks Nearly impervious bedrock or a hardpan Low fertility or toxicity Land Resource Area - - (19) (20) (30) Coastal plains and interior valleys in the foothills Pen insular range Sonoran basin and range ..> 7 . Kev To The Storie Index The Storie Index expresses numerically the relative degree of suitability, or value, of a soil for general intensive agriculture. The rating is based on soil characteris- tics only and does not take into account such factors as the availability of water for irrigation, the climate, and the distance from markets. Four factors that represent the inherent characteristics and qualities of the soil are considered in the index rating. Each factor is rated separately in terms of percentage of the ideal, or 100 percent. The factors are: Factor A, Profile Characteristics. Factor A expresses relative suitability of a profile for the growth of plant roots. The rating depends upon the extent to which root penetration is limited. Factor R, Texture Of The Surface Soil. Factor I3 is rated according to the texture of the surface soil, which affects the ease of tillage and the capacity of the soil to hold water. Factor (3, Slope. Factor C is particularly important if the soil is irrigated. The amount of water that runs off a soil and its susceptiblity to erosion are influenced by the slope of the soil. The rating decreases as the slope increases. Factor X, Other Conditions. Factor X is used to evaluate any limitation to use of the soil, such as poor drainage or a high water table, erosion, salts or alkali, low fertility, acidity, or unfavorable microrelief. Soils are placed in grades according to their suitability for agricultural use as shown by their Storie Index ratings. The six grades and their range in index ratings are: tad;; r;;ing Grade 1 Grade 2 60 to 80 Grade 3 40 to 60 Grade 4 20 to 40 Grade 5 10 to 20 Grade 6 Less than 10 Soils in Grade 1 have few or no limitations that restrict their use for crops. Soils in Grade 2 are suitable for most crops and have few special management needs, but they have minor limitations that narrow the choice of crops. Grade 3 soils are suited to a few crops or to special crops and require special management. Grade 4 soils are severely limited for crops. If used for crops, they require careful management. Grade 5 soils are not suited to cultivated crops but can be used for pasture and range. Grade 6 consists of soils and land types that generally are not suited to farming. * APPENDIX 3 COAST COMMISSION PERMIT DECISIONS RELEVANT TO COASTAL ZONE AGRICULTURE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 631 Howard Street, Son Francisco 94105 - (415) 391-6500 From south to nox%h: Awed 110. 15-76 (Vtsta). The conmission granted a pemit *with conditions for the exparxion of a Mater treatment piant L.? Carlsbad. Tke ccnditions prohibited- sewer lmok~ps to agriculturd. lzr-ds and steep elopes acd pro- hibited increased assessments of those lads in 2n effort to lower develop ment pr~ssures. Apaeal Xa. 2%-77 (HCS) and 255-?? (Yado,mel. The Codssion Geded land divisions in San mega ta hdt the conversion of agrhultural lads to resi- dential developcent. Aooeal No. 55-77 (Plmmr). The Co&ssion denied a residential deve1opr;ent in Enciaitas to halt tk.e conversion from greenkouses to rssidentizl develop- ment. Acxal KO. S"7L (3arLak). The Comissio3 de.nied a nsickntial develoFment in Enzlbitaa to hat the conversion of a&c.alt~iral la.nds to resider,tid, dc- velopment . (MCTS: The Plapor and EzrLak parcels are the sme parcel. ) , Ameal No. 21573 ( hcho La Costa). The Codssion denied a sewer >&.e in Carlsbad becaue it would 'ce growth kducixg an,d muld lezd to the conmrsicn of agricultural lmds to urbar: de*~elcprnent. Appeal No. (Pacesetter Homes). Armed ??a. 02-76 (SnQA IT). The Colnnission granted a pemit with ccrz&- tions for an ocean outfall uld a sewage tre&aer;t plant expulsion in southern Orsnge County. The conditions limited sewer hoobps to non-sgrLcultaral lands to rehce gro~Jh-ir.ck~c-Jl3 *acts and the convzrsion of agricultural lends to urban developnent. mm COuiJTY 5 C. Anneal Fo. 17L-75 (HUPC) McrJrath Assoc.) . Tne Codssion grzted a pedt with coniitions lor a lznd division -5n Ventdra County. The ?emit was granted because of hsrdshLp to the applicats. However, the stdngsnt conditions azsured that agr',c.Jlturzl use of tte 1w.d woldd be prsserrd. -2 huedl No. 197.77 !Church of the rT&xrenel. The Comission denied a land division in Carpizteria to halt the' conversion of agecultural lands to urban developme&, and to lower the tax pressureso . .. - Apceal No. llL-75 (NisMmurai. Thiio-i-ssicn denied a land didsfon in -Carpi?teria_-t.o- haLC, t;?e conversion of - ag~catural Lzr,ds to residential ADce& KO. 69-77 (Seder) . The Cdmission denied a large residential de- velopment to halt the conversion of agricultuxl lands to urban development. - .. . - ". Anieals No. LOG77 thn L29-77 (I4oi.x 9av Aaceals). The Comiss'ron graqted permits for sk-gle-famLly hones out limited future developneat, fhding that -contimed residential gmrlth muld take watsr f-xm agriculturd uses uld that , an eqensive water project-would incmase assessrr,ents on increasing developcr,t pmssnes ad shculd therefore be cautiously. agricultural I-.&, apprczched veq lsnd &~sion In part Awed No. ?&0-77 (CadLetich); The Codssion denied a to halt conversion or' agdciitUr& lids to reside3tial development. .. . . " " . .- ." ~ .-.-Ameal KO. 15L-73 (Hadian Entexdrisesl. The Cowdssion denitd a large residential develoFment LT an atteqt to lower assessments ad halt the conversion of a.@cslturzi lands to residential development. h?eal I!o. 392-77 (9ilt".;s),. Thd Cmdssion denied a lad dLv5sion near Pescadero 'Ln an attempt to halt the conversio?, of agriciLturzl lands to urban development Awed No. 159-7 (WJZZ~~. The Cbdssion approved with conditions a land &Asion isto larae parcsls near Pescadero. me restrictions atteqrt to -3- hoed. No. Z9-77 (SDA~Z! . The Cmdssion dtnied a land division ne= Mendocino to lower assessments and halt the conversion of agricultural lanCs to urban developmefit . Awed No. 267-75 13ear;J?,a). The Codssion granted a pemit to divide timberhnds frw r‘amhnds on a large parcel with conditicns assuring that apricultm would be presemed. Ameel No. 113-77 (Mid-Comty Truck).. The Codssion granted a permit with conditiom for the placeaent or’ fill in Zureka, fixling that agriculeure would not be a&versel;r affected by the proposed dewlopent. Amezl No. 1°F (Cmcker). The Conmission dezied a commercial development in an effort to protect agriedtural lads from levelopent pres-ves. Armed No. 332-77 (Erizard Co. & Arcata Little Learlel. The Conmrissior, derded a land div‘sior, LT Arcata h an attempt to halt the conversion of agricd.tmd lazds to urjar development. ADoed %Q. 117-76 (Rmboldt Ezy Yzste*hztcr Aztkorit:~). The Codssion g:anted a pe-t x5th conditions for sewage irctpi, stztions and sewage. tirrns in Xum5oldt Couaty. The conditicns limit sever hooki;ps i~ ur atteqt to protect a@cUltural lands fmn gm-wLA%inducing pressires ard Thcmased tax zsszssnents. Anneal No. 65-73 (Fbk-?iinston~, The Codssion denied a pemit ‘for .a -bile hone pzrk ir, an attcnpt to pmtect agricultural 1ar.d~ from deve1opzen.t pressures. Amezl ?Io. L?3-7? (SnriSh Ever),. The Commission grantid a permit with. COE- ditions for a water SUFP~Y and distribution system in Smith River. The conditions limit service corrnections to residentizl and commercial develop- ment 4s an attenpt to lower assessnents on Gricultural la?ds,,thereby protecting the agricultmal lads f”om developent pressures. APPENDIX 4 Compensatory Programs for Preserving Agriculture G Source: County of San Diego Agriculture Element Basic Data Report, 1978 CHAPTER 1 COMPENSATORY PROGRAMS FOR PRESERVlNG AGRICULTURE This chapter includes discussions of several methods ofgrovidi._ng-cq_mp.ensatign .to property "_ ... owners - - . " whose ". land is restricted to -- -. agr-i.cultur_a_luse.-_The methods discussed are as follows: 1. Preferential property tax assessment; 2. Transfer of development rights; and 3. Purchase and lease-back. Compensatory programs such as these are capable of providing positive incentives for using land for agricultural purposes. The provision of some form of compen- satlon to owners of land restricted to agricultural use may also be desirable as a means of mitigating adverse economic effects of governmental regulatory decl si ons. YHEFIAENTIAL PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT: THE WILLIAMSON ACT Nationwide, one of the most popular methods of providing compensation to owners of land restricted to agricultural use is preferential property tax assessment. Commonly, land so restricted is assessed based not on its market value but on its value for agricultural uses. According to a 1977 report 42 states have "use-value'' assessment programs for agricultural or other open-space lands. California's program was enacted in 1965 as the California Land Conservation Act, or Williamson Act. By 1976, 47 of California's 58 counties participated in the program, making Pt one of the most important in the United States. ';he Williamson Act permits participating counties in California to enter into contracts with owners of agricultural or open space land. The contracts restrict the use of the larid and limit its potential for subdivision in exchange for a reduction in property tax. The contracts run for a period of ten years and are renewed automatically each year. The amount of the tax reduction Is based on the difference between the agricultural value of the property and its market value. The County of San Diego has been an active participant in the Williamson Act program slnce 1969. The following table shows the total dollar value of taxes saved each year by those property owners with lands under contract. 95 TABLE 28 TAX YEAR TAX SAVINGS 1969-70 1970-7 1 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 TOTAL $ 204,612 270,745 425,175 727,009 1 ,025,045 1,280,753 1,443,599 1,663,008 1,732,376 $8,772,322 The goals of the Williamson Act are expressed within the Act itself, as follows: 1. 2. 3. That the preservation of a maximum amount of the limited supply of agricultural land is necessary to the conserva- tion of the state's economic resources, and is necessary not only to the maintenance of the agricultural economy of the state, but also for the assurance of adequate, healthful, and nutritious food for future residents of this state and nation; That the discouragement of premature and unnecessary conversion of agricultural land to urban uses is a matter of public interest, and will be of benefit to urban dwellers themselves, in that it will discourage discontiguous urban development patterns which unneces- sarily increase the cost of community services to community residents; That in a rapidly urbanizing society, agricultural lands have a definite public value as open space, and the preservation in agricultural production of such lands, the use of which may be limited under the provisions of this chapter, constitutes an important physical, social, esthetic, and economic asset to existing or pend I ng urban or metropol i tan development (Sect ion 51220, Cal ifornia Government Code). Thoss statements nake it clear that the would be used to further land use plann and containing urban sprawl, while prov tu re. State legislature intended ing goals of preserving agr iding open space to be used Let us examine the relationship between these goals and the actual Williamson Act program in San Diego County. that the Act icultural lsnd for agricul- use of the First, has it helped cause the preservation of a maximum amount of the limited supply of agricultural land in the County? The answer to this question depends on what is meant by "agricultural land." While "agricultural land" is not defined ir; the Act," prime agricultural land" is defined as follows: (1) All land which qualifies for rating as Class I or Class II in the Soil Conservation Service land use capability classi- fications; (2) Land which qualifies for rating 80 through 100 in the Storie Index Rating. (3) Land which supports livestock used for the production capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture. (4) Land planted with fruit- or nut-bearing trees, vines, bushes or crops which have a nonbearing period of less than five years and which will normally return during the commercial bearing period on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant pro- duction not less than two hundred dollars ($200)' per acre. (5) Land which has returned from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant products an annual gross value of not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre for three of the previous five years. According to one source there are 192,300 acres of "prime" land in the County. Of this acreage, 9.1 percent, or 17,433 acres were under contract during the 1975-76 tax year. More recently, the San Diego County Assessor has reported that, for the 1978-79 tax year, there are 20,807 acres of prime agricultural land under contract out of a total of 135,679 acres under contract. Thus, only 15 percent of the land in the County now under contract is prime agricultural 1 and. 97 S*cond, kats the Williamson Act program in San Die50 County helped contain urban sprawl? To answer this question one must analyze the spatial distribution of the lands under contract. A map showing the location of all contract lands reveals that most of the contract lands lie far to the east of the urbanized areas of San Dlego County. The lands under contract lying within or near urban areas are relatively smaller and discontiguous in comparison to the vast tracts in the more remote areas. The overall effect of these contracts on the spatial characteristics of urban growth would appear to be minor. One reason for the present spatial distribution of lands under contract is the voluntary nature of the Williamson Act program. The law provides for the County to establish agricultural preserves for the purpose of identifying which lands should be eligible for contracts. However, the County has never attempted to establish agricultural preserves for the purpose of keeping agricultural land from being urbanized unless the owner desired to sign a Land Conservation Contract. In general, the County has only established preserves in response to the expressed desires of landowners to sign contracts. Exceptions to this policy have occurred only in the more remote areas of the County. Thus almost all of the land within agricultural preserves but not under contract is located far from any urbanizing areas. The agricultural preserves that do exist near urban areas are generally coterminous with the boundaries of land under contract. Third, has the Williamson Act program served to foster agricultural production on agricultural lands? The answer to this question can be approached by analyz- ing what lands are under contract. This analysis will show who the beneficiaries are of the Williamson Act in San Diego County. Once the beneficiaries are known, one can attempt to evaluate the extent to which the tax benefits of the Williamson Act appear to foster actual agricultural production. The following questions are asked as the basis for this analysis: 1. How many acres.of land devoted to particular agricultural activities are under contract? 2. How much of the total annual tax savings under the County's Williamson Act program supports each agricultural activity? 3. What is the average percentage of tax savings by agricultural activity? The answer to the first of these questions is found in the table below, as reported by the San Diego County Assessor as of March 1, 1978. TABLE 29 ~~~~ AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY ACREAGE % OF TOTAL Grazing and Dry Farming 122,217 88.2 Tree Crops 10,127 7.3 I r r i ya ted Crops 2,346 1.7 Flowers 1,108 .8 Other (includes open space easements) 2,807 2.0 TOTAL 138,605 100.0 Note that 88.2 percent of the total acreage under contract is classified as land for grazing or dry farming. The answers to the second and third questions appear in the next table, which provides an analysis by agricultural activity of the tax savings enjoyed by owners of land under contract during the tax year 1977-78. These figures ate based on the County Auditor and Controller's Agricultural Preserve Inventory of November 22, 1977. TABLE 30 AGRl CULTURAL ACTlV ITY AVERAGE % TAX SAVING TAX SAVING % OF TOTAL TO OWNER Grazing Tree Crops Flowers Irrigated Crops Dry Farming Open Space Easements Dairies TOTAL $1 083 , 890 63 % 80% 336,178 19% 42% 180,442 10% 61% 46 , 626 3% 7 4% 39,101 2% 63% 21,835 1% 76% 19,302 1% 66% The answers to these three questions clearly show that by far the principal beneficiaries of the Williamson Act in San Diego County are the owners of grazing land. Grazing is the most predominant agricultural activity under contract; owners of grazing land receive 63 percent of the total tax savings in San Diego County from the Williamson Act program; grazing results in the highest percentage tax savings of all the agricultural activities. Thus it appears that, in San Diego County, the Williamson Act program has provided the strongest incentives for owners of grazing land to sign Land Conservation Contracts. This relative emphasis of the program on grazing would make more sense if livestock made up an important segment of this County's agri- cultural production. However, as shown in the table below, out of a gross value of $335 million in agricultural sales in 1977, only $5.8 million was derived from cattle and calves. These figures are reported in the 1977 Agricultural Crop Report prepared by the County Department of Agriculture. 99 TABLE 31 -~ CROP PERCENT OF DOLLAR VALUE TOTAL VALUE Toma toes Avocados Milk Valencia Oranges St rawber r i es Lemons Carnations (Standard) Cattle and Calves b3s $63,332,000 51,408,000 24,701,000 7,721,000 6,634,000 5,854,000 5,824,000 50,058,000 17,830,000 18.9% 15.3 14.9 7.4 5.5 2.3 2.0 1.7 1.7 Cattle and calves were the ninth most valuable agricultural commodity in 1977, comprising only 1.7 percent of the value of all agricultural commodities. Significant also is the fact that the signing of a Land Conservation Contract in no way obligates the owner to use any of his land for agricultural purposes. The owner may enjoy his tax break without producing an agricultural conmodity. The contract provides disincentives and restrictions on nonagricultural uses, rather than positive incentives for agricultural use. The discussions above lead to the conclusion that, in San Diego County, the Williamson Act program does not appear to have been encouraging owners of land suitable for the production of the County's most important agricultural commodi- ties to sign Land Conservation Contracts. One might yet, however, conclude that the program has, in accordance with the third goal of the Williamson Act itself, fostered the agricultural use of open space land by discouraging nonagricultural use of grazing land. However, one could hardly argue that this has been the most efficient or productive use of the County's investment in the Williamson Act program. Effect of Proposition 13 on the Williamson Act Program It must also be noted that the Williamson Act program, like many others, will be significantly affected by Proposition 13, the Jarvis-Gann property tax initiative. As the discussion below demonstrates, the property tax savings incentive for signlng or renewlng a Williamson Act contract will be greatly reduced by Proposi- tion 13. In some cases, the tax savings formerly attributable to the Williamson Act contract may now be exceeded by the savings attributable to Proposition 13 even if no contract is signed. 100 t This discussion will compare various examples to show the difference made by the passage of Proposition 13 on the tax savings resulting from signing a Williamson Act contract. Each example below is cornputed on a per acre basis for a typical mature avocado orchard in Valley Center. Estimates of market values, restricted or agricultural values, and tax rates were received from personnel from the County Assessor's Office. - 1975 1978 - Market Value (typical) $7,500 $15,000 Restricted Value (typical) $6,000 $ 6,000 iiow taxes were computed before Proposition 13 -- Had Proposition 13 not passed, 1978 property taxes would have been computed by multiplying the tax rate times +he assessed value of the property. !n Examples 1 and 2 a typical tax rate for Valley Center was selected equal to $.lo28 per dollar of assessed value. In Example 1 the assessed value is equal to one-quarter of the "restricted" or agricultural use value of the land under Williamson Act contract. ~x~ple 1 -- 1978 tax per acre on land not under contract had Proposition 13 not ,-absed: - - Tax = (Tax Rate) (Assessed Value) = = (Tax Rate) (Market Value) = 4 = (.1028) ($15 000) = $385.5O/acre 4 Example 2 -- 1978 tax per acre on land under contract had Proposition 13 not passed: - Tax = (Tax Rate) (Restricted Assessed Value) = = (Tax Rate) (Restricted Value) = 4 = (.1028) ($6 000) = $154.20/acre 4 How taxes are computed under Proposition 13 -- Under Proposi tlon 13, property taxes shall be levied at no more than one percent of the full 1975 property value, adjusted annually by a two percent inflation rate, as shown below: 1978 property tax = .01 (1975 full value) (l.02)3 where .01 is the one percent tax rate and (1.O2l3 represents three years of inflation at a rate of two percent. 101 if owr,ership of the property has changed since 1575, the tax shall be no more than one percent of its full value at the time of sale, adjusted annually by the two percent inflation rate. Example 3 -- 1978 tax on land - not under contract but according to Proposition 13: Tax = (.01) (1975 Market Value) (2% inflation for 3 years) = (.01) ($7,500) (l.O2I3 = $79.59/acre How taxes are corr?uted under Proposition 13 for property under Williamson Act contract -- Property under Williamson Act (California Land Conservation Act) contract wi 11 be taxed based on its 1975 ayricul tural or "restricted" value, adjusted by the two percent inflation rate, as shown below: 1978 property tax = .01 (1975 restricted value) (1.02) 3 For property now under contract but not under contract in 1975, the tax is computed based on the restricted value at the time of sale, adjusted for infla- tion. Example 4 -- 1978 tax on land under contract according to Proposition 13: Tax = (.01) (1975 Restricted Value) (2% inflation for 3 years) = = (.01) ($6,000) (l.02)3 = $63.67/acre' Summary of Examples -- 1978 tax per acre avocado land, if: 1. No Proposition 13 and no contract - $385.50 2. No Proposition 13 but under contract - $154.20 3. Proposition 13 but no contract - $79.59 4. Proposition 13 and under contract - $63.67 The most important effect on the Williamson Act program will be the apparent reduction in incentive for property-owners to enter into new contracts. The incentive wlll be reduced because the dollar value of tax savings resulting from the contract will be greatly reduced. The effect of Proposition 13 on, for example, acreage planted in avocados but not under contract would be to reduce taxes by as much as 80 percent. This savings is based on the approximately 60 percent reduction fn tax rate coupled with the fact that 1975 property value may be only 50 percent of 1978 property value. Signing a contract now should still result in a tax savings to the property owner. However, the dollar amount of that tax savings may seem insignificant relative to that amount saved solely because of Proposition 13. Another possible effect of Proposition 13 may 'be increased numbers of property Owners with lands now under contract deciding not to renew their contracts. When property Owners decide not to renew, each year for ten years they pay an ,102 :r.::c.:.sing percentage of what would have- teen their taxes had their land not beep under contract. Under Proposition 13, these yearly payments wi 1 I be based On the full 1975 value, adjusted for inflation by only tvJo percent per year. These payments will be considerably less than they would have been without Proposition 13 because the tax rate has been reduced by approximately 60 percent and the two percent inflation rate is far below the actual inflation rate for property value. A further possible effect of Proposition 13 on the Williamson Act proyram may be to increase the number of petitions for outright cancellation of contracts. The Board of Supervisors may cancel a contract at the owner's request and impose a cash penaity equal to 12-1/2 - 25 percent of the "full cash value of the land as though it were free of contractual restriction" (Section 51283, Government Code; see also Board of Supervisors Policy 1-38). Before Proposition 13 was passed, this "ful 1 cash value'' meant market value. Now it means 1975 market value adjusted at only a two percent inflation rate. Since market value has been increasing at a much higher rate than two percent, as each year goes by the maximum dollar value of the cancellation penalty becomes less and less an effective disincentive to petition the Board of Supervisors for a contract cancellation. Already since tire passage of Proposition 13, one property owner bas successfully petitioned the Board of Supervisors for a cancellation. Conclusion The following conclusions can be made from the above discussion: 1. In the last nine years, the Williamson Act has provided tax savings of over $8.7 million to owners of contract lands. 2. Only 15 percent of the land under contract meets the definitions of prime agricultural land. 3. Contract lands are most likely to be located far from urban areas and suitable only for grazing, a relatively unimportant segment of our agricul- tural economy. 4. The passage of Proposition 13 significantly reduces the incentive for entering into or continuing a Land Conservation Contract. Thus, it seems that the Williamson Act program in San Diego County has been of limited public value relative to the goals of the Act itself. The program has not been especially effective as a means of effecting the Act's land use pl3Hniny goals of preserving agricultural land or containing urban sprawl. The open space preserved through the program has, by and large, not been land sui table - for highly productive agricultural use or subject to the pressures of urban growth. In the future, the program will probably be even less successful bcc'luse !he 1 imitations on the property tax reduce the incentives to partici- pate in the program. It is 1 ikely that the program now provides highest inccntivc5 for owners of land unsuitable for any use at all to enter into or con: intlc: contracts which provide them with an 80 percent tax reduction. TPGNSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS Another method of providing compensation to owners of land restricted to agri- cultural use is a proposed system known as "transfer of development rights," or TDR. The principle on which TDR is based is that land ownership 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 TDR, this right is separated from the other rights of ownership and may be purchased by others. Under one type of development rights transfer, a governmental agency would purchase development rights of land the agency desired not to be developed. This kind of program is often called PDR, "purchase of development rights." Except for this case, TDR involves the establlshment of a market for development rights to be sold by owners of land planned not to be developed to owners of land planned for development. Thus, governmental actions to restrict the development of certain lands would not necessarily have their usual effect of lowering the value of the owner's invest- ments in those lands. A portion of those investments would consist of the devel- opment rights, the sale of which would provide compensation to the owners of lands restricted from development. - In order to set up a TDR program for the purpose of restricting certain lands to agricultural use, the governmental jurisdiction managing the program would designate sites for agricultural preservation and for development and would issue certificates of development rights. Each owner would receive certificates based on some equit- able principle of distribution. One system would be to issue certificates corres- ponding to the maximum number of dwelling units each owner might have been permitted prior to the adoption of the plan to be implemented by the TDR proposal. Then Owners of developable land would be required to purchase development rights from the owners of undevelopable land in order to develop their land at more than a minimum intensity. According to David L. Peterson, fiscal and economic consultant to the Regional Growth MaKagement project, transfer of development rights has both advantages and disadvantages as a technique of plan implementation, as listed below: Advan t abes 1. Consistent with established constitutional principles. 2. More politically acceptable than public acquisition or stringent zoning without compensation. 3. Minor expenditure of public funds. 4. AI leviates "windfa1 Is" and "wipeouts"; promotes equity. 5. Flexibility; can protect any resource from market forces. Disadvantages 1. Too new and complex. 2. WI t 1 not work without proper economic condl tlons. 104 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. He 'n'ould take years to study and implement. May not work unless adopted regionally. Requires significant political committment to be credible to would-be participants. Ends may be more efficiently accomplished through less complex mechanisms. May conflict with existing zoning and plans. Involves administrative and bookkeeping problems. Involves questions of property taxation of development rights. concludes his discussion of TDR as follows: TDR is a complex implementation technique which would not be easily under- stood by the general public, the development industry, and local decision- makers. TDR would require a significant administrative structure with associated costs. TDR shares, with density bonuses, the problem that it is relatively easy to identify areas from which to take rights, but it is more difficult to identify areas to which rights would be transferred. Further, such transfers could reduce the effectiveness of existing Community Plans as well as create problems in capital facilities and service delivery planning. . . .[E]xtensive use of the technique seems premature at this time. It would seem wiser to let others experiment, and to hold general use of TDR in reserve for possible future application. 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 Development Rights as a Means for Implementation of the Arlington Heights Plan and Growth Management Program." This report proposes that TDR be used in the Arlington Heights area for the following reasons: 1. To ensure greater equity for property owners by eliminating or minimizing windfalls and wipeouts, and 2. AS a means of acquiring or preserving public open spaces and environmental resources. This consultant's proposal includes draft enabling legislation and a city ordinance. Enabling legislation may be necessary for a number of reasons, as listed below: 1. So that development rights can be considered estates in real property which can be transfered, recorded, and insured; 2. So that land will be assessed for tax purposes based on the density and type of use permitted after development rights transfer; 3. To permit local agencies to require the recordation of TDR certificates to evidence the existence and transfer of development rights. PURCHASE AtJD LEASE-BACK The unincorporated area of San Diego County has approximately 113,000 acres of land in agricultural production. The bulk of this land lies in four areas: Fallbrook (14,003 - 13%), North County Metro and San Dieguito (25,593 - 23%), Valley Center (24,104 - 218), and Otay (13,695 - 12%). Clearly, many of the lands in these areas will be subject to future urban development pressure and thus any attempt to preserve this agricultural land via purchase and lease-back, etc., would be quite costly. This paper will examine the financing methods and costs of preserving agricultural lands. Based upon post Proposition 13 revenue constraints and the methods available, the following is a summary of the feasi- bility of preserving agricultural land via its acquisition. 0 Essentially, given the revenue constraints at the Federal, State, and local level and the market price of agricultural land in San Diego County, it is highly impractical to attempt to preserve agricultural land in this County primarily via acquisition. 0 An estimate was made of the cost of purchasing agricultural land. The price tag of such a purchase could well exceed 600 million dollars at today's market prices. Obviously, such an ambitious effort is beyond the scope of government. The point, however, is that any attempt to purchase agricultural land in San Diego County would involve a massive sum of money. As a corollary, this acquisition would entail foregoing other services and revenue (property taxes) by local governments. 0 The number and flexibility of financial mechanisms available to the County of San Diego to purchase agricultural land is very limited. There are no funds currently existing at the Federa-l and State level avai lable for direct purchase. At the local level, it appears that the purchase of agricultural land by a nonprofit corporation, leasing this land to the County, and in turn having the County sublease to the grower-tenant is the most practical method at this point in time. It is likely that under such a scheme that the County of San Diego would have to subsidize lease payments; the amount depending on which agricultural land was purchased. That is, the market value of existing agricultural land and associated debt service costs a're likely to be less than market rates. Any deficiency between revenues and costs are likely to be funded in the capital improvement budget. 106 * The issuance of general obligation and revenue bonds by The County of San Diego appears infeasible. General obligation bonds have been virtually eliminated as a result of Proposition 13. According to a financial consultant to the County (Terry Comerford, Blythe, Eastman, and Di 11 ion), issuance of revenue bonds d i rectly by County of San Di ego is questionnable due to potential lease revenue being insufficient to cover debt services. Likewise a joint powers agreement is not viable, as these interjurisdictional contracts are designed for building or improvement oriented activities. A development fee for an "open space agricultural" fund is probably not legal. This is due to the fact that fees must be directly tied to benefits to the development. Finally, a special assessment district approach (i.e., City of San Diego's open space requisition bonds) would be difficult in the era of post Proposi- tion 13 revenue constraints and, according to this municipal financial consultant, subject to legal challenges. 0 In summary, the large quantity of agricultural acreage coupled with the high market price of this land and the revenue constraints in the post Proposition 13 era make it virtually impossible to preserve agricultural land via its acquisition. At best, it appears that the use of a private nonprofit corporation approach may be feasible as a minor supplement to other more ambitious methods (density zoning, etc.). METHODOLOGY Explained below is the method for calculating the market value of agricultural land in San Diego County. Admittedly, it is somewhat crude. However, to derive a "true" value of agricultural land in San Diego County would involve a farm by farm appraisal; a quite costly effort. The attempt in this study is to provide a rouqh value of agricultural land at today's market prices. This value, in many cases, is likely to be above what the land is worth for purely agricultural production. In other words, much of the agricultural land in San Diego County is valued for nonagricultural uses. This price of agricultural land by planning subregion was computed via two steps. Step one was to "inflate" the most recent information on land infla- tion by the most current acreage market value data from the Assessor's property information system. The only information which could be discovered on the inflation rate of land was the average increase in the price of existing single family homes in 1978 by those of 1977. This assumes, naturally, that land value is the sole cause for home price increases from 1977 to 1978. While not entirely true, it is a good "ballpark" estimate. Between 1978 and 1977 the average price of an existing single family home in San Diego County Increased by 31% (May 1978, Chamber of Commerce Economic Bulletin). This 31% inflation rate was applied to the Assessor's estimate of average market value per acre for all land in a planning subregion In 1977. Clearly, this implles that land would be purchased at highest and best use value. In summary, acreage in production figures were multiplied by 1977 Assessoris market value and In turn inflated at 31%. The following table summarizes this calcula- t ion: TABLE 32 PLANN I NG AREA Pendleton-DeLuz Fa 1 1 brook Bonsa 1 1 North County Metro San D i egu i to Pa la Pauma Val ley Center Otay P owa y Ramona Ra i nbow Lakes i de TOTAL MARKET VALUE AGRl CULTURAL LAND ACREAGE IN PRODUCT I ON 2280 14803 7829 20392 520 1 9205 241 04 13695 2592 8720 1715 1154 11 1690 CURRENT MARKET VALUE (In Millions) $ 4.1 166.4 47.8 124.5 95 -6 14.5 92.2 20.4 27.3 6.0 7.7 632.6 26.1 Obviously, not all of the land in these areas would be even considered for preservation due to small lot sizes, etc. The point, however, is that such an effort would be quite costly. As can be seen, the total estimated market value of this agricultural land is in the neighborhood of 663 mi 11 ion dollars. This amounts to an average market value per acre of $5,664. As mentioned earlier, possibly revenue bonds could be issued by a private nonprofit corporation to purchase part of this agricultural land. In today's market such revenue bonds are issued typically for 25 years at 7 percent interest. Related to this approach, the table below illustrates the impact on County government of the following scenarios: O The purchase of 10 million dollars worth of agricultural land in 1979 at an overall average purchase price of $5,664 per acre (the computed average). This amounts to the purchase of 1,766 acres of agricultural acres in production; or 1.6 percent of the total acres in the County. O It is assumed that the bonds are issued at 7 percent for 25 years. This amounts to an annual debt service of $858,100. Lease rates begin at an annual $150 per acre and are escalated at 10% per year. The financing "scheme" is one In which a nonprofit corporation leases to the County of San Diego and in turn the County subleases to the grower- tenant. Any difference between debt service cost and lease revenue is financed via the capital improvement budget. The term deficit refers to this capital fund figure. 108 TABLE 33 YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 TOTAL - TEN FISCAL IMPACTS OF FINANCING AGRICULTURAL LAND VIA ACQUISITION IO YEARS (IN ACTUAL NOMINAL DOLLARS) DEBT SERV ICE COST $ 858,1 OOh 858,100 858 , 100 858,100 858,100 858,100 858,100 585,100 858,100 858,100 $ 8,581,000 LEASE REVENUE $ 264,900 291,390 321,412 353,200 388,520 427,372 469,756 515,672 568,652 625,164 $4,226,038 DEFICIT $ 593,200 566,710 536,688 504,900 469,580 430,728 388,344 342,428 289,448 232,936 $4,354,962 I. 2. 3. Even under what appears to be the most feasible financial alternative, the private nonprofit corporation approach, the County of San Diego could end up "subsidizing" agricultural production. Bearing in mind that the table in this section amounts to less than a modest 2 percent purchase of agricultural lands in production, an even more ambitious approach would naturally incur substantial costs to County government and would likely cause the elimination of potential capital improvement projects. In addition, the County would be eliminating sources of property tax revenue. There are, however, two apparent advantages to such an approach. First of all, if the agricultural land is thought of as open space, then the County's nonprofit corporation could gain functional open space and, unlike most open space, receive revenue from it. Secondly, a substantial profit could pass to the County if future proceeds from the sale of the agricultural land reverted to the County. APPENDIX 5 AVAILABLE TECHNIQUES FOR ACQUISITION OF OPEN SPACE OR CONSERVATION AREAS Source: City of Carlsbad General Plan NOTE: This is the list which currently appears in the Carlsbad general plan. It was prepared prior to passage of Proposition 13; implementation of some of the acquisition measures may no longer be feasible. a. AcquisStion of Fee . .. 0 .-I) Purchase *. - purchase wjth life estate lease purchase excess condemnztion (or purchase) purchase and leaseback . option of purchase '. deferred purchase .- .2) Gift , - a) in fee .. b) with life estate ". - 3) . Trade or transfer of public land ._ - . .. .. .. i . 4) Tax foreclosure .. 5) Street vacat.ion -. .. 6) . Urban redevelopment process ' - .. 7) Dedication (Quimby- Act) -. . 8.) Eminent domain-' .. 0. I) Open space/conservation easements 2) Development rights and/or easements .. .. .. - . .3} Public easements to beaches, recreation areas, etc. " r 4) . S1ope.conservation easements- * 5). - Scenic easements (fDr' highways, park entrances, .a historic sites and/or -arcas) ' 6) Public purchase and resale with certain restriction: 7) Compensable regulations. (should be conlbincd wit\, ton -i ng *. . ' . 8): Open 'Space Maintenance District ', I- . ' *. .. .. . .. .. ..- 0' . . 22 - .. .. .I .. . . .- . .. .. .. . .. Zo'ning (pol ice pokrcr) c* " " 1) Flood plain zoning' I . ' 2) Ocean - submerged lcnd zoning ' 3) Zoning to preserve scenic amenity (height limits, sign tontrol, architectural control, etc.) 4) Exclusive agricul'tural. zoni.ng. Open Space zoning -.parks, open spaces, stream valleys, t:ood plains, watershed Frotection areas, cemctcrjes, golf courses and country clubs, where shdvrn as, open space on the general plan. Other lands should be considered under type of zone to restr.ict development, hil'iside areas, wetlands, slide areas and earthquake zones. . . 6). Zoning for large lots (Estate Zoning) - 7) Planned unit developments. '(P-C, P-14, etc:) with o'pen space requirements (cluster development). d. 0the.r restrictions on developnent .' . 1) Possible control over develjpnentr by the Federal Housing .Agency (FHA) .- .' -. '2) .Private resirictive covecants . 3) Designation of Op'en Space Plan as "open space" 4) .Denial of public facilities . -. " .* * 5) Requir.ements .for Environmental. Impact Statements, .._..._ ..- and requirements .. .- ... of - ... A.B. . ." 1454"and . . A.B. 1301 " . . - .- 6) Subdivision Regulations .. * .. . -. e. Transferable. Dgnsitics ;r I . "I) .Provides for density tyansfcrs' or'reallocations' to private landowners in order to secure and/or preserve open space and conservation areas, - 2) Establishes procedures to a1 low a propcrty owncr to transfcr 3y salc, with thc approval of the - .. City, his land's dcvcloplucnt dcnsity to anothcr property ill thc sa,nlc scctiorr of thc ci ty. . 3) Rcquircs the propcrty owricr incurring a reduction . in thc dcvclopmcnt potcntial of his propcrty to . 'ilcdicatc thc dcvelopalcnt rights to the .City. * .. .- CI.itc.ria for Dctcrnlininl. Tcchni*e 2 ~ """"-.- "- '. e. Basically, the 3.cvels of land USC control'for open spacc x~id " conscrvation purposes-presently in usc in Cnlifornia.rnr.gc frmn purchase of the .full fee, which is total exercise of control; through acquisition of lcss than the fcc, to zonillg .which is the least pcrlnancnt ineihod of 'control 2s prcscrltly .exercised. Tax benofit-.ncthods of exerting ipfluence arc.. little used, thouzh .desirable and when used, arc used in . .. combination with zoning-or less tli.aP- fee acquisition. Thc major tax incentilr'e device utiliicd 'in Southern Czlicornia is the Land Conservation Act (Villliamson Ac'c) . .. .The following zre criteria that may service as guidelines in judging the level or' control necessary for the prescrvaticn of varioEs opcn'space and conscrvation components. a; Acquisitlon of Fee .. . . This method. of control is recozmendcd when the' desirable .. 'open space Zreas are in danger of development for other - -than opcn space use and:-- - 1.) the are25 are intended for full public use such as public recreation arcas or .watershed areas, or .. : 2.} preservation of the open spate use lfould preclude -. any private use .whatsoever, . .- .. - NOTE:' If the- less than fee rights are in the neigh- borhood of 759 of the full fee it may be dz- .. sirable as a matter of policy to acc,ui.rc the - full fee, -This judgment is m2de in some casc .. . such as in State Department of Water Resource 4 acquisitions. .- " .. .. -. - " .a .be.:. Acquisition of L.ess than Fee .. . * .. . . . This- net110.d is recommended when the 'desirable open space . arcas are in danger of devclopmont for other'tIl:~i~ opcrl .. .I . ". - . .. __ .. .. .. . -. - .- .- .. . .. _. space use and securing of "1.css Than fee rights" such 215 * . sccn.ic casc~ncnts, conscrvation cascments, and dcvclop~:lcl~ rights will leavc substantial and valuable rights with the property owncr. These rights may be for farcling, $!razing, dairying privntc rccrcation, vcry low dcnsity .housing, linlitcd ntincral dcvclolmcilt, .. ctc. .' .. .. .. :. - - I .. 7 2 " . .- .. .. .. .- a. 1 zoning for public safety Undcr this classificat'j.on would' be those arcas con- sidcrcd unsafc to build on because of flood hazard; land subsidcncc, steepness of' shape, firc, slirle or earthqu~ke hazard, or airport approach zone hazard. ;- ... ). Zoning for conservation 01' scenic amenity Under this classificatj on :couId cornc agricultura]. preserves, exclusive 2zricultursl distl-j.cts, areas for .mineral e.straction, scenic conser+a;icr. diszrizts, open space zones, special treatacnt, or dcsign control . zones and estate s.izc pj-cperty zones. .. -. .. - .. . .- -. .. -. .. .. .. .. .. - : -- .. .- ... .. -. - .. -. .. e. .- -. .. e-. .. .. .. .- .. . '.. .... .... ... .. .. .. -. .. .I .. .. .. - .. .. .. .. .. *- ...... ............ - -..- " ....... i. *. 0.. .. .. .- .. .- .. ". " .. .. -. . " . . .' - - .. .. .. .f 1 I. .. .. .. ... '. .2 . ... 27 APPENDIX 6 SAN DIEGO COUNTY'S FRESH MARKET TOMATO INDUSTRY 0. . ;- "...""." ".L.."" .."_ ..I. - - """__., .. -. ABSTRACT - JCTION hCRl"4G 1: ACRE.4CE Y IEL3/ACRE PKC1)UCTION PROLIUCTIOW IN TONS {EA 1: sr.m HARVESTED z N.~TIO:?AL AVERMX 2 STATE X ?IATIO!lAL PXODUCTION. " . -. "- 9n:Jlclc Y.A. 1002 12 s ,000 8 tons t1.A. lOOX 1,000,000 fotnia ,1007: 2 32 29,400 100% 11 tons , 332 333,000 3i cgo 42 18;: 5,500 30 tons 48;3 161 165,000 '.I n t y ;bad 78, ooo .. ." .. ucnce re of 8.87 2% 2,600 30 tons 2 3% Fix -. . - . .- ." .. . - ._ " - " " ~ - .. ._. . .. _. . " ". - .. - . 1. Hov Fresh ToI;?atocs are Narkctcd: U. S. Departnent of Asricolture Marketirlg Service Itarkcting nulletln ?TO. 59. 4. Agua licdionda Specific Plan Agricultural Xnalysis, City of CJrlsbad. / \, 00052 &!!a"- Carlsbad Sphere of Influence ." 1. The Carlsbad area produces 8% of tlra mtionnl production of fresh market tomatoes (on only 2% of the national acreage). 2. The Carlsbad area produces 23X of California's production (on 8.8X of the State's acreage). 3. The Carlsbad area produces 47X of San Diego"Co_unty"s production (on 47% of the County's acreage). San Diego County 1. San Diego County produces 16% of the national production (on only 47; of the national acreage). 2. Sari Diego County produces 437, of California's production (on 102 of the State's acreage). State of California 1, California produces 33% of the national pKOdUCtiOn (on 23% of the national acreage) . Average yield/Acre in tons National - 8 tons/acre State - 11 tons/acre San Diego County - 30 tons/acre Carlsbnd Area - 30 tons/acre ..,I " . CO?tMENTS i .. ._.. - - . .. .:L. . .' . U.S. TOMATO HARVESTED ACREAGE Production showed a moderate decline bctwccn 1964 an3 1371 primarily due to a reduction in Florida's output. Producers i!1 that State curtailed acreage because of increasing competition from imported tomatoes. In addition, bad weather caused hcn.,y crop losses in !he 1969-71 period. Flcrida's producticn has inctlased during the last Icw years, and U.S. tonnage is up (fig. 2). TO!~ U.S. output in i'372-74 was 11 pcrccnt above thc low point in 1971, but 3 percent bclow the 1964-66 avcrage. Over tho last fcw dccadcs, production has become more can- cenirated geogrcl~!t'rically. Duriry the lP5O's. Cnliforni;l and Florida each produced about onc-foltrlh of lht? 11,s. oul~t~t. By tr.5 miC- domcstlcally qrotvn st!oplics (Table 1). Of other prod,ucllrg Sfales, New Jersey and South Carolina each grcw about 3 percent, and Alabama. Michigan, Texas, and Arkansas produced 2-3 p:rcunt. Another 18 States (each furnishing less than 2 perccnl of the annual lotal) accounted for thc remaining 16 pcrccnt of ths U.S. fresh market crop. Igi'O'S, lhcsc Iwt) Stntcs v::;rC CDch DLC)YidLT.CLOilf2-\hifd Qf It& I .. .. I' -1' .- * 2. i 60054 c I ~~ ~ ~ ~~ U.S.TOMAT0 PRODUCTION AND PRICE 20 MI i I 15 16 ! i 10 10 i .1 5 5i 0 0 - "" FRESH TOMATOES PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION 1967 1970 1973 1 S7E , . . . . . . - . . . . .- - . . .. . .. - . .. 1 LI".LJ""-l. _____ L-l" JAN. FEO. MAR. APA. MAV JUNE JULY AUC. SEW. 03. NOV. OEC. 4: . MARKET CHANNELS Packed tomAoes arc.transpotted to terminal (wholesale) markcls primarily by truck, though rail transport is used for California, Florida, and hrexican tornaloes shipped to the larger cities in the Midwest and Northeast (See fig. 10). OGcralJ, aput 88 percent of * the fresh lomatoes move to' market by truck. Refrigcralion is com- monly used except in the coldest months, a-nd portable ethylene generating equipment is sometimes used to accclcratc ripening ' during transit. i .. r :* FRESH TOMATOES FROM SHIPPING POINT TO CONSUMERS Shipping point potking hour. I- t+ Flgwr 10 .. ... FLORIDA - ._ Florida prcvidcs one-third of the U.S. i~nnl~~l production- ., @ ” - FLORIDA: FRESH MARK~T- TOMATO PRODUCTION AREAS J -. CALIFORP!IA * I About one-third of the fdation's supply pf-fresh !omstocs origi- I . nates in California. 1 CALIFORNIA TOMATOES . Production and Price I MIL CWT $/CM. 6 ." Rice 3 20.0 420.0 ? ,169.4 I 53 ,a93 Safflower It ya9.a 54 .o SS(~O59 14,094 Sorghum grain , ' -1 2.2 210.0 417.5 36 , 468 Spinach 1 57.3 ' . 12.0 112.3 70; 363 " 2.3 - 16.6 t 4 923 . 95.7 5,440 Fresh market 1 -. 47 .? ' Processing, winter 1 2f- 9 .a 4H Strawberries 1 23.8 10.8 210.6 135,809 Fresh market . ". Processing " -" " - 140.6 103.726 " - 70.1 32 ,ea3 312.0 8,892.0 176,062 58.9 17,081 1-4 6,210 5,404.7 427,281 " - Sugar beets 1 30.2 Sweetpotatoes 3 8.6 ?.6 Tangerines , 2 25.0 IO. 6 Toma toes 1 71 .? 263.2 Fresh market 2 31 -5 29 f4 - .c . 333.3 142.553 \c; .' I - ., _. ".._. ... .._ - ..-_- _"" - _." "". -. ... - - . " . .. . .. ." ..- . . " -. . ,... .I " .. .. .. . -. - -. .- . ... harvest seasons, and leading producing " counties, 1976 . .- . .. i. f Rank among .. .. . , Harvest ""."" Carnllod i ty , .. Leading counties sea son all California commodities 2/ , , * " Nwnber I 3 -. 15 Sep 20 - NOV 15 CcIuLa, Butte, Sutter, G?enn, YOIO, yuba ! , ffl ewer . 52 Jul 1 - Sep 15 Kings, Fresno, Sacramcnto . . I rghum grain 37 ' Sep 15 - Nov 20 Yolo, Kern, Sutter, Imperial, Tu1at.e Ce i . .. -. i nac h 56 Fresh market -- . Continuous Ventura processing, winter " Mar 15 - May 10 Stanislaus, flontcrcy, VentUta. .. "- "e *. * .. .. . rawberries 18 Feb IS - Hov 30 Fresh market Ptocessfng & -" *- " "- Monterey, Ventura, Orange " "- Montcrey, Ventura, Orange J b ,gar beets :cetpotatocs 12 Apt IS - Dec 10 Imperial, Fresno, San Joaquin, Kern, Solano, Yolo 40 Jul 15 - NOV 15 Mcrccd, Stani slaus . nger 1 nes 65 . Oec 1 - Apr 1 San Diego, Riverside, Tulare, Kern ma toe 5 " "- "- c 4 .. J ~~ CALlFORNlA:. FRESH MAhKET TOMATO PRODUCTIOP! AREAS' rrr . - .. . .. . - . - -.. .-. . . , .. Although many counties in California rcpari commercial fresh ' market tomato production, eight coun!ics produce the bulk of the crop (fig. IS). . .. 9. . (0) .. .. .. .. . t. VEGETABLE CROPS, CONTINUED PRODUCTION VALUE Harvested Per Per Crop Year Acreage Acre Tota I Unit Unit To fa I Tomatoes, Fresh Market . SliAnS 2976 (1,235) (36.9) 45,570) Ton (301) ($1 3,717,000. I875 (I, 395) (34.1) ( 47,570) Ton (41 5) (' 19,742,000, Swmter Fntt . Tota I, Fresh Market 2976 I 340) 1975 ( 3351 1976 (3,680) 1976 (3,825) I976 5,255 L 975 5,555 f ! (31.01 ( 10,540) Ton (380) ( 4,005,OGOJ/ (27.0) ( 9,045) Ton (266) ( 2,406, OOOl:, (31.5) . f116,OOO) Tun (329) ( 38,164, 0001i4 (28.6) (109,000) Ton (314) ( 34,226,003.) : 4 I, i SUBREGIONAL AGRICULTURAL ECONOPIY . [OOOSZ .. .." " "-. 1.- L P ,naIysis: ve different configurations of subrggions were considered for this A)' The City of Carlsbad; B) Carlsbad Sphere of Influence; 6) North San Diego County; . D! San Ofego County Coastal Piain; E) Tri-City Area (Vista, C-arlrbad; Oceapside). Four. areas were'elfrninated for the following $easons: The City of Carlsbad (A) is not a contiguous area; North San Diego County (C) snd..the San 'Diego County Coastal Plain (D) do not have Separate crop figures available for thes; and the Tri-City Area (E), besides being . a diverse area, also has no separate crop data available. The Carlsbad Sphere of Inf.1.uence (B).was chosen as the subregion because it is a contiguous area with available crop statistics. A map indicating the Carlsbad Sphere of Influence and the location of agricultural'land trit,hin the area is attached to this report (Exhibit V). Within the subrcqion (Carlsbad Sphere of InflGence) ;.3,302-acrea -are- ..tl.o.n : ;. -7- . .n . 2-:600-.- tomatoes 150 - strawberries e 54 - beans, snap . 437 - f lotrers ( f i.el dl 61 - flovrers (greenhouse) .. 3,302 - Total 'As car( be seen from the attached map, 75% of the land used in agri- culture within the subregion is located south and southeast of the Agua Hcdionda Lagoon. Many of the parcels are large and the smaller parcels are In some 'way connected to other parcels by dirt-paved roads. or are located within close proximity to each other and are in nail- . urban areas. At present, there *is only one'actively pursued plan for urban dcvcl- opment of an agricultural parcel ,(the Pannonia propcrty)wllich will be discussed later in this'report. The most predominant agricultural commodity grown within the subregion js tomatocs. 2,600 of the 3,302 acres (92%) ,in agricultural production is devoted to the production of tomatoes. Of the entire tomato production of Sari Diego .County, the subregion generates 472 with a gross value of $26,343,?00. The favorable clirnatc and soil types throughout the subreglor] arc the major rcssnns for this intensity of production. .. - 5- .. r ". . . i FRESH MARKET TOPJATOES Principal Supply Sources. . , THOUS. CWT. I 1 1 I 1 . 12. TO.?IATO PRODUCTLOS: TONNACE 2. California produces about 338,000 tons annually (see page 6) '3. Californfia produces about 1/3 of the national production (see page 7) 4. San Diego County produces about 165,000 tons (see page 9) c 5. San Diego County produces about 4SX of CalFfornia's production (item 4 f item 2) 6, San Diego.County produces about 16% of the nattdnal production (item 4 5 ltea 1) .I, f 7. San Diego County planted'about 5,500 acres in 1976 (see page 9) 8. About 2,600'acres were planted in the "Carlsbad Sphere of Influence" (see pace 10) 9. San Diego County tomato fields produce about 30 tons per acre (see page 7) 10. The "Carlsbad Sphere of Influence'' prohced about 78,000 tons of tomatoes (item 8 X item 9) which is about: (a) 47% of San Diego County's total production (iten 10 5 item 4) (b) 23% of California's total productfon (item 10 f item 2) (c) 8% of the national total production (item 10 item 1) . Note: All of the above le based on tonnage produced, not acres planted; San Diego County tomato fields produce more tcnnage per acre than any other major producing area. TOMATO PIANTINGS: ACREAGE 1. National Acreage: 125,000 (see ctlatt, page 1) (a) Average production/acre = 8 tons * (1,000,000 tons ';. 125,000 acres) 2. California Acreage: 29,400 &res (tacen from 1976 California Principal Crop and Livestock Commodities; see page 7) ' (a) This is about 23% of the national acresg; but it produces about 33% c of the national tonnage. (b) Average productionlacre = 11 tons (325,000 tons 5 29,400 acres) ' 3. San Diego County Acreage: 5,500 acres (see page 9) (a) This is about -18% of the California acreage, but it produces about 502 of California's tonnage. (b) This is about 4-1/2% of the national acreage, but it produces about 16% of the national tonnage. (Average production is about 30 tons per acre: 165,000 tons 5 5,500 acres). 4. Carlsbad Sphere of Influence: 2,600 aircs (see page 10) (a) This is about 47% of the Countywide acreage (see page LO) and is also 47% of the Countywide tonnage. (b) This is about 9% of the State acreage, but it produces, about 23% of the State tonnage. (c) This is about 2': of the national acreage, but it produces about 8% of the national tonnage. .. APPENDIX 7 COASTAL COMMISSION EVALUATION OF TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT CREDIT ALLOWANCE TO COASTAL CONSERVANCY AND AUTHORIZATION TO SELL CREDITS Table of Contents A. Introduction 1 B. Proposed El Ni do Program 2 C. Ongoin? Revolvin? Fund to Retire and Consol idate Lots in the Santa Fonica Mountains 7 Appendix I. Potential Transferable Development Credit Value of El E!ido Lots Appendi x 11. Certi f i cation of Transferable Development Credi t Value and Authorization to Transfer to Qualified Permi t Appl i cants Appendix 111. Option and Contract to Purchase Transferable Development Credits from the State Coastal Conservancy for Use in Meeting Permi t Approval Condi ti ons Appendix IV. Re1 ease of Development Credi ts from Conservancy Account Appendix V. Debi t of Credit Val ue L-". APPENDIX 7 Coastal Cormi ssi on Evdl uat:ion 0.f Transferable Develoornent Credit Fllowances to Coastal Conservancy and.",?j.*thori ._ . . zation to Sell Credits COFSTAL COP?MISSION EVALUATION OF TRANSFEPABLE DEVELOPMENT CREDIT ALLOWPNCE TO COASTAL CONSERVANCY AND AUTHORIZATION TO SELL CREDITS A. Introduction The number of dwellings proposed in the Conservancy's El Nido Lot Consolidation Plan is substantially less than the number that would be permitted on-site or as transferable development credit under application of the South Coast Regional Commission's Malibu-Santa Monica Mountains Interpretive Guidelines (adopted June 21, 1979). As shown in Appendix 1, if the entire 202 lots proposedfor acquisition in El Nido were all acquired and their development potential totally extinpished (i .e., no houses could ever be bui 1 t on-si te) then, under the application of the guide1 ines, the Conservancy would have retired transferable development potential equal to 38.62 credits. The amount of on-site developnent potential retired would have been even greater, because of the guidelines' .provision for granting a bonus of 500 square feet per dwelling under the appl i cab1 e f ormul ae . Were a permit applicant for a large subdivision in an appropriate "receiver" area to obtain control of the El Ntdo lots in their present status anci restricted their developrent potential as suggested by this example, the Coastal Commission would have considered this applicant to have created 38.62 credits for use in his application for subdivison, as per the guidelines and as actually practiced in *the Eide and -Zal. appeals .. (Appeals No. 158-78 and 155-78) resoectively. The Conservancy staff is suggestinu that the Coastal Conission, at the time of its review and approval of the El Nido Lot Consolidation Plan, consider approving in concept the application of its Transferable Development Credit (TDC) program in a manner whereunder the Conservancy can at its option 521 1 excess transferable credits created by virtue of its restrictino development potential in El Nido to levels below those indicated in the guidelines. Authorization of such an approach would involve certification of the exact number of credits to be generated by the Conservancy's lot consol idation program at El Nido and .an agreement by the Coastal Comni ssion to honor these credits in subsequent permit applications submitted by applicants who purchased them from the Conservancy. The advantages of such a program are several: 0 Improvement of the economic return on the El Plido lots via an approach, utilizina the Coastal Commission's already instituted TDC program, that allows dollars to be realized by the transference and sale of unused development potential in the subdivision to areas more environ- mentally capable of' holding it. Under this approach it is possible to choose a site plan for El Nido that is most environmentally appropriate, since buildout at levels below that permitted by the Coastal Commission's guidelines could still, through the transference system, generate significant economic value. This is esvecially important in planning for future lot consolidation projects in the Santa Monica Mountains in cases where the proportion of lots privately owned and more expensive to acquire would be significantly greater than in the El Ni do case and reduce econorni c flexibi 1 i ty in project implementation without use of such an approach. 1 B. 0 The Conservancy's credit supply would offer a simplified and easier source of credits for 1 and subdividers needing to find them to obtain Coastal Commission permit approvals. The purchase of credits from the Conservancy, especially if limited to the permit applicant needing only a few, could go a long way to alleviating current difficulties and high level expenditures of time and effort facing permit applicants in finding, negotiating for, purchasing small lots, and recording appropriate deed restrictions. The availability of the option to purchase preprocessed credits from the Conservancy should reduce the burden of complying with essential but complex Coastal Commission regulatory requirements. This in turn could ease acceptance by the development community of these legi ti mate regulatory concerns. 0 If the proposed program is successful utilizing the El Nido credits, the Conservancy staff would be interested in proposing a larger ongoing revolving fund approach for the creation of credits via other lot consol i- dation projects and the sale of the created credits. This type of program could accelerate orderly and effective efforts to reduce buildout potential in the Santa Monica Mountains and thus produce equitable and efficacious implementation of certain Local Coastal Program objectives and policies e.g., early, focused elimination of small lot development poten- tial in certain crucial subdivisions. Furthermore, extensive market activities by the Conservancy, if it were able to Senerate siTnificant supplies of credits through lot consolidation projects could help stabilize the avai labil i ty and price of credits for permit appl icants needing them. The following sections of this memorandum provide more detail on the specifics of the proaran being suogested to the Coastal Cormission at the present tine. Proposed El Nido Program 1. Summary of Program Concept The basic program concept involves the Conservancy creating credits through its lot consolidation activities in El Nido and offering these credits for sale to permit applicants for later use in meeting permit approval conditions imposed by the Coastal Commission under existing guidelines. The actual creation of the credits (through recordation of permanent development potential restrictions on the "donor" lots) could occur prior to the sale and ultimate use of the credits by a permit applicant. The program envisions that the credits only be avail able to end users, i .e. , specific permit appl icants who contract to acquire them, and that they be non-transferable to other parties. This is to avoid the creation of a speculative market and the conversion of credits into a potential security interest. TO implement this type of program, the Conservancy staff is suapestinq that the Coastal Commission, at the time of its review and aDr,roval of the El Nido tot Consolidation Plan. consider the followin? actions and detai 1 them as an optional condition in the plan aooroval docurrent. a. Approve a formula for calculating credit a1 lowances to be generated by the Conservancy's lot consolidation program in El Nido. 2 b. Agree to certify, at the time the Conservancy actually merges lots in El Nido and records appropriate development restriction documents , the number of credits generated under the fornula approved under (a). c. Stipulate that the Coastal Commission will recognize, in satisfying permit approval conditions , certified credits purchased by the perrnit applicant from the Conservancy under this program. d. Instruct Coastal Commission and Conservancy staff as to the general conditions and documents to be applied in the program. The following sections detail these steps. 2. Qlculation of Credit A1 10- The Conservancy staff proposes that the transferable development credit allowance available for sale by the Conservancy as a result of its lot consolidation program in El Nido be determined. in the following fashion: a. Compute the potential development credit allowance of each of the 202 individual lots in the El Nido project area according to the application of the most appropriate, on a lot by lot basis, of the two calculation methodologies specified in Section E. 5. C. Of the Mal i bu-Santa Monica Mountains Interpretive Gui del i nes. These calculations have been completed by the Conservancy staff and are reproduced in Appendix 1 of this memorandum. The Conservancy staff would like the Commission to review these calculations for each lot and approve-the potential development credit allowances cslculated for each lot as part of its approval of the El Nido Lot Consol idation P1 an. b. Agree now, that at the time the Conservancy actually merges, deed restricts or otherwise eliminates development potential on groups of specific lots in El Nido, the Commission will certify as the allowable development credit count available for sale the sum total of the potential development credit a1 lowances previously calculated and approved in a. above for such lots as are restricted minus one credit for each house still permitted on such restricted lots. For example, assume eight small lots with a calculated total transferable development credit potential of 3.6 credits were consol idated and deed restricted to one building site. Then the Conservancy's development credit a1 lowance certified for sale would be 2.6 credits . Using the above methodology, if the Conservancy is able to obtain all 202 lots in El Nido and consolidates them to the 16 sites shown on the plan, then the total credit a1 1 owance available for sale would total 38.62 credits. This number would decrease in the event that not a1 1 lots are acquired or if the number of on-si te houses is i ncreased . The Conservancy staff believes that in calculating the potential development credit allowances set out in Appendix 1 on a lot by lot basis that it has adhered to a strict interpretation of the Interpretive Guidelines. For example, numerous relatively flat lots that did not,in the consideration of the Conservancy staff, meet the guidelines' definition of buildabili ty under Sections 6.1 and B. 3, were given credit a1 1 owance based on the less favorable acreage calculation method. The Conservancy staff bel ieves that its methodof calculation of development credit. allowances is con-pletely within the context of the rules 1 aid down by the guide1 1 nes and can reinforce, by setting a precedent, the aPPl icabil itY of these guidelines in other cases. 3. Certification and Accounting for Credits At such times as the Conservancy actually eliminates development potential on El Nido lots by recordation of appropriate instruments, the Coastal Commission would grant the Conservancy the calculated credit allowance for those lots by: a. notifying the Conservancy in writing that it has been granted the b. making an entry in a formal ''account" maintained by the Commission The Conservancy would anticipate making successive additions to the credit balance in this account with each group of lots appropriately restricted. (At the present time it is not certain whether the Conservancy will be able to consolidate and merge all of the potential lots in the El Nido project at the same time or whether such consol ida- tion will occur in several successive batches. ) The Conservancy's credit balance would, in the future, be debited for such credits as were used up by permit applicants obtaining permit approvals using credits acqui red from the Conservancy (see next section). stipulated number of credits (see Appendix 11) , and; as to the number of credits granted to the Conservancy. 4. Recognition of Credits Purchased by Permit Appl icants from Conservancy The Conservancy staff proposes that the Coastal Commission agree, at the time of El Nido Lot Consol idation Plan approval , to authorize the Conservancy to issue certificates or other appropriate documents denominati ng specified numbers of credits (see Appendix I11 and IV for sample forms). The Coastal Commission would also agree, at the time of plan approval, that these documents, when tendered for the appropriate number of credits by a permit applicant to the Commission, will be ' recognized as a bona fide means of meeting the Commission's condition for development credits specified in the permit applicant's approval. The actual issuance by the Conservancy of such certificates or documents would be conditioned upon the availability of unused credits in the Conservancy's credit account maintained by the Commission. When these documents are actually tendered by a permit applicant and recognized by the Commission in a permi t approval , the Conservancy's credit account would be debjted by the number of credits used up in the approval (.see Appendix V for sample form). Given this authority, the Conservancy could offer to sell its credit balances in the open market to permit applicants desiring to purchase them. The possible mechanics of the program are outlined in the next section. 4 5. Mechanics of Program Given the above agreements and authorizations, the Conservancy staff could structure a program to sell the Conservancy's credit a1 1 owances in the open market to permit applicants desiring to purchase them. The following mechanics are envisioned for the program. a. The Conservancy would begin to accumulate a credit balance in its Commission account by acquiring and consol idating El Ni do 1 ots and recording the appropriate deed restrictions and other documents required as part of the consol idation program. Credit balances would be earned according to the formulae earl ier discussed. b. Concurrently, the Conservancy would begin an effort to market credits by offering holders of conditional Coastal Cormission permits the option to purchase such credits when avail able. The price for such credits might be determined by one of several means. (i) Periodic auction of limited numbers of credits with a minimum bid. Perhaps five to eight credits might be offered at a time. (ii) Specified asking price and negotiated sale. c. The Conservancy further proposes that the potential eligible purchasers of credits be limited as follows: (.i) Restricted to buyers who at the time of signing an agreement to purchase can (a) evidence a county approved tentative subdivision map in Zone I of the Commission's Pilot Transfer of Development Credit Program (see map attached) ; and (b) have received conditional permit approval from the South Coast Regional Commission for their tentative map or multifamily construction. (i i) The number of credits available to each el igi ble buyer would be 'limited to the lesser of (a) three credits over a six month period; (b) the number needed to satisfy the buyer's permit conditions. The Conservancy would be willing to sell fractional credi ts . (ii i) Contract to purchase credits to void if purchaser fai 1s to obtain his Coastal Comission permit within 90 days or if he otherwise vacates his permit within that time limit. Contract for purchase of credits not transferable or assignable to other permit applicants. These measures are designed to: e Avoid speculation in "paper" credits by 1 imi ti ng their availability to end users only (i.e., the credit only comes into being for the user when used). 0 Maximize the availability of a 1 imi ted inventory of credits to the small appl icant who only needs a few. 0 Avoid the creation of a security interest in credits. 5 0 Avoid the possibility that credits will be tied up and not used for long periods of time. d. The permit applicant, upon signino aareement to Durchase credits from the Conservancy (see Appendix IV for sample) , would be authorized to submit such agreement to the Coastal Commission for use in satisfying the number of credits specified in his permit conditions. The purchase agreement would specify that the Coastal Commission recognize such credit allowance as satisfying the conditions attached to the permit at such time as the Conservancy sends a release indicating that the permit applicant has supplied to the Conservancy such consideration (cash or notes and trust deed) as may be specified under the terms of the purchase agreement. Upon receiving this release (see Appendix V for sample form), the Commission would recognize that the permit applicant has satis- factori ly met his credit requirement (at least to the extent of the number of credits obtained from the Conservancy) and would debit this number of credits from the Conservancy's credit balance held at the Commission. e. The program would cease, or at least become inactive, at such time as the Conservancy had exhausted the balance in its credit account with the Commission. C. Ongoing Revolving Fund to Retire and Consolidate Lots in the Santa Monica Mountains The Conservancy's proposed program for consolidating lots at El Nido and for selling transferable development credits generated by the project could, if approved and successful in operation, act as a first step in setting up a longer term, more comprehensive program .to eliminate small lots and environmentally unsuitable building sites throughout the Coastal Zone of the Santa Monica Clountains. This could be accomplished by establishment of a revolving fund that purchased such .lots and parcels, consolidated them, and recouped its costs through the sale of the consol idated lands as we1 1 as the development credits generated through the reduction of development potential. The Conservancy staff would be interested in exploring these possibilities and participating in the establishment and operation of such a fund, provided that early experience with El Flido merits it. One possible method being considered for establishing such a program would be to simply recycle the monies generated by sales of lands and development credits at El Nido into other lot consolidation and land acquisition pro- jects in the Mountains , following the type of approach used in planning and implementing El Nido. Acquisitions could be focused on a specific subdivi- sion or, alternatively, opened up in a more generalized targeted fashion to acceptance of qualifying parcels from a group of subdivisions or even an entire watershed on an ongoing first-corn, first-serve basis. Acquired lots and parcels would then have their developnent potential restricted through merger, consolidation and/or recordation of permanent open space easements , and the land then resold on the private market and/or sold or dedicated to pub1 ic agencies in certain .cases , e.g. , State Parks , National Recreation Area. Development credits generated through successful reduction 7 of development potential in the Mountains could, as is proposed in the El Nido program, be sold to developers needing them the meet permit conditions for subdivisions along the coastal shelf or in such other receiver areas as may have been designated by the Coastal Commission. Plonies thus obtained from land and develoment credit sales could thus be continuously recycled: by the fund. The Conservancy may propose to the County of Los Angeles that the majority of the funds generated from the sale of consolidated lots and development credits at El Nido, and' due to the County, be deposited in such an ongoing fund for at least several years. 1.f the County accepts , the Conservancy might, under this concept, be prepared to recycle a substantial portion, if not a1 1 , of its own funds (possibly as much as $800,000) that it may end up advancing for the El Nido project implementation. The revolving fund could possibly be initiated with something in the order of $2 million from these combined sources. Advance payments by developers seeking to buy development credits generated by the fund's activities could further increase the size of the initial funding. Along these 1 atter 1 ines , the Conservancy is , at the present time , and at the request of the Coastal Commission, investigating the feasibility of a program to retire currently undesireabie development potential in the Cold Creek Watershed and to allocate the spare holding capacity thus generated among new land subdivisions in return for advance cash-payments from applicants seeking such subdivision capacity. A preliminary feasibility report is to be completed in late January and could thus out1 ine another possible element of a comprehensive , ongoing program for the entire Mountains area. The advantages of such a comprehensive, publicly guided program supplement- ing current private market activities taking place under the Commission's now operational Transfer of Development Credit program are several : 0 Under a public program, acquisition can be targeted in specific problem subdivisions and/or watersheds , whereas under the current private market system there is no control over where or when lot consolidation/develop- ment potential retirement efforts-will occur. A public program can also, assure a more precisely contro1led.and sensitive solution to very pl anni ng . . si te-or area-specific environmental .concerns throlclgh total site 0 A public program that had a substantial number of development credits for sale at a1 1 times could help stabi 1 i ze the market price for such credits, as well as provide a ready, simple and immediate Source of credits for permit applicants needi ng them, thus saving the applicant significant time and effort in meeting regulatory requirements. An aggresive public program could accelerate the date of completion of development potential retirement efforts in the Mountains. 8 system except in possible cases where this may be inappropriate. The Conservancy staff believes that its proposal to market development credits from El Nido is an important first step in testing the feasibility of such a broad public program and strongly urges the Coastal Commission to approve the El Hido program concept outlined in Part B of thi s memorandum in order to support such efforts. Under these circumstances, the Conservancy would be prepared to consider an expanded prograr? design for the Mountains towards the middle or end of 1980. 9 I ntroduc ti on J Potential Transferable- Development Credit-Value of El: Nido Lots This Appendix presents the results of calculations to determine the transferable development credi t value of each of the 202 individual lots located in the El Nido project area. The results of these calculations are presented in the attached Tab1 e 1 . Conservancy staff is requesti ng that the Coastal Commi ssion consider, at the time it acts on the El Nido Lot Consolidation Plan, the value determinations as indicated in this Table for later use in certifying the number of credits the Conservancy would have available for sale to permit applicants once the development potential of specific groupings of lots is permanently extinguished. The credit value calculations were completed by the Conservancy's consultant, Peter L. Bass and Associates , wi th the input and assi stance of Mr. Lynn Heacox of the South Coast Regional Commission. Methodol oqy 1. A base map of the subdivision, at a scale of 1 inch to 50 feet,was generated by the Conservancy's planning consultants, Genge Consultants of Southern California. This base map shows the lot lines of the 202 existing lots in the project area, overlain by five (5) foot contour lines. A full scale copy of this base map has been made available to the Commission staff as part of this submission. 2. The area (in square feet) of each lot was determined by use of an electronic planimeter system at Genge Consultants and checked by Lynn Heacox of the South Coast Regional Commission staff. The area figures are shown in column 2 of the attached Table 1 . 3. The average slope of each 1 ot was determi ned in the foll owi ng manner: i. Genge Consultants first determined which portions of the site had slopes of 42% or greater and colored a map indicating this information. Any lot with an average slope of 42% or greater wi7 1 earn, under the Commission's guide1 i nes, more development credit value on the basis of its area than it would using the alternative slope calculation method. ii. An average slope condition was then determined for each individual lot on the Genge map showing some or all of its land area as having slopes less than 422. The method of determi ning average slope of each of these lots was that recommended in the guidelines (see section on slope calculation within Hillside Dwelling Unit Density - page A-18 of Appendix of Interpretive Guidelines) and is surnmarized below: a. Add together the length (in inches) of the 5 foot contour lines falling within the boundaries of the individual lot. b. Multiply this result by 50 (feet) times contouirnterval (5 feet). c. Divide this result by the area of the lot. d. Convert result of (c) to a percentage figure. The results of these slope calculations are shown in column 3 of the attached 1-1 Table. 4. A determination was then made of which lots with average slopes under 42% would be considered buildable under application of sections 61 and 63 of the Conmission'; Walibu-Santa Monica Mountains Interpretive Guidelines (June 21, 1979 version). Essentially this meant checking to see whether th2 lots involved had adequate road and water service, since a geological investigation of the subdivision revealed no on-si te lands1 ides or rockfalls. This determination was made with the assistance of Mr. Lynn Heacox of the South Coast Regional Conmission staff. A lot considered buildable under these guide1 ines and with an average slope of less than 42% is indicated by a B in column 4 of the attached table, while unbuildable lots are indicated by a U. 5. Development credit values were then calculated. All lots with average slopes over 42X, or with average slopes less than 42% but considered unbui ldable were given a development credit value equal to their area divided by 43,560 sq. ft. - thus following rule E.5.c (1) laid down in the Commission's guidelines. Lots with average slopes under 42% and considered buildable had their development credit value calculated by application of the formula indicated under rule E.5.c (2) of the guidelines summarized below: Credi t Area = Area of Lot times (50 mi nus Average S1 ope) 5 35 The Credit Area is then divided by 2000 to determine the Credit Val ue assigned to the lot. These calculations are shown in column 6 of the Table, while column 5 shows which calculation method was 'used. A (1)'indicates the straight percent of an acre method while a (2) indicates the slope-area formula. 1-2 (1 1 1 Lot Number 3P 4P 5c 6C 7c 10 c 11 c 12 c 13 C 14 C 16 P 17 P 18P . 19 P 20 c .22 'C 23' C 24 C 25 C 26 C 1-27: c .'28 C. 29 c . .30 c 31 C '32 C 33 c .. 34 c 35 P. 15- C Notes: 1. 2.' 3. (2) Lot Area (Sq- Ft.) 5860 61 40 71 60 771 0 ,7140 6930 7330 6500 571 0 59 20 5700 71 50 7 380 8790 5630 51 20 5290 5230. 5230 51 50 5780 5430 5840 5450 . 5430 5270 5450 7620 591 0 . 6020 Average SI ope (X) 34 36 37.2 39.2 37.8 42+ ' 36.5 39.4 . 42+ 42+ 42+ ' 42+ 42+ 42+ 42+ 42+ 42+ 42+. 42+. 42+ 42+ 42+ 42+ 42+ 42+ 42+ 41 .O 42+ . 42+ 38.5 Bui ldabi 1 i ty, 2 B B B B B B: B B B (5 1 (6) Transferabl2 ~alculation' Development He thod Credi t Value (Fraction of Credi 2 2 2 2 2 .. .1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 .,270 ,245 . ,260 .240 .250 . ,160 ,280 ,195 .I 30 ,140 ,135 '1 130 ,165 . ,170 , , .zoo . . ,170 .120 ,120 .120 .12Q .- . "i "_ .. 1 ,120 1 135 1 .125 . 1 .135 1 .125 1 1 .125 .120 . ' 2 .140 1 .175 1 - .135 Subtotal 4.955 .. Lot Number per base map and original subdivision map (Tract No. 9524). (IP'' means .. privately owned, "C" means County owned at present. "Bll =' Buildable under Sections 8.1, 8.3 of Interpretive Guidelines. "U" = Unbuildable under Sections B.1 , B.3 of'Interpretive Guidelines. 1. = Method E.5.c. (1.) o! Interpretive Guidelines (Lot Area (Column 2) divided 2. = Method E.5.c. (2) of Interpretive Guidelines (Lot Area (Column 2) by 43,560). divided by 5 , all mu1 tiplied by (50 - Average Slope (Column 3)), all then divided by 35 times 2000 (i .e. 70.000). 1-3 (1 1 1 Lot :!l;rnb?r 39 c 40 c 41 C 42 C 43 c 44 c 45 c 46 C 47 c 48 C 49 c 55 P 56 P 57 P 58 c 59 c 60. 'C 61 P 62 P 63 P 64 P 65 P '66 P 67 P ' 68 c G9 C 70 P 71. P 72 P 73 c (2) Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) 6920 6340 5330 5220 5630 61 50 5760 531 0 5310 5350 5790 5 270 7530 51 00 4910 6320 6320 551 0 5 280 5280 61 50 6920 7780 5540 4760 9 230 6 280 5280 6820 8480 Averace Slops I r: \ (1! j Bui ldabi 1 i ?I 2 42+ 42+ 42+ ' 42+ 42+ 42+ 42+ 42+ 42+ 42+ 42' 42+ 42+ 42+ 42+ 42+ 42+ 42+, 42+. 42+ 42+ 42+ 42+ 42+ 42+ 42.1. 42+ 42+ 421. 38.8 U 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .160 .145 .120 .120 . 1 20 .130 .140 -1 30 ,120 .120 .135 .135 . .120 .175 1 .715 .llS .145 .145 -125 : . 1 20. .129 .140 .160 .180 .125 .710 .155 - .215 ,190 "145 - Subtotal 6.175 .# ,s,otes: 1. Lot Number per base map and original subdivision map (Tract No. 9529). "P" ~2acs privately owned, "C" means Cpunty owned at present. Buildable under Sections B.1, B.3 of Interpretive Guidelines. Unbuildable under Sections 6.1, 8.3 of Interpretive Guidelines. Methcd E.5.c. (1.i 0; Interpretive Guidelines (Lot Area (Column 2) divided by $3,560). Method E.5.c. (2) cr' Interp-2tive SGidzlines (Lot ;.ms (Cclcrn 2) divided by 5, all multiplied by (50 - Average S7032 (Coiznn 3)), 371 then divided by 35 times 2000 (i .e. , 70.000). I -4 Potential Transferable Development Credit Value of El ?lido Lots (1 1 (2) , (3) (4) (5 1 Transferable (6) 7 2 calculation3 ~evelopment Lot Number Lot Area Averaqe S1 ope Bui ldabi 1 i ty tale thod Credi t Value (Sq. Ft.) (Fraction of CredL 74 c 75 c 76 c 77 P 78 P 79 c 80 C 81 P 82 P 83 P 84 C 85 C 86 C 87C . 88 C 89 P 90. P 91. c 92 C 93 c 94 c .95 c 96C. . 9.7 c 98 C 99 c 100. c 101. c : 102 c 103 P Flotes: 1 8590 39,7 U 1 6560 ' ,200 -.. 42+ 5630 1 42+ 1 6770 , 1 30 42+ 1 .8240 ,155 71 30 ' 42+ .. '1 6370 42+ ,165 1 641 0 ,42+ . ,145 1 . . 5330 42+ ,145 1 42+ ,120 1 6 560 . 42+ ,170 . 571 0 1 42+ ,155 1 7990 42+ ,130 531 0 1 42+ ,185 . 1 5420 42+ ,120 1 - 7540 42+ ,125 1 6 280 42+ ,175 5770 7 42+ ,145 571 0 1 34.3 . ,130 5270 B. 2 42+ ,255.. 551 0 1 42+ ,120 5040 1 42+ ,125 6760 1 40 -3 ,115 71 10 2 42+ 591 0 1 42+ ,165 1 . 6770 42+ ,135 . 1 9750 42+ < 155 1 9520 .225 30.5. U 1 9700 ,220 36.9 B 2 4550 .¶ 360 30 B 2 260 ,150 . . ". .. 42+ : 1 ,190 . , .. . 7380 B ,I a5 Subtotal 5.055 . . Lot Number per base map and original subdivision map (Tract )lo. 9524). ''PI' means privately owned, "C" means County owned at present. . 2. "B" =. Buildable under Sections B.1, 8.3. of Interpretive Guidelines. "U" = Unbuildable under Sections B.1, 8.3 of Interpretive Guidelines. 3. 1. = Method E.5.c. (11 o'! Interpretive Guidelines (Lot Area (Column 2) divided by 43,560). divided by 5, all multiplied by (50 - Average Slope (Column 3)), all then divided by 35 times 2000 (i .e. , 70 .OOO) . 2. = Method E.5.c. (2) of Interpretive Guidelines (Lot Area (Colurrn 2) 1 1-5 (1 1 1 i-o t P!cl;;b?r 103 ? 105 P 106 P 107 P 108 C 109 c 110 c 111 c 112 c 113 C 1'14 c. 115 C 116 C 117 C 118 c I19 c 120 .? 121'? 122 P 123 ? 124 P 125 P 126 C. 127 C ' 128 c 129 c 130 c 131. C 132 c 133 C .- :;ot25: 1 . 2. 3. (2) Lot Are2 In) 571 0 5660 5460 ~ 5420 .5280 51 20 5060 531 0 4870 5430 5630 7930 7750 7200 6 370 5790 6 400 5860 6 280 7330 5280 5770 7620 7860 8750 6930 11160 1 1440 91 50 6990 -. -. 42+ 42+ 42+ 42+ 42+ 42+ 42+ 37.1 42+ 41 .J 36 .O 26.4 28.2 33.3 42+ 42+ 42+ 42+ ' 42+ ' 42+ 42+ 39.2 39.1 36.8 38.6 42+ 41 .O 40.1 38.4 ' 28.5 2 Bui 1 dabi 1 i ty B U U U 1 1 1 1' 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 Subtotal . 1 30 .130 -. ,125 .125 9 1 20 ,120 ,115 .185 ,110 ,135 ,225 . sa5 ,525 ' .450 .300 ,135 ,145 ,13 5 -145 .170. .120 -130 .235 .245 .330 ,225 .255 . .265 -210 . .160 5.125 - i - Lot Number per base map and original subdivision rnap (Tract Eio. 9524). "?" rneans privately owned , "C" means County owned at present. Buildable under Sections 8.1, 6.3 of Interpretive Guidelines. Unbuildable under Sections B.1, 8.3 of Interpretive Guidelines. Ikthcd E.5.c. (1') of Interpretive Guideliws (.Lot Area (Coldmn 2) ifi*:ibed by 42,560). idlethod E.5.c. (2) of Interpretive G:licieli n2s (Lot ?\rea (Cc"3l 2) divided by 5, all multiplied by (53 - Average Slo?a (Co'. ..:;:n ?I)), zil then dividtd by 35 times 2000 (i .e. , 70,000). 1-6 Table 1 (Cont'd) .- c Page 5 of 7 Potential Transferable Developmmt Credit Value of E1 Nido Lots 1 Lot Numbzr 134 C 135 C 136 C 137 C 138 'C 139 P 140. C 141 C 142 C - 143 C 144 C 145. C' 146 C 147 C 148 C 149 c 150 c 151.C 152 C 153 C 154 C 155 C 156 C 158 P 159 P 160 P. 161 P 162 P 163 P 157 P' . Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) 6530 6640 701 0 6890 6200 ' 4960 5540 531 0 5460 .5520 5600 6380 661 0 7590 6030 5220 7560 5970 561 0 5670 5700 5880 5910 71 40 5 240 51 80 6350 6560 6000 5480 , (3) Average S1 ope w . 38.0 42+ 42+ . 40.4 36.7 42+ 42+ 42+ , 22.8 25.5 27.2 . 28.9 20.6 32.2 40.0 42+ 35 .O 30.5 22.7 27.9 28.5 31.8 33.6 32.0 42+ 38.0 35 .O 34 .O 42+ . 42+ Bui ldabi 7 i ty 2 U '. u B B B B B B B B B B B B. B B B B' (5) , Calculation 3 1-lethod 1 1 1 1 .. 2 1 '1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1- B B B 2 2 2. 2 2 2 2 2 1 (6) Transferable Devel omen t Credi t Value (Fractim of Cred ,150 .160 .160 _.' .._ . .235 .ll5 . ,125 .120 .440 .385 .385 .550 .385 ' . .. .170 ' ..150 .365 . . ,120 .325 .330 .445 .36Q. .350 .305 .275 .365 .120 .180 .270 .300 "1 40 .125 - Subtotal 7.905 Notes: 1. Lot Number per base map and original subdivision map (Tract No. 9524). ''PI' means privately owned, "C" means County owned at present. 2. "B" =' Buildable under Sections 6.1, B.3 of Interpretive Guidelines. "U" = Unbuildable under Sections 6.1, 8.3 of Interpretive Guidelines. 3. 1. = Method E.5.c. (1') 0; Interpretive Guidelines (Lot Area (Column 2) divided by 43 , 560) . divided by 5, all multiplied by (50 - Average Slope (Column 3)), all then divided by 35 times 2000 (i .e. , 70 .OO.O) . 2. = Method E.5.c. (2) of Interpretive Guidelines (Lot Area (Column 2) 1-7 164 P 165 P 165 C 167 C 168 C 169 C 170 C 171 C 172 C 173 C 174 C 175 C 176 C 177 C 178 C 179 c 180 c 181 C 182 c 183 C 184 C 185 C. 186 c 187 C 188 C 189 C 190 c 191 c 192 c (5) (5) Transf erabl e A Calcula ti on3 Devel ooment Avera!e Slme Buildability F!othod Credi t Value tot Area (Sq. Ft.) (X) (Fractfon or' Cr2 L 5520 7 260 6 240 5700 6620 6700 6 280 5550 5 270 4960 5240 501 0 481 0 5670 5 540 6790 591 0 5340 4930 591 0 5070 571 0 6320 5770 6520 7870 7290 11 530 5530 42+ 42+ 36.4 34.6 41.. 1 42+ 29 .O 41.2 40.3 42.4 41.3 42+ 42+ 42+ 42+ 42+ 41 .-1 42+ 38 .O 40.9 39.6 36.2 35.9 30.2 31.7 27 .S 42+ ' 42+ 40.1 . U U u. B B 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 '2 2 1 1 1 1 .125 .165 . 1 45 .130 .150 .155 , .145 .125 .120 ,115 .120 .175 .110 .130 ,125 .155 .165 .135 ,115 .135 . .115 .130 .. 145 ,130 .150 .180 ,165 .265 * .2nn .._ Subtotal 4.160 ::otes: 1. Lot Number per base map and original subdivision nap (Tract Plo. 9524). "P" means privately owned, "C" means County cjkmed at present. "U" = Unbuildable under Sections B.1, 8.3 of Intergretive Guidelines. 2. "B" =' Buildable under Sections B.1, B.3 of Interpretive Guidelines. 3. 1. = Xethcd E.5.c. (1') oh InterFretive Guidelines (Lot $.rea (Colcrmn 2) divided by 43,560). divided by 5, all multiplied by (50 - Averagz Slop2 (Colux 3)), all then divided by 35 times 2000 (i .e., 70.000), 2. = I4ethrjd E.5.c. (2) of Inter7retive Guidelines [Lot Area (Cclurnn 2) 1-8 (1 1 1 Lot Nurnber 193 C 194 c 195 C 196 .C 197 C 198 C 199 c 200 c 201 c 202 c 203 C. .204 C 205 C 206 C . 207 C 208 C 209. 'P 210 c 211 c 212 c 213 C 214 C 215 C. Potential Transferable Development Credit Value of El Hido Lots Lot Area "Ft.) 6850 5480 6300 5040 .4450 10630 10640 I3270 11 920 11 530 9690 941 0 9050 61 30 6980 9360 11 270 12380 951 0 5630 4870 5020 4970 Averaqe S1 ope (X) 42+ 42+ 42+ 42+ 42+ 42+ 42+ 37.8 38.5 ,42+ 4 2+ 37.1 38.4 . 42+ 32.8 30.7 33 .O 33.8 42+ 42+ 42+' 37.8 27.9 Bui ldabi lity 2 .. B B. B B B B (5) (6) 'Transferabl2 Calculation3 . Devel ocrnen-t He thod Credi t Val ue ~* ~ - (Fraction of Credi 1 1 1. 1 1 .. 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 -2 . ,155 -. .125 .145 : : -115 ' ' i-.. -100 . .245 . .245 . .460 .390 ,265 .220 .355 . .300 . ,140 .340 .515 .545 ,575 .220 . I . 1 30- .110 ,175 . ,315 - Subtotal 6.185 TOTAL .38.620 (202 Lots) .. !!otes: 1. Lot Number per base map and original subdivision map (Trzct No. 9524). 'IP" means privately owned, "C" means County owned at present. 2. "Bl' =' Buildable under Sections B.l, B.3 of Interpretive Guidelines. 3. 1. = Method E.5.c. (1.i ai Interpretive Guidelines (Lot Area (Column 2) divided .. . "U" = Unbuildable under Sections 6.1, B.3 of Interpretive Guidelines. by 43,560). divided by 5, all multiplied by (50 - Average Slope (Column 3)), all then divided. by 35 times 2000 (i .e., 70.000). 2. = Method E.5.c. (2) of Interpretive Guidelines (Lot Area (Column 2) 1-9 ,~__ " ...". ... . ." .- .. . - """."""." 1 END OF REPORT ANOTHER DOCUMENT FOLLOWS .?. .- - " I i c .. ._ :c; DEVELOPMENTAL SERL'LCES 0 Asststant City Managar (714) 438-5596 0 Oulldiny Dopanment 014) 43>5525 0 Englneorlng Oopartment (714) 4306541 0 Houslng h Redevelopment Department g/i;lnnnlng Department (714) 438561 1 (714) 438-5591 .. Torn Crandalll , Executive Director . Sm Diego Coast Regional Commission .. . 6154 Missioc Gorge Road, Suite 220 . Sari Diego CA 921 20 Dear Tom: .. Attached ax the Carlsbd City Council's menhents to the PIC Toups Propsdl for the CarlsSzfi Local comtd Plan. On ?"ch 10, I981 , the Carlsbaii CibJ Cow- .. cfl took zction indtcating that the Toups ?la, incorporatirg the recornended .* ! 0 changes trznsnitted herexith-, would be acceytable to the city .md will satisfy the ci-lq's requirments for a hcd. Coastal Plan. I h.3.c also oatlined, for purposes of clarification, other written cmnents that -. i "ii a. 1; ... have been forwarded to your staff from the ,ity. These are ss fo1lcT;s: .. .. ' .. *. 1 ,CarlsbP-fi Local Coastal Flm: Staff Sw-xrg provides a s~mary of cily .. . staff comlents and raxmendacions on tze 'Tougs Report and Coastal. Staff comments, focusing on major issues of substantid concern. 2. Carls'oad Local Coastal Plan: Stdf Andysis provides a detailed analpes, by Carlsbad City stalS of the 'I'oups Iieprt and Coasta3. staff comments. .. . ,' ! , ! .. * I. : X'hoyc the recornmendations transmitted hcrevith will allow the city and, CoastaIl 8&reeincnt; on an LCP docuncnt acceptable to both the city and Ccmmic- ,,ion. -. Commission to resolve differences regarding Local Coastal Plan issues, ad reach I! . Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If 1: can be of f'urther assis- I. tance in this regard, plc,we don't; hesitate to contact me. .& .. Very truly yours, .. . * I .' 0' . ... . A I . Coastal Element 1 : Amiculture c %he city proposes deleting the- @icy recommendations contained in the Toups report regarding agriculture, and substituting the following policy recommendatons: , .. General Findings: The city makes the following eneral findings iegarding agricultural production/preservation in the Carlsbad .' 1 d .. .*. .* "Coastal Zone. 4 .- e .. *. !there are no substantial prime soils (Class I et 11) in the Carls- . bad Coastal Zone. %e city recognizes the imprtance of agricultural lands as a uni- que resource, and supprts ths continuance and enhancement of agricultuwl production. ..I The city yecognizes the variability and constraints on contfnued agricul.iiral production, and supForts a progrm directed towards encouraging continued agricultural production, recognizing the inherent relationship between preservation of agricultural lands and the economics of production. '. c .. -. Policy 2. I : Agricultural Buffers *. . . The need for qg&iLturall buffers should be mde on an' individd basis; should be the responsibility of encr0achir.g developnent; and should be f'adequate" to mitigate potential land use cohflicts. .. . . . .. Policy 2.2: Protection of AgriculturKl.Resources .. ." The city shall develop an llAgriculturKl. Resource Overlay !Zone," respec- ting the current underlying general plan designations, to be applied to those lands generally indicated in tine, Toups Report as suitable agri- cultural lands. * A. ' Class 111 Soils. Iand containing Class 111 soiis, or better, shall- be considered "most suitabletr wricultural lands, and may be .. . Eitlotied to develop subject to a mster development plan for the. ,. entire property. Such plan shdl nok be approved by the city un- ' ,. . less a finding is made that continued exclusive agricultural use is no longer feasible or that to allow developnent 'on a portion of .the property will enhance the continued qricultura3. use on the * undeveloped portion. "he master development plan may allow up to ono-hdf of . the property to develop with residential. UGCS, shdl cluster development on the. Ic'mt qyiculturjlly suitable portion of the property, shall incluCc a.,mmqn,ement plan for continued .I .* -1 ., . .. i * .. .. B. Class N-VI11 Soils. Shall be .considered "impacted1t agriculture; shall be encouraged to continue in production as long as feasible, and shall .be allowed to convert subject to conversion criteria (Policy 2.3) .' * . C. Occurance of diseased soils and/or poor drainage. .- .. . I). .Occurance of deteriorated structures. . E. Docmentation of declining profitability. '. . .. Policy 2.4 : Agricultural 'Incentives .. .. t The city recognizes the need to protec't and encolxzge agriculture on a city-wide basis, specifically noting the following: . The city has formed an Agricultural Advisory Commitk%e to formu- late reconmendations . regarding the preservation/protection .of ' agricul-ture on a city-wide basis. . !%e city supports the enhancement of . agricultural production through incentive programs including: adopting a Right to Fkrm Ordinmce; preferred water rates.for agricultural lands; develop ment of a reclaimed water program, giving preference to agricultu- ral lands; encouraging agricultural.leasing on Master Plan areas slated for phased development; support tax incentives for agricul- c turally designated properties. .. .. , . . Policy 2.5: Utility Extensions The city shall act to protect the premixre disruption of agricultural uses by not allowing growth inducing utility extensions into Wricultu- 'ral .limds until such lands are designated for urban conversion, and ' agricultural production has been proven unfeasible, subject to Policy I. 2.3. . 8. .' ' .. . .. .* * 9. *- ** - .. * . . ." .- .... ..... ... . .. ............ .". ".. .... *. .". ...".." . _. ................. ". .. .... 1. . Subsidized Agricultural ?knc?s. These are lands &&grated for ccntinued or renewed agricultural production, and as shown on Tables 1, 2'and 3 below are eligible to receive agricultural subsidies if such subsidies are made available as otherwise enmrated in this plan; and 2. btentiallv Developable Pgrkcultural Lands. These are lands which may be developable for urban USES, as Fcified in Section I below. AS descrikd in Section I, %bere ach conversion is pxi.tLd, the direct and indirect adverse impact on the area's agricultural econcmy which mud result fran such conversions shall be mitigated through the paymat of an agricultural cmversion mitigation fee, which fee shall be used to subsidize continEd agricJltura1 oprations on sdsidized agricultural lands and thereby offset th otherwise adverse impacts of the conversion. 3. agricultural. These are lands of which a -11 portion my be converted to urban uses, as a mans to pmvise a suEplm3karY jncorre and facilitate contixed aqicultural. prdmtion, subject to the -regulation of Policy 2-2. E. Aq In or6er to prcrrote and encoura5s t\e lcnq-term use of aqricultural lands for agriculturzl prdcction, a ?mqrm of agricultural subsidies shall be establish&. This program is en+>ely tmluntaq for la'iimmers of clesivted !!subsidized aqricultural lands," md tke failure of any eligible 1anduwne.r to participte in this p-am s;ha~ not ke cause for the dfication of any other land use regulation hkich is a part of the agricultural consemtien program of this plan. . If landowners of ?tentially developble qricultural lan& elect to exercise the option to rmve such lands frcm qriculturhl prcihction wd Zevelop f31e.n, as otherdise pe-mittd ur&r this ?la, for urban purpses , no prmit for such urbm sevelopqt shall be issced eucqt yrsuant to the payrmqt of an a@- cultural conversion fee. Any mnies collected through tle pyxnt of these fees shall be used to mitigate tk ai%e,-se impact .on the area's agricultural econany which mdd othemise resdt f-m the conversion, and shdl be used for one or both of the followirq pxses: (1) the pyment of cash subsidy grants to landowners of subsidized aq5cJlWal lards, in the munts described mles 1, 2, and 3 &lm; ad (2) the i..lezentation of projects 2eveloped as part of an Agricultural Improvex.e?ts Sk2y amistered by the City of Carls- bad or the State Coastal Conserrtncy, which my include Fhysicd or idnstitu- tional improvements needed to pram= lor?g-term agriculturd prcduction wiL&T the planning area (e .g. agridwal ~ZCQSS road improvemnts, aqrimltural -water =-us2 improvemnts, agricdkrz-1 producticn or ixqrovermqts loan fur.d, etc. ) . To allcw for establishnmt of necessary adnbistrauve rrednani-cms, +&e Subsidy progrm shall bc initially available for lanmer prttci-$tiOn on Januar] I, 1982. Agricultural anversim'. fee amsunts &all be assessed on the basis of the gross n-r of acres of the ccnverti?g Farzel for which full developncnt density credit is permitted unckr the plicies of this land use plan, as described in Section I blow. 'Agricultural lands for which a "mixed-use" su~plerwataxy use incentive. to continued agricultural producticn is provided as part of this plan arz not :.subject to either the payment or receipt of mnies dr the Agricultural Subsidy Program, as the supplmnta-ry use provided on these lands is speci- fically intended to provi2e for such landmers an incentive to continwd agricultural use analoqocs to *.e SuSsidy Progrm. -4- .- . . -.. . -. . - ... . .. . . .. . . . . , .T. . . - .^ ... . All agricultural lands described in Figure 1 shall b regulated to pedt mly the follwing agricultural uses, unless other uses are conditionally .permitted as. pmVic?ed in Section G, Section I, or Policy 2-2 blow: On Class I hwh Class IV aqricultural lands: 1. Cattle, s-p, qat, and Swir-e prakction, provided that the nurrber of any one or carbination of said animals shall not exceed one animal per one half acre of lot area. Said animals shall not be lccatd within fifty feet of any Witable structure, nor shall they be located within one hw feet of an adjoining wcel zone6 for resiwtial uses; 2. Crop prcxbctim; 3. -Floriculture ; 4. Horses, private use: 5; Nursery crop prductim; 6. Poultry, rabits, c!&iU&, hiims*&rs, and other smzll anbal prcduction, pmvi2eri t!!zt not mre tl txenty-five of any me or a carbination theraf shall be located within fifty feet of any habiwle strume, nor shall they *ke lmt& within one hundred feet of an adjoining prcel zoned fcr resizmtial usz: 7. Rxdsic?e stands for display ad sale of products pmdwed cn the saw premises, provi&d tmt t?e flcor =ea shall not ex~& two hwdred feet md tle st-mcturz is located rat nearer than tmnty feet to a~y street or highy; 8. Tree fanns; . -.. 9. Truck farm; .- 1O.Wildlife refqes m.d c3afie presemk; &Other uses or enterprises similar to the above and cus@marily carried on in tk field of c?er,eral agriculture, ihcluding acczssory uses such as silos, *&LC houses, sbps, barns, offices, cap, sizbles, corrals, and sinL1a.r uses necessaq for the coduct of tl" enmxated uses abave; ad * ._ 12.01e single-family &elling 91: existing legal parcel. . 1. 2. 3. 4. . 5. r CXI Class V throuqh Class VI11 aqricultural land: All of the uses permitted on Class I through Class N lands; Cumx-cial recreation: i Hay and feed stores; Nurseries, retail and wholesale: Packing sheds, processing plants, and mrcial. outlets for farm crops, provided such activities are mt located within one hun&ed feet of any lot line ; and 6. Greenhouses. ". -6- B. . Findinns I' The Commission found in the LUP denial that Policy 41 was not adequate to prevent degradation to wetlard areas, dce to language that only @- courages potentially harmful activities ar.d the lack of clarification as to what alternatives could be pedrted. As a result, Policy 41 of the LUP was found inconsistent with Sections 30230, 30231 and 30233 of . the Coastal Act. The Commission finds that with the abve suggested cknge in policy language, a standard for wetland activities tonsistent with the pro- .' visions of Section 30233 would be provided. Iihen combined with the definition of uses ouclined in Policy 122.2 (Ecological Resources Area), this Policy Group is consistent with Sections 30230, 30231 and 30233(c) of the Coastal Act. r VI. Xariculture (Policv Group 60/70, Pages 23-28 and Policy 122.1 of Paqes 37-39 of +he LITP) A. Suggested Revised Policy Lanwace The Corumission recommends tlmt the following policies. of the LUP be re- vised incorporating language similar to that proposed below: Policy 61 Aqricultural Certain agricultural lands either in production or suitable for pro- duction and with the capability for continued long tern productivity shall be designated as agricultural cropland. These' lands shall be designated "AC" on the Land Use Ha? and shall include land previously designated agriculture (e.g., agricultural cropland, agricultural pre- serve, and intensive agriculture). (Reference Exhibit 3). Policy 62 Apricultural Cropland--Permitted Uses This is a new basic land use category established solely for applica- tion in the San Dieguito Coastal Zone and replaces the existing agri- cultural preserve land use category. - (a) It is intended that the "Agricultural Cropland" designation will be applied to properties so designated in the LUP (ref: Policy 122.1). (b) The requirements of Policy 122.1 shall apply to the agricultural cropland land use category. Policy 63 Incentive Programs .. The County will investigate the feasibility of establishing an in- centive program for preservation of agricultural cropland within the San Dicguito Coastal Zone. Such investigacion will consider at least the following components: .L 3 j ! -7- 1. The potential role of the Coastal Conservancy in purchase of land \I . or development rights. .J 2. The public purchase and leaseback of agricultural land, to growers. 3. Public purchase of development rights. . .4. A transfer-of-development-credits system. 5. Potential for amendment of the Williamson Act to make agricultural preserve contracts more axtractive. Policy 64 Impacted ARriculturs The County will assign a combining land use category on impacted agri- culture (including greenhouses) intended to encourage the continuation and expansion of existing agriculturd uses for a long as possible, but which will allow individual land owners to convert this land from agri- culture to other uses when continued or renewed use is no longer feasi- ble (See Policy 122.2). Detailed criteria will be developed to determine wheth,er or not individual applications for conversion will be dlowed, and which will give consideration to the following: 1. The operation's situation in relation to encroaching development , / and surrounding densities; . c .. 2. Impacts of the potential uses on adjacent and nearby agricultural operations; 3. The occurrence of diseased soil conditions and/or poor drainage; 4.. The occurence of deteriorating structures or substantially depre- ciated structures where the cost of rehabilitation is deemed economically unfeasible. 5. The profitability (measured in '79 constant dollars) of the agri- cultural operation is declining in relation to prior years ar,d sufficient uncertainty exists concerning ttle reversal of his con- dition in future years of the ability of the entity to reverse this condition. Policy 68 Horticultural Park The County will encourage and support the estabiishment of a Horti- cultural Park in the San Dieguito area. Aspects of this proposed de- .. . , .. ' velopment may include the following: .. (A) A large block of suitable land presently committed for long-term . agricultural use would be designated a Horticultural Park. (B) The program would be developed and administered by the land owner (public or private) and would be operaxed as a profic-making enterprise. . \* (C) Land within the designated area would be subdivid?? into appropriate sizcd parcels for the puqose of assigning individual land lclases to firms seeking locations. .. . '. ._ b -0- '(D) The building permit process would be streamlined to encourage the construction of greenhouse stxucmres and support facilities within the Park. (E) Special group services would be provided as warranted by the number of firms locating within the Park. These services could include excess trash collection, cooperative supplies purchasing, consolidated shipping, common warehousing of supplies, vorker housing ard support services, m-d so on. (F) A water reclamation project would be investigated at the outset of .the development to determine the feasibility of controlling runoff, pro- viding for water needs and thereby reducing reliance on imported water, ,and maintaining the adjacent ecological systems. Policy 122 New basic Land Use Catepories The County will adopt new land use categories for the purposes of this Local Coastal Plan and will implernent these categories by such ordinance and policy measures as may be appropriate (See Proposed Land Use ?lap>. 1. Agricultural Cropland -- This is a new basic land use category estab- replaces the existing agricultural preserve +nd intensive agriculture land use categories. . . lished solely for application in the San Dieguito Coastal Zone and (A) Application - It is intended that the "Agricultural Cropland" designation will be applied to properties so designated in the LII'P (ref. Policies 61 and 62). ,. I (B) Agricultural CroDland--Permitted Uses -. The County will regu- late non-agricultural use of land designated agricultural cropland subject to the following provisions: 1. For agricultural cropland, the uses of right are agricul- turd uses and agriculturerelated uses. Residential develop- ment on existing legal parcels having soils rated as Class I through Class IV in the U. S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Land Use Compatibility Classification shall be assigned a density of 1 unit per 10 acres, All such permitted development shall be located adjacent to existing roads or devel- opment where possible, and all developed lots shall be clustered on one portion of the total parcel. Further, each permitted residential unit my be developed on a separate subdivided lot, alternative, all development may be on a single lot at an over- all density not 1zss than 1 unit per acre. .: but each such lot shall not exceed one acre in size; as an 2. Residential development on existing legal parcels with soil rated below Class IV in the USDA SCS Land Use Compatibility CI.assificati.on shall be rlssigned ii density of two units per acre, : provided that. residential use shall be dlustcred in a rnanner con- sistent with all applicable policies of the LUP. Existing stands of trees along the norrh shore of Bariquitos Lagoon shall be re- tained as a natural buffer. -9- (C) Planned Aqriculturnl Development (PAD) shall be permitted as a conditional use, subject to the following provisions: That an overall agricultural plan is required, subjccr to review and approvdl by the Couty Agricultural Commissioner, consistent with the County of San Diego's approved Local Coastal Plan for San Dieguito. 1. Residential Devcl-opment - Residential development under the P.4D approach shall be allowed as set forth in the specific provisions of this section, provided that the remaining land suitable for agriculture is preserved for agricultural use, and that all residential uses are clustered on the land in conformance with these provisions: a. All development shall be located in confozmance with applicable slope and habitat policies contained in this plan. b. All development shall be subject to the planned development area regulations of the zoning ordinance. 0 c. Any land shown on the overall development plan to be reserved for agriculture shall be protected for such use by an appropriate enforceable restriction. d. New development shall be located and clustered so as to inhibit the continued agricultural use of the *: land reserved for that purpose as little as pcssible. . Development shall be clustered adjacent to existing or planned development in accordance with the follow- ing guidelines for the various land holdings: Placid Oil (former Rancho La Costa) .The overall density for residential development under the PAD approach shall be 2.8 DU/AC calculated on the entire acreage under single ownership exclusive of all wet- land areas and slopes over 25%. The PAD shall pro- vide for all residential uses to be concentrated in the lagoon and the lagoon preserved under appropriate restrictions as a condition of development. Ecke Holdings The overall density for residential development under the PAD approach shall be 2.8 DU/AC calculated on the entire acreage under single ownep ship exclusive of all.wetland areas and slopes over 25%. The PAD shall provide for residential uses to be concentrated chiefly in the Green Valley, with agricultural lands not developed preserved under appropriate restrictions as a condition of develop- ment. In the event that all development cannot be accommodated within the Green Valley, additional '.. the Green Valley, with agricultural lands north of 1- -10- areas of the holding, especially those distinct from the basic mesa-top area to be preserved may be considered for development in the PAD process provided that such development would concentrate development and would both complete a logical and viable neighborhood and contribute to the establish- ment of a stable limit to urban development, and further provided that all agricultural land con- verted does not exceed 40% of the land available for agriculture. Units allowed under the overall density formula may also be used to concentrate development on other agricultural land more suitable for higherintensity urban development -. through a private transfer of development credits system if such transfer would further enhance the preservation of agriculture by establishing superior neighborhood and urban development limits. kt.. Seabluff Property (West of 1-5 and east of the railroad tracks on the north shore of Batiquitos Lagoon) The overall density for residential de- velopment under the FAD approach shall be a combination of 4-10 units per acre on the northern half of the property and 10-20 units per.acre on. the southern half of the property, as provided in the City of Carlsbad General Plan. The full i+ tensity of development may only be realized '. through. a' private transfer of development credits + system.that provides for permanent preservation of a substantially greater area of agricultural land in an area where there.=@ substantially fewer potentid conflfcts between urban and agricultural development. Unless such a private transfer of de- : velopment is implemented, the PAD shall 'provide for the development of a maximum of 600 units on a maxi- mum. of 40 acres of agricultural soil. The remaining 64 acres of agricultural soil as well as the bluffs ' adjacent to the lagoon and the lagoon area itself ',. 4. shall be preserved under appropriate restrictions"ash .i; # a condition of,development. 3 L :1 e. In selecting areas for development, lands least: suitable for agricultural production shall receive preference. Land best suited for agricultural pro- duction is defined as land containing, Class I-IV Soils c f on slopes under 10% and is either currently in agri- i cultural production or has the potentid. for tne pro- duction of food crops. f. All development to other applicable and other activities must conform ; 'E policies of this plan. I .. .. I '. .. 2. . -11- Land divisions, other than pursuant to a PAD, shall be prohibited unless all agricultural lands are permanently protected by an appropriate enforceable restriction, or unless such land division would not compromise the basic provisions of the policy. Alternate Preservation Programs - The County will encourage pre- servation of agricultural. land through alternate means such as (but not limited to) agriculture subsidy programs or transfer of development rights. Buffer Area - To the degree possible, buffer zones within areas assigned the "Agricultural Croplands" designation shall be estab lished between areas in field crops and the outer boundary of the designation, and between field crops areas and any residential sub- divisions within the designation. Uses within such buffer zones are limited to enclosed agricultural operations or open agricultural crops which do not require application of pesticides, or'may be left in open space. Continued Feasibilitv of Azricxltm? - 3-e County will develop .. a means of aeEemining if contimed agricultural use of a specific parcel is feasible. .A test of feasibiliry shall in- clude: 5 .. a. An offer to transfer cultivation rights to an zppro- priate public agency, such as the Coastal Conservancy, for . a specific period. b. Developrnent of compreixnsive conversion criteria in the implementation phase xVhich takes into accmnt econoinic and physical conditions affecting agriculture in San Diepito. Impacted Apiculture - This is a new category intended to be applied in combinazion with a residential or other urban use category. (a) Aoplication - It is intended that the "impacted agri- culture" designaEion will be applied to agricultural lands including greenhouse operations which are not in an AC desi-onation and which are imptlcted by existing urban uses. (b) Effect on Use - Land in use and vacant land five (5) acres or less in size within the "iqacced agriculture" combining designation shall be governed by the applicable urban use category and zoning. Land in use and vacant land greater than five (5) acres will be permitted to develop in .accordance with the applicable urban use category only by issuance of a pencit to do so. However, no conversion permit would be required for greenhouse lx,d, regardless of parcel size, where greenhouse structures are proposed to be relocated to other agricultural land in the Coastal Zone. . .' t -12- . (c) Criteria for Issuance of Conversion Permit and Evaluation Procedures - Criteria for isscance of a conversion permit bill will be established (see Policy 64) . The Couctjr will empower -3 a Board of Review to make fizdings relative to the issuance of . J a conversion permit, such Bod to consist of the County Agri- cultural Cornmissioner or his representative, a representative of the San Diego County Flover Association, and a third member at large chosen by the first ~ro members of the Board, (d) Subdivisions - No land ~lithin the "impacted sgriculture" designation tYhich is greater t'nan five (5) acres in size will be permitted to be divided except subsequent ad pursuant to issuance of a conversion pemit, or Mess such subdivision would result in indivi- parcels of greater than five (5) acres in size. 3. Land Use ?lap manzes - The following parcels (see. Nap Figure 1) .' .' .- shall be included under the Agricultural Cropland (X) designation: a. The parcel north of Batiquitos Lagoon vest of 1-5 2nd east of the railmad tracks. ? b b. The parcel ixmediately south of Satiquitos Lagoon and .. west of El Camino Real in tSe Grsen Valley area. . 3. Findinzs . The Commission adopted detailed fir,diqs %id? regards to the iriadequacy of the agriculture policies in the denial of the 3an Diesito Lb?. In respozlse \ to the denial, the Commission has suggested <??-e incoqoration of the above -- i policy language in t%e LLT. The Comission finds that there are virtually no prime soils in the San Dieguito Cozscal Zone. Rernovd. of agricultural production from these kinds -. 5 - for a period of years would result in L\sFr being designatad non-prime agri- cultural lads under the Coascai Act, ana cks, Section 30242 rath-er than 30241 of the Act would be the concrolU-g faxor. Because of this, even though technically the lands in 2roductim in San Die&.to constitate prime agr;^dtural lands under the definition in the Coastal Act, the Com- mission finds tbat Section 30242 gf the Act is the pm~sion ap?lic&le to the San Dieggito agriculturd lards. In lig3~ or' the ahve, vhet5er +he lard in Sa Dieguito is defir?ed currently as 2rize or non-prime is *mimpor- tat; wi-tar: is 9Lqortant is that <!e m.xi.rrum z-xxnt of land suitable for agriculturai prodzction should be ?reserved ils required by Section 30242 of the Coastal Act. - Because of the above finding concernt?g t!e zpplicability of Section 30242 of the Act, feasibility of agriculture beccmc?s a critical concern. In additiona, policies geared towards providing incentives to encourzge agri- cultural use zre of primary importance. Tfle svggested policy language in the above r&sed policies 62 and 64 =e intended to encourage agricultural production. The Commission clearly recognizes that large lot or agricul- turd zoning could be applied to dl lands suitable for agricnlmre benJeen Agua Hedionda and Batiquitos Lagoon. ?bch of t\is land is still zoned for 3 .... . c.. ../ I .. FIGURE 1 i .. .- -3-