HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 92-02A; SAMBI SEASIDE HEIGHTS; Planning CommissionGIG RESEARCH, INC.
Economic Research ° Marketing Research o Environmental Research • Survey Research
8361 VICKERS STREET o SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92111-2112
TELEPHONE (619) 637-4000
FAX: (619) 6374040
I
I
I liii
I .
1
AN AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC
FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR
I A 68-ACRE PARCEL OF
I
LAND IN CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
I Prepared For:
I Mr. Thomas Hageman
President
Planning Systems I 2111 Palomar Airport Road
Suite 100
I Carlsbad, CA 92009
I
I Prepared By:
CIC Research, Inc. I 8361 Vickers St.
San Diego, CA 92111-2112
I
I
I
I
September 1995
NOV 0U 195
- --.' j
Q
L60-L
I
I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study was conducted to determine the feasibility of renewing agricultural production
I on a 68-acre property in Carlsbad, California. There is no current farming operation on-site,
I
although a 31-acre portion of the property was farmed in 1991 for Chinese vegetables. Four
hypothetical farm plans were evaluated for the subject property, using crops suited to the
I property's physical resources. The major findings of this study include, but are not limited to,
I
the following:
The subject site ranges from 180 to 300 feet in elevation, and is located in the Maritime
Climate zone, with moderate temperatures prevailing. The site's soil resources include 5.5
I
acres of soils unsuited to farming, but the remaining acreage is rated fair for truck crops and
tomatoes, and rated good for flowers.
1 . Between November 1, 1990 to January 1, 1992 the site was leased for farming of Chinese
vegetables. Summer squash and tomatoes have been grown on-site as well, although not
for quite some time, according to an adjacent farmer who has farmed his site since the
I 1960s. According to this landowner, the entire area in the vicinity of this property was
devoted to tomato production at one time. He indicated that increased water costs and
competition from Mexico have decimated tomato production in the area.
I . Four crops were selected for farm plan evaluations in this study, based on the site's crop
suitability. These crops include strawberries, summer squash, tomatoes for fresh market
I and cauliflower. Production cost data for flowers was not available and an evaluation of
flower and bulb operations is discussed below. Production statistics for the four selected
crops show a general decline in both production and value over the past 10 years, with the
exception of summer squash. Revenue per acre for these crops has remained flat in real I terms, or has declined.
I . Local water rates have outpaced inflation by a threefold factor since the mid 1980s. San
Dieguito Water District currently charges rates of $741 per acre-foot. Rates in California's
central valley by contrast, run approximately $200 per acre-foot.
I
I
I
I . Strawberry production. Total local strawberry production peaked in 1985 at 33,331 tons; by
1994, total production fell to 19,338 tons. Acreage planted in strawberries fell from 1,344
acres in 1985 to 850 acres in 1994. Total value (in constant dollars) of fresh and processed
I strawberries also peaked in 1985. Increasing water costs and competition from Mexico are
the chief factors affecting the decline in local strawberry production. The State of California,
by contrast, has shown substantial growth in strawberry production, and is the nation's
I leading producer of strawberries.
. Summer squash production. Local yields and values have increased steadily for this crop
since the mid 1980s. Summer squash is a low value crop, especially compared to I
strawberry production, and costs roughly $5,700 per acre to produce, versus about $25,000
per acre for strawberries.
I. Fresh tomato production. The value of local fresh tomato production declined in real terms
between 1985 and 1994. According to the U.C./County Cooperative Extension tomatoes
advisor, tomato production has been in decline locally starting in the 1960s. Increasing
1 water costs and competition from Mexico have hurt the local tomato industry.
. Cauliflower production. Local acreage planted in cauliflower has declined from 660 acres in
I 1985 to 240 acres by 1994. Total value of production declined from $2.5 million in 1985 to
just under $1 million by 1994.
I . Bulb production. Local acreage planted in bulbs, corms, rhizomes, roots and tubers has
decreased from 410 acres in 1985 to 217 acres in 1994. About 60 acres of current bulb
production is in ranunculus bulbs, part of the Flower Fields at Carlsbad Ranch. This 60-
I
acre operation and a 20-acre ranunculus bulb operation in Santa Maria account for the
entire domestic market of ranunculus bulb sales.
I . CIC was not able to obtain production cost and revenue data for flower or bulb operations
locally. Local growers were interviewed regarding market factors affecting the production of
such crops. Growers felt that the start-up costs of floriculture production, stiff domestic and
l international competition, and a small grower's disadvantage due to limited economies of
scale, would make it exceedingly risky for the purchase of land and investment in a new
flower or bulb operation. However, leasing the land for such purposes could be very
profitable, given lease rates of roughly $350 per acre which is the lease rate for flower crop I lands in Encinitas owned by the Ecke Family.
The viability of renewing agriculture on the subject property is analyzed in terms of four I plans, in single cropping patterns, for the four crops discussed above (strawberries, summer
squash, tomatoes for fresh market and cauliflower). Estimated net annual income
calculations for these plans (after land rental costs) are negative for tomatoes and I cauliflower. Returns for a summer squash operation are marginal ($2,820 annually on 60
acres). This return covers management, supervision and risk assumed by the producer, but
does not include equipment and other capital costs necessary for the start-up of such an
I
operation. Strawberry income performs better, at an estimated $36,500. However, if capital
costs were included this return would be reduced significantly.
I
I
I . As shown, estimated farm income is barely positive for a summer squash operation, and
$36,000 for a strawberry operation, for a farmer renting the land. At the land's most recent
purchase price, annual land carrying costs of approximately $215,000 per year are
I expended, meaning the landowner must subsidize the farmer. Deducting annual holding
costs from farm income, all farm plans produce substantial annual losses to the landowner,
ranging anywhere from a loss of $139,000 to $420,000 annually.
I • Since the main factor of agricultural production, the land, cannot be carried by farming
operations themselves, agricultural use of the site is economically infeasible. Renting the
I land for agricultural operations necessitates a subsidy from the landowner, who has annual
land holding costs in excess of $200,000 annually. As a result, adherence to agricultural
zoning and use of the site limits the site's potential for development in its highest and best
use. I
I
I
I
1
I
MA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
j
I
I
I
I
I
I'll
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . ii
LIST. OF TABLES AND FIGURES .............................................................................................vi
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................1
PURPOSEOF THE STUDY....................................................................................................1
METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................................I
CLIENT...................................................................................................................................1
REPORTORGANIZATION.....................................................................................................2
PHYSICALRESOURCES ..........................................................................................................3
LOCATIONAND DESCRIPTION............................................................................................3
TOPOGRAPHY.......................................................................................................................3
CLIMATE................................................................................................................................3
WATER...................................................................................................................................5
SOILS.....................................................................................................................................
ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION .................................................12
FARMINGHISTORY .......................................................................................................... ...12
AGRICULTURALTRENDS...................................................................................................13
FARM INCOME DETERMINATION AND INVESTMENT ANALYSIS....................................27
OTHER ISSUES: LAND USE AND COMPETITION.............................................................34
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ..........................................................................45
- V
I
IT]
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Tables Page
IAnnual Temperature .............................................................................................6
2 Monthly Average Temperature and Precipitation Data For Area ........................... 6
3 Soil Classifications and Ratings ............................................................................ 9
4 Crop Suitability of Soils ......................................................................................... 1 0
5 San Diego Strawberry Production ......................................................................... 14
6 Total Shipments of Fresh Strawberries, San Diego County and California............ 14
7 San Diego Summer Squash Production................................................................ 16
8 San Diego Fresh Tomato Production .................................................................... 19
9 San Diego Cauliflower Production......................................................................... 19
10 San Diego Bulbs, Corms, Rhizomes, Roots, Tubers Production ........................... 19
11 Farm Revenue for Selected Crops, San Diego County ......................................... 20
12 Strawberry Production Costs................................................................................. 22
13 Summer Squash Production Costs ....................................................................... 23
14 Pole Tomatoes Production Costs.......................................................................... 24
15 Cauliflower Production Costs ................................................................................ 26
16 Revenue and Cost Analysis for Five Possible Farm Plans,
(5-Year Average Scenario)........................................................................ 29
17 Revenue and Cost Analysis for Five Possible Farm Plans, (Best-Case Scenario) 30
18 Farm Income Determination for a 60-Net-Usable-Acre Parcel of Land.................. 31
19 Farm Subsidy Estimation For a 68-Acre Property in Carlsbad, California.............. 33
20 Total Shipments of Fresh Strawberries from California and
Florida and Imports by Origin .................................................................... 36
21 Total Shipments of Fresh Tomatoes From California and Florida
andImports by Origin ................................................................................ 38
22 Domestic Production of Chrysanthemums and Imports......................................... 39
23 Domestic Production of Carnations and Imports ................................................... 40
24 Imports of Gladioli ................................................................................................. 43
Figures Page
1 Study Area Location..............................................................................................2
2 San Diego County, Total Value of Fresh and Processed Strawberries ................... 15
3 San Diego County, Total Value of Summer Squash Production............................18
4 California Shipments of Fresh Strawberries and Mexican Imports ........................37
5 Domestic Flower Production .................................................................................41
6 Flower Imports.to the U.S . .................................................................................... 44
I
I
I
IT
I
I
I
I
I
I
Li
I
I
I
U
I
I
I
I
I
U Ill!
I
INTRODUCTION
I PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This study was conducted to determine the current and future feasibility of agricultural
I production for a 68-acre property in Carlsbad, California. Results of this study may or may not
I
be used as part of an application to convert the land to non-agricultural (i.e., urban) uses. The
methodology and conclusions contained in this study are in accordance with evaluation criteria
I relating to conversion of agricultural land under the California Coastal Act (1976).
I METHODOLOGY
I
There is no current farming operation on-site. As a result, no existing financial
operations data for farming could be evaluated for this analysis. Four hypothetical farm plans
I were assessed using U.C. Cooperative Extension and County agricultural data and
cropping/resource potential of the land. These plans provide an analysis of production costs,
.1 yields, prices received, start up capital requirements and an appropriate, risk-based, agricultural
rate of return. The viability of keeping the site in agricultural use is then evaluated.
I CLIENT
This report was prepared at the request of Mr. Thomas Hageman of Planning Systems
I in Carlsbad, California. However, the results of this study represent the independent findings of
I CIC Research, Inc. As a result, the interpretations and conclusions regarding such findings
may not necessarily be shared by the client.
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REPORT ORGANIZATION
This report is organized into three following sections. The next section of the report
contains an evaluation of the site's physical resources, to include soils, topography, climate,
crop suitability and water resources. The third section of the report presents an analysis of
local and statewide agricultural trends, followed by an economic analysis of farming operations
on-site, and other relevant economic factors such as land use and competitive conditions. The
final section of this report contains recommendations and conclusions regarding the agricultural
feasibility of renewed farming operations at the site.
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
go i
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subject property (henceforth referred to as the study site) represents one legal
parcel. The Sambi Seaside Heights property is located a little over one-half of a mile south of
Palomar Airport Road, one mile east of Interstate 5, and just northwest of the intersection of
Poinsettia Lane and Alga Road. Alga Road as well as Batiquitos Drive provide access to the
parcel from both the north (Palomar Airport Road) and south (Poinsettia Lane). Figure 1
identifies the location of the property. The Sambi Seaside Heights parcel is 68.5 acres in size.
TOPOGRAPHY
The Sambi property ranges from 180 to 300 feet in elevation, with an average slope of
4.4 percent. There is a range in slope of two to nine percent on the property. The highest point
is located in the southeast corner of the parcel which slopes down between the western and
northern boundaries of the parcel.
CLIMATE
The study site is located in the Maritime Climate zone. This climate zone lies in a
continuous strip of land a few hundred yards to six or eight miles wide along the coast of
California. It is dominated day and night, winter and summer, by ocean conditions. Seasonal
and diurnal temperature changes are narrow and humidity is high. Coastal fog will affect the
$ Climates of San Diego County--Agricultural Relationship, University of California, Agricultural Service, Nov. 1970.
3
Figure 1
Study Area Location
.. . . '\ I • ' ' \ SS •fj e --
S ')
S , S \\"\\ \ ) \ --. — I ' •- '- -
p ROALJ
XN
lit
: \\
Site
'•S\. 'J ,It
NX
Al
it
mo
kg 0
2 7k- IN
MWE
i:
"
\\
••,\S\\\ . \\\\ L-1 •t\V\
2 \ \\
\ t (
\ \ \ kM
.
4
N—
II
Source: Land Space Engineering
CIC Research
L
I
I parcel in spring and summer months and usually dissipates by morning. Tables I and 2
present annual and monthly temperature data for this climate zone. In Table I the coastal
I influence is demonstrated by an eight degree variation in mean maximum and minimum
I temperatures from the annual mean of 61 degrees. Extreme temperatures are rare, and there
is a low probability of even freezes.
I Precipitation occurs primarily from October to April and averages approximately 10
I
inches annually. Most coastal food and flower crops require an additional three acre-feet of
irrigation.
I WATER
I Irrigation water is being supplied to the parcel by the San Dieguito Water District. A
1985 study indicated that water costs in the Costa Real Water District, which was the water
agency serving the property at that time, rose an average of 15 percent annually between 1980
and 1985, having a significant impact on producer's costs and outstripping average annual
inflation of 5.6 percent during that time period. Water costs were $280.96 per acre-foot for this
district in 1985. Since 1985, water costs has more than doubled, increasing to $741 as of mid-
1995. Water costs since 1985 have increased at an average annual rate of 10.2 percent, while
at the same time, annual inflation has averaged 3.8 percent since 1985. Water costs since
1985 have outstripped inflation by almost a threefold factor. As noted in the most recent
Economic Bulletin of the Greater San Diego Chamber of Commerce, expensive land and water
costs have led to the County's agricultural industry making use of the most technically
advanced and sophisticated farming methods to achieve efficiency. Plants varieties as a result
are expensive and a high-dollar crop.
- 5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table I
Annual Temperature
Annual Temperatures (Degrees F.) Study Site Data
Highest of Record 107
Mean Maximum 69
Mean 61
Mean Minimum 53
Lowest of Record 29
32 Degree Days and Nights
Days between median dates 365
Probability of Freeze
32 degrees 50%
28 degrees 23
24 degrees 0
Source: Climate of San Diego County-Agricultural
Relationships, University of California,
Agricultural Service, November 1970.
Table 2
Monthly Average Temperature and Precipitation Data For Area
Temperature (Degrees F.) JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Total
Mean Maximum 62.9 63.3 64.6 66.1 68.1 69.7 73.3 74.6 74.3 71.6 68.9 65.2 69
Mean 54.0 54.7 56.4 58.9 61.4 63.8 67.4 68.6 67.3 63.6 59.4 55.9 61
Mean Minimum 45.0 46.1 48.2 51.6 54.7 57.8 61.4 62.6 60.2 55.7 49.8 46.6 53
Precipitation (Inches) 2.07 1.96 1.63 1.05 0.22 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.19 0.56 0.84 1.77 10.44
Source: Climate of San Diego County-Agricultural Relationships, University of California,
Agricultural Service, November 1970.
I
I
I SOILS
Three types of soil are present at the study site. These soils are described in terms of
I standard rating systems and particular characteristics affecting crop production. These soils
I include Chesterton fine sandy loam (2 to 5 percent slopes), Chesterton fine sandy loam (5 to 9
percent slopes), and Terrace Escarpments. Their respective abbreviations are CfB, CfC and
I TeF
Soil Location
I The Chesterton series dominates the site with 63 acres, or a little over 90 percent of the
I total area. Both the west (40 acres) and east sides (23 acres) of the parcel are composed of
I
Chesterton fine sandy loam (2 to 5 percent slopes). Slightly east from the center point of the
site runs a 12-acre corridor of Chesterton fine sandy loam (5 to 9 percent slopes). A small
I portion of the southeast corner of the study site contains 5.5 acres of Terrace Escarpments.
I
Soil Rating Systems
Two soil rating systems are used to describe soils in detail. The soil capability rating
I system and the Stone Index rating system both describe physical characteristics of a soil and
make determinations regarding the potential that a soil has for certain agricultural uses. The
.1 soil capability rating system usually gives a clearer indication of the agricultural potential of a
soil than does the Stone Index rating system. The Stone Index rates a soil on the basis of a
defined standard, and must be broken down into its components to obtain specific information
I about the soil.
I Soil Capability Rating System
The soil capability system shows, in general, the limitations of a soil when cultivated for
I field crops and the way the soil responds to management practices. All soil mapping units are
I
grouped at three levels: capability class, subclass, and unit. Classes are indicated by Roman
numerals, with Class I soils having few limitations that restrict their use for agriculture.
I
11
I
Progressively greater limitations are indicated by larger Roman numerals, with Class VIII
soils being restricted to recreation, wildlife habitat, or water supply purposes. Capability
subclasses denote particular risks associated with a soil unit. Risk of erosion is symbolized by
a small letter e added to the class numeral. Risk or limitations due to soil surface
characteristics are indicated by a small letter &added to the class numeral. More specific
management requirement for a soil unit are denoted by Arabic numerals after the subclass
letter.
These capability units represent the kind of limitation responsible for placement of the
soil in the capability class or subclass. The Chesterton soil with a capability unit of 3 indicates
slow or very slow permeability of the subsoil or substratum. A capability unit of I for the
Terrance Escarpments indicates an erosion hazard.
In Table 3, the soil capability classifications are given for the particular acreage within
the study site. Class IV soils, including Chesterton fine sandy barns, have severe limitations
that reduce the choice of plants and require very careful management. Class VIII soils and
landforrns, including Terrace Escarpments, have limitations that preclude their use for
commercial crop production and restrict their use to recreation, wildlife, or water supply
purposes.
Stone Index Rating System
A second method used to estimate the agricultural potential of soils is called the Stone
Index. This index expresses numerically the relative suitability of a soil for intensive agriculture.
Profile characteristics, soil surface texture, slope, and other miscellaneous conditions of the soil
are assigned percentages, with the most agriculturally favorable condition being 100 percent.
These percentage factors are multiplied together and the final Stone Index rating results.
I
I
U
F
I
U
El
[
I
U
I
LI
LI
I
I
I
I
Table 3
Soil Classifications and Ratings
Soil (mapping unit) I Acreage Capability Classification Stone Index
Chesterton fine sandy loam, 51 lVe-3(19) 34
2-5% slopes (CfB)
Chesterton fine sandy loam, 12 lVe-3(19) 32
5-9% slopes (CfC)
Terrace Escarpments (TeF) 5.5 Vllle-1 (1 9,20,30) 10
Total 68.5
Source: Soil Survey - San Diego Area, California. U.S.D.A., Soil Conservation Service in
Cooperation with University of California Agricultural Experiment Station, December,
1973.
Ratings can be grouped to define agricultural land under the provisions of the California
Land Conservation Act. Agricultural land includes soils in Capability Classes I through IV, and
soils with a Stone Index of 20 percent or more. Of course, greater management is necessary
for soils with a low Stone Index or with a Capability Unit near IV.
Agricultural soils can be further grouped as Prime Agricultural Land. This category
includes soils with a Stone Index of 80 percent or more, or those in Capability classes I or II.
Table 3 indicates that the highest Stone Index rating for soils on site is 34, for Chesterton (CfB).
Therefore, the study site cannot be considered to be Prime Agricultural Land based on these
soil ratings.
Soil Characteristics
Chesterton Fine Sandy Loam. Chesterton soils consist of moderately well drained fine
sandy loams that have a sandy clay subsoil. These soils have low to medium fertility. Few
roots penetrate below a depth of 40 inches. The average water holding capacity is 2.5 to 5.0
inches; some moisture is slowly available from the sandy clay subsoil. Permeability is very
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
9- -
slow, and runoff is slow (CfB) to medium (CfC). The erosion hazard is slight to moderate in
cultivated areas. Typical use of the soil is for truck crops, tomatoes, flowers, barley, and range
(refer to Table 4).
Terrace Escarpments. Terrace escarpments consist of steep to very steep
escarpments and escarpment-like landscapes that have no value for farming. Runoff is rapid,
and the erosion hazard high. Establishing and maintaining permanent vegetation is desirable
for erosion control.
In summary, while the Terrace Escarpments have no farming value, the Chesterton soils
can support a variety of crops, given careful management. The main limitation for Chesterton
soils comes from the risk of erosion unless close-growing plant cover is maintained. Further-
more, careful management of these soils is necessary to provide adequate drainage and avoid
salinity buildup.
Table 4
Crop Suitability of Soils
Soil R2
Mapping Unit Acreage Avocados Citrus Truck
CfB 51 NR NR F(p
CfC 12 NR NR F(p
TeF 5.5 NR NR N
11
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Soil Ratings Adverse (limiting) Soil Proi
G = Good prm = permeability
F Fair sip slope
NR = Not Rated txt = texture of surface layer
Source: Climates of San Diego County, University of California Agricultural
et. al. November 1970.
- 10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Crop Suitability
In its interpretation of soil characteristics, the Soil Conservation Service provides a
suitability evaluation for selected crops commonly grown in San Diego County. Table 4 lists
these suitability ratings for the two soil series found at the study site.
Chesterton fine sandy loam is rated 'good" for flowers primarily because of coarse
texture of the soil. Avocados and citrus are not rated for Chesterton soils, mainly because of
the low permeability of the soil (associated with root rot) and the lower temperatures of the
coastal area. Truck crops and tomatoes are rated as fair. For truck crops, the main limitation is
the permeability of the soil. Fortomatoes, the coarse texture of the Chesterton soil is not well
suited for this crop, thus requiring careful intensive management of irrigation and fertilization.'
Finally, the 5 to 9 percent slope of the CfC Chesterton soil could make crop irrigation difficult.
However, the use of a drip irrigation system would allow for planting on hillsides.
Summary
The study site's resources are generally representative of coastal agricultural land in
North San Diego County. Based on climatic zone, soils and other physical resources of the
subject site, cropping of a variety of flowers, fruits and vegetables is physically feasible. The
next section of the report evaluates the economics of four selected farm plans to arrive at
conclusions regarding the economic feasibility of such farming operations.
Climates of San Diego County-- Agricultural Relationship, University of California, Agricultural Service, Nov. 1970.
- - -
L
Fl
I
I
ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF
I AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION
I FARMING HISTORY
I
The most current farming operations on site occurred between November 1, 1990 to
January 1, 1992. At that time, 31.05 acres of the property was leased to Thu Ly, who farmed
I Chinese vegetables (primarily bok choy). Mr. Ly is currently farming a nearby site in Chinese
I
vegetables. The lease rate to Mr. Ly at the subject site was for the sum of $7,500 over the 14-
month period, or a rate of $214 per acre, net of water, insurance and utilities.
1 CIC Research staff interviewed Mr. Tabata of Tabata Farms who owns the property
I
directly south of the study site. Tabata Farms consists of 25 acres in strawberry production, all
of which is shipped to a Los Angeles broker. Mr. Tabata has owned his property since 1960
and moved to Carlsbad in 1967. He was able to give CIC staff a general account of the study
site's farming history.
I His earliest recollection of farming operations at the study site was when the property
.I was owned in the 1970s by Mr. Frederick Weston, a flower broker. Mr. Weston leased out the
property to a grower for the production of summer squash. The only other crop grown on-site
(besides recent cultivation of Chinese vegetables) according to Mr. Tabata, was tomatoes. Mr.
I Tabata indicated that almost the entire area in the vicinity of his property was planted in
tomatoes at one time. He indicated that increased water costs nd competition from Mexico,
I particularly low land, labor and water costs, have decimated tomato production in the area.
I
Other farming operations in the immediate vicinity of the study site included a nursery
operation to the east of the site, in which carnations and bromeliads are grown. The adjacent
12
I
1
I property due east of the subject site consists of a small 2.5-acre operation which ships a
diverse selection of crops to a local farmer's market. Some of the crops on that site included
I flowers for the cut-flower market (asters, zinnias, marigolds, sunflowers), vegetables (broccoli,
cucumber, acorn squash, green and wax beans) and a variety of herbs.
I AGRICULTURAL TRENDS
I
GIG Research evaluated historical production statistics for a variety of crops which could
be grown on the subject property, to include strawberries, summer squash, tomatoes for fresh
I market, cauliflower and flower bulbs (data for bulbs is included along with data for corms,
I
rhizomes, roots and tubers). Table 5 shows historical production trends in local strawberry
production. Total production peaked in 1985 at 33,331 tons; by 1994, total production fell to
I 19,338 tons. Total yield (in tons per acre) has been declining steadily since the early 1980's.
Mirroring declines in production and yields, total value (in constant dollars) of fresh and
I processed strawberries peaked in 1985, as shown in Figure 2. County agricultural specialists
I cite increasing water costs and competition from Mexico as the chief factors leading to a decline
in local strawberry production.
I Table 6 depicts trends in strawberry shipments from San Diego County and California.
I
California's central valley has significantly lower production costs (water charges are around
$200 per acre-foot) and superior soils, and California as a state dominates the U.S. market for
I fresh strawberries. San Diego County garnishes about three percent of the state's shipments,
l down from roughly six percent in 1985. Again, substantial increases in water costs, increasing
urbanization and increasing competition from Mexico are factors affecting declines in local
I strawberry production.
I
Trends in local summer squash production over the last 10-year period are shown in
Table 7. Local yields and values have increased steadily-for summer squash since the mid
- - 13 - -
Iii]
1
I Table 5
SAN DIEGO STRAWBERRY PRODUCTION
I Yield -- Total Yield-Tons Price Per Ton Total Value
Acreage Tons Per Acres Fresh Process Fresh Process Fresh & Process
1 1994 850 15.8 13,430 5,908 $1,071 $657 $18,265,000
1993 971 15.6 15,148 7,651 1,042 827 22,112,000
1992 1,078 17.8 19,178 8,225 1,029 490 23,764,000 I 1991 943 20.8 19,567 6,893 1,057 640 25,094,000
1990 834 21.5 17,956 6,155 1,000 620 21,772,000 1 1989 872 21.8 13,010 6,000 1,125 520 17,756,000
1988 1,103 22.0 14,560 9,706 1,100 480 20,675,000
I 1987 1,193 20.8 16,378 8,189 1,033 500 21,012,000
1986 1,045 22.5 15,284 8,229 995 516 19,454,000
1985 1,344 24.8 18,332 14,999 850 374 21,192,000
Source: Agricultural Crop Report, County of San Diego, Department of Agriculture, 1985 - 1994.
CIC Research, Inc., 1995.
I Table 6
TOTAL SHIPMENTS OF FRESH STRAWBERRIES,
SAN DIEGO COUNTY AND CALIFORNIA I (1,000 Flats)
San Diego Share
I San Diego County California of California
3.0% 1994 2,238 75,750
1993 2,525 65,217 3.9% I 1992 3,196 63,508 5.0%
1991 3,261 66,133 4.9%
I 1990 2,993 58,300 5.1%
1989 2,168 55,375 3.9%
I 1988 2,427 56,080 4.3%
1987 2,730 48,392 . 5.6%
I 1986 2,547 48,656 5.2%
1985 3,055 48,614 6.3%
I Source: AQricultural Crop Report, County of San Diego, Department of Agriculture, 1985-1994.
CIC Research, Inc., 1995.
14
Total Value Value in Constant
Year in $millions 1994 Dollars
1985 $21,192 $29,669
1986 $19,454 $27,041
1987 $21,012 $28,576
1988 $20,675 $27,084
1989 $17,756 $22,195
1990 $21,772 $24,385
1991 $25,094 $27,352
1992 $23,764 $25,190
1993 $22,112 $22,775
1994 $18,265 $18,265
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Figure 2
San Diego County
Total Value of Fresh and Processed Strawberries
1985-1994
Source: County of San Diego Department of Agriculture, Annual Crop Reports, 1985-1994.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 7
SAN DIEGO SUMMER SQUASH PRODUCTION
Yield --- Total Yield Price
Acreage Tons Per Acre (Tons) Per Ton Total Value
1994 956 12.9 12,304 $450 $5,537,000
1993 980 13.7 13,416 435 5,836,000
1992 1,020 13.5 13,719 428 5,872,000
1991 810 9.9 7,995 385 3,078,000
1990 722 8.4 6,072 368 2,234,000
1989 525 8.6 4,515 370 1,671,000
1988 678 8.7 5,899 362 2,135,000
1987 533 8.3 4,424 358 1,584,000
1986 1,135 10.3 11,691 322 3,764,000
1985 532 9.1 4,841 289 1,399,000
Source: Agricultural Crop Report, County of San Diego, Department of Agriculture, 1985 - 1994.
CIC Research, Inc., 1995.
L
I
I 1980's. Figure 3 depicts the growth in summer squash values, expressed in both nominal and
constant 1994 dollars.
I Tables 8, 9 and 10 provide historical production data for local fresh tomato, cauliflower
I and flower bulbs/tubers. Acreage planted in all three crops has declined since the mid 1980s,
as has total yield (or quantity sold in the case of bulbs) for each of these crops. Contact with
the U.C./County Cooperative tomatoes advisor indicated that tomato acreage in San Diego
I
County has been in steady decline since about 1960, with competition from Florida (primarily)
and Mexico (secondarily) increasing steadily since that time. Year to year fluctuations in
I acreage planted for tomatoes can be upwards of 10 percent or more in variation. As shown in
I
Table 8, total tomato production in San Diego County peaked in 1990 and 1991 with roughly
114,000 tons produced.
I By 1994, total cauliflower production declined by more than two-thirds of what was
produced in the mid 1980s (see Table 9). Production data for bulbs, corms rhizomes, roots and
I tubers (hereafter referred to as bulbs) has shown less dramatic declines, although acreage
I planted in bulbs is about one-half of what it was in the mid 1980s.
Production Revenues and Costs
I An evaluation of financial performance of the farm plans selected for this analysis
provides further insight regarding the economics of farm production on-site. A review of
revenues produced on a per-acre basis, analyzed in constant (1994) dollars, reveals a more
mixed picture of crop performance. As Table 11 shows, strawberry revenue peaked at $29,575
per acre in 1990 (in 1994 dollars), declining to $21,490 by 1994. In constant 1994 dollars,
revenues per acre for strawberries by 1994 have changed little over 1985. Squash revenues
fell on a per-acre basis through the late 1980s, but have rebounded to $5,790 per acre by 1994.
Tomato revenues peaked in 1989 at $15,967 per acre and have fallen to $8,242 by year end
1994.
- -- 17
I
I
I
I
I
I
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Figure 3
San Diego County
Total Value of Summer Squash Production
1985-1994
Total Value Value in Constant
Year in $millions 1994 Dollars
1985 $1,399 $1,959
1986 $3,764 $5,232
1987 $1,584 $2,154
1988 $2,135 $2,797
1989 $1,671 $2,089
1990 $2,234 $2,502
1991 $3,078 $3,355
1992 $5,872 $6,224
1993 $5,836 $6,011
1994 $5,537 $5,537
Source: County of San Diego Department of Agriculture, Annual Crop Reports, 1985-1994.
Table 8
SAN DIEGO FRESH TOMATO PRODUCTION
Yield-Tons Total Yield Price Total
Year Acreage Per Acre (Tons) (Per Ton) Value
1994 2,315 21.08 48,800 $391 $19,080,878
1993 3,011 34.03 102,464 355 36,374,837
1992 3,426 28.95 99,183 390 36,681,253
1991 3,413 33.50 114,336 334 38,188,057
1990 3,310 34.35 113,699 349 39,680,777
1989 2,568 36.00 92,448 360 33,281,280
1988 2,620 30.70 80,434 342 27,508,428
1987 2,441 26.10 63,710 404 25,738,880
1986 2,356 22.90 53,952 436 23,523,246
1985 2,525 22.90 57,823 326 18,850,000
Table 9
SAN DIEGO CAULIFLOWER PRODUCTION
Yield-Tons Total Yield Price Total
Year Acreage Per Acre (Tons) (Per Ton) Value
1994 240 7.04 1,690 $591 $998,554
1993 622 6.31 3,925 583 2,288,170
1992 617 6.21 3,832 572 2,191,658
1991 615 6.01 3,696 556 2,055,059
1990 970 6.48 6,286 377 2,369,671
1989 650 6.50 4,225 352 1,487,200
1988 512 7.90 4,045 399 1,613,875
1987 620 8.10 5,022 521 2,616,462
1986 604 10.20 6,161 426 2,624,501
1985 660 9.20 6,072 404 2,453,000
SAN DIEGO BULBS, CORMS, RHIZOMES, ROOTS, TUBERS PRODUCTION
Quantity Total
Year Acreage Sold Value
1994 217 41,024,112 $1,901,242
1993 217 37,528,327 1,830,180
1992 326 41,854,268 2,456,925
1991 400 48,027,034 2,902,840
1990 450 54,372,414 3,142,960
1989 725 87,600,000 4,380,000
1988 585 72,200,000 3,465,600
1987 585 72,200,000 3,321,000
1986 405 49,985,000 2,307,000
1985 410 49,985,000 2,307,000
Source: Agricultural Crop Report, County of San Diego, Department of Agriculture, 1985-1994.
CIC Research, Inc.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- 19
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Table 11
FARM REVENUE FOR SELECTED CROPS
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
Revenue per Acre Revenue per Acre
Nominal Dollars 1994 Dollars
Strawberries Squash Tomatoes Cauliflower Bulbs Strawberries Squash Tomatoes Cauliflower Bulbs
1994 $21,490 $5,790 $8,242 $4,161 $8,761 $21,490 $5,790 $8,242 $4,161 $8,761
1993 22,770 5,955 12,081 3,679 8,434 23,340 4,555 12,745 3,881 8,898
1992 22,045 5,755 10,707 3,552 7,537 23,260 4,640 11,628 3,858 8,185
1991 26,610 3,800 11,189 3,342 7,257 28,900 3,230 12,677 3,786 8,222
1990 26,105 3,095 11,988 2,443 6,984 29,575 2,850 14,146 2,883 8,242
1989 20,365 3,180 12,960 2,288 6,041 24,030 3,170 15,967 2,819 7,443
1988 18,745 3,150 10,499 3,152 5,924 23,095 3,430 13,355 4,009 7,535
1987 17,615 2,970 10,544 4,220 5,677 22,405 3,460 13,813 5,528 7,437
1986 14,555 3,315 9,984 4,345 5,696 19,067 4,120 13,249 5,766 7,559
1985 15,770 2,630 7,465 3,717 5,627 20,925 4,175 10,183 5,070 7,675
1990-1994 5 Year Average: $25,315 $4,215 $11,888 $3,714 $8,462
Source: Agricultural Crop Report, County of San Diego, Department of Agriculture, 1985-1994.
CIC Research, Inc., 1995
20
1
1
I Cauliflower revenues are down significantly over the mid 1980s, while bulb revenues
have increased in real terms, although not significantly. In 1994 dollars, per-acre revenues for
I bulbs have increased from $7,675 in 1985 to $8,761 in 1994. Table 11 provides an average
I per-acre revenue figure for these crops over the previous (1990-1994) five-year period. As
shown, revenues for strawberries was highest ($25,315/acre) followed by tomatoes
I ($11,888/acre) and bulbs ($8,462/acre). Squash revenues averaged $4,215 per acre while
' cauliflower revenues averaged $3,714 per acre.
Estimated 1994 production costs (inclusive of land rent) for strawberries is shown in
I Table 12. As shown, costs on a per-acre basis are roughly $25,000. Land rent is estimated at
I
$650 per acre, based on information from the U.C./County Agricultural Cooperative Extension
and rent comparables obtained from Pacific Agri-Vest, a local agricultural appraisal firm. Rents
I of up to $1,000 or more are charged at Camp Pendleton for acreage in strawberry production;
however, those lands have higher quality soils and well water access, which is significantly less
1 expensive than District water rates. As a result, higher rents can be achieved at Camp
1 Pendleton.
Table 13 outlines production costs on a per-acre basis for summer squash, which run an
I estimated $5,745 per acre. Land rent per acre for squash is estimated to run $360 annually.
I Production costs for fresh market tomatoes are estimated at $17,800 annually as shown in
Table 14. Land rents per acre for tomatoes are similar to those of summer squash, at an
I estimated $360 per acre. Table 15 outlines estimated production costs for cauliflower ($7,270
I
per acre). Again, land rent of $360 per acre is used for cauliflower production.
dC Research attempted unsuccessfully to obtain production costs for cut flowers and/or
I bulb production. Contacts were made with local growers (including the operator of the Flower
I
Fields at Carlsbad Ranch, a 60-acre ranunculus bulb operation,- as well as members of the
Ecke family, well-known flower growers in North County) as well as the nursery crops advisor at
2.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 12
STRAWBERRY PRODUCTION COSTS
(1994 Dollars)
Item Cost Per Acre
Remove old plastic @ $5.75/hr. 12 hrs. $69
Disc., plow, level 6 times, chisel 4 times, furrow, harrow 167
Grade stake 24
Fumigate (contract) 1020
Plant: labor, $5.75 x 60 hrs. 345
plants 2,707
tractor and driver 94
Fertilizer: pre-plant furrow and post-plant 531
irrigate, 3 acre-feet 2225
Weed'3 times, remove runners 2 times, prune old leaves 89
Polyethelene bed mulch, application and train plants through poly,
replacements (10%)
301
Pest Control, 5 times, custom 145
Equipment repair 130
Miscellaneous overhead
100
Pre-harvest production cost net of rent $7,947
Investment: depreciation 443
interest
361
Investment cost
804
TOTAL PRE-HARVEST COST
$8,751
Harvest cost: (59% fresh, 41% process)
Fresh market, per tray: Baskets, wire tray 1.33 ea.
Picking 1.60
Misc. labor at 10% of picking cost .16
Cooling .77
Commission .74
$4.60
Cost for 2,616 trays (12 pounds) $12,034
Processed Fruit,
1,558 trays (14 pounds) @ $.15/lb., including supervision $3,272
HARVEST COST, 26.6-TON CROP 15,306
Overhead Land Rent 650
TOTAL PRE-HARVEST AND HARVEST COSTS $24,705
Source: UC Cooperative Extension, 1992.
CIC Research, Inc. 1995
22
I
1
I Table 13
SUMMER SQUASH PRODUCTION COSTS
(1994 Dollars)
I Yield -- 500 20-lb. cartons per acre Approx. 70 days to maturity.
CUSTOM MATERIALS HAND LABOR COST
I OPERATION RATE Type Cost Hours Dollars Per Acre
LAND PREPARATION
Stubble disc $18.25 $18.25
Disk lx 9.50 9.50 I Landplane 2x 10.00 20.00
Border, cross check & break 15.00 15.00
' borders
Flood 1/2 ac. ft. 3.70 1 5.50 376.00
Disc 2x 9.50 19.00
Fertilize 6.00 250# 11-52-0 33.75 39.75
I List beds 18.50 18.50
Rerun beds 10.00 10.00
TOTAL LAND PREPARATION COSTS $526.00
GROWING PERIOD I Plant & shape beds $19.00 Hybrid seed 2# 47.00 $66.00
@ 23.50/lb.
Thin 8 46.00 46.00 I Move bed top 15.75 15.75
Center beds 13.75 13.75
Cultivate lx 16.00 16.00
I Fertilize &furrow out lx 11.00 80#N @.31 24.80 35.80
Hand weed lx 6 34.50 34.50
Irrigate lOx 4 ac. ft. 2964.00 9 51.75 3016.00
Pollination I hive/acre 18.00 18.00 I Insect control 4x 5.00 Insecticides 36.00 4 23 56.00
Disease control 2x 5.00 Fungicides 20.00 8 46 30.00
Disc out beds 9.50 9.50 I PEOD COSTS TOTAL GROWING RI $3357.30
GROWING PERIOD & LAND PREPARATION COSTS $3,883
I Land Rent (net acres) 360
Cash Overhead ----- 12% of preharvest cost & land rent 200
' TOTAL PRE HARVEST COSTS $4,443
HARVEST
Pick, haul, grade, pack and sell 500 carton @ 2.60 per carton 1,300
--- $5,745
Mechanical operations at custom rates. Hand labor at $5.75 per hour ($4.50 plus Social Security,
unemployment insurance, transportation, supervision and fringe benefits)
Source: U.C. Cooperative Extension, 1992.
CIC Research, Inc. 1995.
- 23
I
r]
I Table 14
POLE TOMATOES PRODUCTION COSTS
(1994 Dollars)
CULTURAL OPERATION
I Land Preparation Not Required Each Y ear*
Subsoil** $33.00
Survey field 4.00 I Fumigate (field/bed) 1,358 / 380.00
Mulch beds (black plastic, 48" x 1.5 mil) 380.00
Install new drip system (filters, etc.) 706.00
I Land Preparation - Annual
Disc 4x 22.00
I Mark beds/lay tape/fertilize 9.00
Drip tape 163.00
Herbicide + Applic.*** 43.00
I Fertilizer (banded preplant 11-48-0) 33.00
TOTAL LAND PREPARATION -ANNUAL $270.00
I Growing Period
Seed 109.00
Transplanting ($0.075/plant x 6000 + 45 hrs. l abor**** 709.00
I Irrigation (3 acre feet of water @ $741/acre ft.) 2,225.00 • Prune 2 x (35 hrs. labor) 201.00
Stake (20 his. labor) 115.00
String 6x (55 hrs. labor) 316.00 l Twine 170.00
Cultivate 2x 16.00
Hand Weed 2x (12 his. labor) 69.00
Fertilizer (300 units of 12-12-12 @ $0.052/unit) l 180.00
Pest and Disease Control 570.00
Pest Control Advisor ($10/acre/mo. x 8 mo.) 80.00
Insecticides and Fungicides I 280.00
Pull Stakes (35 hrs. labor) 201.00
Disc and Roll Refuse 2x 16.00 I TOTAL GROWING COSTS $5,257.00
*Total growing costs do not include these items.
**Mechanical operations at custom rates.
***Custom rate of application included in cost.
****Labor at $5.75 per hour ($4.50 per hour plus 29.5% for social security, unemployment insurance, and fringe
benefits).
24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
Table 14
(Continued)
Overhead
Land Rent
Cash Overhead (12% of preharvest cost and rent)
TOTAL PREHARVEST COSTS
Harvest, Pack, and Sell
Pick and Haul to Shed ($1 .30/box x 3000)
Pack ($2.00/box x 3000)
Sell (8% x 3000 x $6.00 avg. sale price)
TOTAL HARVEST, PACK AND SELL
TOTAL ALL COSTS
Source: San Diego County Agricultural Directory and Guidelines to Production Costs and
Practices. 1992 - 1993, U.C. Cooperative Extension.
CIC Research, Inc., 1995.
240.00
692.00
$932.00
3,900.00
6,000.00
1,440.00
$11,340.00
$17,800.00
- - 25- -. - -
I
I
I
I
U
I
Table 15 I CAULIFLOWER PRODUCTION COSTS
(1994 Dollars)
Yield -- 500 23-lb. cartons Direct seeded --
CUSTOM MATERIALS HAND LABOR COST I OPERATION RATE Type Cost Hours Dollars Per Acre
LAND PREPARATION
Stubble disc $21 $21
Subsoil 34 34 I Disk 2x 11 22
Landplane2x 12 23
Border, cross check & break 16 16 I borders
Flood Water 1 ac/ft. 741 1 5.75 746
'Nil-Rich chiesel plow 14 14
I Disc lx 11 11
Triplane lx 10 10
Fertilize (double spread) 8 500# -- 11-52-0 74 82
List 13 13 I TOTAL LAND PREPARATION $992
I GROWING PERIOD
Precision plant $17 Hybrid seed $185 $202
Apply herbicide 8 Dacthal 33 41
Sprinkler Irrigate 152 152
Thin 10 58 58 I Cultivate 3x 12 36
Spike 2x 9 18
Fertilize & furrow out 2x 11 150# N @.34 51 62 I Water-run fertilizer 2x 40# N @.34 14 14
Hand weed 4 23 23
Irrigate 8x 4 ac/ft 2,964 8 46 3010
I Gated pipe 52 52
Insect control 5x 5 Insecticides 46 71
Disease control 5x 7 Fungicide 20 55
Chop residue 12 12 I TOTAL GROWING PERIOD COSTS $3,806
l GROWING PERIOD & LAND PREPARATION COSTS
Land Rent (net acres)
$4,798
360
Cash Overhead -----12% of preharvest costs & land rent 162
I L PRERVEST COSTS TOTA HA $5,320
HARVEST (Field pack)
Custom harvest, pack, haul and sell (extra 500 - 23 lb. cartons @ $1,950
I services not included) 3.99/carton
TOTAL ALL COSTS $7,270
Mechanical operations at custom rates. Hand labor at $5.75 per hour ($4.50 plus Social Security, I unemployment insurance, transportation, supervision and fringe benefits)
I Source: U.C. Cooperative Extension, 1992.
CIC Research, Inc. 1995.
26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
the U.C./County Agricultural Cooperative Extension. CIC was not able to obtain production cost
or revenue data for these crops; however, local growers were frank in discussing their opinions
regarding the start-up of cut flower or bulb operations locally. The operator of the Flower Fields
at Carlsbad Ranch felt that even if a profitable operation of ranunculus bulbs could be shown on
paper, the reality is that two growers (including his operation and another 20-acre operation in
Santa Maria) account for all U.S. sales of ranunculus bulbs. He said that with start-up costs
and a limited market, that a new operation might have real difficulty successfully bringing bulbs
to market. In terms of other flower (either cut flower or bulb) production, growers CIC
interviewed felt that increased competition from Central and South America (particularly in cut
flower sales) makes starting a new operation exceedingly risky. For nursery operations, for
example, greenhouses and other initial equipment expenditures can run $400,000 per acre for
a small operation, up to $1.5 million. This study as a result does not evaluate the economics of
cut flower or bulb production because of significant and steadily increasing competition from
domestic as well as overseas markets. The final section of this chapter includes a discussion of
the competitive trends affecting cut flower production in San Diego County, as well as California
in general.
FARM INCOME DETERMINATION AND INVESTMENT ANALYSIS
The viability of renewing agriculture on the subject property is analyzed in terms of four
farm plans. All farms plans are in single cropping patterns due to the relatively small, net-
usable (60-acre) size of the subject property. The first farm plan covers strawberry production,
while summer squash comprises the second farm plan. Tomatoes and cauliflower are the
crops utilized for the third and fourth farm plans, respectively. CIC attempted to produce a fifth
farm plan for ranunculus bulbs; however as discussed , no data could be obtained for either cut
flower or bulb production from either growers or the U.C./County Cooperative Extension. CIC
did obtain lease information for 1500± acres in Encinitas owned by Paul Ecke. 1992 lease
- 2-7
I
I
I rates for that property, suitable for row and flower crops, is $350 per year, similar to rates
quoted by U.C./County Cooperative Extension for pole tomatoes and other row crops.
I Table 16 shows net annual income (after land rental costs) for four farm plans, utilizing a
I five-year average of revenue per acre, shown in Table 11 for the crops selected for this study.
Based on five-year revenue averages, only strawberry production shows a positive net income
stream to a producer. A net income of $36,480 is achieved for a 60-acre strawberry operation,
I
or $608 per net usable acre. It should be remembered that this income stream is net of any
initial capital investment in irrigation systems or farm equipment. The $36,480 obtained is
I compensation for the grower's labor, supervision, management and marketing efforts and
I
represents a 2.5 percent return on investment. Considering the inherent risk in farming
operations and the fact that initial investment costs required for start-up operations at the
I subject site are not included, this return is exceedingly small. Such a return could be easily
exceeded in a much less risky investment.
I Table 17 presents net annual income calculations for a best-case scenario, which
I utilizes the highest per-acre revenues received for these crops over the previous five-year
period. As shown using this scenario, strawberry production shows a much more substantial
annual return, while summer squash production yields a total return of $2,820 on 60 acres, or
$47 per acre. Clearly, the return for squash is marginal, does not even cover the grower's
management or marketing costs, and is not worth the cost to produce given the risk and
potential for a much higher return under an alternative investment.
Margin after land cost, but before taxes, for the four farm plans can be analyzed further,
with respect to a land renter's standpoint and landowner's standpoint, valued at both
I agricultural value and the property's most recent purchase price. Table 18 provides such
I
scenarios utilizing best-case revenue scenarios for economically marginal crops (tomatoes,
squash and cauliflower) and five-year revenue average for strawberries " five-year
28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
Table 16
REVENUE AND
COST ANALYSIS FOR FIVE POSSIBLE FARM PLANS
(Five Year Averaged Revenue Scenario)
Plan I - Strawberries
Average Revenue Per Acre:
1994 Operating Cost Per Acre:*
Net Annual Income:
Plan II - Summer Squash
Average Revenue Per Acre:
1994 Operating Cost Per Acre:*
Net Annual Income:
Plan III -Tomatoes
Average Revenue Per Acre:
1994 Operating Cost Per A cre:*
Net Annual Income:
Plan IV - Cauliflower
Average Revenue Per Acre: $3,714 x 60 ac.
1994 Operating Cost Per Acre:* $7,270 x 60 ac.
Net Annual Income:
*Includes land rent.
Source: CIC Research, Inc., 1995.
$222,840
$436,200
($213,360)
$25,315X60ac $1,518,900
$24,705 x 60 ac. $1,482,420
$36,480
$4,213 x 60 ac. $252,780
$5,743 x 60 ac. $344,580
($91,800)
$11,888x 60 ac. $713,280
$17,799 x 60 ac. $1,067,940
($354,660)
-- 29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
U
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 17
REVENUE AND
COST ANALYSIS FOR FIVE POSSIBLE FARM PLANS
(Best Case Revenue Scenario)
Plan I - Strawberries
Average Revenue Per Acre: $29,575 x 60 ac. $1,774,500
1994 Operating Cost Per A cre:* $24,705 x 60 ac. $1,482,420
Net Annual Income: $292,080
Plan II - Summer Squash
Average Revenue Per Acre: $5,790 x 60 ac. $347,400
1994 Operating Cost Per Acre:* $5,743 x 60 ac. $344,580
Net Annual Income: $2,820
Plan III - Tomatoes
Average Revenue Per Acre: $14,146 x 60 ac. $848,760
1994 Operating Cost Per Acre:* $17,799 x 60 ac. $1,067,940
Net Annual Income: ($219,180)
Plan IV - Cauliflower
Average Revenue Per Acre: $4,161 x60ac. $249,660
1994 Operating Cost Per Acre:* $7,270 x 60 ac. $436,200
Net Annual Income: ($186,540)
*Includes land rent.
Source: CIC Research, Inc., 1995.
30
Table 18
FARM INCOME DETERMINATION FOR A
60-NET-USABLE-ACRE PARCEL OF LAND
Summer
ANNUAL OPERATING INCOME Tomatoes Strawberries Squash Cauliflower
Revenue $848,760 $1,518,900 $347,400 $249,660
Operating Costs, Net of Land Rent $1,053,540 $1,443,420 $330,180 $421,800
Margin Before Land Cost ($204,780) $75,480 $17,200 ($172,140)
ANNUAL LAND COST
'9ccr9..
Agricultural Land Rental $14,400 $39,000 $14,400 $14,400
Carrying Costs, Land Valued for $54,150 $29,990 --
Agriculture* (See note)
Carrying Costs, Current Purchase P rice* $214,850 $214,850 $214,850 $214,850
ANNUAL FARM INCOME BEFORE TAX
Agricultural Land Rental ($219,180) $36,480 $2,820 ($186,540)
Land Purchase, Ag Value -- $21,330 ($12,790) -
Land Purchase Price ($419,630) ($139,370) ($197,650) ($386,990)
Note: Per Acre Estimated Agricultural N/A $9,285 $5,140 N/A
Land Value, Based on Farm
Rental and 7% capitalization
Rate
Source: CIC Research, Inc., 1995.
- 31.
I
I
I revenue average was used for strawberries, as the five year per-acre high of $29,575 occurred
in 1990, and has been followed by four succeeding years of decline since that period.
I Under both the land rental scenario, and an annualized holding cost scenario at the
I current purchase price, both tomatoes and cauliflower produce very negative returns. No
holding cost for agricultural land values were assessed for production in tomatoes or
I cauliflower, since these crops produce negative income even prior to calculation of land cost.
At agricultural lease rates, a farmer could obtain positive returns on strawberries and marginal
I , returns on summer squash, although initial investment costs are not reflected in these net
annual income calculations. Basically, at the purchase price paid by the current owners, who
have an estimated annual carrying cost in excess of $200,000, farming operations must be
subsidized. This can be seen by looking at annual farm income before tax at the land's
purchase price. Net annual income in this case ranges from a negative net outflow of
approximately $139,000 (strawberry production) to a $420,000 loss (tomato production).
The agricultural land values have been estimated using a capitalization rate of 7%2 and
annual rental income obtained. As shown previously in Table 18, agricultural values are
estimated at between $5,140 and $9,285 per acre, depending upon which rental rates can be
achieved. The land's purchase price, by contrast, was just over $29,000 an acre in 1994. The
expected returns to the landowner for a strawberry operation, the crop with the most profit
potential, are as shown in Table 19. Given the risk faced by growers, a 10 percent return on
equity would be desired in return for putting up a 20 percent cash investment in the land. Table
19 shows that the holding cost of the subject property exceeds the rental income by such a
margin that the landowner in effect is subsidizing the farmer by $2,785 per acre annually, or an
annual sum of $189,332. The second column shows at what land value the landowner is at a
2 Based on industry and consultant contacts.
I
I
I
I
I
1
32
1994 Break-even
Purchased Value Agricultural V alue*
$1,983,000 $339,9QQ__-
$29,162 $4,985
39,660 6,780
166,572 28,475
22,100 3,730 1
$228,332 $38,985 5.6
$39,000 ,
$189,332
$2,785 $-0- )
I I
Per Acre Cost:
Return on Equity @ 10%**
Interest Expense @ 10.5%***
Property Tax****
Land Holding Cost
Less Rental Income at Maximum Value
Annual Subsidy to Farmer
Annual Subsidy Per Acre
I
I
-
Table 19
ccr- 4 -
SUBSIDY ESTIMATION
IN CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
*Based on strawberry production. f r---. -
**Equity is assumed to be 20% of the land value. j
'Interest for one year of a 20-year mortgage. \.Go ctcf ****Th e effective tax rate is 1.1%. .
1
I
I
I
I
I
Iii
1
Source: CIC Research, Inc. 1995.
Co
C > ~7 _
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
33-
I
1
I breakeven position renting out the land for farming operations. As shown, a total price of
$339,000, or a value of $4,985 per acre, is the breakeven (agricultural) value.
I None of the farming operations could generate sufficient income to purchase the land at
I its current purchase price. As a result, agricultural operations at the site do not represent an
economically feasible use on-site. Agricultural operations are feasible on-site to the farmer who
I rents the land for crops such as strawberries, squash and probably some flower bulbs or cut
I flower operations. However, the land holder must subsidize such operations at a substantial
loss. Since the main factor of production, the land, cannot be carried by agricultural operations,
I agricultural use of the site is economically infeasible.
I OTHER ISSUES: LAND USE AND COMPETITION
I
California Coastal Act
When a property that is considered for conversion from agricultural use does not qualify as
I "prime agricultural land", the California Coastal Act of 1976 states that conversion can take
place if agricultural use is not feasible. Section 30242 of the Act is interpreted in this part of the
I report as referring to economic feasibility. Section 30242 states:
' All other lands suitable for agricultural use shall not be converted to nonagricultural uses
unless (1) continued or renewed agricultural use is not feasible, or (2) such conversion would
preserve prime agricultural land or concentrate development consistent with Section 30250.
Any such permitted conversion shall be compatible with continued agricultural use on I surrounding lands.
I The study site must also follow the City of Carlsbad's Land Use Policy Plan of the Local Coastal
Program (LCP). This program is consistent with the provision of sections 30241 and 30242 of
I the Coastal Act mentioned above, with the exception of conversion permitted by payment of an
I agricultural conversion mitigation fee in an amount of not less than $5,000 and not more than
$10,000 per converted acre.
34
I
I
I Competition
Land in San Diego's north coastal area benefits from a combination of geographic and
I environmental factors that allow cultivation of specialized crops or harvests at certain market
I
windows to produce crop values that exceed those normally experienced. Both field flower and
strawberries are prime examples of this situation. Strawberries in San Diego are harvested in
I early winter/spring when prices are highest.
I
The competitive advantage held by San Diego County strawberry growers relies mainly
on climate and location. San Diego growers can obtain the highest prices of any California
I growing area. As noted in Table 20, California dominates both the domestic and foreign
I
strawberry market, accounting for approximately 90 percent of all shipments from 1985 to 1994.
As noted in Figure 4, the Mexican strawberry market surpassed San Diego County in 1988,
1 1989 and again in 1994. San Diego County is expected to continue to lose market share to
I
Mexico due to high water, labor and land costs in San Diego County.
Presented in Table 21 are historical shipments of domestic and imported tomatoes. As
I noted in the table, Florida has been the primary origin of tomatoes for the U.S. market.
California has been steadily gaining market share compared to Florida, although Florida still is
I the largest domestic producer of tomatoes. In terms of imports, Mexico dominates the tomato
I market, accounting for roughly 98 percent of the total import market. It is expected that Mexico
will gain market share over California and more specifically San Diego County, given the
I availability of inexpensive labor and increasing water rates in San Diego.
I
The California flower market has experienced increasing competition from abroad.
California's share of both the total chrysanthemum and carnation market has steadily
I decreased from 1985 to 1994, as shown in Tables 22 and 23. California's share of total
I
chrysanthemum production decreased from 50 percent in 1985 to 20 percent in 1994. Also,
California's share of domestic production decreased during this same period (refer to Figure 5).
35
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
Table 20
TOTAL SHIPMENTS OF FRESH STRAWBERRIES FROM CALIFORNIA AND FLORIDA
AND IMPORTS BY ORIGIN
(1,000 Flats)
1985 1986 J 1987 1988 1989 1990
California 48,614 48,656 48,392 56,080 55,375 58,300
Florida 4,097 3,535 3,592 4,543 4,775 4,375
IMPORTS:
Canada 64 21 23 40 -- 17
Costa Rica -- 15 24 68 108 67
Ecuador 39 9 6 -- -- --
Guatemala -- 16 32 37 217 92
Mexico 588 886 2,415 3,058 2,558 2,292
New Zealand 29 100 9 5 83 25
Other 6 6 15 13 34 149
Import Total 726 1,053 2,524 3,221 3,000 2,642
Source: U.S.D.A. Agricultural Marketing Service, Market News Branch, 1995.
Marketing California Strawberries, Federal-State Market News Service, 1985-1994.
CIC Research, Inc., 1995.
2,650 1 1,875 1 2,650 j 3,833
1991 1 1992 j 1993 1 1994
66,133 63,508 65,217 75,750
4,500 5,325 4,942 4,992
-- - 8 8
42 -- -- --
58 108 50 42
2,408 1,600 2,117 3,667
25 75 83 92
117 92 392 24
36
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Figure 4 • California Shipments of Fresh
Strawberries and Mexican Imports
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
1,000 flats
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
Source: USDA Agricultural Marketing Service, Market News Branch.
CIC Research, Inc.
1
I
Table 21
TOTAL SHIPMENTS OF FRESH TOMATO FROM CALIFORNIA AND FLORIDA
AND IMPORTS BY ORIGIN
(1,000 Flats)
1985 }1986 1987 1 1988 J 1989 1990 1991 1992_[ 1993
}
1994
California 33,434 35,131 40,479 41,768 45,011 44,592 43,597 42,893 47,371 50,783
Florida 58,631 66,123 65,491 76,090 74,481 62,612 68,460 83,088 68,863 66,170
IMPORTS:
Mexico 40,817 44,135 42,010 38,757 36,965 37,572 36,728 16,734 43,074 42,081
Netherlands 148 34 0 23 94 30 56 30 85 423
Import Total 41,340 44,509 42,389 39,076 37,095 37,712 36,791 1 16,842 1 43,310 43,007
Source: U.S.D.A. Agricultural Marketing Service, Market News Branch, 1995.
Marketing California Tomato, Federal-State Market News Service, 1985-1994
CIC Research, Inc., 1995.
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
U
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 22
DOMESTIC PRODUCTION OF CHRYSANTHEMUMS AND IMPORTS
(1,000 Blooms)*
Total
California Total Domestic Imports
1994 10,200 15,286 35,679
1993 14,650 19,730 29,248
1992 14,500 19,775 34,244
1991 17,500 22,138 33,124
1990 14,150 19,003 32,375
1989 32,150 39,275 27,746
1988 35,900 44,108 26,427
1987 33,690 42,752 24,443
1986 57,522 66,656 26,859
1985 49,746 59,511 40,113
N/A = Not available. Survey was not conducted during these years.
*Standard chrysanthemums.
Source: Marketing California Ornamental Crops, Federal-State Market News Service, 1985 to 1994.
USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, 1995.
USDA Agricultural Marketing Service, Market News Branch, 1995.
-- 39-
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 23
DOMESTIC PRODUCTION OF CARNATIONS AND IMPORTS
(1,000 Blooms)*
Total
California Total Domestic Imports
1994 149,000 168,634 1,072,919
1993 170,000 194,876 1,231,255
1992 185,000 213,599 1,154,707
1991 165,000 197,580 1,027,289
1990 187,100 223,956 1,057,006
1989 203,200 248,661 869,380
1988 244,600 290,047 934,516
1987 222,224 274,865 916,576
1986 202,892 260,503 837,021
1985 229,159 290,297 714,966
N/A = Not available. Survey was not conducted during these years.
*Standard carnations.
Source: Marketing California Ornamental Crops, Federal-State Market News Service, 1985 to 1994.
USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, 1995.
USDA Agricultural Marketing Service, Market News Branch, 1995.
A (
Figure 5
Domestic Flower Production
Standard Chrysanthemums
1,000 blooms
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
Standard Carnations
1,000 blooms
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
Source: USDA Agricultural Marketing Service, Market News Branch
CIC Research, Inc. -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In terms of carnation production, California's share of total production decreased from
23 percent in 1989 to 12 percent in 1994. However, California's share of domestic production
has increased market share from 80 to 89 percent from 1985 to 1994.
Limited data exists to compare domestic and foreign competition in the gladiola market.
Table 24 lists imports for the 1985 to 1994 period, and Figure 6 graphically depicts import
trends. The trends over the past ten years indicate a steady increased in imports of gladiolas.
Presented in Figure 6 are total flower imports from 1985 to 1994. As noted, carnation,
imports have steadily increased, while chrysanthemum imports have held relatively steady over
the same period.
42
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
Table 24
IMPORTS OF GLADIOLI
Thousand Blooms
1994 8,365
1993 4,678
1992 5,074
1991 3,959
1990 4,759
1989 3,615
1988 3,195
1987 3,972
1986 3,718
1985 3,917
Source: Marketing California Ornamental Crops, Federal-State Market News, 1985 to 1994.
U.S.D.A. Agricultural Marketing Service, Market News Branch, 1995.
43
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 6
Flower Imports to the U.S.
Standard Carnations,
1,000 blooms
1,500,000 -
17000,000 1JiI1Ptjt
7751177
500,000
WX
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
Standard Chrysanthemums
1,000 blooms
k* AS ': '&
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
Gladiolas,
I 000 htonms
OR 27/1 77-
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 I Source: USDA Agricultural Marketing Service, Market News Branch.
CIC Research, Inc.
I
I
I
I I
I
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of renewing farming operations
on a 68-acre parcel located in Carlsbad, California. The site's physical resources, including
climate and soils, are suitable to a variety of crops, including truck crops and flowers. None of
the site consists of prime agricultural lands, although the soils are rated good for flowers.
In San Diego County, agriculture accounts for 1.6 percent of San Diego County's gross
regional product (GRP), estimated at $67.1 billion for 1994. While the total value in agricultural
production in San Diego County has increased steadily every year, and the region enjoys first
place ranking in U.S. avocado and floriculture crops production, truck crops such as
strawberries and tomatoes are in decline, due to high water costs and increasing competition
from Mexico. Flower crops, especially those for cut flower sales, are experiencing significant
import competition as well.
An economic analysis of those crop operations most suited to the site indicates that
after land costs, capital investment costs, and risk are accounted for, none of the potential farm
plans could support the purchase of land for agricultural use. To farm profitably on the subject
property, the land value must be $4,985 according to this analysis, or even less considering the
farm income analysis does not include start-up (capital) costs. To put this value in perspective,
the Carlsbad LCP minimum fee for agricultural conversion, $5,000 per acre, is, based on this
analysis, higher than the value of the land used for high-value (strawberry) agricultural
production.
Ii
F
I
I
F
I
I
I
111
171
I
I
I
- 45
Agricultural use of the site in a variety of crops would be profitable for a producer who
rents the land, but the landowner would sustain substantial losses farming the land, given its
current holding costs. There is no doubt that there are existing local growers producing
profitably for market. However, these growers are either land renters, or they are large,
established growers with a low land base price, established market presence and the ability to
spread capital costs over a large operational base. Based on these findings, it is the opinion of
CIC Research, Inc. that adherence to agricultural zoning/use of the site will limit the
landowner's use of the land to its purely speculative holding value, rather than for development
in its highest and best use.
46 -
QUALITY
ORIGINAL (S)
DL'nrnOUtai
op
9
SOIL TESTING FOR PESTICIDE
RESIDUE FOR SANBI, PORTION OF
SECTION 21 T12S, R4W, CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
WORK ORDER 600013
JULY 30, 1992
SUNBELT PLANNING COMPANY
LI
PACIFIC SOILS ENVIRONMENTAL
6867 AIRPORT DR.. BUILDING 100, RIVERSIDE, CA 92504-1963
TELEPHONE: (714) 358-0403. FAX: (714) 358-0592
SUNBELT PLANNING COMPANY
2956 Roosevelt Street
Suite 1 Work Order 600013
Carlsbad, CA 92008 August 17, 1992
Attention: Mr. Don Agatep
Subject: Soil Testing Report for Pesticide Residue for Sambi, Portion of Section 21,
T12S, R4W City of Carlsbad, California
Gentlemen:
The attached report has been prepared in response to the City of Carlsbad requirements for the
testing of pesticide residue on the subject property. This requirement was stated in the City of
Carlsbad's transmittal dated June 18, 1992. The item was included under the "Planning" Category
FJ as follows:
2. Chapter 20.17 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, Section 20.17.020(c)(8) requires, in
addition to the other information required to be shown on or provided with a vesting
tentative map, that the map shall be accompanied by detailed environmental information
• sufficient to permit assessment of all environmental effects of the project including
cumulative and long-term effects. Before the application can be deemed complete the
following information is required:
4. Pesticide Residue •
a. A detailed soils testing and analysis report shall be prepared by a registered
soils engineer, and reviewed and approved by the City and County Health
Departments.
• Pacific Soils Environmental was contacted by Mr. Don Agatep of the Sunbelt Planning Company
to perform the work. Sampling locations were randomly selected and evenly distributed
throughout the property in order to provide maximum site coverage. A total of three (3) soil
samples were collected in the upper two (2) feet of the soil and tested for organochlorine
pesticides and PCBs (EPA Method 8080), organophosphorous pesticides (EPA Method 8140)
•
• PACIFIC SOILS ENVIRONMENTAL, A DIVISION OF PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
Work Order 600013
August 17, 1992
• and chlorinated herbicides (EPA Method 8150). All tests resulted in non-detects for the target
contaminants. In the opinion of Pacific Soils Environmental, this testing program adequately
addresses the concerns raised by the City of Carlsbad in their June 18, 1992 transmittal.
• Respectfully submitted,
PACIFIC SOILS ENVIRONMENTAL
e
0 %,h zJ4
•JACK M. COLLENDER, L. WADE WILMARTH,
Project Geologist Vice President/Division Manager
CEG 1440, EXP: 6/30/94 CEG 1308, EXP: 6/30/94
REA 2284, EXP: 6/30/93 REA 1628, EXP: 6/30/93
CHMM 3351, EXP: 12/92
S
End.
S
Dist: (6) Addressee
• JMC:LWW/pjh-1301
S
S
PACIFIC SOILS ENVIRONMENTAL
S
PACIFIC SOILS ENVIRONMENTAL
6867 AIRPORT DR., BUILDING 100, RIVERSIDE, CA 92504-1963
TELEPHONE: (714) 358-0403. FAX: (714) 358-0592
SUNBELT PLANNING COMPANY
2956 Roosevelt Street
Suite 1
Carlsbad, CA 92008
S
Attention: Mr. Don Agatep
Work Order 600013
July 30, 1992
• Subject: Soil Testing for Pesticide Residue for Sambi, Portion of Section 21 T12S,
R4W, City of Carlsbad, California
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to your request, Pacific Soils Environmental has conducted soil testing for
pesticide residue on the subject property. The scope of work included obtaining three (3)
soil samples at depths between 1.5 and 2 feet, transporting the samples to a California
Certified Laboratory for analysis and preparing this report.
2.0 FIELD STUDY
Soil sampling was performed on July 9, 1992. While onsite, a brief interview with the
current farmer, Mr. Jack Thu, was conducted. Mr. Thu indicated that he grew Chinese
vegetables on the property and did not use any industrial grade pesticides. Occasionally,
commercial grade diazanon was used.
Soil samples were collected with a hand auger and a 2" by 6" brass tube drive sampler.
Samples were acquired in depressions and drainage areas where pesticides may have
accumulated over a period of time. Sample locations are plotted on the attached
agricultural exhibit (Plate 1, pocket enclosure). The soil sample was obtained by driving
. the sampler from 1.5 feet to 2.0 feet. The brass tube was removed from the sampler,
sealed with Teflon liners and plastic caps and cooled with blue ice in an ice chest prior to
delivery to the laboratory. Cleanliness protocol included washing the hand auger, sampler,
brass rings and caps in a non-phosphate detergent, triple rinsing with tap water and triple
rinsing with distilled water.
5 3.0 ANALYTICAL TESTING
The three (3) soil samples were transported to Del Mar analytical of Colton, a California
state certified laboratory. The samples were analyzed for organochiorine pesticides and
PCBs (EPA Method 8080), organophosphorous pesticides (EPA Method 8140) and
chlorinated herbicides (EPA Method 8150). Results of the analytical tests are appended
• hereto. All tests resulted in non-detects.
PACIFIC SOILS ENVIRONMENTAL, A DIVISION OF PACIFIC SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
[]
n
Work Order 600013
July 30, 1992
Page 2
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following conclusions and recommendations are based on the analytical results of
soils tested and an interview with the lessee of the property who is conducting the
farming.
.
1) Based on an interview with the current farmer, Mr. Thu, industrial grade pesticides
are not being used on the property.
2) Analytical tests on soils sampled did not detect pesticide/herbicide residue.
3) Further environmental sampling for pesticide residue in the soil appears
unwarranted for this property, based on the information available at this time.
[]
.
PACIFIC SOILS ENVIRONMENTAL
Work Order 600013
July 30, 1992
Page 3
5.0 LIMITATIONS
This report was prepared for Sunbelt Planning Company. It is intended for their sole
explicit use associated with the property. Authorization from Pacific Soils Environmental
first precludes the use and/or distribution of this report to other than Sunbelt Planning
Company and their authorized agents. This environmental investigation was conducted in
accordance with current practice and standard of care exercised by environmental
consultants performing similar tasks in the area. Our conclusions are based solely on
analysis of information obtained from an interview with the current site tenant and
analytical results of soils tested. No warranty, expressed or implied, can be made
regarding the professional opinions contained within this report. If actual conditions are
found to differ from those described or if new environmental information regarding the
site is obtained, our office should be notified and additional recommendations, if required,
will be provided.
AD
Respectfully submitted,
PACIFIC SOILS ENVIRONMENTAL 2 No. 01628 • .
ACK M COLLENDER, L WADE
Project Geologist Vice President/Division Manager
CEG 1440, EXP: 6/30/94 CEG 1308, EXP: 6/30/94
REA 2284, EXP: 6/30/93 REA 1628, EXP: 6/30/93
CHMM 3351, EXP: 12/92
I
Dist: (6) Addressee
JMC:LWW/pjh-1301
L
I
PACIFIC SOILS ENVIRONMENTAL
AIdrn 5.0 N.D.
alpha-BHC 5.0 N.D.
beta-BHC........................................................................... 5.0 ..................................... N.D. • delta-BHC.......................................................................... 10.0 ..................................... N.D.
gamma-BHC (Lindane) .....................................................
Chlordane..........................................................................
5.0
50.0
.....................................
.....................................
N.D.
N.D.
4,4'-DDD ............................................................................ 10.0 ..................................... N.D.
4,4'-DDE............................................................................. 5.0 ..................................... N.D.
4,4-DDT .............................................................................. 10.0 ..................................... N.D.
Dieldrin.............................................................................. 5.0 ..................................... N.D.
EndosulfanI ...................................................................... 10.0 ..................................... N.D. • Endosulfan H..................................................................... 5.0 ..................................... N.D.
Endosulfansulfate............................................................. 50.0 ..................................... N.D.
Endrin................................................................................ 10.0 ..................................... N.D.
Endrinaldehyde................................................................ 15.0 ..................................... N.D.
Heptachlor......................................................................... 5.0 ..................................... N.D.
Heptachlorepoxide.......................................................... 5.0 ..................................... N.D.
Methoxychior.................................................................... 150.0 ..................................... N.D. • Toxaphene......................................................................... 175.0 ..................................... N.D.
PCB-1016.......................................................................... 50.0 ..................................... N.D.
PCB-1221.......................................................................... 50.0 ..................................... N.D.
PCB-1232 ......................................... . ................................ 50.0 ..................................... N.D.
PCB-1242 .......................................................................... 50.0 ..................................... N.D.
PCB-1 248.......................................................................... 50.0 ..................................... N.D.
PCB-1254.......................................................................... 50.0 ..................................... N.D. • PCB-1 260.......................................................................... 50.0 ..................................... N.D.
Analytes reported as N.D. were not present above the stated limit of detection.
• DEL MAR ANAL
\C:FIC SOILS ENG.
Sal
S
2070103.PSE <3>
S
ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES AND PCBS (EPA 8080)
Analyte Detection Limit Sample Results
jig/kg jig/kg
Aidrin.................................................................................. 5.0 ..................................... N.D.
alpha-BHC......................................................................... 5.0 ..................................... N.D.
beta-BHC........................................................................... 5.0 ..................................... N.D. • delta-BHC.......................................................................... 10.0 ..................................... N.D.
gamma-BHC (Lindane) ..................................................... 5.0 ..................................... N.D.
Chlordane.......................................................................... 50.0 ..................................... N.D.
4,4'-DDD ............................................................................ 10.0 ..................................... N.D.
4,41-DDE ............................................................................. 5.0 ..................................... N.D.
4,4-DDT ............................................................................. 10.0 ..................................... N.D.
Dieldrin.............................................................................. 5.0 ..................................... N.D. . Endosulfan I...................................................................... 10.0 ..................................... N.D.
EndosulfanII ..................................................................... 5.0 ..................................... N.D.
Endosulfansulfate............................................................. 50.0 ..................................... N.D.
Endrin................................................................................ 10.0 ..................................... N.D.
Endrinaldehyde................................................................ 15.0 ..................................... N.D.
Heptachlor......................................................................... 5.0 ..................................... N.D.
Heptachlorepoxide.......................................................... 5.0 ..................................... N.D.
Methoxychior.................................................................... 150.0 ..................................... N.D. • Toxaphene......................................................................... 175.0 ..................................... N.D.
PCB-1016.......................................................................... 50.0 ..................................... N.D.
PCB-1 221 .......................................................................... 50.0 ..................................... N.D.
PCB-1232.......................................................................... 50.0 ..................................... N.D.
PCB-1242.......................................................................... 50.0 ..................................... N.D.
PCB-1248.......................................................................... 50.0 ..................................... N.D.
PCB-1 254.......................................................................... 50.0 ..................................... N.D. • PCB-1260.......................................................................... 50.0 ..................................... N.D.
11
Anal ytes reported as N.D. were not present above the stated limit of detection.
naItri
7boratory
:
DEL MAR ANAL
ap
-
PACiFIC SOILS ENG.
2070103.PSE <4>
()'Del MarAnalytical
Colton. California 92324, (714) 370-4667. FAX (714) 370-1046
Client Project ID: Carlsbad Sampled: Jul 9, 1992.
Sample Descript: Soil, S-i Received: Jul 9, 1992
Analysis Method: EPA 8140 Analyzed: Jul 19, 1992
Lab Number: 207-0103 Reported: Jul 19, 1992
1014 E. Cooley Dr.. Suite A
lacitic sofis LnvIronment
• 6867 Airport Dr., Suite 100
Riverside, CA 92504
?Attention: Jack Collender
ORGANOPHOSPHOROUS PESTICIDES (EPA 8140)
Analyte Detection Limit Sample Results
pg/kg jig/kg
Azinphosmethyl................................................................ 40.0 ..................................... N.D.
Bolstar............................................................................... 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Chlorpyrifos....................................................................... 20.0 ..................................... N.D. • Coumaphos ....................................................................... 40.0 ..................................... N.D.
Demeton-O........................................................................ 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Demeton-S........................................................................ 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Diazinon............................................................................. 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Dichlorvos......................................................................... 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Disulfoton.......................................................................... 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Ethoprop............................................................................ 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Fensulfothion..................................................................... 20.0 ..................................... N.D. • Fenthion............................................................................. 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Merphos............................................................................ 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Mevinphos......................................................................... 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Naled................................................................................. 40.0 ..................................... N.D.
Parathionmethyl............................................................... 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Phorate.............................................................................. 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Ronnel............................................................................... 20.0 ..................................... N.D. • Stirophos (Tetrachlorvinphos).......................................... 40.0 ..................................... N.D.
Tokuthion(Prothiofos) ...................................................... 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Trichloronate..................................................................... 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
L .
Analytes reported as N.D. were not present above the stated limit of detection.
P,ClFjC SOILS ENG.
S DEL MAR ANAL
. I_. Please Note:
The sample was analyzed by Sequoia Analytical in Redwood City.
Sal
S
2070103.PSE <5>
• Del MarAnalytical
1014 E. Cooley Dr., Suite A, Colton, California 92324,
Pacific Soils Environmental Client Project ID:
• 6867 Airport Dr., Suite 100 Sample Descript:
:Riverside, CA 92504 Analysis Method:
Attention: Jack Collender Lab Number:
714) 370-4667, FAX (7 14) 370-1046
Carlsbad Sampled: Jul 9, 1992
Soil, S-2 Received: Jul 9, 1992
EPA 8140 Analyzed: Jul 19, 1992
207-0104 Reported: Jul 19, 1992
ORGANOPHOSPHOROUS PESTICIDES (EPA 8140)
[ii
Analyte Detection Limit Sample Results
pg/kg jig/kg
Azinphosmethyl................................................................ 40.0 ..................................... N.D.
Boistar............................................................................... 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Chiorpyrifos....................................................................... 20.0 ..................................... N.D. • Coumaphos ....................................................................... 40.0 ..................................... N.D.
Demeton-O........................................................................ 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Demeton-S........................................................................ 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Diazinon............................................................................. 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Dichiorvos......................................................................... 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Disulfoton.......................................................................... 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Ethoprop............................................................................ 20.0 ..................................... N.D. . Fensulfothion..................................................................... 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Fenthion............................................................................. 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Merphos............................................................................ 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Mevinphos......................................................................... 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Naled................................................................................. 40.0 ..................................... N.D.
Parathionmethyl............................................................... 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Phorate.............................................................................. 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Ronne[ ............................................................................... 20.0 ..................................... N.D. • Stirophos (Tetrachlorvinphos) .......................................... 40.0 ..................................... N.D.
Tokuthion (Prothiofos)...................................................... 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Trichloronate..................................................................... 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
.
ç
11
'-lulLS ENC.
Analytes reported as N.D. were not present above the stated limit of detection.
• DEL MAR ANAL Please Note: - - The sample was analyzed by Sequoia Analytical in Redwood City.
•
2070103.PSE <6>
Del MarAnalytical
1014 E. Cooley Dr., Suite A, Colton, California 92324, (7 14) 370-4667, FAX (7 14) 370-1046 i Pacific Soils Environmental Client Project ID: Carlsbad Sampled: Jul 9, 1992 • 6867 Airport Dr., Suite 100 Sample Descript: Soil, S-3 Received: Jul 9, 1992
Riverside, CA 92504 Analysis Method: EPA 8140 Analyzed: Jul 19, 1992
Jti0n1 Jack Collender Lab Number: 207-0105 Reported: Jul 19, 1992
ORGANOPHOSPHOROUS PESTICIDES (EPA 8140)
Analyte Detection Limit
pg/kg
Sample Results
jig/kg
Azinphosmethyl................................................................ 40.0 ..................................... N.D.
Bolstar............................................................................... 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Chlorpyrifos....................................................................... 20.0 ..................................... N.D. • Coumaphos....................................................................... 40.0 ..................................... N.D.
Demeton-O........................................................................ 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Demeton-S........................................................................ 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Diazinon............................................................................. 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Dichlorvos......................................................................... 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Disulfoton.......................................................................... 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Ethoprop............................................................................ 20.0 ..................................... N.D. . Fensulfothion..................................................................... 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Fenthion............................................................................. 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Merphos............................................................................ 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Mevinphos......................................................................... 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Naled................................................................................. 40.0 ..................................... N.D.
Parathionmethyl............................................................... 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Phorate.............................................................................. 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Ronnel............................................................................... 20.0 ..................................... N.D. • Stirophos (Tetrachlorvinphos).......................................... 40.0 ..................................... N.D.
Tokuthion(Prothiofos) ...................................................... 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Trichioronate..................................................................... 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
0
SOILS-PACIF'C•' NG.
Analytes reported as N.D. were not present above the stated limit of detection.
• DEL MAR ANAL Please Note:
TJeanineaii
ratory 73éna
The sample was analyzed by Sequoia Analytical in Redwood City.
2070103.13SE <7> •
Del MarAnalytical
ORGANOPHOSPHOROUS PESTICIDES (EPA 8140)
0
Analyte Detection Limit Sample Results
pg/kg pg/kg
Azinphosmethyl................................................................ 40.0 ..................................... N.D.
Boistar............................................................................... 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Chlorpyrifos....................................................................... 20.0 ..................................... N.D. • Coumaphos....................................................................... 40.0 ..................................... N.D.
Demeton-O ........................................................................ 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Demeton-S........................................................................ 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Diazinon............................................................................. 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Dichlorvos......................................................................... 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Disulfoton.......................................................................... 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Ethoprop............................................................................ 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Fensulfothion..................................................................... 20.0 ..................................... N.D. • Fenthion............................................................................. 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Merphos............................................................................ 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Mevinphos......................................................................... 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Naled................................................................................. 40.0 ..................................... N.D.
Parathionmethyl............................................................... 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Phorate.............................................................................. 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Ronnel............................................................................... 20.0 ..................................... N.D. • Stirophos (Tetrachlorvinphos).......................................... 40.0 ..................................... N.D.
Tokuthion(Prothiofos) ...................................................... 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
Trichloronate..................................................................... 20.0 ..................................... N.D.
S
PAC)pjr' .Lfj L G.
Analytes reported as N.D. were not present above the stated limit of detection.
• ,EL MAR ANAL Please Note:
rhe sample was analyzed by Sequoia Analytical in Redwood City.
Sal
2070103.PSE <8> •
• Del Mar Analytical
1014 E. Cooley Dr., Suite A. Cotton, California 92324. (714)370-4667. FAX (714) 370-1046
• Pacific Soils Environmental Client Project ID: Carlsbad Sampled: Jul 9, 1992
6867 Airport Dr., Suite 100 Received: Jul 9, 1992
Riverside, CA 92504 Sample Descript: Soil, S-i Analyzed: Jul 21, 1992
Attention: Jack Collender Lab Number: 207-0103 Reported: Jul 21, 1992
CHLORINATED HERBICIDES (EPA 8150)
Analyte
2,4-D..................................................................................
2,4-DB................................................................................
2,4,5-1................................................................................
• 2,4,5-TP (Silvex)................................................................
Dalapon.............................................................................
Dicamba............................................................................
Dichioroprop.....................................................................
Dinoseb.............................................................................
MCPA.................................................................................
MCPP.................................................................................
Detection Limit Sample Results
ug/kg ug/kg
10.0 N.D.
10.0 N.D.
10.0 N.D.
10.0 N.D.
10.0 N.D.
10.0 N.D.
10.0 N.D.
10.0 N.D.
200.0 N.D.
200.0 N.D.
Analytes reported as N.D. were not present above the stated limit of detection.
C ineSalustri
: .—
\DEL it ANAL'
Laboratory M71
P/CF1C SOILS ENG.
2070103.PSE <9>
Sample Results
ug/kg
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
Detection Limit
ug/kg
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
200.0
200.0
Del MarAnalytical
1014 E. Cooley Dr.. Suite A, Colton. California 92324, (714) 370-4667, FAX (714) 370-1046
Pacific Soils Environmental Client Project ID: Carlsbad
• 6867 Airport Dr., Suite 100
Riverside, CA 92504 Sample Descript: Soil, S-2
Attention: Jack Collender Lab Number: 207-0104
Sampled: Jul 9, 1992
Received: Jul 9, 1992
Analyzed: Jul 21, 1992
Reported: Jul 21, 1992
CHLORINATED HERBICIDES (EPA 8150) •
Analyte
2,4-D..................................................................................
2,4-DB................................................................................
2,4,5-T................................................................................
• 2,4,5-TP (Silvex)................................................................
Dalapon.............................................................................
Dicamba............................................................................
Dichloroprop.....................................................................
Dinoseb.............................................................................
MCPA.................................................................................
MCPP.................................................................................
•
Analytes reported as N.D. were not present above the stated limit of detection.
DEL MAR ANALYTI -
C. -r -i I
JIJlL, Ljj G.
2070103.PSE <10>
Sal
2,4-D 10.0 N.D.
2,4-DB 10.0 N.D.
2,4,5-T................................................................................ 10.0 .....................................N.D.
0 2,4,5-TP (Silvex)................................................................ 10.0 .....................................N.D.
Dalapon............................................................................. 10.0 .....................................N.D.
Dicamba............................................................................ 10.0 .....................................N.D.
Dichloroprop..................................................................... 10.0 .....................................N.D.
Dinoseb............................................................................. 10.0 .....................................N.D.
MCPA................................................................................. 200.0 .....................................N.D.
MCPP................................................................................. 200.0 .....................................N.D.
0
S
S
S
Analytes reported as N.D. were not present above the stated limit of detection.
r
Tbora
Janine
AR ANALYTIC
iustr U7&
toryMa ger
S
PA G,i FlcSOftS L:?.:G.
2070103.PSE <11>
S
• ()Del MarAnalytical
1014 E. Cooley Dr., Suite A. Colton, California 92324, (714) 370-4667, FAX (714) 370-1046
Pacific Soils Environmental Client Project ID: Carlsbad
• 6867 Airport Dr., Suite 100
Riverside, CA 92504 Sample Descript: Soil, Method Blank Analyzed: Jul 21, 1992
Attention: Jack Collender Reported: Jul 21, 1992
CHLORINATED HERBICIDES (EPA 8150)
Analyte Detection Limit Sample Results
ug/kg ug/kg
2,4-D..................................................................................10.0 .....................................N.D.
2,4-DB................................................................................10.0 .....................................N.D.
2,4,5-T................................................................................10.0 .....................................N.D.
. 2,4,5-TP (Silvex)................................................................10.0 .....................................N.D.
Dalapon.............................................................................10.0 .....................................N.D.
Dicamba............................................................................10.0 .....................................N.D.
Dichloroprop.....................................................................10.0 .....................................N.D.
Dinoseb.............................................................................10.0 .....................................N.D.
MCPA.................................................................................200.0 .....................................N.D.
MCPP.................................................................................200.0 .....................................N.D.
S
S
S
Analytes reported as N.D. were not present above the stated limit of detection.
• EL MAR ANAL
)
anine Salustri
boratory Mar p:
PACIFIC SOILS ENG.
2070103.PSE <12>
9
MEAN
Analyte RI Sp MS MSD PR1 PR2 RPD PR
ppbppbppbppb % % % %
2,4-D
S 2,4,5-T
01 101 5.971 13.9 60%1 139%1 79.8% 1 99%
0 10 9.49 11.8 95% 118% 21.7% 106%
S
Definition of Terms:
Al ............. ........ Result of Sample Analysis
S
Sp ............. ........ Spike Concentration Added to Sample
MS.....................Matrix Spike Result
MSD....................Matrix Spike Duplicate Result
PRI ............ ........ Percent Recovery of MS; (MS-R1) / SP X 100
PR2 ............ ........ Percent Recovery of MSD; ((MSD-R1) / SP X 100
• RPD....................Relative Percent Difference; ((MS-MSD)/(MS+MSD)/2)) X 100
Del Mar Analytical
S
PACIFIC SOILS ENG.
Page 1
g-BHC
HEPTACHLOR
ENDRIN
o 81 3.8 3.9 48% ___49%1 2.6% 1 48%
o 8 1 4.2 4.3 53% 54%1 2.4% 1 53%
o 20 16.9 18.6 85% 93%1 9.6% 1 89%
.
Definition of Terms:
Ri ............. ........ Result of Sample Analysis
Sp ............. ........ Spike Concentration Added to Sample
MS ..................... Matrix Spike Result
MSD....................Matrix Spike Duplicate Result
PR1 ............ ........ Percent Recovery of MS; (MS-R1) / SP X 100
PR2 ............ ........ Percent Recovery of MSD; ((MSD-Ri) / SP X 100
S
RPD....................Relative Percent Difference; ((MS-MSD)/(MS+MSD)/2)) X 100
.
Del Mar Analytical
PAC1H SOILS NG.
Page 1
.. ...
2852 Alton Avenue 1014 E. Cooley Dr., Suite F 3906 Del Mar Analytical Irvine, California 92714 Colton, California 92324
(714) 261-1022 (714) 370-4667
FAX(714)261-1228 FAX(714)370-1046 0
CHAIN OF CUSTODY/REQUEST FOR ANALYSIS
Client Name/Address: I
SôiI 44t. Ar;ftll (00
k, ci
Project-
CahLq)
0 Po
0
Analysis Required
- 0 " U)
C_)
Secial
Instructions
Project Manager:
I Co//ehcky
Sampler:
JC(d (//eb)ef
Sample
Description
Sample
Matrix
- Container
Type
# of
Cont
Sampling
DatefTime Preservatives
4K
sJ ir445 1
1r4 I 7,4/LI1'1 z
7
0"
P, linquished B ate/Time Ry
£L_ i%/ z z-o
Received By: Date/Time: Turnaround Time: (check)
same day
24 hours _______
48 hours
-
72 hours
5 days
normal
"Relinquished By: Dat 1Tne: I Received By: Date/Time:
Sample Inteeriy: (check)
Li' o intact n ice
Relinquished By: Date/Time:
Note: Samples will be disposed of after 30 days.
Received in Lab By: Date/lime:
A
SAM B! DDT SOIL ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
Sample # DDT
ugikg
DDE
ug/kg
DDD
ug/kg
SB-i 827 434 162 JI2-
SB-2 28.9 17 8.4 3 11.3
SB-3 65.5 35.3 11.6
SB4 182 155 52.9 3'9. I
SB-5 303 285 84 472-
SB-6 304 136 53.8
SB-7 296 500 96.7 fr q 3
SB-8 82.3 106 19.9
SB-9 455 294 1106
SB-10 445 498 119
SB-li 243 94.3 46.7 Lf
SB-12 318 523 102
SB-13 132 140 34.9 3v7
SB-14 281 175 56.3
SB-is 343 235 76.8
ug/kg = parts per billion (ppb)
mg/kg = parts per million (ppm)
01-ON
4N)
'I
II
000
It
11
'vn.g Nwv
101
75
I.; 75
'1
I
.0010
h2`
X~
C
S/
Z7 S' c 4
LUS £cS
7S
h a'
.l
I
• - ,t'iS ___.
)u
ad.',
09
it
l:III
'I
\--rX
4871045-05
'I
11 Existing Site Conditions
j The roughly rectangular-shaped property is located on Camino de las Ondas, northwest of the
proposed intersection of College Boulevard and Poinsettia Lane in Carlsbad, California (Site Location
Map, page 2). Topographically, the site is characterized by two gently sloping mesas on the western
I
and eastern portions of the site separated by a moderately steep, west-facing, natural slope. The
maximum relief on the site is approximately 158 feet (Hunsaker, 1992).
jI Our background research (Appendix A) indicates the site was last farmed in 1984. At the time of
our field investigation, the site was observed to have been recently tilled as part of an apparent weed
abatement measure.
Geological and Ground Water Conditions
A detailed discussion of the geologic conditions of the site is presented in the project geotechnical
report (Leighton, 1988). Briefly stated here, the site is underlain by bedrock units consisting of the
I Tertiary Torrey Sandstone and Quaternary Terrace Deposits. Surficial units noted mantling these
I bedrock units are comprised of alluvium, topsoil/colluvium, and existing agricultural fill soils. The
approximate areal distribution of these units (excluding topsoil/colluvium and fill soils) is depicted on
the Geotechnical Map (Figure 2).
• ' Ground water was not encountered during our previous subsurface exploration conducted during the
geotechnical investigation of the site nor is a shallow ground water table anticipated.
C
Soil Sampling
To avoid the, introduction of bias into field sample collection, the approximately 68-acre site was
divided into seven, equal area (approximately 10 acres each) plots. Each of these seven plots were
j subdivided into 100-square areas. Each square was assigned an identification number of 1 through
100. Utilizing a random numbers table, five squares were selected for soil sampling from each of the
seven plots. Each of the 35 pre-identified sample locations (seven plots at five samples per plot)
j were located in the field by representatives of Hunsaker & Associates.
The purpose of collecting five random soil samples at each of the selected areas is to obtain a more
j representative, statistically significant number of samples to characterize possible near soil
contamination. In addition, two additional sampling locations were selected in areas of the site where
storage and/or equipment areas may have been located. The approximate location of the soil samples
is illustrated on Figure 3.
The soil samples were collected on July 13, 1992. At each sample location, surface brush and weeds
Y1 were cleaned away to expose an approximately 2-foot diameter circle of soil. The depth of the soil
sampling ranged between the surface and 6 inches. The soil samples collected included accumulations
of agricultural fill and topsoil and consisted of brown to red-brown silty, fine- to medium-grained
il sand.
11
-3-
4871045-05
J concentration with depth. Laboratory testing of soil samples taken on an adjoining property
within Zone 20 taken at depths of 1.5 to 2.0 feet below the surface resulted in non-detectable
$ concentrations (1992, Pacific Soils Environmental). Since the highest contamination levels are
expected in the near surface soils, vertical environmental sampling for -pesticide residue is
considered unwarranted for this property.
. Toxaphene
As summarized on Table 1, toxaphene was detected in all of the soil samples with the exception
of the discrete soil sample 8-2. The concentrations ranged between <1.0 mg/kg (below reportable
detection limits) for sample 8-2 and 3.1 mg/kg (Composite Area 2). As discussed in a preceding
section of this report, the discrete soil samples collected within Area 2 were tested individually
by EPA Test Method 8080. All toxaphene levels determined by the laboratory testing program,
including the discrete samples, are below the Total Threshold Limit Concentration (TTLC) of
5.0 mg/kg listed in the current California Administration Code, Title 22, Section 66700.
. Organophosphorus Pesticides
As indicated in Appendix B, controlled organophosphorus pesticides (lanate, vydate, and cygon)
were not detected in the overall composite soil sample. This non-detectable value is consistent
with the fact these compounds possess a relatively rapid rate of decomposition and the site was
last farmed in 1984.
• DDT Soil Contamination
DDT was also detected in all the soil samples tested. The concentrations ranged between
0.038 mg/kg (discrete sample 8-1) and 2.17 mg/kg (Composite Area 2). The detected
concentrations of these pesticides measured in Composite Soil Samples No. 1. and No. 2 and
discrete soil samples 2-1 through 2-5 and 8-2 exceed the Title 22 TTLC of 1.0 mg/kg.
• Soil Remediation Levels
A guidance document, prepared by the California Environmental Protection Agency -
Department of Toxic Substances Control (California EPA, 1992), states "TTLC's are intended
to provide a legal basis in deciding whether waste is hazardous in order to determine disposal
procedures. The ITLC for DDT is not health-based and is therefore inappropriate for use as
a generic remediation goal for DDT in soil? Since the site is to be converted from its past
agricultural use to residential, it is more pertinent to establish appropriate Soil Remediation
Levels (SRL) based upon various exposure scenario(s) with respect to the intended residential
use of the site. One approach to develop meaningful SRL's is outlined in the guidance document
prepared by the Department of Toxic Substances Control, within the California Environmental
Protection Agency entitled "DDT in Soil: Guidance For the Assessment of Health Risk to
Humans (California EPA, 1992)." This guidance document provides guidance for site-specific risk
determinations, as well as calculation of remediation values (SRL's) appropriate for several
individual situations.
-5-
4871045 05
As indicated in the aforementioned guidance document (1992, California EPA), calculation of
a SRL can be calculated by the following formula:
siu. = AcceptableRisk
CakulatedRisk
11 Calculation of a Site-Specific SRL for DDT
Acceptable Risk: The guidance document indicates that other California Regulatory processes
consider a risk level of 1x10 5 as being acceptable. Proposition 65 - the Clean Water Act of
1988 (Title 22, CCR) is an example (California EPA, 1992). Utilization of a risk level of less
than 1x10 5 would require the preparation of a Site Risk Assessment Document which is
beyond the scope of this investigation.
Calculated Risk: The guidance document summarizes the risk from the residential exposure
to DDT in soil for various exposure scenarios and are tabulated on Table 2. These values
were developed on the assumption that DDT was present in the soil at a concentration of
1 mg DDTJkg soil. As indicated on Table 2, the "worst case" calculated risk value for the
planned residential use of the site is via the "high exposure" scenario for residential children,
ages 1 through 17. Based on a concentration of 1 mg DDT/kg soil, the calculated risk value
is 7.0x10 7. To calculate risk values based on other DDT, soil concentrations, the values in
Table 2 can be multiplied by the concentration of detected DDT., expressed in mg
DDT/kg soil, found in soil (1992, California EPA). As indicated in Table 1, the highest level
of DDT total contamination detected in the discrete samples is 1.68 mg/kg (Sample No. 2-5).
Therefore: Calculated Risk = Risk From Exposure to Children (Table 2) x Concentration
of DDT expressed in mg/kg
Calculated Risk = 7.0x10 7 x 1.68 = 1.18x10'
Therefore, a conservative, site-specific SRL can be calculated using the following formula:
SRL = Acceptable Risk =
Calculated Risk
• General Conclusion
1 x lO- 8.5 mg DDTJkg soil
1.18 x 10
Based on our investigation, laboratory testing, and statistical analyses of the chemical data, as of
the date of our field investigation (July 13, 1992), federally banned organochiorine pesticide
toxaphene is not present in the near-surface soil at the site above TTLC's established in the
current California Adminsitration Code, Title 22, Section 66700. Controlled organophosphorus
pesticides (lanate, vydate, and cygon) were not detected in the overall composite samples.
9 am
1.lxI 0 6.040'
6.4404 1.740'
1.x10' 2.8xi0 7
2.8xiO 7 4.6x10 7
N/A 2.1x10'
N/A 2.9x104
92x104 4.9x10'
1.5x10 7 5.5x10'
3.040 7 7.040 7
22XI04 6.&10
4.240' 42t104
Volume 7
ap1ar & DDT DI SOIL
From: California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Tc Substances Control, 1992, DDT in Soil: Guidance For Assessment
Health Risk to Humans (Draft), in Guidance for Site Characterization
Multimedia Risk Assessment for Hazardous Substances Release Sit
Volume 7, Chapter 6, page 22, dated April, 1992.
J
I
1I
3
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF RISK FROM RESIDENTIAL EXPOSURE TO DDT IN SOIL
Lifetime Excess Cancer Risk
Scenario Ingestion Dermal Total
RESIDENTIAL ADULT
Seventy Year (Default) 4.9x107
Thirty Year - Works Away From Home 1.1x10 7
Thirty Year. Homemaker or Works at Home 1.8x10-7 Typical Case
Thirty Year. Homemaker or Works at Home 1.8x10 7 'High Exposure Level"
Inhalation of Soil N/A"
Ingestion of Home-grown N/A Produce
RESIDENTIAL CHILDREN, AGES 1 THROUGH 17
Typical Case 4.0x107
"High Exposure" Scenario 4.0x107 Case One
'High Exposure" Scenario 4.0x10 7 Case Two
CMMUNY PARK, AGES 1 THROUGH 17 4.4x104
SCHOOL, AGES 6 THROUGH 17 3.8404
Assumes that concentration of DDT in soil is 1 mg DDTJkg soil (1 ppm)
N/A. Not applicable
Review Draft
I
J_R
L1
1]