HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-09-21; City Council; 15406; Habitat Management Plan EIA 99-04CITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL
AB# t<qo 4 TITLE. -.
Ml-G. ?/a’ k ‘i CARLSBAD HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
EIA 99-04
~ DEPT. PLN
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
ClTYMGR*
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 99-33 .? APPROVING the Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Habitat Management Plan and ADOPT Resolution No. ci9-338 , APPROV-
ING the Habitat Management Plan and AUTHORIZING staff to submit the Plan, the proposed
Implementing Agreement and the complete application package to the Wildlife Agencies for review
and approval.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
Introduction
At the City Council meeting of June 8, 1999, staff presented the Habitat Management Plan (HMP).
The Council received the presentation and opened a formal 45day public comment period on the
HMP and the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). During the subsequent comment
period, staff made numerous presentations to interested parties and organizations, continued
discussions and negotiations with the wildlife agencies, met with individual property owners and
several environmental groups and responded to numerous questions and inquiries about the HMP.
Staff also presented the HMP to the Planning Commission and the Parks and Recreation
Commission. The purpose of the Council meeting on September 21, 1999, is for the Council to: 1)
hold a public hearing on the HMP; 2) consider approving the HMP and the MND; and 3) authorize
staff to submit the HMP to the Wildlife Agencies for formal review and approval. Staff will not be
repeating the presentation that it made previously on June 8, 1999, but rather will be focusing on the
topics described below.
Consideration of Mitiaated Neaative Declaration
Three comment letters were submitted during the 45day comment period specifically addressing -
the subject of approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The commentors generally objected to
approval of a MND and requested a complete Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to be prepared.
Copies of the three letters are attached to this Agenda Bill as Exhibit 3. Staff has prepared
responses to the comments which are attached for Council review as Exhibit 4 to the Agenda Bill
and which respond to all comments contained in the letters including the issue of a MND versus an
EIR. Based upon staff review of the comment letters, the responses to comment and the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff supports and recommends that the City Council approve a
Mitigated Negative Declaration. CEQA requires that the City Council exercise its independent
analysis and judgment in determining whether a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate. The
existence of any public controversy over the environmental effects of a project does not necessitate
the need to do an EIR if there is not substantial evidence before the Council that the HMP may have
a significant adverse effect on the environment. Substantial evidence includes facts, reasonable
assumptions predicated on facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. Argument, speculation,
opinions not supported by experts (e.g., biologists) does not constitute substantial evidence.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will also conduct environmental review when the HMP is
submitted to them for approval. In order to assist the Agency in its review, City staff and its
environmental consultant are preparing a preliminary draft Environmental Assessment (EA) which
would lead to the Federal equivalent of a Negative Declaration. The preliminary draft EA will be
submitted to the Service when the HMP is submitted.
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. IS, Yob
Comments on HMP
Thirty-five (35) letters of comment relating to the HMP were submitted during the public review
period ranging from one page to numerous pages. There were letters submitted in support of the
HMP, letters merely asking clarifying questions, letters requesting corrections to the Plan and letters
raising issues and concerns regarding the Plan. Copies of all 35 letters are attached as Exhibit 5 to
this Agenda Bill. Staff grouped major comments into themes or topics and prepared written
responses. Staffs response to the comments is attached to the Agenda Bill as Exhibit 6. Staff also
invited all 35 of the commentors to a meeting on September 16, 1999, at which time staff over-
viewed the comments and responses and answered questions from the commentors. A number of
the revisions staff is now proposing to the HMP are based on the comments that were received.
Revisions to HMP
Based upon comments received during the public review period, continued negotiations with the
Wildlife Agencies and additional discussions with property owners and other interested parties, staff
is proposing revisions to the HMP document. The proposed revisions are attached to this Agenda
Bill as Exhibit 7. Text additions are shown in bold and underlined. Text deletions are shown in
strike-out. Staff will provide an overview of the revisions as part of its presentation but a summary of
the major revisions include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Preserve boundarv updates - Several properties which were previously in Standards areas now
have proposed hardline preserve boundaries. The city, the property owners and the Wildlife
Agencies were able to agree on boundaries. The hardline boundaries on several other
properties were modified based upon continued discussions with the staff, property owners and
the Agencies.
Maopina chanaes - A number of miscellaneous revisions were made to maps contained in the
HMP document. These changes were made to better reflect information such as existing
vegetation and projects recently approved or constructed.
Standards modifications - The standards which apply to properties or areas of the city which
have not yet planned preserve boundary lines were revised to remove vagueness and provide
clarity. Also, as a result of additional properties being proposed as hardlines, the standards for
two complete LFMP zones (5 and 7) could be deleted from the plan.
Golf Course Mitiaation and the MHCP Core Area participation - As the Council will recall, the city
agreed to do a portion of the Municipal Golf Course mitigation in the MHCP Core Area. At the
time the previous presentation on the HMP was made to the City Council, the agreement was to
mitigate for 5 gnatcatcher pairs in the core area and the acreage to accommodate this was
estimated at 40 acres. The biological analysis which was performed for the selected property in
the core area has identified that 51.6 acres are necessary to cover 5 gnatcatcher pairs.
Accordingly, the HMP document has been revised to reflect this. The resultant total acreage of
the city participation in the MHCP Core Area therefore has increased from 296 acres to 307.6
acres.
75% conservation properties - There were originally six properties in the HMP which were
required to meet a 75% conservation level because of the amount of sensitive habitat on the
property or because of its key location within the preserve system. Based on continued
discussions and agreements with the property owners and the Wildlife Agencies, the number of
75% properties has been reduced to four.
Habitat Take Permit Fee - Based upon numerous comments and discussions on this topic,
several revisions are being proposed regarding the fee. The name of the fee is being changed
to a “Habitat In-Lieu Mitigation Fee” to better reflect its purpose which is to take the place of
required offsite mitigation for certain habitat types. It is now proposed as a ratio-based fee
meaning that the amount of the fee will vary based on the required ratio of offsite habitat
mitigation (the higher the ratio of required offsite mitigation, the larger the fee). Although it will
be necessary to conduct the fee study required by AB1600, based upon staffs initial analysis,
staff anticipates the fee for impacting disturbed habitat/agriculture land should be set at no more
than $500 per acre. Staff is recommending that the Habitat In-Lieu Mitigation Fee be a major
funding source for the city’s proposed participation in the MHCP Core Area.
Bioloaical Revisions - A number of miscellaneous revisions are being proposed based upon
PAGE 3 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 15. LFo4
biological comments submitted during the public review period.
lmolementina Asreement (IA)
The draft Implementing Agreement (IA) was previously provided to the City Council as part of the
agenda packet for the June 8, 1999 Council discussion of the HMP. The purpose of the I.A. is to
specify in a legally binding document the agreements made between the City and the Wildlife
Agencies regarding the plan and the permits that will be issued. It provides assurances to the City
that projects can be permitted and constructed consistent with the HMP. It provides assurances to
the Wildlife Agencies that the protections for species and habitats will be carried out. The I.A. will be
part of the permit application package that will be submitted to the Wildlife Agencies following City
Council approval of the plan. The I.A. will not be signed by the City, and therefore will not be
effective until the Wildlife Agencies have processed the plan and given their approval. At that time,
the I.A. will come back to the City Council for final approval and authorization for the Mayor to sign.
Recommendation and Next Steps
Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the HMP
and direct staff to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. Staff is also recommending
that the Council approve the HMP with the revisions contained in Exhibit 7 to the Agenda Bill. If the
Council concurs with the staffs recommendation, the revisions will be incorporated into the HMP
document and then it will be formally submitted to the Wildlife Agencies for review and approval.
Staff will also provide the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with the preliminary draft EA which has
been prepared to assist the Service in their environmental review process. It is anticipated that
State and Federal processing of the HMP will take 4-6 months.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
As discussed previously in this Agenda Bill, staff is recommending that a Mitigated Negative
Declaration be approved for the HMP. The HMP was analyzed for its potential environmental
impacts. Based on the analysis, it was determined that the Plan had the potential to have significant
impacts on the environment particularly in the area of biology and land use unless mitigation
measures were incorporated into the Plan. A number of biological mitigating measures were
included in the Plan including conditions and limitations on take authorization and measures to
minimize impacts to species both inside as well as outside the preserve system. Regarding land
use, and particularly the issue of housing, a mitigating measure was proposed to allow clustering so
that a property owner can retain the property’s development rights while still conserving land for
open space and habitat protection. Given the high conservation levels proposed by the HMP and
the mitigating measures incorporated into the Plan, all potential environmental impacts have been
reduced below a level of significance. Therefore, the approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is
recommended.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impacts of approving the HMP are addressed in detail in Section E of the plan. The
following is a brief summary of that information:
l The City has already expended approximately $1 million to prepare the plan.
l The Lake Calavera property will be contributed to the preserve system, representing
approximately $4.8 million in land value (valued as open space). In return, the City will receive
mitigation credits that can be used to mitigate a wide variety of City projects.
l The City’s participation in the MHCP Core Area will involve a total cost of approximately $6
million. The source of funds include previously committed mitigation funds from Villages of La
Costa and Ranch0 Carrillo, proposed mitigation from the City’s golf course, and the proposed In-
lieu Mitigation Fee program. The sources will fully cover the estimated costs for the MHCP Core
Area.
3
m A
PAGE 4 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 1 i qo 6
l The City will have other recurring costs to manage City-owned habitat lands, including Lake
Calavera and the Hub Park/Veterans Memorial Park area and for overall administration of the
HMP program.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution No. ?9-113”7
2. City Council Resolution No. 99 -3,7F
3. Comment Letters Addressing Mitigated Negative Declaration
4. Response to Comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration
5. Comment Letters Addressing the HMP
6. Response to Comments on HMP
7. Copy of Revisions to Habitat Management Plan (including Maps)tigure 22 on file in Clerk' S)
8. Mitigated Negative Declaration - Previously distributed to Council and on file in the City Clerk’s
Office
9. Draft Habitat Management Plan, dated April 1999 - Previously distributed to Council and on file
in the City Clerk’s Office
10. Draft Implementing Agreement - Previously distributed to Council and on file in the City Clerks
Office.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. - ??3?7
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE HABITAT MANAGEMENT
PLAN FOR NATURAL COMMUNITIES IN THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD.
CASE NAME: HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
CASE NO.: EIA 99-04
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has prepared a Habitat Management Plan for
Natural Communities and, upon approval by the City Council, will submit the Plan to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game for review and
approval under the Federal Endangered Species Act (Section IO(a)), the State Endangered
Species Act (Section 2081) and the California Natural Communities Conservation Planning
(NCCP) Program; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the
Habitat Management Plan was analyzed for its potential to impact the environment; and
WHEREAS, based upon the analysis, a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
was prepared by staff finding that although the Plan could potentially have significant impacts
on the environment, mitigating measures were applied to the Plan and incorporated into the
Plan such that the potential impacts were reduced to a less than significant level; and
WHEREAS, on June 8, 1999, the City Council adopted a resolution of its intent
to approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, on June 8, 1999, the Council also opened a 45-day public review
and comment period on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and directed staff to hold a public
meeting to receive verbal comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and to accept
written comments during the 45-day public review period; and
WHEREAS, three comment letters were received addressing the Mitigated
Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, written responses to the comments were prepared by staff and
reviewed by the City Council; and
1
L
< d
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, on September 21, 1999, the City Council held a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration, reviewed the written comments and
responses and heard all persons who wished to provide public testimony regarding the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and the effects of the Plan on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has exercised its independent judgment and
determined that there is not substantial evidence before the Council that the Habitat
Management Plan will have a significant effect on the environment because of the levels of
conservation proposed by the Plan and the mitigating measures incorporated into the Plan and,
as such, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate and supportable.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Carlsbad, California as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the City Council approves a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Habitat Management Plan.’
3. That the Habitat Management Plan will not have any significant impacts to
the environment because of the mitigation applied to and incorporated into the Plan.
4. Staff is directed to file a Notice of Determination of the environmental
decision on the Habitat Management Plan.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 21st day of BW 1999, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Nygaard, Finnila, Hall & Kulchin
NOES: None
ATTEST:
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ. City Clerk \
KAREN R. KUNDTZ, Assistant City Cl'erk
(SEAL)
-3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 99-338
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING THE HABITAT
MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR NATURAL COMMUNITIES IN THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO SUBMIT
THE HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN TO THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME AND U.S. WILDLIFE
SERVICE (“WILDLIFE AGENCIES) FOR REVIEW AND
APPROVAL.
CASE NAME: HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
CASE NO.: EIA 99-04
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has prepared a Habitat Management Plan for
Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad pursuant to Section IO(a) of the Federal
Endangered Species Act, Section 2081 of the State Endangered Species Act and in accordance
with the NCCP Program of the State of California; and,
WHEREAS, the City has prepared the Plan in consultation with the Wildlife
Agencies and in cooperation with property owners, members of the development community
and environmental organizations and all other interested parties; and
WHEREAS, the Plan has been prepared in coordination with the Regional
Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan/MHCP and is considered a Subarea Plan of.the MHCP; and,
WHEREAS, on June 8, 1999, the City Council received a staff presentation on
the Plan and opened a 45-day public review and comment period; and
WHEREAS, 35 letters containing written comments have been submitted and
responded to by stat and
WHEREAS, all comments received during the public review period and the
responses have been reviewed by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been approved for the Plan by
the City Council and it has been determined that any potentially significant environmental
impacts that would result from approval and implementation of the Plan have been mitigated to a
less than significant level; and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, on September 21, 1999, the City Council held a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the Habitat Management Plan, reviewed the written comments on the Plan
and heard all persons who wished to provide public testimony regarding the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Plan has been prepared in
conformance with the Federal and State Endangered Species Acts, the State NCCP Program,
that it is consistent with the ongoing Regional MHCP and that it adequately protects natural
habitats in these communities; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad, California as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the City Council approves the Habitat Management Plan according to
the HMP document provided to the City Council on June 8, 1999, and the revisions provided to
the Council on September 21, 1999, and attached as Exhibit 7.
3. That the City Manager is authorized to finalize and submit the Habitat
Management Plan, the proposed Implementing Agreement and the complete application
package to the Wildlife Agencies for review and approval. The Implementing Agreement shall
not become effective until the Wildlife Agencies have processed the Plan and given their
approval.
4. That the City Council expects the Wildlife Agencies to process the Habitat
Management Plan through the State and Federal process in an expeditious manner given the
considerable advance review already conducted by the Agencies.
-2-
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the of the City Council of the
City of Carlsbad on the 21st day of septe~er 1999, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Member Lewis, Nygaard, Finnila, Hall & Kulchin
NOES: None
All-EST:
lldzL -RI +&z&P
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ. City Clerk 1
KAREN R, KUNDTZ, Assistant City Clerk
(SEAL)
-3-
3
I 2 1
i , I , ,
I
i
;
: >
I
j
i
I I I
i
.
: *-.
‘9::
2:
P Kd
Pi p
t: 2 - ::
.r
. .
u$ s .L ‘$ 5 ? a2 -c f u : *,59
I
ti- a .E T’ri BE gg
OE .$? .g cc
8s mv:
is
“0
g ‘;:
% E $
5 c Q 0. %C 1 -- P : .E :Lr :
i; !22 a2 ! ‘E
:w
‘2
1 * .2
z .I 0 !2 u 2 F $
$
0
5
z
2
2 E c .s!
5 z .I 0
$
. .
I
:: c
. i
8 E E c .I a k
C
.s J
j .E
Id
j 5
i O &E
EXHIBIT 7
c-12
APRIL, 1999
WC. 2.1999 2:55F’M NO.526 F.24
‘- :,
I I EXHIBIT.*? .,
August 2,1999
Don Rideout
City ofCarlsbadPlanning Departmet& . t ’ 2075 Las Pahnas Drive. CarIsbad, CA 92009
. :
Rc: Citv of Carlsbad Habitat Mi~ment Plan. M&ted Nepathe Declaration;
w No. ETA 99-04
I
Dear Mr. Rideout:
On behalf of the Natural Resources Defcase Council (“NRDC”) and its nearly
80,000 members who live in California, we submit the following comments concerning
the Ci@ of Carl&ad’s (“City’? proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Habitat
Managmnt Plan for Natural Communities (“IIMP”). NRDC is a aational environmental advocacy group with offices in New York, Washington, DC., San
Francisco and Los Ang&s.
While we ,rccognize that the HMP has the potential to play an important role in
protecting the natural environment of San Dicgo County,, NRDC is conc&ed that the City appiars to be rushing through its adoption of the HMP. In particular, we believe that
e sienificam environmental &pacts that are 1ikely.b occur as a result of HMP adoption
requires the City m prepare ari Environmental Impact Report (“EIR.“) pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). See Public Resource Code 4 2 100, et. seq. l
As written, the HMP is likely to have a significant iinpact on the biological
resources, resource planning efforts and water resources of Northern San Diego County. 1
.Morcovcr, we believe that the City’s propOsed mitigation i& inadequate and certainly does
.
not relieve the City of its legal obligation to prepare an EIR. Nor may the City rely upon
its Master EIR for the City’s General Plan to avoid its duty to preparing an EIR. ,
Finally, we believe that any EIR for the proposed HMP should, in addition to
addressing the HMP’s impa? on biological diversity, resources planning and water quality, analyze the follov$ng issues:
m,, as you know, the City currently participates in the Multiple Habitat
Conservation Program (%HCP”) effort in Northern San Diego County, a part of the
Natural Community Conservation Plan (TKCP’I) process. As cur?ently d&&i, the
HMP is likely to commjt the City irretrievably to habitat planning and preserve
63banViiIt~
Stile 250
Los~YcA~
32393e6900
.'
71 S~evaurn Stmr 121W)NcwYork&e..N.W.
!hiic 1825 SuitcKHJ ’
hn Fmcisco, CA 94105 washington, PC 20005 m’inoau, 702 269-6060
Fax415 495-5996 Pa%202 219.1060
40 Ws 20th Srrrct
NwYorkNY~O611
212 727-2700
Pax2127274773 ,.
I
i
RUG. 2.1999 2 : 56PM . NO. 526 P. 31’3
1 ‘. -
.’ .
. . ‘. : 2
.
management. and to reduce or e&n$nate the’ City’s flekibility to cooperate with other
NorthCounty jurisdictions i? ?vlHGP dcvc!opment. Accordingjy, the @IPs brdader
effec.t upon tie I$.HCP procewhould be explored and’consider@ in any EIRprior to
HMP adoptiori. . , . I
.’ Second, in 1967 th$ Ninth ‘Circuk coti, of Appeals or&cd the U.S. Fisli and
Wildlife Service (“Service”) to ~esignate,critical habitat for the coastal dalifomia . .
gnatcatcher (Polioptila californicq) c,‘gnatc$tcher”). See Natmil Resources Defgnse
Council v. United States De#. of the Interior: 113 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 1997). Although ‘I
the Service has not yet deeignated g,natcatkher habitat, NRIE has filed papers in federal
court seel@ng to cnforce.tkik Ninth Circuit’s Order and y anticipate that the Service will
be compelled ta designate gnatcatchcy crjtical hibitat shortly. See Natural Resources.
Defetise Council v. United States Dept. of the Interior, Case’ 50, CV-99-5246-SVW
‘(CTx).. Because he proposed HMP cncoinp&s large tractiof coastal sage squb (prime
batcatcher habitat) and because, the9ervicc has repeatedly taken habitat tinservktion
plans .into account when de&mining what habitat should be designated as c&xl, see,
e,g-, “Determination qf Whether Designation~of CritikI Habitat foi the Coastal California’ Gnatcatcher is Prudent,? 64 Fed. Reg. 5957’ (1999), development of the HIk@ is likely to,
significantly impact the Service’s designa$oxi. Accqdingly, the City.should address the
impact the HhQ is likely $0 have od anjr gnatcatclier critical habitat designation when it
preparegits,*ftEI& , . . : ;. , ’
Thank you for yop’qmsidaa&n oi these comments. ;
: .
,. . .
. ‘.
, I . Frojict Attorney ”
. ”
’ . .
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO
BERKELEY . DAVIS . IRVlNE * LOS ANGELES l RIVERSIDE . SAN DIEGO l SAN FRANCISCO
NATURAL RESERVE SYSTEM TELEPHONE: (619) 534-8233
9500 GILMAN DRIVE FAX (619) 534-7108
LA JOLLA. CALIFORNIA 92093-0116 e-mail: jkohn @ucsd.edu
30 July 1999
Michael Holzmiller
Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, California 92009-1576
Re: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION for the HABITAT MANAGEMENT
PLAN FOR THE NATURAL COMMUNITIES in the City of Carlsbad
Dear Mr. Holzmiller:
The UC Natural Reserve System is a Trustee Agency under CEQA and as such is
entitled to timely notification of planned development and land use decisions which
affect its Reserves. Despite repeated contact with Don Rideout, Senior Planner for the
City of Carlsbad, no such notification has ever been given either with respect to the
Habitat Management Plan for Carlsbad (“HMP”) which is the subject of the current
Mitigated Negative Declaration, nor of planned developments on lands left outside of
the HMP which will clearly affect the ability of the Dawson-Los Monos Canyon Reserve
(“Dawson Reserve”) to serve its purpose for research and teaching in a naturally
functioning landscape.
We have attended many of the North County Multiple Habitats Conservation Plan
(“MHCP”) Advisory Committee meetings, and have submitted comments regarding the
proposed draft Environmental Impact Report (see attached.) These comments are also
pertinent in the current context since Carlsbad’s HMP is the component of the MHCP
that permits many of the environmental impacts to the Dawson Reserve anticipated
with the implementation of the MHCP.
UCSDNRS/MHolzmiller/7.30.99 page 1
/3
We believe that the process by which the HMP was arrived at is fundamentally flawed
and not in the spirit of the NCCP. This is because only lands where no development is
proposed are included in the “multiple habitat preserve” or “MHP”, rather than
evaluating the biological importance of all undeveloped lands and creating
management policy based upon a balance between development needs and
maintenance of biological resources. ln just one specific case, large portions of the
Carlsbad Oaks North property, immediately south of the Dawson Los Monos UC
Natural Reserve, are left outside the Ml%‘, despite the fact that the property contains
the only location of high quality chaparral-sage scrub habitat, and that it is adjacent to
riparian areas designated as Core Habitat by the MHCP (of which the Dawson Los
Monos UC Reserve is a part).
Acceptance of the MHP would de-facto limit the need for environmental assessment
before development of the Carlsbad Oaks North property. We feel the HMP, by
excluding potentially biologically important lands from consideration, is being used to
limit the amount of environmental impact evaluation that will need to be done on lands
that not only may contain significant biological resources but also clearly serve to
connect and enhance the functioning of the riparian corridors adjacent to them. While
the goal of NCCP planning is in fact to streamline development of lands left
unprotected by a HMP, this should only be done after proper assessment has been
made of the biological importance of lands left unprotected to the functioning of the
preserve. Such an evaluation has not been done by the City of Carlsbad.
We therefore request that a complete and thorough Environmental Impact
Report/Statement be prepared by the City of Carlsbad. This analysis should, among
many other things, examine the following issues with regard to the Carlsbad Oaks
North property, the Dawson Reserve, and the attendant impacts to the MHP as a whole:
- direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to sensitive habitats, including, but not
limited to: riparian sycamore-oak woodland; coast live-oak woodland; willow
woodland; mixed coastal sage scrub-chaparral habitat
- direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to sensitive species, including, but not
limited to: coast horned lizard, orange-throated whiptail, western spadefoot toad,
burrowing owl, California gnatcatcher, Cooper’s hawk, Swainson’s hawk, northern
harrier, black-shouldered kite, acorn woodpecker, Least Bell’s vireo, southwestern
willow flycatcher, yellow breasted chat, southern California rufous-crowned
UCSDNRS/MHolzmiller/7.30.99 Page 2
sparrow, black-tailed jackrabbit, California mastiff bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat,
ashy spikemoss, California spinebush, coast barrel cactus, western dichondra, and
other sensitive plant and invertebrate species.
Among these are species not covered by the I-IMP (see p. 82, Tables 16 and 17) of the
Neg. Dec.). However, mitigation for take of these species is included in the HMP, and
hard lines are drawn therein for projects that include significant impacts to these
species. This suggests that Carlsbad is planning to do single species analysis for take
permits instead of multiple habitat planning.
It is also of great concern that the HMP will shift the ratio of rare and common habitats,
by preserving only 70 acres of chaparral (less than eucalyptus woodland), and 2146
acres of coastal sage scrub. It is not clear what the minimum viable extent of the
formerly more common habitats may be; it appears that the result of implementing the
HMP will be that many species of coastal chaparral habitats will decline precipitously.
In spite of statements that “. . . the project would conserve an integrated network of core
biological resource areas and linkages that would accommodate wildlife movement.. .‘I
(e.g. page 99), there is no evidence of this goal being achieved in the current plan.
Especially in the vicinity of the Dawson Reserve, a large hole, in the form of the
Carlsbad Oaks North development, is created by the HMP in the middle of core #5.
Thank you for your consideration of these concerns. The Dawson-Los Monos Canyon
Reserve is an integral part of the landscape of northern coastal San Diego County, and
the Natural Reserve System looks forward to providing it as an educational tool for the
community far into the future. We sincerely hope that current efforts to streamline
development in Carlsbad does not jeopardize this University and regional resource. We
would like to assist in any efforts to better understand and plan for a greater preserve
that will ensure the survival of the Dawson Reserve as a place to study functioning
ecosystems, in perpetuity.
(P ’ r. oshua Kohn
Chairman, Facultjr Advisory Committee,
UCSD Natural Reserve System
UCSDNFWMHolzmiller/7.30.99 PW 3
LAW OFFICES OF EVEREST L. &tANO 111
197 Woodland Pkwy, Suite W-272
San Marcos, California 92069
(760) 51 o-l 562
VIA HAND DELIVERY
(700) ml-1565 (fax) MCEIVED
August 2,1999
AUG Q 2 1999
CITY OF CAR&BAD
PLN’MuG DEPT. Don Rideout
City of Carlsbad Planning Department
2075 Las Pahnas Drive
Carl&ad, CA 92009
Re: Citv of Carl&ad Habitat Management Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration; Case
No. EIA 99-04
Dear Mr. Rideout:
This letter is submitted on behalf of Canyons Network and the San Diego
BayKeeper to provide comments upon the Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) for
the Habitat Management Plan (“HMP”) for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad
(“City”), dated April 1999. Canyons Network is a grass-roots group of individuals
concerned about the natural environment of Northern San Diego County and the effects
of “urban sprawl.” The San Diego BayKeeper is a non-profit membership organization
with over 200 members, including several members in Northern San Diego County. It is . actively involved in a variety of water quality issues, including watershed protection and
wetland preservation.
I. Introduction
The lands within and between the small coastal and inland communities in
Northern San Diego County provide some of the last locations between San Diego and
Los Angeles where undisturbed and disturbed-but-undeveloped areas can be found (with
the notable exception of the U.S. Marine base at Camp Pendleton). This area, locally
referred to as “North County,” is habitat to numerous plants and animals, many of which
are endangered, threatened, or otherwise of special concern. To name but a few,
vegetative habitats include Coastal Sage Scrub, Chaparral, Southern Maritime Chaparral,
Oak Woodland, and Riparian, while animal species include the San Diego Fairy Shrimp,
American Peregrine Falcon, Burrowing Owl, California Brown Pelican California Least
Tern Coastal California Gnatcatcher, Cooper’s Hawk, Least Bell’s Vireo, Osprey,
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Arroyo Southwestern Toad, San Diego Homed Lizard,
Mountain Lion, and the San Diego Black-tailed Jackrabbit.
The federal and state Endangered Species Acts (“ESAs”) can help keep a check
on uncontrolled growth and protect plants and animals. By prohibiting the “take” of
listed species, the ESA puts a brake on the rampant obliteration of the natural
/6
Comments re HMP
August 2,1999
Page 2 of 14
environment. Realizing that the ESA could lead to the sort of “environmental
trainwreck” experienced over the Spotted Owl in the Northwest, the State of California
has pursued the Natural Community Conservation Plan (‘NCCP”) effort in Southern
California to address habitat planning and the adequate preservation of important locales.
U.S. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt has heralded the NCCP as “a triumph of
communities over conflict.. . . a model for the nation of how to plan for and balance the
needs of man and nature, and how to do the job right.”
The North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (“MHCP”) is a
subregional NCCP planning effort that encompasses land within the seven North County
cities and County of San Diego. It is supposed to be North County’s “triurnph of
communities over conflict,” but it is currently a work in progress involving continued
studies, meetings and wide-ranging discussion on appropriate habitat planning.
By promoting the HMP, the City of Carlsbad hopes to secure ESA “‘take”
authorization, thereby allowing the “take” of several listed species without further
approval (and the consequent delay) of federal and state wildlife agencies. Its “one-stop
permit shopping” approach would open the door to rushed development and could close
the door to meaningful participation in the MHCP effort.
Further rushing the process, the City is claiming that it need not prepare an
Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) to address the numerous significant impacts
associated with adoption and implementation of the HMP. Without the public input and
thorough analysis developed through the EIR process, the City’s hasty decision making
will lack the appropriate and required scrutiny. The HMP’s impacts, both the positive
and the negative, will not find the light of day. Canyons Network and the San Diego
BayKeeper are opposed to theCity’s rush and its inadequate steps to protect our region’s
precious environmental resources.
II. The City’s Description of the Proiect is Inadequate
CEQA documents must “be organized and written in a manner that will be
meaningful and useful to decision-makers and the public.” Pub. Res. Code 6 21003(b).
See Countv of Invo v. Citv of Los Angeles, 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 198 (1977) (an
“enigmatic and unstable project description draws a red herring across the path of public
input”).
Unfortunately, the City has prepared a convoluted, confusing and even
contradictory document to address the I-IMP. The MND is rife with misleading
information. For example, it is difficult to determine just what the HMP entails, which
agency has what responsibility, what are the likely impacts from HMP implementation,
and how the I-IMP’s impacts will be mitigated.
The City has described the HMP as “a comprehensive, citywide program to
identify how the City, in cooperation with federal and state wildlife agencies, can
Comments re HMP
August 2,1999
Page 3 of 14
preserve the diversity of habitats and protect sensitive biological resources within the
City while allowing for additional development consistent with the City’s General Plan
and its Growth Management Plan.” MND at 3. Furthermore, “the [HMP] is intended to
meet federal andstate standards for issuance of citywide permits and authorizations for
the incidental take of sensitive species in conjunction with private development projects,
public projects, and other activities which are consistent with the Plan.” Id. In other
words, the I-IMP is designed to “set aside and protect” certain lands and habitats and,
thereby, “release” other lands from requirements associated with the federal and state
Endangered Species Acts (“ESA”), including the issuance of a permit for the incidental
“take” of federally-protected Coastal California Gnatcatchers. 16 U.S.C. 0 1539(a).’
In essence, if adopted the HMP will allow virtually “one-stop permit shopping”
for many major developments. That is, so long as proposed development project is
“consistent with” the HMP, and so long as additional matters do not arise (such as the
listing of a species not addressed by the HMP), developers (and even the City itself) will
be granted by the City a permit to “take” protected species. See MND at 3 (“specific
functions” of the HMP include allowing “the City to construct public facility and
infrastructure projects” and allowing “projects in the City to fi.tlfill their federal and state
. . . ESA requirements”); HMP at G-l (“Projects covered by the HMP will be allowed to
take California Gnatcatchers and the other species included on the HMP species list”).
Indeed, major “selling points” for adoption of the I-IMP are three “economic objectives”:
(1) “Minimize ESA-related mitigation costs to public and private projects”; (2) “Allow
continued economic growth and development in the City”; and (3) “Minimize the overall
cost of HMP implementation to the City and its residents.” MND at 6.
Were the City not to adopt the HMP, costs and delays associated with habitat
protection and ESA requirements would continue. Proposed development projects would
need to address species and habitat issues on a case-by-case basis, through, among other
things, environmental studies, oversight by federal and state wildlife agency staff, and an
ESA-required Biological Opinion and permit. Recent projects within the City that took
this more time-consuming approach have included Ranch0 Carrillo, Ranch0 Verde, and
Arroyo La Costa. . The MND is not honest about this state of affairs.
Yet despite these facts, the MND,oflen describes the I-IMP as if it were of little
significance at all to Carlsbad development.2 The phrase “The HMP will not permit any
specific development” is used like a blanket to ward off the cold stares of public scrutiny.
And the MND’s project description suffers in other respects:
l California Department of Fish and Game is mentioned as a “responsible agency
under CEQA for these actions” without further discussion or analysis, MND at 4;
’ By its own admission, the City of Carlsbad is a “critical link” in the population of threatened species like
the Coastal California Gnatcatcher. Current (limited) information puts estimates of Gnatcatcher pairs at
100 to 150 in this community of 37 square miles. The birds are supported by some 3,377 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub, Maritime Succulent Scrub, and Coastal Sage/Chaparral habitats within the City.
2 The MND’s failures to address significant HMP impacts are discussed more fklly below.
Comments re I-IMP
August 2,1999
Page 4 of 14
l Numbers and percentages are floated without consideration ‘of the existing
environment, MND Table 1 - for example, it is misleading to include acres outside the
City in the figure of total conserved acres, especially since “non-conserved” acres outside
the City are not included in that figure;
l The Habitat Conservation Plan for the Villages of La Costa project is treated as
separate from the City, MND at 7, when, in fact, the conservation levels are what they
are, regardless of the mechanisms involved; and .
l The City carelessly presumes that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”)
will prepare an Environmental Assessment for its role in considering and approving the
HMP, MND at 5, despite the fact that FWS personnel have declared publicly during
meetings on the HMP that they may prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.3
Accordingly, the City’s project description is inadequate.
III. The City Should Prepare an Environmental Impact Report Addressing All Likely
and Potential Impacts Upon the Environment
A. The Citv Has Failed to Acknowledge or Analvze Numerous Significant
Impacts. Including Impacts to Population. Water, Air Quality, Traffic,
Biological Resources. Noise. Public Services, and Aesthetics
The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code 9
21000 et sect., requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”)
whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a “fair argument” that significant
environmental impacts may occur. Pub. Res. Code 5 2 1080(d); No Oil, Inc. v. Citv of
Los Angeles, 13 Cal.3d 68 (1975). If there is “substantial evidence that the project might
have [a significant impact on the environment], but the agency failed to secure
preparation of the required EIR, the agency’s action is to be set aside because the agency
abused its discretion by failing to proceed in a ‘manner required by law.“’ Friends of “B”
Street v. City of Hayward, 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1002 (1980). An EIR is “aptly described
as the ‘heart of CEQA’ - an “environmental alarm bell” whose purpose is to inform the
public and responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions
before they are made. Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. University of
California, 47 Cal.3d 376, 392 (1988).
1. The I-IMP Will Significantly Impact Biological Resources
Although the City has recognized impacts upon biological resources, its analysis
is inadequate. First, the City has failed to analyze impacts upon species not protected by
the HMP. The City reasons that impacts upon these species “would require either an
amendment to the HMP or a separate permit from the” wildlife agencies. MND at 82.
3 FWS personnel haie stated publicly that they will be influenced in their decision whether to prepare an EIS by the level and nature of comments the City receives upon the MND. Of course, to the extent these
comments apply, the rationale for preparing an EIS is remarkably similar to the reasons stated herein for preparing an EIR.
Comments re HMP
August 2,1999
Page 5 of 14
However, the City’s rationale fails to account for species that may not be listed, even at
some future time, yet are still likely to experience an impact from the development on
non-HMP protected parcels. These species, including the Mountain Lion and Southern
Mule Deer, are likely to be greatly impacted by the expedited development allowed by
the I-IMP, yet the City has failed to analyze or even acknowledge these impacts.
Similarly, the City’s analysis fails to account for impacts to non-HMP protected
areas. The MND discusses indirect impacts to Preserve Areas, but does not discuss the
areas outside the preserves for which the HMP will allow expedited development and the
incidental ‘Yake” of numerous species. MND at 85.4 Again this constitutes a major flaw
in the analysis and requires the preparation of an EIR.
Additionally, the City’s analysis fails to account for several important species
noted in various areas of the City. For example, during a July 1, 1999 meeting
concerning the HMP, public participants noted the presence of San Diego Black-tailed
jackrabbit, Southern Mule Deer, and the Southern California Rufous-crowned sparrow in
LFMZ 11 and Ospreys and the California Gnatcatcher in LFMZ 18. The City has failed
to acknowledge or analyze these species and their presence in these locations. See e.g.,
MND Table 5.
The City’s analysis also fails to adequately analyze impacts to migration corridors
and the movement of species. The maintenance of adequate corridors (referred to as
linkages by the City, MND at Figure 8) is extremely important to adequate protection of
species. For example, in issuing a “take” permit for the listed California Gnatcatcher on
the Ranch0 Cat-1310 Project in the City, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service noted in part
as follows:
Dispersal is vital in maintaining species diversity and preventing
inbreeding which can cause a high level of infertility and juvenile mortality,
causing an eventual decrease in the population [I. The supply and necessary
recruitment rate of breeders, to maintain viable population level of some species,
may decrease over the long-term without the opportunity for dispersal. This may
be particularly true with the major gnatcatcher populations in the Carlsbad HMP
area, as they are effectively isolated with the exception of one linkage through
Ranch0 Car1310 and a minor linkage through the Batiquitos Lagoon area.
Long-term conservation of the coastal California gnatcatcher will require
that adequate sage scrub habitat be preserved in the proper configuration. The
NCCP Scientific Review Panel has recommended that the target width for
wildlife corridors be approximately 1200 feet.
4 In a different section of the h4ND, however, the City admits that “[i]mplementation of the I-MP [will]
contribute to the decline of native plant and animal species within the county and region in association with loss due to incidental take outside the preserve.” MND at 99.
Comments re HMP
August 2,1999
Page 6 of 14
Letter to Michal Robinson from Gail Kobetich at 14 (February 22,1996) (“Rancho
Carrillo Take Letter”) (citations omitted).5 Unfortunately, the HMP’s corridors are
narrow and contorted in many locations, making it difficult for animals to travel and
further reducing chances of survival. Nevertheless, the MND fails to recognize the
significant impacts. MND at 90.
For example, in discussing HMP Preserve Planning Area (“PPA”) 5 (now referred
to in the HMP as part of Core #6, MND at Figure 8), the U.S. FWS noted that the “area
is, by nature of its location, very important. It is situated between the two largest core
gnatcatcher populations in the City (in PPAs 2 and 7).” Ranch0 Carrillo Take Letter at
10. PPA 2 is now referred to in the HMP as Cores ### 3 and 5, while PPA 7 is now
referred to as Core # 7. MND at Figure 8.
The FWS cautioned about the importance of maintaining a viable connection
between these two critical areas:
Since the majority of the gnatcatcher habitat on the project site is proposed for
development, the value of the easternmost (San Marcos) connection is largely
dependent on a continuous linkage northward from the eastern portion of the
project site to PPA 7. In order to achieve such a linkage, coastal sage scrub
preservation along the eastern edge of the proposed property should be
maximized and an uninterrupted linkage is maintained from the eastern edge of
the property through the Carlsbad Raceway property.
Ranch0 Carrillo Take Letter at 10.6 However, the City has not maintained maximized
and uninterrupted linkages. A review of the map in the MND reveals that Link D and
Link E are narrow and contorted. MND at Figure 8. Furthermore, the map included in
the HMP, which differs significantly from the map in the MND, reveals even more
fragmentation. I-IMP at Figure 23.’ The MND admits that Link E will be as narrow as 80
feet and that “[s]ome areas . . . are less than the width specified in regional standards.”
MND at 89.8 The City further admits Linkages A, D and E are “highly constrained” and
“would not meet the regional guidelines.” Id. at 89 - 90. Nevertheless, without support
in the record, the City concludes “it is not anticipated that loss of habitat associated with
5 The Ranch0 Canillo Take Letter is hereby incorporated by reference. 6 The HMP itself acknowledges the importance of Core Areas 3 and 7. HMP at C-41. The biological
analysis associated with the MHCP planning effort also revealed important habitats in these locations. &
e.~., Biological Goals, Standards, and Guidelines for Multiple Habitat Preserve Design at 5-3 (February
1998 (noting “major stands” and “critical locations” of coastal sage scrub and coastal sage scrub/chaparral
in Carlsbad, including “south of Alga Road [and] adjacent to Ranch0 Santa Fe Road”).
’ The inconsistencies in the maps constitute an additional flaw, since it precludes the public from
commenting upon the nature of the project at hand. CEQA documents must “be organized and written in a manner that will be meaningful and useful to decision-makers and the public.” Pub. Res. Code 0 21003(b).
&e Countv of Invo v. Citv of Los Angeles, 71 Cal.App3d 185,198 (1977) (an “enigmatic and unstable project description draws a red herring across the path of public input”).
* Of course, the widths described by the City are far less than the 1,200-foot width recommended by the
NCCP Scientific Review Panel. Ranch0 Carrillo Take Letter at 14.
Comments re I-IMP
August 2,1999
Page7of14
incidental take in areas outside the preserve would result in significant adverse impacts to
wildlife movement.” Id. at 90.
It is difficult to comprehend how wildlife corridors more than ten times narrower
than the width determined appropriate by a scientific panel are not likely to have a
significant impact upon animal species. The City contends that ‘the linkages in question
are already limited in width by existing development, and the HMP will not further
reduce their width.” MND at 90. Even if that is correct, it is beside the point. CEQA
requires evaluation of the “impacts of the project on the environment, defined as the
existing physical conditions in the affected area.” Environmental Planning and
Information Council of Western El Dorado Countv v. Countv of El Dorado, 13 1
Cal.App.3d 350,354 (1982). If the HMP is constrained by prior development projects, it
is necessary for the City to acknowledge and analyze the impacts of those constraints.
Furthermore, the City must analyze cumulative impacts: “A cumulative impact analysis
which understates information concerning the severity and significance of cumulative
impacts impedes meaningml public discussion and skews decisionmaker’s perspective
concerning the environmental consequences of a project, the necessity for mitigation
measures, and the appropriateness of project approval.” Citizens to Preserve the Oiai v.
Countv of Ventura, 176 Cal.App.3d 421,43 1 (1985) (citation omitted).
2. The HMP Will Significantly Imnact Resource Planning Efforts
The City is currently one of many participants in the MHCP efforts. These efforts
. involve seven North County cities and the San Diego Association of Governments
(“SANDAG”). The MHCP is part of the NCCP planning process to address important
habitats and biological resources in the region. The effort is proceeding, and much about
species diversity and habitats has been learned. For example, Carlsbad currently
maintains major stands and critical locations of Maritime Succulent Scrub, Coastal Sage
Scrub, and Coastal Sage Scrub/Chaparral. Biological Goals, Standards, and Guidelines
for Multiple Habitat Preserve Design at 5-2 - 5-3 (February 1998). Similarly, it contains
major populations and critical locations of animal species, including the San Diego Fairy
Shrimp and the Beldings’ Savannah Sparrow. Id. at 8-2 & 8-47 - 8-48.
If the HMP proceeds without adequate environmental review, options may be lost
for the &.rther efforts of the parties working on the MHCP. The City indicates a goal of
the I-IMP is to “[c]onstitute Carlsbad’s Subarea plan within the North County NCP].”
HMP at A-l. Furthermore, the City indicates that its purchase of certain lands under the
HMP “shall . . . constitute the full uarticination of the City in any MHCP land acquisitions
in the core area.” Id. at D-59 (emphasis added).
In other words, the City is essentially precluding any further efforts. Once the
HMP is complete, the City may portray to the other participants of the MHCP that its
work is done and there is no more ability to protect natural communities in Carl&ad.
This will certainly have a significant impact upon the planning and other activities of the
MHCP process, yet nowhere does the City acknowledge or analyze these impacts.
Comments re HMP
August 2,1999
Page 8 of 14
Finally, an EIR must be prepared ifthere is “serious public controversy” over the
environmental effects of a project. CEQA Guidelines 0 15064. There is substantial
public controversy, as evidenced by the numbers of comments received by the City on
this issue.
3. The HMP Will Significantly Imnact Water .Resources
Unfortunately, the City is not honest about the HMP’s goals. In fact, with the
exception of biological resources, the MND largely dismisses potential environmental
impacts. For example, in discussing whether the I-IMP would affect water issues (such as
the rate and amount of surface runoff), the City concludes that no impact would occur
because “[tlhe HMP does not specifically permit any development.” MND at 71. Yet
this statement, even iftechnically true, is utterly beside the point. As discussed above,
the HMP will reduce the hurdles necessary to develop within the City. It will increase
the likelihood that more development will occur more quickly and without the detailed
environmental analysis currently required. Since expedited development leads to
increased impervious areas and differing landscapes, changing absorption rates, drainage
patterns, and the rate and amount of surface runoff, the City should acknowledge the
impact and anaiyze these issues.
Similarly disingenuous statements can be found in discussions about impacts to
water quality. The City concludes that the HMP will provide a “beneficial impact to
water quality” without acknowledging the numerous harmful impacts fkom the expedited
development provided for by the HMP. MND at 71. The City rests much of its position,
in this area and elsewhere, on the argument that the development will be consistent with
the General Plan; however, the fact that a proposed project is consistent with a general
plan does not mean that it has no potential to cause significant impacts. Citv of Antioch
v. Citv Council, 187 Cal.App.3d 1325, 1331 (1986). Again the City should analyze the
HMP’s “‘real world” implications upon water quality, including increasing urban runoff,
reducing lagoons and other hesh water bodies, and degrading ocean water quality
through increased likelihood of sewer spills and overflows.’
4. The HMP Will Have Numerous Additional Significant Imnacts
Unfortunately, the phrase “The HMP does not specifically permit any
development” is repeated like a mantra throughout much of the MND. Yet its repetition
does not obviate the requirement to address potential environmental impacts. “If the
local agency has failed to study an area of possible environmental impact, a fair argument
may be based on the limited facts in the record.” Sundstrom v. Countv of Mendocino,
202 Cal. App. 3d 296,311 (1988). Other areas in which the City fails to identify and
analyze significant impacts include:
9 The City is no stranger to sewer spills, having experienced major spills in the recent past, including spills into Buena Vista Lagoon and Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Indeed, the latter is the subject of a multi-party
investigation as to the cause of high pollutant levels, which includes staff from the City of Carlsbad.
Comments re HMP
August 2,1999
Page 9 of 14
l population and housing, MND at 68 - 69, even though the HMP will assist in
the rapid expansion of the City’s population and expedited increases in housing;
l air quality, id. at 72 - 73, even though the HMP will affect air quality by
allowing the expedited increase of cars and other vehicles in the City;
l transportation/circulation, id. at 73 - 74, even though the HMP will increase, at
least in the short term, the numbers of roads and vehicles in the City;
l noise, id. at 94, even though the HMP will expedite increased traffic,
construction, and other noise problems;
l public services, id. at 94 - 95, even though the I-IMP will expedite the demands
placed upon public services; and
l aesthetics, id. at 96, even though the HMP will allow for the development of
areas currently off limits as a result of existing habitat protection barriers.
Accordingly, the City should prepare an EIR.
B. The City Has Failed to Adeauately Address Mandator-v Findings of
Significance
The MND briefly addresses mandatory findings of significance, yet again it fails
to acknowledge or address the actual impacts associated with implementation of the
HMP. An EIR is mandated where any of the following conditions are present. CEQA
Guidelines $ 15065. In this instance, many if not all of these conditions are present.
l The project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the
environment. Id. $ 15065(a). The HMP will degrade the quality of the environment in
the ways discussed above.
l The project has the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species. Id. The HMP will reduce the habitat of numerous species. Indeed, the
City has admitted as much. MND at 99. The “significant effects on the environment .
identified in the e’nvironmental checklist have not been mitigated into insignificance.”
San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society v. Metropolitan Water District, 71 Cal.App.4th
382,401 (1999).
l The project has the potential to cause a fish .or wildlife population below self-
sustaining levels. CEQA Guidelines 5 15065(a). In this case, qualified biologists and
other experts have stated that the HMP is likely to result in the elimination of the San
Diego Horner lizard, as well as possibly other species.
l The project has the potential to eliminate a plant or animal community, as
discussed above. Id.
l The project has the potential to reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal. Id. There is no question but that the HMP will do so,
since its allowance of take will affect species both within and outside the preserve areas.
MND at 99.
Comments re HMP
August 2,1999
Page 10 of 14
l The project has the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the
disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. CEQA Guidelines 6 15065(b).
Implementation of the HMP will provide environmental benefit to those areas of the City
protected by the preserve and, at least in the short term, plant and animal species will be
protected in these locales while being largely undisturbed in non-preserve areas where
specific development projects have yet to begin. However, development in non-preserve
areas will occur in due course and, when it does, species and habitats will be lost.
Furthermore, the City is engaged with six other North County cities and the County of
San Diego in studies and discussions concerning the MHCP. The MHCP is supposed to
serve as a model of habitat and species protection, yet the City has indicated that the
HMP will “[clonstitute Carlsbad’s subarea plan within the NCP].” MND at 3.
Accordingly, an important long-term environmental benefit - the development of an
adequate MHCP - will be hampered by the City’s pre-determination of applicable areas
for protection.
l The project has possible environmental effects which are individually limited
but cumulative considerable. CEQA Guidelines $ 15065(c). Even if the numerous
impacts identified in the MND, identified in this comment letter, and identified by other
commenters, were insignificant, their impacts are cumulatively considerable when
viewed in concert with other projects. Carlsbad is and has been for several years in the
midst of a tremendous development boom In the past few years alone, Carl&ad has
approved numerous development permits resulting in, among other things, many new
homes and office complexes. The HMP, when viewed in concert with other projects and
the rapid pace of development in the City, will result in tremendous cumulative impacts.
Accordingly, the City should prepare an EIR.
C. The City’s Pronosed Mitigation is Entirely Inadeauate to Obviate the Need
for an EIR
As discussed above, the impacts fkom the HMP will be significant in numerous
respects. The City’s proposed mitigation is inadequate to reduce the impacts to below a
level of significance. See San Bernardino Valley Audubon, 71 Cal.App.4th at 401
(Agencies’ proposed mitigation was inadequate to reduce impacts from proposed habitat
conservation plan to below a level of significance). The only “mitigation” of HMP
impacts on vegetation communities the City refers to is the land the HMP itself sets aside,
yet this circular reasoning is inadequate on its face. MND at 100; s San Bernardino
Valley Audubon, 71 Cal.App.4th at 400 (“it is contusing and circular to refer to the
mitigation bank established by the Project as being mitigation for the potentially
significant effects on the environment of establishing the mitigation bank itself”).
The mitigation for the I-IMP’s impacts to species is also inadequate. First, the
City’s rationale for reducing the number of covered species is non-sensible. The City
claims that it reduced the numbers of covered species “in order to mitigate impacts to
species which were not adequately provided coverage by the Plan.” MND at 100.
Clearly, removing species from protection does not serve to mitigate impacts from the .
Comments re HMP
August 2,1999
Page 11 of 14
HMP. It may lead to better protection of those “removed” species, but onlv to the extent
such snecies are well protected bv other laws and requirements. Since the removed
species are not listed under the state ESA or the federal ESA, there is inadequate basis to
conclude these species will be adequately protected. And, in fact, their “removal” from
the list of HMP-protected species is likely more a Iunction of the City’s desire to have to
have less territory in which to protect species than it is a function of the City’s care for
such species. Indeed, the City points to no protection of such “removed” species.
Second, the measures listed by the City are essentially directed towards protection
of species wit . MND at 101 and Table hm, or at most adiacent to, the HMP preserve areas.
6. Mitigation is lacking for species in the rest of the City. Reducing the size and extent
of the habitat in the City by limiting protections to Preserve areas and areas in their close
proximity will not s&ice to mitigate impacts to harmed or killed species. “[A]llowing
actual take to be mitigated by.potential habitat is insufficient.” San Bernardino Valley
Audubon, 71 Cal.App.4th at 401.
Third, the specified measures are inadequate in that they illegally defer
assessment. See e.g., MND at 101 (“Where opportunities arise, restoration and
enhancement of habitats such as coastal sage scrub coastal dune habitat”). “By deferring
environmental assessment to a future date, the conditions run counter to that policy of
CEQA which requires environmental review at the earliest feasible stage in the planning
process.” Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal.App.3d 296,307 (1 st Dist. 1988).
Similarly problematic is the effect of any change in proposed hardline areas, since there
is no guarantee that the proposed locations will result in actual hardline areas.
Finally, despite impacts in several areas, as discussed above, the City has
provided no mitigation. MND at 101. The City’s brief discussion of mitigation to land
use andzoning impacts is inadequate and suffers from being too vague to consider. See
Sundstrom, 202 Cal.App.3d at 307.
Accordingly, the City should prepare an EIR.
D. The City May Not Rely Upon Prior Studies to Hide Behind the
Reauirement to Prenare an EIR for This Proiect
The City rests much of its decision not to prepare an EIR upon the existence of
earlier analyses, particularly the Master EIR for the City’s General Plan (“MEW’).
MND at 49 (The MEIR “is a primary resource used in this document and a primary basis
for preparing a mitigated negative declaration for the I-IMP”). However, the City’s
reliance upon the MEIR is mistaken. Even if the HMP is consistent with the MEIR (and
there is good reason to conclude that it is not), the fact of such consistency is an
insufficient basis to conclude that impacts are insignificant. Oro Fino Gold Mining
Cornoration v. Countv of El Dorado, 225 Cal.App.3d 872, 881-82 (1990); Citv of
Antioch v. City Council, 187 Cal.App.3d 1325, 133 1 (1986).
Comments re HMP
August 2,1999
Page 12 of 14
To paraphrase one court, “an environmental analysis based on a comparison
between what was possible under the existing general plan and what [is] permitted under
the @MP is] ‘illusory.“’ Christward Ministry v. Superior Court, 184 Cal.App.3d 180,
190 - 9 1 (1986). The MEIR was prepared in March 1994, while the biological resource
analyses upon which the MEIR relied were prepared in August and September 1992.
MEIR Appendices D & E. Of course, several things have changed between that time and
the present, including the understanding of species’ habitat and needs and the nature of
development in Carlsbad. The MEIR’s analysis of impacts is not adequate for the
purposes the City would like to rely upon it.
For example, the MEIR discussed the presence of 2,028 acres of
Chaparral/Disturbed Chaparral, MEIR Table 5.4-l at 5.4-3, while the MND discusses
1,371 acres of Chaparral and Southern Maritime Chaparral (970 + 401), MND at Table 1.
The MEIR also discussed 357 acres of Saltwater/Freshwater Marsh, MEIR Table 5.4-l)
while the MND discusses 1,382 acres of marsh, MYND Table 1. Similarly, the MEIR
discussed the presence within the City of species such as the Least Bell’s Vireo, Orange-
Throated Whiptail, and the San Diego Homed Lizard, MEIR Table 5.4-5 at 5.4-14, while
the MND indicates none of these species are present, MND Table 5 at 29 - 30. Many
other significant differences in species presence and abundance are discernable by
comparing the MEIR and its biological analyses with the MND and the HMP. As such,
these are differences that need to be analyzed and they detract from the value of the
biological information in the MEIR.
Indeed, the biological analysis concerning the draft HMP at the time the MEIR
was prepared noted that “the fundamental biological information needed to specify the
minimum areas required by key species is lacking.” MEIR Appendix D at 56. This is
not the kind of support the City can rely upon under CEQA to evade the preparation of an
EIR to consider the impacts of the HMP. Even a cursory review of the biological impact
section of the MEIR reveals that information concerning impacts G-om the HMP was
lacking at the time the MEIR was prepared. Much of See e.g., MEIR at 5.4- 16 - 4-2 1.
the discussion is centered on the adoption of a trail system, and not concerning the HMP.
Id. A comparison of the maps reveals that much changed between adoption of the MEIR
and preparation of the HMP. Compare MEIR Map 5.4-3 at 5.4-12 & MND Figure 1 .I0
Even the specific habitat protections contemplated in the documents
accompanying the MEIR differ substantially from the I-IMP. For example, the biological
analysis stated as follows:
It is recommended that the City consider acquisition of at least two or three
additional habitat areas to develop a complete preserve system. The best
remaining habitat areas in the City are located around the western edge of Lake
Calavera and the riparian scrub running south from the lake, the Agua Hedionda
lo The I-MP itself recognizes “major differences” between the HMP and a 1994 draft. HMP at C-l.
Comments re HMP
August 2,1999
Page 13 of 14
Creek area south of Squires Darn the western portion of PPAS, and the central
portion of PPA4.
MEIR Appendix D at 72. However, with the exception of the Lake Calavera property
(which the City intends to use as a mitigation bank for other public projects, HMP at D-
14), the HMP does not provide for substantial additional City-owned habitat. See HMP
at F-2. In fact, the City has stated that “[i]t is not anticipated that the I-IMP will require
any public acquisition of privately owned habitat lands within the City.” Id. at E-6. In
this and other respects, the HMP differs substantially from the issues analyzed during
preparation of the MEIR. Perhaps recognizing that the MEIR would not s&ice for
further environmental analysis, the City included a mitigation condition in the MEIR to
“[rlequire comprehensive environmental review in accordance with [CEQA] for all
projects that have the potential to impact natural resources or environmental features.”
MEIR at 5.4-23.
Additionally, the City’s reliance upon CEQA Guidelines 0 15063(c)(3)(D) is
misplaced. MND at 49. Section 15063 addresses requirements for the Initial Study,
while section 15063(c)(3)(D) refers specifically to using the Initial Study to identify
“whether a program EIR, tiering, or another appropriate process can be used for analysis
of the project’s environmental effects.” As discussed herein none of the prior EIR’s
obviates the requirement to prepare an EIR to address the HMP’s significant effects.”
Although the City has not discussed it, CEQA $21157 addresses the appropriate
use of a Master EIR. It limits the use of a mitigated negative declaration prepared after a
Master EIR to, among other things, situations in which “[fleasible mitigation measures or
alternatives will be incorporated to revise the proposed subsequent project, before the
negative declaration is released for public review, in order to avoid the effects or mitigate
the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur.”
Pub. Res. Code 6 21157.5(a)(2) (emphasis added). As discussed herein there will be
significant unmitigated impacts from the City’s adoption of the HMP. These impacts
were not analyzed in the MEIR. The City has not demonstrated, nor can it demonstrate,
that clearly no effects will occur.
Accordingly, the City should prepare an EIR.
IV. The City Has Failed to Follow the Proper CEQA Procedures and Has Failed to
Provide Adeauatelv for Public Involvement and Innut
CEQA should be interpreted “so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the
environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.” Friends of
Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors, 8 Cal.App.3d 247,259 (1972). A principle purpose
of CEQA is to ensure informed public participation. Laurel Heights, 47 Cal.3d at 392.
” CEQA Guidelines 5 15064 discusses how to determine whether a project will have a significant effect.
-
Comments re HMP
August 2,1999
Page 14 of 14
Accordingly, CEQA requires a lead agency preparing a document to provide adequate
public notice and participation.
Unfortunately, the City has failed to provide adequate public notice. By letter to
Michael Holzmiller dated July 22, 1999, I identified inadequacies in the City’s public
notification. I hereby incorporate that letter by reference. I further explain those
concerns in a letter today, which is also incorporated by reference,. Copies of both letters
are enclosed for your convenience.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Everett DeLano, Esq.
Enclosures (2)
LAW OFFICES OF EVERETT L. DEL~WO II/
197 Woodland Pkwy, Suite 104-272
San Marcos, California 92069
(760) 510-1562
(760) 510-1565 (fax)
August 2,1999
VIA HAN-D DELIVERY
Michael J. Holzmiller
Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Re: Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (“HMP”)
Dear Mr. Holzmiller: .
I received your July 30 letter responding to my letter of July 22. While I
respectfhlly disagree with your characterization that my earlier letter contained inaccurate
statements, I will respond here to only a few specific issues. If after reading this letter you
feel you need additional information or would like to discuss the matter, I would invite
you to call me at the number listed above.
Public Records Act Reauest
I should note that the City’s response to my June 16, 1995’ Public Records Act
request was and remains inadequate and incomplete. The letter from Mr. Wayne was both
beyond the statutory ten-day period and unresponsive to my request. Although Mr.
Wayne’s letter is dated June 25, the envelope reveals it was not mailed until June 28.
More importantly, Mr. Wayne’s letter professes ignorance over the documents requested
despite the fact that my request specifically quoted thi City’s owr. language. The
“supportive documents” requested were and remain the very “supportive documents” the
City referred to in its ow-n notice (a copy of which was enclosed for your convenience).
I approached you at the July 1, 1999 meeting because, as I explained at the time, I
believe it is helpfkl to discuss these matters in person. At no time have I “narrowed
down” my request. It was and it remains a request for d the documents the City believes
form the “record” for the Habitat Management Plan (“HMP”). During my visit to your
offices on July 14, I reviewed the listing of documents you had prepared and I requested
copies of some of those documents. I was, under the impression that the documents in
your list constituted all the documents that were responsive to my request. Apparently,
that is not the cast. Accordingly, please provide a listing of any additional documents that
are responsive to my June 16 request.
Michael J. Holzmiller
August 2, 1999
Page 2
You are correct that I tendered $240.00 for the documents I received. It is unclear
how the City arrived at this figure. Demanding a rate above the actual cost of
reproduction constitutes a violation of the Public Records Act. See North Countv Parents
Organization for Children with Snecial Needs v. Denartment of Educ., 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 359
(4th Dist. 1994). Accordingly, I request that you return that portion of the amount I
tendered that is above the actual cost of reproduction.
Public Notice
Based upon the information I have received, including your July 30 letter, I believe
the City has not complied with CEQA’s public notice requirements concerning the HMP.
I should note that the notice I provided with my June 16 Public Records Act contains a
“Dated” line and a “Publish Date” line, yet both lines are entirelv blank. Of course, I
provided a copy of that notice as a courtesy and to assist you in determining the
documents responsive to my request. You are correct that I could have come into City
offices and requested documents; however, it is unclear how I would know which
documents to request. Indeed, as discussed above, I have yet to learn of all the documents
the City considers to constitute the HMP “record.”
I will note that the very fact of our correspondence reveals the diflicuhy for the
public to understand the City’s activities concerning the HMP. If a person must go
through the steps I have done in order to understand what constitutes the ‘kecord,” the
City is hardly doing a good job of informing the public about its activities.
Additionally, contrary to CEQA, the notice you provided with your July 30 letter
does not contain “the date, time and place of any public meetings or hearings.” Pub. Res.
Code $21092(b)(l). Y our explanation that the Carlsbad .Planning Commission, a public
w, held a meeting on July 21 instead of a public hearing is irrelevant. CEQA does not
limit its requirement to public hearings in which public comments are accepted.
Furthermore, the agenda you referred to did not contain notice of a discussion of the
Accordingly, I repeat my request that you provide any notice(s) you believe serve HMP.
to satisfy CEQA’s public notice requirements.
I trust I will receive your cooperation in these matters.
Everett DeLano, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF EVERETT L DELANO Ml
197 Woodland Pkwy, Suite 104-272 San Marcos, California 92069
(760) 510-1562
(760) 51 O-l 565 (fax)
July 22,1999
VIA FACSIMILE & U.S. MAIL
Michael J. Holzmiller
Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palrnas Drive
Carl&ad, CA 92009
Re: Mitipated Negative Declaration: Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (,,HMP”l
Dear Mr. Holzrniher:
The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires a lead agency
preparing an EIR or negative declaration to provide public notice. Among other things:
“The notice shall specify the period during which comments will be
received on the draft environmental report or negative declaration, and shall
include the date, time, and place of any public meetings or hearings on the
proposed project and its location, the significant effects on the environment, if any,
anticipated as a result of the project, and the address where copies of the drafl
environmental impact report or negative declaration, and all documents referenced
in the draft environmental report or negative declaration, are available for review.”
Public Resources Code 0 21092(b)(l).
Although I appeared and spoke at a meeting you chaired concerning the draft
mitigated negative declaration for the I-IMP, and although I have discussed the matter with
you in person, I am unaware of the existence of such notice(s). I submitted to you a
Public Records Act request seeking the documents upon which the City intends to rely. I
continue to await receipt of copies from that request.
Today I learned that the City’s Planning Commission met last night and discussed
the HMP. I understand that the commission’s intent to discuss the I-IMP was not noticed
prior to last night’s meeting.
Please ensure the City’s full compliance with CEQA’s public notice requirements.
Additionally, please provide me copies of any notice relating to the HMP, including notice
of any public meetings or hearings. If you believe the City previously complied with
CEQA’s notice requirements, please provide me with such notice(s).
33
Michael J. Hobiller
July 22, 1999
Page 2
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Everett DeLano, Esq.
33
EXHl6lT 4
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS REGARDING MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
1. Introduction
The following constitutes the City of Carlsbad’s responses to comments received on the
draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Habitat Management Plan (HMP).
The MND was prepared by the City and released to the public on June 18, 1999. A 45
day period was allowed for the general public and responsible/trustee agencies to
provide comments on the HMP and the MND. A public meeting to describe the MND
and accept comments was held on July 1,1999.
Thirty-seven comment letters were received. Three of these addressed the MND.
Although most of these comments only contained opinions about the HMP, the level of
environmental documentation was questioned. The three letters suggested that the
City should prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) rather than a MND. The
Planning Department of the City of Carlsbad has carefully reviewed the three letters
and examined the various arguments for preparation of an EIR and has concluded that
a MND is the most appropriate level of environmental document for adoption of the
HMP. Section 15074(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) states:
“The decisionmaking body shall adopt the proposed negative declaration or mitigated
negative declaration only if it finds on the basis of the whole record before it (including
the initial study and any comment received) that there is no substantial evidence the
project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the negative
declaration or mitigated negative declaration reflects the lead agency’s independent
judgment and analysis.” The Planning Department is prepared to recommend to the
City Council that these findings can be made.
Although the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not require formal
responses to comments for a MND, the City is providing these responses in a voluntary
effort to maximize opportunities for public input. The City has elected to provide
“theme” responses that group together and summarize several comments directed
toward the same issue. In doing so, the City’s intent is to make the response more
readable and to eliminate duplicate responses.
As background to the responses, the HMP should be viewed in the context of the full
scope of development regulations utilized by the City of Carlsbad, including the General
Plan, Zoning Code, and various implementing policies and procedures. The HMP is an
implementing measure for the General Plan, specifically implementing the biological
mitigation recommended in the Master Environmental Impact Report that was done for
the General Plan Update. While the General Plan outlines the locations and types of
development in the City of Carlsbad, the HMP organizes and directs the mitigation for
impacts to wildlife and habitat. Stated another way, the General Plan is a blueprint for
development, while the HMP is a blueprint for conservation.
2. Adequacy of the Project Description
This issue was raised by 1 commentor. The comment expresses the opinion that the
Project Description of the HMP provided in the MND is inadequate, confusing, or
misleading or that it does not make clear which agencies would be using the document
and for what purposes. The cornmentors do not cite the opinions of any experts or any
authoritative sources regarding the adequacy of the Project Description.
Section 15124 of the CEQA. Guidelines specifies the required contents of a Project
Description. Although the section refers to EIRs, the guidance is equally applicable to a
Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Project Description must provide the precise
location and boundaries of the project; a statement of the objectives of the project,
including the underlying purpose of the project; a general description of the project’s
technical, economic, and environmental characteristics; the intended uses of the
environmental document; a list of the agencies that are expected to use the document
in their decision-making, and a list of the permits and other approvals required to
implement the project.
The project Description included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the HMP
contains all of the items required by CEQA Section 15124. The location and
boundaries of the project are clearly the entire City of Carlsbad. The Background
discussion (page 5) states “The Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in
the City of Carlsbad (Carlsbad HMP, ‘the Plan’) proposes a comprehensive citywide
program.. .” Figure 1 (page 9) of the MND is a map showing that the project is the entire
City of Carlsbad. Page 6 of the MND is a statement of the objectives of the project and
its underlying purpose. Pages 7 through 48 are a complete discussion of the HMP’s
technical, economic, and environmental characteristics. In addition, the City’s
participation in the conveyance of land in the MHCP core area is also part of the project
and is addressed in the HMP and the MND.
Pages 3-5 of the MND describe the intended uses of the document, the agencies that
are expected to use the document in their decision-making, and a list of the permits and
other approvals required to implement the plan. Further, the uses, agencies, and
required permits and approvals identified in the MND are the same as those stated in
Sections A and E of the HMP. Because the MND is intended to be used by the
Department of Fish and Game for issuance of 2081 Permits, the following table is
provided to further describe the relationship between the HMP, the MND, and the 2081
requirements:
2081 Permit Requirement Habitat Management Plan Mitigated Negative
(as stated in Section 783.2 of (April 1999) Declaration
CESA Implementing (April 1999)
Regulations)
Common and scientific names
of the species and species’ Table 2 and Appendix C Table 5
status under CESA, including
whether the species is subject
to Section 2112 and 2114 of
Fish and Game Code.
Complete description of the Sections A.1, A.2, and G.1;
project or activity for which the species-by-species Section A.l-A.13
permit is sought. consideration in Appendix
C.
Location of project or activity. Figure 1 and Section C.l Figures 1 and 5
Analysis of whether and to
what extent the project or Species-by-species Section E.VII and E.XVI;
activity could result in the consideration in Appendix Section F.VII.
taking of covered species. c;
Analysis of the impacts of the Species-by-species Section E.VII and E.XVI;
proposed taking on the consideration in Appendix Section F.VI I.
species. C
Analysis of whether issuance
of the permit would jeopardize Species-by-species Section E.VII and E.XVI;
the continued existence of a consideration in Appendix Section F.VII.
species. C
Proposed measures to Sections D, E, and F;
minimize and fully mitigate the Appendix B, and species- Table 6, Section A.1 1, and
impacts of the proposed by-species consideration in Section G. 1
taking. Appendix C
Proposed plan to monitor Encompassed by City
compliance with the Section E.5 and Appendix actions in Section A.2; HMP
compliance with and B measures incorporated by
effectiveness of the measures. reference.
Description of funding source
and level of funding available Section E.6 Section A. 12
For implementation of the
measures.
Every effort was made in the preparation of the MND to make it clear, concise, and
understandable to readers. In conclusion, the Project Description of the HMP as set out
in the MND meetsall of the requirements of CEQA.
3. Impacts to habitat outside preserve system
This issue was raised by 3 cornmentors. The comments express the opinion that the
MND does not adequately describe or analyze the potential impacts of the HMP to
habitats that will lie outside the designated preserve system. The cornmentors do not
3
cite the opinions of any experts or any authoritative sources regarding the issue of
impacts to habitat outside the HMP preserve system. No biological data or reports are
provided in support of the comment; rather the cornmentors offer non-expert opinions
that impacts may occur.
Potential effects on habitats and species outside of the proposed preserve system are
addressed in the MND primarily as part of the project description. The project overall is
designed to ensure the ongoing survivability of listed and non-listed species through
protected preserves. The project description takes account of what will be protected
inside the preserves and what will be protected outside the preserve areas through
future CEQA and ESA applications. This approach is appropriate in the MND because
the HMP document provides substantial detail regarding the occurrence of species and
habitats in the City, the preservation of such resources in areas that will maintain their
biological value over the long-term, and conversely, the loss of habitat and species over
time as a result of otherwise lawful development. Additional detail and analysis of
effects on specific habitats and species will be provided under the HMP through the
CEQA review process that will continue to apply to individual public and private
projects. As part of CEQA review and HMP implementation, biological surveys for
species will be required depending on the vegetation present on -a site and the potential
for species to be present, and impact avoidance and mitigation measures for covered
species will be required.
Pages 74 through 90 discuss the potential impacts outside of the preserve system and
the mitigation that will offset those impacts. Table 16 on page 83 lists habitat types and
species that are likely to be significantly impacted by incidental take outside of the
preserve system unless mitigation is provided. Pages 85-86 contain the mitigation
measures that have been incorporated into the HMP to reduce and offset impacts to
species and habitats outside of the preserve system. These mitigation measures will
.be applied.to all future development projects in the City of Carlsbad in order to reduce
impacts to below significance.
4. Impacts to NowCovered Species
This issue was raised by 3 cornmentors. The comments express the opinion that the
MND does not adequately address the impacts of the HMP to non-covered species, i.e.
species for which the City will not receive take authorization.
The HMP Covered Species List (Table 5, pages 29-31 of Mitigated Negative
Declaration) originally included additional species for which the Plan was proposing
coverage (take authorization). At the request of the Wildlife Agencies, a number of
species were deleted from the list. In other words, the City is not requesting and will not
be given authorization to take these species under the HMP. These species may be
included back on the list at a later time as a formal amendment to the Plan if additional
information becomes available or if coverage is permitted upon adoption of the MHCP.
These species were removed from the list in order to provide them greater protection.
Even after approval of the HMP, all future proposals for development will be required to
do a detailed biological analysis (see response to Comment #2). If that analysis
identifies any of the species that were deleted from the covered list, the City would not
have the authority to issue a take permit for the development. The applicant for the
4 37
development, instead would have to meet with the Wildlife Agencies who would
determine how to address or mitigate any impact on the species. This may involve
obtaining separate permits from the wildlife agencies for species that are outside of the
authority of the HMP.
5. Width of Corridor Linkages
This issue was raised by 3 cornmentors. The comments express the opinion that some
wildlife corridors in the HMP will be narrower than the minimum preferred width stated
by the wildlife agencies. One commentor cites information from a scientific review panel
regarding a “target” width of 1200 feet for adequate corridors. This “target“ width is not
a standard but an “ideal” guideline or goal when planning for corridors in unconstrained
areas where existing conditions and development do not preclude it. There are
numerous locations in the City where existing development precludes wide corridors
and it is better to have a narrow corridor than no corridor at all. The wildlife agencies
have not indicated that the corridors proposed in these situations is inadequate.
Pages 87 through 90 of the MND discuss the issue of corridor width. This comment
applies primarily to Existing and Proposed Hardline Areas. Standards Areas, by
definition, have not yet determined the precise location or width of corridors. Where the
narrowest linkages occur in Existing Hardline Areas, their width is already constrained
by existing development. The HMP cannot improve upon the width of these corridors,
and it would not be feasible or reasonable to expect that any plan could do so. The
HMP can only acknowledge these constrained corridors as existing conditions. In
Proposed Hardline Areas, corridor width has been negotiated and conceptually agreed
upon with the wildlife agencies, keeping in mind the need to balance the needs of
species with property rights and other considerations. Although the wildlife agencies
have not yet had the opportunity to formally approve the plan, their conceptual
concurrence with the City regarding Proposed Hardline Areas indicates that corridor
widths are adequate overall and satisfactory to the wildlife agencies for wildlife dispersal
and migration and that certainly, preservation of the wildlife corridors will be much more
beneficial to habitat and species for the future than would be the “no project”
alternative.
One example of the corridor issue cited by a commentor refers to the Ranch0 Carrillo
project. This project received a Section 7 consultation and approval, and the
commentor quotes several paragraphs from the Biological Opinion for that consultation.
However, the commentor does not acknowledge two important facts. First, the corridor
in question on Ranch0 Carrillo was enlarged in response to the Biological Opinion
which addressed site specific conditions to provide a wider coastal sage scrub corridor
on the eastern boundary of the project. This corridor combines with a similar one on
the adjacent Meadowlark Estate project in San Marcos to provide an average width of
approximately 500 ft. Secondly, in approving the corridor on Ranch0 Carrillo, the
wildlife agencies were required to make Findings pursuant to the Endangered Species
Act and the Special Rule for the California Gnatcatcher that approval of the Section 7
consultation and approval would not jeopardize the continued survival of the species in
the wild and would not preclude preparation of a regional plan. In other words, the
wildlife agencies found that the corridor was adequate to provide for the survival of the
gnatcatcher and to allow completion of the HMP and MHCP. In conclusion, the HMP
5 38
corridors, given site specific conditions, are as good as, or better than, the Ranch0
Carrillo corridor which the wildlife agencies have already approved.
6. Expedited Processing of Development
This issue was raised by 1 commentor. The comment expresses the opinion that the
authorization for incidental take of certain species under the HMP will result in
“expedited” processing of development. The comment implies, but does not actually
state, that such expedited processing would result in greater impacts to the
environment than were analyzed by the MND.
The term “expedited” is not defined by the commentor but is understood in this context
to mean streamlining or providing faster processing of development applications than
would be the case without the HMP. In other words, expedited processing deals with
the length of time required to process permits, rather than the impacts that may result
from the development. It is not clear from the comment how faster processing of
development might result in an impact to the environment. No expert opinions are cited
to indicate that expedited processing results in greater or different impacts, and no data
is provided. Therefore, the comment is not relevant to the question of whether an EIR
should be prepared.
The timing of development in the City of Carlsbad is regulated largely by the City’s
Growth Management Program. Under this program, in addition to compliance with
environmental and other requirements, development is contingent on the adequacy of
public facilities. Due to the need to plan, finance, and construct major infrastructure,
processing of development applications typically precedes construction by several . years. The HMP will not alter the Growth Management Program or the timing of
development. With or without the HMP, development will proceed at a pace allowed
and dictated by the General Plan and the Growth Management Plan. Proper
environmental review of all such development, including surface water management
and increases in runoff, will be required and no increases in environmental impacts will
occur as a result of the project over what is anticipated without the HMP project. The
General Plan and Growth Management Plan govern the pace of growth not the
presence or absence of the HMP.
One commentor expresses the opinion that “expedited” development will result in
increased water pollution. This argument appears to be based on the notion that more
rapid development will create more impervious surface, leading to increased runoff and
thus increased pollution. However, as noted above, the HMP does not affect the timing
of development. In addition, the rate or timing of development has no relationship to
the magnitude of impacts. In the case of water quality, impacts are determined by site-
specific design features, which are addressed by the City’s Master Drainage and
Stormwater Management Plan. The HMP has no impact on stormwater quality.
As stated in the Project Description, the HMP is intended to provide for the continued
survival of sensitive species while allowing development as envisioned by the City’s
General Plan. Upon approval of the HMP by the wildlife agencies, the City would
receive permits to take listed species in accordance with the terms of the plan.
Individual project applicants would then apply directly to’ the City of Carlsbad to be
6 39
covered by the Incidental Take Permits, instead of making separate application to the
wildlife agencies as they are presently required to do. The authorization for take under
the HMP would be approved by the City in conjunction with other discretionary permits
that may be needed for the project, and only after proper environmental review
pursuant to CEQA. Thus, the HMP could be said to centralize processing with the local
government agency, as intended by the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act.
Centralization of processing does not necessarily result in expedited or streamlined
processing as suggested by the commentor, and in any case there are no data or facts
presented to indicate that centralization of processing results in greater impacts.
7. Impacts from Future Development
This issue was raised by 3 cornmentors. The comments express the opinion that the
MND does not adequately describe or analyze the impacts of future development. The
cornmentors do not cite the opinions of any experts or any authoritative sources
regarding the issue. No biological data or reports are provided in support of the
comments.
As stated in response #6, the HMP does not approve any development project. The
City’s General Plan and Zoning, as well as state and federal law, are the mechanisms
for authorizing development. The HMP will ultimately modify the current General Plan
by replacing development designations (residential, commercial, or industrial) with an
Open Space designation for the protection of species and habitats. On the portions of
properties that retain a development designation, the General Plan and Zoning will
remain the controlling authorities. The HMP does not allow any development that was
not already envisioned by the General Plan and Zoning and for which the cumulative
impacts were addressed in the MEIR. Thus, the net effect of the HMP is to allow
implementation of the existing General Plan and Zoning. Table 9 on page 63 and Table
10 on page 66 indicate the acreage of land in various Zoning designations that will
become open space under the HMP.
8. Use of MEIR
This issue is raised by 1 commentor. The comment expresses the opinion that the City
may not utilize the MEIR previously prepared and certified for the update of the General
Plan.
The MND utilizes the MEIR in two ways. First, it is a valuable background resource
document regarding the probable cumulative impacts to wildlife and habitat of
development of the City consistent with the General Plan. In so doing, it was not
intended to take the place of individual project environmental review, nor was it
intended to serve as the sole environmental or resource document for the HMP.
Rather, its intent was to outline in advance the most likely conservation issues that
would need to be addressed by subsequent projects. By anticipating development of
the HMP, the MEIR indicated that a comprehensive, Citywide plan would be preferred
to the earlier project-by-project approach. In fact, the MEIR included a potentially
reduced level of development under the HMP as an Alternative Project and described it
as the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
7
The second basis for referring to the MEIR is that it fully analyzed the cumulative effects
of future development on other environmental issues (as previously addressed in
response #6), including water, air quality, transportation, energy, noise, public services,
utilities, aesthetics, cultural resources, and recreation. The commentor faults the MND
for not analyzing the impacts of the HMP on these non-biological issues. However, it is
not the HMP but implementation of the General Plan that will produce these impacts, as
the MEIR clearly states. The MEIR provides mitigation measures for potentially
significant impacts, and subsequent projects are conditioned to implement the
mitigation measures. The MEIR included a Statement of Overriding Considerations for
Air Quality and Transportation. In short, the MEIR has adequately addressed the
cumulative impacts due to development in the areas that will not be part of the HMP
preserve system.
9. Impacts on MHCP
This issue was raised by 2 cornmentors. The comment expresses the opinion that
adoption of the HMP will reduce the City’s flexibility to cooperate with other North
County jurisdictions in development of the MHCP. The cornmentors do not cite the
opinions of any experts or any authoritative sources regarding the inter-relationship of
the HMP and the MHCP.
The City of Carlsbad and the HMP have been instrumental in development of the
MHCP since its inception. The HMP has always been intended to serve as a
component of the MHCP and to be fully coordinated and consistent with it. The HMP
has utilized the MHCP’s methodology of Focused Planning Areas as well as the
conservation recommendations in the MHCP’s Biological Goals Standards and
Guidelines. Most recently, when the MHCP identified the need for a large “core area” of
approximately 500 acres for the California gnatcatcher, the HMP has proposed an
acquisition program that will conserve approximately 300 acres within the targeted area.
Although cornmentors suggest that the HMP limits future conservation options, the
opposite is true; if the HMP is not approved, acquisition of 300 acres in the “core area”
will not occur, future conservation options could be permanently lost, and it would be
doubtful if the MHCP would be a viable conservation plan.
Comments were also made regarding the fact that the USFWS is about to designate
critical habitat for the California Gnatcatcher and whether approval of the HMP will
further restrict conservation planning opportunities based on the critical habitat
designation. No comments were provided by the commentor on specifically why or how
the approval of the HMP would impact the designation. However, the designation only
affects federally-related projects (e.g. federal land and projects with federal dollars). .
Also, because the USFWS has been closely involved with the development of the HMP
and knows how it will effect Gnatcatcher habitat, the critical habitat designation will not
have any impact on approval of the HMP.,
IO. Public Notice
This issue is raised by 2 commentor. The comments express the opinion that the City’s
public noticing regarding the MND was inadequate. In particular, the cornmentors
object to the lack of notice of a Carlsbad Planning Commission meeting held on July
21, 1999, at which the HMP was discussed.
8 4I
The cornmentors cite Public Resources Code Section 21092(b)(t). The notice required
by this section and by Section 15072 of the CEQA Guidelines is mailing of a notice for
consideration of a Negative Declaration to individuals and organizations that have
previously requested such notice in writing and publication in a newspaper of general
circulation. No individuals or organizations had requested such notice in writing, and
therefore the notice requirement was met by publication in a newspaper. The notice
appeared in the North County Times on June 18, 1999. The notice included a brief
description of the project and its location, the-fact the project could potentially have
significant impacts on its environment unless mitigation measures were applied, the
date, time and place of any public meetings to discuss the matter known to the City at
that time and the location where information regarding the matter could be reviewed.
Although the cornmentors do not state so specifically, the apparent concern is that the
notice published in the North County Times did not indicate that the Planning
Commission would be discussing the HMP on July 21, 1999. Just prior to publication of
the notice, the HMP had been scheduled for discussion by the Planning Commission on
June 16, 1999, at which time City staff provided a general overview of the HMP. This
meeting was not required to be a public hearing but just a discussion item.
Subsequently, the Planning Commission members indicated that they wanted to
schedule the HMP again at a future meeting in order to provide their comments and
observations. No specific date was set. Therefore, it would not be possible for the
notice in the North County Times to have referred to a possible future meeting of the
Planning Commission when it was not known when that might occur.
On or about July II, 1999, it was decided to schedule the follow-up discussion
regarding the HMP with the Planning Commission on July 21. Again, no written
requests for notification had been received, and the item was not a public hearing. The
purpose of the meeting was to allow Planning Commissioners to provide their individual
comments on the HMP because the Planning Commission would not be taking formal
action on it. Notification was provided by posting of the Planning Commission Agenda
72 hours in advance of the meeting as required by law.
Per Section 15073 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City sent a copy of the MND and
supporting documentation to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to state agencies.
Acknowledgment of receipt from the Clearinghouse was received on June 29, 1999,
and on July 22, 1999, the Clearinghouse notified the City that no state agencies had
submitted comments during the review period provided by the state.
In conclusion, the City has followed all of the public noticing requirements of the law
and, in fact, has provided for public notice and involvement that goes beyond what is
required by law. For example, the City held a Scoping Meeting, which is not a
requirement for a MND. The City held the comment period open for 45 days, rather
than the 30 days legally required for a MND. The City is providing these written
responses to comments on the MND, which is not a legal requirement.
11. Adequacy of Mitigation
This issue was raised by 3 cornmentors. The comments express the opinion that the
MND does not provide adequate mitigation to reduce impacts to species and habitats to
below significance. The cornmentors do not cite the opinions of any experts or any
authoritative sources regarding the adequacy of the mitigation provided by the HMP.
No biological data or reports are provided in support of the comment.
A number of mitigation measures have been incorporated into the HMP as a result of
review of previous drafts of the Plan. A Wildlife Agency Review Draft of the Plan was
prepared in December 1998, and submitted to the Agencies. As a result of the review,
numerous revisions were made to the Plan which mitigate its impact on sensitive
habitat, species and the environment. These mitigating measures, which were not part
of the previous draft include:
A) Revising and upgrading the standards that apply to all properties located in the
proposed “Standards Areas” of the preserve system.
B) “Proposed Hardline” boundaries of the preserve system were enhanced and
expanded.
C) A number of species were removed from the covered list in order to eliminate take
authorization and provide them greater protection.
D) Overall conservation levels were increased and increased acreage was added to the
proposed preserve system.
E) “Measures for HMP Species” (Table 6 of MND) was added to provide additional
mitigation for covered species and increase the conditions for take authorization.
F) Mitigation ratios for impacted habitat were incorporated into the Plan.
G) The proposal for a possible habitat take permit fee was added to the Plan.
H) A proposal for the City to effect the conveyance of 296 acres in the MHCP Core
Area was included.
I) The City agreed to do part of its mitigation for the proposed City Golf Course in the
MHCP Core Area.
All of the above revisions are mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts
associated with the approval of the HMP. They serve as the basis for the adoption of a
MND because the Plan has been revised to incorporate the mitigation measures. This
is entirely consistent with CEQA regarding the use of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
CEQA Guidelines 15070 states “A public agency shall prepare a proposed negative
declaration or mitigated negative declaration for a project subject to CEQA when
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before
proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review
would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant
effects would occur. ”
The HMP is, overall, a mitigation program. The City, assuming it approves the HMP
and the MND, will have concluded, based on its independent judgment and review of all
the facts and documents, including the comments on the MND and these responses,
that all potentially significant adverse impacts have been mitigated to a level of
insignificance. The adequacy of the mitigation measures and of the HMP as a whole
will be independently judged again by the California Department of Fish and Game, and
10 43
again by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which are the entities legally authorized and
required to approve the HMP, and which are technically competent to make
determinations on such issues. If the wildlife agencies determine that the HMP
mitigation is adequate to meet the standards for issuance of take permits and the MND
is adequate for their decision-making purposes, they can approve the plan. The federal
approval agencies will do so based on their own environmental review under NEPA.
The City believes, based on numerous meetings with these agencies, that the HMP and
the MND are in fact adequate to meet the requirements of the agencies.
As noted, in addition to this MND, the HMP will be subject to analysis under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In short, there will be substantial, expert
review of the adequacy of the HMP’s mitigation before final action is taken. There has
been no factual information submitted with the comment letters to indicate that the
mitigation provided is not adequate.
12. Public Controversy
This issue was raised by 1 commentor. The comment expresses the opinion that an
EIR should be prepared because of the substantial public controversy surrounding the
HMP. No documentation or supporting facts are provided.
No significant public controversy has been identified with respect to the adoption of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the HMP. Of the 37 written comment letters
submitted during the public review period for the HMP, only 3 contained objections to
the use of a MND. One letter cited the existence of serious public controversy as a
reason for preparing an EIR rather than a MND. This is not the case in that only 3
comments were received concerning the need for an EIR. In addition, CEQA
Guidelines 15064 states “The existence of public controversy over the environmental
effects of a project will not require preparation of an E/R if there is no substantial
evidence before the agency that the project may have a significant effect on the
environment.” No substantial evidence has been submitted which indicates that a MND
is not appropriate. CEQA Guidelines 15064 also states “Argument, speculation,
unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, or evidence that is clearly inaccurate or
erroneous, or evidence that is not credible, shall not constitute substantial evidence.
Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon
facts, and expert opinion support by facts. s
13. Mandatory Findings of Significance
This issue is raised by 1 commentor. The comment expresses the opinion that the City
has failed to adequately address mandatory findings of significance. The commentor
suggests that an EIR must be prepared if any mandatory finding of significance is
potentially applicable.
The MND pages 98-100 discuss mandatory findings of significance. It acknowledges
that the HMP has the potential to reduce the habitat of wildlife species and that this
impact would be significant unless mitigated. It also acknowledges that there may be
cumulative impacts that would be significant unless mitigated. However, mitigation
measures are provided on pages 100-I 01 that reduce the impact to below significance.
In addition, the HMP itself includes numerous standards, requirements, and mitigation
measures that will be applied to subsequent development projects to further reduce
impacts. The adequacy and efficacy of these mitigation measures is discussed in
response #l I. An EIR need not be prepared despite the potential for mandatory
findings of significance when revisions in the project proposals have been made which
avoid the effects or mitigate the potential adverse impacts to a point where clearly no’
significant effect on the environment would occur and there is no substantial evidence
in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised may
have a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Section 15064(g)(2)).
EXHIBIT 5
P.O. BOX 499 OCEANSIDE, CA 92949-9490
Wednesday, July 14, 1999
Don Rideout
City of Carlsbad Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Dr.
Carlsbad, CA, 92008-l 989
RE: Draft Habitat Management Plan
Dear Mr Rideout:
We are very pleased to contribute comments on the HMP for the City of Carlsbad. We
congratulate the Planning Department in bringing the document forward for public
comment. We think the HMP will represent a substantial step forward in planning for
conservation within Carlsbad. We have some remaining concerns, which are detailed
below.
Riparian areas
We are concerned about impacts to riparian areas, especially mature riparian forest.
Buena Vista Creek and Sunny Creek in particular contain some of the best remaining
mature riparian forest in coastal north county. This is a habitat that has been decimated in
California and in San Diego county in particular, and is necessary for several listed species.
We would like to see specific standards for these sensitive riparian areas such as are
proposed for Encinitas Creek on page D-5 1: 100 foot buffers, a requirement for
development on the least sensitive areas, prohibition of fill or development within the 100
year floodplain, and sensitive design of any road or utility crossings.
1. In table 1, impacts to riparian habitats are listed at 76 acres, or 13% of the total
574 acres in the City. Yet conservation is listed at 100%. Presumably this is on
:. the basis of mitigation. We would appreciate a discussion of which 76 acres are
currently planned for impact, and what mitigation is proposed. Historically,
mitigation for impacts to these kinds of habitats in our area has lead to a
substantial increase in fragmentation. We are particularly concerned about
fragmentation, lack of buffers, and the loss of mature riparian forest. These
habitats are typically long and linear, and very susceptible to edge effects.
2. In the description of Core area 2, the mature riparian woodland along Buena Vista
Creek is listed as riparian scrub. WC emphasize that this is some of the highest
quality mature willow forest left in north county. We suggest that conservation of
this riparian forest be added as a condition for coverage of the Southwestern
Willow flycatcher in table 9.
Hardline areas.
The level of take proposed for some of these projects seems very high, and it is very
difficult to evaluate their appropriateness without more detailed information. We are
concerned about lack of buffers and habitat fragmentation. Carlsbad Oaks North in
particular shows a very high level of take of coastal sage scrub habitats. The Kelly
Hillman property shows substantial development in wetlands. The south coast property
shows a high level of take of riparian and css habitats, with no apparent buffers. The
veterans park map shows no buffers along a substantial part of the riparian habitat, as well
as fragmentation of that habitat into three pieces. We would appreciate an opportunity to
discuss these issues further. In particular, we would like assurance that these projects
have been held to a high standard for avoidance of impacts.
Standards areas
Zone 1. The major and critical stands of maritime succulent scrub noted in the text should
be identified, and standards for their avoidance should be incorporated, as in the other
planning areas. Fragmentation of preserved habitats should be avoided.
Zone 8. I think this is a typo- the development should be on the least sensitive portion of
the property, not the preserve.
Zone 25. Again, we are concerned about standards to specifically protect the mature
riparian forest along Buena Vista Creek. We would suggest that specific avoidance
language be inserted similar to that for Encinitas creek. We suggest that the average
linkage width be 800 to 1000 feet as in zone 7, with a minimum constriction of 500 feet
where narrower constrictions do not already exist. The language of “an average width of
500 to 1000 feet” is much too vague- this would allow for a lot of very narrow
constrictions, as the “average” is not well defined. The 25% development of the Sherman
property should be clustered on the least environmentally sensitive area, as required
elsewhere.
Zones 15 and 2 1. Same comment as above about the corridor width. Why is a minimum
width of 400 feet proposed for zone 15? This seems too narrow. Some language about
protecting these narrow corridors from disturbance needs to be inserted also.
Measures to minimize impacts.
In the first paragraph, page D-67, a discussion of project design outside the preserve to
minimize impacts to conserved habitat is appropriate. Such measures include encouraging
sensitive landscaping and lighting, and measures to reduce human disturbance of sensitive
lands. These measures might be similar to those discussed on F-9 for recreational facilities
situated adjacent to the preserve, and in F-15 for landscaping. We suggest that many of
these management recommendations be incorporated into planning guidelines for new
development adjacent to conserved areas. Also, we suggest that a cowbird trapping
program be incorporated as mitigation for disturbance impacts to riparian forests
Native predator control: perhaps management actions to enhance the connectivity of the
preserve for native predators should be considered if population levels are found to be
decreasing.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important document. We look forward
to further discussions with you.
Sincerely,
Karen Messer
Conser;at,‘,icz r!L.-
Buena Vista Audubon Society
July 30, 1999
Mr. Don Rideout
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Re: HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
FORNATURAL COMMUNITIES
IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
Dear Don;
Thank you for giving the Agua Hedionda Lagoon
review Carlsbad’s Habitat Management Plan as issued in
members have reviewed it, and can support the plan. We
’ approach to the long-term preservation of the plant and animal species within the
undeveloped portions of Carlsbad. We recognize that some compromises were necessary
to make this a plan that could be acceptable and beneficial to all parties.
We are particularly happy to see a considerable portion of the lands at the eastern
end of Agua Hedionda Lagoon designated as Proposed Hardline Conservation Areas. We noted that some open space was not included within the proposed hardline, but believe
that the most valuable lands will be protected by the plan.
We note two encouraging items in Section F:
Qn.e, we note that the City will cooperate with the California Department of Fish &
Game to assemble adequate endowments to support ongoing monitoring and maintenance
of the approximately 200 acres of wetlands at the eastern end of our lagoon now under an
irrevocable Offer to Dedicate [ 1 .A.2)]. We also note that the City is considering including
Kelly Ranch Open Space as part of a unified HMP management program, should one be
developed [l.C.S)]. As we search for ways to obtain and protect habitat, we note the
relative ease of obtaining acquisition funds, but find it difficult to find endowments or
operating funds.
TXQ we note considerable attention to public access and trails [2.B.]. We believe
the average citizen must be able to gain (controlled) access to the natural habitats to gain
their support of this important program.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to participate in the development of the
HMP. Please keep us advised of significant revisions or public hearings on the plan.
Bob Richards, President ahlflqmmments
A California Nonprofu Corporation Since March 1990
Dedicated to Ecosystem Protection and improved Land Use Planning
DanSilver l Coordinator 8424-A Santa Monica Blvd., #592 Los Angeles, CA 90069-4267 TEL 323-654-1456 l FAX 323-654-1931
ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE
July 6, 1999
Don Rideout City of Carlsbad Planning Dept. 2075 Las Palmas Carlsbad, CA 92009
LUG DraftHabitatManagenm3ntPIan(JlMP)
Dear Mr. Pidcout:
The Endangered Habitats League (EHL) wishes to furnish technical comments on the proposed HMP. As you know, EHL is a Southern California organization dedicated to ecosystem protection, improved land use planning, and collaborative conflict resolution. Jn general, we support the progress embodied in the draft HMP, and aclolowledge the commitment this document represents to the natural heritage of Carlsbad.
Comments
1. One of EHL’s goals is to recognize the value of non-native grassland for birds of prey and other species, and the need to mitigate their loss. Not only is no mitigation proposed for these grasslands, but private parties will not mitigate for coastal sage scrub, a highly sensitive habitat, unless it is occupied by gnatcatchers. Similar concerns apply to chaparral. For a number of reasons, EHL believes that non-native grasslands, chaparral, and non-occupied coastal sage scrub require mitigation. These habitats are part of the habitat mosaic of the ecosystem; losses of any component affect the others. Impacts to all the habitats upon which covered species depend should be mitigated as part of take authorizations, as both federal and state Endangered Species Acts regulations require mitigation. Under CEQA, loss of non- occupied coastal sage scrub would be considered significant individually and cumulatively under any circumstance. In the context of the highly depleted habitats of the Carlsbad area, loss of non-native grassland and chaparral are similarly significant under CEQA. Finally, a habitat-based plan like the HMP should recognize the ecological value of all habitat types. We suggest the following ratios:
occupied coastal sage scrub non-occupied coastal sage scrub chaparral non-native grassland
2:l
;:;
II1
However, in an effort to build consensus on ratios, EHL, has, in the past, been willing to accept a ratio of S/l for non-native grassland as part of an overall conservation package including effective avoidance of high value lands.
2. The Habitat Take Permit Fee is a very good concept which needs refinement. If all habitat lands receive mitigation, as recommended above, it should continue to apply to all remaining “vacant natural lands” as currently defined. Loss of disturbed and agricultural lands cause significant losses of open space, community character, and scenic values. (The high value of even disturbed lands to local communities is exemplified by the huge battle over the Playa Vista development in Los Angeles.) It is suggested that an Open Space Fee, rather than a Habitat Take Permit Fee, be collected from these parcels, as it more accurately describes the impact. This fee should be set at the top of the range, and could be expended upon open space acquisition or management in or in the vicinity of Carl&ad.
3. The biggest biological weakness of the plan is undoubtedly the heavy losses of gnatcatchers on parcels subject to pre-existing take agreements. However, this is addressed through the City’s leadership in initiating conservation in the important MHCP “core area” to the southeast. From a regional perspective, this approach should provide a large, intact block of habitat for a gnatcatcher “source population” plus linkages and breeding populations to the north. In our view, it is very important to begin establishing the “core area” at this time.
4. Linkages between core areas are acknowledged to be tenuous in many cases. We concur with the need for enhancement and restoration in these areas. However, most emphasis is given to use by linkages by birds and larger mammals. Reptiles and small mammals, for example, also require connectivity, and the many road crossings which obstruct the linkages in the plan pose very serious barriers. Examples of linkages compromised by road crossings are Linkages A and B. Thus, measures to improve linkage function, such as undercrossings and bridges, should be added as part of the long-range management program. Fencing should also be employed as appropriate to reduce road kill. Removal of concrete channelization in creeks should be a long-term goal.
5. The Standards Areas (Biological Resource Issues, Goals, Standards) are generally well- conceived. For the most part, they should provide adequate guidance to future projects and sufficient land use tools. We strongly support the proposed use of clustering on the 25% of the parcel which is least sensitive. However, we are troubled by the vagueness of some standards, for example, in Zone 1, “To the extent feasible, avoid removal of maritime succulent scrub . . .” As “feasible” typically is interpreted to encompass a variety of subjective applicant desires or unsupported economic rationales, it is suggested that for purposes of the HMP, feasibility be defined as “without denying some economic use.” This is consistent with Constitutional law on takings.
6. Another standard which should have more specificity is “. . . maintain a viable habitat linkage across Linkage Area F . . .” in Zone 20. If possible, criteria in terms of width, topography, and vegetative cover should be formulated.
7. For Zone 25, the amount of upland nesting habitat for pond turtles should be specified. In the MSCP, it was “maintain a 1500 foot area around known locations.”
8. Regarding Table 9, Measures for HMP Species, unless I have missed it, the exact standards for narrow endemic species avoidance are not spelled out. Elsewhere in the document, reference to 100% conservation in preserve areas is made, but missing may be the criteria for avoidance outside of preserves.
9. For vernal pool species, the specific avoidance criteria for protecting vernal pool watersheds should be provided at this time. Again, it is essential to close loopholes, such as “to the extent feasible.” Watersheds will either be protected with no loss of function or value, or they will not.
2
10. For riparian bird species (least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher) the amount of upland buffer should be specified at this time.
11. Under Additional Implementation Measures, the annual review should contain a public component, such a public workshop, similar to the MSCP.
12. Given the edge effects inherent in the HMP, management will be exceedingly important, and a unitary system should replace homeowners’ associations responsibilities as soon as possible.
13. Under management, provisions for biological monitoring (p. F-7) are scanty. Similar to the MSCP, it will be necessary to prior&e and develop species-specific monitoring protocols.
14. Given the unavoidable extent of development adjoining the preserve, the presence of feral, domestic, or semi-domestic animals, particularly cats, must be assumed. Impacts from such predators are predictable and well-documented, and are severe. It is neither necessary nor practical to document evidence of adverse impacts before initiating a control program, which must include a removal component. While the public education program is important, the use of bells has not been found to be a substitute for keeping cats indoors, as birds do not associate the sounds of bells with danger.
15. The covered species list should not include the San Diego Goldenstar. Its coverage is inconsistent with the standards applied to the other species on the list, as its conservation level is only a fraction of what otherwise is considered acceptable. Furthermore, even though “Carl&ad has been identified as a major and critical population,” this population is reduced by 85%. The success of the transplantation of corms proposed in the conditions for coverage is speculative, and it is not even stated whether appropriate soils are available. As the pre- existing take permit cannot be altered, it is suggested that the species be listed as “conditionally covered” pending transplantation and other required management measures, with coverage to follow if transplantation performance criteria are met. In this way, the potential benefits of the plan to the species will not be lost.
16. Coverage for the orange-throated whiptail should be linked to management measures which allow its movement between core areas within the City (rather than just to the southeast of the City). This may involve fencing of roads in association with development of undercrossings or bridges.
17. Coverage for the burrowing owl is weak. Impacts to one known location are expected, and overall conservation of grasslands is low (37%). Furthermore, in Appendix C various protective measures are only “recommended” or “should” occur; such options cannot constitute a basis for coverage. Tbc language is improved, however, in Table 9’s conditions for coverage. Please clarify that the Table 9 measures, rather than Appendix C, are binding. However, even Table 9 is incomplete: What is the “specified ratio” to implement the requirement that “mitigation for impacts to occupied habitat must be provided at the .tpec@ed
ratio”? Please also clarify that occupied habitat refers to both nesting and foraging habitat. In summary, at a minimum please provide a specified ratio and other guidelines for mitigation for unavoidable impacts to occupied burrowing owl habitat, similar to what is required by MSCP subarea plans as conditions of coverage for this species.
18. Coverage for grassland species with smaller or more predictable habitat needs, like the white tailed kite, may be feasible and very desirable from the conservation perspective. We recommend that targeted conservation measures for this species be developed and coverage pursued.
. . .
3
EHL appreciates your consideration of these comments, and we look forward to working with you to resolve our concerns.
Dan Silver, Coordinator
cc: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game Interested parties
53
August 2, 1999
Mr. Michael Holtzmiller, Planning Director
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Subject: Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad dated
April 1999 (“HMP”)
Dear Mr. Holtzmiller:
I appreciate you affording Lennar Communities the opportunity of reviewing the draft Habitat Management Plan
authored by the City of Carlsbad. It is obvious that a great deal of time and effort went into the structure of the plan. The
plan, if implemented properly, will help sustain not only preserve and open space core areas in the City of Carlsbad and
the County of San Diego, but continue to provide for the economic prosperity we currently enjoy both in the public and
private sectors of Carlsbad.
This letter is in response to the City request for comments pursuant to the action taken by City Council Resolution of
Intention No. 99-2 11. I offer the following comments.
Lennar Communities has been involved for over two years in discussions with City staff during part of the evolution of
the Habitat Management Plan process. We recognize that this is only a short period of time relative to the time the City
has invested in the plan. Nearly two years ago, at the urging of staff, we committed to a “hard line” on the Bressi Ranch
land use plan. The plan was reviewed many times with Don Rideout (City of Carlsbad) and the Resource Agencies (State
of California Fish and Game, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Army Corps of Engineers). The result was not
only a commitment on our part to stay with the “hard line”, but a commitment on the City’s part to not subject our plan
to more restrictive standards as staff completed negotiations with the Resource agencies.
Only with the distribution of this most recent HMP were we made aware that the City was considering the concept of a “Habitat Take Permit Fee” (Section E-7 of the I-IMP). Upon further review, we concluded that the estimated fee
described in the HMP draft could have significant financial impacts on our proposed project. Taken at face value, the
fee is so significant when applied to our project we are uncertain that our plan would not have to be significantly
modified.
In light of this, we offer the following comments and suggestions as an attempt at achieving a more user friendly and
economically sustaining plan for the City of Carlsbad. This HMP plan has to work not only for the City’s interests, but also for its citizens, its guest builders and developers, environmental concerns, and the Resource agencies. It has to be
fair and broad based to work for all interests. This means that the City needs to carefully consider how the fee and other
facets of the HMP are implemented.
HMP BASIC ASSURANCES TO THIRD PARTIES: The HMP does not provide the certainty that if a landowner
pays a fee that a project can move forward without further federal agency approvals. The HMP does not adequately
Page 1 of 3
5780 Fleet Street, Suite 320, Carlsbad, California 92008-4700 - (760) 918-8858, Fax (760) 918-8868
address the master federal permit process. No biological opinion (“a no jeopardy opinion”) is contained within the text
of the HMP which is required in order for the federal government to issue a 10A permit to the City. This master 1 OA
permit needs to address the benefit to “third parties” such as landowners if landowners are participating in a program
with the City. The I-IMP also does not fully resolve what the federal and state authorities may or will require as part of
its approval process, yet the City is preparing to adopt it as an urgency measure. This is analogous to putting the cart
before the horse, and may result in the City adopting a program without the agencies buying off on the plan, thus causing
a extra level of approval or even significant delays for the landowner it intends to benefit. This is not the intent of the
HMP, but without the biological opinion, there appears to be a gap in the strategy of the I-IMP program.
HMP TIMELINE and ALTERNATIVES: Under the Local Plan Implementation Process (page E-l of the HMP draft),
should the I-IMP be adopted by urgency measure, the City would write the HMP standards into the Open Space and
Conservation elements of the General Plan, as well as the City’s Open Space Ordinance, while permanent regulatory
measures are being drafted. In short, absent compliance with this Plan and its provisions, a landowner does not appear
to be afforded independent processing. This could in effect put a moratorium on our processing, even though our project
could technically be processed without a Citywide HMP due to on-site mitigation opportunities and the small extent of
habitat on our property.
The City should acknowledge Lennar Communities’ right to process federal and state permits concurrent with the
urgency measure. Lennar has spent a great amount of time with the Resources agencies crafting our land use plan and
addressing everything from mitigation ratios to corridor widths. The HMP should not put us in a position of a more
extended process then that we face under the traditional 1 OA or Section 7 process.
HABITAT TAKE PERMIT FEE: We are especially concerned about the proposed Habitat Take Permit Fee, (Section
D.6.A.5). The fee does not differentiate between natural habitats and disturbed or agricultural lands. It should, since
vacant natural lands is defmed in the HMP to include active and fallow agricultural fields, and pasture lands. Is it fair
for local farmers and landowners to subsidize a substantial portion of the costs of the I-IMP, when the conversion of their land from agriculture and disturbed uses has almost no impact on endangered species? How can the City make the
rational that impact to agricultural and disturbed lands compares the same as impacts to native habitats such as coastal
sage scrub? Since a large portion of Bressi Ranch is agricultural, if the HMP is approved by the City in its current form,
the Bressi Ranch may have to pay a fee ranging from $1,350,0000 to $2,250,000 (nearly 60% of the total HMP costs
identified in the plan) under our proposed project, even though our plan already contemplates setting aside nearly 150
acres in Habitat Management Open Space (which was done originally to avoid sensitive habitat land areas). This is not
an acceptable solution to us.
NEXUS: There does not appear to be any “nexus” associated with this fee and the requirements of Government Code
Section 66000, nor does it appear to meet the requirements of Proposition 218. This is concerning to us, since we are
unclear how the fee will ultimately be levied. We are also concerned since a legal challenge could delay the entire HMP
process. This is why the funding portion of the I-IMP is as important as the entire concept of the I-IMP itself. Only two
pages in the HMP addresses the fee. If landowners are going to accept a fee concept, it must be equitable and reasonable.
We are assuming that the City staff will review the nexus relative to the State Mitigation Fee Act and bring it back for
further discussion and action.
A more appropriate method of addressing this issue may be to propose a “ratio-based fee” that reflects the true habitat
values of impacts such as those discussed in the draft MHCP. This concept has been discussed with you and it further
defmed in the chart below. It demonstrates a ratio based approach to providing the necessary funds based on the true
habitat value of the various types of habitat lands. This proposal is based on returning a $3.5 million result. We have not
analyzed whether or not this approach presents a “nexus” issue, however it represents a more equitable approach with
the same results that the HMP intends. Perhaps a voluntary program along these lines may work as well.
Page 2 of 3
RATIO- BASED FEE PROGRAM
Habitat Ratio Acres
Coastal Sage 2:l 371.0
Chaparral 1:l 71.7
Eucalyptus 0.5: 1 6.7
Grassland 0.5:l 211.9
Disturbed 0 184.4
Agriculture 0 419.5
Fee ($/acre) Total
X $7,600 = $2,819,540
X $3,800 = $272,393
X $1,900 = $12,800
X $1,900 = $402,545
X $0 = $0
X $0 = so
TOTALS 1265.1 $3,507,278
STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCES: The methodology being used to procure the 296 acres outside of
the City, but inside the MHCP Gnatcatcher Core Area excludes consideration of a regional funding mechanism. It also
puts Carlsbad in the position of acquiring three fifths of the entire MHCP Core Area habitat identified in the MHCP. The
Carlsbad HMP does not address Local, State and Federal funding sources for the purchase of the off-site habitat. This
places nearly all the burden on local development. Since this plan is being presented by the City as a benefit to all its
citizens (City and County), the plan must be broad based and should address strategies to pursue all sources of funding
to spread the burden over those who benefit from the plan.. .past, present and future.
MAINTENANCE OF THE CORE AREA: The HMP plan does not take into consideration how to assess for the
maintenance and operation of the preserve system. It is not fair to ask landowners to give up their land and also pay for
the cost to maintain it after it is turned over. Again, broad based funding is the only fair and reasonable approach to
addressing this cost. We ask that you consider this in the final analysis of the fee structure.
Lennar appreciates the opportunity to address several concerns we have with the HMP. We are available to discuss all
elements of the HMP and the issues discussed above. We believe a “win-win” solution is close and possible.
COMMUNITIES
Page 3 of 3
BUILDING INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION OF
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
6336 Greenwich Drive. Suite A
San DIego. CA 92122-5922
(619)450-1221
FAX No. (619) 552-l 445
PRESIDENT
Mick Pattinson
Barratt American
VICE PRESIDENT
Colin Seid
ColRich Communities. Inc.
TREASURER/SECRETARY
Steve Doyle
Brookfield Homes
IMMEDIATE PAST
PRESIDENT
Mark McMillin
The Corky McMillin Companies
EXECUTIVE
VICE PRESIDENT
Paul A. Tryon
Calitornla Buildln9 Industry kssociarlon
Natlonal Association
of home Budoers
July 30, 1999
Mr. Don Rideout
Principal Planner
City of Carlsbad Carlsbad, CA 92008
Regarding: Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for Natural Communities in
the City of Carlsbad
Dear Mr. Rideout,
Thank you for the opportunity to review Carlsbad’s draft habitat
management plan. The Building Industry Association of San Diego County
would like to offer the following comments and suggestions.
We have serious reservations regarding the scope of the HMP fee structure
including the conversion of agricultural
stafYs intention to analyze the proposal
Mitigation Fee Act relative to nexus
comment until the review is completed.
land to habitat, but in light of city
pursuant to the State of California
issues, we will withhold detailed
However, at this time we believe it is important to note that the
methodology to procure the 296 acre Gnatcatcher Core Area @age E7. item
5) excludes consideration of a regional funding mechanism. The HMP
acknowledges that the core area is a critical component to the broader
MHCP core requirement, therefore we believe a broad based funding
mechanism must not be excluded from the acquisition policy. A broad based
funding methodology must also be part of any restoration and enhancement
requirements. The funding mechanism needs to include state and federal
money and the City of Carlsbad must take a greater role to balance the
financial burdens.
Also, in fairness to property owners who are subjected to the fees and
mitigation outlined in the HMP, it is vital that they not be called upon to
cover the additional financial burdens which accompany the maintenance
and operations of the preserve system. Frankly, you can not ask property
owners to give up their land and then pay for maintenance and management
costs after it’s turned over. The open space benefits the greater good, therefore it must only be handled by a broad based funding mechanism
including state and federal resources.
57
The Narrow Endemic Species in appendix C are identified as 100% conserved in preserve
areas and avoided in the MHPA. What is the maximum encroachment allowed within the
MHPA?
The fundamental biological data used to determine the design of corridors and core areas
appear to be inadequate to support the conservation requirements set forth in the HMP.
The underlying fundamental scientific data appears to be incorrect, inaccurate and/or
antiquated. Specifically, the HMP provides little or no biological justification to support the conservation areas set forth in the Proposed Standard Areas as well as the need for
acquisition of an additional 500 acre Coastal Sage Scrub Core Area. These areas are
being forced to bear a disproportional onsite conservation burden as high as 75%. We
believe it is important for the City of Carlsbad to include the aforementioned biological
justification for these standards in the HMP.
We also believe the City should include strong language in the accompanying general
plan and zoning updates that supports, promotes and encourages clustering beyond the
existing City ordinances inside the proposed standard areas. These zones call for vast
amounts of take and we believe it is fair and reasonable to offset the accompanying
economic impacts with responsible, clustered projects.
The City should make specific allowances within existing ordinances and policies for
projects that are in the development pipeline to allow for phasing and interim
development while the HMP is being processed. Portions of projects that are unaffected
by sensitive habitat should be allowed to proceed normally with phased construction.
Is the 1: 1 mitigation ratio for City public facility and improvement projects for
unoccupied Coastal Sage Scrub and Chaparral applicable fairly to all public facility and
improvement projects, (D-67)? In Table 11, no mitigation ratio is shown for other habitat
types.
As currently written. the wildlife corridor requirement is confusing. The HMP should
simply stipulate a 400 foot minimum in order to *eliminate or at least minimize the
possibility of subjective implementation.
Who is responsible for the costs of the surveys referenced under Table 9? Development
must not be called on to pay for expensive research gathering for the USFWS.
The HMP calls for vast amounts of lands yet fails to cover all threatened and endangered
species including the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly. A expedited mechanism must be
established to cover such species and the Quino must be added to the Species List in
Table 2, (C-12).
The HMP states, “where new development is planned, brush management will be
incorporated within the development boundaries and will not encroach into the preserve,”
(Fire Management Recommendations, F-13). This is contradictory to the requirements of
the City of San Diego’s MSCP and places additional exaction requirements on property
2 58
owners. The fire management zone could also subject property owners to additional
mitigation requirements for sensitive habitat. The fire management zone should not
encroach into the development boundary and no additional mitigation should be required.
The restrictive conservation percentages set forth in the HMP leave little room for
development options resulting in a ‘one size fits all approach.’ We recommend that the
HMP allow for additional flexibility in the mitigation options that could yield results
beneficial to all interests.
The HMP would prohibit fill or development within the existing flood plain except where
required for Circulation Element roads, Drainage Master Plan Facilities or other essential
public infrastructure. Wetland habitat impacts are not covered by the HMP. This
responsibility currently lies within the purview of the Army Corps of Engineers thereby
making this a duplicative regulatory barrier which contradicts the concept of an HMP.
Prohibiting fill or development within the existing flood plain will restrict development
options especially in light of the increased mitigation requirements throughout the HMP.
This policy is overly restrictive and should be reevaluated or eliminated altogether.
Lastly, the Core Area Designation (figure 23, MHCP Core Area) seems to contradict the
Fish and Wildlife Service’s HCP handbook which states, “Private, State or locally owned
land should never be considered for inclusion in HCP’s as reserves without the
concurrence of the landowners or their representatives,” (emphasis added). As of this
writing, property owners have not consented to the reserve system, yet are designated as
such. Please provide a detailed explanation of this inconsistency.
The BIA appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on this important issue.
Several of our members would be willing to discuss the draft HMP at your convenience.
It is our desire to implement a complete and fair document that will benefit all interested
parties.
Governmental Affairs
sw:mja
3 3-9
08/02/1999 17:ll 7604380981
I
July 30,1999
HEMHORN
Mr. Don Rideout City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive CarIsbad, California 92009
Subject: Kelly Bartman site cornmen’ relative to the Habitat Management Plan and Mitigated Negative Declaration t
Dear Mr. Rideout:
PAGE 02
We have reviewed the Habitat Kelly-Bartman site. At this po preservation, a habitat linkage to enhance continuity. These r
We have been unabl property- To our knowled bird populations moving b evidence that the eliminati on the California
Plan and the Mitigated Negative Declaration as it relates to the designated as a “standards” area and is sIatcd for 75% feet in width and restoration or enhancement of Coastal Sage render the site economically undevelopablc.
tlined in the HMP for thi3 s site is located in a corridor used by
does not appear to be any factual
have any direct or indirect impact
in light of the absent Management Plan, it Management Plan an
in both the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Habitat
requirements related to this site be stricken from the Habitat
ignated as a development area.
Negative Declaration, we feel our development plan (49.6% of the site) is more than adequate to meet the goals of the Plan.
_-
CHAMBEROFCOMMERCE
July 23, 1999
Don Rideout
City Planner
2075 Las Palmas Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Dear Mayor Lewis, Council Members and City Staff:
Re: Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce Comments to Draft fiabilat Management Pian
We appreciate the invitation you extended to the community to comment on the Draft
Habitat Management Plan and trust that the attached position paper is received in the
constructive spirit that generated it. Because the HMP program is complex and of
long duration, we are also hopeful that the Chamber’s comments will stimulate
continuing analysis and consideration of the critically important economic growth and
quality of life issues presented by implementation of the HMP.
The attached position paper is mthe view of any individual among our 1670
business members, or of any individual of the 31,000 employees represented by
those members. Instead, the position paper was generated over four separate
special meetings of our Carlsbad Economic Enhancement Council (CEEC)
Committee. The policy position and recommendations of the CEEC Committee were
then presented to the Chamber’s full Board of Directors for discussion, revision and
unanimous adoption. The Chamber anticipates ongoing involvement in the various
public hearings and other forums.
As with any complex program we anticipate further refinement by the City as the
HMP program works its way toward implementation and we would appreciate the
continuing opportunity for constructive involvement.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. The Chamber looks forward to continuing
Chairman of the Board
Attachement
5620 Paseo de1 Norte. Suite 128 l P.O. Box 1605 l Cat&bad, California 92008
(760) 93 I-8400 l Fax (760) 93 1-9153
p a .CC..D(IED 271 II- . . . . . . . . . . ..I. . . . , . ,
CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN POSITION PAPER
The Chamber of Commerce conceptually supports the adoption of the Carlsbad Habitat
Management Plan (Plan). We believe that its adoption will allow the continued
implementation of the Growth Management Plan, the city’s General Plan and contribute
to the overall quality of life. We believe that the Plan will provide a greater degree of
certainty regarding where development may and may not occur and provide a better
understanding of the costs associated with environmental mitigation. Further, the Plan
will provide a streamlined process for the approval of projects thus saving time and
money. The Plan will benefit all undeveloped properties regardless of size, while
benefiting the existing community through the set-aside of valuable habitat.
The Chamber supports the concept of a reimbursement program for costs associated with
implementation of the HMP. The reimbursement should be from all parties that benefit
from the HMP. This reimbursement should provide certainty in the funding of the plan
requirements and give Carlsbad the ability to pursue the plan without reliance upon other
cities or jurisdictions. However, the burden of the costs for this regional system, created
by Federal and State legislation, should be borne by Federal and State Agencies as well as
the City of Carlsbad. Therefore, Carlsbad, the Chamber of Commerce and other
interested parties should continue to pursue funding from these other agencies which will
be used to reduce fiscal impacts on property within Carlsbad.
The Chamber supports the creation of a permanent educational program funded by the
City’s General Fund; grant funds or other outside sources. This program should create
collateral materials that may be utilized to explain the value of this program to school
children, new and current citizens and business members of the City of Carisbad.
While the Chamber does support the HMP in concept, we have several areas of concern
and request a time certain when these may be addressed:
1. The Chamber supports a diversity of housing types throughout the City. The
adoption of the HMP should not result in the remaining land consisting of only high
density housing types; rather we should see all types from very low density, moderate
density to high density housing types. The Chamber believes a policy statement to
this effect should be included within the HMP.
2. The Chamber requests a review and evaluation of HMP impacts in the following
areas:
a. Increases to the cost of Public Facilities including schools.
b. Reductions in projected tax revenues due to land use changes.
c. Impacts to other projected City income/city services resulting from HMP
required land use changes.
d. Ongoing maintenance and operation of HMP open space.
3. The Chamber requests an evaluation of how the HMP has been reconciled with the
various components of the Growth Management Plan. What are the impacts to
buildout projections and facility needs?
4. The Chamber has concerns regarding the funding for operadons and maintenance of
any HMP open space.
5. The Chamber reserves comment on the reimbursement program (refer to item #2)
until specifics are made available.
Adopted by the Board of Directors - July 21,1999
FROM : Encinl tdS Photo Center - PHONE No. : 7604367361 I Fug. 82 1999 a5:m Pl
.+;y _I.._._._. ~--.~~-~ --mm.-..-_. ..--._.-
_ __ . . A.-L --.
.J-
-0. - ..-- .YhP ,5 57
-~-~ . ..-
..__.. ._,__ ..____ _-. _____ --- ---- /q-f?;’ &* /&&7GL+ & CARCrb;I f$hlP
F (-7Go) 938-088L9/ *_I_ . . ..-._ .__--
+L
---
/ /&a .&wecf ’
I -.v-
.
&/i^ cl+h 74L +!g
9-7 yf &LLq J
-I_..-
_..“. . ..w..-- --
_“_..__. __-.. Cdqhis Lrjfd. c/q. 7LcoB / -. ._I_
E$), 720 --p %?G -v---I. -.
a0 ACL xc,- 09 ro -_-4~--~-.-“..-...e.z”..- . .-..-- ._-. -.-. - -.-_,. ._ -
-._,a, ., - -_~. c -.--- _ -..-- --.--_ --.-------- _.“I” -. . -.-
0 o/L/ --- -..-.. ~.---..- .--...--- ---.-
2i?2&5!...s;L-& qAQ0 AA4 A A c;ASI oL/cYL
~-.&!a .MA/.. . o 4 aL-2& 4 A--J %@4ixi?$49~~P& 1_-- -
PL _---” . I-- -&Ad /e.d z c cc LJ //ke A, co,,&z,ef
c.. ;/\ a f- _.XZKK-.- 74h. ‘.74ki e ?QzVJ 7 _- v /AR ‘J/L7 i/b 3- JL o.w& _.- -.-.-. 4 dLafi.k44& fl&3*.
-- -..... .., ..,. .“... . ..e_ .--.--,-.--. --
fQz&& .2&L ..._” /5i!d--h~~ -- C-A 4 CL? c -C-..--.,p
Fmfl : Enclnl tas Photo Gmttr - PHONE No. : 7604367361 - Qug. 02 1999 05:SiWl P2 .
.--. ._ . -. .- -- - .-.., .-_.. .- .- . .
.- 0 42 /I 4 94 oh, 74..L...-T!~~ L &!cIJ e ( -4?d ___. 0 /al-42 _ ______,__
- . -__._ -4cc 7% y _... - AQ 5 et c&-&cL~.~ _.. LL24 fc/. .- 2.E I I ,-+.- - ‘s ALe&hf -EL 4 4 4.i. . ..+ S.fL-#lLmmAb* -.--
e(/.eAJ i' 4 .is-. ..Bi.+e4 GdJ A __-.. ..-._.. _ .-
L~+L4 0 fa&..,ekl 3L &&al 0ed~~ch.S
XT if he&k3 &sdA *diic c .-. -Ad&A -- ..-. ,__. A,.,
67 +L.cA&~
(2. -.- . ..d.., . . - .
&4’P /z& tkf _,...._ PLXI A4d/Z<
6tL Sire Of c &en c%+ r/'&i'. -.- --.-. .- c/cpd t LLe4i&.--.-
j/ AV+J Q d 0 ~-sL .--._ y&m... A?-+oitkt iz-~ ,,I. YCLG--
x- A& --.-. CL// /Ad ,&a p-w 0 Jr -...... - -.. ,.-.-..
-d- * -_. TFm J/(4. q-i...?? i ._..._ f41’ueuQA - s-r-b<
i//i2 4ci.i w--J-- AL7.s 9 de4 CJL *AL 02 ,_ -.I-,,.,.--”
L/ d.+ _____ JF &ok Ll /i& ,~, 42~ /314&
csonA c3 c 0 h,_)tr.@ wk.. - --
- .-. _ . . --. --. - _I ,” .., ---
- ..--.
--I-
. ..& -L. 0-e 6 As 4
-.___ -.--. -
_-- _-.- .- -..-_ --__.... .- --_-
mm : Encini tas Photo Center - FHDNE No. : 7604367361 tig. 02 1999 05:!58PN P4 .
-2 3 -
_-. _...-.- _ -- ..-_-. ..---. .---- -. . ._ . . . .-_ .. .- ----- ., ----_ _-. ..-_.
A3 AA4iPLi 2. ~wwi .._.__ ____ I-_.. - ,Lh~.k.-~ . _ cJ4 we G rp th Q: A&
<s--,& &- bc> cw.&kLeJ _-... . . .--
ok\/ &fLc-f A-A - ._ _.,,_ r- “..
_ . . . . ..,. .,-. - _, ..-
-7-i&!.,-zLcJell,~~, ..,; P4 sr,‘c/e fl QC@%? R-La& ,_”
LAe~ec.~ J7c ss,‘L /e # &OS
-- / Cc, GP kfi~. /fi CL +d ik .,.,_-. Oce4ks& i &ALL . S& J=- fi&cis r
Er, CL-, ,: CL Jb , -*-. ;f- --W~@~ /7&e I &. cA/t*k s .___ ‘ . I ._.-._.__ L
egherIYLI(IP* T/-y I' c. f - -.e., 3
. “_ ___ _
. -- - -.. . .- I--_ .,,
FROFI : Enclnltas Photo Ccnter - , PHONE No. : 7604367361 - Rug. 02 1999 05:58PM P3
-y -
---- --_- . ..- . --_- ..- --, _. . . . _ . _... -_. .._ . _ --._. _
~ .--. ..- --_ _.__.._ .__.__ _.._. __ .- --- . .._.____._. -. --- -_-
-_-- ., C~~~X~~~. due &Qd ik by*./ f
-w--. --. __. --_.._... . ~- -.
-“.
-.-
-. I
., --- v-m ,.-.
.-.) .I. . . __.,. Th-k .
,_---_ - _ +a C.Ohh- . ,..
Q’/;“* --y$$Li*;,
-.--. .,_._ . . ._. -.. _ -. . . -._ . . .- -_._ .- c)G&L&L- . . .,
_. ,. .- -.. . ._...?
-..-- - . . --.. _
._-_ .- _._ ,..
-_ I --.. “, .- I.1 .
-- -._..---. .- .-I----
-. .- .--- .-.. .._ ..-_
CITY OF CARLSBAD
HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
SCOPING MEETING
July I, 1999
WRITTEN COMMENT FORM
On the lines provided below, please write any questions, comments
or concerns you may have regarding the HMP or the proposed
Mitigated Negative Declaration. Please give the completed form to a
City of Carlsbad representative at the meeting, or return to Don
Rideout, City of Carlsbad Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas
Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009. All comments must be received by
August 2, 1999.
I am concerned that Core Area 7, and LF'MZ 11, are not adequately treated in the HMP and the Negative Declaration. These areas represent the largest intact natural-landscape block withi (c-14-
. ,m I, 13 +.v t-maw in the City”
"the largest, least f ented, biological core area in the City, =T!h . ..and the primary lin,Fe between Carlsbad~ e large areas of unincorporated natural lands southWty= @-z, m$ In m 11 W 7 ?le some of the best natural land in the City and are crucial to the role the City lands must play in main- taining the north-south corridor. In view of this, it is astounding that the HMP contem- plate-. ?k-.P z~ifornia gnat- catcher locations within this area will be destroyed by the "Villages of La Costa" develop- ment. Approximately 6C$ of LFMZ 11 is slated for destruction. This action may have same sort ; it :fll?. ?x .
landscape and a sign&cant . f the Carlsbad fallin -doA sf Carlsbad's respensibilities region-wide. The biological data listed for LF'MZ 11 ii are radically lacking--rufous-crowned sparrows, Cooper's hawks,-, &tek&sHta . . ~~+H&UMBX Area 11, but they a& most definitely &resent there. urring in I question the adequacy of any bis- logical survey that misses these species. Deoimating LF'MZ 11, as the HhP and negative
Z 11 and Cere Area Thomas Lyon 7, and -indee the whole "Villages of La Cssta" proposition,
Name are In need of real study. To rubber-stamp the "Villages" would make a mockery of the entire planning process.
3174 Camino Arroyo
Street Address
(760) 635.0820
Stable 5
Caxlsbad, CA 92009
City, State, Zip Code
ENVD. AENTM
AND REGUWTORY
COMPLIANCE
SPECIALISTS
G.A. HUBER CO
6& El Pato Ct., Carlsbad, CA 92009 (760) 438-1903
FAX (760) 943-0183
Mr. Don Rideout Principal Planner City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009
August 1, 1999
Re: Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan
Overall I support the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan, the City of Carlsbad is out of "takeI' allowable under the current rules for development under the existing permitting policies of the Federal and State governments. The proposed plan will allow development to continue in Carlsbad and is in the best interest of land owners, developers, and the endangered species it is designed to protect.
I am disappointed, however, that it is not a part of a comprehensive regional proposal. Carlsbad cannot save any species alone, and the price being asked of land owners and developers is extreme.
This plan asks for no new funding, because it is "self funding“. The concept is in need of reevaluation. The plan will not work without the support and funding of existing residents. The benefits to existing homeowners is very real, and the cost for "maintenance of dedicated habitat" should be borne by the existing community, not just new development. All existing property was once native habitat - previously taken without compensation.
I also suggest that the City recognize that llauthorizedt' development may require off site "mitigation*@. At this time there are no "mitigation banks" within the City of Carlsbad. To make this plan work, the City is planning to acquire 200-400 acres outside the city limits, within the County of San Diego. To permit the Cannon Road bridge, the City mitigated wetland loss in Chula Vista. Please make it clear within this plan, that when mitigation is required for development, that it is not necessary that the mitigation be done in Carlsbad, but that it can be done in any mitigation bank in proximity to Carlsbad at the best price available.
TEJrn;ideration.
Gene A. Huber ' 19
August 2,1999
Spectrum Cornm&ities
Mr. Don Rideout
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department 2.0?5 z:Fjr; P.IEI??.?S ?3-b?
Carlsbad, CA, 92009
Re: Habitat Management Plan Comments - Carnation Property
Dear Mr. Rideout:
?his let& is written after reviewing the draft Habitat Management Plan and associated
Mitigated Negative Declaration. This property has been reviewed by the Agencies and the
City and F, been granted tentative subdivision map approval. _ e ~
The Ca&atioi property has been historically used for agricultural purposes. The site has been
used to grow various field crops for many years. The approved development area contains no
plant or animal species subject to regulation.
Therefore it is requested that the Carnation property designation be changed from a
“standards” designation to that of “development”. This change would treat this property the
same as those agricultural properties along the extension of Rose Drive.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Vice Prestdent 1 i .’ ._*. .‘. : . -;:.. *_ -,. 1 : ” . . . ‘_7. s: :.: :. ,. . : ,- : cc. Mr.’ j&k ‘Hentbom - Henthoi-n and Associates. ’ ‘, : : .- :: ,. ...-.s ’ _ _ k.ii
153’75 Barranca Parkway, Suite B-2 11, Irvine CA 92618 l Tel: (949) 753-8400 Fax: (949) 753-8401
Spectrum C*m&ities
August 2,1999
Mr. Don Rideout
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Drive &‘i&d, CA gj&ii
Re: Habitat Management Plan Comments - Hadley Property
Dear Mr. Rideout:
This letter is written after reviewing the draft Habitat Management Plan and associated
Mitigated Negative Declaration. This property has been reviewed by the Agencies and the
City and has been granted tentative subdivision map approval.
The Hadley property has been historically used for agricultural purposes. The site has been
used to grow various field crops for many years. The approved development area contains no
plant or animal species subject to regulation.
Therefore it is requested that the Hadley property designation be changed from a “standards”
designation to that of “development”. This change would treat this property the same as those
agricultural properties along the extension of Rose Drive.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
fi
Vice President
cc. Mr. Jack kenthorn’- Henthom and Associates. .
1. . .;
. ‘.
15375 Barranca Parkway, Suite B-211, b-vine CA 92618 l Tel: (949) 753-8400 Fax: (949) 753-8401
_-
W 77 Western Pacific Housing
SAN DIlGO DIVISION”
July 30, 1999
Mr. Don Rideout
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
2075 Las Pahnas Drive
Carlsbad, California
Subject: Habitat Management Plan Comments - Buerger Property
Dear Mr. Rideout:
This letter is written after reviewing the draft Habitat Management Plan and associated Mitigated Negative
Declaration. The Buerger property (APN 2 15040-08/10) has been historically used for agricultural
purposes. The site contains several greenhouses and has used to grow various flower crops for many years.
The site contains no plant or animal species subject to regulation.
Therefore it is requested that the Bueger property designation be changed from a “standards” designation to
that of “development”. This change would treat this property the same as those agricultural properties
along the extension of Rose Drive.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely
FIC HOUSING -. .
Project Manager
Scot Sandstrom, Western Pacific Housing
Jack Henthom, Henthom and Associates
2385 Camino Vida Roble, Suite 107,Carlsbad, California 92009 760.929.1600 Fax 760.929.1601
W 77 Western Pacific Housing
SAN DISCO DIVISION”
July 30, 1999
Mr. Don Rideout
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
2075 Las Pahnas Drive
Carlsbad, California
Subject: Habitat Management Plan Comments - S.R.W.B. Property
Dear Mr. Rideout:
This letter is written after reviewing the draft Habitat Management Plan and associated Mitigated Negative
Declaration. The SRWB property (APN 2 15-020-06) has been reviewed by the City and has a Hillside
Development approval that allowed the placement of fill material along Cassia in conjunction with the
Poinsettia Hill project.
The S.R.W.B. property has been historically used for agricultural purposes in the area covered by the
approved hillside development permit. The site has been used to grow various field crops for many years.
The approved development area contains no plant or animal species subject to regulation.
Therefore it is requested that the designation of the portion of the S.R.W.B. property covered by the hillside
development permit be changed from a “standards” designation to that of “development”. This change
would accurately reflect the on site condition.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely
OUSING
Project Manager
Scot Sandstrom, Western Pacific Housing
Jack Henthom, Henthom and Associates
‘13
2385 Camino Vida Roble, Suite 107,Carlsbad, California 92009 760.929.1600 Fax 760.929.1601
W 77 Western Pacific Housing
SAN DlSOO DIVISION”
July 30, 1999
Mr. Don Rideout
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
2075 Las Pahnas Drive
Carlsbad, California
Subject: Habitat Management Plan Comments - Steiner Property
Dear Mr. Rideout:
This letter is written after reviewing the draft Habitat Management Plan and associated Mitigated Negative
Declaration. The City of Carlsbad has accepted a development application for the subdivision of this
property.
The Steiner property (APN 2 15-050-58) has been historically used for residential and agricultural purposes
The proposed development area contains no plant or animal species subject to regulation.
Therefore it is requested that the designation of the Steiner property be changed from a “standards”
designation to that of “development”. This change would accurately reflect the conditions found on site.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely
Project Manager
Scot Sandstrom, Western Pacific Housing
Jack Henthom, Henthom and Associates
74
2385 Camino Vida Roble, Suite 107,Carlsbad, California 92009 760.929.1600 Fax 760.929.1601
08/02/99 MON 16:58 FAX 760 438 7615 RUSSELL W. GROSSE DEV. -
JWLLIAM M. GROSSE
5870 Sunny Creek Road
Cartvbad, CA 92008
760 /431-8832
El001
August 2,1999
Mr. Don Rideout Principal Planner
CITY OF CARLSBAD
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Ciulsbad, CA 92009-1576
RE: HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR NATURAL
COMMUNEIES IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
Dear Mr. Rideout:
I would request that you change my personal residence, commonly hewn BE
5870 Sunny Creek Road, from the Proposed Standards Area to a Development
Area, as shown on the Habitat Management Plan, Figure 22,
RUSSELL W. GROSSE
5850 Sunny Creek Road
Carlsbad, CA 92008
760 14386742
August 2,1999
Mr. Don Rideout
Principal Planner
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009-l 576
RE: Habitat Management Plan for Natural
Communities in the Citv of Carlsbad
Dear Don:
I would request that you change my personal residence, where I’ve lived for
over 30 years, commonly known as 5850 Sunny Creek Road, from the
Proposed Standards Area to a Development Area, as shown on the Habitat
Management Plan, Figure 22.
Sincerely,
Pat\SCTeAcorRidemt8299.rwg
I.
RUSSELL h.GROSSEDEVELOPMti*1TCO.,INC.
5850 Avenida Encinas, Suite A l Carlsbad, California 92008 Phone 760/438-3141 l FAX 760/438-7615
June IO,1999
Michael Holzmiller
City of Carlsbad Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009- 1576
RE: Habitat Management Plan - Sunny Creek
Dear Michael:
The April 1999 edition of the City’s new plan shows in Figure #22 the Plaza
at Sunny Creek (Lot 11 of Tract 83-36) in Zone 15 as a Development Area,
as we previously discussed and we thank you, but the smaller maps, Figure
#20 and #2 1, are still showing the same area as Proposed Standard Area.
Would you please make the same correction.
Thanks for your consideration.
Sincerely,
b?Lk-
H.D. “Mike” O’Hara
cc: Don Rideout, Principal Planner
Jim Whalen
Contr.lctors License No. I7R.IS.1 77
August 27, 1999
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, Ca. 92009
Subject: Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad dated
April 1999 (“HMP”)
Dear Mr. Holzmiller:
This letter is being submitted to supplement the comments made in my previous letter of August 2, 1999.
I realize that the 45 day public review period for environmental purposes has ended, however it is our
understanding that staff is still receiving and will consider additional comments on the I-IMP. Upon
further review of the KMP there still appears to be a few areas that need clarification or revision.
Figure 9 in Section D - This exhibit does not accurately reflect the version of the Bressi Ranch
HMP hard-line boundary submitted on May 22,1998 to Don Rideout on a GIS format. Although
the differences are minor, we should reflect the most current version. It appears that an earlier
version was used in the HMP document. Another copy of the file is being sent for your records.
The May 22, 1998 version is the latest version which has been reviewed by the Wildlife Agencies
as well as the City and reflects some revisions to the boundaries of open space adjacent to El
Fuerte Road, since the proposed road alignment changed slightly due to topographic constraints.
The 1998 exhibit still shows the Bressi Ranch knoll area, but that is due to the fact that the area
was excluded after the May 22”d exhibit was prepared, This would still be our intent. This
revision also needs to be reflected on Exhibits 6 and 14.
Encroachment of Manmade Slopes into Hardline Areas- - There will be some slight
encroachment of man made slopes into the hardline HMP areas proposed on the Bressi Ranch,
mainly due to the construction of El Fuerte. These areas only consist of several acres at the most
and are to be revegetated with native species. This has been reviewed many times with staff and
the Resource Agencies. The HMP does not appear to address this situation, which we are sure
would occur in other projects as well. Text should be added to the HMP that will allow minor
encroachment into hardline areas for man made slopes if they are revegetated with native species.
Please address this issue so that minor amendments or encroachments can be handled with
administrative approvals instead of complex guidelines.
Page 1 of 2
Lennar.HMP.8.26.99
-
78
5780 Fleet Street, Suite 320, Carlsbad, California 92008-4700 - (760) 918-8858, Fax (760) 918-8868
Detention Basins in Hardline Areas - Text should be added to the I-IMP to allow permanent
detention basins to be located in hardline areas, if these basins are oversized and the majority of
the basin consists of a soft bottom that will allow for wetland species to establish. This would
serve to detain storm water, while providing a year around wetland habitat. This is a great
solution that addresses the development and environmental solutions to a problem that can plague
a development project adjacent to sensitive habitats and open spaces. A portion of these basins
near the spillways would have to have a solid concrete surface for maintenance purposes. It
appears that these structures were not addressed by the I-IMP.
We look forward to the opportunity to discuss these issues as well as the issues raised in my letter of
August 2, 1999, with you and Don Rideout, before the scheduled City Council meeting on September 21,
1999. In the meantime if you have any questions please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Dir+tor, Community Development
cc Don Rideout
Bill Hofman
Barry Jones
Craig Beam
Page 2 of 2
Lennar.HMP.8.26.99
STANDARD PACIFIC
HOMES
July 30, 1999
Mr. Don Rideout
City of Carlsbad Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: Habitat Management Plan Comments - Roesch Property
Dear Mr. Rideout:
This letter is written after reviewing the draft Habitat Management Plan and associated Mitigated Negative Declaration. This property has been reviewed by the Agencies and the City and has an application on file
for tentative subdivision map approval.
The Roesch property has been historically used for agricultural purposes. The site has been used to grow
various field crops for many years. The approved development area contains no plant or animal species
subject to regulation.
Therefore it is requested that the Roesch property designation be changed from a “standards” designation to
that of “development”. This change would treat this property the same as those agricultural properties
along the extension of Rose Drive.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
STANDARD PACIFIC HOMES
Vice President Acquisitiod & Development
GL:jb
San Diego Division
9335 Chesapeuke Dr., Sun Diego, CA 92123-1010
TEL (619) 292-2200 FAX (619) 292-2260
-
GREYSTONE HOMES, INC
5780 Fleet Street
Suite 300
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Off ice 760-804-7700
Fax 760-804-7716
July 30, 1099
Mr. Don Rideout
City of Carlsbad
2075 hs Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, California 92008
Subject: BCS - Emerald Pointe Habitat Corridor Design
Dear Mr. Rideout:
Greystone Homes has an application on file with the City of Car1sba.d for the development of
the Emerald Pointe community, consisting of twenty-three lots on two properties owned by
Greystone and the BCS partnership. As you are aware, we have been working with the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game on a
development proposal that would enhance the wildlife corridor in the vicinity of these two
properties by incorporating portions of both properties into a single development envelop that
WGU!:~ permit more preservation than would occur if the parcels were to remain independent
ol’cne slother.
During the 45 day HMP review period, Greystone has been finalizing our site plan and has
received the attached letter, dated July 7, 1999, from the resource agencies supporting our
proposed configuration as a “hardline” area into the HMP.
Therefore, it is requested that this letter and the attached letter from the agencies be included
in the CEQA documentation relative as comments received during the 45 day review period.
In furtherance of our efforts to provide the most environmentally beneficial design, we have
submitted a lot line adjustment application that will solidify the configuration of the habitat
corridor in this area.
Thank you for your cooperation in this effort. We look forward to participating in the
implementation of the City’s HMP.
RespectfUlly,
I&tine A. Zortman
Greystone Homes, Inc.
cc: Sheryl L. Barrett. United States Fish & Wildlife Service
Julie Vanderwier, United States Fish & Wildlife Service, Carlshad
Williaxn Tippets, California Department of Fish and Game
C.F’. Raysbrook, California Department of Fish and Game, San Diego
David Lawhead, California Department of Fish and Game, San Diego
Ai>ne Hysong, City of Carlsbad
Hofman Planning
A s s o c i a t e s
Ploniing Project Management Fiscal Analysis
July 30, 1999
Don Rideout
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, Ca. 92009
RE: CARLSBAD’S HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
Dear Don:
We have reviewed the HMP and would like to comment on the Planning Standards for Zone 1,
page D-45. Section 3 for Zone 1 mentions two specific areas in Zone 1, one of which is a larger,
vacant iniill-lot located to the southwest of El Camino Real and Kelly Drive. The plan requires
that at least 50% of the Coastal Sage Scrub on this site be preserved.
This requirement significantly impacts the development potential of this site, especially when
taken into consideration with the constraints placed on this site by the Hillside Development
Ordinance and the Local Coastal Program’s requirements regarding grading on slopes. When all
of these requirements are put together it severely limits the development potential of this site.
We could understand having a requirement to preserve 50% of the habitat on this site if it were
adjacent to a larger block of habitat. However, this 14.6 acre site is completely surrounded by
existing residential development, which isolates it from the nearest CSS habitat. In addition, the
CSS on site is fragmented and has been impacted by neighborhood children and domestic pets.
Any gnatcatchers that lived on the site would have to fly through an existing residential
neighborhood to get to the nearest patches of CSS adjacent to Agua Hedionda Lagoon. In
addition, any development on this site would further reduce the amount of CSS on site and
increase the impacts on the remaining CSS.
The site has little long term habitat value due to its small size and isolation from other natural
habitats. It is also too small and isolated to serve as a viable mitigation bank. Therefore if the
goal of the I-IMP is to preserve habitat and native species on a long term basis, we believe it
would be more effective if this site was allowed to mitigate any development impacts to CSS
5900 Pusteur Court l Suite 150 l Carlsbad l CA 92008 l (760) 438-1465 l Fax: (760) 438-1443 83
offsite adjacent to large blocks of CSS, rather than being required to preserve 50% of the
fragmented on site habitat. This would be in conformance with the I-IMP Conservation Goals for
Zone 1 which stress retaining and managing natural habitats adjacent to the lagoons to buffer
resources from adverse impacts. The preservation of 50% of the CSS on this isolated site will
not serve as a buffer any of the natural habitats adjacent to the lagoon and will have little long
term habitat value. It would be far more effective from a biological point of view to allow more
than 50% of the CSS on this site to be impacted, with mitigation to be provided off site adjacent
to large tracts of native habitat, with a long term viability.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
/@Hz&
Mike Howes
cc Michael Holzmiller
Gary Green
84
3. Cawfemz Dad
6965 PI (hmho Real. YlOS-513 CYlSbd. CA 92009
Phone: (760) Gl-153 l Fax: (760) OSI-7877
BY FAX TOi 760-438-0894 - Pa lNCLS&)JNG THIS ONE - 1
July 22,1999
Mr. Michael Holzmilier
Planning Dktor
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, 92008
Dear Mr. Homer:
This I3x fo@ws up on my public comments made at last evening’s Planning Commission meeting. My
comments were precipitated by the following regarding the Habitit Management Plan discussion at the
meeting:
1.
2.
The process for providing tentitive and final agendas of Planning Commission meetiags
to Cirlsbad’s citizens. On July 19,1999, I made a tip to the Community Development offices
spedicalIy to procure a copy of the agenda for last evening’s Planning Commission meeting. On
the f$ont desk were copies of a document entitled ‘Wan&g Commission Agaxla - Tentatively
Sche+led as of 717199”. I aske!d one of the “clerks” at the counter if any additional items had been
added to the agenda, and he indicated to me that none had. Thus I was chagrin&d to fkui, for the
first iime, upon my arrival at last evening’s me&g, last night’s actual agenda included the item
“‘HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN - COMMENTS’ under the heading “Public Hekgs”.
The qpearance to me was the notification of the age&a item was being &hidden- until the last
possible moment; and
Your public pronouncement last evening to the Planning Commission stating their
comyuents to the City Council should include e6baildiag deusities must be increased in
future projects”. You stated this is necessary to make up the shorrfaU in developers’ rmenue
and $ity fees beii caused by the increased land being set aside for open space by the proposed
habitat management plan (“HMP”)~ Given it is the desire of the city to pass the HMP on a
mitigated ny@ive declation which, as I understand i$ short circuits the review process I found
these comments to be dii. At the very least, these comments require the HMP be open to
a full review including an EIR The HMP is therefore not a candidate for the mitigated negative
decl+ation process.
I trust this fax clarifies the reasons I made the statements I did last evening.
Sincerely y&s,
avid
m: Mr. Richard Rudog Esq. - Fu- 760434-8367
Members of the City of Carlsbad Plakng Commission through Mr. Hokmikr
August 2, 1999
Mr. Don Rideout
Principal Planner\Special Projects
CITY OF CARLSBAD
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
,g5=3& (2 , )t . .
i
/ 4. c t’ e l-- 6 / fi d@ d Y-. od) *.
i, - .
Re: Habitat Management Plan\ Zone 14
Dear Don:
I have several concerns regarding the proposed Habitat Management Plan and its potential impact
on the Robertson Ranch which is the primary landowner in Zone 14 as follows:
A. To the best of our knowledge, there has never been a biological survey of the Ranch
property. The aerial survey maps which have been used by the Agencies have been found
to be incorrect in several areas. This being the case, I believe it important that a thorough
understanding of the plant and animal life on the Ranch be known prior to assumptions being
made as to what may or may not exist on the property.
B. We have been told that a “Linkage B” may be required between Core Areas 3 and 4. Two
possible locations are shown on the Focus Planning Area Maps for this linkage. Prior to any
decisions being made as to the size and shape of this linkage, we believe more information
is required and a determination should be made as to which locations will be used. Further,
we believe it premature to outline specific dimensions for such a linkage, in that topography,
existing habitat and other physical components of the area should be taken into consideration
rather than arbitrarily structuring a linear requirement.
C. Under the “Planning Standards” for Zone 14 it states that “Areas of upland habitat outside
of the designated Linkage B may be taken in exchange for restoration and enhancement
inside the linkage....“. Are you referencing the Linkage B area shown on the Focus Planning
Area Map or, the dimensions of the approved Linkage B?
D. Much of the property shown in the proposed linkage areas is currently under cultivation. As
such, there is no habitat on these portions of the Ranch. Because of this, we feel we need
more information regarding “enhancement and restoration” in that the vast majority of this
part of the Ranch will come under this category. What is to be planted? When is it to be
planted? If this is a city-wide plan, who pays to plant the linkages? And, who maintains the
area? Who owns the planted area and who is liable ? Will the fire management zones be
incorporated into the linkages?
E. Historically, many flood plain areas in the City were graded, brought out of the flood plain
and, modifications to the FEMA maps were made. If this is no longer the case, I would
assume that, the inability to grade in the flood plain would require amendments to the City’s
Master Drainage Study.
Many of the major roads in the city are being developed under the Bridge & Thoroughfare
District. If this roads are allowed to be developed in the flood plain, but no private
development is allowed, who pays the frontage road costs? There would be no benefit to the
landowner.
The Robertson family has been asked to place a 15 acre “ponding area” on their land to take
the Ranch0 Carlsbad Mobile Home Park out of the flood zone. Yet they would not be
allowed to grade their own land out of the flood plain. This is a concept we find hard to
comprehend.
And finally landowners who are required to provide large habitat linkages on their property
should certainly be allowed to grade property out of the flood plain.
F. Planning and engineering considerations and waivers should be considered to help those
landowners so heavily impacted by these linkages to recapture some of their physical and
financial loss. Relaxation of some of the grading requirements and density bonuses through
zone changes are just a few of the examples that come to mind.
In closing, the Robertson family has farmed their land for well over 100 years. They have paid their
taxes and placed no burdens upon the city. Now, open space requirements, streambed setbacks,
“ponding” areas, trails, fire management zones, LFMP constraints and habitat management linkages,
to name a few, are being extracted from their property with no compensation.
We would hope a workable compromise could be met wherein the Agencies, the City and the
landowners could all receive some benefit.
We thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Habitat Management Plan.
Regards,
-*son
Mr. Brian Robertson
Mr. Gary Robertson
Mr. Henry Hague
Holly Springs, Ltd.
Lucia Sippel
1287 Vera Cruz Oceanside, CA 92056
July 28, 1999
Mr. Don Rideout, Planning Department
City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009
Dear Mr. Rideout,
Carlsbad's Habitat Management Plan is a lengthy document and contains a great deal of information. Much of
it is biology about which I have little expertise. I want
to confine my comments to the implementation sections of the HMP. It has taken seven years to arrive at what lands should be preserved and the mitigation methods and procedures. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is the law
and we fall under its sometimes rigorous and unpleasant directives.
Following are my comments and concerns .
Section E-7 The assumption here that developers are the primary recipients of the benefits of the HMP, scarcely matches with the general theme of the Endangered Species
Act. Protecting species and their biological diversity is said to be important for the nation; To imply that many
costs should be borne by developers ( and therefore all new HOME buyers) is not consistent with the national scope of the law.
Each and every person now living in a building in Carlsbad, has used up habitat. Each person has contributed to the loss of space for plants and animals. Human
presence has brought exotic vegetation and paved over land needed by animals. All local inhabitants will enjoy the
effects of open space in our community. It is reasonable that the whole civic population of Carlsbad contribute to the preservation of species in the city.
It is true that Carlsbad is carrying a cost burden greater than other near-by cities not so carefully planned.
- -
In the MHCP Draft, Section 4 - 7, Carlsbad conserves 3,857
acres of habitat whereas Vista contributes only 266 acres
for preservation. In the longrun, the open space is our
benefit - a public benefit.
F. Preserve Management
I have some personal observations on management
issues.
Calavera , an old quarry site in north east Carlsbad,
was purchased from my family and added to the open space/
habitat . Now called Calavera Heights, it shows erosion
damage, heavy use of multiple trails by 4 wheel drive
vehicles and motor bikes as well as mountain pedal bikes. Its condition as home for plants and animals has deteriorated heavily through human use. Only a part of the
public are interested in habitat preservation. Many
others want open space for human use not for rare plants
and animals.
Land belonging to the school district had become a dumping ground - rugs, refrigerators, construction trash, old tires, batteries - a place to change the oil in your
car. Now that it is being farmed, much less of that
occurs.
Public land, without an on-site watchman or a resident owner, becomes the place for parties and joy-riding and all
the other uses described above. HMP may need policing of some sort to control these depredations. I do not see
any cost estimates included for such problems.
F-4 My personal observations are that once the native soil is broken, through farmjng, erosion, wheel tracks - human activity - all the weed plants move in. Mustard, tar'weed, tumble weed etc. - hard to eradicate
and control.. .The eroded places on Calavera will be a long time healing. We don't control rainfall and water is
essential for restoration. Many sites are not now supplied with irrigation water. In 200 or 300 acre core areas it can be a long way to water for restoration.
F-6 Restoration Cal Trans spent 2-3 years attempting to re-vegetate a portion of the Carlsbad Highlands Mitigation Bank. The land had been farmed. Rainfall was low those years. They made great efforts to prevent trespassing and vehicle traffic over the planted areas. Today it still looks like a field of mustard with little to show for the money spent in restoration.
89
‘3
Farmers commonly find their irrigation systems broken overnight. This program will also face those losses. costs
increase, especially should there be a need for vandalism
prevention.
If restoration is unsuccessful the first, second, or third time, how far will the plan go in requiring success of
the responsible entity ? I do not see a Homeowner's Association happily paying for a fourth or fifth attempt
at restoration.
F-7 Recreation and Public Access In those places where Mexican Camps existed for years weeds are prevalent. The banks of the creek are changed. People are wearing out
the National Parks. They can do the same to this open space / habitat. What plan is there for preventing some of the public starting on an approved trail and detouring down a
canyon or a creek when they cross it? Personal experience says that fences can be broken or walked around; And the dogs that start out on a leash but don't stay there? Human nature should be planned for - some obey the
rules and others don't.
F-9 Day Use . . "instruct users not to feed wild life". Please note the educational "Do Not Feed the Squirrels" signs along the beach bluff by the ocean. Signs are easily ignored. Volunteer patrols don't carry enough clout. You may need paid employees. The police find it difficult to answer calls complaining of trespassing over open land - they have other areas to watch for human misdeeds. Does $75 per acre really cover all the costs?
F-11 It would seem practical to restrict species re-introduction and subsequent management to the publicly owned sites. Even large areas under ownership of Homeowners associations could be fraught with difficulties.
F-12 Enforcement - again costs may be greater than planned. Human management can take a lot of time and this plan for information gathering about species will also take a lot of time. Are you sure one person can do a good job of both?
.
-
Conclusions
1. Preserve maintenance should be a public expense. The management of such a preserve may be more expensive than expected. I believe that maintenance and management and attendent costs, should be borne by the community not a few individual citizens. Once the preserve areas are established and set aside, they become a public resource by virtue of public use. It is unreasonable to require homeowners to provide for public amenities. The gift of the land to the public is sufficient. Upkeep belongs in the public domain
2. Management of the preserve system is a necessity. All the habitat should be covered by a single set of rules. Several governing bodies responsible for maintenance will be difficult to hold to the same standards.
3. One body must own the land and thus the responsibility for the preserve system.
Oversight of the various owners of habitat will be a cost
to the city; the city must make annual reports to USFWS and CDFG . Since we must do this, I'd like to see it well done and management will be a key.
Suggestions
Taking a page from the National Parks, perhaps closing entirely to human use some of the Core Areas might be helpful. Some portion left unused by people might be the very best for the vegetation and its creatures. Guided tours at selected times of the year could be possible. Another possibility would be year-long closures of core areas for a "rest".
Public access could utilize some of the easements already present. For example, the gas line easement along our east border next to Oceanside. It must be kept clear of vegetation and could be followed across country for a good distance .and would suit the needs of hikers.
A local support group such as the lagoon foundations, could be a help. Many local citizens are willing to contribute to preservation. Maybe a dollar a month club for adults and a dime a month for kids, with advertisement,
9/
could be the basis for a preservation fund. A flat one
time $10. charge on every water bill in the city would provide a money source to start a fund. Advertise a spring weed control program on different Saturdays. Organize the Pampas Grass Brigade, to remove exotics.
And especially, encourage and include schools - could
they adopt a preserve area? for protection,for study, for care, for responsibility ? The local citizenry might care about the preserve - at least as much as the "maintenance contractor" (F-7).
Starting with the U.S. Congress and continuing down to the local level, funding has been avoided as a major issue in preservation. At the end now, it must be addressed. I believe the costs, at least for maintenance, must be shared by all the citizenry. I hope my suggestions merit some attention. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Lucia Sippel Holly Springs, Ltd.
- /
August 2,1999
Don Rideout
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92009
RE: COMMENTS ON HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
APRIL, 1999 DIUFT
Dear Don:
Planning Systems has reviewed the April, 1999 draft of the City of Carlsbad
Habitat Management Plan (I-IMP) and offers the following comments:
1. Calavera Hills
We have been informed that Calavera Hills II, LLC has reached an agreement
with the City of Carlsbad and the Resource Agencies on limits of “hard line”
open space within Calavera Hills Phase II, including Village K. As a result,
we anticipate that these limits will be reflected in Section D of the I-IMP, and
that Village K’s depiction as a “standards” area will be replaced with the
agreed-upon “hard line” open space boundaries. Planning Systems is
available to assist the City in provision of graphics and/or revised acreage
calculations reflecting the new agreement, if requested.
2. Kellv Ranch
Although we concur with the “hard line” open space limits set forth in
Figure 12 of Section D, this Figure incorrectly describes the underlying
existing vegetation communities within Kelly Ranch Village A. Figure 12
identifies the southern and eastern half of Village A as possessing primarily
southern coastal salt marsh (CSM) plant community, and the remainder
coastal sage scrub (CSS) community. In reality, CSM vegetation is only
located in small, isolated patches over a minor portion of the site, and the
south and eastern portions of the property are largely dominated by ruderal
and disturbed habitat. CSS habitat is also identified in Figure 12 over far
greater area than actually exists. Attached is a recent vegetation map for
Village A prepared by Merkel & Associates, which provides greater accuracy
than the existing HMP information. We recommend that Figure 12 be
modified to incorporate the Merkel information.
93
1530 FARADAY AVENUE l SUITE 100 l CAFKSBAD, CA 92008 l (760) 931-0780 l FAX (760) 931-5744 l planningsystems@nctimes.net
-
Don Rideout
August 2,1999
Page 2 ,
3. Habitat Take Permit Fee
The methodology of calculating the proposed Habitat Take Permit Fee
(Page E-7) is ambiguous as written. It references a fee based upon acreage of
“impacted habitat”, and later directs that this fee be administered relative to
“impacted vacant natural land”. Vacant natural land further is defined
including lands that contain no habitat whatsoever.
Planning Systems understands the need for funding of acquisition of offsite
habitat (Gnatcatcher Core Area), in order to achieve Resource Agency
concurrence on the I-IMP, however we cannot detect any equitable connection
between development of agricultural, pasture, ruderal and disturbed
vegetation, and the payment of habitat take fees. We anticipate that some
nexus analysis of this fee structure will occur prior to adoption of the fee.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft HMP. We look
forward to modifications to the document and ultimate adoption of the HMP,
which should result in additional predictability on all sides, and the
elimination of the procedural mess involved in Federal and State permitting
that occurs now.
werely, iiw0w .
Director of Planning
Attachment
L-
ladwig Design Group, Inc.
August 2, 1999
AUG 0 2 1999
Don Rideout
Senior Planner
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
crrY OF CARLSBm
pLANNING DEPT.
RE: SHELLEY 8 1.3 ACRES IN THE ZONE 1 l/SOUTHEAST CARLSBAD/R.ESPONSE TO
THECARLSBADDRAFTHMP
(LADWIG DESIGN GROUP, INC. JOB NO. L-1005)
Dear Don:
This letter is a formal response to the City relative to the Draft HMP for the City of Carlsbad. In
addition to this letter, please refer to Dan Shelley’s letter dated August 2, 1999. There are several
areas we would like to comment on.
HMP MaDDinP/i?iPure 3
Figure 3 ofthe DraR HMP is a vegetation map that shows the majority of the Shelley property being
either Coastal Sage Scrub or grasslands. Recently, Mr. Shelley has hired the environmental firm of
kffinis Environmental Services who have prepared a vegetation map and identified various species
that occupy the property. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the subject map. Our
request is to amend the mapping, “specifically Figure 3 ,“within the HMP to reflect the field surveys
conducted in June and July of 1999. Mr. Rod Dossey performed this work for AfXnis Environmental
Services. Mr. Shelley met with Mr. Dossey on the initial meeting in the field on June 23. The
gnatchatcher surveys were done on June 30*, July 7th and July 14’r’. On the 14”, Mr. Dossey’s
supervisor assisted him for his final gnatchatcher survey. A formal report is now being prepared and
will be forwarded to you as soon as it is completed.
The second area of our response deals with the planning standards for Zone 11 on pages D-50 and
D-51.
HMP Planniw Standards
In an effort to define “hardlines” and to come to an agreement with the City and the Agencies, we
have had two meetings. The first meeting was on June 29”’ at the City of Carlsbad which included
City representatives and Wildlife Agencies. Our second meeting was on July 20” also at the City with
the same individuals from both the City and the Wildlife Agencies. At both our meetings in June and
703 Palomar Airport Road + Suite 300 + Carlsbad, CaliFornia 92009
(760) 438-3182 fF\X (760) 438-0173
- -
Don Rideout
August 2,1999
Page 2
July, we presented a suggested configuration for hardlines for the property divided up into several
different areas for development and preservation based on the existing planning standards in the Draft
HMP. In addition at the July 20* meeting, we did present to everyone the vegetation mapping by
AfEinis. U.S. Fish and Wildlife indicated on the 20* that they would provide input and response to
our plan that I prepared dated June 2 1,1999. Since the 20*, I have requested from you whether there
has been any response and to date, we have had no feedback from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
as to the acceptability of our proposed suggestions.
There could be several short-term or minor impacts that would be mitigated as part of the
development. These would include a second road connection across the drainage area. In addition,
we would also need to make a sewer connection from generally the low spot in Melrose Avenue
down to an existing sewer line at the very southerly property line along the central drainage course.
In addition, we have commented on the need for two street access points one north and one south
of Melrose Ave. fiom the adjacent BofA property to the west. These access comments were made
to the City as part of the formal response to the environmental impact report that is currently being
prepared for the BofA property.
Dan Shelley in a separate letter is suggesting that the northerly portion ofthe Shelley property (25%)
would become part of the major habitat corridor from Carlsbad southeasterly into the county of San
Diego. This is the property north of the south line of the SDG&E easement. On the southern
boundary of the property, he suggests that we extend and widen the existing corridor from the BofA
property to the west.
In addition to the above, we strongly object to the potential for paying a habitat mitigation permit fee
for impact to the vegetation types shown on paragraph number 3 on the bottom of page E7. Of
particular concern is the definition of vacant natural land. All the vegetation types shown are not
sensitive and, in essence, to charge a fee is penalizing those property owners that have concentrated
their proposed development on already impacted areas and have stayed away from natural sensitive
vegetation that is so important to the HMP.
Summary
To summarize our request, we would:
1. Request that with respect to the Shelley property the vegetation map (Figure 3 in the HMP) . be adjusted to reflect the recent survey by Afhnis. (Attached)
2. Mr. Shelley would agree to the development and conservation areas on the attached map
(Exhibit A).
703 Palomar Airport Road + Suite 300 + Carlsbad, California 92009
(760) 438-3182 FRX (760) 438-0173 97
. Don Rideout
August 2, 1999
Page 3
3. Since we have had no formal or informal response from the agencies following our
discussions, we reserve the right to provide further comments after the formal close of the
comment period on August 2,1999.
4. We object to the proposed habitat mitigation fee for impact to vacant natural lands as
described above.
If you have any questions about the above, please get in touch.
Sincerely,
LADWIG DESIGN GROUP, INC.
Robert C. Ladwig, President
RCL:lb:32
Attachment
cc: Nancy Gilbert, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, w/enclosure
Julie Vanderwier, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, w/enclosure
David Lawhead, State Department of Fish and Game, w/enclosure
Michael Holzmiller, City of Carlsbad, w/enclosure
Dan Shelley, w/enclosures
703 Palomar Airport Road + Suite 300 + Carlsbad, California 92009 (760) 438-3182 FRX (760) 438-0173 98
./’
‘.(,I .
.‘. :
.: __,.r ., 4. .a i
-. */_. .I’ .’ ,. ,.I
z,.: ‘.’ ,. ./I, I.!-! . .
.
-FE= : i ! :“‘~wl $[ 1 ;$ d i-\ . . -.._-_.
\
’ i /I
Urn6 r LaelDM -,.w . ‘-
L @yf*$ _.-.__. _
-1
a+ *-a-
‘a4 2fJo 4M ,.I;& 6al
C~ .--- mm.:.-. __. - -, L ’
4
._ ,:r_. ,- ..- -.. . .. .-..-. /f-- -. I I
: _e. - ( -’ -I-- .I-.
I” .,’ d I I ,
_ : I I ‘\ +/Jo~~*,~. ; /, p/p ( -qf* . ‘; ..I
p-& ..__.;.; .p 0.:; :-. *I N , *... -\\ ..- -k&N!y#+ \p\
h-a&q-. .L.ji,: ’ ‘~5 ., \ .,
-_
\ ti
n_ ip 7 d Y ui w p . .’ E .” ,’
..* : R 1
.-
f Western Pacific Housing
SAW DISQO DIVISION
July 30, 1999
Mr. Don Rideout
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
2075 Las Pahnas Drive
Carlsbad, California
Subject: Habitat Management Plan Comments - Kaiser Property
Dear Mr. Rideout:
This letter is written after reviewing the draft Habitat Management Plan and associated Mitigated Negative
Declaration. The Kaiser property (APN 215-080-22) has been historically used for agricultural purposes.
The site has been used to grow various row crops for many years. The development envelope contains no
plant or animal species subject to regulation (see attached exhibit for limits of grading).
Therefore, as a general member of the public, Western Pacific Housing suggests that the Kaiser property
designation be changed from a “standards” designation to that of “development”. This change would treat this property the same as those agricultural properties along the extension of Rose Drive.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely
WESTERN PACIFIC HOUSING
Project Manager
Scot Sandstrom, Western Pacific Housing
Jack Henthom, Henthom and Associates
238.5 Camino I& Rol~lr. Suite 107.Carlshacl. California 92009 760.929. IfdH) Fax 760.929.1h01
if-.-
l
,,.I. , -.__ _
~ ,../ ---++~,---:+-+-~
.-$ /.-
,.~ _---- -.-- :, :;jJ::gcy *
? >I /--- ‘------L I :,e: .
RUSSELL W. GROSSE DEVELOPMENT CO., INC.
5850 Avenida Encinas, Suite A l Carlsbad, California 92008 l Phone 760/438-3 141 l FAX 760/438-7615
August 2, 1999
Mr. Don Rideout
Principal Planner
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009- 15 76
RE: HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR NATURAL COMMUNITIES
IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
Mr. Rideout:
After reviewing the Draft Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in
the City of Carlsbad, I have the following comments:
It is unfortunate that the wording on page E-7, regarding the Habitat Take Permit ,
Fee, is so misleading. The fee proposed should be based on the acreage of
undisturbed land or to-be-impacted habitat within a project’s boundaries, rather
than being based on the total number of acres developed. A project that has no
direct impact on the Natural Communities of the City of Carlsbad should not be
expected to bear the cost of impacts created by other projects, both private and
public.
Also, as Mike O’Hara mentioned in a June 10, 1999 letter to Michael Holzmiller,
the maps on Figure 20 and Figure 21 incorrectly show Lot 11 of Tract 83-36 as
part of the Proposed Standards Area. Please make this correction, as you have on
the map on Figure 22.
Thank you.
‘7 l pcA
R. Erich Grosse
REGjh
Contractors License No. 378383
/I‘
Daniel Shelley
PO Box 230985, Encinitas, Ca 92023-09856
jp& 1’
..;.,x;.--.~-- . .- :_-
August 2,1999
Don Rideout, Senior Planner
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
RE: SHELLEY 81.3 ACRES IN ZONE 111 SOUTEIEAST CARLSBAD /
RESPONSE TO THE CARLBAD DRAFT HMP
Dear Mr. Rideout:
As you know, we have had several meetings with the City and the resource agencies
regarding the 81-acre Shelley property. Although we are concerned that very little
progress has been made, particularly the lack of agency input, we are willing to continue
those discussions in a good faith effort to find an acceptable solution. The purpose of this letter is to outline my position in the event that we are unable to come to a mutual
agreement on the disposition of my property prior to the close of public comment period.
This letter will constitute my official public comments if we have not come to an
agreement prior to the close of business August 2, 1999.
After meeting with my counsel, Hugh Hewitt, I am writing to inform you that the HMP
as it affects my property is unacceptable. Ifit does not evolve quickly (prior to
submission to the USFWS), I will be obliged to oppose its adoption. I may also be
obliged to seek damages from the City for what Mr. Hewitt advises me is an illegal
exercise in spot zoning, inverse condemnation, and predatory mitigation demands far in
excess of reasonable, nexus-driven demands.
Obviously, as a long time landowner in the City who has great respect for the City staff
and elected officials, the prospect of an extended legal battle with the City upsets me. I
hope you will thus adopt one of the three alternatives below in the drafl HMP and defend
that choice throughout the process with the regulatory agencies,
First: I am a willing seller, and will sell the property to the City or a buyer of your choice
for $3,500,000. Payment need not be all cash, we can work out reasonable terms. I
cannot, however, allow it to be quietly absorbed into the City’s holdings. The IIMP as
drafted simply takes the property without compensation. I have four teenage children and
I cannot sit idly by while their birthright is confiscated.
Second: I am attaching an acceptable “hard-line” layout (see attachment A). Adopt this
and defend it to the agencies and I will be your ally throughout. All of the land in this
proposed “hard lined’ area is grazed grasslands and is not in any way controlled by the service. I will never give them more than what is justifiable and equitable, and I won’t let
the City do so either.
Third: If “standards areas” format is preferred, I would suggest revising the proposed
standards language to allow for 75% development and 25% conservation. I propose this
development area in light of the fact that additional onsite open space will be required
within the development envelope as part of the entitlement approval process. I am
concerned that the development area allowed under the standards could be the least
desirable as regards views, soils, terrain, etc, and, the development footprint could be irregular shaped and/or otherwise unaccommodating to efficient and desirable project
design. I think the City is ill advised to head this way, but if you need to postpone hard
lines, fine.
It is only in the last year that the resource agencies have indicated an interest in my
southerly 60 acres (the grazed land). Prior to June 1998 that portion was not even part of
the “focused planning area”. It appears the decision to include 75% of my property for
conservation was based on incorrect or inaccurate biological mapping. The Bank of
America property west of this 60 acres is planned for residential development. The small
parcels of land to the south are mostly built out. The request for 75% conservation
doesn’t make any sense. These 60 acres are zoned low-density residential and have been
assigned 57 residential units under the growth management plan. Since the formation of
the city CFD No. 1, we have paid $12,000 per year based on this anticipated use.
There is plenty of history and data to support our position, and I’m sure you are aware
that we are trying to co-operate in this matter. We should continue to try to reach an
understanding along the lines that I have outlined above. However, to protect my legal position I cannot support the plan as it currently exists.
__ Respectfully;
P.S.: You will be receiving an additional letter on my behalf from Ladwig Design Croup.
Attachment
cc: Nancy Gilbert, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, w/enclosure
Julie Vanderwier, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, w/enclosure
David Lawhead, Sate Department of Fish and Came, w/enclosure
Michael Holzmiller, City of Carlsbad, w/enclosure
d TorAth~~ 813Ac. ” ccws~vmod rkda3.5
, I
:
// Usm6 i- CclieorpbR .-. -*.. I ._ L (pf;> +w . ____-- .I -,. -7 a-+ .d-d- mo zoo L 4M I.Iz,.LL.Ma
-
SHAPOURI & ASSOCIATES
PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES
ENGINEERING. IhrFORMATION SYSTEMS . PLA,V.WING
JUL
!I+ I%
August 2, 1999
City of Carlsbad
Mr. Don Rideout, Principal Planner
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, California 92009
Comments on the Proposed Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in
City of Carlsbad: 18-acre Vacant Land
Dear Mr. Rideout:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the City’s proposed Habitat
Management Plan (HMP). Our firm has been retained to review this document in
reference to an 1 &acre vacant parcel (APN 2 16-12 l-l 7) and would like to offer the
following comments for your consideration:
1.
2.
3.
The document refers to “Existing Hardline Conservation Areas”. as shown on
Figure 5, page D-l 1, which includes a significant portion of the above mentioned
property. The HMP further states that “These areas include both publicly owned
land and privately owned land that has been committed to habitat conservation as a
result of existing open space regulation, past development approval or other
actions.” However. there has not been any development approvals or other actions
associated with the above mentioned property that would necessitate or require the
hardline designation of this parcel. Therefore, this map indicated inclusion of the
subject property in error.
The “Existing Vegetation Map” as shown on Figure 3, page C-7 depicts inaccurate
vegetation communities for the above mentioned property. We have retained the
services of a qualified biologics to map this property and the existing vegetation
map for this property is available for your review.
We would like to work with you to include a portion of this property as part of the
“Proposed Hardline Conservation Areas”, Figure 6, page D-15, to allow for
development of the least sensitive portion of the property, consistent with the goals
and objectives of the NCCP and City’s proposed HMP.
16089 San Dieguito Road. Suite H-102.P. 0. Box 676221, Ranch0 Santa Fe. CA 92067
phone: (619) 756-8340 Fax: (619)756-8344
City of Carlsbrd
Mr. Don Rideout
Comments on the City’s proposed HMP
Page 2 of 2
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions and/or require additional
information. We look forward to working with you to successfully complete this
interesting project.
Sincerely,
--a
Ali Shapouri, AICP
Principal Planner
Cc: Mr. Michael Flynn, Christopherhill Development Corporation
SHAPOURI & ASSOCIATES
PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES
ENGINEERING. INFORMATION SYSTEMS. PLANNING
August 2,1999
City of Carlsbad
Mr. Don Rideout, Principal Planner
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, California 92009
, _ - :.
L/d
Comment on the Proposed Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in
City of Carlsbad: approximately I3-acre Vacant Land
Dear Mr. Rideout:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the City’s proposed Habitat
Management Plan (HMP). Our firm has been retained to review this document in
reference to a 17-acre vacant parcel (APN 212-040-25) and would like to offer the
following comment for your consideration:
The document refers to “Existing Hardline Conservation Areas”, as shown on Figure 5,
page D-l 1. It appears that this map is not consistent with the legally recorded open
space easement on this parcel and therefore the map should be corrected.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any -questions and/or require additional
information.
Sincerely,
Ali Shapouri, AICP
Principal Planner
Cc: Pacifica Enterprises, LLC
16089 San Dieguito Road, Suite H-102,P.O. Box 676221, Ranch0 Santa Fe, CA 92067
phone: (619) 756-8340 Fax: (619) 756-8344
4 b Y‘ I% “SemDra Energf
Joseph G. Larhin
Dmector
Real Estate C Facilitws
HO058
101 Ash Street
San Dleqo. CA 92101-3017
Tel: (619) 696-4500
Fax: (619) 696-4507
August 2, 1999
Mr. Don Rideout
Principal Planner
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Re: Public Comment to Habitat Management Plan (HMP)
Dear Don:
Sempra Energy submits this letter of comment on the I-IMP dated April, 1999, on behalf of San
Diego Gas & Electric (“SDG&E”). SDG&E retains ownership of the inner Agua Hedionda
Lagoon and land east of Interstate 5, in Core Area #4, and this property is located in Local
Facilities Management Zone 13. SDG&E appreciated the opportunity to work with the City and
define conservation boundary lines for its Zone 13 lands. We understand that as proposed in this
draft and upon approval of this HMP by all regulatory agencies, take of any upland habitat
outside the hard-line conservation areas is authorized. We believe this to be a significant benefit
to the SDG&E property and in general in any situation where it was possible to establish
hardlines for conservation.
We join with the comments submitted by the Building Industry Association of San Diego
concerning the technical aspects of the I-IMP including such issues as the limitations on the
covered species list and the apparent deletion from this proposed list of six currently listed
species.
We offer comment on the Habitat Take Permit Fee for a number of reasons. First, there appears
to be no relationship between the fee and actual take. Do we correctly understand that the fee is
assessed on all vacant land when it develops even if no take has occurred? Regarding the
SDG&E property, the HMP requires the fee for development impacts to land currently in
ugricdfwai use, with no habitat value whatsoever. Further, there is no mechanism in place to
determine how this fee, if adopted, would be allocated among different projects, in particular
where, as here, one of the projects is a public work, the development of Hub Park.
Finally, the fee seems excessive. As an example, look at the SDG&E Zone 13 property. The
entirety of the site is about 255 acres. The City holds a leasehold for Hub Park of approximately
Page Two
Mr. Don Rideout
City of Carlsbad
August 2, 1999
90 acres, and the balance of the site (less any constraints for roadway setback, for example, or
any other purpose) is about 165 acres. The HMP at Table 6 appears to call out about 75 acres
total of conserved areas, leaving about 180 acres of land (of 255 acres total) potentially assessed
by this fee, which could range from $540,000 to $900,000. To compare, based upon maximum
ADT’s in LFMP-13, SDG&E’s current responsibility pursuant to proposed Bridge &
Thoroughfare District No. 3 (Cannon Road West) is $1,835,000. At the upper range of the
Habitat Take Permit Fee, the HMP proposes that SDG&E would pay one-half of its share for a
single, limited reach of Cannon Road. And, the Habitat Take Permit Fee arises from a City
project, the park, and not from private development. We think this is out of proportion with the
impacts, and the City should re-think the fee, at least as it applies to agricultural land use.
If the HMP is truly a plan for the benefit of all of its citizens, new development should not
shoulder the entire burden.
Finally, there appears to be a discrepancy concerning how the City proposes to treat take and
mitigation credit for Hub Park, if developed. On the one hand, the City holds a leasehold
interest, but appears to take credit for species proposed to be conserved, yet the City does not
own this property. The management of conserved areas also appears in conflict - is it publicly
managed by the City or is the. responsibility that of the property owner? Again concerning Hub
Park this is unclear. SDG&E believes these topics should be discussed in more detail.
We look forward to discussing these matters with you at your earliest convenience.
Very truly yours,
J. G. Larkin
Director
Real Estate & Facilities
Dee K. Pope
1977 East Pointe Ave.
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
July 27, 1999
Don Rideout, Principal Planner
City of Carlsbad, Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Dear Mr. Rideout,
Thank you for your persistence in returning my calls regarding the Carlsbad
Habitat Management Plan. I am glad we were able to discuss many of my
questions and you were able to address many of my concerns. As you
suggested I am now writing to formalize three of my concerns and submitting
recommendations to be considered.
One of my first concerns is the movement of large mammals (i.e. coyote, bobcat,
raccoons, etc.) across major streets using the core linkages. I realize these
animals are not endangered but with the increased development many of these
animals will be moving and need a safe access to cross streets. In reviewing the
HMP (A-2, third dot down, movement corridors), I feel it does not address how
these animals will cross major streets. Please include in the HMP provisions to
construct tunnels under major streets (i.e. Carlsbad Village Dr., Tamarack, El
Camino, Cannon, College, Palomar Airport Road (D-5, third paragraph) etc.) or
proven access, so that many of these animals will not become carrion for the
local black birds. This concern can be addressed for linkage Area F on page D-
53, Zone 20, #3 Planning Standards to include provisions to reduce possible
road kills. Please change the Planning Standards in other zones to address
these concerns. I am also concerned by the use of the word “extirpated” on page
F-l 8. Both of the definitions shown as rooting up or exterminate. If the key
predators are “extirpated” from the preserve we will lose something that is
considered essential to ecosystem balance within habitats.
My second concern is the Recreation and Public access shown on page F-7
through F-IO. In this section there are words to describe what types of
recreational .activities are sited (i.e. hiking, bird watching, picnicking and
mountain biking). What about other uses? I recommend the use of the
description of Non-Motorized Multi-use Trails. This way no one is excluded. In
the plan there is the provision to limit or restrict access to sensitive or selected
areas. These activities are conditionally compatible with biological objectives (F-
8, end of first paragraph). Under Management Recommendation (page F-9, #3)
there is the description of Passive Uses, Day Uses and Mountain Biking. I
recommend changing the Mountain Biking description to Non-Motorized Multi-
Use with changes to the body of the section to coincide with the new description.
I have enclosed examples of agencies and cities that support the use of Non-
Motorized Multi-Use Trails.
In Zone 25 there is the mention of the Planning Standard (D-54) that the
Sherman property will be required to conserve 75% to provide adequate
connectivity within the regional gnatcatcher corridor. How will this be
accomplished? Do other property owners conserve this much? Are these
property owners compensated for this requirement? On page D67, third
paragraph, there is a sentence that states that “Projects which conserve at least
67% of habitat onsite shall not be subject to offsite mitigation.” That seems to be
a large portion of property and how does this relate to the Sherman property
where they are being asked to conserve 75%. How does the Growth
Management Performance Standard of “15% of the total land area in the zone
exclusive of environmentally constrained non-developable land must be set aside
for permanent open space and must be available concurrent with development”
relate to these other requirements? I recommend setting a standard that can be
easily understood and consistently used for all future development.
If you would like to discuss these concerns further or to provide clarification
please don’t hesitate to call. I will be available to present these concerns to the
City Council. Please inform me as to when the Council will be discussing the
HMP. Thank you again for your time.
Sincerely,
Dee K. Pope
1977 East Pointe Ave.
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
(760) 434-3796
cn 0 0 d 4 E
z 4 m
c r T n 4 d e
I 0 I 0
. . . . . . . . . . . .
*
CL C* 3 + 40 2%
4-
L 3” + + l *. + +
.all esod
* : x
Ptl ~~IlQl WO U!Ml,
wlmmmv)mmwmv) LuwuJwwLuuJwuJw J~el~~el~-l~~ D------.-w- ~~ZzlzZ~~Z~I o~mo~m~ooo hmT-Nt-mNwha3 . . . . . . . . . . NV - 7-
Poway, CA. 92064
b E .- E
,
2
C 0
5
i;i
3
E
v) .-
E
iii
u- 5 .v, W-v; p-g? rmz =oQ) 8 a5 Q-0 3 v)= 02 cu
zoc X0 v) .o xn i
g- ahd
zi2
= u .- 3 ii
FOWAY [IBR,JR~ ,T*.
m54 Pow3y Road
pQ\r3), CA. 92064
CITY OF POWAY-
RECREATIONAL TRAILS
I” . m- j+! ;y r I‘- rJ 0
\
STONERIDGE TRAU.. #
page 14
c ! OLD COACH TRAIL page lo 1 i i
i
BLUE SKY TRAIL
P”? LAKE POWAY TRAIL
. \ hAnlINT Wflnn.SnN
DEL PONIENTE TRAIL
page 12 -
r’
i y-1 g
L JQ+#-- J/ --. -- i
5
ji?!+ &-,A,,,, ROAD TRAIL L
page 18
I \ COMPLETED TRAILS -----
SYCAMORE CANYON TRAIL
Page 22 FUTURE TRAILS -~ ca Note: Future tralis are uncompleted or proposed. do not use at this time.
%W en-L
f-g %; c U-J- sz;c=e ‘0 * ‘Z s! Q, -I mE.n, z+ 3 ca
S’ kl g-
ij!!S
G .mro-,z -CkC !sJ ;g;-,.g cu F 5 5 L .- WXE Q1=--o)w 2 rnf-- a* ~&)a,m=; :&ES: -& c u WE sul . ‘= .gj vj $ln~~clJrn v)-< 0 w ‘C ~ ‘- ou,u2& l-SE4kE
!&FJq KfC- ‘g$c
g0zo
O%=w
zmp
g:s m3c * Q-J- ‘as aJzi3al E: w-w ou.22 "5 OWL ZUTiP) . ) p Q, .c z a,c:z $"Zgc ‘~~EuJ" .- c 2pu-J, Ti *~hw -5 375,m c 5.&e ul m uluco .T 2 g 2 b g-L=-- LZWW,5 r-ozo EZcs+5 33"o.Gs
L -
0
-.. ‘Y-.
-:i :.<.‘ /03 2 .-
.
I $3 m0 a5
u c 4 G
. . .
29 July 1999
Michael Holzmiiler, Planning Director
Don Rideout, Principal Planner
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Planning Department
2075 La Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
re: review of Draft HMP
Dear Michael & Don:
‘-.
\ \ ..t ;’ . ,,,’ - 1”
Please find herewith our planning & design team reviews & comments regarding
the Draft Habitat Management Plan, prepared for the City of Carlsbad, which
was released for public review & comment from 18 June to 02 August 1999.
For your convenience, we have organized our comments in three sections:
01 General comments on text, tables, figures and graphics in their order
of appearance in the draft document;
02 Specific data for the creation of a Proposed Hardline Conservation
Area on the Kevane Property (LFM Zone 21, A.P.N.s 215 - 050 - 44,
45, 46 & 47) for east / west connections thru the zone from Pavoreal,
LOHF and the Aviara Oaks School Properties.
03 Supporting technical references.
We look forward to your “response to comment” and our continuing discussions
regarding the planning for the Kevane Property (The Oaks at Batiquitos Project).
Very Sincerely Yours,
David Lee Soanes,
Principal Architect / Golf Course Architect / Landscape Architect ! Land Planner
David Lee Soanes, Ltd., a California Corporation
CC: Robert Kevane
Jim Bates
Chuck Glass
Elyssa Robertson
Mitchell Beauchamp
GENERAL REVIEW & COMMENT:
01 Figure 3 - Vegetation Map of the City of Carl&ad:
Our Biological consultants, and as independently corroborated by a
renowned regional Biological expert, have determined the vegetation
on the Kevane property to be as follows:
20.260 acres -
2.950 acres -
2.620 acres -
7.119 acres -
4.480 acres -
3.091 acres -
Total Site Area
Man-made Slopes (0.7 ac) & Dirt Roads
Disturbed Oak Woodland
Disturbed Fallow Farm Land
Disturbed low grade Chamise Chaparral
Relatively Undisturbed low grade Chamise Chaparral
The entire understory of the Oak Woodland, and the majority of the
Chamise Chaparral, is severely impacted by migrant campsites &
shacks, abandoned vehicles (trucks, cars, campers, farm equip, etc.),
trash dumps, tire dumps, litter, discarded personal effects, furniture
and appliances. The overstory of the Oaks has several treehouses.
There is no Southern Maritime Chaparral on the Kevane Property;
The chaparral would be best catagorized as undifferentiated chaparral.
The previously farmed, now fallow, agriculture land on the east facing
slope has been stripped of the crytogrammic matrix in the original
surficial soils to the extent that now the entire slope is dominated by
invasive noxious non-native weeds which will overtake the slope as
successional infill vegetation (there is no sage scrub nor the functional
equivalent on the project site). It is best catagorized as agriculture.
There is also a developed slope along Ambrosia Lane on the west side
of the property that was graded and planted with ornamentals.
- Recommendations:
01 -RI: Correct the graphic to show the site specific field data as
documented by our biological field surveys (yellow for
Chaparral, blue for Agriculture, brown for Oaks).
01 - R 2: *Show the true location of the Oak Woodland.
01 - R 3: A sample excerpt with the corrections for Figure 3 is included.
02 Table 1, Habitat Types within Carlsbad, page C - 9:
- Recommendation:
02-RI: Correct the tabulation of acreages per vegetation type per
Comment 01 to be as follows (note that other property owners
may have similar data to support revisions to their mapping):
. . . . . . . . . . .
Chaparral (Undifferentiated Types)
Southern Maritime Chaparral
. . . . . . . . . . .
Subtotal Habitat
973 (+ 3) 384 ( 47)
8,783 ( -14)
Agricultural 1,861 (+ 7)
Disturbed 1,284 (+ 6)
Developed 12,650 (+ 1)
Subtotal Developed & Disturbed 15,794 (+W
03 Figure 4, Focus Planning Areas:
The delineation of “Core #6” is outdated and does not reflect the exact
reduction of the area by existing, current, approved and/or pending
development.
03-Rl: The graphic needs to be revised to show all of the existing
and current development of Aviara, of LOHF and of the future
alignment of Poinsettia Lane; a sample exerpt is included
for your review.
. 04 Item F., Core 6 and Linkages FPAs:
The existence of southern maritime chaparral is not just a grouping of
plants, but is rather a developed plant regime that is interdependent on
a series of atmospheric, oceanographic & topographic conditions, as
specially adapted to slope orientation & lack of alluvial soils in areas of
steep highly eroded exposed formational bedrock near the coast.
Lines I, 2 & 6 refers to “southern maritime chaparral” which we believe
to be misclassified and non-existent in the City of Carlsbad due to the
lack of the frequent, dense, daytime, summer months maritime fog
associated only with the east facing, steep & eroded sandstone bluffs
found at Torrey Pines State Preserve.
This localized atmospheric condition, created by the interaction with the
oceanographic and topographic conditions associated with the bathyl
and sublittoral cold water flows of the California Current. and the
resultant upwelling at the offshore subterranean La Jolla Canyon ( Rose
Canyon Fault Zone formational trenches in the sea floor) near Scripps
Pier, causes a daytime cooling of the lower 100 meters of the air over
the water. This event condenses the moisture vapor in a rapidly-formed
inversion layer into the dense maritime fog*.
*This “maritime fog”, although having the same formational dynamics of other inland
fogs, has been confused tith other fog events, and even with the “night and morning
low clouds” called the local marine layer. Those higher altitute (marine layer)
atmospheric events and low inland fogs occur when the radient daytime heat dissipates
in the late evenina I earlv momLnQ hours and therefore cannnot give the southern
maritime chaparral plant community any’needed mime moisture for transpiration
during daylight hours. The frequent, dense and intense summer daytime ground level maritime fog is likely to have been the single most important reason for their
specialized plant taxa. Absent of the daytime ocean driven air-borne moisture, found
only at Torrey Pines Preserve, southern maritime chaparral cannot sustain itself.
The onshore flow then carries the fog into, up and over the cliffs at Blacks
Beach, further compressing the fog (as in the aerodynamics of an
airplane wing) to be the clingy and valuable summer months daytime
airborne moisture that has allowed the unique and specialized plant taxa
(the Torrey Pine, the Del Mar Manzanita & Ceonothus) of the southern
maritme chaparral to survive in this narrow microclimate, and in this
preserve area only.
The underlying eroded, steep and fractured sandstone bluffs are well
drained, and remove unwanted and damaging surficial hydrological
flows in the winter months when the plants are designed to receive
some of their natural moisture from rains. It is well known that the native
ceonothus suffers root damage and cannot survive with abundant
ground water intrusions into their rootzones, as associated with
shallow alluvial slopes that tend to retain water.
The original plant and habitat classifications as documented by Holland
in 1986 wr>uld appear to have been correct when he stated that southern
maritime chaparral occurs only at Torrey Pines State Preserve and
occasional nearby locations. Carlsbad is 12.5 miles to the north, does
not have the necessary fog, nor the proper bedrock, nor the lack of
alluvial soils, nor the intensity and diversity of plant taxa as documented
by Sawyer.
For these reasons, southern maritime chaparral simply cannot exist
on the lands nor in the natural systems found in Carlsbad.
It is also stated in this section that the Del Mar Manzanita (Arctostaphylos
glandulosa ssp. crassifolia) is frequently found in this area. Per the
exhaustive field inspections of our project site, our biologists found one
isolated speciman; all others ware the non-sensitive variety of the plant
known as Eastwood Manzanita (Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp.
zacaensis). The environmental document of the LOHF project incorrectly
mapped a cluster of Del Mar Manzanita that were no where to be found.
There was no indicator Ceonothus seen on any of the Zone 21 properties.
04-RI: Delete any reference to southern maritime chaparral in Carlsbad,
and be certain any reference to Del Mar Manzanita has not been
confused with the non-sensitive prevalent Eastwood Manzanita.
05 Figure 5, Existing Hardline Conservation Areas:
05-RI: The Aviara Oaks School Site hardline open space needs to be
added to the diagram (see attached excerpt).
06 Table 4, Hardline Areas:
06-Rl: The table needs to be revised to show all current conditions.
07 Figure 6, Proposed Hardline Conservation Areas:
07-Rl: The Figure needs to be revised to include the Kevane Hardline.
08 Figure 15, Manzanita Partners:
08-RI: The colour for the agricultural lands is incorrect and needs to be
revised. The Oaks as shown on the Kevane property need to be
shown in the correct location; the chaparral colours need to be
corrected.
09 Added Figure 16, The Kevane Property:
09-RI: A new Figure needs to be inserted to show the proposed hardline
for the Kevane property: all subsequent figures would need to be
renumbered.
IO Page D - 53, Zone 21: add the following sentence to the end of the first
paragraph...“When detailed information from site ‘specific surveys is made
available to reflect the actual field conditions, the revisions to previous
data can be made by administrative change without the need for a plan
amendment.”
11 Page D - 54: The phrase ‘... no net loss of more than 10% of the coastal
sage scrub and southern maritime chaparral.” represents a defacto
taking of private property rights. Any development requires at
least 10% for internal access streets. If 10% is all you are allowed
to impact, then there would be no area allowed for homesites.
11 -RI: These standards need to be revisited and made consistent with
12 Table 7: The data needs to be corrected in the chaparral, smc, agricul.,
disturbed 8 developed catagories for Zone 21.
13 Figure 21, Conservation Components Map: The map needs to be
revised to delete Kevane from the Standards Areas and show
the Proposed Hardline Configuration; The Existing Hardline at
the Aviara Oaks School Site needs to be added.
14
15
Table 8: Retabulate the corrected quantities.
Page D - 67, Paragraph 3: This paragraph is very unclear. After the
second sentence insert the phrase - “to offsite mitigation. Projects
wh’c rese e 0 r g
have COtISeNed onsite habitat credited toward mitigation.”
16 Table 11, Page D - 85: A typo needs to be corrected; the note that
refers to the footnote after “Habitat Group and Type” in group “B”
should be (2) not (3)
17 C. Privately Owned Conserved Lands: An item 6) The Oaks At
Batiquitos (the Kevane / Krasnow Property) needs to be added
with similar language to other lands, * noting 8 acres of conserved lands, * public open space trail system, n homeowners association maintenance of open space, w and portions of public sewer for the entire basin.
18 Appendix A - 5: Southern Maritime Chaparral should be deleted, as well
as throughout the document.
19
20
Appendix B - 7: Show correct alignment for Poinsettia Lane
Appendix C - 5: Add description of the non-sensitive A.G. ssp.
zacaensis to the item A.G. crassifolia and explain the differences.
other criteria found in other areas of the document, such as
“67% preserved chaparral requires no off site mitigation. Less
than 67% preservation requires off site replacement.”
Supporting Technical References
for HMP Comments 8 Analyses
01 Elyssa Robertson, Principal Biologist, REC, re habitat classification
02 Mitchell Beauchamp, Consulting Biologist, PSBS, re habitat classification
03 Miguel Miller, Senior Meteorologist, National Weather Service, re fog
04 David Skelly, Coastal Engineer, Skelly Engineering
05 Scripps Institute of Oceanography records at exhibits
06 Reports by Sawyer, re Southern Maritime Chaparral
07 United States Federal Register, articles on Southern Maritime Chaparral
08 Phone conversations with & review of Holland habitat classifications
09 CDFG, Encinitas Quad overlays for habitat clasifications (need updating)
IO Field Surveys 1994 to 1999, the Oaks at Batiquitos biological resources
11 Fault Map, Rose Canyon Fault Zone, compiled by Treiman 1984
12 USGS Encinitas Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series (topographic)
13 USGS San Luis Rey Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series (topographic)
14 USGS San Diego, CA - Baja California Norte (hydrographic survey)
15 USGS San Diego NI 11 -11 (topographic - bathymetric) 1:250,000
16 USGS Santa Ana NI 11 - 8 (topographic - bathymetric) 1:250,000
17 Operations Manager at Montgomery Field, SD, re inland fog
18 Operations Manager at Lindbergh Field, SD, re marine layer altitutes
19 Operations Manager at Gillespie Field, El Cajon, re inland fog
20 Operations Manager at McClarran Field, Carlsbad, re fog / marine layer
21 Inspections at Torrey Pines State Preserve (both sites SD and Del Mar)
,-
CARLSEAD I-MP
Table 1 Table 1
Habitat Types within Carisbad’ Habitat Types within Carisbad’
Vegetation Type Vegetation Type 1 Acres 1 Acres
Grassland 2 Grassland 2 I I
Coastal Sage Scrub Coastal Sage Scrub
Chaparral (Undifferentiated Types) Chaparral (Undifferentiated Types)
Southern Maritime Chaoarral Southern Maritime Chaoarral
Oak Woodland Oak Woodland
Eucalyptus Woodland Eucalyptus Woodland
Riparian Scrub, Woodland and Forest Riparian Scrub, Woodland and Forest I I
Marsh, Estuarine. Freshwater, and Other i Marsh, Estuarine. Freshwater, and Other i
1.807 1.807
3,377 3,377
970 970
401 401
29 29
257 257
574 574
1,382 1,382
Wetlands
Subtotal Habitat3 1 8,797 $3853
Aqricultural 1,854
Disturbed 1.277
Develooed 12,649
, Subtotal Developed and Disturbed 1 15.780
TOTAL- All Lands Within City of Carlsoad 24.577 1
I* t
‘$7 -4 * V.
1. Excludes areas designed as not a part (N.A.P.) in HMP.
2. This category includes both native (perennial) and non-native (annual) grasslands. The acreages of each
Cannot be dbtingulshed at this time due to the absence of detailed survey data for Several large grassland
areas.
3. Includes vegetated areas n impact areas of projects with USFWS and CDFG approved mitigation plans.
(See Appendix A for a more detailed descnption of habitat types within Carlsbad)
c-9
APRIL. 1999 /33
-y).:;FaD~v
FA, /
YI, ,\
‘.
y-----y ‘7 J i I /cc, -
I _,, ’ ,!
----L I A--+- /.?- *,.-- ,\_ . .
‘: ‘! R“.‘ .’ \ \+
-I
9
“i., : ‘\ ‘i
- I \ !
.-.
ALfiJqo 4 .:
_. -3 i ,; ,.
-..-‘-.
‘\ , ,>’ .
i -; ,:
[:
,'
I
./’
--y/ /- Pa I .,.------
(f3
/-
‘---A
o -=Q, -. : :’ Q&y/ 4 ,3 j” -. ‘.. -. .’ .-/ ., 4?J ./’ ‘-0 ‘,\ ‘, \ / ‘se ::, :: +/, p,’
“!/-?
J pyJf / h$,,,,’ $,K.
C/’ -‘L- : L, \ 3’
f%w=b
>-$Jk,.*
#WCIS ./’ ,/’ / 1*>+’ ./ ,‘
_-
CARlSEA HMP
Much of this zone is already developed, particularly the northern and western portions of the zone,
and much of the remainder is agricultural land. Coastal sage scrub, maritime succulent SC~JD,
southern mixed chaparral, and southern maritime chaparral in this zone support a variety of HMP
species, including California gnatcatcher, Del Mar manzanita, orange-throated whiptail. and San
Diego thorn-mint. There is insufficient survey information for some portions of this zone. Habitats in
Zone 20 are part of a stepping-stone linkage (Linkage F) that connects cores areas 4, 6, and 8.
2 HMP Consewahn Goals
Establish, enhance, and maintain a viable habitat linkage across Linkage Area F to ensure
connectivity for gnatcatchers and other HMP species between Core Areas 4 and 6. Conserve the
majority of sensitive habitats in or contiguous with biological core and linkage areas, including no net
loss of wetland habitats, southern maritime chaparral, maritime succulent scrub, and coastal sage
scrub within Core Area 6 and Linkage Area F.
3. Planning SkiMads
Conserve habitats in a continuous configuration through Linkage Area F, from Core Area 6 to where
Linkage Area F crosses Palomar Airport Road. This configuration should allow for continued animal
movement between Core Areas 4 and 6, particularly for gnatcatchers and other birds. Areas of coastal
sage scrub and maritime succulent scrub outside of the designated Linkage F may be taken in
exchange for restoration and enhancement inside the linkage, as long as the result is no net loss of
these habitats or the associated gnatcatcher population within the standards portions of the zone.
Southern maritime chaparral outside of core and linkage areas may also be taken unless it supports
significant populations of Narrow Endemic plants. Creation of Linkage F should utilize patches of
existing habitat to the maximum extent practicable. Where consistent with creation of Linkage F,
avoid removai of natural habitats that are contiguous with open space on adjacent parceis. Maintain
and enhance the wildlife movement potential between core areas using sensitive design of any road
or utility crossings of Linkage F. Conserve all riparian habitats onsite. and prohibit fill or development
within the existing flood plain except where required for Circulation Element roads, Drainage Master
Plan facilities. or other essential public infrastructure. When conversion of agricultural lands to other
uses is proposed, set back all development impacts at least 100 feet from existing wetland habitats
and encourage habitat restoration or enhancement in the riparian and buffer areas. .
ical Resource Issues
The majority of Zone 21 is covered by these standards and consists of multiple property owners. The
zone contains a critical stand of southern maritime chaparral that supports a critical population of Del
Mar manzanita, a major population of summer holly, and other Narrow Endemic plant species. Vernal
pools, coastal sage scrub, and oak riparian forest also occur and likely support HMP species,
including California gnatcatcher. Zone 21 contains most of the habitats comprising the western half of
Core Area 6. which is the primary link between the eastern and western halves of the City. Scattered
agricultural fields are also located within this zone. There is insuffrcient survey information for some
portions of Zone 21.
:
I t
:
:
1 c
7 !
z
!
T f
: I -
T
-a
-
D-57 APRIL 1994
m.2 ..‘ -t < 6’
w- t&-X$ I. - _’ a’ I’ 4
$ d
. . .;- i . . . ,- . . ,- -WV , .: . . _ d c ,
r
s 7 .D 2 a. -$ r-2
2 Zf
gL30E n B r= =5 30,
1
5
gj zY:p’;: 4 S=a --
r; f: s.!j
+#+j -13 s & %I z, a?(c c c -r
1 -j-r-
’ 1
I i I
~
C/r~E~C~‘l g N -f PJJG;
----L
I I
; a SFi;“X” - ml -z u-l ? 9 -c
4
I 1
s.jT 7 T ~1 :: m,R $ 5 P I 1 cc -? G C,”
-lb ! 1
0” --
I /
CANSBAD HMP
6. Measures to Minimize impact on HMP Species and Mitigation Requirements
The primary mitigation for impacts to HMP Species under the Plan is the conservation and
management of habitat for the species in the preserve system. In addition. in compliance with the
ESA requirements that the impacts of incidental take be minimized and mitigated to the maxlmum
extent practicable, measures to avoid and reduce impacrs will apply on a projecr level basis.
Conservation goals and measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to HMP species on a
project basis are summarized in Table 9. These measures will be applied to all public and orivate
projects. Detailed information about the measures for HMP Species is included in Appendix C,
together with an analysis of the effects of take and plan implementation on the HMP species. Tabie
10 contains a separate listing of Narrow Endemic species covered by the HMP.
All future projects, including public projects, shall also mitigate impacts to habitat based on the
mitigation requirements provided in Table 11. Projects which conserve at least 67% of habitat onsite -P
abitat conserved onsite shall be credited toward mitigation.
needed for mitigation based on the mitigation ratios, the
acres of onsite &nserved habitat shall be subtracted from the required acres of mitigation. Mitigation
shall occur within the City principally in the focus planning areas unless the City Council authorizes
mitigation outside the City. Mitigation banks may be approved by the City and the wildlife agencies,
subject to the issuance by the City of a conditional use permit as required by the Carlsbad Municrpai
Code. In addition to the mitigation ratios shown on Table 11, City public facility and improvement
projects shall mitigate unoccupied coastal sage scrub and chaparral habitats at a 111 mitigation ratio.
Analysis of proposed impacts to wetlands shall consist of a three-step process. The first step involves
determining whether the impacts are avoidable or unavoidable. Secondly, for unavoidable impacts,
the allowable amount of encroachment must be determined. The final step involves determining the
mitigation for unavoidable impacts.
Avoidance of impacts to wetlands is preferred. Both private and public projects that propose wetland
impacts will be required to demonstrate that their impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible. Road or utility projects that must cross a wetland will be required to
demonstrate that the crossing will occur at the narrowest and/or least sensitive location and that all
feasible minimization measures have been employed. In making this determination, alignment
planning must consider whether avoidance of wetland impacts would result in more significant upland
impacts. Private projects that propose to impact a wetland must demonstrate that the impact is
essential to the feasibiiity of the project and that no feasible alternative would eliminate or minimize the
impact.
As part of the project-specific environmental review pursuant to CEQA, all unavoidable wetland
impacts (both temporary and permanent) will need to be analyzed and mitigation will be required in
consultation with the wildlife agencies. Mitigation should be based on the impacted type of wetland
habitat. Mitigation should prevent any net loss of wetland functions and values of the impacted
wetland.
The HMP does not anticipate that any substantial areas of vernal pool habitat occur in Carlsbad in
addition to those known and documented herein. However, should additional vernal pools be
discovered, there would be a strong priority given to preservation (avoidance), followed by mitigation
for any unavoidable impacts. Any loss of vernal pool habitat would need to receive the concurrence of
the wildlife agencies and would be subject to the Federal Clean Water Act Section 404 permit
Process. Impacts to highly degraded vernal pool habitat lacking sensitive species may be acceptable
if the pools are isolated from other vernal pool complexes, lack sensitive vernal pool sensitive species,
exhibit low native vernal pool species diversity, have low restoration potential, or would be infeasible
10 manage effectively. In these cases mitigation would need to provide no-net-loss of vernal pool area
and vernal pool habitat value, and mitigation would need to occur in the City of Cartsbad.
CARLSAD HMP
Mitigation Rati HMP Habitats
Habitat Group and Type
A. Coastal salt marsh, alkaii marsh, freshwater marsh,
estuarine, salt pan/mudflats, riparian forest, riparian woodland, riparian scrub, vernal pools, disturbed
wetlands, flood channel, fresh water Engelmann oak woodland, coast live oak woodland (1)
8. Beacn, southern coastal bluff scrub, maritime
succulent scrub southern maritime chaparral, native
grass (3) @> C. Gnatcatcner - Occupied coastal sage scrub
- Mitigation Ratio by Type of 1 ,
Impacted Habitat I
No net loss goal (mitigation ratio vanes by type of i replacement habitat) !
3:l (2)
2:l (3)
Footnotes:
1. Group A habitats are associated with wetlands. Impacts to these habitat types are subject to review under Section 404
Of the federal Clean Water Act or Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code.
2. It is assumed that all habitat types in Group B will be included in the proposed preserve system. Small, isolated patches
of low quality southern maritime chaparral may be located outside a preserve area and maximum avoidance and onsite conservation is preferred.
3. Maximum avoidance and onsite conservation of Group C habitat is encouraged.
D-65
APRIL. 1999 H3
,
CARLSBAD HYP
Funding will be provided through the City’s annual budgetary process
for the Parks Department.
IVATELY OWNED CONSERVED LANDS
Villages of La Costa. This property, formerly owned by the
Fieldstone Company, is covered by a Habitat Conservation Plan that
was approved in 1995. That HCP addresses management
provisions, and the reader is referred to that document for further
detail. In summary, management activities are currently limited in
scope and are the responsibility of the property owner. At the time of
the first development impacts within the plan area, the conserved
lands must be dedicated to an appropriate conservation entity, along
with recordation of a conservation easement, and full management
activities must commence. An endowment of approximately $1 million
is required to fund management in perpetuity.
2) Calavera Heights Mitigation Property. In 1993 this approx. 110
acres parcel in northeast Carlsbad was purchased by the developer
of Villages Q and T of Calavera Heights as mitigation for the impacts
of constructing those two villages. Approximately $93,000 was
deposited with the City to cover startup costs. A mitigation agreement
between the City and the developer provides for the possibility of an
endowment to cover long-term management. In 1998 the developer
donated title to the .mitigation parcel to The Environmental Trust
(TET), a local non-profit conservation entity. An Open Space
easement in favor of the City has been recorded. Management
activities are now being carried out on a limited basis by TET utiiizing
the startup funding. Provisions for the long-term endowment will be
considered within the next 2 years and will be incorporated into the
final HMP Management Plan.
3) Aviara Open Space. The Aviara Master Plan area dedicated approx.
2a4 acres to permanent conservation. Deed Restrictions have been
placed on the conserved areas. Currently, funding and actual
management for the conserved areas are provided by the Aviara
Master Home Owners Association. For long-term management, two
alternatives are possible. The Master HOA could continue to fund
and carry out management, or arrangements could be made between
the City and the Master HOA to allow the conserved areas to be
managed as part of the unified HMP management program, should
one be developed. .
4)
5)
Ranch0 Carrillo Open Space. This Master Plan dedicated approx.
182 acres to permanent conservation. Open Space easements in
favor of the City have been recorded. Currently, funding and actual
management for the conserved areas are provided by the Ranch0
Carrillo Master Home Owners Association. For long-term
management, two alternatives are possible. The Master HOA could
continue to fund and carry out management, or arrangements could
be made between the City and the Master HOA to allow the
conserved areas to be managed as part of the unified HMP
management program, should one be developed.
Kelly Ranch Open Space. This recently approved major project will
dedicate significant conserved lands to the preserve system. Approx.
200 acres of wetlands is the subject of an irrevocable offer of
r
dedication in favor of the California Dept. of Fish and Game, as
described previously. However, no funding for management was
@big G-)&4
CARLSBAO HMP
These chaparral types have a patchy distribution throughout the City, occurring on more
,--; mesic north- and west-facing slopes, alternating with coastal sage scrub, grasslanas, and
d”” k oak woodiands.
fi. 2. So&hem MaritimeCha~ bf#-JJdTq
Southern maritime chaparral is similar to uthem mixed chaparral but occurs on
sandstone. it is the most limited chaparral type in distribution, particularly in Cartsbad, and
is characterized by several endemic shrubs, induding Dei Mar manzanita (ArCtostaphyios
glandulrzsa ssp. crassifo~ia), wart-stemmed ceanothus (Ceanothus vermcosus), coast
spice bush (Cneoridium dumosum), and Nuttall’s scrub oak. Other dominant shrubs
encountered in this community are the same as those listed above for southern mixed
chaparral. Sensitive plant species associated with this type include wart-stemmea
ceanothus, summer-holly (Comamstaphylis dive&o/ia var. diversifolia), Del Mar
manzanita, ashy spike-moss. and western dichondra (Dichondra occidentalis).
Under California regulations and policies, southern maritime chaparral is considered a
sensitive habitat by the CDFG.
In Carlsbad, the major stands of southern maritime chaparral are located: northeast of the
junction of Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real; east and west of 8 Camino Real
between Paiomar Airport Road and Alga Road; slopes above Green Valley; and east and
west of El Camino Real between La Costa Avenue and Olivenhain Road.
Two woodland types occur in the City: oak woodland and eucalyptus woodland. There
are approximately 29 acres of oak woodland and 257 acres of eucalyptus woodland in
Carlsbad.
I. Oak Woodland
Oak woodland, as discussed here, is dominated by coast live oak, with scattered
individuals of other tree species.
2. Eucalyptus Woodland
Eucalyptus woodland is a non-native community. It is dominated by various species of
planted eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.) that survived around old dwellings or in entire groves
(e.g., the Hosp Grove). The understory is usually poorly developed or absent owing to the
aiieiopathic (toxic) effect of eucatyptus leaves that acts to inhibit the growth of other plants.
Although this habitat supports no sensitive plant or wildlife species, it is often used for
nesting by raptors and other birds or roosting by bats.
Riparian types within the City include riparian scrub, riparian woodland, and riparian forest.
Riparian habitats are considered sensitive under federal and state regulations and policies.
There are approximately 572 acres of riparian habitat in Carlsbad.
I. Riparian Scrub
As used herein, “ripanan scrub” includes several natural and semi-disturbed wetland
communities, including mule fat scrub, southern willow scrub, and baccharisjtamarisk
scrub. These communities occur along river courses and seasonally moist drainages. In
Carisbad, some riparian scrub communities also are the result of urban or agricultural run-
APPENDIX A - 5
CARLSBAD HMP
FIGURE 25
ClRCULii~Ohf PLAN
PAanc OCEAN
-6% I
Cm OF CaSB/Q
CIRCULATION PUN
- FLAILROAD Y a
FREEWAY c..
PRME AmERa \
I
hAAJOFiAKIERL4L ,-4.,;
SECONDARY ARTEFUL
COLLECTOR M
The Oaks at Batiquitos
(Kevane I Krasnow Property)
Proposed Hardline Conservation Area
This Hardline Conservation Area provides a valuable piece to the open space
configuration of Zone 21. The many individual small acreage properties in the
zone can be linked together with the inclusion of this proposed hardline
conservation area.
By the establishment of “THE OAKS” Hardline, the existing hardline areas of
LOHF to the east, PAVOREAL to the southeast, AVIARA to the west, and
AVIARA OAKS SCHOOL to the south, in combination with projected hardlines in
REITER to the south and SUDDUTH to the north, will create a viable and
permanent habitat preservation corridor that meets ail the planning goals of the
Draft Habitat Management Plan document.
The attached diagram shows the proposed hardline configuration as it ties and
links contiguous habitat through the zone, including the use of the S D G & E
power line easement.
The plan also calls for the restoration of 104% of the Oak Woodland (meets no
net loss provision), and preservation and restoration of 71% of the onsite
Chamise Chaparral (exceeds the 67% preservation provision). The entire Oak
Woodland as well as the majority of the Chamise Chaparral onsite has been
completely disturbed by migrant campsites and other transient activities to the
extent that the habitat is now non-vigilent. The project will restore and revitilize
all the remaining onsite habitat, and provide for their permanent maintenance
with the establishment of a Homeowners Association.
The resulting open space in the plan will be over 8 acres (40% of the 20 acre
property). A valuable east / west corridor will be created and configured sensibly
with the need for an intra-zonal street circulation pattern that will allow proper
traffic, bicycle and pedestrian flows within Zone 21. A north / south open space
trail (that follows the internal sewer alignment) is proposed to begin the
Poinsettia to Aviara Oaks School trail linkages as shown in the City’s General
Plan Open Space Component.
The details of the plan data are shown on the attached page, with a listing of the
numerous project benefits created by “The Oaks at Batiquitos” for Zone 21, for
the Habitat Management Plan, and for the City of Carlsbad as a whole.
20.260 acres -
2.950 acres -
2.620 acres -
7.119 acres-
4.480 acres -
3.091 acres -
2.727 acres -
5.377 acres -
2.561 acres -
9.595 acres -
8.104 acres-
2.561 acres -
0.709 acres -
8.886 acres -
8.930 acres -
1.735 acres -
0.709 acres -
8.886 acres -
01 Provides E / W Circulation Street for intra-zone ped / bicycle / vehicle.
02 Preserves & Restores 71% of Chaparral pn site (meets 67% req).
03 Preserves 8 Restores 104% of Oak Woodland on site (no net loss).
04 Provides for East / West corridor linkage (500’ min width).
05 Provides for North / South corridor linkage (200’ min width).
06 Provides for Public Gravity Sewer for entire basin.
07 Provides for N / S Open Space Public Trail along oak woodland.
08 Provides for Internal Streets & Trails for Students from the
08
l
neighborhood to walk and/or bike to school.
Creates Homeowners Association to maintain open space.
*
completely impacted by migrant campsites & shacks, abandoned vehicles
(trucks, cars & campers), trash dumps, tire dumps, litter, sofas, refrigerators,
discarded play equipment, abandoned farm equipment, broken furniture, discarded clothing, mattresses, etc. (treehouses in oaks canopy)
previously farmed, covered v&h invasive non-native plants, trails, litter, trash.
The Oaks @ Batiquitos
Existing Site Data:
Total Site Area
Man-made Slopes & Dirt Roads
Disturbed * Oak Woodland
Disturbed * Fallow Farm Land
Disturbed * marginal (low grade) Chamise Chaparral
Undistured marginal (low grade) Chamise Chaparral
Proposed Site Data (with street crossing oaks):
Restored Oak Woodland (104% of existing)
Restored & Preserved Chaparral (71% of existing)
Local Circulation Street (crossing valley floor @ .826 ac)
Developed Areas
Resulting Open Space 40.0%
Circulation Street 12.6%
Man-made Slope to be Developed 03.5%
New Developed Area 43.9%
Proposed Site Data (without street crossing oaks):
Resulting Open Space 44.0%
Circulation Street (internal access) 08.6%
Man-made Slope to be Developed 03.5%
New Developed Area 43.9%
Project Benefits (with connecting street):
/
- i .w. ,.-‘- ---. (
--_ 7. ;. ,._
_.-, ;
, F_\
-._ -_-.- _ l _._’ ‘, .‘-y i.. .,,, _.: -- . . ‘._ ‘. I I r b . . - C&J -,:,-..
3
:) :.;-. -. _-.’ 7, ’ :$.,, -iL;‘, ___ .- 2) ;I’ i--- ‘..--- / I I. _ ! .’ y--- ;s a al.. , q;, y;,., .!
l f
. .
: . . .I 1-k:m.. _.-_ /’
--- . : _,
‘: -_
,‘.,<:
/ .,i’ i- .’ /
: *
Pf
1 ,1... .’ / - . -_._ /
/y :- .’ J - I
Ll
/ k /
_ : ;
‘! ;
> /
‘/, (‘2 : I
/
.A$ 1’ ’ ye
iii ,, .:-;,-
y-y---- ,i,
(
i :. \
8, ; --.
.,
/' Ai/ ,/' I / /.-. _/- ,,- -..---- .’ ..__,___, ,- I
‘-3 .-- / /V
i
i , .,. c-- -.. I
-i/I.
*ifI
-
2dk4
1
EXHIBIT 6
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS REGARDING THE HMP
The City of Carlsbad has received 35 written comment letters regarding the draft
Habitat Management Plan (HMP). The Planning Department has analyzed these letters
and has grouped the individual comments into themes. These themes and our
responses are provided below:
1. Update to Preserve Boundaries and Marina Chanaes
A number of cornmentors requested revisions to the mapping for specific properties. In
addition, Planning staff made some revisions based on new information. All revisions
were made in consultation with the wildlife agencies. The mapping changes are as
follows:
l New Hardlines have been provided for Hieatt, Fox-Miller, DeJong, Carnation,
Hadley, Roesch, and Calavera Heights.
l Kelly Ranch has been changed to an existing hardline to more accurately
represent its approval status. The Callaghan property, which was previously part
of Kelly Ranch has been added as a new Standards Area.
l A minor adjustment has been made to the Bressi Ranch open space to more
accurately reflect the agreed upon design.
l A revision to the Carlsbad Oaks North design was made to provide a setback of
at least 300 feet from the boundary with the Dawson-Los Monos Reserve.
l Some properties with minimal wildlife habitat issues that have received City
approvals to develop have been removed from the Standards Areas and are now
shown as Development Areas.
l Vegetation changes have been made to properties where recent surveys provide
improved information.
The above mapping revisions will be included with the revision package that will be
presented to the City Council.
2. Standards Revisions
A number of cornmentors requested revisions to the proposed standards contained in
the plan. These comments were of three types:
A. Changing certain properties from Standards Area to, Existing or Proposed
Hardline.
B. Clarification of the standards for certain zones and properties where the
language may have been ambiguous.
C. Modification of the standards for certain zones and properties based on
recent discussions with the property owners, environmental organizations,
and/or the wildlife agencies.
In Category A, the properties that have changed from Standards to Hardlines have
been deleted from the Standards Areas discussion. As a result of these changes,
Standards have been eliminated entirely for Zones 5 and 7.
1 /m
In Category B, the phrase “to the extent feasible” has been eliminated from all zones
because it could not be defined with enough precision to avoid future disputes over its
meaning and application. In its place, a sentence has been inserted indicating that
application of the Standards cannot deny property owners some reasonable use of their
property.
In Category C, a change was made to the Zone 2 Standards to discuss an additional
property known as Spyglass Il. This property was previously not believed to have any
significant vegetation but has subsequently been found to support perennial native
grasses. A Standard has been included to address mitigation for impacts to the
grassland. Similarly, in Zone 8 a Standard has been included to address the Callaghan
property. For Zone 21, the statement limiting the Levatino property to a 25%
development area has been deleted, and that property is now subject to the same
Standards as all other properties in the zone. Numerous other minor revisions were
made to the standards.
3. Habitat Take Permit Fee
Several letters commented on the Habitat Take Permit Fee. Some supported the
concept while others expressed concern. Among those expressing concern, a number
questioned the nexus for assessing the fee against agricultural and disturbed lands.
Before any new fee can be adopted by the City, it is necessary to prepare a nexus
study pursuant to state law. If the City Council approves the concept of the fee, the
Planning Department will prepare the nexus study for Council consideration. The study
will determine who should pay the fee and will set the exact amount of the fee.
. In addition, the Planning Department is recommending some modifications to the fee. It
is recommended that the fee be considered an In-Lieu Mitigation Fee and that it be
related to the Mitigation Ratios contained in Table 11 of the plan. The table has been
modified to require mitigation for unoccupied coastal sage scrub, chaparral, grassland,
and agricultural and disturbed lands at specified ratios, with the provision that the
mitigation shall be satisfied by payment of the fee.
In regard to the nexus for requiring mitigation for impacts to agricultural and disturbed
lands, more detailed explanation will be provided by the nexus study. At this time, it is
sufficient to say that these lands do provide some benefits to a variety of wildlife
species, and it is appropriate to require mitigation for impacts. However, it is clear that
agricultural and disturbed lands do not have the same value as native habitats, and the
fee should be adjusted and reduced accordingly. The staff recommendation willbe for
agricultural and disturbed lands to pay a maximum mitigation fee of $500 per impacted
acre.
4. 75% Conservation Areas
The April 1999 Draft HMP indicated 6 properties that would be subject to the
requirement to conserve 75% of the property. These properties are Kelly-Bartman,
Sherman, Hieatt, Kirgis, Levatino, and Shelley. Several letters were received
expressing opposition to this requirement.
2
The Planning Department advised the 6 owners of the properties in question of our
willingness to work with them in an effort to arrive at either a Hardline design or
Standards that would be more acceptable to the property owner. Staff has spent
considerable time working with those property owners that responded and the wildlife
agencies. As a result, the following changes are being recommended:
l The Hieatt property is now a Proposed Hardline area that conserves 50% of
the property and allows development on the remainder. This design protects
all of the sensitive resources identified on the site and provides buffer areas
around the sensitive resources.
l The 75% conservation requirement has been removed from the Levatino
property, and it is now subject to the same Standards as other properties in
Zone 21.
l Planning staff has spoken with the owners of the Kirgis and Shelley
properties regarding clustering of residential density on the sites, such that
the same unit yield can be obtained while complying with the 75% Standard.
5. Covered Species List
Several cornmentors expressed concern that certain species were not included in the
list of species for which the City will be receiving take authorization. Other cornmentors
recommended that certain species be deleted from the City covered species list. A few
cornmentors asked how the plan will address more common species, such as mule
deer, coyote, bobcat, and mountain lion.
The City’s proposed covered species list is the result of numerous, lengthy discussions
with the wildlife agencies. Pursuant to the federal and state Endangered Species Acts,
species coverage must be based on biological factors. There must be sufficient
information about the species to make informed judgements about critical survival
factors, such as the amount of habitat needed to support a stable, self-sustaining
population. Further, the plan must demonstrate that it will adequately provide for the
needs of the species over a long time period.
For those species currently on the City’s proposed covered species list, adequate
biological information is available, and the HMP adequately provides for the needs of
those species. For the majority of species that have not been included on the City’s list,
the primary reason is lack of biological data regarding the species. For example, the
Quino Checkerspot Butterfly is presently known from only a few locations in San Diego
and Riverside Counties. The actual population of the species and its survival
requirements are under study at this time. There are no known locations of the species
in Carlsbad or other portions of North County. Therefore, the absence of critical data
makes it inappropriate to consider take authorization for this species. Similar data gaps
exist for other species that were not included on the covered species list.
One comment specifically addressed coverage for the San Diego goldenstar (Muilla
clevelandii). The major population of this plant in Carlsbad is located on the Villages of
La Costa property and is covered by an approved take permit. The project is required
to transplant the corms of the plant prior to project grading. In response to the
comment, the plan has been revised to indicate that coverage for this species is
contingent on success of the transplantation program.
3 K-4
A number of species that are currently not on the City’s covered species list may be
added to the covered species list following completion of the North County Multiple
Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP). The process for adding species to the covered
species list is mentioned in Table 2 (page C-12). As a result of recent discussions
regarding the process, the wording has been revised to indicate that addition of a
species to the covered species list will be handled as an Equivalency Finding.
One species not currently on the City’s covered species list that may warrant coverage
is the White-tailed Kite. The species is relatively well understood and is known to occur
in Carlsbad. The species utilizes oak woodlands for nesting and roosting, and these
areas are conserved at a high level by the plan. The City will propose adding this
species to the covered species list.
On the issue of more common species, the HMP was developed specifically to address
rare, sensitive, threatened, or endangered species. The Multiple Habitat Conservation
Plan (MHCP) developed a list of target species for North County to be considered in
conservation planning, and this list was utilized in preparation of the HMP. These
species typically have very narrow habitat requirements. More common species are
often habitat generalists and are more widely distributed. They are unlikely to ever
become candidates for listing as threatened or endangered, and therefore are not
appropriate for inclusion on the covered species list. Nevertheless, conservation of the
more common species is still important, and the HMP preserve system has been
designed to meet the needs of these species as well as the more sensitive ones.
6. Fundina Issues
Cornmentors recommended that the City consider seeking federal and state funding to
assist with acquisition and management. It was also recommended that existing
residents of Carlsbad be asked to contribute to funding the program. Specific
comments were offered regarding the funding needs for long-term management and
maintenance of the preserve system.
The Planning Department has recommended a financing plan to implement the HMP
that ‘is self-contained and does not rely on outside funding of any kind. The rationale for
this approach is that dependence on funding. from other sources could create
uncertainties that might undermine the implementation effort. For example, if future
funding is uncertain the wildlife agencies and environmental organizations may not be
able to support the plan, or they may feel the need for greater assurances and
safeguards for the species in other ways. Likewise, funding uncertainties could cause
the City to be more cautious in making consetvatidn commitments. Creating a funding
and implementation structure that is entirely within the City’s control largely avoids
these difficulties.
The approach described above does not rule out the possibility of the City receiving
federal or state funds to supplement the City’s financing program, and wording has
been added to the plan to reflect this. Federal and state funding opportunities would
need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Funding from current residents of Carlsbad is already being provided by means of the
City’s direct monetary investment in the program. The City has expended
approximately $1 million in preparing the plan, and additional City funds will be spent to
implement it. If a larger contribution from current residents were to be pursued, a vote
4 153
to establish the funding mechanism would most likely be required. This could be either
a Carlsbad-only election or a more region-wide proposition. Again, the HMP does not
rule out these possibilities, but the plan does not rely on any of. them for successful
implementation.
Funding for specific management needs of certain areas or species will be addressed in
the Long-term Management Plan which will be prepared within a specified time period
after approval of the HMP.
7. Preserve Manaaement/Operation *
Several letters provided comments regarding the need to manage the preserve system
in perpetuity. Some commented on funding for management. The funding issues has
been addressed in the’response to item #6 above. Other cornmentors discussed very
specific issues, such as seasonal access limitations, unified management structure,
public involvement in the annual review process, priorities for species monitoring,
control of feral domestic animals, and the connection between management and take
authorization for certain species. These kinds of management and operational issues
will be discussed in full in the management plans that will be prepared as follow-up to
approval of the HMP. The management plans will be prepared in two phases. The first
phase which will begin immediately after approval of the plan will be an interim
management plan. The interim plan is expected to be in effect for no more than three
years. The second phase will be the long-term management plan which will be
prepared and adopted within three years of approval of the HMP. The comments that
have been submitted regarding preserve system management will be retained and
considered in more detail as part of the management plans.
8. Biotoaical Issues
A number of letters commented in some manner regarding biological issues. These
comments addressed impacts to riparian habitat, wildlife crossings of major roads, and
measures to minimize and mitigate impacts.
Regarding impacts to riparian habitat and other wetland types, language has been
added to the plan where appropriate (e.g. Zone 25) to ensure the protection of these
habitats and the species that utilize them (see page D-67). The added wording in
combination with provisions already included in the ‘plan address conservation of
wetlands and riparian habitat both inside and outside of the preserve system. Although
the plan shows some wetland areas outside of the designated preserve system, they
will receive the same level of protection as wetlands inside the preserve system. The
no-net-loss requirement ensures that, where impacts cannot be avoid, mitigation will
guarantee that no reduction in acreage or biological function and values will occur.
Several cornmentors asked about protection of habitats and species outside of the
preserve areas. As noted above with respect to wetlands and riparian habitats,
measures to minimize and mitigate impacts apply both inside and outside the preserve
system. For example, Narrow Endemics are to be avoided as the first preference both
inside and outside the preserve system. Inside the preserves, 100% conservation is
specified. Outside the preserves, a maximum encroachment of 20% is allowed after all
avoidance and minimization measures have been applied.
One of the most frequent comments was the suggestion that undercrossings or bridges
be provided where wildlife corridors cross major roads. Wording has been added to
page E-6 indicating that this issue will be addressed in preparation of the preserve
management plans. As part of that discussion, the cost of such improvements will be
considered along with their potential effectiveness.
9. DensitvlClusterinq
Some cornmentors noted that the plan proposes to allow clustering of densities on
residential properties, and they requested that this be discussed in further detail. The
Carlsbad Planning Commission also raised this issue at its meeting of July 21,’ 1999, as
part of a discussion item on the HMP.
The Carlsbad General Plan provides density ranges for residential properties. The
Growth Management Plan further refines densities by providing a Growth Control Point,
which is used to specify the number of dwelling units that may be allowed on a given
property. One effect of these.regulations is to establish an upper limit. on the number of
dwelling units that can be constructed in the City. However, the General Plan, Growth
Management Plan, and the Zoning Code also recognize that individual properties may
be planned in various ways while maintaining compliance with the regulations.
One method for conserving open space is known as “clustering”. In this approach, a
property is allowed the number of dwelling specified by the Growth Control Point, but
rather than distributing the lots uniformly over the property, the lots are clustered on a
portion of the site so that the remainder can be left undeveloped. Clustering results in
the same overall density, in that the same number of homes is built on the property;
however, the homes are located on a smaller portion of the property.
Clustering is encouraged by the General Plan in order to preserve more natural open
space, especially where special resources exist. The HMP also encourages clustering
as a means of reconciling the conservation standards with other community values,
such as private property rights, infrastructure improvements, and affordable housing. If
clustering were not allowed, some property owners would experience a significant loss
of value to their property, potentially to the point that it might deprive a property owner
of a reasonable use of the property. To do so could be a violation of federal and state
law,. exposing the City to potentially great liability. In addition, there would be a
significant reduction in the total number of dwelling units in the City at buildout. Such a
reduction could impact the City’s ability to finance and construct planned infrastructure
.such as parks and roads. Finally, a significant loss of total dwelling units would have an
impact on housing affordability. The City would probably not be able to comply with its
adopted Housing Element, potentially leading to concerns from the state Office of
Housing and Community Development. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
HMP identified this potential loss of dwelling units as a significant impact unless
mitigated. The mitigation measure stated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration is to
utilize clustering to ensure that dwelling units are not lost as a result of conservation
standards. In short, clustering is a necessity in order to implement the HMP while also
meeting other local, regional, and statewide goals and mandates.
6 /fi-
-
10. Growth Manaaement and Infrastructure
Some cornmentors inquired about the possible effect of the HMP on the Growth
Management Plan and on public infrastructure and services, including schools.
The HMP itself will not alter any provision of the Growth Management Plan. The
dwelling unit caps put in place by Proposition E are maximums that cannot be
exceeded. The caps allow no more than 33,478 units to be constructed after
November 4, 1986. Whether these caps are ever reached depends on many factors,
including the question of clustering as described previously. Even without the HMP,
residential yields have been falling below what is theoretically possible under .Growth
Management. Many developers have chosen to build at lower densities in order to
target a certain segment of the housing market. These actions have produced an
“excess dwelling unit bank”, the size of which cannot be precisely stated at this time,
but which is potentially in the thousands of units. Developers seeking higher densities
than their base allocation under Growth Management may request units out of the
“bank” if they meet stated criteria. The ultimate number of dwelling units at buildout of
the City will be determined largely by the extent to which the units in the “excess
dwelling unit bank” are used.
In regard to public facilities, the Growth Management Plan will ensure that the required
number and size of facilities meets the adopted Performance Standards. A reduced
City buildout population could result in some facilities being fewer or smaller than what
had been projected based on the Proposition E caps. For example, a reduced City
buildout population would probably mean a reduced demand for school facilities. Under
the Growth Management Plan, reduced demand is not a problem. Although clustering
may result in some site-specific increases in densities, these will be offset by the large
areas of open space that will create no demand for public facilities. Decisions on
facilities must take into consideration not only the Growth Management Performance
Standards but also public expectations, financial capabilities, and other priorities that
may exist in the future. In short, the HMP is only one of a number of factors affecting
the ultimate population size of the City of Carlsbad and provision of public facilities.
As a final note on this issue, it is acknowledged that the HMP may result in an increase
in the cost of constructing certain facilities due to the mitigation requirements stated in
the plan. However, it should also be noted that there would be mitigation costs even
without the HMP due to conditions that would be placed on individual project permits.
11. Other Comments
A number of other comments were offered covering a wide variety of topics. Not all of
these comments will be responded to here, but the major ones are discussed below.
Two cornmentors recommended that the City undertake an educational program
regarding the HMP. This comment was also offered by the Carlsbad Planning
Commission. In response, wording to this effect has been included in the revisions to
the plan.
Some cornmentors asked about the effect of the HMP on City revenues. The major
sources of revenue for the City of Carlsbad are property tax, sales tax, and transient
occupancy tax. Although it could be argued that the HMP would suppress property
7 p-6
values, property tax revenues are presently at high levels. An opposing argument
could be made that the additional open space provided by the HMP will increase the
value of developed properties by contributing to the perceived quality of life in Carlsbad.
Sales tax and transient occupancy tax are unlikely to be affected by the HMP because
minimal commercially designated land is found within the habitat areas of the City.
Thus, the HMP is unlikely to have any effect on City revenues.
Some cornmentors noted that Carlsbad is proceeding ahead of the rest of North
County, and they questioned how coordination and cooperation with other agencies will
be achieved. The City of Carlsbad and the HMP have been instrumental in
development of the MHCP since its inception. The HMP has always been intended to
serve as a component of the MHCP and to be fully coordinated and consistent with it.
The HMP has utilized the MHCP’s methodology of Focused Planning Areas as well as
the conservation recommendations in the MHCP’s Biological Goals Standards and
Guidelines. Most recently, when the MHCP identified the need for a large “core area” of
approximately 500 acres for the California gnatcatcher, the HMP has proposed an
acquisition program that will conserve approximately 300 acres within the targeted area.
15-7
-
LX 82 3. M
3-z &i zild p 0 gs sg YT ; .E x’- S8 ‘O= 3K -01 a:: 30 .g II .9 c-n -0 . -2 3 “fj 2= $i
zz z-g 2 Q) gs
q .E c 2: cj 5 94 “2. w- 0 -0 $ *g oc7 0 II F & -W AmE 0 .= 2
$ 8
2 d .z
L i% d2 E II UWY CBS
i! !i 1 ‘C P B Sa
.+ ‘c1w s 8 a* 8 .s 35 $$ .EL
Od
$f - .- w UJ- zg .- .E m
5 t v)
ZB .r 8 ES ‘E e g .B -3
g OLE ‘i; c a *- si B .P .z H v ,v r&a % CI VI
c-13
APRIL, 1959
CARLSBAD HMP
B. Proposed Hardline Preserve Areas
A number of proposed public and private projects have submitted proposed hardline design for
inclusion in the HMP and the preserve system. Upon approval of the HMP, these proposals will obtain
the same conservation status as the existing hardline areas and the City’s General Plan will be
amended to designate them as open space. Take of habitat will be authorized for the remaining
portions of the projects. These projects include the City’s municipal goif course, Lake Calavera,
Veteran’s Memorial Park, Hub Park, the Zone 19 park, Manzanita Properties, SDG&E south shore properties, Bressi Ranch, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park, Holly Springs, Kelly Ranch, South
Coast and the Raceway Property. The general location of the proposed hardline areas are shown on
Figure 6, while detailed boundaries are shown for the individual projects on Figures 7 through 19. The proposed hardline boundaries on Veterans Memorial Park which provide a corridor between the City’s
Municipal Golf Course and properties to the north, constitutes mitigation for the development of the remaining portion of Veterans Memorial Park. A pedestrian trail, park road and five individual and two
group passive picnic areas will be permitted in the corridor. The City is proposing to include the 266
acre public property at Lake Calavera as a public project mitigation bank for municipal projects such
as the City golf course and the major roads shown on the City’s Circulation Plan. The other City
projects which could be covered by the City mitigation bank are identified in Appendix B. One of the
key objectives of the HMP is permitting for City public facility projects mandated by the Growth
Management Plan. The purpose of a public mitigation bank will be mitigation of unavoidable impacts
to biological resources resulting from these public facilities projects. The mitigation credits available in
the Lake Calavera mitigation bank are shown in the following table. There are 266.1 total acres at the bank. Deductions have already been made for the partial mitigation for the City’s municipal golf
course (46.45 acres and two pairs of gnatcatchers), mitigation for development in the portion of Hub Park not being conserved as a hardline preserve area (10 acres). Deductions have also been made
for approved future improvements on the property which consists of a police shooting range (10 acres) and Water District projects (22 acres) and for a 100 ft. wide fire break alona the northerlv
portion of the orooertv (17.55 acres).
TABLE 5
Lake Calavera Public Mitigation Bank
DEDUCTIONS
Approved Mitigation for Existing Projects
ACRES
56.45
Future Improvements 32
100 ft. wide fire break 17.55
TOTAL REMAINING -
CREDITS (ACRES) 160.10
The remaining credits at Lake Calavera will mitigate for habitat impacts of City projects on an acre-for- acre basis regardless of the type of habitat being impacted except for impacts to gnatcatcher occupied coastal sage scrub, southern maritime chaparral, maritime succulent scrub and wetlands.
In addition to mitigation credits at Lake Calavera, 10 acres of coastal sage scrub and two gnatcatcher pair mitigation credits for future City projects will be given for the conservation provided at Hub Park
as a hardline preserve area.
The levels of conservation achieved by the proposed hardline component of the preserve system by
habitat type and by LFMZ are provided in Table 6. The total acreage of conserved habitat resulting from proposed hardline conservation areas is 1,353 acres or approximately 21% of the preserve
system.
D-14 AFWL, 1999 GO
CARLSBAD HMP
C. Standards Areas
For some key properties within the City which have not submitted proposed hardline designs for
inclusion in the preserve system at this time, the HMP includes conservation goals and standards
which will apply.to future development proposals in these areas. The goals and standards have been
arranged according to the Local Facilities Management Zones (LFMZs) to which they apply. Figure
20 shows the LFMZs, the areas of the City and individual properties covered by the standards areas.
The standards apply only to those areas within the LFMZs not already covered by existing and
proposed hardline areas, existing take authorizations or areas shown as development areas on the
HMP map. They are focused geographically using the 25 Local Facilities Management Zones
(LFMZs) defined by the City’s Growth Management Plan (GMP). The GMP requires that each zone
have a local facilities management plan approved by the City Council before development applications can be accepted or processed for that zone. The HMP requires that each plan demonstrate how the
goals and objectives of the HMP will be achieved for that zone. This planning should ensure that viable biological open space will be comprehensively planned for the zone, rather than having open
space areas planned piece-meal for each parcel within the zone. If individual properties are proposed for development within a zone, the property owner must show how the standards will be met. Ne
setandards are identified for orouerties in zones 1. 2. 8. 11, 14. 15. 20. 21 and 25. req&e&x
The planning standards are based on biological issues defined specifically for each zone based on
existing biological conditions and preserve design considerations. These issues are translated into HMP conservation goals, which in general focus on conserving and maintaining major and critical
populations of HMP species, major and critical habitat patches within core areas, and landscape linkages and movement corridors between core areas as well as with adjoining jurisdictions.
The discussion of biological issues and goals is followed by recommended standards for planning new
developments within each zone. These planning standards are intended to achieve the zone-specific
biological goals based on zone-specific conditions and constraints. They would be used during the
land use planning and review process by the City as described in Sections D and E, to identify conservation priorities and compliance options for new projects. Althouah the standards will
ultimatelv result in determinina ureserve boundaries, the standards as well as the mitiaating
measures and ratios contained in Tables 9 and 11 of the document anulv to all uroiects in the
zone whether thev are within or outside the ureserve boundaries. Bee uaae D-67 for further
discussion of Citvwide minimization and mitiaation reauirements.)
There are several properties within the standards areas which are extremely important to planning a viable preserve system because of their geographical location (e.g., linkage) or the habitat type
occurring on the property. In order to allow reasonable economic use of these properties, the standards allow at least 25% of the property to be developed, while 75% will be conserved.
The protection of coastal sage scrub habitat is of particular importance in these remaining, unplanned
areas of the City. Therefore, unless otherwise specifically stated in the standards for a particular zone, a minimum of 67% of the coastal sage scrub shall be conserved in each of the standards areas, as well as 75% of gnatcatchers. Also of particular importance is the protection of Narrow Endemic
species. The standards require 100% conservation of Narrow Endemics within a focus planning area.
The following contains the specific standards by LFMZ.
1. Biological Resource issues
D-44 APulL, 1999 lcl
CARLSBAD HMP
Zone 1, which is almost entirely developed, contains scattered fragments of natural vegetation, . . including major and critical stands of riparian r.nrl , as well as some scattered
patches of coastal sage scrub, non-native grassland, maritime succulent scrub, saltmarsh, and freshwater marsh. Some coastal sage scrub areas support California gnatcatchers. Much of the
remaining vegetation is on slopes
D4a APRIL, 1999
CARLSBAD HMP
adjoining Buena Vista and Agua Hedionda lagoons, thus contributing to the biological value of the
lagoon watersheds. Buena Vista and Agua Hedionda lagoons support major or critical populations of
southwestern pond turtle, white-faced ibis, western snowy plover, and California least tern. The lagoons also provide foraging habitat for the American peregrine falcon and California brown pelican.
2. HMP Co- Coals
Conserve the majority of sensitive habitats in or contiguous with biological core areas, including no net
loss of wetland habitat, and preserve, e&eaeWe coastal sage scrub and maritime succulent scrub
adjacent to the lagoons. Retain and manage natural habitats adjacent to lagoons to buffer wetland
resources from adverse effects and provide upland nesting habitat for pond turtles and other HMP
species.
3. Planning Standards
There are two specific areas within Zone 1 to which specific standards are being applied; several
vacant lots on the north shore of Agua Hedionda Lagoon and a larger, vacant in-fill lot located to the southwest of El Camino Real and Kelly Drive.
m &void removal of maritime succulent scrub and any patches of coastal sage
scrub in or contiguous with biological core areas. Preserve at least 50% of coastal sage scrub with
preference for avoidance of any areas that contain gnatcatchers. If impacts to native habitats cannot
be avoided, mitigate by creation or enhancement of like habitats adjacent to lagoons, or by offsite compensation or restoration within biological core and linkage areas. Maximize the preservation of
habitat adjacent to the lagoon.
1. Biological Resource lssues
Zone 2 is almost entirely developed with some very small patches of coastal sage scrub native and
non-native grassland. The northern end of the zone comprises part of the regional north-south
linkage for gnatcatchers.
2. HMP Co- Coals
Establish, enhance and maintain a habitat linkage from Core Area #2 to the city limits with Oceanside
to ensure Carlsbad’s portion of regional connectivity for gnatcatchers. Restoration of habitat should
be a priority in the northern end of this zone, immediately adjacent to Highway 78. Allow no net loss
of riparian and other wetland habitats.
3. Planning Standards
There are onlv two urouerties within this zone where suecific standards aoulv. The first is-en+
ene property & at the northeasterly edge of this zone and J is
identified on the HMP map as the KellylBartman property. Approximately 75% of this propehy, which is predominantly grassland, should be conserved, while allowing development to occur on at least 25% of the least environmentally sensitive portion of the property. Maintain a minimum habitat linkage
width of 400 feet and an average of at least 500 feet between Zone 25 and the intersection of the
SDG&E transmission line corridor with Highway 78. Avoid removal of coastal sage scrub or grassland habitats within this area, and restore or enhance sage scrub habitat, as necessary, to achieve coastal
sage scrub contiguity. Restoration of this area is highly desirable. Allow no net loss of any riparian
and other wetland habitats.
The second uronertv is an infill lot located off the southeast corner of El Camino Real and Carlsbad Villaae Drive and is known as the Suvalass urouertv. Althouah this urouertv is not
continuous to anv other habitat and would not Drovide a link or corridor for habitat
Da5 APRIL 1999 /63
CARLSBAD HMP
connectivitv DurDoses. a maioritv of the DroDertv contains native arasslands. Anv alasslands
imDacted on this DroDertv shall be reauired to do offsite mitiaation at a 2:l ratio.
D45a APRIL, 1999 /bLf
_- -
CARLSBAD HMP
D49
CARLSBAD HMP
3.
1. Biological Resource issues
Most of Zone 8 is comprised of existing or proposed hardline preserve areas. The habitats in Zone 8
comprise much of Core Area 4, and link to other cores to the northeast (via Linkage Area B),
southeast (via Linkage Area F), and west (Agua Hedionda Lagoon). This zone supports a variety of
sensitive habitats, including critical salt marsh, freshwater marsh, and riparian scrub habitats as well
as a major stand of coastal sage scrub. A small patch of southern maritime chaparral is located in
and adjacent to agriculture, non-native grassland, southern mixed chaparral, and disturbed land.
Marsh habitats associated with Agua Hedionda Lagoon support critical populations of California least
tern, western snowy plover, Belding’s Savannah sparrow, light-footed clapper rail, and potentially salt marsh skipper. Riparian habitats support breeding least Bell’s vireos and potentially southwestern
willow flycatchers. California gnatcatchers inhabit most of the sage scrub in this zone, and Del Mar
manzanita occurs in the southern maritime chaparral.
2. HMP Consenmtion Coals
Ensure no net loss of wetland habitats and minimize loss of sensitive upland habitats within Core Area
4, especially occupied coastal sage scrub. Tr. @onserve major and
critical populations of HMP species and populations of Narrow Endemic species. Maintain contiguity between upland and wetland habitats within the zone, as well as continuity of sensitive upland habitats
across the zone from southeast to northwest.
3. Planning Standards
There are two DroDerties F within this zone+ that are desianated as standards
areas; the Kirgis property and the Callahan DroDertv g
Both DroDerties are reauired to avoid iknpacts to any identified Narrow Endemic plant populations.
ImDacts to coastal saae scrub and southern maritime
ChaDarral habitats shall also be avoided, with imDacts limited to smaller franments. edaes,
lower aualitv areas, and areas devoid of sensitive sDecies. The Kirnis DroDertv shall be
allowed a maximum of 25% of the Darcel for deVelODment DurDoses. The Callaahan DroDertv
shall be allowed a maximum of 50% of the Darcel for develoDment DurDoses. Both DroDerties
shall Dlace their develoDment on the least environmentallv sensitive Dortion of the DroDertv.
1. Biiloglll Resource Issues
D50
CARLSBAD HMP
This zone is comprised largely of areas already subject to take authorization agreements. Critical stands of coastal sage scrub and major stands of chaparral dominate Zone 11. Riparian scrub and
freshwater marsh habitats are associated with San Marcos and Encinitas creeks which traverse this
zone. The largest core population of gnatcatchers (approximately 40 pairs) in the City is supported by
the coastal sage scrub’habitats in this zone. Critical populations of San Diego thorn-mint, sticky
dudleya, San Diego marsh-elder, and San Diego goldenstar are supported by the riparian and sage scrub habitats. Zone 11 contains the largest, least fragmented, biological core area in the City (Core
Area 7), and it is the primary linkage between Carlsbad and the large areas of unincorporated natural
_-
CARLSBAD HMP
lands southeast of the City. All of these biolonical resource issues were taken into considera-
tion and addressed in the existinn take authorizations (Drevious HCP and Section 7
aareements) for this zone. Encinitas Creek and associated natural habitats are identified as Special
Resource Area 3, which is considered an important wildlife movement corridor to maintain access to
Batiquitos Lagoon by large mammals and other wildlife.
2 HMP-Goals
Conserve coastal sage scrub, riparian habitats, and wildlife movement corridors to connect the existing preserve areas with each other and with natural habitats in adjoining jurisdictions. Ensure no
net loss. of wetland habitats. Maintain a functional wildlife movement corridor along Encinitas Creek
(Special Resource Area 3).
3. PlanniisQndaFd
Because the majority of the hardline open space in this zone is the result of previous HCP and Section
7 agreements (Villages of La Costa and Ranch0 Verde, respectively), these standards apply only to
the area identified as the Shelley property in the southeast portion of the zone. The 75% conservation
standard shall apply to this property and includes the area to the north of the transmission lines. The 25% development portion of the property must be located on the least environmentally sensitive part
of the property, considering both existing resources and preserve design criteria. \nlhnm
@onserve and enhance riparian vegetation along Encinitas Creek with lOO-foot buffers supporting natural vegetation between wetland habitats and development. Prohibit fill or development within the
existing 100 year flood plain except where required for Circulation Element roads, Drainage Master
Plan facilities, or other essential p&tie infrastructure. Use sensitive design of any road or utility
crossings of Encinitas Creek.
1. . Biological Resour~ issues
Zone 14 is divided into two biologically distinct portions. The northeastern portion of Zone 14 contains
critical coastal sage scrub and riparian habitats, as well as major stands of chaparral, which are
contiguous with other large open-space areas. This area also supports California gnatcatchers and
forms a part of Core Area 3 (which includes Lake Calavera and Calavera Heights). The southern
portion of this zone is dominated by agricultural fields, with scattered areas of non-native grassland and coastal sage scrub on slopes. A narrow sycamore riparian woodland also runs north-south
through the agricultural fields. Remnant habitats in the southern section of this zone likely serve as
wildlife movement corridors and habitat linkages, particularly connecting Core Area 3 to Core Area 4
via Linkage Area B. Large mammals using these connections are needed to maintain ecosystem
balance at Agua Hedionda Lagoon.
2. HMP Consecration Goals
Establish, enhance, and maintain viable m habitat linkagee across Linkage Area B to
ensure connectivity for gnatcatchers and other HMP species between Core Areas 3 and 4. Allow no
net loss of wetlands and conserve through preservation, restoration or enhancement, 67% of coastal sage scrub.
3. Planning Standards
Areas of upland habitat outside of the designated Linkage B may be taken in exchange for restoration
and enhancement inside the linkage, as long as the result is conservation of at least 67% of coastal sage scrub or the associated gnatcatcher population within the southern portions of the zone. Creation of linkage should utilize patches of existing habitat. &
Where consistent with creation of Linkage B, avoid removal of natural habitats that are contiguous
D-51 APRIL, 1999 /Ibe
CARLSBAD HMP
with open space on adjacent parcels. Maintain and enhance the wildlife movement potential between core areas using sensitive design of any road or utility crossings of Linkage B (e.g., bridging,
D-51a
APRIL,1999 lb9
CARLSBAD HMP
undercrossing). Conserve all riparian habitats onsite, and prohibit fill or development within the existing flood plain except where required for Circulation Element roads, Drainage Master Plan
facilities, or other essential p&lie infrastructure. Conserve any Narrow Endemic plant populations identified during planning. When conversion of agricultural lands to other uses is proposed, set back
all development impacts at least 100 feet from existing wetland habitats and encourage habitat
restoration or enhancement in the riparian and buffer areas.
1. BiiiResomelssues
Important core and linkage habitats comprise much of Zone 15. The northern portion of the zone includes much of Core Area 3, which is already largely existing and proposed hardline open space.
Critical blocks of coastal sage scrub in this area are densely occupied by a critical population of
California gnatcatchers and other sensitive species. Most of the California gnatcatchers in the
northernmost core population are in this block of habitat. It connects to core population areas on
Camp Pendleton via core and linkage areas in Zones 7, 25, and 2 and the City of Oceanside, and to
core population areas in southeast Carlsbad via stepping-stone Linkage Areas C and D, Core Area 5,
and southwest San Marcos. This area also supports a critical population of thread-leaved brodiaea. Riparian scrub and oak riparian woodlands cross the large block of coastal sage scrub in the northern
part of the zone and also border the zone’s southern boundary. The southern portion of the zone, which includes multiple property ownerships, is a mosaic of coastal sage scrub, non-native grassland,
and chaparral. Some of the natural habitat patches border the southern drainage (Agua Hedionda
Creek) and add to its value as a wildlife movement corridor. Agricultural areas north of Agua Hedionda Creek support a mosaic of disturbed coastal sage scrub patches on rocky hills and ridges,
along with a variety of wetland communities. These remnant natural habitat patches, surrounded by
active agricultural fields, comprise part of a stepping-stone linkage (Linkage Area C) for gnatcatchers
and other species. The Dawson-Los Monos Reserve in the eastern portion of the zone supports relatively undisturbed sage scrub, chaparral, and riparian communities.
2 HMP Conservation Goals
Establish, enhance, and maintain a viable habitat linkage across Linkage Area C to ensure
connectivity for gnatcatchers and other HMP species between Core Areas 3 and 5. Conserve the majority of sensitive habitats in or contiguous with biological core. and linkage areas, including no net
loss of wetland habitats and coastal sage scrub within Core Area 3 and Linkage Area C.
3. Planning Standards
Maintain and enhance a enee&we habitat linkagee across Linkage Area C and adjoining portions of Core Areas 3 and 5 that averages between 500 and 1 ,OOO-feet wide, with a minimum width of no less
than 500488 feet. Emphasis should be on improving gnatcatcher nesting habitat within the linkage.
Areas of upland habitat outside of the designated Linkage Area C may be taken in exchange for
restoration and enhancement inside the linkage,,as long as the result is no net loss of coastal sage
scrub or the associated gnatcatcher population within the southern portions of the zone. Creation of
linkage should utilize patches of existing habitat to the maximum extent practicable. Where consistent with creation of Linkage C, avoid removal of natural habitats that are contiguous with open space on adjacent parcels. Maintain and enhance the wildlife movement potential between core areas using sensitive design of any road or utility crossings of Linkage C. Conserve all riparian habitats onsite,
and prohibit fill or development within the existing flood plain except where required for Circulation Element roads, Drainage Master Plan facilities, or other essential publie infrastructure. Conserve any
Narrow Endemic plant populations identified during planning. When conversion of agricultural lands to
other uses is proposed, set back all development impacts at least 100 feet from existing wetland
habitats and encourage habitat restoration or enhancement in the riparian and buffer areas.
D -52 APRIL. 1999 /7d
-
CARLSBAD HMP
1. Biologii Resoulce Issues
Much of this zone is already developed=
and much of the remainder is agricultural land. Coastal sage scrub, maritime succulent scrub: southern mixed chaparral, and southern maritime chaparral in this zone support a variety of HMP
species, including California gnatcatcher, Del Mar manzanita, orange-throated whiptail, and San Diego thorn-mint. There is insufficient survey information for some portions of this zone. Habitats in
Zone 20 are part of a stepping-stone linkage (Linkage F) that connects cores areas 4,6, and 8.
2 HMP Co-on Goals
Establish, enhance, and maintain a viable habitat linkage across Linkage Area F to ensure connectivity for gnatcatchers and other HMP species between Core Areas 4 and 6. Conserve the
majority of sensitive habitats in or contiguous with biological core and linkage areas, including no net loss of wetland habitats, southern maritime chaparral, maritime succulent scrub, and coastal sage
scrub within Core Area 6 and Linkage Area F.
3. Planning Standards
Conserve habitats in a continuous configuration through Linkage Area F, from Core Area 6 to where
Linkage Area F crosses Palomar Airport Road. This configuration should allow for continued animal
movement between Core Areas 4 and 6, particularly for gnatcatchers and other birds. The obiective
is to create continuous habitat connectivitv and wildlife movement across the zone with a minimum constriction of 500 feet. However, in no case shall this standard denv a orooertv
owner some reasonable use of their DroDertv. Areas of coastal sage scrub and maritime succulent scrub outside of the designated Linkage F may be taken in exchange for restoration and
enhancement inside the linkage, as long as the result is no net loss of these habitats or the associated
gnatcatcher population within the standards portions of the zone. Southern maritime chaparral outside of core and linkage areas may also be taken unless it supports significant populations of
Narrow Endemic plants. Creation of Linkage F should utilize patches of existing habitat, &-the
v Where consistent with creation of Linkage F, avoid removal of natural
habitats that are contiguous ‘with open space on adjacent parcels. Maintain and enhance the wildlife
movement potential between core areas using sensitive design of any road or utility crossings of Linkage F. Conserve all riparian habitats onsite, and prohibit fill or development within the existing
flood plain except where required for Circulation Element roads, Drainage Master Plan facilities, or other essential p&+ie infrastructure. When conversion of agricultural lands to other uses is proposed,
set back all development impacts at least 100 feet from existing wetland habitats and encourage
habitat restoration or enhancement in the riparian and buffer areas.
1. Biological Resource issues
The majority of Zone 21 is covered by these standards and consists of multiple property owners. The zone contains a critical stand of southern maritime chaparral that supports a critical population of Del
Mar manzanita, a major population of summer holly, and other Narrow Endemic plant species. Vernal
pools, coastal sage scrub, and oak riparian forest also occur and likely support HMP species,
including California gnatcatcher. Zone 21 contains most of the habitats comprising the western half of
Core Area 6, which is the primary link between the eastern and western halves of the City. Scattered agricultural fields are also located within this zone. There is insufficient survey information for some portions of Zone 21.
D-53
APRIL 1999
/ 71
_-
CARLSBAD HMP
2 HMPConsenrationGoals
Conserve the majority of remaining natural habitats and ensure a net loss of no more than 10% of coastal sage scrub and southern maritime chaparral. Ensure no net loss of wetland habitats, vernal
pools, and oak woodlands within the zone. Conserve habitats in a continuous configuration across
the zone to allow for continued east-west connectivity and animal movement between El Camino Real
(Zone 10) and Linkage Area F (Zones 19 and 20). Conserve Narrow Endemic plant populations.
3. Planning standards
Additional field surveys at the appropriate time of year are needed in this zone to determine the extent and location of sensitive species. Major areas for development should be restricted to agricultural
areas and disturbed habitat. Avoid removing maritime succulent scrub, southern maritime chaparral,
and any Narrow Endemic plant populations identified during planning. Minimize removal of coastal
sage scrub and southern maritime chaparral; avoid impacts within the watersheds of vernal pools and
to oak riparian forest. Ensure continuous habitat connectivity and wildlife movement east-west across
the zone with an average habitat width of 500 feet to 1,000 feet and a minimum constriction of 500 feet (where narrower cbnstrictions don’t already exist). However. in no case shall this standard
denv a oronertv owner some reasonable use of their orooertv. If imoacts to natural habitats
cannot be avoided. -thev should be limited to disturbed, low aualitv Dortions of the site. Areas
of hiahlv disturbed. low aualitv southern maritime ChaDarral and coastal saae scrub mav be
mitiaated bv a combination of onsite enhancement and offsite mitiaation in locations of hinher . . aualitv habitat. S bc 3 b; ere&e+~
1. Biilogical Resource issues
2.
Zone 25 comprises a large proportion of Core Area 2, which supports critical riparian and other
wetland habitats, as well as grasslands with scattered coastal sage scrub patches. The riparian
habitats along Buena Vista Creek support least Bell’s vireos, and coastal sage scrub patches support
approximately 6-10 pairs of California gnatcatchers. One or more ponds in the area may potentially
support pond turtles. This zone represents a critical portion of the regional California gnatcatcher
corridor from northern Carlsbad across Oceanside to Camp Pendleton. Linkage Areas A and B
connect Zone 25 to Core Areas 3 and 4, respectively. The eastern portion of the zone includes proposed hardline open space. The western portion of the zone is subject to these standards.
HMP Conservation Goals
Conserve the majority of remaining natural habitats, and allow no net loss of coastal sage scrub and riparian and other wetland habitats. Retain upland habitats adjacent to riparian habitats to provide
potential nesting habitat for pond turtles, to buffer impacts of development on riparian species, and to maximize gnatcatcher use of riparian areas for dispersal through the regional corridor system. Maintain and enhance sufficient nesting habitat to reliably support some nesting pairs of gnatcatchers
within the zone in most years.
3. Planning Standa&
D54 APRIL, 1999 /72
CARLSBAD HMP
Conservation of 75% of the Sherman property is required to provide adequate connectivity within the
regional gnatcatcher corridor. Align future Marron Road to minimize impacts to sensitive biological resources and disruption of wildlife movement. Conserve wetland habitats and set development back
at least 100 feet. Avoid and minimize removal of coastal sage scrub and maintain a continuous linkage of sage scrub, chaparral, and grassland averaging @OJ 5W feet to 1,000 feet wide along the
D -54a
APRIL 1999 /73
CARLSBAD HMP
southern and western portion of the zone with a minimum constriction of 500 feet where narrower constrictions do no alreadv exist. Mitigate any removal of natural habitat by onsite restoration or
enhancement of coastal sage scrub to improve gnatcatcher breeding habitat within the zone.
Conserve any Narrow Endemic plant populations. Conserve and enhance ribarian veaetation
alona Buena Vista Creek with 200-foot buffers sunnortina natural veaetation between wetland
habitats and develoDment. Prohibit fill or develobment within the existina 100 vear flood olain
exceut where reauired for Circulation Element roads. Drainage Master Plan facilities, or other
essential Dublic infrastructure. Use sensitive desian of anv road or utilitv crossina of Buena
Vista Creek.
The above standards would be applied to the specified areas at the time of application for
development entitlements. The process for compliance with the standards is contained in Section E
of the HMP.
The City’s projection of levels of conservation within the preserve system achieved by future
compliance with the conservation standards by habitat type and by LFMZ are provided in Table 7. The total estimated acreage of conserved habitat resulting from the proposed standards areas is 700
acres or approximately 11% of the preserve system. It should be noted that the acreage figures are
an estimate based on the information currently available. Precise figures for any specific area will
not be known until completion of the review and approval process described above.
.
D55
APRIL, 1999
/w
CARLSBAD HMP
4. The Preserve System and Resulting Levels of Conservation
The combination of the preserve and assembly components described previously will result ultimately
in a preserve system of approximately 6,489 acres. Figure 21 generally shows these conservation
components combined on one map. The HMP map, Figure 22, located in the back of the HMP,
graphically shows the entire preserve system and includes the existing hardline areas, proposed
hardline areas, standards areas and the areas subject to existing take agreement
(FieldstoneKarlsbad HCP). Table 8 provides the total resulting levels of conservation achieved by
the HMP, based on these components of the preserve system. The preserve system has been designed, to the maximum extent feasible, to ensure that species addressed by the HMP continue to
survive in healthy and thriving populations within Carlsbad.
Table 8 also shows the conservation levels excluding the area covered by the Fieldstone HCP take
permit. Although this area has not developed yet, the Fieldstone HCP was approved and legal agreements with the property owners and wildlife agencies were entered into prior to the completion of
the HMP. The City does not have the authority to require additional conservation on the properties covered by the HCP. The level of conservation is higher in the remainder of the City and resultant
take of HMP species is lower if the Fieldstone HCP is separated out.
As identified on Table 8, implementation of the HMP will result in the preservation of 66% of the
remaining habitat in the City including 64% of the remaining coastal sage scrub habitat. By adding
other land to the preserve system (e.g., disturbed habitat) and creating a system of 6,489 acres, the
overall conservation level is 74%. When adjusted for the existing Fieldstone HCP take permit, 71% of
the remaining habitat is preserved, and 68% of the coastal sage scrub habitat, and the actual
conservation level is increased to 78%.
5. MHCP Participation by City
As a result of the biological analysis associated with the preparation of the North County Subregional
Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP), it has been determined that a large (approximately 500
acre), biological core area primarily for supporting a core population of gnatcatchers is needed in the
south, central portions of the MHCP and including the unincorporated area to the southeast of Carlsbad in the general area as shown on Figure 23. The initial biological analysis for the HMP also
identified the need to enhance conservation levels, particularly for coverage of the gnatcatcher. In
addition, as part of the approval of the Fieldstone HCP, the City was required to take a lead position in
identifying the location and potential funding sources for 240 acres in this same general area. In order to satisfy its participation in the MHCP core area, increase conservation levels for the gnatcatcher in
the HMP and fulfil1 its responsibilities under the Fieldstone HCP, the City will effectuate the conservation and conveyance of 307.6 296 acres of land within the MHCP core area consisting of the following components:
D58
APRIL, 1999 / 75
CARLSBAD HMP
A. Bank of America (VLC) onsite
(increased coastal sage scrub preservation within the Villages of La Costa)
B. Fieldstone HCP offsite (the difference between additional onsite
preservation identified above and the 240 acre
need identified in the Fieldstone HCP)
C. Ranch0 Carrillo offsite conservation
(mitigation funds previously paid by Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan to be used for
offsite acquisition in the MHCP Core Area)
D. Municipal Golf Course offsite conservation (partial mitigation for development of the City
golf tours+ This acreacle contains habitat occuoied bv five pairs of Gnatcatchers) TOTAL
12 acres
228 acres
16 acres
51.6 40 acres
307 6 286 acres. -
The funding for acquisitions required to effectuate the conveyance of the above described 307.6 %6
acres is identified later in this section of the Plan. The proposed conservation and conveyance of this
land shall: a) be considered as an increase to the overall, resulting conservation levels in Carlsbad; b)
constitute the full participation of the City in any MHCP land acquisitions in the core area; c) complete Carlsbad’s obligations under the Fieldstone HCP regarding the 240 acres of offsite mitigation; and d)
allow the HMP to be severable from the MHCP.
D59 APRIL, 1999 1%
--
CARLSBAD HMP
6. Measures to Minimize Impact on HMP Species and Mitigation Requirements
The primary mitigation for impacts to HMP Species under the Plan is the conservation and
management of habitat for the species in the preserve system. In addition, in compliance with the
ESA requirements that the impacts of incidental take be minimized and mitigated to the maximum
extent practicable, measures to avoid and reduce impacts will apply citvwide on a project level basis. These measures are abDlicable to broiects both within and outside the oreserve svstem
boundaries.
Conservation goals and measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to HMP species on a
project basis are summarized in Table 9. These measures will be applied citvwide to all public and
private projects regardless of whether the nroiect is located within or outside of the nreserve Detailed information about the measures for HMP Species is included in Appendix C, svstem.
together with an analysis of the effects of take and plan implementation on the HMP species. Table
10 contains a separate listing of Narrow Endemic species covered by the HMP.
All future projects, including public projects, shall also mitigate impacts to habitat based on the
mitigation requirements provided in Table 11. Aaain. these mitination ratios aoolv whether a proiect is located inside or outside the oreserve svstem. Projects which conserve at least 67% of
habitat onsite shall not be subject to offsite mitigation. Habitat conserved onsite shall be credited
toward mitigation. After determining the amount of acreage needed for mitigation based on the
mitigation ratios, the acres of onsite conserved habitat shall be subtracted from the required acres of
mitigation. Mitigation shall occur within the City principally in the focus planning areas unless the City
Council authorizes mitigation outside the City. For habitat GrouDs D. E and F as identified on
Table 11. a mitiaation fee shall be oaid to the Citv in lieu of offsite mitiaation in an amount to
be determined bv the Citv Council. The amount of the fee shall be adeauate to cover the cost
of anv acauisition of land in the MHCP core area which is the resnonsibilitv of the Citv of
Carlsbad and for which fundina has not breviouslv been Drovided for. The fee mav also be
used to Drovide for overall management and maintenance of the nreserve svstem. This fee is discussed in more detail in Section E of the HMP document. Citv oublic facilitv and
imorovement Droiects shall nrovide mitiaation based on the ratios shown in Table 11. Mitigation banks may be approved by the City and the wildlife-agencies, subject to the issuance by the
City of a conditional use permit as required by the Carlsbad Municipal Code. In addition to the
mitigation ratios shown on Table 11, City public facility and improvement projects shall mitigate
unoccupied coastal sage scrub and chaparral habitats at a 1 :l mitigation ratio.
Analysis of proposed impacts to wetlands shall consist of a three-step process. The first step involves
determining whether the impacts are avoidable or unavoidable. Secondly, for unavoidable impacts,
the allowable amount of encroachment must be determined. The final step involves determining the
mitigation for unavoidable impacts.
Avoidance of impacts to wetlands is preferred. Both private and public projects that propose wetland
impacts will be required to demonstrate that their impacts have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. Road or utility projects that must cross a wetland will be required to
demonstrate that the crossing will occur at the narrowest and/or least sensitive location and that all
feasible minimization measures have been employed. In making this determination, alignment
planning must consider whether avoidance of wetland impacts would result in more significant upland impacts. Private projects that propose to impact a wetland must demonstrate that the impact is
essential to the feasibility of the project and that no feasible alternative would eliminate or minimize the
impact.
As part of the project-specific environmental review pursuant to CEQA, all unavoidable wetland
impacts (both temporary and permanent) will need to be analyzed and mitigation will be required in consultation with the wildlife agencies. Mitigation should be based on the impacted type of wetland
habitat. Mitigation should prevent any net loss of wetland functions and values of the impacted
wetland.
D67 APRL, 1999 177
CARLSBAD HMP
The HMP does not anticipate that any substantial areas of vernal pool habitat occur in Carlsbad in
addition to those known and documented herein. However, should additional vernal pools be
discovered, there would be a strong priority given to preservation (avoidance), followed by mitigation
for any unavoidable impacts. Any loss of vernal pool habitat would need to receive the concurrence of
the wildlife agencies and would be subject to the Federal Clean Water Act Section 404 permit process. Impacts to highly degraded vernal pool habitat lacking sensitive species may be acceptable
if the pools are isolated from other vernal pool complexes, lack sensitive vernal pool sensitive species, exhibit low native vernal pool species diversity, have low restoration potential, or would be infeasible
to manage effectively. In these cases mitigation would need to provide no-net-loss of vernal pool area and vernal pool habitat value, and mitigation would need to occur in the City of Carlsbad.
D -67a APRIL 1999 /78
D78
mL.1999
.
F
v
1
7
I
,
.I
1 I
t , . .
I
:
cl
i
:
;
c c
: .
i
, ,
I t 4 , I
-; ;; I
I
.I I
: , ,
,
4
: I
I
i
i c
CARLSBAD HMP
Table II
Mitigation Ratios for Impacts to HMP Habitats
Habitat Group and Type
A. Coastal salt marsh, alkali marsh, freshwater marsh, estuarine, salt panlmudflats, riparian forest, riparian woodland, riparian scrub, vernal pools, disturbed
wetlands, flood channel, fresh water Engelmann oak woodland, coast live oak woodland (1)
B. Beach, southern coastal bluff scrub, maritime
succulent scrub, southern maritime chaparral, native grass (3)
C. Gnatcatcher - Occupied coastal sage scrub
D. UnoccuDied coastal saoe scrub, coastal
SaDdChaDarral mix. ChaDarral (excludina southern
maritime ChaDarWl)
E. Annual (non-native arassland
F. Disturbed lands, eucalvdus. aaricultural lands
Mitigation RatiolReauirement by Type of
Impacted Habitat
No net loss goal (mitigation ratio vanes by type of
replacement habitat).
3:l (2)
0.5:1 (4)
Mitiaation Fee (4)
Footnotes:
1. Group A habitats are associated with wetlands. Impacts to these habitat types are subject to review under Section 404
of the federal Clean Water Act or Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code.
2. It is assumed that all habitat types in Group B will be included in the proposed preserve system. Small, isolated patches
of low quality southern maritime chaparral may be located outside a preserve area and maximum avoidance and onsite conservation is preferred.
3. Maximum avoidance and onsite conservation of Group C habitat is encouraged.
4. Offsite mitiaation for habitat in this aroub which is not conserved or mitiaated onsite. shall oav a oer acre in lieu
mitiaation fee in an amount to be determined bv the Citv Council. This fee is discussed in more detail in Section E of the Plan.
D85 APRIL, 1999 .m
Carlsbad HMP
3. Plan Amendments
Amendments to the HMP may be necessary over time, including:
l Minor Changes to the maps showing boundaries of the Plan area or existing or proposed hardline areas;
l Conversion of standards areas to hardline areas; and
l Possible future additions to the list of covered species.
To facilitate the processing of such changes, the Plan amendment process described below
will apply.
A. Equivalency Findings
Minor changes * to HMP maps’ to
show actual, precise boundaries of conserved habitat, and which do not reduce the acreage or quality of the habitat, will be treated as automatic amendments under an
Equivalency Finding. Also. additions to the covered sDecies list after comPletion
of the MHCP as Drovided for on Table 2. Daaes C-12 and 13 of the Plan shall also
be wocessed ai an Eauivalencv Findinn, The City will provide written notice of the
Equivalency Findings to USFWS and CDFG, and unless USFWS and CDFG object
within 30 days after notification, the change will be considered approved. If objections
are raised, the City will meet with the agencies to resolve the issue; and written
approval of the resulting change will be required. Minor boundary changes will also not
require an amendment to the General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element.
B. Consistency Findings
The habitat conservation planning for any properties located in the standards areas of the HMP and the conversion of these properties to proposed hardline areas, shall be
processed as a Consistency Finding.
Some City projects are addressed in this Plan by means of proposed hardlines. These
projects are automatically permitted with approval of the Plan. City projects not shown
as proposed hardlines shall also be processed as a Consistency Finding.
Projects proposed within the Standards areas would be required to demonstrate how they comply
with the standards before they could be approved by the City. To begin the consistency process,
the property owner(s) or project proponent would first refer to the zone-level conservation requirements described in Section D of the Plan. After determining zone-level requirements, the
project proponent would contact’the City to arrange for informal project review and site visits. The review and site visits would be conducted with the assistance of a qualified biologist retained by
the City and paid for by the project proponent. Specific conservation and mitigation measures would then be proposed by the project proponent, taking into account zone-level and species-
specific requirements.
All projects within the Standards Areas will be required to submit a project description and maps
that identify:
1. The project’s location in relationship to existing conserved habitat within the City;
2. The habitat types and any known occurrence of HMP Species and other species of concern in
and adjacent to the project area;
E-3
APRIL 1999
Carlsbad HMP
3. The expected location, type, and intensity of habitat impacts in the project area;
E-3a APRIL, 1999
_-
Car&bad HMP
4. Any open space requirement identified for the area under the General Plan; and
5. Specific conservation measures to ensure compliance with zone-level and species-specific
standards.
When impacts and measures have been identified, the project proponent will submit the documentation to City’s Planning Department for review. The consulting biologist also will be part
of this review. If the Planning Director determines that the measures are consistent with the HMP
and the conservation standards, the City will consult with the wildlife agencies and begin CEQA
review. If the measures are determined to be inconsistent with the HMP and the standards, a
revised proposal will be required. If wildlife agencies concur that the measures, are consistent, the
project shall be considered consistent with the HMP. Following public review under CEQA, the City will formally consider the consistency of the project with the HMP in its findings regarding the
project. Upon approval of the project by the City Council, and conditioned on implementation of
the approved HMP measures for the project, the City’s authorization for take would apply to the project.
For City projects not proposed as hardline areas, the City shall review the project for compliance
with measures to reduce impacts to HMP species (Table 9 contained in Section D) and mitigation requirements at the City mitigation bank (Lake Calavera). If the City project complies, it shall be
determined to be consistent with the HMP and a Consistency Finding shall be made.
C. Plan Amendments
Removal of lands from conserved areas, or reconfiguration of hardline areas resulting in
a decrease of acreage or quality of habitat, shall constitute a Plan Amendment and shall require CEQAfNEPA review d
process described below.
1. The City will initiate a pre-amendment review with the USFWS and CDFG. In this
review, the City will present a report to USFWS and CDFG that identifies the
affected species; identifies the level of take authorization being sought; and
discusses how existing HMP measures provide for the species. The purpose of the
review meeting will be to determine whether adequate information is available to consider approval of the change.
2. Within 90 days of the review meeting or receipt of the report (whichever occurs
later), the agencies will notify the City that they:
l Have sufficient information to act on the proposed change;
l Have specific items of additional information necessary to properly evaluate the
proposed change; or
l Have determined that additional data collection and analysis is necessary for adequate evaluation of the impacts of the proposed change.
3. Where specific items of additional information are requested, the City will provide the information to the extent it is reasonably available or can be obtained at reasonable costs within 90 days. Where additional data collection and analysis are
requested, the agencies will provide a detailed explanation of what is required and
why.
E-4 APRIL, 1999
Carlsbad HMP
Preserve Management Plan. The City will prepare a Preserve Management Plan,
which addresses in detail implementation of the recommendations contained in Section
F of the HMP (Preserve Management). The Plan shall be completed in two phases as
follows. Phase 1 shall be completed within one year of approval of the HMP and shall
include at a minimum:
1. A detailed fire management plan for preserve areas including permissible brush
clearance and fuel reduction zones;
2. Standards for recreational use of the preserve system and mechanisms to ensure the standards are enforced;
3. The timing of ongoing status reports for review by the wildlife agencies;
4. Identify and prioritize areas for exotic species control.
Phase 2 shall be completed within three years of approval of the HMP and shall include:
1. Identify and prioritize preserve areas needing erosion control;
2. A detailed plan to implement zone-specific preserve management recommen-
dations. This blan shall also review the feasibilitv of Droviding undercrossinas and/or bridaes in certain zones where maior roads cross
linkaae areas. It is recoanized that this could add to the cost of these Dublic imorovements and the effectiveness of an undercrossina or bridae needs to
be weinhed anainst the additional costs.
3. The proposed entity that will provide permanent, long-term management of the
preserve system and the need for a preserve manager.
C. Educational Proaram. Once the HMP is aDDroved bv the Wildlife Aaencies. the Citv shall institute a proactive educational broaram to inform current and new citizens, schools, the business communitv. and environmental drouos about the
Plan. includina the imoortance of future management and onaoina maintenance of the oreserve svstem.
6. Financing
It is not anticipated that the HMP will require any public acquisition of privately owned habitat lands
within the City unless the City chooses to acquire land or mitigation credits to provide additional
mitigation for public facility projects. Funding associated with implementation of the Plan will be necessary and consists of the following components:
A. MHCP Core Area Participation. The City has agreed to effectuate the conservation and
conveyance of 307.6 ?& acres of land in the MHCP core area to satisfy its participation in this
area and fulfil1 the responsibilities associated with the Fieldstone HCP. Funding for the land acquisition required for the City’s participation include the following:
1. Bank of America obliaation - As part of the Fieldstone HCP, the Bank of America is obligated
to provide $1 million in funding at the time they develop the northwest portion of the Villages of La Costa. They have agreed to provide the funds at this time to be used for acquisition in the
MHCP core area.
2. Fieldstone HCP reimbursement to the Cite - The Fieldstone HCP required Bank of America to reimburse the City $150,000 for work on the HCP. The City is proposing to use these funds for acquisition in the core area.
E-6 APRIL, 1999
/85
Carlsbad HMP
3. Ranch0 Carrillo Mitiaation Funds - The developers of the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan were
required to pay $500,000 for future offsite acquisition to mitigate for impacts to habitat associated with their project. Both the wildlife agencies and the City have agreed to use these
funds for acquisition in the MHCP core area.
4. MuniciDal Golf Course Mitiaation - The City has agreed to acquire 51.6 48 acres of land in the
MHCP core to provide for a portion of the mitigation requirements for construction of its municipal golf course.
E-6a APRIL 1999
Cartsbad HMP
5. Habitat In Lieu Mitiaation %ke-&~& Fee - Remaining funding needed to obtain a total of 307.6 2-96 acres in the MHCP core area could be generated through the establishment of a
Habitat In Lieu Mitiaation %keSem& Fee within the City of Carlsbad. w
, * . . .
justified for two reasons:
+ In the biological analyses of the Gnatcatcher and other species, the wildlife agencies have indicated that conservation of an additional 200 to 300 acres of high quality habitat is
necessary for the City to obtain approval of the HMP. This additional conservation could
have been achieved through a higher level of onsite preservation on properties within
Carlsbad. However, the opportunities for accomplishing this objective in Carlsbad are limited by many factors, including variations in habitat quality, existing take agreements,
high land costs, and public facilities needs. For this reason, the City and the wildlife
agencies agreed that the additional 200 to 300 acres of high quality habitat could be
conserved outside of Carlsbad, within an area that has been identified as a Core Area for Gnatcatchers and a critical linkage between conserved habitat areas in Carlsbad and
adjacent jurisdictions. The City will incur substantial costs to conserve 296 acres within
the Core Area. Without the acquisition of this additional acreage, it is unlikely that the
HMP would have been approved.
+ The City has incurred significant costs in preparing and approving the HMP. These costs
are conservatively estimated to be in excess of $750,000 in consultant costs and an unquantified amount in staff time. A portion of this cost is of benefit to the citizens
generally, and it is reasonable for the City to absorb that portion of the costs. However, approval of the HMP also provides a benefit to persons who own or develop vacant land by addressing in a comprehensive fashion issues related to endangered/threatened
species and wildlife. If the City had not prepared the HMP, individual developers would have been required to obtain their own federal and state permits to take species listed as
endangered or threatened. Without a comprehensive plan such as the HMP, the permitting process would likely be significantly more expensive, lengthy, and uncertain. In
addition, it would have been necessary for developers to address impacts to species and
habitats in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Without
the HMP, it would be more difficult to deal with the cumulative impacts to wildlife.
I I-
t will be necessarv for the
Citv to conduct the studies and analvsis reauired bv the State Government Code
reaardinn the establishment of fees. Althouah IUle intent of the City is to set the fee at a level that is no greater than what will be needed to provide the remainina funding
v necessary to acauire the breviouslv described land in the MHCP
core area, the fee mav also be used to administer and manacle the HMP breserve
svstem. 6
The fee will be administered according to the following rules:
1. The fee will be required in addition to any mitigation required of a project by the HMP or CEQA.
2. The fee will be calculated on a per acre basis accordina to the mitioation ratios . , contained @ . . ;mnr.r.trin Table 11 &li&#&t “. . II
Rat&), (page D-85) for habitat imDacted and not conserved onsite. Onlv Habitat
GrouDs D. E and F as shown in Table 11 shall be eliaible to oav the fee for
E-7 APRIL, 1999 187
. Carlsbad HMP
imoacted habitat. GrOuDS A. B and C shall be subiect to offsite mitiaation for
imoacted habitats accordinn to the ratios contained in Table 11.
3. Habitat GrouD F on Table 11 (disturbed lands, aariculture lands. and eucalvotus) shall oav a mitiaation fee of $500 oer acre of imoact.
4. The fee will not be assessed against any parcel that has been graded pursuant to a valid
grading permit within the past five (5) years.
E-7a APRIL, 1999
/ 88
Carlsbad HMP
5. The fee will not be required where at least 67% of the,habitat on a property or project is
being conserved.
6. The fee will be calculated and collected at issuance of Grading Permit.
B. Preparation of a Preserve Management Plan. As described in Section E of the HMP, the City will prepare a two-phased Plan to provide detailed implementation measures regarding management
of the preserve system. The cost of the Plan is estimated to be $50,000 and be completed within one year of permit issuance. The cost of phase two of the Plan is also estimated to be $50,000,
and will be completed within three years.
C. Education Proaram. After awroval of the HMP. funds mav need to be budneted from the General Fund to SUDDO~~ a oroactive education cwoaram.
& c Habitat management. Habitat management and monitoring will be provided primarily by the fee
owner of the conserved habitat (e.g., the City will be responsible for management of City-owned lands in the preserve system; owners of conservation banks will be responsible for management
of those lands; owners of habitat conserved in conjunction with development will manage those areas). The specifics regarding habitat management are contained in Section F of the HMP. It is
estimated that management of the preserve lands will not exceed $75.00 per acre per year over the life of the HMP. The City’s cost for maintenance of the public lands at Lake Calavera would
not exceed $18,750 per year. The Preserve Management Plan may recommend one public entity to maintain and manage the entire citywide preserve system. Funds for this could be included in
the Habitat Mitiaation In Lieu Tak&e~& Fee.
E- & Program administration. Administrative and technical tasks for program administration include oversight of habitat management and monitoring, review and processing of public and private
development projects for compliance with the HMP resources, and coordination of public access and passive recreational use of the preserve system. The responsibilities of program
administration and clerical support could be combined with those of the City’s open space and trails program. If determined to be necessary, a biologist could be retained under a consulting
agreement with a qualified firm. It is estimated that the annual cost of program administration
would not exceed $50,000 per year. Funds for program administration could be made part of the
Habitat Take Permit Fee.
E-8 APRIL, 1999 /sp
CARLSBAD HMP
33. Speotyto cunicularia hypugaea, Burrowing Owl
a. Habitat/Distribution
The Burrowing Owl is a resident of open, dry grassland, pasture and agricultural fields, and open
CSS with available perches such as rocks and fenceposts. This diurnal owl feeds primarily on
insects, but also small mammals, reptiles, birds, and carrion. It utilizes California ground squirrel
burrows and those of other burrowing mammals for nests and may dig its own burrow in soft
soils. Although this species is described as occurring within agriculture fields, due to soil
disturbance practices, the owl only occurs along the edges of agriculture fields. This species
has declined because of loss of habitat, poisoning of ground squirrels, and collisions with
automobiles. Burrowing Owl locations within San Diego County include San Marcos, Camp
Pendleton, Mission Bay, Lower Otay Lake, North Island Naval Air Station, Otay Mesa, and the
Tijuana River Valley. Within the Carlsbad area, Burrowing Owls have been recorded from the
vicinity of Palomar Airport, the proposed municipal golf course, core areas 5 and 7, and along
the north side of Batiquitos Lagoon.
b. Conservation Goals
Conserved Habitat: Carlsbad contains approximately 3,661 acres of habitats that support or
potentially support the Burrowing Owl. Of this total, the HMP will-conserve approximately 766
acres (2 1%).
Conserved Populations/Location: No major/critical populations of the Burrowing Owl occur
within the planning area. The known locations within core areas 5 and 7 and along Batiquitos
Lagoon are within hardline conservation areas. The location near Palomar Airport is provided an
unknown level of protection at this time but likely would provide protection for one of the
Burrowing Owl locations.
Measures to Reduce Threats to Species’ Survival: Surveys &gLl ehet& be conducted
within potential habitat to identify whether Burrowing Owls are present and may be impacted. If
Burrowing Owls are determined to be present, the followino measures shall applv.
Development shall avoid direct impacts to the nest site to the maximum extent practical.
If impacts are unavoidable. anv imoacted individuals shall be relocated to a conserved . . area of suitable size and characteristics. g
Special Consideration: The area has been insufficiently surveyed however, large population
sizes are unlikely within the City.
c. Expected Impacts
Direct Impacts: Direct impacts to the Burrowing Owl may occur to the one known location.
The other known locations appear to be located within proposed or existing hardline
conservation areas. Due to the low conservation percentage of grasslands, impacts to
undocumented locations also may occur. If impacts are expected to occur to the owl, it-ie
m the Burrowing Owl &IJ be relocated to avoid direct take.
Indirect-Impacts: Indirect impacts to the Burrowing Owl could result from human disturbance,
habitat degradation, and predation by domestic animals. A buffer of 300 feet shall be provided
m around preserved Burrowing Owl locations.
APPENDIX C-37
APRIL. 1999
CARLSBAD HMP
d. Basis for Take Authorization
The HMP meets take authorization standards for this species due to the low numbers of the
species present within the planning area and conservation of 667 acres (37%) of grassland
habitat, potential habitat for the species. Surveys shall &et&t be conducted within potential
habitat prior to any development. Impacts to documented nesting and foraging habitat &IJ
&e&l be avoided and animals &zIIJ &et&f be relocated when impacts are unavoidable.
34. Pelecanus occidentalis californicus, California Brown Pelican
a. Habitat/Distribution
California Brown Pelican is restricted to open ocean, coastal shorelines, harbors, bays, and
estuaries. California Brown Pelicans occur throughout the year as nonbreeders in San Diego
County. Coronado Island is the closest breeding location of the local resident population
associated with the Southern California Bight. Postbreeding and winter influx of pelicans from
the Gulf of California into San Diego County considerably augments the resident population.
Within the plan area, wintering pelicans can be expected along the coast and at lagoons.
b. Conservation Goals
Conserved Habitat: Buena Vista, Agua Hedionda, and Batiquitos lagoons contain
approximately 934 acres of estuarine and salt marsh habitats that support or potentially
support California Brown Pelicans. Of this total, approximately 917 acres (98%) are located in
preserve areas. In addition, 100% conservation of pelican habitat is expected outside of
preserve areas due to a low potential for impacts, the City’s no-net-loss of wetlands policy,
and the additional protection afforded these habitats by state and federal wetlands
regulations.
Conserved Populations/Locations: The salt marsh and estuarine habitats in each of the
City’s coastal lagoons are considered critical locations for the California Brown Pelican. The
HMP will conserve 100% of these habitats.
Measures to Reduce Threats to Species’ Survival: Management measures will focus on
minimizing the contamination of pelican roosting and foraging areas with pesticides, oil, and
other pollutants; reducing disturbances at important foraging and roosting areas; and
maintaining the hydrology and water quality of coastal lagoon systems.
c. Expected Impacts
Direct Impacts: No direct impacts to the California Brown Pelican are expected because
estuarine and salt marsh habitats will be 100% conserved by the HMP preserve system and
the City’s no-net loss of wetlands policy. However, lagoon maintenance or enhancement
projects or essential public works projects may temporarily take California Brown Pelican
habitat. These impacts would be mitigated through creation of expanded California Brown
Pelican habitat.
Indirect Impacts: Indirect impacts to the California Brown Pelican could result from changes
in the hydrology or water quality of Carlsbad’s coastal lagoon systems, loss of roosting sites,
or increases in human disturbances. Indirect impacts to this species will be minimized by
management measures.
APPENDIX C-38 APRIL. 1999
Legend iw
0 Chaparral
i
q Southern Maritime Chaparral n Coastal Sage Scrub
Eucalyptus Woodland
Oak Woodland q Grassland . ..c
m Riparian Scrub, Woodland
Fig. 3
and Forest Vegetation Map
n Marsh,Estuarine, Freshwater City of Carl&ad and Other Wetlands
Agriculture w
Disturbed w
+
I
0 Urban/Developed \
5
c-7
Q 1897 Ci of Carlsbad 013 Icar~r2/productslhmpf~.B7ff~um~irIn~~~3.aml 09llai99
Figure 5
Existing Hardline Conservation
Areas w 0 w + E 1, 5
D-11
@ 1997 City uf Carlsbad GIS /cargia2/pmductslhmprrgl.g7nigursrdir/n~~~5.aml Q9/1019B /93
Figure 6
Proposed Hardline Conservation
Areas w a w E
MILES
D-15 + 5
1097 City of Carlsbad 018
Eucalyptus Woodland
Disturbed Wetland
Natural Floodchannel/ Streambed
0 Marine
Agriculture
Maritime Succulent Scrub
m Coastal Sage Scrub
0 Chaparral
n Southern Maritime Chaparral
Southern Mixed Chaparral
Southern Willow Scrub
m Coastal Sage-Chaparral Scrub
Grassland
Southern Coastal Salt Marsh
a Salt Water Marsh
m Alkali Marsh
m Freshwater Marsh
Riparian Scrub
Riparian Forest
Riparian Woodland
Oak Woodland
Coast Live Oak Woodland
Open Water
m Disturbed Land
0 Urban/Developed
m Proposed Preserve System
Figure /
Vegetation Legend for Proposed
Hardline Areas
D-17
@ 1997 City of Carlabad QIS Icargi~2/pmductelhmplh
Figure 8
City Golf Course
Revegetation Areas D-,9
@ 1097 Cii of Carlabad QIS
lP7
Figure 10
Carlsbad Oaks North w
D-23
@I 1997 Cii of Carlsbad OlS Icargi~2/pmductslhmp/hmpprojsct/oaksnortl 09/l0/99
Ti s E E 5 ti ‘F
B E f it f B s -0 e e a 2 e B
\
Figure B
Fox-Miller w
3 1099 City of Carlabad (318 /cargis2/pmducts/hmp/hmpproisctHoxmiAsr.aml OQ/lO/OB RET
1997 City of Carlebad 019 /cargi~2/pmdu~lhmp/hmpprojeothrillagekaml
r-l
. . 1 ed Standards Areas
D-47 n
w
+
P
‘1
5
@ IS97 Cii of Carlsbad 018 kargis2/pmductelhmp/r6l.S7ff~ure~dirlpa.aml 09/~0/99
Existing Hardline ‘yy- -
Conservation Areas
Proposed Hardline Conservation Areas
Proposed Standards Areas
Figure 21
Conservation Components Map 0 w + E
5
D-61
@ 1099 City of Carisbad QIS Icargis2lproduotslhmpl~l.S7~~u~~irloM~am~ 09110199
q Southern Maritime Chaparral
4 Coastal Sage Scrub
H Eucalyptus-Woodland
Oak Woodland
Grassland
-
Fig. 3 q Riparian Scrub, Woodland and Forest n Marsh,Estuarine, Freshwater and Other Wetlands n Agriculture -
Vegetation Map
City of Carlsbad
u Disturbed q Urban/Developed
N
w
-I-
I
\
5
c-7
Figure 5
Existing Hardline Conservation
Areas N
0 0.5 1.0 1.6 2.0
I !- I 1 A
MILES
5
D-11
@ 1997 Cii of Carlsbad 615 /cargie2/produote/hmp/r61.97ffigura~dirhwfii5.aml osnoh3s
Figure 6
Proposed Hardline Conservation
Areas
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
I
MILES
D-l 5 ) 1997 City of Carlsbad QIS Icargis2lpmductslhmph6l.B7ffiiurssdirInewfii6.aml
n
Eucalyptus Woodland
m Disturbed Wetland
m Natural Floodchannel/ Streambed
~ Marine
m Proposed Preserve System
Agriculture
Maritime Succulent Scrub
m Coastal Sage Scrub
0 Chaparral
u Southern Maritime Chaparral
Southern Mixed Chaparral
Southern Willow Scrub
! Coastal Sage-Chaparral Scrub
0 Grassland
Southern Coastal Salt Marsh
I Salt Water Marsh
m Alkali Marsh
m Freshwater Marsh
u Riparian Scrub
Riparian Forest
Riparian Woodland
Oak Woodland
Coast Live Oak Woodland
Open Water
~ m Disturbed Land
1 0 Urban/Developed
Figure 7
Vegetation Legend for Proposed
Hardline Areas
D-17
@ 1997 Cii of Carlsbad 018 /cargis2/pmducts/hmp/hmpprojectnegend.aml
Figure 8
City Golf Course
Revegetation Areas D ,9
N
w
+
E
5
zpo1cn 0 - I @ 1007 City of Carlsbad QIS
‘h -\ I ; ,/,< ! : J”.. .----..--...--J ‘, / ‘p--- C-------l ,, A,” I ;L-------
i i I i-----*
‘\. /’ ‘. / I /’ /
Figure 10
Carlsbad Oaks North
D-23
I997 City d Carlsbad QIS lcargir2/produ~hm~mpprojeotloa~north.anl 09fiO/99
f
Figure B
Fox-Miller w
@ 1999 City of Carlsbad QIS lcargia2/pmductslhmplhmpprojeo~~i~~r.aml 09flOl99 RET
n n
Figure C
Calavera Heights
@ 1097 Cii of Carisbad OIS /cargi~2/produotr/hmplhmpprcrjectEvillag~~aml 09n0/99 RET
‘Y. 25 //-‘F - + -i
18
Fig. 20
Proposed Standards Areas
0 0.8 1.0 t.5 2.0
MILES
D-47
@ 1997 City of Carlsbad QIS /cargis2/pmduct6/hmp/rSl.97/figur6sdir/prop6a.6m~ 09/10199
Existing Hardline Conservation Areas
Proposed Hardline Conservation Areas
Proposed Standards Areas
Fiatire 21
Chservation Components Map
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
I 1 I w
+
E
MILES
3 1999 City of Carl6b6d 019 Icargi62/pmductshmphSl.97ffiium6dirtcon6oompaml 09/‘10199
c
. .
n,
6
53
B
‘;t
z P 0 =I E
$
3 c Q p1 -f ga a .E Ck C, ‘I, P c 2s ?4$ a2 -- a bu aW
-2
1 c) .Y
M ‘C
B m f
s! 8
g
0
5
z
s
3
E
0c
.Y
P
z
‘V
k a
. .
i 3 :
3 s :
: )
1 )
i :!
4
g
?
;
3 i
i
: : 2
f
$ ;
J
:
;
a ; : z 0
:
. . . . .
c-12
APRIL, 1993
.E a
c-13 APRIL, 1999
CARLSBAD HMP
B. Proposed Hardline Preserve Areas
A number of proposed public and private projects have submitted proposed hardline design for
inclusion in the HMP and the preserve system. Upon approval of the HMP, these proposals will obtain
the same conservation status as the existing hardline areas and the City’s General Plan will be
amended to designate them as open space. Take of habitat will be authorized for the remaining
portions of the projects. These projects include the City’s municipal goif course, Lake Calavera,
Veteran’s Memorial Park, Hub Park, the Zone 19 park, Manzanita Properties, SDG&E south shore properties, Bressi Ranch, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park, Holly Springs, Kelly Ranch, South Coast and the Raceway Property. The general location of the‘ proposed hardline areas are shown on
Figure 6, while detailed boundaries are shown for the individual projects on Figures 7 through 19. The proposed hardline boundaries on Veterans Memorial Park which provide a corridor between the City’s Municipal Golf Course and properties to the north, constitutes mitigation for the development of the
remaining portion of Veterans Memorial Park. A pedestrian trail, park road and five individual and two group passive picnic areas will be permitted in the corridor. The City is proposing to include the 266
acre public property at Lake Calavera as a public project mitigation bank for municipal projects such
as the City golf course and the major roads shown on the City’s Circulation Plan. The other City projects which could be covered by the City mitigation bank are identified in Appendix B. One of the
key objectives of the HMP is permitting for City public facility projects mandated by the Growth Management Plan. The purpose of a public mitigation bank will be mitigation of unavoidable impacts
to biological resources resulting from these public facilities projects. The mitigation credits available in the Lake Calavera mitigation bank are shown in the following table. There are 266.1 total acres at the
bank. Deductions have already been made for the partial mitigation for the City’s municipal golf course (46.45 acres and two pairs of gnatcatchers), mitigation for development in the portion of Hub
Park not being conserved as a hardline preserve area (10 acres). Deductions have also been made
for approved future improvements on the property which consists of a police shooting range (10
acres) and Water District projects (22 acres) and for a 100 ft. wide fire break alona the northerlv
portion of the orooertv (17.55 acres).
TABLE 5
Lake Calavera Public Mitigation Bank
DEDUCTIONS
Approved Mitigation for
Existing Projects
ACRES
56.45
Future Improvements
I
32
100 ft. wide fire break I
TOTAL REMAINING 4?&66
CREDITS (ACRES) /
The remaining credits at Lake Calavera will mitigate for habitat impacts of City projects on an acre-for-
acre basis regardless of the type of habitat being impacted except for impacts to gnatcatcher occupied
coastal sage scrub, southern maritime chaparral, maritime succulent scrub and wetlands.
In addition to mitigation credits at Lake Calavera, 10 acres of coastal sage scrub and two gnatcatcher
pair mitigation credits for future City projects will be given for the conservation provided at Hub Park as a hardline preserve area.
The levels of conservation achieved by the proposed hardline component of the preserve system by habitat type and by LFMZ are provided in Table 6. The total acreage of conserved habitat resulting
from proposed hardline conservation areas is 1,353 acres or approximately 21% of the preserve
system.
D -14 APRIL looo
CARLSBAD HYP
c. Standards Areas
For some key properties within the City which have not submitted proposed hardline designs for
inclusion in the preserve system at this time, the HMP includes conservation goals and standards
which will apply to future development proposals in these areas. The goals and standards have been arranged according to the Local Facilities Management Zones (LFMZs) to which they apply. Figure
20 shows the LFMZs, the areas of the City and individual properties covered by the standards areas.
The standards apply only to those areas within the LFMZs not already covered by existing and proposed hardline areas, existing take authorizations or areas shown as development areas on the
HMP map. They are focused geographically using the 25 Local Facilities Management Zones (LFMZs) defined by the City’s Growth Management Plan (GMP). The GMP requires that each zone have a local facilities management plan approved by the City Council before development applications
can be accepted or processed for that zone. The HMP requires that each plan demonstrate how the
goals and objectives of the HMP will be achieved for that zone. This planning should ensure that
viable biological open space will be comprehensively planned for the zone, rather than having open
space areas planned piece-meal for each parcel within the zone. If individual properties are proposed for development within a zone, the property owner must show how the standards will be met. Ne
setandards are identified for orooerties in zones 1, 2. 8. 11. 14. 15. 20. 21 and 25. reqGM-& ? A P n 4n 11 49 I.- 17 19 40 31 3'2 '"9 --* -"
The planning standards are based on biological issues defined specifically for each zone based on
existing biological conditions and preserve design considerations. These issues are translated into
HMP conservation goals, which in general focus on conserving and maintaining major and critical
populations of HMP species, major and critical habitat patches within core areas, and landscape
linkages and movement corridors between core areas as well as with adjoining jurisdictions.
The discussion of biological issues and goals is followed by recommended standards for planning new
developments within each zone. These planning standards are intended to achieve the zone-specific
biological goals based on zone-specific conditions and constraints. They would be used during the land use planning and review process by the City as described in Sections D and E, to identify
conservation priorities and compliance options for new projects. Althouah the standards will
ultimatelv result in determinina oreserve boundaries, the standards as well as the mitiaating measures and ratios contained in Tables 9 and 11 of the document aoulv to all broiects in the
zone whether thev are within or outside the oreserve boundaries. [See oaae D-67 for further
discussion of Citvwide minimization and mitigation reauirements.)
There are several properties within the standard’s areas which are extremely important to planning a
viable preserve system because of their geographical location (e.g., linkage) or the habitat type
occurring on the property. In order to allow reasonable economic use of these properties, the
standards allow at least 25% of the property to be developed, while 75% will be conserved.
The protection of coastal sage scrub habitat is of.particular importance in these remaining, unplanned
areas of the City. Therefore, unless otherwise specifically stated in the standards for a particular zone, a minimum of 67% of the coastal sage scrub shall be conserved in each of the standards areas,
as well as 75% of gnatcatchers. Also of particular importance is the protection of Narrow Endemic species. The standards require 100% conservation of Narrow Endemics within a focus planning area.
The following contains the specific standards by LFMZ.
CARLSBAD HMP
Zone 1, which is almost entirely developed, contains scattered fragments of natural vegetation, . . including major and critical stands of riparian P , as well as some scattered
patches of coastal sage scrub, non-native grassland, maritime succulent scrub, saltmarsh, and
freshwater marsh. Some coastal sage scrub areas support California gnatcatchers. Much of the
remaining vegetation is on slopes
CARLSBAD HMP
2 HMP Consenration Goals
3.
adjoining Buena Vista and Agua Hedionda lagoons, thus contributing to the biological value of the lagoon watersheds. Buena Vista and Agua Hedionda lagoons support major or critical populations of
southwestern pond turtle, white-faced ibis, western snowy plover, and California least tern. The
lagoons also provide foraging habitat for the American peregrine falcon and California brown pelican.
Conserve the majority of sensitive habitats in or contiguous with biological core areas, including no net
loss of wetland habitat, and preserve, a&ea&&- coastal sage scrub and maritime succulent scrub adjacent to the lagoons. Retain and manage natural habitats adjacent to lagoons to buffer wetland
resources from adverse effects and provide upland nesting habitat for pond turtles and other HMP
species.
Planning Standah
There are two specific areas within Zone 1 to which specific standards are being applied; several
vacant lots on the north shore of Agua Hedionda Lagoon and a larger, vacant in-fill lot located to the southwest of El Camino Real and Kelly Drive.
Tr. Aavoid removal of maritime succulent scrub and any patches of coastal sage
scrub in or contiguous with biological core areas. Preserve at least 50% of coastal sage scrub with
preference for avoidance of any areas that contain gnatcatchers. If impacts to native habitats cannot
be avoided, mitigate by creation or enhancement of like habitats adjacent to lagoons, or by offsite
compensation or restoration within biological core and linkage areas. Maximize the preservation of
habitat adjacent to the lagoon.
1. Biological Resourcelssues
Zone 2 is almost entirely developed with some very small patches of coastal sage scrub native and non-native grassland. The northern end of the zone comprises part of the regional north-south
linkage for gnatcatchers.
2. HMP Con- Goals
Establish, enhance and maintain a habitat linkage from Core Area #2 to the city limits with Oceanside
to ensure Carlsbad’s portion of regional connectivity for gnatcatchers. Restoration of habitat should
be a priority in the northern end of this zone, immediately adjacent to Highway 78. Allow no net loss
of riparian and other wetland habitats. *
3. Planning Standards
There are onlv two crooerties within this zone where sDecific standards agolv. The first is-&y
ene property b at the northeasterly edge of this zone and 1 is identified on the HMP map as the KellylBartman property. Approximately 75% of this prope’rty. which
is predominantly grassland, should be conserved, while allowing development to occur on at least
25% of the least environmentally sensitive portion of the property. Maintain a minimum habitat linkage
width of 400 feet and an average of at least 500 feet between Zone 25 and the intersection of the
SDG&E transmission line corridor with Highway 78. Avoid removal of coastal sage scrub or grassland
habitats within this area, and restore or enhance sage scrub habitat, as necessary, to achieve coastal
sage scrub contiguity. Restoration of this area is highly desirable. Allow no net loss of any riparian and other wetland habitats.
The second orouertv is an infill lot located off the southeast corner of El Camino Real and
Carlsbad Villaae Drive and is known as the Sovnlass orobertv. Althouah this orooertv is not
contiauous to anv other habitat and would not nrovide a link or corridor for habitat
D-45
APRlL19v3
CARLSBAD HMP
connectivitv wrooses, a maioritv of the rxooertv contains native arasslands. Anv cllasslands imoacted on this DroDertv shall be reauired to do offsite mitiaation at a 21 ratio.
l
CARLSBAD HMP
D-49
APRIL, 1999
CARLSBAD HMP
3.
1. BiiiReso~lssues
2
Most of Zone 8 is comprised of existing or proposed hardline preserve areas. The habitats in Zone 8
comprise much of Core Area 4, and link to other cores to the northeast (via Linkage Area B), southeast (via Linkage Area F), and west (Agua Hedionda Lagoon). This zone supports a variety of
sensitive habitats, including critical salt marsh, freshwater marsh, and riparian scrub habitats as well
as a major stand of coastal sage scrub. A small patch of southern maritime chaparral is located in
and adjacent to agriculture, non-native grassland, southern mixed chaparral, and disturbed land.
Marsh habitats associated with Agua Hedionda Lagoon support critical populations of California least
tern, western snowy plover, Belding’s Savannah sparrow, light-footed clapper rail, and potentially salt marsh skipper. Riparian habitats support breeding least Bell’s vireos and potentially southwestern
willow flycatchers. California gnatcatchers inhabit most of the sage scrub in this zone, and Del Mar
manzanita occurs in the southern maritime chaparral.
HMP Conservation Coals
Ensure no net loss of wetland habitats and minimize loss of sensitive upland habitats within Core Area
4, especially occupied coastal sage scrub. 1 @onserve major and critical populations of HMP species and populations of Narrow Endemic species. Maintain contiguity
between upland and wetland habitats within the zone, as well as continuity of sensitive upland habitats
across the zone from southeast to northwest.
3. Flanning Standards
There are two urouerties m within this zone+ that are desianated as standards areas; the Kirgis property and the Callahan urooertv [
Both nronetties are reauired to avoid i+mpacts to any identified Narrow Endemic plant populations. Imbacts to coastal sasle scrub and southern maritime
ChaDarral habitats shall also be avoided, with imoacts limited to smaller fraaments. edaes,
lower aualitv areas, and areas devoid of sensitive snecies. The Kirais uroeertv shall be
allowed a maximum of 25% of the barcel for develoDment ourboses. The Callaahan urouertv
shall be allowed a maximum of 50% of the oarcel for develorrment ourooses. Both orooerties
shall nlace their develoDment on the least environmentallv sensitive oortion of the orobertv.
CARLSBAD HMP
This zone is comprised largely of areas already subject to take authorization agreements. Critical stands of coastal sage scrub and major stands of chaparral dominate Zone 11. Riparian scrub and
freshwater marsh habitats are associated with San Marcos and Encinitas creeks which traverse this zone. The largest core population of gnatcatchers (approximately 40 pairs) in the City is supported by
the coastal sage scrub habitats in this zone. Critical populations of San Diego thorn-mint, sticky
dudleya, San Diego marsh-elder, and San Diego goldenstar are supported by the riparian and sage
scrub habitats. Zone 11 contains the largest, least fragmented, biological core area in the City (Core Area 7), and it is the primary linkage between Carlsbad and the large areas of unincorporated natural
D-5Oa APRIL la99
CARLSBAD HMP
lands southeast of the City. All of these bioloaical resource issues were taken into considera-
tion and addressed in the existina take authorirations IDrevious HCP and Section 7
aareements) for this zone. Encinitas Creek and associated natural habitats are identified as Special
Resource Area 3, which is considered an important wildlife movement corridor to maintain access to
Batiquitos Lagoon by large mammals and other wildlife.
2 HMP-Goals
Conserve coastal sage scrub, riparian habitats, and wildlife movement corridors to connect the existing preserve areas with each other and with natural habitats in adjoining jurisdictions. Ensure no net loss of wetland habitats. Maintain a functional wildlife movement corridor along Encinitas Creek
(Special Resource Area 3).
3. Pianniistamiiyrl
Because the majority of the hardline open space in this zone is the result of previous HCP and Section
7 agreements (Villages of La Costa and Ranch0 Verde, respectively), these standards apply only to
the area identified as the Shelley property in the southeast portion of the zone. The 75% conservation
standard shall apply to this property and includes the area to the north of the transmission lines. The
25% development portion of the property must be located on the least environmentally sensitive part of the property, considering both existing resources and preserve design criteria. m @onserve and enhance riparian vegetation along Encinitas Creek with lOO-foot buffers supporting
natural vegetation between wetland habitats and development. Prohibit fill or development within the existing 100 year flood plain except where required for Circulation Element roads, drainage Master
Plan facilities, or other essential p&&e infrastructure. Use sensitive design of any road or utility
crossings of Encinitas Creek.
1. Biological Resource issues
2
Zone 14 is divided into two biologically distinct portions. The northeastern portion of Zone 14 contains critical coastal sage scrub and riparian habitats, as well as major stands of chaparral, which are
contiguous with other large open-space areas. This area also supports California gnatcatchers and forms a part of Core Area 3 (which includes Lake Calavera and Calavera Heights). The southern
portion of this zone is dominated by agricultural fields, with scattered areas of non-native grassland
and coastal sage scrub on slopes. A narrow sycamore riparian woodland also runs north-south
through the agricultural fields. Remnant habitats in the southern section of this zone likely serve as
wildlife movement corridors and habitat linkages, particularly connecting Core Area 3 to Core Area 4
via Linkage Area B. Large mammals using these connections are needed to maintain ecosystem
balance at Agua Hedionda Lagoon.
HMP Consenmtion Goals
Establish, enhance, and maintain viable m habitat linkages across Linkage Area B to
ensure connectivity for gnatcatchers and other HMP species between Core Areas 3 and 4. Allow no net loss of wetlands and conserve through preservation, restoration or enhancement, 67% of coastal
sage scrub.
3. Planning Standa&
Areas of upland habitat outside of the designated Linkage B may be taken in exchange for restoration
and enhancement inside the linkage, as long as the result is conservation of at least 67% of coastal
sage scrub or the associated gnatcatcher population within the southern portions of the zone.
Creation of linkage should utilize patches of existing habitat. L Where consistent with creation of Linkage B, avoid removal of natural habitats that are contiguous
D -51 APRIL 1999
CARLSBAD HMP
with open space on adjacent parcels. Maintain and enhance the wildlife movement potential between
core areas using sensitive design of any road or utility crossings of Linkage B (e.g., bridging,
D -5la
APRIL 1999
CARLSBAD HMP
undercrossing). Conserve all riparian habitats onsite, and prohibit fill or development within the
existing flood plain except where required for Circulation Element roads, Drainage Master Plan facilities, or other essential p&lie infrastructure. Conserve any Narrow Endemic plant populations
identified during planning. When conversion of agricultural lands to other uses is proposed, set back
all development impacts at least 100 feet from existing wetland habitats and encourage habitat restoration or enhancement in the riparian and buffer areas.
1. BiiiResourr;elssues
Important core and linkage habitats comprise much of Zone 15. The northern portion of the zone
includes much of Core Area 3, which is already largely existing and proposed hardline open space.
Critical blocks of coastal sage scrub in this area are densely occupied by a critical population of California gnatcatchers and other sensitive species. Most of the California gnatcatchers in the
northernmost core population are in this block of habitat. It connects to core population areas on
Camp Pendleton via core and linkage areas in Zones 7,25, and 2 and the City of Oceanside, and to
core population areas in southeast Carlsbad via stepping-stone Linkage Areas C and D, Core Area 5,
and southwest San Marcos. This area also supports a critical population of thread-leaved brodiaea.
Riparian scrub and oak riparian woodlands cross the large block of coastal sage scrub in the northern
part of the zone and also border the zone’s southern boundary. The southern portion of the zone,
which includes multiple property ownerships, is a mosaic of coastal sage scrub, non-native grassland, and chaparral. Some of the natural habitat patches border the southern drainage (Agua Hedionda
Creek) and add to its value as a wildlife movement corridor. Agricultural areas north of Agua Hedionda Creek support a mosaic of disturbed coastal sage scrub patches on rocky hills and ridges,
along with a variety of wetland communities. These remnant natural habitat patches, surrounded by
active agricultural fields, comprise part of a stepping-stone linkage (Linkage Area C) for gnatcatchers and other species. The Dawson-Los Monos Reserve in the eastern portion of the zone supports
relatively undisturbed sage scrub, chaparral, and riparian communities.
2. HMP Cormnation Goals
Establish, enhance, and maintain a viable habitat linkage across Linkage Area C to ensure connectivity for gnatcatchers and other HMP species between Core Areas 3 and 5. Conserve the
majority of sensitive habitats in or contiguous with biological core and linkage areas, including no net loss of wetland habitats and coastal sage scrub within Core Area 3 and Linkage Area C.
3. Planning Shdards
Maintain and enhance g m habitat linkages across Linkage Area C and adjoining portions of
Core Areas 3 and 5 that averages between 500 and l,OOO-feet wide, with a minimum width of no less
than 500488 feet. Emphasis should be on improving gnatcatcher nesting habitat within the linkage.
Areas of upland habitat outside of the designated Linkage Area C may be taken in exchange for
restoration and enhancement inside the linkage, as long as the result is no net loss of coastal sage scrub or the associated gnatcatcher population within the southern portions of the zone. Creation of
linkage should utilize patches of existing habitat to the maximum extent practicable. Where consistent with creation of Linkage C, avoid removal of natural habitats that are contiguous with open space on
adjacent parcels. Maintain and enhance the wildlife movement potential between core areas using sensitive design of any road or utility crossings of Linkage C. Conserve all riparian habitats onsite,
and prohibit fill or development within the existing flood plain except where required for Circulation Element roads, Drainage Master Plan facilities, or other essential p&lie infrastructure. Conserve any
Narrow Endemic plant populations identified during planning. When conversion of agricultural lands to
other uses is proposed, set back all development impacts at least 100 feet from existing wetland habitats and encourage habitat restoration or enhancement in the riparian and buffer areas.
D-52 APRIL, 1959
CAFLSBAD HMP
1. Biilogkal Resource Issues
Much of this zone is already developed= and much of the remainder is agricultural land. Coastal sage scrub, maritime succulent scrub:
southern mixed chaparral, and southern maritime chaparral in this zone support a variety of HMP species, including California gnatcatcher, Del Mar manzanita, orange-throated whiptail, and San
Diego thorn-mint. There is insufficient survey information for some portions of this zone. Habitats in Zone 2.0 are part of a stepping-stone linkage (Linkage F) that connects cores areas 4, 6, and 8.
2 HMP Consen&ion Goals
Establish, enhance, and maintain a viable habitat linkage across Linkage Area F to ensure
connectivity for gnatcatchers and other HMP species between Core Areas 4 and 6. Conserve the
majority of sensitive habitats in or contiguous with biological core and linkage areas, including no net
loss of wetland habitats, southern maritime chaparral, maritime succulent scrub, and coastal sage
scrub within Core Area 6 and Linkage Area F.
3. Planning Sanda&
Conserve habitats in a continuous configuration through Linkage Area F, from Core Area 6 to where
Linkage Area F crosses Palomar Airport Road. This configuration should allow for continued animal movement between Core Areas 4 and 6, particularly for gnatcatchers and other birds. The obiective is to create continuous habitat connectivitv and wildlife movement across the zone with a
minimum constriction of 500 feet. However. in no case shall this standard denv a oroDerty owner some reasonable use of their orooertv. Areas of coastal sage scrub and maritime succulent
scrub outside of the designated Linkage F may be taken in exchange for restoration and enhancement inside the linkage, as long as the result is no net loss of these habitats or the associated
gnatcatcher population within the standards portions of the zone. Southern maritime chaparral outside of core and linkage areas may also be taken unless it supports significant populations of
Narrow Endemic plants. Creation of Linkage F should utilize patches of existing habitat, &the
v Where consistent with creation of Linkage F, avoid removal of natural habitats that are contiguous ‘with open space on adjacent parcels. Maintain and enhance the wildlife
movement potential between core areas using sensitive design of any road or utility crossings of Linkage F. Conserve all riparian habitats onsite, and prohibit fill or development within the existing flood plain except where required for Circulation Element roads, Drainage Master Plan facilities, or
other essential p&lie infrastructure. When conversion of agricultural lands to other uses is proposed, set back all development impacts at least 100 feet from existing wetland habitats and encourage
habitat restoration or enhancement in the riparian and buffer areas.
1. Biilogical Resource issues
The majority of Zone 21 is covered by these standards and consists of multiple property owners. The
zone contains a critical stand of southern maritime chaparral that supports a critical population of Del Mar manzanita, a major population of summer holly, and other Narrow Endemic plant species. Vernal
pools, coastal sage scrub, and oak riparian forest also occur and likely support HMP species, including California gnatcatcher. Zone 21 contains most of the habitats comprising the western half of
Core Area 6, which is the primary link between the eastern and western halves of the City. Scattered
agricultural fields are also located within this zone. There is insufficient survey information for some
portions of Zone 21.
D-53 APRIL.1999
-
CARLSBAD HMP
2 HMP OmserWkn Goals
Conserve the majority of remaining natural habitats and ensure a net loss of no more than 10% of coastal sage scrub and southern maritime chaparral. Ensure no net loss of wetland habitats, vernal
pools, and oak woodlands within the zone. Conserve habitats in a continuous configuration across the zone to allow for continued east-west connectivity and animal movement between El Camino Real
(Zone 10) and Linkage Area F (Zones 19 and 20). Conserve Narrow Endemic plant populations.
.
3. Planning Standa&
Additional field surveys at the appropriate time of year are needed in this zone to determine the extent
and location of sensitive species. Major areas for development should be restricted to agricultural areas and disturbed habitat. Avoid removing maritime succulent scrub, southern maritime chaparral,
and any Narrow Endemic plant populations identified during planning. Minimize removal of coastal
sage scrub and southern maritime chaparral; avoid impacts within the watersheds of vernal pools and
to oak riparian forest. Ensure continuous habitat connectivity and wildlife movement east-west across
the zone with an average habitat width of 500 feet to 1,000 feet and a minimum constriction of 500 feet (where narrower constrictions don’t already exist). However. in no case shall this standard
denv a urobertv owner some reasonable use of their oronertv. If imoacts to natural habitats cannot be avoided, thev should be limited to disturbed. low aualitv oortions of the site. Areas
of hiahlv disturbed. low aualitv southern maritime ChaDarral and coastal saoe scrub mav be
mitiaated bv a combination of onsite enhancement and offsite mitiaation in locations of hiaher . . aualitv habitat. 1
Zone 25 comprises a large proportion of Core Area 2, which supports critical riparian and other
wetland habitats, as well as grasslands with scattered coastal sage scrub patches. The riparian
habitats along Buena Vista Creek support least Bell’s vireos, and coastal sage scrub patches support
approximately 6-10 pairs of California gnatcatchers. One or more ponds in the area may potentially
support p,ond turtles. This zone represents a critical portion of the regional California gnatcatcher
corridor from northern Carlsbad across Oceanside to Camp Pendleton. Linkage Areas A and B
connect Zone 25 to Core Areas 3 and 4, respectively. The eastern portion of the zone includes proposed hardline open space. The western portion of the zone is subject to these standards.
2. HMP Co- Goals
Conserve the majority of remaining natural habitats, and allow no net loss of coastal sage scrub and
riparian and other wetland habitats. Retain upland habitats adjacent to riparian habitats to provide
potential nesting habitat for pond turtles, to buffer impacts of development on riparian species, and to
maximize gnatcatcher use of riparian areas for dispersal through the regional corridor system.
Maintain and enhance sufficient nesting habitat to reliably support some nesting pairs of gnatcatchers
within the-zone in most years.
3. Planning Standa&
D54 APRIL, 1999
CARLSBAD HMP .
Conservation of 75% of the Sherman property is required to provide adequate connectivity within the
regional gnatcatcher corridor. Align future Marron Road to minimize impacts to sensitive biological resources and disruption of wildlife movement. Conserve wetland habitats and set development back
at least 100 feet. Avoid and minimize removal of coastal sage scrub and maintain a continuous linkage of sage scrub, chaparral, and grassland averaging &Q f&30 feet to 1,000 feet wide along the
D-5rla
APRIL, 1999
CARLSBAD HMP
southern and western portion of the zone with a minimum constriction of 500 feet where narrower constrictions do no alreadv exist. Mitigate any removal of natural habitat by onsite restoration or
enhancement of coastal sage scrub to improve gnatcatcher breeding habitat within the zone. Conserve any Narrow Endemic plant populations. Conserve and enhance ribarian veaetation
alona Buena Vista Creek with 200-foot buffers suunortina natural veaetation between wetland
habitats and develobment. Prohibit fill or develoDment within the existina 100 vear flood olain exceot where reauired for Circulation Element roads. Drainage Master Plan facilities. or other
essential bublic infrastructure. Use sensitive desian of anv road or utilitv crossina of Buena
Vista Creek.
The above standards would be applied to the specified areas at the time of application for
development entitlements. The process for compliance with the standards is contained in Section E
of the HMP.
The City’s projection of levels of conservation within the preserve system achieved by future
compliance with the conservation standards by habitat type and by LFMZ are provided in Table 7.
The total estimated acreage of conserved habitat resulting from the proposed standards areas is 700
acres or approximately 11% of the preserve system. It should be noted that the acreage figures are an estimate based on the information currently available. Precise figures for any specific area will
not be known until completion of the review and approval process described above.
CARLSBAD HMP
4. The Preserve System and Resulting Levels of Conservation
The combination of the preserve and assembly components described previously will result ultimately
in a preserve system of approximately 6,489 acres. Figure 21 generally shows these conservation
components combined on one map. The HMP map, Figure 22, located in the back of the HMP,
graphically shows the entire preserve system and includes the existing hardline areas, proposed
hardline areas, standards areas and the areas subject to existing take agreement (FieldstoneEarlsbad HCP). Table 8 provides the total resulting levels of conservation achieved by the HMP, based on these components of the preserve system. The preserve system has been
designed, to the maximum extent feasible, to ensure that species addressed by the HMP continue to
survive in healthy and thriving populations within Carlsbad.
Table 8 also shows the conservation levels excluding the area covered by the Fieldstone HCP take permit. Although this area has not developed yet, the Fieldstone HCP was approved and legal
agreements with the property owners and wildlife agencies were entered into prior to the completion of
the HMP. The City does not have the authority to require additional conservation on the properties
covered by the HCP. The level of conservation is higher in the remainder of the City and resultant
take of HMP species is lower if the Fieldstone HCP is separated out.
As identified on Table 8, implementation of the HMP will result in the preservation of 66% of the
remaining habitat in the City including 64% of the remaining coastal sage scrub habitat. By adding
other land to the preserve system (e.g., disturbed habitat) and creating a system of 6,489 acres, the
overall conservation level is 74%. When adjusted for the existing Fieldstone HCP take permit, 71% of
the remaining habitat is preserved, and 68% of the coastal sage scrub habitat, and the actual
conservation level is increased to 78%.
5. MHCP Participation by City
As a result of the biological analysis associated with the preparation of the North County Subregional
Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP), it has been determined that a large (approximately 500
acre), biological core area primarily for supporting a core population of gnatcatchers is needed in the
south, central portions of the MHCP and including the unincorporated area to the southeast of
Carlsbad in the general area as shown on Figure 23. The initial biological analysis for the HMP also
identified the need to enhance conservation levels, particularly for coverage of the gnatcatcher. In
addition, as part of the approval of the Fieldstone HCP, the City was required to take a lead position in identifying the location and potential funding sources for 240 acres in this same general area. In order
to satisfy its participation in the MHCP core area, increase conservation levels for the gnatcatcher in
the HMP and fulfil1 its responsibilities under the Fieldstone HCP, the City will effectuate the
conservation and conveyance of 307.6 Zl6 acres of land within the MHCP core area consisting of the
following components:
CARLSBAD HMP
A.
B.
C.
D.
Bank of America (VLC) onsite
(increased coastal sage scrub preservation
within the Villages of La Costa)
Fieldstone HCP offsite
(the difference between additional onsite preservation identified above and the 240 acre need identified in the Fieldstone HCP) Ranch0 Carrillo offsite conservation
(mitigation funds previously paid by
Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan to be used for
offsite acquisition in the MHCP Core Area)
Municipal Golf Course offsite conservation
(partial mitigation for development of the City golf course+ This acreaae contains habitat
occuuied bv five uairs of Gnatcatchers)
12 acres
228 acres
16 acres
51.6 40 acres
TOTAL 307.6 206 acres.
The funding for acquisitions required to effectuate the conveyance of the above described 307.6 296
acres is identified later in this section of the Plan. The proposed conservation and conveyance of this
land shall: a) be considered as an increase to the overall, resulting conservation levels in Carlsbad; b)
constitute the full participation of the City in any MHCP land acquisitions in the core area; c) complete Carlsbad’s obligations under the Fieldstone HCP regarding the 240 acres of offsite mitigation; and d)
allow the HMP to be severable from the MHCP.
D59 APRIL, 1999
CARLSBAD HMP
6. Measures to Minimize Impact on HMP Species and Mitigation Requirements
The primary mitigation for impacts to HMP Species under the Plan is the conservation and
management of habitat for the species in the preserve system. In addition, in compliance with the
ESA requirements that the impacts of incidental take be minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable, measures to avoid and reduce impacts will apply citvwide on a project level basis.
These measures are aublicable to uroiects both within and outside the ureserve svstem
boundaries.
Conservation goals and measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to HMP species on a
project basis are summarized in Table 9. These measures will be applied citvwide to all public and
private projects reaardless of whether the uroiect is located within or outside of the oreserve
Detailed information about the measures for HMP Species is included in Appendix C, svstem.
together with an analysis of the effects of take and plan implementation on the HMP species. Table
10 contains a separate listing of Narrow Endemic species covered by the HMP.
All future projects, including public projects, shall also mitigate impacts to habitat based on the mitigation requirements provided in Table 11. Aaain. these mitiaation ratios aeblv whether a
proiect is located inside or outside the breserve svstem. Projects which conserve at least 67% of
habitat onsite shall not be subject to offsite mitigation. Habitat conserved onsite shall be credited
toward mitigation. After determining the amount of acreage needed for mitigation based on the
mitigation ratios, the acres of onsite conserved habitat shall be subtracted from the required acres of
mitigation. Mitigation shall occur within the City principally in the focus planning areas unless the City
Council authorizes mitigation outside the City. For habitat Grouus D. E and F as identified on
Table 11. a mitiaation fee shall be Raid to the Citv in lieu of offsite mitiaation in an amount to
be determined bv the Citv Council. The amount of the fee shall be adeauate to cover the cost
of anv acauisition of land in the MHCP core area which is the resuonsibilitv of the Citv of Carlsbad and for which fundina has not ureviouslv been urovided for. The fee mav also be
used to urovide for overall manaaement and maintenance of the ureserve svstem. This fee is
discussed in more detail in Section E of the HMP document. Citv uublic facilitv and
imorovement broiects shall urovide mitiaation based on the ratios shown in Table 11. Mitigation banks may be approved by the City and the wildlife agencies, subject to the issuance by the
City of a conditional use permit as required by the Carlsbad Municipal Code. In addition to the mitigation ratios shown on Table 11, City public facility and improvement projects shall mitigate
unoccupied coastal sage scrub and chaparral habitats at a 1 :I mitigation ratio.
Analysis of proposed impacts to wetlands shall consist of a three-step process. The first step involves
determining whether the impacts are avoidable or unavoidable. Secondly, for unavoidable impacts,
the allowable amount of encroachment must be determined. The final step involves determining the
mitigation for unavoidable impacts.
Avoidance of impacts to wetlands is preferred. Both private and public projects that propose wetland
impacts will be required to demonstrate that their impacts have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. Road or utility projects that must cross a wetland will, be required to
demonstrate that the crossing will occur at the narrowest and/or least sensitive location and that all feasible minimization measures have been employed. In making this determination, alignment
planning must consider whether avoidance of wetland impacts would result in more significant upland
impacts. Private projects that propose to impact a wetland must demonstrate that the impact is
essential to the feasibility of the project and that no feasible alternative would eliminate or minimize the
impact.
As part of the project-specific environmental review pursuant to CEQA, all unavoidable wetland
impacts (both temporary and permanent) will need to be analyzed and mitigation will be required in consultation with the wildlife agencies. Mitigation should be based on the impacted type of wetland
habitat. Mitigation should prevent any net loss of wetland functions and values of the impacted
wetland..
D67 APRIL 1999
CARLSBAD HMP
The HMP does not anticipate that any substantial areas of vernal pool habitat occur in Carlsbad in
addition to those known and documented herein. However, should additional vernal pools be discovered, there would be a strong priority given to preservation (avoidance), followed by mitigation for any unavoidable impacts. Any loss of vernal pool habitat would need to receive the concurrence of
the wildlife agencies and would be subject to the Federal Clean Water Act Section 404 permit process. Impacts to highly degraded vernal pool habitat lacking sensitive species may be acceptable
if the pools are isolated from other vernal pool complexes, lack sensitive vernal pool sensitive species, exhibit low native vernal pool species diversity, have low restoration potential, or would be infeasible
to manage effectively. In these cases mitigation would need to provide no-net-loss of vernal pool area and vernal pool habitat value, and mitigation would need to occur in the City of Carlsbad.
D -67a APRIL, 1999
-
-
-
. . b
. .
% 8 3
D78 WRIL, 1999
CARLSBAD HMP
Table II
Mitigation Ratios for Impacts to HMP Habitats
I Habitat Group and Type
I A. Coastal salt marsh, alkali marsh, freshwater marsh, estuarine, salt panlmudflats, riparian forest, riparian woodland, riparian scrub, vernal pools, disturbed
wetlands, flood channel, fresh water Engelmann oak
woodland, coast live oak woodland (1)
Mitigation Ratio/Reauirement by Type of
Impacted Habitat
No net loss goal (mitigation ratio varies by type of replacement habitat)
B. Beach, southern coastal bluff scrub, maritime
succulent scrub, southern maritime chaparral, native
grass (8)
3:l (2)
C. Gnatcatcher - Occupied coastal sage scrub I 2:l (3) I
D. Unoccueied coastal saae scrub. coastal
saaelchabarral mix. chabarral (excludina southern maritime chabarral)
-I:1 (41
E. Annual (non-native arassland (41 0.5:1
I F. Disturbed lands, eucalvbtus. aaricultural lands 1 Mitiaation Fee (41
Footnotes:
1. Group A habitats are associated with wetlands. Impacts to these habitat types are subject to review under Section 404
of the federal Clean Water Act or Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code.
2. It is assumed that all habitat types in Group B will be included in the proposed preserve system. Small, isolated patches
of low quality southern maritime chaparral may be located outside a preserve area and maximum avoidance and onsite conservation is preferred.
3. Maximum avoidance and onsite conservation of Group C habitat is encouraged.
4. Offsite mitioation for habitat in this orouo which is not conserved or mitiaated onsite. shall bav a her acre in lieu
mitiqation fee in an amount to be determined bv the Citv Council. This fee is discussed in more detail in Section E of the Plan.
D65 APRIL 1999
r
Carlsbad HMP
3. Plan Amendments
Amendments to the HMP may be necessary over time, including:
l Minor Changes to, the maps showing boundaries of the Plan area or existing or
proposed hardline areas;
l Conversion of standards areas to hardline areas; and
l Possible future additions to the list of covered species.
To facilitate the processing of such changes, the Plan amendment process described below
will apply.
A. Equivalency Findings
Minor changes e to HMP maps to show actual, precise boundaries of conserved habitat, and which do not reduce the
acreage or quality of the habitat, will be treated as automatic amendments under an
Equivalency Finding. Also. additions to the covered soecies list after comoletion
of the MHCP as provided for on Table 2, oacles C-12 and 13 of the Plan shall also
be Drocessed as an Eauivalencv Findinn. The City will provide written notice of the
Equivalency Findings to USFWS and CDFG, and unless USFWS and CDFG object
within 30 days after notification, the change will be considered approved. If objections
are raised, the City will meet with the agencies to resolve the issue; and written
approval of the resulting change will be required. Minor boundary changes will also not
require an amendment to the General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element.
B. Consistency Findings
The habitat conservation planning for any properties located in the standards areas of
the HMP and the conversion of these properties to proposed hardline areas, shall be
processed as a Consistency Finding.
Some City projects are addressed in this Plan by means of proposed hardlines. These
projects are automatically permitted with approval of the Plan. City projects not shown
as proposed hardlines shall also be processed as a Consistency Finding.
Projects proposed within the Standards areas would be required to demonstrate how they comply
with the standards before they could be approved by the City. To begin the consistency process,
the property owner(s) or project proponent would first refer to the zone-level conservation
requirements described in Section D of the Plan. After determining zone-level requirements, the . project proponent would contact the City to arrange for informal project review and site visits. The
review and site visits would be conducted with the assistance of a qualified biologist retained by the City and paid for by the project proponent. Specific conservation and mitigation measures
would then be proposed by the project proponent, taking into account zone-level and species-
specific requirements.
All’projects within the Standards Areas will be required to submit a project description and maps
that identify:
1. The projects location in relationship to existing conserved habitat within the City;
2. The habitat types and any known occurrence of HMP Species and other species of concern in and adjacent to the project area;
E-3 APRIL. 19%
Carlsbad HMP
3. The expected location, type, and intensity of habitat impacts in the project area;
.
.
E-3a APRIL, 1999
Carlsbad HMP
4. Any open space requirement identified for the area under the General Plan; and
5. Specific conservation measures to ensure compliance with zone-level and species-specific
standards.
When impacts and measures have been identified, the project proponent will submit the
documentation to City’s Planning Department for review. The consulting biologist also will be part
of this review. If the Planning Director determines that the measures are consistent with the HMP and the conservation standards, the City will consult with the wildlife agencies and begin CEQA review. If the measures are determined to be inconsistent with the HMP .and the standards, a
revised proposal will be required. If wildlife agencies concur that the measures are consistent, the
project shall be considered consistent with the HMP. Following public review under CEQA, the
City will formally consider the consistency of the project with the HMP in its findings regarding the project. Upon approval of the project by the City Council, and conditioned on implementation of
the approved HMP measures for the project, the City’s authorization for take would apply to the
project.
For City projects not proposed as hardline areas, the City shall review the project for compliance with measures to reduce impacts to HMP species (Table 9 contained in Section D) and mitigation
requirements at the City mitigation bank (Lake Calavera). If the City project complies, it shall be
determined to be consistent with the HMP and a Consistency Finding shall be made.
C. Plan Amendments
Removal of lands from conserved areas, or reconfiguration of hardline areas resulting in
a decrease of acreage or quality of habitat, shall constitute a Plan Amendment and shall require CEQAINEPA review j
g and will be subject to the amendment
process described below.
1. The City will initiate a pre-amendment review with the USFWS and CDFG. In this
review, the City will present a report to USFWS and CDFG that identifies the
affected species; identifies the level of take authorization being sought; and
discusses how existing HMP measures provide for the species. The purpose of the
review meeting will be to determine whether adequate information is available to consider approval of the change.
2. Within 90 days of the review meeting or receipt of the report (whichever occurs later), the agencies will notify the City that they:
a Have sufficient information to act on the proposed change;
l Have specific items of additional information necessary to properly evaluate the
proposed change; or
l Have determined that additional data collection and analysis is necessary for adequate evaluation of the impacts of the proposed change.
3. Where specific items of additional information are requested, the City will provide the information to the extent it is reasonably available or can be obtained at
reasonable costs within 90 days. Where additional data collection and analysis are requested, the agencies will provide a detailed explanation of what is required and
why.
E-4 APRIL,1999
Carkbad HMP
Preserve Management Plan. The City will prepare a Preserve Management Plan,
which addresses in detail implementation of the recommendations contained in Section
F of the HMP (Preserve Management). The Plan shall be completed in two phases as
follows. Phase 1 shall be completed within one year of approval of the HMP and shall
include at a minimum:
1. A detailed fire management plan for preserve areas including permissible brush clearance and fuel reduction zones;
2. Standards for recreational use of the preserve system and mechanisms to ensure the standards are enforced;
3. The timing of ongoing status reports for review by the wildlife agencies;
4. Identify and prioritize areas for exotic species control.
Phase 2 shall be completed within three years of approval of the HMP and shall include:
1. Identify and prioritize preserve areas needing erosion control;
2. A detailed plan to implement zone-specific preserve management recommen- dations. Jhis Dlan shall also review the feasibiiitv of Droviding
undercrossinas and/or bridaes in certain zones where maior roads cross
linkaae areas. It is recoanized that this could add to the cost of these Dublic imDrovements and the effectiveness of an undercrossina or bridae needs to
be weiahed aoainst the additional costs.
3. The proposed entity that will provide permanent, long-term management of the
preserve system and the need for a preserve manager.
C. Educational Proaram. Once the HMP is aDDroved bv the Wildlife Aaencies. the Citv shall institute a Droactive educational DroDram to inform current and new
citizens, schools, the business communitv. and environmental DrouDs about the
Plan. includina the imDortance of future manaaement and onaoina maintenance of the Dreserve svstem.
6. Financinq
It is not anticipated that the HMP will require any public acquisition of privately owned habitat lands
within the.City unless the City chooses to acquire land or mitigation credits to provide additional mitigation for public facility projects. Funding associated with implementation of the Plan will be
necessary and consists of the follov$ng components:
A. MHCP Core Area Participation. The City has agreed to effectuate the conservation and
conveyance of 307.6 &X acres of land in the MHCP core area to satisfy its participation in this
area and fulfil1 the responsibilities associated with the Fieldstone HCP. Funding for the land
acquisition required for the Citv’s participation include the following:
1.
2.
’ Bank of America obliaation - As part of the Fieldstone HCP, t)le Bank of America is obligated
to provide $1 million in funding at the time they develop the northwest portion of the Villages of
La Costa. They have agreed to provide the funds at this time to be used for acquisition in the
MHCP core area.
Fieldstone HCP reimbursement to the Citv - The Fieldstone HCP required Bank of America to
reimburse the City $150,000 for work on the HCP. The City is proposing to use these funds for acquisition in the core area.
E-6 APRIL 1999
Carisbad HMP
3. Ranch0 Carrillo Mitiaation Funds - The developers of the Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan were
required to pay $500,000 for future offsite acquisition to mitigate for impacts to habitat
associated with their project. Both the wildlife agencies and, the City have agreed to use these
funds for acquisition in the MHCP core area.
4. Municipal Golf Course Mitiaation - The City has agreed to acquire 51.6 48 acres of land in the
MHCP core to provide for a portion of the mitigation requirements for construction of its
municipal golf course.
Carlsbad HMP
5. Habitat In Lieu Mitiaation q%k&+mk Fee - Remaining funding needed to obtain a total of
307.6 296 acres in the MHCP core area could be generated through the establishment of a Habitat In Lieu Mitiaation %+&%s& Fee within the City of Carlsbad. m
t I 8 . .
justified for two reasons:
+ In the biological analyses of the Gnatcatcher and other species, the wildlife agencies have
indicated that conservation of an additional 200 to 300 acres of high quality habitat is
necessary for the City to obtain approval of the HMP. This additional conservation could
have been achieved through a higher level of onsite preservation on properties within
Carlsbad. However, the opportunities for accomplishing this objective in Carlsbad are
limited by many factors, including variations in habitat quality, existing take agreements,
high land costs, and public facilities needs. For this reason, the City and the wildlife
agencies agreed that the additional 200 to 300 acres of high quality habitat could be
conserved outside of Carlsbad, within an area that has been identified as a Core Area for Gnatcatchers and a critical linkage between conserved habitat areas in Carlsbad and
adjacent jurisdictions. The City will incur substantial costs to conserve 296 acres within
the Core Area. Without the acquisition of this additional acreage, it is unlikely that the
HMP would have been approved.
+ The City has incurred significant costs in preparing and approving the HMP. These costs
are conservatively estimated to be in excess of $750,000 in consultant costs and an
unquantified amount in staff time. A portion of this cost is of benefit to the citizens
generally, and it is reasonable for the City to absorb that portion of the costs. However,
approval of the HMP also provides a benefit to persons who own or develop vacant land by addressing in a comprehensive fashion issues related to endangered/threatened
species and wildlife. If the City had not prepared the HMP, individual developers would have been required to obtain their own federal and state permits to take species listed as endangered or threatened. Without a comprehensive plan such as the HMP, the
permitting process would likely be significantly more expensive, lengthy, and uncertain. In addition, it would have been necessary for developers to address impacts to species and
habitats in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Without
the HMP, it would be more difficult to deal with the cumulative impacts to wildlife.
Citv to conduct the studies and analvsis reauired bv the State Government Code
reaardina the establishment of fees. Althouah 14-re intent of the City is to set the fee at a level that is no greater than what will be needed to provide the remainina funding
rnimhllrrn necessary to acauire the oreviouslv described land in the MHCP
core area, the fee mav also be used to administer and manaae the HMP oreserve Jnrl svstem.
The fee will be administered according to the following rules:
1. The fee will be required in addition to any mitigation required of a project by the HMP or
CEQA.
2. The fee will be calculated on a Der acre basis accordina to the mitiaation ratios . , -cOnfajned- . . vin Table 11 hl;(;,,w,, Y. * ,I
R&x), [page D-851 for habitat imDacted and not conserved onsite. Onlv Habitat
GrouDs D. E and F as shown in Table 11 shall be eliaible to oav the fee for
E-7 APRIL, 1999
Carisbad HMP
impacted habitat. Grows A. B and C shall be subiect to offsite mitiaation for
imoacted habitats accordina to the ratios contained in Table 11.
3. Habitat Grow F on Table 11 (disturbed lands. agriculture lands. and eucalvDtusl
shall oav a mitination fee of $500 oer acre of imoact.
4. The fee will not be assessed against any parcel that has been graded pirrsuant to a valid grading permit within the past five (5) years.
E-7a APRIL 1999
Carlsbad HMP
5. The fee will not be required where at least 67% of the habitat on a property or project is being conserved.
6. The fee will be calculated and collected at issuance of Grading Permit.
B. Preparation of a Preserve Management Plan. As described in Section E of the HMP, the City will prepare a two-phased Plan to provide detailed implementation measures regarding management
of the preserve system. The cost of the Plan is estimated to be $50,000 and be completed within one year of permit issuance. The cost of phase two of the Plan is also estimated to be $50,000,
and will be completed within three years.
C. Education Proaram. After awwoval of the HMP. funds mav need to be budaeted from the
General Fund to SUDDOI-~ a Proactive education Droaram.
& Habitat management. Habitat management and monitoring will be provided primarily by the fee
owner of the conserved habitat (e.g., the City will be responsible for management of City-owned lands in the preserve system; owners of conservation banks will be responsible for management
of those lands; owners of habitat conserved in conjunction with development will manage those areas). The specifics regarding habitat management are contained in Section F of the HMP. It is
estimated that management of the preserve lands will not exceed $75.00 per acre per year over the life of the HMP. The City’s cost for maintenance of the public lands at Lake Calavera would
not exceed $18,750 per year. The Preserve Management Plan may recommend one public entity to maintain and manage the entire citywide preserve system. Funds for this could be included in
the Habitat Mitiaation In Lieu Ta+wkw& Fee.
.
Program administration. Administrative and technical tasks for program administration include
oversight of habitat management and monitoring, review and processing of public and private development projects for compliance with the HMP resources, and coordination of public access
and passive recreational use of the preserve system. The responsibilities of program administration and clerical support could be combined with those of the City’s open space and
trails program. If determined to be necessary, a biologist could be retained under a consulting agreement with a qualified firm. It is estimated that the annual cost of program administration
would not exceed $50,000 per year. Funds for program administration could be made part of the Habitat Take Permit Fee.
E-8 APRIL 1999
CARLSBAD HMP
33. Speotyto cunicularia hypugaea, Burrowing Owl
a. Habitat/Distribution
The Burrowing Owl is a resident of open, dry grassland, pasture and agricultural fields, and open
CSS with available perches such as rocks and fenceposts. This diurnal owl feeds primarily on
insects, but also small mammals, reptiles, birds, and carrion. It utilizes California ground squirrel
burrows and those of other burrowing mammals for nests and may dig its own burrow in soft
soils. Although this species is described as occurring within agriculture fields, due to soil
disturbance practices, the owl only occurs along the edges of agriculture fields. This species
has declined because of loss of habitat, poisoning of ground squirrels, and collisions with
automobiles. Burrowing Owl locations within San Diego County include San Marcos, Camp
Pendleton, Mission Bay, Lower Otay Lake, North Island Naval Air Station, Otay Mesa, and the
Tijuana River Valley. Within the Carlsbad area, Burrowing Owls have been recorded from the
vicinity of Palomar Airport, the proposed municipal golf course, core areas 5 and 7, and along
the north side of Batiquitos Lagoon.
b. Conservation Goals
Conserved Habitat: Carlsbad contains approximately 3,661 acres of habitats that support or
potentially support the Burrowing Owl. Of this total, the HMP will conserve approximately 766
acres (21%).
Conserved Populations/Location: No major/critical populations of the Burrowing Owl occur
within the planning area. The known locations within core areas 5 and 7 and along Batiquitos
Lagoon are within hardline conservation areas. The location near Palomar Airport is provided an unknown level of protection at this time but likely would provide protection for one of the
Burrowing Owl locations,
Measures to Reduce Threats to Species’ Survival: Surveys &&I rhrr, be conducted
within potential habitat to identify whether Burrowing Owls are present and may be impacted. If
Burrowing Owls are determined to be present, the followina measures shall apolv.
DeveloDment shall avoid direct imbacts to the nest site to the maximum extent oractical.
If imnacts are unavoidable. anv imDacted individuals shall be relocated to a conserved . . area of suitable size and characteristics. nnlr(;nn
Special Consideration: The area has been insufficiently surveyed however, large population
sizes are unlikely within the City.
c. Expected Impacts
Direct Impacts: Direct impacts to the Burrowing Owl may occur to the one known location.
The other known locations appear to be located within proposed or existing hardline
conservation areas. Due to the low conservation percentage of grasslands, impacts to
undocumented locations also may occur. If impacts are expected to occur to the owl, it-ie
C the Burrowing Owl #&I be relocated to avoid direct take.
Indirect Impacts: Indirect impacts to the Burrowing Owl could result from human disturbance,
habitat degradation, and predation by domestic animals. A buffer of 300 feet shall be brovided
16F868FF1FF18RfleE( around preserved Burrowing Owl locations.
APPENDIX C-37 APRIL. 1999
CARLSBAD HMP
d. Basis for Take Authorization
The HMP meets take authorization standards for this species due to the low numbers of the
species present within the planning area and conservation of 667 acres (37%) of grassland
habitat, potential habitat for the species. Surveys &&I rhrrl be conducted within potential
habitat prior to any development. Impacts to documented nesting and foraging habitat &&t
&et& be avoided and animals a eheuld be relocated when impacts are unavoidable.
34. Pelecanus occidentalis californicus, California Brown Pelican
a. HabitaVDistribution
California Brown Pelican is restricted to open ocean, coastal shorelines, harbors, bays, and
estuaries. California Brown Pelicans occur throughout the year as nonbreeders in San Diego
County. Coronado Island is the closest breeding location of the local resident population
associated with the Southern California Bight. Postbreeding and winter influx of pelicans from
the Gulf of California into San Diego County considerably augments the resident population.
Within the plan area, wintering pelicans can be expected along the coast and at lagoons.
b. Conservation Goals
Conserved Habitat: Buena Vista, Agua Hedionda, and Batiquitos lagoons contain
approximately 934 acres of estuarine and salt marsh habitats that support or potentially
support California Brown Pelicans. Of this total, approximately 917 acres (98%) are located in
preserve areas. In addition, 100% conservation of pelican habitat is expected outside of
preserve areas due to a low potential for impacts, the City’s no-net-loss of wetlands policy,
and the additional protection afforded these habitats by state and federal wetlands
regulations.
Conserved Populations/Locations: The salt marsh and estuarine habitats in each of the
City’s coastal lagoons are considered critical locations for the California Brown Pelican. The
HMP will conserve 100% of these habitats.
Measures to Reduce Threats to Species’ Survival: Management measures will focus on
minimizing the contamination of pelican roosting and foraging areas with pesticides, oil, and
other pollutants; reducing disturbances at important foraging and roosting areas; and
maintaining the hydrology and water quality of coastal lagoon systems.
c. Expected Impacts
Direct Impacts: No direct impacts to the California Brown Pelican are expected because
estuarine and salt marsh habitats will be 100% conserved by the HMP preserve system and
the City’s no-net loss of wetlands policy. However, lagoon maintenance or enhancement
projects or essential public works projects may temporarily take California Brown Pelican ,
habitat. These impacts would be mitigated through creation of expanded California Brown
Pelican habitat.
Indirect Impacts: Indirect impacts to the California Brown Pelican could result from changes
in the hydrology or water quality of Carlsbad’s coastal lagoon systems, loss of roosting sites,
or increases in human disturbances. Indirect impacts to this species will be minimized by
management measures.
APPENDIX C-38
APRIL, 1999
SEPTEMBER 21,1999
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Planning Director
HMP ERRATA SHEET .
A. AGENDA BILL
1. Under Revisions to I-IMP, Standards modifications (Page 2) - change the second sentence
to read as follows: “Also, as a result of additional properties being processed as
hardlines, the standards for three complete LFMP zones (5,7 and 11) could be deleted
from the plan.”
2. Under Revisions to HMP, 75% conservation nronerties (Page 2) - change the second
sentence to read as follows: “Based on continued discussions and agreements with
the property owners and the Wildlife Agencies, the number of 75% properties has
been reduced to three.”
B. REVISIONS TO HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN TEXT (Exhibit 7 to Agenda Bill1
1. Modify text on Page D-14, Proposed Hardline Preserve Areas, first paragraph, second to
the last sentence to read as follows: “There are two pairs of gnatcatchers at the bank
which are being preserved as partial mitigation for the City’s Municipal Golf Course.
Deductions have been made for development in the portion of the Park not being
conserved as a hardline preserve area (10 acres).”
2. Change Table 5, Lake Calavera Mitigation Bank, Page D-14 as follows:
TABLE 5
Lake Calavera Public Mitigation
-r
Existing Projects
Future Improvements
100 fi wide fire breaks
ACRES
10
32
17.55
TOTAL REMAINING
CREDITS (ACRES) 206.55
3. Modify last sentence of paragraph two of Standards Areas (Page D-44) to read as follows:
“Standards are identified for properties in zones 1,2,8, 14, 15,20,21, and 25.”
4. On Pages D-50, D-50a, and D-5 1, delete the entire discussion of Standards for Zone 11.
HMP ERRATA SHEET
SEPTEMBER 21,1999
PAGE 2
5. On Page D-67, add an additional sentence to the second paragraph under 6. Measures to
Minimize Impact on HMP Species and Mitigation Requirements to read as follows:
“The citywide standard for the Narrow Endemic species listed on Table 10 is as
follows:
l “100% conservation within preserve areas
l At least 80% conservation outside preserve areas”
6. Revise #3 on Page E-7a (Habitat Group F) to read as follows: “3. Habitat Group F on
Table 11 (disturbed lands, agrkulture lands, and eucalyptus) - Although it will be
necessary to conduct the fee study required by AB 1600, based upon staffs initial
analysis, staff anticipates the fee for impacting disturbed habitat/agriculture land
should be set at no more than $500 per acre.”
C. MAP CHANGES
1. Add the Shelley property as a Proposed Hardline Preserve Area map.
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
This space is tI5r the County Clerks Filing Stamp
STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident
of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of
eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of
North County Times
formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudged newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of
San Diego, State of California, for the cities of
Escondido, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Solana Beach
and San Diego County; that the notice of which
the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
Sept. 10, 1999
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at
this
San Mmcos
10th
, California
day
of Sept. 1999
/ Signature ’
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising ’
Proof of Publication of
Public Hearkg
EIA 99-04 - CARLSBAD HABITAT
MANAGEMENT PLAN. .,. <’
I. ”
NOTICE IS HERESY GIVEN to you, that the City Council of the
City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers,
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carl&ad. California, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 24, 1999, to dortslder approval of the HABITAT
MANAGEMENT PLANand a MfTiGATED NEGATtVE D&XAR& $. TION. ^I ,/a. .; ; ,_ ;:. ” aa’,, ‘t ,; :: *. ‘? ,I* *,,i Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are ci%laffy j,nvjted
to attend the public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be ,: available on or after September 17, 1999. If you have any questions,
pfeasecall Pan Rideout in the Planning Department at (760) 438’1161, extension 4212.
If you challenge the Habitat Management Plan and/or Mitigated i
Negative Decfaration in court, you may be lim@l to raisktg. onfy those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in Crkten correspondence delivered to
the City of Carlsbad at, or.prfor to, the publ[c hearlng.
I
CD-Y 06 CARLSBAD CIN.COUf+IL
Legal 64278 September lo,1999
(form A)
TO: CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARINC REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice
ETA 99 - - 04 Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan
for a public hearing before the City Council.
Please notice the item for the council meeting of September 21, 1999
.
Thank you.
l/8 Page Ad
September 7, 1999
Date
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
EIA 99-04 - CARLSBAD HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a
public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at
6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 21, 1999, to consider approval of the HABITAT
MANAGEMENT PLAN and a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on or after September 17, 1999. If you have
any questions, please call Don Rideout in the Planning Department at (760) 438-l 161, extension
4212.
If you challenge the Habitat Management Plan and/or Mitigated Negative Declaration in court,
you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at, or prior
to, the public hearing.
PUBLISH: SEPTEMBER lo,1999
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST
801 PINE AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
SAN DIEGUITO SCHOOL DIST
701 ENCINITAS BLVD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF ENCINITAS
505 S VULCAN AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF VISTA PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
SANDAG
STE 800
401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
LAFCO 1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
VALLECITOS WATER DIST
788 SAN MARCOS BLVD SAN MARCOS CA 92069
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY SERVICES
James R. Dawe, Esq. Seltzer Caplan Wilkins,
& McMahon
750 B Street, Suite 2100
San Diego, CA 92101
SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DIST
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
LEUCADIA CNTY WATER DIST 1960 LA COSTA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
/ CITY OF SAN MARCOS
I 1 CIVIC CENTER DR SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STE B 9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD
SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE
2730 LOKER AVE WEST CARLSBAD CA 92008
James L. Hieatt
604 14th Street
Manhattan Beach, CA 92066
CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING
DEPT
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MICHAEL HOLZMILLER/DON RIDEOUT
ENCINITAS SCHOOL DIST "
101 RANCH0 SANTA FE RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
OLIVENHAIN WATER DIST 1966 OLIVENHAIN RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY OCEANSIDE CA 92054
I.P.U.A. SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND URBAN STUDIES ; SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
SD COUNTY PLANNING STE B
5201 RUFFIN RD SAN DIEGO CA 92123
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
STE 200
' 3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NO
SAN DIEGO CA 92108
Mr. Robert Ladwig
Ladwig Design Group
703 Palomar Airport Rd
Suite 300
Carlsbad, CA 92009
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
CITY COUNCIL LABELS FOR
HABITAT MANAGEMENT PUN
HEARING ON SEPT 21, 1999
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200
Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 21, 1999, to
consider the HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN and a MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after September 17, 1999. If you
have any questions, please call Don Rideout in the Planning Department at (760) 438-116 1,
extension 4212.
The time within which you may judicially challenge the Habitat Management Plan and/or
Mitigated Negative Declaration, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance,
and is very short. If you challenge the Habitat Management Plan and/or Mitigated Negative
Declaration in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised
at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of
Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: EIA 99-04
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
PUBLISH: SEPTEMBER lo,1999
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
._"> ,I ,, > >*, -;--.Lii _- ,.,,*,,,, , Page,? ,,. .,,l,,,i. ,. ,.
,
L From: Vat Dinsmore
To: Lorraine Wood
Date: g/2/99 1:36PM
Subject: Notice for HMP for September 21, 1999
Attached please find the Public Hearing Notice to be published for the September 21, 1999, City Council
Hearing. This notice is for the HMP. I will forward a very few labels to you on Tuesday.
Also, this should be a l/8 oazle ad. I will be out of the office from 2:00 p.m. this afternoon and return on
Tuesday Morning at 7:30 a.m. If you should need further assistance, please contact me on Tuesday.
Have a Great and Safe Holiday Weekend. Thank you.
cc: Michael Holzmiller
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING QreE3d;ce
F,MANI?IEhj
q-Pv
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected that the City c Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200
Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 21, 1999, to
consider the HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN and
DEcL*@yQJ( CT Dpn K@-++~’ q3\9q
a MITIGATED NEGATIVE
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are co$ially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after September 17, 1999. If you
have any questions, please call Don Rideout in the Planning Department at (760) 438-1161,
extension 4212.
g (Th e ime within which you may judicially challenge the Habitat Management Plan and/or t’
Mitigated Negative Declaration, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance,
and is very short.) If you challenge the Habitat Management Plan and/or Mitigated Negative
Declaration in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised
at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of
Carlsbad at,or prior to,the public hearing.
J.9 :I< e-- CASE FILE: EL4 99-04
A&--- CASE NAME: CARLSBAD HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
PUBLISH: SEPTEMBER lo,1999
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
-
BUILDING INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION OF
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
6336 Greenwich Drive, Suite A
San Diego. CA 92122-5922
(858)450-1221
FAX No. (858) 552-i 445
PRESIDENT
Mick Pattinson
Barratt American
VICE PRESIDENT
Colin Seid
ColRich Communities, Inc.
TREASURER/SECRETARY
Steve Doyle
Brookfield Homes
IMMEDIATE PAST
PRESIDENT
Mark McMillin
The Corky McMillin Companies
EXECUTIVE
VICE PRESIDENT
Paul A. Tryon
California Building
Industry Association
National Association
of Home Builders
September 2 1, 1999
Mayor Claude Lewis and
Members of the Council
City of Carlsbad
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Regarding: Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for Natural Communities in the
City of Carlsbad
Dear Mayor Lewis,
Thank you for the opportunity to review Carlsbad’s habitat management plan.
The Building Industry Association of San Diego County and has been involved
in the creation of various Habitat Management Plans in the San Diego Region
over the last seven years.
This process can provide greater certainty and efficiency in the permitting
process, and wider protection for endangered and threatened species when
implemented responsibly. It is within that framework we would like to express
our concerns regarding Carlsbad’s HMP as it is currently configured.
Financing
We continue to have serious reservations regarding the plans proposed fee
structure. While we believe that recent changes to the plan’s financing section
provide greater clarity regarding the process the City must pursue to implement
a fee program, the proposed collection of a fee for the conversion of
agricultural land to habitat is still legally questionable. We also find suspect the
assumption that a fee collected in this manner could be used for ongoing
maintenance and operation of habitat preserves. We anticipate that the nexus
study required by the State of California’s Mitigation Fee Act will clearly
indicate the legal authority for the collection of these two fee components.
In fairness to the property owners who are subjected to these fees and
mitigation outlined in the HMP, it is vital that they not be called upon to cover
the additional financial burdens which accompany the maintenance and
operations of the preserve system. Frankly, you can not ask property owners to
give up their land and then pay for maintenance and management costs after it’s
turned over. The open space benefits the greater good; therefore it must only
be handled by a broad-based funding mechanism including state and federal
resource
-
We are greatly concerned that the methodology identified to procure the 307-acre Gnatcatcher
Core Area excludes consideration of a regional funding mechanism. The HMP acknowledges
that the core area is a critical component to the broader MHCP core requirement, therefore we
believe a broad-based funding mechanism must not be excluded from the acquisition policy. A
broad-based funding methodology must also be part of any restoration and enhancement
requirements. The funding mechanism needs to allow for state and federal money and the city of
Carlsbad must take a greater role to balance the financial burdens. While we understand the need
to maintain the HMP as a stand alone program we believe the plan as it is now constituted fails to
provide adequate assurance that the City will aggressively seek outside funding sources to offset
the acquisition of a regional component of the MHCP.
Core Area
The Core Area Designation seems to contradict the Fish and Wildlife Service’s HCP handbook
which states, “Private, State or locally owned land should never be considered for inclusion in
HCP’s as reserves without the concurrence of the landowners or their representatives. ”
(emphasis added). As of this writing, property owners have not consented to the reserve system,
yet are designated as such. Please provide a detailed explanation of this inconsistency.
Biology
The fundamental biological data used to determine the design of corridors and core areas appear
to be inadequate to support the conservation requirements set forth in the HMP. The underlying
fundamental scientific data appears to be incorrect, inaccurate and/or antiquated. Specifically, the
HMP provides little or no biological justification to support the conservation areas set forth in the
Proposed Standard Areas (PSA) as well as the need for acquisition of an additional 500 acre
Coastal Sage Scrub Core Area. These PSA’s are being forced to bear a disproportional onsite
conservation burden as high as 75%. We believe it is important for the City of Carlsbad to
include the aforementioned biological justification for these standards in the HMP.
The HMP calls for vast amounts of lands with-in hard line preserves yet fails to cover all
threatened and endangered species including the Pacific Pocket Mouse, Arroyo Toad, California
Red Leg Frog and other species. This failure is especially significant in light of the greater
coverage offered in habitat plans both to the North and the South of Carlsbad. When the County
of San Diego’s northern sub-area plan is implemented it is entirely likely that the only place
where coverage of these species may not exist is in Carlsbad and the other North County cities
involved in the MHCP.
Equivalency/Consistency Findings
A more thorough definition for equivalency findings should be crafted. It appears that a timely
process for establishing equivalency exists when neither the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service or
the California Department of Fish and Game objects to such a finding. We believe a process that
provides greater certainty in the addressing of equivalency findings when either of these
organizations does object is essential to an effective plan. Clear timelines for moving forward
with adding species when these agencies initially object should be added to the plan.
Clustering
We also believe the City should include strong language in the accompanying general plan and
zoning updates that supports, promotes and encourages clustering beyond the existing City
ordinances inside the proposed standard areas. These zones call for vast amounts of take and we
believe it is fair and reasonable to offset the accompanying economic impacts with responsible,
clustered projects.
Pipeline Projects
The City should make specific allowances within existing ordinances and policies for projects
that are in the development pipeline to allow for phasing and interim development while the
HMP is being processed. Portions of projects that are unaffected by sensitive habitat should be
allowed to proceed normally with phased construction.
The City needs to consider all methodologies available to move projects forward including were
applicable de minimis findings, Section 10(a) permits, 4(d) permits and Section 7 consults.
Surveys
Who is responsible for the costs of the surveys referenced under Table 9? Development must not
be called on to pay for expensive research gathering for the USFWS.
Mitigation Options
The restrictive conservation percentages set forth in the HMP leave little room for development
options resulting in a ‘one size fits all approach.’ We recommend that the HMP allow for
additional flexibility in the mitigation options that could yield results beneficial to all interests.
Existing Flood Plane Fill and Development
The HMP would prohibit fill or development within the existing flood plain except where
required for Circulation Element roads, Drainage Master Plan Facilities or other essential public
infrastructure. Wetland habitat impacts are not covered by the HMP. This responsibility currently
lies within the purview of the Army Corps of Engineers thereby making this a duplicative
regulatory barrier that contradicts the concept of an HMP. Prohibiting fill or development within
the existing flood plain will restrict development options especially in light of the increased
mitigation requirements throughout the HMP. This policy is overly restrictive and should be
reevaluated or eliminated altogether.
The BIA appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on this important issue.
Sincerely,
F Jerry Livingston
Staff Counsel
FROM :
0. *
FFiX NO. : Sep. 17 1999 04:27PM P2
I
ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE
Dcdieated to Ecosystem Protection nnd hprmd hnd be P&nning
DanSiver l Coordinator
8424-A Santa Monica Blvd., #592
L.os Angeles, CA 900694267
TEL 32344-1456 l FAX 3234X-1931
AGENDA ITEM # Sept. 17,1999 1 1
c2 Mayor
my CouncN City Manager
City Attorney TlUNS- VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
Mayor Bud Lewis and City Council city of Carl&ad 1200 Carl&ad Village Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989
REk Habitzkl%mg~plan(Ag~Itemll, Se& 21,1999)-LWPPORT
Dear Mayor Lewis and Councilmember%
NYtcr careful review of the draft Habitat Management Plan @IMP), the Endangered Habitats League (PI-IL) wishes to express our strong support for its adoption. For your reference, EHL is a Southern California organization dedicated to ecosystem protection, improved land use planning, and collaborative conflict resolution. Since 1992 it has been our privilege to work with the City on wildlife conservation. Our concerns about the draft plan have been satisfactorily addrtssed, and our conclusion is that, on balance, the HMP will CTeate immense benefits for the people of the City and for its natural habitats. We acknowledge the great effort which went into the HMP, and commend you for seeing it through to completion.
Strengths of the HMP include the criteria for the Standards Areas, the maintenance of connectivity, and the “core area” for gnatcatchers just so&east of the City. There is still some concern, though, about the In Lieu Mitigation Fee. adequate mitigation of impacts, The level of the fee should correspond to an Also, while concurring in the inclusion of dkbnbed and agricultural land, the proposed fee of $XlO/acre appears too low to compensate fcx impacts to raptor foraging and wildlife movement. However, due to the special implementation needs of the “core area,” and the benefits of that conservation, we can support the entire package as proposed.
The Habitat Management Plan will create an enormously important natural legacy for the city. It will sme the entire community and make the City a better place to live and work. There
is, though, a true urgency in adopting and implementing the EIMP, for preserve options open today may be closed tomorrow. El-IL again commends you for the superb progress you have made, and conveys its strong support
Dan Silver, MD coordinator
Law OFFICES OF EVEREW L. DELANO //I
197 Woodland Pkwy, Suite 104-272
San Mams, California 92069 (760) 510-1562
(760) 510-1565 (fax)
September 21,1999
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Michael Holzmiller
Planning Director City of C&bad Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carl&ad, CA 92009
AU Receive-Agenda Item # 1 1
For the Information of the:
ASSLZEZd
B*Wit)l Manager&@
Re: Resnonses to Comments re: Citv of Carl&ad Habitat Management Plan,
Mitigated Negative Declaration: Case No. EIA 99-04
Dear Mr. Holzmiller:
At public meetings and in writing, several residents and concerned parties have
provided the City critical comments upon its intended approach to land use planning and
biological resource protection. Unfortunately, the City’s responses have been principally
dismissive, often rejecting the comments and sometimes accusing the comrnentors of
lacking “expertise.” Not only are the City’s responses poor models of public
participation and contrary to law, they are often factually inaccurate and misleading. A
more appropriate response would have recognized the value of the comments expressed
and should have responded with substantive changes to the actions proposed.
The City’s September 1, 1999 document (“City’s Position Paper”) addresses
public comments concerning the proposed Habitat Management Plan (“HMP”) and
Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”). It principally concerns the City’s rationale for
refusing to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) to address the numerous
significant impacts of the HMP. The 1Zpage document is largely unresponsive to and
generally misrepresents the contents of the public comments in question Although the
City tries desperately to support its refusal to prepare an EIR with any argument that
might “stick to the wall,” its positions are without merit and even a cursory review
reveals their many flaws. Put simply, the City’s refusal to comply with the California
Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) seems routed more in a desire for expediency and an outright distaste for public input and concern.
This letter is intended to provide the City with a brief reply to some of the
important issues raised in the City’s Position Paper. It is not intended to be a
comprehensive reply and it does not supplant other public comments concerning the
HMP and the MND. However, because the issues discussed herein address key matters
of public policy and compliance with CEQA, I respectfully request that you provide
copies of this letter to all City Council members prior to tonight’s hearing,
Michael Holzmiller
September 21,1999
Page 2 of 5
Introduction
As discussed in August 2,1999 comments submitted on behalf of Canyons
Network and the San Diego BayKeeper (“Canyons Network Comments”), CEQA
requires the City to prepare an EIR. The City is not left with discretion in the matter.
Where, as here, substantial evidence in the record supports a ‘Yair argument” that
significant impacts may occur, CEQA requires the preparation of an EIR. Pub. Res.
Code $21080(d). Even if other substantial evidence supports the opposite conclusion,
the City must prepare an EIR. No Oil, Inc. v. Citv of Los Angeles, 13 Cal.3d 68,75
(1975).
Past City studies and plans do not eviscerate the requirement to prepare an EIR
concerning the HMP. See Canyons Network Comments at 1 1 - 13. Although the I-IMP may be a “blueprint for conservation,” its unmitigated environmental effects require the
preparation of an EIR. The public comments presented to the City identify and describe
more than enough substantial evidence to support the preparation of an EIR.
Imnacts to Habitat outside Preserve System
The City’s Position Paper is non-responsive to public comments and misleading.
Although they were not required to do so, the City decries commentors for failing to cite
“any experts or any authoritative sources” and for failing to provide “biological data or
reports.” City’s Position Paper at 3 - 4. Nevertheless, public comments cite to numerous
“authoritative sources,” including U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and MHCP Panel
documents. See e.g., Canyons Network Comments at 4 - 7. Indeed, in pointing out that
impacts will occur outside the preserve system, the comments quote directly from the
City itself See e.g., id. at 5 114. Numerous comments also point out instances in which
the City tiled to account for certain species, thereby entirely failing to address the
impacts outside the preserve system to those species. See e.G id. at 5.
Of course, it appears necessary to remind the City that substantial evidence
includes ‘facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion
supported by facts.” Pub. Res. Code $2 1080(e). CEQA does m require the public to
submit “quantitative environmental studies definitely establishing the existence of the
claimed environmental impacts.” Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus,
33 Cal.App.4th 144, 152 (1995). Accordingly, the City’s repeated critique of public
comments is groundless.
Nor can the City contend with support that impacts outside the preserve system
will not occur. In fact, the City takes an alternative approach by arguing that additional
review will be available at a future time to address “effects on specific habitats and species.” City’s Position Paper at 4. But future review will not suffice to address the
impacts of the current HMP’s “set aside” of certain protected locations and the effects that will have upon its consequent “release” of other lands. Nor do the City’s mitigation
h&chael Holzmiller
September 21, 1999
Page3of5
measures reduce its impacts below a level of significance. See Canyons Network
Comments at 10 - 11.
Imnacts to Non-Covered Snecies
Again, the City’s Position Paper is non-responsive to public comments and its
rationale fails for the same reasons discussed above. Furthermore, the City’s assertion
that “species were removed from the list in order to provide them greater protection,”
City’s Position Paper at 4, should call the City’s entire analysis into question. If a species
is provided “greater protection” by being off the HMP Covered Species List, as the City
asserts, then the City is to be faulted fiuthcr for not analyzing the impacts of the “lessor
protection” provided to species found on the list.
Width of Corridor Linkages
The City’s rationale for dismissing the impacts of the HMP’s narrow migration
corridors is also unsupported by the record. The City interprets the NCCP Scientific
Review Panel’s recommendation that a “target width for wildlife corridors [should] be
approximately 1200 feet,” see Canyons Network Comments at 5 - 7, as “an ‘ideal’
guideline or goal when planning for corridors in unconstrained areas where existing
conditions and development do not preclude it.” City’s Position Paper at 5. Not only is
the City’s interpretation not supported by the substantial evidence in the record, the issue
of how to interpret the panel’s recommendations is beside the point.’
The appropriate question is whether the narrow migration corridors are likely to
have a significant impact. A comparison of the HMP’s corridor widths with that
recommended by the panel indicates they will have a significant impact. It may be the
case that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has “approved” development within the City
that provides for nartower corridors, but this does not reduce the likelihood that the
narrow corridors contemplated by the HMP will have a significant effect upon wildlife
movement.
Expedited Processing of Development
Perhaps nowhere is the City more disingenuous than in its response to public
comments on the issue of increased impacts as a result of development freed to move
forward as a result of adoption and implementation of the HMP. No “expert opinion” is
necessary. The City itself has acknowledged the HMP’s “advantages” to include “economic growth and development in the City.” See Canyons Network Comments at 3.
’ It is noteworthy that during a September 15, 1999 public meeting concerning the HMP, you and City planner Don Rideout acknowledged that at least one area of the City was not constrained by existing
development and that the choice of a 500-foot wide corridor in that location was a compromise designed to address concerns about the “taking” of property without just compensation. Again, City staff has made a
decision about migration corridors without accounting for the significant biological effects that decision will have.
. Michael Holzmiller
September 21,1999
Page 4 of 5
The City’s issuance of “take” authorization will relieve developers from having to work
with state and federal wildlife agencies on the development of an adequate plan for species protection.
The City’s other policies and plans have little relevance to a consideration of the
effects of the HMP. Without the HMP, development must comply with the requirements
of the Endangered Species Act. With the HMP, development must comply with the
HMP’s requirements and, as the City itself acknowledges, it results in “centralize[d]
processing with the local government agency.” City’s Position Paper at 7. As such, the
City must analyze the HMP’s significant impacts. & Canyons Network Comments at 8
- 9.
Public Notice
Despite its tortured analysis of public noticing requirements, the City’s rationale
ultimately fails because it directly conflicts with CEQA. & Canyons Network
Comments at 13 - 14 and Enclosures. The City’s notice did not contain “the date, time
and place” of several public meetings and/or hearings, including the July 21, 1999 City
Planning Commission meeting, the September 15, 1999 meeting with City stae and the
September 2 1, 1999 City Council hearing.
Furthermore, it is extremely disconcerting that the City purports to have received
no requests for notice in writing despite the following: my June 16,1999 letter to you
(requesting “all public records relating to a proposed Habitat Management Plan (Y-IMP”)
for the City of Carl&ad and a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration concerning the
HMP”); my July 22, 1999 letter to you (requesting “copies of any notice relating to the
HMP, including notice of any public meetings or hearings”); and my August 2, 1999 to
you (requesting “any notice(s) you believe serve to satisfy CEQA’s public notice
requirements”).
Public Controversy
There should be no question but that the City’s proposed actions have engendered
substantial public controversy. The controversy is not the narrow one the City would
have it portrayed - “objections to the use of a MND,” City’s Position Paper at 11.
Rather, the controversy is over whether the project at issue should go ahead as planned.
Numerous letters and comments during public meetings and hearings reflect the level of
public controversy on this issue.
. . Michael Holzmiller
September 21, 1999
Page 5 of 5
Conclusion
Despite the City’s best effort to portray the situation otherwise, the City remains
under the requirement to prepare an EIR for its consideration of the I-IMP.
Everett DeLano, Esq.
cc: Ron Ball, Carl&ad City Attorney
SEP-21-1999 15:ll SDGLE
e
e .
-_ 619 654 6301 P.02
San Diego Gas & Electric
STEVEN D. DAVIS
WE PFIESIOENT OleTRyumoN oP6RAlloNs
ANDcoRPORATESECRET~v
September 21,1999
AGENDA ITEM # 11
Honorable Claude Lewis, Mayor
Members of Council
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, California 92008
c: Mayor city council
city Manager CiZy Attorney
RE: HMPF’INALDRAFT
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
Your action on September 21,1999, to refer the final draft Habitat Management Plan @IMP) to
State and Federai resource agencies is a significant milestone for the City and its citizens. Years
of work and negotiations have resulted in a final product that will fairly serve all interested parties. As a result of the City’s consistent efforts to engage participation by the affected
property owners, San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) has had the opportunity to
submit technical information and comment as well on the draft HMP, resulting in hard-line
preserve and development boundaries on the property which are acceptable to all parties.
SDGBtE now offers these final comments on the draft plan.
Is the City convinced that the proposed “Equivalency Findings”
process will be adequate to add species to the list? It appears there is risk that when it comes to
adding a species to the list the resource agencies will require much longer than thirty (30) days to deliberate. What is the City’s position if the resource agencies til to respond? What is the
process contemplated if the agencies object? Perhaps the City and wildlife agencies can use the
agencies’ review time to re-visit this issue and conclude that regarding certain species enough
information presently exists to justify expanding the covered species list.
Subject to validation by a nexus study, the PIMP draft proposes a $500 per acre mitigation fee for impacts to any disturbed lands, eucalyptus or agricultural lands
regardless of the location of that “habitat.” Our concern on this subject is that the nexus study
will be distributed and public review available prior to the time the HMP may become final. Your staff has indicated that this in fact is the plan and we look forward to reviewing the nexus
study.
SEP-21-1999 15:ll SDG&E
.
- - .’ * .
619 654 6301 P.03
-2-
Thank you again for this opportunity to comment on the HMP.
Sincerely,
SDD:lm
TOTFlL P.03
e * .” :.
- e
-~-.- :.-
DEANMILL=
67 Cape Andover
Newport Beach, CA 92660
949-63 l-4059
September 21,1999
Hand Delivered
Mayor and City Council Members
City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Public Hearing Item: AB#l5.254 (September 21,1999)
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am one of the owners of the Fox-Miller property, AP No. 212-020-23, in the City of Carlsbad.
The owners of the Fox-Miller property have participated with staff in developing proposed
hardline boundaries for the Fox-Miller property. I am writing to express my appreciation relative to the City’s staffand to comment on a few provisions of the proposed HMP.
First, I commend staff particularly Mr. Holzmiller, in working with us to mitigate some of the impacts arising from the positions of the federal and state wildlife agencies. In particular, we appreciate staffs willingness to relax restrictions relative to grading at the head of Letterbox
Canyon.
As documented in the hardline proposal we submitted to the City, we have approximately 10
acres of brodiaea habitat on the property. We had proposed that, from a 54 acre parcel, we
would leave 16 acres as undisturbed open space and grade the remaining acreage so as to produce approximately 24.7 acres of net pad area. Included in the open space was roughly 6.6
acres of brodiaea habitat (66% of the onsite brodiaea). The balance of the open space was
designed to avoid grading in Letterbox Canyon so as to achieve the objectives of the City’s
Hillside Ordinance. We had proposed that we would transplant the remaining third of the
brodiaea population to the portions of the open space that are existing brodiaea habitat, so as to achieve 100% conservation of brodiaea onsite. The wildlife agencies, which apparently disfavor
transplantation based on prior transplantations to nonbrodiaea habitat, were not willing to
accommodate transplantation above 20%.
Accommodating the position of the wildlife agencies required inclusion of an additional 1.3
acres of habitat in the preserve system (and a net reduction of 2.2 acres to the net usable area).
That acreage fkonts on El Camino Real and is extremely valuable relative to the overall economic value of the property. As its now stands, while the property has roughly 2000 tintage feet on El Camino Real, probably half of that frontage will be dedicated to open space,
1
. . ., ,- ~. ,I ~. * r .;; ,. - : - .
notwithstanding that the City will probably require that our property sustain the burdens of
providing street improvements along the entire tintage.
Mr. Holzmiller offered that staff would relax restrictions relative to grading at the top of
Letterbox Canyon if we were to move toward accommodating the wildlife agencies. This
relaxation essentially permits us to increase the net usable area of the pads along the top of
Letterbox Canyon by approximately .8 acres.
While we continue to believe transplantation is supported by available science and common
sense and would have achieved 100% onsite conservation (and is therefore the best mitigation
when measured against economic loss), we also appreciate that attempts to change the positions
of the wildlife agencies would most likely be futile. Accordingly, we very much appreciate the
flexibility that staff, particularly Mr. Holzmiller, brought to the process and have agree to the hardline proposal included in the revised draft l-IMP.
We want to note our support for the HMP process and our concurrence in staffs recommendation
to proceed under a mitigated negative declaration. The whole process has, step by step, analyzed on a both a site specific and system wide basis, the environmental resources and impacts of
proposed development in Carlsbad. Further analysis of any specific project will ensue in connection with the entitlement and permitting process. To now undertake au environmental impact review of the HMP would be essentially duplicative is existing and titure efforts and fjndings, wasteful of public and private resources and a source of unwarranted delay. Proponents
of such review cannot be motivated by a desire to capture more information than is already
available to the concerned agencies. Nor can they be motivated by a desire to achieve greater
levels of conservation (the proposed conservation levels approach the Iiniits of the law), Instead,
the only conceivable motivation is to frustrate and delay all development activities in the City.
Accordingly, we support the staff’s recommendation to proceed on the basis of a mitigated
negative declaration rather than an EIR.
We do have a few remaining comments relative to the proposed PIMP.
First, SRA 1, which was a designation given to the Fox Miller property, is no longer necessary
given the hardline proposal for the property. SRAl designated the property as containing a critical population of brocliaea. Pursuant to the hardline proposal now included in the PIMP, 80%
of that population will be preserved in place; 20% would be subject to transplantation so as to achieve 100% onsite conservation.
Second, the list of properties included in the first paragraph of Section B on page 14 of the HMP
needs to be updated to reflect the additional proposed hardline preserve areas (which now
include, among others, the Fox MilIer property) that are being added to the I-IMP.
Third, we do not see the basis for imposing a greater Habitat In Lieu Mitigation Fee on non-
native grass land than is imposed on disturbed lands. In either case, one might wonder how or why any fee is justified given that these are not environmentally sensitive properties and there
would not have been any requirement to obtain a take permit from the wildlife agencies (there
after all, nothing to take). is, In the case of the Fox Miller property, where virtually all impacts to
‘., -2. ;,;... .I.. .‘ ‘_ ,; ‘,, ‘, z. ,: ,. . “,L ‘I
,. .: .‘;. ., :, ,c.’ y _ -,; ::., . -’ .:, --- -11- .--- _ _~ : ._
envircmmentally sensitive habitat are proposed to be mitigated onsite, to impose a fee simply
because non-environmentally sensitive land (34 acres of non-native grassland in the center of the
Carlsbad Research Center) is being graded seems overkill. Isn’t it enough that we setting aside
approximately 30% of the property as natural open space and mitigating all the sipficant
environmental impacts onsite. The fee proposed is little more than a tax to be imposed on
property that is developed above a 33% level, which is to say, an additional development fee on
virtually all projects regardless of environmental impacts. To simply keep imposing the
increases in the operating cost of City administration on the last properties to be developed
seems unfair and inappropriate. In the present case, the remaining undeveloped properties are
being required to pay for the past sins of others (i.e. all the existing developed uses in the City
that didn’t have to pay for the development activities that have today resulted in threatened species). It does seem unfair to be stuck with that bill.
We thank you for your efforts in working with us. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding the forgoing.
3
-a* -rt-l-rnl DOCC nA **
1. .:.
AGENDA ITEM #
September 2 1, 1999
Mayor Lewis and City Council Members
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, California 92008
C: Mayor
city Council
City Manager
City Attorney
RE: Habitat Management Plan Response to Public Comments/EIA 99-04
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
This letter is being submitted to supplement the comments made in our previous letters of August 2”d
and August 27, 1999 to Mr. Michael Holzmiller, City Planner. We have reviewed the ‘Y-evisions” as
submitted to City Council for review and find that we need to reiterate our concerns and requests for
clarification in the interest of all parties subject to the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan for
Natural Communities (“HMP”). Council is being asked to adopt Resolution No. 99-247, approving the
Mitigated Negative Declaration for Habitat Management Plan and Resolution No. 99-248 approving
the Habitat Management Plan and authorizing staff to submit the plan, proposed Implementation
Agreement and application. We ask that you consider revisions to the HMP to address the comments
we are offering below. It is our opinion that if these comments are addressed properly in the HMP, the
plan will operate more smoothly and provide a degree of certainty that appears to be missing from the
plan at this time. As you know, certainty is of special importance when dealing with the Resource
Agencies.
l HMP Basic assurances to third party beneficiaries
The HMP should provide the certainty that if a landowner pays a fee, a project can move forward
without further federal agency approvals. The HMP does not adequately address the master federal
permit process. No biological opinion (a “no jeopardy opinion”) is contained within the text of the
HMP which is required in order for the federal government to issue a Section IO(a) permit to the City.
This master 10(a) permit should address the benefits to third parties such as landowners if
landowners are participating in a program with the City.
. HMP Timeline and Alternatives
Under the local implementation process (page E-l of the HMP draft), should the HMP be adopted by
urgency measure, the City could write the HMP standards into the Open Space and Conservation
elements of the General Plan, as well as the City’s Open Space Ordinance, while permanent regulatory measures are being drafted. In short, absent compliance with this Plan and it’s provisions, a landowner
does not appear to be afforded independent processing. This could in effect put a moratorium on our
processing even though our project could technically be processed without a Citywide HMP due to on
site mitigation opportunities and the small extent of habitat on the property. Lennar has spent a great
Page 1 of 3 Carlsbad HMP EIA99-04
5780 Fleet Street, Suite 320, Carlsbad, California 92008-4700 - (760) 918-8858, Fax (760) 918-8868
deal of time with the Resource Agencies crafting our land use plan and addressing everything from
mitigation ratios to corridor widths. The City should ucknowZedge and support Lennar Communities
and others the right to process federal and state permits concurrent with the HMP process
We are concerned about potential delays to the implementation of the HMP by legal challenge or any
other unexpected delays. During preparation and processing of the sub regional plan any alternative
methods of securing “take” that are consistent with the HMP should be allowed. The HMP should
specifically allow for concurrent processing of any alternative “take” process in the interim,
(consistent with the HMP) including the traditional Section 10(a) or Section 7.
l Habitat Take Permit Fee
Although we understand that staff is recommending some modification to the Habitat Take Permit
Fee, we will hold further comment on the fee program until such time that the city conducts the
AB1600 study proposed in the staff agenda bill.
l Nexus
We understand there will be a nexus study consistent with the requirements of Government Code
66000 and the requirements of Proposition 2 18. Also that the In Lieu Mitigation Fee will be related to
the mitigation ratio’s contained in Table 11 of the plan.
l State and federal funding sources
The Carlsbad HMP does not address Local, State and Federal funding sources for the purchase of the
off site habitat. This places nearly all the financial burden on local development. The plan is a benefit
to all citizens (City and County) and should be financed equitably by all parties. The plan shou2d
incorporate into the text, strategies to pursue all reasonable sources offunding, to spread the burden
over those who benefit from the plan,. .past, present and future.
Internal Revenue Code Section 170 discusses conservation easements to trusts. The pZan should also
consider alternative methods for accumulating the necessary preserve including charitable tax
contributions of land..
l Maintenance of the core
The HMP does not adequately define how the management and operation of the plan will be funded
and implemented. The City’s “ Response to comments regarding the HMP”, indicates that “the
management and operation issues will be discussed in full in the management plans that will be
prepared as a follow up to approval of the HMP”. Again broad based funding is the only fair and
reasonable approach to addressing these costs. We ask that you consider this in the final analysis of
the fee structure.
We would suggest that the City take advantage of the experience of the MSCP in addressing the
maintenance issues. We would recommend that the City create a Blue Ribbon Panel of experts
familiar with the technical, financial, legal aspect of on going maintenance of the HMP.
. HMP Hard line boundary revisions
In reviewing the revisions, we find that the hard lined boundary is slightly incorrect for Bressi Ranch.
It is our understanding from the “Question and response meeting of September 13,1999, that errors
can be revised in the 30 day period after Council action at the September 21” hearing on the HMP.
Staff has acknowledged the error in the HMP hard line exhibit for Bressi Ranch and intends to correct
the error. We would request that staff work with our consultants on Bressi Ranch to complete the
necessary revisions.
Page 2 of 3 Carlsbad HMP EIA99-04
l Encroachment of man made slopes into the hard lined areas
There will be some slight encroachments of man made slopes into the hard lined HMP areas proposed
on the Bressi Ranch, mainly due to the construction of El Fuerte, a circulation element roadway.
These areas consist of several acres of at the most and are to be revegetated with native species. This
has been reviewed many times with staff and the Resource Agencies. The HMP does not appear to
address this situation, which we are sure would occur in other projects as well. Text should be text
added to the HMP that will allow for minor encroachment into hard lined areas for man made sIopes
if they are revegetated with native species. Please address this issue so that minor amendments or
encroachments can be handled with administrative approvals instead of complex amendment
procedures.
l Detention basins in the hard lined areas
Text should be added to the HMP to allow permanent detention basins to be located in hard lined
areas, if these basins are oversized and the majority of the basin consists of soft lined bottom that will
allow for wetland species to establish. This would serve to detain storm water, while providing a year
round wetland habitat. This is a great solution that addresses the development project adjacent to
sensitive habitats and open spaces. A portion of these basins near spillways would have to have solid
concrete surface for maintenance purposes. We request that detention basins, revegetation, restoration
and biological enhancement are considered a compatible use allowed in the HMP hard lined areas.
Lennar Communities appreciates the opportunity to address our concerns with the HMP. We are
support of the concept of the HMP and believe that if our concerns are addressed within the final
HMP document, the implementation process will be easier to administer for the City of Carlsbad and
the landowners.
We would be happy to continue to work with city staff to provide our opinions and assist in any way
to see that the HMP is a success story that the City of Carlsbad can look back on and be proud of its
adoption.
Sincerely,
ctor, Community Development
San Diego County
cc: Michael Holzmiller, City of Carlsbad
Don Rideout, City of Carlsbad
Ray Patchett, City Manager, City of Carlsbad
Page 3 of 3 Carlsbad HMP EIA99-04
09/21/1999 03: 00 6192226450 *. JWHALENASSOCIATES ..z PAGE 02
4517 Santa Monica Avenue
San Diego, California
92107-2905
619 ,222-5856
m J. Whalen Associates
Balancing the needs of the environment with those of business.
September Z&l999 AGENDA ITEM # JI
Mr. Michael Holzmiller
Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
c: Mayor
City Council
City Manager
City Attorney
RE: Carlsbad HMP
Dear Mr. Holzmiller:
As you know, the Mandana property owners have been undertaking a
concerted effort to obtain “hardlines” fox our property in the Sunny
Creek area. The process has been difficult and complex. Since early
this year, we have been working under the assumption that the design
parameters were to average between 5W-1,000’ of preserve linkage
width, with a 400’ mXmum wid&. An earlier plan for the Sunny
Creek area, which employed several 400’ wide linkage areas, received
favorable consideration from wildlife agencies.
We now understand there has been a major change in planning
guidelines for the area. What has changed in the HMP planning rules
which has led to the increase in corridor width (by 100 feet) through
what are now largely agricultural areas? We are still constrained by
topography and existing agricuhural land use. We are concerned that
without the flexibility to plan as we have been for the last several
months of HMP planning, we may be left with no reasonable use of the
property. Since we do not see the scientific basis for this change, it
appears entirely arbitrary. From our perspective, nothing has changed.
Could you explain the basis of this action for us, please? We would like
to retain our current flexibility as much as possible by allowing for
400’ - wide points where the land does not allow for wider linkages.
We await your response and look forward to continuing to work with
the City on the HMP.
cc: Mayor Bud Lewis and Members of the City Council
h
AGENDA ITEM 51: II
ix Mayor City Council
City Mana#r
Sunday, September 19, 1999
Mayor Bud Lewis and City Council Members
City of Carlsbad
1200 Calrsbad Village Dr.
Carlsbad, C& 92008-l 989
City Attorney
RE: Support for Habitat Management Plan (Agenda Item 11, Sept. 21,1999)
Dear Mayor Lewis and Council Members:
We would Iike to offer our congratulations. This Plan is the result of a long and complex
process, with participation from many diverse stakeholders. We believe the final Plan
represents a solid compromise, with tremendous potential benefits to our City and to the
region. We other our strong support for adoption of the Habitat Management Plan,
As you know, Buena Vista Audubon is the local chapter of the National Audubon society
with over 1,400 members, largely in the cities of Carlsbad and Oceanside. We are a non-
profit organization dedicated to the enjoyment, appreciation, and preservation of nature.
We have a strong educational ro!e, with thousands of local school children visiting our nature center on Buena Vista Lagoon each year.
The Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan stteamlinos the permilting process for
development, and enable-s the city the to plan for wildlife and its open space in a
comprehensive manner. It ensures that our city will have a viable wildlife community in
the firtura, living in a viable open space preserve. We at Audubon strongly feel that this
will be good for our city, for property values, and for our quality of life.
We would like to express our appreciation to the city staff who have overseen a very long
and at times difficult planning process. While points of dispute have often not gone our
way, we have always found them to bc courteous, approachable, and professional.
As a final point, we strongly feel that the mitigation fee of $500 per acre for some kinds of
land (disturbed and agricultural) is extremely low. These lands provide key foraging
habitat for some of our most important raptor species- White tailed kites and Prarie
falcons in particular. However, we are willing to accept the Plan as a package, given its clear overall benefits to our City.
Sincerely,
Karen Messer
Conservation chair
Buena Vista Audubon Society
IO-d SOO'ON OS:bT 66,OZ d3S :a1 'ld30 HlUW