Loading...
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