HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-07-11; City Council; 15816; Habitat In Lieu Mitigation Fee- - I vi& rl CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL 1
AB# Is, $jlb TITLE:
MTG. 7-11-a
DEPT. PLN
DEPT. HD.
HABITAT IN-LIEU MITIGATON FEE CITY ATTY.
CITY MGR-
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. d060 - aa 3 , APPROVING the Habitat In-Lieu
Mitigation Fee and AUTHORIZING staff to begin requiring payment of the fee as a condition of
approval of applicable projects.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On September 21, 1999, the City Council approved the Habitat Management Plan for Natural
Communities in the City of Carlsbad and authorized staff to submit the plan to federal and state
wildlife agencies for their processing. The plan was submitted to those agencies in December 1999,
and processing has been proceeding. It is anticipated that the plan will receive final approval within the next 90 days.
A key element of the plan is the acquisition and conservation of approximately 300 acres of habitat
land in the unincorporated area southeast of Carlsbad, within an area referred to as the County
Core Area. The primary purpose of the Habitat In-lieu Mitigation Fee is to generate approximately
$4.3 million to accomplish the preservation in the Core Area. The plan proposes that projects in
Carlsbad that impact certain habitat types will be required to pay the fee as the mitigation for their
impacts.
State law requires that, prior to adopting a new fee of this type, the City must prepare a study of the proposed uses of the funds and the relationship (or nexus) of the fee to the impacts that are being
mitigated. Onaka Planning and Economics was commissioned to prepare the study for the City. Onaka’s report is attached as Exhibit 2. The report itself provides a detailed explanation of the
methodology and basis for the conclusions. The following is a brief summary of the report:
+ Conservation within the County Core Area is essential to the viability of the HMP
+ Sources of funds available to assist with the acquisition total approximately $2.6
million
+ The unfunded balance totals approximately $4.3 million, and the fee program has
been designed for projects in Carlsbad which impact coastal sage scrub (not
occupied by the California gnatcatcher), chaparral, grassland, and
disturbed/agricultural lands to mitigate their impacts by payment of the fee
+ The fee for the above habitat types is based on the mitigation ratios stated in the
HMP.
+ The mitigation ratio for unoccupied coastal sage scrub and chaparral is 1 :I, and the
proposed fee is $7,897 per acre of impact
+ The mitigation ratio for grassland is %:I, and the proposed fee is $3,949 per acre of
impact 0 The proposed fee for agricultural land and disturbed land is $790, per acre of impact,
based on a ratio of l/l 0:l
0 Impacts to habitat types other than those stated above must be mitigated in-kind at the ratios stated in the HMP.
Staff has met with the various interest groups and reviewed the structure of the fee program with
them. Attached as Exhibit 3, is a letter submitted by the Endangered Habitat League. The Building
Industry Association submitted verbal comments, and a letter is anticipated. Verbal comments were also offered by the wildlife agencies, and these were considered in preparing the final report.
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 15, 81 b
Although each group expressed some concerns about specific aspects of the fee, staff believes that
the fee concept is supported overall.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
Adoption of this fee is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
pursuant to Section 15313 which exempts acquisition of lands for fish and wildlife conservation purposes, including preservation of fish and wildlife habitat, establishing ecological reserves, and
preserving access to public lands and waters where the purpose of the acquisition is to preserve land in its natural condition. In addition, this fee program was discussed in the Habitat Management
Plan covered by a Mitigated Negative Declaration approved September 21, 1999.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Approval of the staff recommendation will result in a number of fiscal effects. By assessment of the
fee on new development, a revenue stream of approximately $4.3 million will be produced over the next 20 to 30 years. At the same time, the City will be required to make contributions toward
conservation of the Core Area, primarily by directing golf course mitigation funds to that area. The City’s total contribution is estimated to be $1 .I million, of which $891,000 is Golf Course Mitigation
and $178,000 is other City advances.
The following table shows the flow of funds to acquire and preserve the acreage in the Core area as
required by the HMP:
Villages of La
Costa Advances
City
Advances Total
Preserve management plan
Less: HCP Mitigation requirement
HCP/HMP contribution
Amount to be reoaid
6.4 6.4
-1,063.3 -1,063.3
-150.0 -150.0
$5506.7 $177.9 $5.6846
Sources of repayment:
Ranch0 Carrillo mitigation
Golf course mitigation
Habitat In-Lieu Fees
Total
$ 500.0
891.4
4,293.2
$5684.6
The HMP requires the acquisition and maintenance of 307.6 acres of habitat. Land totaling 239
acres has been previously acquired and conserved by Villages of La Costa (VLC), including 12 acres of onsite credit, and it is expected that VLC will also provide the funding for the remaining 68.6
acres required by the HMP. VLC will also be advancing funds for an endowment totaling $780,400
that will provide the necessary funding for the maintenance of the property in perpetuity. These advances less the mitigation amounts required to be paid by VLC will be reimbursed from amounts
previously paid by Ranch0 Carrillo ($500,000) for mitigation, from amounts to be paid from the
Carlsbad Golf Course fund for mitigation on the proposed golf course (approximately $891,000) and
from the Habitat In-Lieu fees, as collected.
F~AGE 3 0F AGENDA BILL No. IS, 8 I b
A portion of the costs spent by the City in the preparation of the HMP and the fee program and
future costs for the preparation of the preservation plan (totaling $177,900) will also be reimbursed
from the Habitat In-Lieu fees when available.
EXHIBITS:
1. 2.
3.
City Council Resolution No. ;;b~~ -22.3
Fee Study Report for Habitat Management Plan Mitigation Fee Program, dated May 16,
2000
Letter from Endangered Habitat League, dated March 22, 2000.
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 N0.2ooo-223
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A HABITAT IN-LIEU
MITIGATION FEE.
CASE NAME: HABITAT IN-LIEU MITIGATION FEE
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad has approved the Habitat
Management Plan (HMP) and submitted the plan to the California Department of Fish and
Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for their approval; and
WHEREAS, the HMP proposes a fee program in order to generate funding for
conservation of certain parcels totaling approximately 300 acres which lie in the unincorporated
area to the southeast of Carlsbad and which are essential to the biological viability of the HMP;
and
WHEREAS, the City has caused a study to be prepared analyzing the need for
the fee, the uses of the funds to be derived from the fee, and the relationship between the fee
and the impacts which will be mitigated by the fee; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all pertinent facts and information
regarding the fee that have been brought to its attention by persons or organizations having an
interest in the matter.
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 finds:
a. The fee is necessary and appropriate in order to implement the Habitat Management Plan and to ensure that the plan will adequately provide for the
long-term conservation of wildlife species addressed by the plan, which is a
recognized public benefit.
b. The fee will produce adequate revenues to accomplish its intended purposes.
c. The fee is based on a clear and logical relationship between the impacts of
development projects and the mitigation for those impacts.
d. In the absence of the fee, development projects which would result in
impacts to the habitats addressed by the fee would be required to mitigate
those impacts in other ways.
e. The fee amounts are roughly proportional to the impacts which will be
mitigated by the fee.
4
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
3. The report entitled “City of Carlsbad Fee Study Report for Habitat Management
Plan Mitigation Fee Program” dated May 16, 2000, and prepared by Onaka Planning and
Economics is incorporated herein by reference and is approved as to its methodology, findings
and recommendations. 4. That staff is authorized to make payment of the fee a condition of approval of all
applicable discretionary projects.
5. That staff is authorized to administer the fee, including establishing any
necessary accounting and implementing procedures. 6. In the event the HMP is not approved, the fee will be rescinded.
7. The fee shall become effective 60 days following the date on which the City
Council adopts this resolution.
8. The amount of the fee shall be automatically escalated annually at one-half the
rate of increase in Consumer Price Index - All Urban Consumers for San Diego County, using
as base the reported index of the last biennial period preceding the date of adoption of this
resolution. 9. Based on the foregoing, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad adopts the
Habitat In-Lieu Mitigation Fee.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City
Council held on the 11th day of JU~V , 2000 by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Hall, Finnila, and Kulchin
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Nygaard
ATTEST:
KAREN R. KUNDTZ, Assistant City Clerk (SEAL)
-2-
-
EXHIBIT 2
CITY OF CARLSBAD
FEE STUDY REPORT FOR
HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM
May 16, 2000
Prepared by
Onaka Planning & Economics
P. 0. Box 12565
La Jolla, CA 92039-2565
(858) 535-1420
6
Table of Contents
Page
Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
HMP and Context of the Mitigation Fee Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Core Habitat Area of the. California Gnatcatcher ............................................... 2
HMP’s Mitigation Requirements for Impacts to Habitat ...................................... 3
Mitigation for Impacts to Agriculture and Disturbed Lands .................................. 3
Estimated Cost of Core Area Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Habitat Acquisition ................................................................................. 4
Endowment for Habitat Management ............................................................ 5
Incidental Costs ..................................................................................... 5
Funding Sources .................................................................................... 5
Properties Subject to Mitigation Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Fee Calculation Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Recommended Fee Schedule . . . . ,......................................................................... 7
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
List of Exhibits
HMP Mitigation Ratios for Impacts to Habitats
Map of Groups C, D, E and F Habitats
Core Area Conservation Cost and Sources of Funds
Schedule of Fees
City of Carlsbad
Fee Study Report for
Habitat Management Plan Mitigation Fee Program
Purpose
City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP) Mitigation Fee Program is intended to
provide funding for conservation of 295.6 acres of habitat of the coastal California gnatcatcher
and other species, a part of the 6,757 acres of habitat addressed by the HMP. The area to be
conserved is located in an unincorporated area of San Diego County, east of the cities of
Carlsbad and Encinitas and south of San Marcos.
This report describes conservation actions to be funded by the Mitigation Fee Program, the
estimated costs of those actions, types of undeveloped land which would benefit from, and be
subject to, the fee program, the method used to calculate fees, and the recommended schedule
of fees.
It is intended that this report be circulated for discussion among property owners, federal and
state wildlife agencies with authority to review and approve the HMP, and by other interested
individuals and organizations. The Mitigation Fee Program will be reviewed for adoption at a
noticed public hearing of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad.
HMP and Context of the Mitigation Fee Program
The City of Carlsbad has issued a draft Habitat A4anagement Plan for Natural Communities in
the City of Cadsbad (HMP).’ The city has also prepared and circulated for public comment a
draft Environmental Assessment of the HMP,* describing the affected environment and
potential environmental consequences of the proposed action and alternatives. The purpose of
the HMP is to “preserve the diversity of habitat and protect sensitive biological resources
within the City while allowing for additional development consistent with the City’s General
Plan and its Growth Management Plar~“~ To this end, the HMP would “lead to citywide
permits and authorization for the incidental take of sensitive species in conjunction with private
development projects, public projects, and other activities which are consistent with the Pla~“~
The permits, also called “take authorizations”, would be issued under the U.S. and State of
California Endangered Species Acts and the state Natural Community Conservation Planning
Act. Under federal law,5 I’* incidental take” may include direct or indirect harm to species, such
’ City of Carlsbad, Habitat Managemcrrt Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad, December 1999.
2 City of Carlsbad, Environmental Assessment of the Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the
City of Car&bad (Draft), December 1999.
3 HMP, p. A-l.
4 HMP, p. A-l.
’ Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1539).
HMP Mitigation Fee Study Report Page 1
ti'
as significant habitat modification or degradation, that accompanies otherwise lawful activity-
for example, grading in accordance with an approved grading permit.
The HMP is also a “subarea plan” within the context of a regional habitat conservation plan
currently under preparation by seven cities in north San Diego County in cooperation with San
Diego Association of Governments (MHCP plan).6 The combination of the HMP and the
MHCP Plan serves as a multiple-species habitat conservation plan (HCP) under the federal
Endangered Species Act, as well as a natural community conservation plan (NCCP Plan) under
the state Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act and the state Endangered
Species Act. The HMP authorizes the City of Carlsbad to approve incidental take of species
and habitats by public and private development projects, if they adhere to its conservation
goals and guidelines.
Core Habitat Area of the California Gnatcatcher
An important component of the HMP conservation program is the protection and management
of a core habitat area of the coastal California gnatcatcher (“Core Area” and “Core Area
Conservation”), located in an unincorporated area of San Diego County, east of the cities of
Carlsbad and Encinitas and south of San Marc~s.~ Core Area Conservation is necessary to
ensure the continued viability of the California gnatcatcher in north San Diego County’ and to
meet the HMP’s overall conservation goals for the California gnatcatcher and coastal sage
scrub.
Recognizing the importance of Core Area Conservation, the City of Carlsbad previously
participated in the preparation of a habitat conservation plan (HCP) for the southeastern area of
the city, called The Villages of La Costa, then owned by The Fieldstone Company and
subsequently by Real Estate Collateral Management Company (RECMC; “Villages of La Costa
HCP”). Under the Villages of La Costa HCP, RECMC is committed to pay $l,OOO,OOO, plus
escalation according to the Consumer Price Index, for purchase of lands in the Core Area, and
the city is committed to “act as the lead agency” to bring about the conservation of 240 acres in
the Core Area, including the purchase by RECMC. Under the HMP, the city will conserve
additional 67.6 acres in the Core Area, or to contribute equivalent funding, using a portion of
mitigation funds paid by the developers of Ranch0 Carrillo Master Plan and funds to be paid
by the city to mitigate for impacts resulting from construction of Carlsbad Municipal Golf
Course. The city will also contAbute $150,000 to Core Area Conservation; this amount was
previously committed by RECMC to defray the cost of the HMP. In summary, Core Area
Conservation under the HMP will total 307.6 acres,’ of which 12 acres represent additional on-
site conservation in The Villages of La Costa and 295.6 acres represent new purchases in the
Core Area.
6 San Diego Association of Governments, Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (Consultants’ Working Draft
MHCP Plan), June 1998.
’ HMP, pp. D-71ff. and Figure 29.
* MHCP Plan, Attachment E.
9 See HMP, pp. E-6ff. for discussion of existing funding sources for Core Area Conservation.
HMP Mitigation Fee Study Report Page 2
7
HMP’s Mitigah’on Requirements for Impacts to Habitat
The HMP establishes compensatory mitigation requirements for impacts to habitats, which are
grouped by affinity into Groups A through F (Exhibit 1). Compensatory mitigation is required
by federal and state ESAs for unavoidable impacts, or those which remain after measures have
been taken to avoid and minimize a project’s adverse impacts on species and habitat. Under the
HMP, a project’s impacts to habitat must be compensated, or mitigated, by the conservation of
other habitat areas, where the ratio of conserved to impacted areas differs according to habitat
group. The HMP also specifies that mitigation for impacts to habitats in Groups A, B and C be
in the form of physical habitat conservation, while impacts to habitats in Groups D, E and F
will be mitigated by payment of an in-lieu fee. Accordingly, the Mitigation Fee Program is
applicable only when there is impact to habitats in Groups D, E and F.
Coastal sage scrub is classified as Group C habitat if it is occupied by the California
gnatcatcher and as Group D habitat if it is not occupied. Coastal sage/chaparral mix and
chaparral other than southern maritime chaparral are also classified as Group D habitat. For a
specific parcel or group of parcels, investigation by a qualified biologist will be required to
determine the type and extent of habitat groups and to determine whether coastal sage scrub is
or is not occupied by the California gnatcatcher. Much of the coastal sage scrub in the city is
occupied by the California gnatcatcher. lo For purposes of this study, it is estimated that 75% of
coastal sage scrub that will be impacted by development is occupied (Group C) and the
remaining 25% unoccupied (Group D). Exhibit 2 indicates the approximate locations of
Groups C through F habitats, i.e., coastal sage scrub, coastal sage scrub/chaparral mix,
chaparral other than southern maritime chaparral, annual (non-native) grassland, agricultural
land, disturbed areas, and eucalyptus in the City of Carlsbad.
For purposes of the Mitigation Fee Program, the mitigation ratios shown in Exhibit 1 may be
taken as indicating relative biological values of habitat groups. Thus, Group D habitat, with a
mitigation ratio of 1: 1, can be regarded as twice as important to the HMP as Group E habitat,
with a mitigation ratio of 0.5: 1. Accordingly, the HMP directs that mitigation fees be
calculated according to mitigation ratios contained in Exhibit 1.”
Mitigation for Impacts to Agriculture and Disturbed LQnds
Mitigation has not traditionally been required for development of agricultural land or disturbed
areas or for removal of such non-native vegetation communities as eucalyptus groves.
However, in order equitably to meet the multiple-species, multiple-habitat goals of the HMP
and the NCCP Act, the HMP requires that a fee be paid in lieu of mitigation for impacts to
non-native habitats. The fee is justified due to the biological values that these lands currently
provide to HMP species; to the fact that, prior to their conversion, these lands supported native
habitats and species; and to their potential for reversion to native vegetation in the future if left
undeveloped or if restored.
lo See HMP, Appendix C-43.
” HMP, p. E-8.
HMP Mitigation Fee Study Report Page 3
10
The HMP recognizes that although agricultural land, disturbed areas, and eucalyptus groves
have a lower biological value than native habitats, they currently provide a variety of benefits
to HMP species that are not provided by developed lands. For example, some HMP species
forage in agricultural fields or disturbed areas (e.g., burrowing owl, western spadefoot toad,
long-billed curlew, and northern harrier), and some raptor species frequently use eucalyptus
groves for nesting and roosting. These non-native habitats also provide important linkage and
buffer functions for the preserve system. In some areas, agricultural fields, disturbed land, and
eucalyptus groves provide linkages that allow wildlife to move between remaining natural
blocks of habitat. The non-native habitats also help buffer the conserved habitats from edge
effects associated with development. This reduces the adverse effects of habitat fragmentation
and the associated need for specialized management.
In the past, conversion of natural biological habitats to agricultural use did not require
mitigation, despite adverse effects to biological resources. A fee collected when agricultural
lands are proposed for development accounts in part for this historic impact. In addition,
fallow agricultural fields or disturbed areas may eventually revert to native vegetation (e.g.,
disked areas may revert to coastal sage scrub), thus representing potential future habitat for
HMP species. Development of these lands would remove the potential to be converted to
natural habitat.
Thus, development of agricultIra1, disturbed, and eucalyptus areas will have a variety of
indirect, adverse impacts on HMP species, which require mitigation. Because these impacts are
less severe than development in natural habitat areas, Group F habitat is assigned, for purposes
of the Mitigation Fee Program, an implicit mitigation ratio of 0.1 to 1, or 0.1 acre of
conservation for each acre of impact. The implicit mitigation ratio is used only to calculate the
mitigation fee; it is not intended that impacts to Group F habitat should be mitigated by
conservation of other Group F habitats. At an implicit ratio of 0.1 to 1, fee for impact to
Group F habitat would be 20% of the fee for impact to Group E habitat, which has a mitigation
ratio of 0.5: 1, and 10% of the fee for impact to Group D habitat, which has a mitigation ratio
of 1: 1. Although the Group F fee would be small, its use helps to spread the cost of Core Area
Conservation equitably among all properties which benefit from the HMP.
Estimated Cost of Core Area Conservation
Actions required to implement Core Area Conservation are estimated to cost $6,897,832,
including land acquisition, establishment of an endowment to fund habitat management in
perpetuity, and incidental costs for planning and administration. These costs are summarized in
Exhibit 3 and discussed below.
Habitat Acquisition
To date, two properties totaling 227 acres have been acquired for Core Area Conservation.
Estimated cost of acquisition, including legal, escrow and environmental costs, is $4,195,568.
Additional 68.6 acres need to be acquired in order to attain the target total of 295.6 acres.
HMP Mitigation Fee Study Report Page 4
-
Including legal, escrow and environmental costs, the estimated cost of additional acquisition is
$1,744,000.
Endowment for Habitat Management
The 295.6 acres of Core Area Conservation is part of a larger core habitat for the California
gnatcatcher identified by the subregional MHCP Plan,‘* ranging ultimately in size from 400 to
500 acres. Assuming that the HkIP Core Area will be managed together with the larger MHCP
core area, the average cost of management is estimated to be $85 per acre per year,13 plus
$7.40 per acre per year for management administration,14 for a total of $92.40 per acre per
year. Based on an inflation-adjusted discount rate of 3.5%,” estimated endowment required to
fund management costs in perpetuity is $2,640 per acre, or $780,384 for the HMP Core Area.
Incidental Costs
The City of Carlsbad has previously expended $750,000 for preparation of the HMP and plans
to expend $50,000 to prepare a preserve management plan. Since the HMP would lead to new
conservation of 2,298 acres,16 including 295.6 acres in the Core Area, planning cost associated
with the Core Area represents 12.86% (= 295.6/2,298) of the total planning cost for new
conservation under the HMP, or $102,880. The city will also incur estimated $75,000 of
administrative costs related to acquisition and establishment of the Mitigation Fee Program.
Funding Sources
The City of Carlsbad has committed the following funds to Core Area Conservation:
l Real Estate Collateral Management Company (RECMC), Villages of La Costa
HCP mitigation fund, adjusted by Consumer Price Index-All Urban Consumers
for Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA, for the period from June 1995
to February 1999, as specified in the HCP - $1,063,307.
a RECMC, contribution toward preparation of the HMP, committed under the
Villages of La Costa HCP - $150,000.
l Ranch0 Carrillo Mitigation Fund - $500,000.
l Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Mitigation, equivalent to the cost of 51.6 acres
of mitigation for impacts associated with golf course construction and
contribution to an endowment for habitat management - $891,395.
I2 MHCP (Consultants’ Working Draft), Attachment E.
I3 MHCP, “Estimated Implementition Costs” (Discussion Paper), January 26, 2000.
I4 Estimated annual cost of $50,000 per year divided by total conservation (existing and new) of 6,757 acres
(HMP, p. D-75, Table 8).
” Net interest revenue from an endowment after adjustment for inflation.
I6 Separate from habitat conserved in existing “hardline”, or committed, areas (HMP, p. D-75, Table 8).
HMP Mitigation Fee Study Report Page 5
Total funds committed is $2,604,702. The remainder, or $4,293,130, is funded by the
Mitigation Fee Program (Exhibit 3).
Properties Subject to Mitigation Fees
The HMP benefits all propertie!, in the city through a comprehensive conservation program for
various species which are protected under the federal and state ESAs and by streamlining the
requirements of those acts into a single permit under the HMP. A project which does not itself
require a take authorization or which does not impact native habitat nevertheless benefits from
the HMP and the Mitigation Fee Program, because it relies on Growth Management Zone-
wide infrastructure improvements which require such an authorization. In addition, the
Mitigation Fee Program benefits properties which impact Group D, E or F by simplifying
compliance with HMP’s mitigation guidelines and ratios. It may be noted that the average cost
of Core Area habitat exceeds $20,000 per acre,17 excluding management and incidental costs.
All undeveloped land with Group D, E or F habitat is potentially subject to the Mitigation Fee
Program. As previously noted, survey by a qualified biologist is required to determine the
extent and type of habitat impacted. Mitigation fee will be calculated for projects which impact
Group D, E or F habitat and which require discretionary approvals by the City of Carlsbad,
including but not limited to general plan amendment, specific plan, and subdivision map. The
fee will be payable upon issuarlce of a grading permit, or a building permit if no grading
permit is required, since the Clcy has previously expended funds for Core Area Conservation
and the fee is paid in lieu of mitigation for impact that results from clearing or grading activity,
or with construction subsequent to grading.
Mitigation fees will not be levied for impacts on land owned by the City of Carlsbad, since
city-owned habitats will largely be conserved and any impacts will be mitigated in accordance
with the HMP, including the use of a city-owned mitigation bank. Mitigation fees will not be
levied on lands owned by other public agencies which independently obtain take authorizations
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or California Department of Fish and Game; on
properties with existing take authorizations; on properties which permanently conserve 67% or
more of the undeveloped land, including Groups A through F, in accordance with conservation
and management guidelines of the HMP; or on any portion of a property for which an
agricultural mitigation fee is paid to the California Coastal Commission.
Based on an analysis of geographic information systems (GIS) data for the HMP, estimated
acres of impact to Group D, E, and F habitats subject to mitigation fees are 145 acres, 474
acres, and 1,617 acres, respectively.
” Average cost is $20,093, obtaicsd by dividing total purchase cost ($4,195,568 + $1,744,000) by 295.6 acres
(see Exhibit 3).
HMP Mitigation Fee Study Report Page 6
/3
Fee Calculation Method
In calculating mitigation fees, acres of habitat impact are converted to proportionate units,
using the mitigation ratios specified in the HMP Plan or, in the case of Group F habitat, using
the implicit mitigation ratio discussed above. Thus, one acre of impact to Group D, E and F
habitats represents, respectively, 1.0, 0.5, and 0.1 units for calculating mitigation fees.
Habitats which may be impacted under the HMP and subject to fees represent a total of 543.7
units, of which Group D, E and F habitats represent 26.67%, 43.59%, and 29.74% (Exhibit
4). Total funding requirement of $4,293,130 is allocated to these habitat groups according to
these proportions, then divided by the estimated acres of impact, yielding mitigation fee per
acre by habitat group (rounded to the next whole dollar). The fee is applied to acres of impact,
without regard to the amount of habitat conserved on-site. Use of mitigation ratios establishes a
direct relationship between the fees and acres of impact to habitat.
Recommended Fee Schedule
Recommended mitigation fees are as follows:
Group D Habitat $7,897 per acre
Group E Habitat $3,949 per acre
Group F Habitat $790 per acre
It is also recommended that these fees be escalated annually at one-half the rate of increase in
Consumer Price Index-All Urba*r Consumers for San Diego County, using as base the reported
index of the last biennial period preceding the adoption of the Mitigation Fee Program and
adjusted every 12 months thereafter.
HMP Mitigation Fee Study Report Page 7
14
-
Carlsbad HMP
Exhibit 1. MITIGATION RATIOS FOR IMPACTS TO HABITATS
Mitigation Ratio/Requirement by
Habitat Group and Type Type of Impacted Habitat
A. Coastal salt marsh, alkali marsh, freshwater marsh, No net loss goal (mitigation ratio
estuarine, salt panlmudflats, riparian forest, riparian varies by type of replacement habitat)
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 3:l [2]
succulent scrub, southern mariime chaparral, native
grass
C. Gnatcatcher-occupied coastal sage scrub 2:l [3]
D. Unoccupied coastal sage scrub, coastal
sage/chaparral mix, chaparral (excluding southern
maritime chaparral)
E. Annual (non-native) grassland
F. Disturbed lands, eucalyptus, agricultural lands
1:i [4]
OS:1 [4]
Mitigation Fee [4]
Source: City of Carlsbad, Habitat Management Plan (December 1999) p. D-95, Table 11.
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 mitigation for habitat in this group which is not conserved onsite, shall pay a per acre in-lieu
mitigation fee in an amount to be determined by the City Council.
Legend
k8 Chaparral - q Grassland
0 Urban/Developed q Agriculture, Disturbed,
Eucalyptus Woodland n Coastal Sage Scrub Exhibit 2
Vegetation Map
Cit.y of Carlsbad
w
Y + E
5
A
Carlsbad HMP
Exhibit 3. CORE AREA CONSERVATION COST AND SOURCES OF FUNDS
Conservation Cost
Core Habitat Acquired to Date
Land cost - Parcel 1
Land cost - Parcel 2
Legal, taxes, escrow, environmental
Subtotal
Core Habitat to Be Acquired
Estimated land cost - Parcel 3
Legal, taxes, escrow, environmental
Subtotal
Core Habitat Management
Core Habitat Acres
Management Endowment Per Acre [l]
Total Endowment
Incidental Costs
Preparation of HMP and Preserve Management Plans
Percent Allocable to Core Area Conservation [2]
Plan Preparation Cost Allocable to Core Area
City Administration Costs
Total Costs
Funding Sources
Villages of La Costa HCP Mitigation
CPI Adjustment [3]
Subtotal
Villages of La Costa HCP Reimbursement to City
Ranch0 Carrillo Mitigation Fund
Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Mitigation [4]
Subtotal Excluding HMP Fees
Costs to be Funded by HMP F,:.es
Total Sources
113.0 AC. $1,625,000
114.0 AC. 2,500,OOO
70,568
68.6 AC. 1,715,ooo
29,000
295.6
$2,640
$4,195,568
1,744,ooo
780,384
800,000
12.86%
102,880
75,000
$6,897,832
$1 ,ooo,ooo
63,307
$1,063,307
150,000
500,000
891,395
$2,604,702
4.293.130
$6.897.832
1. Estimated management cost of $85 per acre per year, plus administration of management activities, $7.40 per
acre per year, for a total of $92.40 per acre per year. Endowment amount is estimated as present value of
annual management and administration costs, using inflation-adjusted discount rate of 3.5%.
2. Core habitat area (295.6 ac.) divided by total area newly conserved under HMP (2,298 ac.). The newly
conserved area consists of 1,990 ac. to be conserved under proposed hardline and standards areas
plus 308 acres in MHCP core, including 12 ac. in Villages of La Costa (HMP, p. D-75, Table 8)
3. CPI-All Urban Consumers, Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, June 1995 (154.8) to February 1999 (164.6).
4. Includes cost of land acquisition and prorata contribution toward an endowment for habitat management.
FT -c . . . .
. . ln 7
T- d 6
-
EXHIBIT 3
ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE
Dedicated to Ecosystem Protection and Improved hnd Use Planning
Dan Silver l Coordinator
PMB 592
8424-A Santa Monica Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90069-4267
TEL 323-654-1456 l FAX 32364-1931 l dsilver@exo.com
-. --------. \ March 22,200O . “‘, . x’
TRANSM~ED VIA FACSIMILE AND US MAIL b +..;
Michael Holzmiller, Director
Planning Dept. ciq of CarIsbad 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008
REz Dmft Fee Study Report for I-IMP Mitigation Fee hgram
?,’ $)!a \‘.
E~~,~qaE~~ ‘, ; p*MIWG Q c\ty Qi ‘. . ; @bad L.,’ ;,’ i. ,’
. . <: I \- ; , , .- 7 “, _ ‘_ /” ‘.<“-,
Dear Mr. Holzmiller:
The Endangered Habitats League (EHL) appreciates the opportunity to review the Draft Mitigation Fee Program. For your reference, EHL is a Southern California organization dedicated to ecosystem protection, improved land use planning, and collaborative conflict resolution, It has been our privilege to work with the City on the HMP for many years, and we are committed to seeing this excellent program to fruition. Our comments are as follows:
1. . . . A strong nexus wblished between impacts and nutrrmon .
On page 4, compelling and welldocumented rationales are provided for the mitigation of impacts to disturbed, agricultural, and eucalyptus groves.
2. The imnlicit r&i&on ratio of 0.1 to 1 for disturbed. agricultural. and eucalyptus Prove is low.
For the very reasons enumerated on page 4, the value of these lands is significantly under-
represented by the proposed 0.1 ratio. Value for raptors alone justifies a much higher ratio. We recommend the following ratios as being more con&tent with biological value:
non-occupied coastal sage scrub: 1 S: 1
chaparral, css/chaparral mix, annual grassland: 1: 1
disturbed, agricultural, eucalyptus groves: 0.5: 1
3. . - The calc&ed fees nroduce verv little actual acreage .
The proposal is for unoccupied coastal sage scrub and chaparral to pay $7,727 per acre,
non-native grassland $3,854 per acre, and agriculture, disturbed and eucalyptus to pay $773 per
acre. At a total cost of $20,093/acre for conserved and managed lands, these fees will purchase only two fifths, one fifth, and one twenty-fifth of an acre of actual preserved land, respectively. These on-the-ground outcomes are extremely low. For comparison, the City of San Diego
requires one acre of actual mitigation for unoccupied coastal sage scrub or chaparral, and one half
acre of actual mitigation for non-native grassland. It is unclear why developers in Carlsbad are uniquely eligible for such low and insufficient mitigation.
h
The problem, of course, is the predetermined acreage figure. A preferred approach would be to set appropriate ratios (such as those suggested above) which correspond not to “units” but to acreage conserved. This would pay for the 296 acres in the Core Area plus acquire substantial additional lands.
4. The 67% level of on s’te conservation for relief from fees is reasonable. but should onlv aDDly when the conserved land irs of lonp-term biological value.
5. Th Ifee for all projects.
It is safe to assume that previously approved projects never mitigated for the full range of impacts to be assessed by the fee, and yet will benefit from the preserve system Thus, the mitigation fee should be collected from all impacting users.
C..
Thank you for considering these comments.
Dan Silver,
Coordinator
cc: U.S. Fish and Wiidlife Service
Calif. Dept. of Fiih and Game
D E v E 1 0 P M E N T
PMB #685
July 11. 2000
The Honorable Bud Lewis
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad. CA 92008
AGENDA ITEM # /I 1296.5 El Camino Real, Ste. IO,5
cl Mayor Carlsbad, CA 91009
City Council
City Mana&r phone: 760 929-2301
City Attorney
City Clerk fax: 760 929-270.5
Dear Mayor Lewis:
Morrow Development supports the creation of a Habitat Management Plan
(HMP). We believe that this plan may provide for a viable and comprehensive preserve
system. The HMP will facilitate an orderly assemblage of valuable habitat while allowing
implementation of the City’s General Plan to occur in an orderly fashion. The cost of
implementing the HMP should be born by those benefiting from the program. Therefore.
we support the Habitat in-lieu mitigation fee before you this evening.
However, I believe that there remains some uncertainty with respect to the City’s
ultimate mitigation responsibility. Final approvals by Fish and Wildlife and the Coastal
Commission have not been obtained. Therefore, I respectfully request that Council clarify
that the dollar amount of mitigation that the city will pay will not be less than stated in
the staff report, but it could be more. The exact amount will be determined concurrent
with construction of the golf course or the need to implement the acquisition of
mitigation lands.
l?lltL7*
President
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
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:
July 2, 2000
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
sari Marcos Dated at , California
this
of
2r.d
July, 2000 day
7-11 -61)
J-ttsvn. II /
fi r3 j*s,ril fb
This space is for the County Clerks Filing Stamp
ECEIVED R JUL 1 1 iDl.ki
Proof of Publication of
Notice of Public Hearkg
:
Those persons&ihi~3to speak Whii proposa?are tordially invited to attend, the public hearing. Copies of the staff report
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Leaal Advertisina
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, 92008, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 11,
2000, to consider a Citywide Habitat In-Lieu Mitigation Fee.
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 July 7,200O. If you have
any questions, please call Don Rideout in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4602.
The time within which you may judicially challenge this Habitat In-Lieu Mitigation Fee,
if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you
challenge the Habitat In-Lieu Fee 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 NAME: HABITAT IN-LIEU MITIGATION FEE
PUBLISH: SUNDAY, JULY 2,200O
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive * Carlsbad, CA 92008-l 989 - (760) 434-2808 a9
(Form A)
TO: CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice
HABITAT IN-LIEU MITIGATION FEE
for a public hearing before the City Council.
Please notice the item for the council meetlng of July 11, 2000
.
Thank you.
Assistant City Man
l/8 Page Ad
--=%e=-
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
c .-
City Clerk 1 .Ibl
CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DIST ENCINITAS SCHOOL DIST
801 PINE AVE 1 CIVIC CENTER DR 101 RANCH0 SANTA FE RD
CARLSBAD CA 92008 SAN MARCOS CA 92069 ENCINITAS CA 92024
SAN DIEGUITO SCHOOL DIST LEUCADIA CNTY WATER DIST OLIVENHAIN WATER DIST
701 ENCINITAS BLVD 1960 LA COSTA AVE 1966 OLIVENHAIN RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024 CARLSBAD CA 92009 ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF ENCINITAS CITY OF SAN MARCOS CITY OF OCEANSIDE
505 S WLCAN AVE 1 CIVIC CENTER DR 300 NORTH COAST HWY
ENCINITAS CA 92024 SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 OCEANSIDE CA 92054
CITY OF VISTA VALLECITOS WATER DIST
PO BOX 1988 788 SAN MARCOS BLVD
VISTA CA 92085 SAN WCOS CA 92069
I.P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME REGIONAL WATER QUALITY SD COUNTY PLANNING
STE 50 STE B STE B
330 GOLDENSHORE 9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD 5201 RUFFIN RD
LONG BEACH CA 90802 SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1331 SAN DIEGO CA 92123
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST SANDAG
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR STE 800
SAN DIEGO CA 92123 401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE
2730 LOKER AVE WEST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY
SERVICES
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
DON RIDEOUT
Address Labels
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
STE 200
3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NO
SAN DIEGO CA 92108
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING
DEPT
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
Laser 5160@