HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 97-25; Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course; Coastal Development Permit (CDP) (16).
AN DRIVE, SUlTE 103
(619) 767-2370
Hearing Date: 6/11-13/03
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON APPEAL
SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT: City of Carlsbad
DECISION: Approval with Conditions
APPEAL NO.: A-6-CII-00-87
APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Development of an 18 hole championship golf course,
clubhouse, parking lot, maintenance facilities, driving range, conference center
and pads for future industrial/golf related uses on 397 acre site.
PROJECT LOCATION: North of Palomar Airport Road and east and west of College
Boulevard, Mello 11, Carlsbad, San Diego County APN 155-104-04
APPELLANTS: Commissioners Sara Wan and Pedro Nava
SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends that the Commission, after public hearing, determine that
substantial issue exists with respect to the grounds on which the appeal has been filed.
The LCP protlides thz fdwing relevant requirements: (1) wetland and riparian
resources shall be protected and preserved; (2) new development must be set back a
minimum of 50 feet from riparian resources and 100 feet from wetland resources; and (3)
steep slopes (>25%) with endangered planuanimal species and/or coastal sage scrub and
chaparral plant communities (aka “dual criteria slopes”) shall be preserved in their natural
state. In approving the subject development, the City will allow impacts to
approximately 3.65 acres of wetland and riparian resources and up to 8.5 acres of dual-
criteria slopes occupied by the California gnatcatcher, a majority of which are located in
the coastal zone. Based on continuing inconsistencies with the wetland and riparian
resource protection policies, buffer requirements and policies protecting steep slopes and
environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA), the project appears to be inconsistent
with the City of Carlsbad’s certified LCP.
A-6-CII-00-087
Page 2
. $44 y?w*
!%
3*-
SUBSTANTIVE FILE DOCUMENTS: Certified City of Carlsbad Local Coastal
Program; City of Carlsbad File No. CDP 97-25; Appeal File A-6-CII-087
I. Appellants Contend That:
The City's decision is inconsistent with several provisions of the City's LCP, in that the
City's approval fails to demonstrate that development will conform to the sensitive
habitat requirements of the certified Mello I1 land use plan (LUP). Specifically, the
Appellants contend that the approved coastal development permit is inconsistent with the
resource protection policies of the LCP that address wetland and riparian resources, dual-
criteria slopes, and environmentally sensitive habitat area (Policies 3-7,3-8 and 4-3).
The City did not address these inconsistencies with the LCP, but found that the impacts
were acceptable if adequately mitigated as required in the City's draft Habitat
Management Plan (HMP). However, the draft HMP is not part of the certified LCP and
as such is not the standard of review for such impacts.
11. Local Government Action:
The coastal development permit was approved by the City of Carlsbad Planning
Commission on June 7,2000. The conditions of approval address impacts and mitigation
to many sensitive plants and animals including coastal sage scrub, southern maritime
chaparral, wetlands and riparian habitat, and California coastal gnatcatcher and least
Bell's vireo, drainage impacts to Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and consistency with the City's
Habitat Management Plan.
111. Appeal Procedures:
After certification of a Local Coastal Program (LCP), the Coastal Act provides for
limited appeals to the Coastal Commission of certain local government actions on coastal
development permits. Projects within cities and counties may be appealed if they are
located within the appealable areas as defined by Section 30603(a) of the Coastal Act.
The grounds for appeal are limited to the assertion that "development does not conform
to the certified local coastal program." Where the project is located between the first
public road and the sea or within 300 ft. of the mean high tide line, the grounds of appeal
are limited to those contained in Section 30603(b) of the Coastal Act. Those grounds are
that the development does not conform to the standards set forth in the certified local
coastal program or the access policies set forth in the Coastal Act.
Section 30625(b) of the Coastal Act requires the Commission to hear an appeal unless it
determines that no substantial issue is raised by the appeal. If the staff recommends
A-6-CII-00-087
Page 3
"substantial issue" and no Commissioner objects, the Commission will proceed directly
to a de novo hearing on the merits of the project.
If the staff recommends "no substantial issue" or the Commission decides to hear
arguments and vote on the substantial issue question, proponents and opponents will have
3 minutes per side to address whether the appeal raises a substantial issue. It takes a
majority of Commissioners present to find that no substantial issue is raised. If
substantial issue is found, the Commission will proceed to a full public hearing on the
merits of the project. If the Commission conducts a de novo hearing on the permit
application, the applicable test for the Commission to consider is whether the proposed
development is in conformity with the certified Local Coastal Program.
In addition, for projects located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the
sea, Sec. 30604(c) of the Act requires that a finding must be made by the approving
agency, whether the local government or the Coastal Commission on appeal, that the
development is in conformity with the public access and public recreation policies of
Chapter 3.
The only persons qualified to testify before the Commission at the "substantial
issue" stage of the appeal process is the applicant, persons who opposed the application
before the local government (or their representatives), and the local government.
Testimony from other persons must be submitted in writing. At the time of the de novo
hearing, any person may testify.
IV. MOTION: I move that the Commission determine that Appeal No.
A-6-CII-00-087 raises NO substantial issue with respect
to the grounds on which the appeal has been pled under 8 30603 of the Coastal Act.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF NO SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE:
Staff recommends a NO vote. Failure of this motion will result in a de novo hearing on the
application, and adoption of the following resolution and findings. Passage of this motion will
result in a finding of No Substantial Issue and the local action will become final and effective. The
motion passes only by an affirmative vote by a majority of the appointed Commissioners present.
RESOLUTION TO FIND NO SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE:
The Commission finds that Appeal No. A-6-CII-00-087 presents a substantial issue with respect
to the grounds on which the appeal has been filed under (5 30603 of the Coastal Act regarding
consistency with the Certified Local Coastal Plan and/or the public access and recreation policies
of the Coastal Act.
A-6-CII-00-087
Page 4
V. Findings and Declarations.
The Commission finds and declares as follows:
1. Project DescriptionPermit History. The proposed development is a championship
municipal golf course and associated development on a 397 acre site consisting of 18 golf
holes (354 acres), a 22,000 square foot clubhouse, a 222 stall, 2.5 acre parking lot, 11.5
acre driving range with bunker lighting, creation of three pads totaling 22.2 acres for
future development of planned industriavgolf related commercial development, a 9,040
sq.ft. maintenance building, restroom facilities and a 2 1,000 sq.ft. conference center and
related uses. The site is vacant with the exception of College Boulevard, a major
northkouth roadway which generally runs through the middle of the site, utility
powerlines and an existing police shooting range, located in the northeast portion of the
site. The single point of public access to the golf course parking lot and clubhouse is at
the northern terminus of Hidden Valley Road. The project site is located both in and out
of the coastal zone, with approximately two-thirds of the site located within the coastal
zone.
The site is located north of Palomar Airport Road and on either side of College
Boulevard. The project is immediately east of Carlsbad RancWLegoland and west of the
Carlsbad Research Center and Palomar Airport. Portions of the site are within Phase I11
of the Carlsbad Airport Center, College Business Park, and the southern section of
Veteran’s Memorial Park. To the north is the Veteran’s Memorial Park which will
ultimately be developed as an outdoor recreation facility. To the west is Legoland
Carlsbad which is also primarily an outdoor recreation facility.
The project site is traversed by three electric transmission lines (which are carried on
poles and towers) and a 20-inch gas pipeline. The utility lines cross the middle of the site
from the southeast to the northwest sections. The gas pipeline traverses the northern
portion of the site generally paralleling and then crossing a riparian area. An outdoor
police shooting range is also located on the site and is proposed to be relocated.
The project encompasses approximately 397 acres and has a varied topography which
consists primarily of 25 acres of riparian habitat and rolling hills to moderately steep
slopes. Portions of the site have been disturbed through previously approved grading,
active agriculture, easement and line maintenance, and illegal encampments. Those areas
which have not been disturbed have varying degrees of significant and insignificant
native and non-native vegetation. Nearly 199 acres of the site are non-native grassland
with approximately 150 acres of native vegetation located on both steep and non-steep
slopes.
The clubhouse is proposed as a split-level two-story structure. As seen from the main
entrance, it is a single-story building and as seen from the south, it is two stories. The
project proposes habitable building height up to 35 feet and architectural elements up to
45 feet. Setbacks and parking have been provided over the minimum requirement. The
A-6-CII-00-0 87
Page 5
upper level houses the foyer, bar and dining facilities as well as administrative offices
and pro shop, while the lower level houses the locker rooms and equipment and cart
storage. The building incorporates design elements of the Mission, Bungalow and Prairie
styles. There is an extensive use of rock and wood. The roof material is proposed as
metal standing seam.
The first of the front nine holes begins at the clubhouse. Holes two through seven are on
the east side of College Boulevard and are accessed via a proposed 17-fOOt wide bridge
which has a span over College Boulevard of 127 feet. The design of the bridge includes
materials and design elements found on the clubhouse. Holes eight and nine parallel
Palomar Airport Road and Hidden Valley Road consecutively to return to the clubhouse.
Adjacent to hole number nine is the 1 1 S-acre practice facility. The practice facility
provides bunker style lighting for play in the evenings, and has been designed with tee
boxes at either end so that balls can be hit in either direction, north to south or south to
north. The back nine holes start at the clubhouse and begin a zigzag down the north
facing slopes to the creek area at the bottom of Macario Canyon. A cart path crosses the
creek at four locations to access holes 13, 14, 15, and 16, which are laid out parallel to
the riparian area. A cart path connects to hole 17, which is up the hill and then winds to
the west to hole 18 and ultimately the clubhouse (see Exhibit 4).
The first of three industrial pads is five acres in size and is located at the comer of
Palomar Airport Road and Hidden Valley Road. The two other industrial pads are
proposed at the eastern edge of the site on either side of College Boulevard. The 8.4-acre
pad proposed on the north side of College Boulevard will be located partially in the
coastal zone. The 5.9-acre proposed pad on the south side of the road is not located in
the coastal zone. Both pads will be accessed from College Boulevard
On July 13, 1988, the Commission approved CDP #6-88-124/Huntington Beach Co., for
the subdivision of 110 acres into 23 separate lots to prepare building pads for an
industrial park on the southern portion of the project site. The Commission approved the
project as proposed by the applicant allowing encroachment of the development into dual
criteria slopes. Of the total 134,500 sq.ft. of dual criteria slopes on the property,
encroachment was permitted upon 60,200 sq.ft. or roughly 35% of the sensitive steep
slopes. Some of this encroachment, 13,870 sq. e., was associated with the construction
of roads within the City’s Circulation Element (College Blvd. and Hidden Valley Road)
and was allowed under the policy of the LCP. However, the majority of the proposed
encroachment (greater than 25% dual criteria encroachment), was not associated with
such roadway construction. The Commission found that although the proposed
encroachment exceeded the maximum 10% allowed under the LCP, the encroachment
was offset by the addition of open space adjacent to both the large block of on-site dual
criteria slopes and the off-site hillsides of Macario Canyon to the north.
The Commission found that with the plan as proposed by the applicant, a larger
contiguous block of open space would be preserved thus allowing the use of the area as a
wildlife corridor to the larger expanses of sensitive lands off-site. The Commission
A-6-CII-00-087
Page 6
found that absent the placement of the less steep slope areas into open space, the block of
sensitive slopes in the northwest comer of the site would instead be isolated and severed
from other natural open space by industrial lots with less potential for its continued
biological productivity. The Commission concluded this approach was preferable from a
resource preservation standpoint and found the proposal consistent with the intent of the
certified LCP. While the final map has been recorded and the permit vested, this project
was never built.
In CDP #6-86-102 (City of Carlsbad), the Commission approved the construction of
College Blvd., a major nortldsouth roadway which generally runs through the middle of
the site. Some of the residual cut grading associated with construction of the road was
placed on the property adjacent to the road right-of-way pursuant to CDP #6-86-269.
2. JurisdictiodStandard of Review. Because development is proposed within 100
feet of wetlands, the site lies within the Commission’s appeal jurisdiction. There are up
to fourteen “delineated wetlands” scattered across the site as well as the 25-acre comdor
comprised of a delineated stream and riparian vegetation that bisects the site from east to
west. A majority of these wetlands are located in the coastal zone. Many of the
components of the development are located within 100 feet of wetlands (most of the golf
course holes, driving range, industrial pads, club house, etc.). In addition, a number of
proposed impacts to dual-criteria slopes are also located within 100 ft. of wetlands.
Therefore much of the development can serve as the basis for appeal to the Commission.
The standard of review is consistency with the certified City of Carlsbad Local Coastal
Program, Mello I1 segment, and the public access policies of the Coastal Act.
3. Resource ManaaementBensitive Habitat Areas. As noted previously, the project
site contains a number of significant and sensitive resources including wetlands, steep
natively vegetated slopes and a number of threatened and/or endangered species.
a. Wetlands
The appellants contend that approval of the project by the City is inconsistent with
provisions of the City’s certified LCP pertaining to permitted uses within wetlands and
did not address whether impacts were avoidable or whether the project represented the
least environmentally damaging alternative. The City’s LCP includes several provisions
pertaining to the protection of wetlands.
Policy 3-7 of the certified Mello I1 LUP states, in part:
Wetlands and riparian resources outside the lagoon ecosystems shall be protected
and preserved. No direct impacts may be allowed except for the expansion of
existing circulation element roads identified in the certified LCP and those direct
impacts associated with installation of utilities. There must be no feasible less
environmentally damaging alternative to the proposed disturbance; any allowable
A-6-CII-00-087
Page 7
disturbance must be performed in the least environmentally damaging manner.
Open space dedication of sensitive resource areas is required.
Mitigation ratios for any temporary disturbance or permanent displacement of
identified resources also must be determined in consultation with the California
Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Appropriate
mitigation ratios shall be determined based on site-specific information. Specific
information shall include, but is not limited to, the type and size of the development
and or proposed mitigations (such as planting of vegetation or the construction of
fencing) which will also achieve the purposes of the buffer. The buffer shall be
measured landward from the designated resource. The California Department of
Fish and Game and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service shall be consulted in
such buffer determiqations. Buffer zones shall be protected through the execgtion of
open space easements and passive recreational uses are restricted to the upper half of
the buffer.
According to the EIR, several wetland and riparian habitat types are present on-site,
including a mature riparian woodland surrounding a stream that bisects the site and
numerous upland drainages containing southern willow scrub, mulefat scrub, freshwater
marsh, and riparian herb (see Table 1 below). A majority of these wetland and riparian
features are located within the coastal zone. State and federally listed (or otherwise
protected) species identified on site that use these habitats include the southwestern
willow flycatcher and least Bell’s vireo. Potential indirect impacts to least Bell’s vireo
were also identified. The proposed direct impacts to these habitats are shown in Table 1.
Approximately 0.15 acres of wetlands impact are associated with three golf cart paths
that are proposed to cross the riparian corridor and streambed to provide access to holes
13 and 15 on the north side of the stream. The remaining impacts to wetland resources
result from various components of the development (golf holes, driving range, club
house, industrial pads and drainage facilities) and are scattered over the site.
Mitigation proposed for project impacts to wetlands involve both on-and off-site
conservation of habitat as well as on-and off-site habitat restoration. Table 1 shows the
acreage of existing onsite wetlands and the amounts of wetland habitat that will be
impacted, and proposed mitigation. Approximately 5.3 acres of riparian habitat is
proposed to be enhanced offsite at the Carltas site south of Palomar Airport Road in
Encinas Creek, which is within the coastal zone. Approximately 5 acres of on-site
creation of riparian habitat is proposed adjacent to an existing wetland mitigation site
located on the project site along the north bank of the stream within the coastal zone
(mitigation for wetland impacts associated with the construction of Cannon Road to the
west).
A-6-CII-00-087
Page 8
Freshwater Marsh
Riparian herb
I Mulefat I 1.85 I 1.97 I 3:l I 5.91
2.95 .22 NIA other
0.24 0.16 2: 1 0.32
As cited above, the LCP limits the filvdisturbance of wetlands. The on-site wetlands
consist of riparian woodland along the creek bed and numerous drainage courses at
higher elevations. As noted, the project as approved by the City includes fill of 1.3 acres
of willow scrub, 1.97 acres of mulefat scrub, .22 acres of freshwater marsh, and .16 acres
of riparian herb, located mostly within the coastal zone. In its approval of the project, the
City found the California Coastal Act acknowledges that there may be conflicts between
the letter of the Act and prudent implementation of programs which better satisfy the
goals of the Act. Specifically, the City staff report states:
The legislature found that in carrying out Act policies, resolution may be achieved
in a manner which on balance is the most protective of significant coastal
resources. In consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game and
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, significant resources were identified
and preserved within the context of providing the greatest protection to significant
resources which include coastal resources.
Although there is proposed disturbance to these wetlands, a significant
enhancement of the riparian vegetation both in the creek bed, and off-site
mitigation at a 3: 1 ratio, is proposed as part of the mitigation monitoring and
reporting program. In addition, the project has been conditioned to avoid any
impacts to the fresh water marsh. This approach to wetlands is consistent with the
Local Coastal Program goal to provide regulations in areas which provide the best
wildlife habitat characteristics. The proposed wetland enhancement is consistent
with the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP).
.
Based on the above, the City found that fill of wetlands associated with the proposed
project is in compliance with the requirements of the Local Coastal Program because the
proposal would result in a significant enhancement of the existing riparian corridor,
consistent with the City’s draft HMP.
However, the provision of mitigation does not by itself satisfy the requirements of the
certified LCP regarding wetland fill. The City’s approval fails to identify that
development will conform to the sensitive habitat requirements of the certified Mello I1
LUP. Specifically, Policy 3-7 provides wetland and riparian resources shall be protected
and preserved and that no direct impacts may be allowed except for exuansion of existing
circulation element roads and those direct impacts associated with the installation of
A-6-CII-00-087
Page 9
utilities . (emphasis added) The City did not address whether the impacts associated
with the golf course were a permitted use within a wetland (they are not), did not address
whether impacts were avoidable or whether the project represented the least
environmentally damaging alternative. Instead, the City found that on balance, because
the impacts were accepted by the resource agencies as being consistent with the City’s
draft HMP, they could be accepted if adequately mitigated. However, the draft HMP is
not part of the certified LCP and as such is not the standard of review for such impacts.
Thus, the appeal raises a substantial issue regarding the conformity of the project with
Policy 3-7 of the Mello I1 LUP.
b. Wetland Buffers
The appellants also contend that the City did not adequately address wetland buffers.
Policy 3-8 of the certified Mello I1 LUP addresses buffers and states:
Buffer zones of 100 feet in width shall be maintained around all identified wetland
areas and 50 feet in width shall be maintained around all identified riparian areas,
unless the applicant demonstrates that a buffer of lesser buffer width will protect the
identified resource, based on site-specific information. Such information shall
include, but is not limited to, the type and size of the development and/or proposed
mitigation (such as planting of vegetation or the construction of fencing) which will
also achieve the purposes of the buffer. The buffer shall be measured landward from
the delineated resource. The California Department of Fish and Game and the US.
Fish and Wildlife Service shall be consulted in such buffer determinations. Buffer
zones shall be protected through the execution of open space easements and passive
recreational uses are restricted to the upper half of the buffer zone.
As noted above, Policy 3-8 of the Mello I1 LUP states that new development must
setback a minimum of 50 feet from riparian resources and 100 feet from wetland
resources unless the applicant demonstrates that a buffer of lesser buffer width will
protect the identified resource, based on site-specific information. Such information shall
include the proposed mitigation such as planting or vegetation or the construction of
fencing which will also achieve the purposes of the bufkr. The policy provides that the
resource agencies shall be consulted in such determinations and that buffer zones shall be
protected through the execution of open space easements and passive recreational uses
are restricted to the upper half of the buffer zone. The project plans indicate that a 50-
foot buffer will be provided from the edge of the playable course to the edge of the
proposed on-site riparian mitigation area. This area will be planted with the non-playable
rough species mix and has been designed to capture the first flush runoff of 0.5 inch.
However, the buffer is less than 50 feet in width in other areas. The buffer includes two
separate areas: “playable rough” and “non-playable” rough. The playable rough is
proposed as an open vegetation type, predominantly native grass species where golfers
can enter. The non-playable rough is proposed as a more dense vegetation less than three
feet in height. The objective of the buffer is to provide a transition from the non-native
species mix used on the fairways and “golf rough”. Physical barriers (split rail fence,
A-6-CII-00-087
Page 10
“poison oak” signage and “rattlesnake” signage) are proposed to discourage ingress into
the sensitive resource areas. Barrier planting (including California rose and California
blackberry) are proposed in the buffer to further reinforce the out of bounds areas. As
noted above, the project includes impacts to existing wetlands. However, no findings
were made by the City relative to the establishment or adequacy of buffers for existing
on-site wetlands. Thus, the appeal raises a substantial issue regarding conformity of the
proposed development with the Mello I1 LUP.
c. Steep SlopesKNative Vegetation
The appellants also contend that the development as approved by the City allows impacts to 8.5
acres of dual criteria slopes (34%), whereas the maximum impact to such slopes allowed within
the LCP is 10%. Policy 3-1 of the certified Mello 11 LCP, “Slopes and Preservation of
Vegetation” is applicable and states:
Certain areas of the Carlsbad coastal zone have very high habitat value. These areas are not
suitable for farming. These areas exhibit a large number and diversity of both plant and
animal species, several of which are threatened because of extensive conversion of mixed
chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitats to urban or agricultural uses. Also, well-established
and well-maintained vegetation is a major deterrent to soil erosion and attendant difficulties.
Unless specifically addressed in other policies of this Land Use Plan, the vegetation on steep
minimized.
I slopes shall be maintained so that natural habitats are preserved and soil erosion is
Policy 4-3 of the certified Mello I1 LCP is also applicable and states, in part:
(b) All Other Areas
Any development proposal that affects steep slopes (25% inclination or greater) shall
be required to prepare a slope map and analysis for the affected slopes. Steep slopes
are identified on the PRC Toups maps. The slope mapping and analysis shall be
prepared during CEQA environmental review on a project-by-project basis and shall
be required as a condition of a coastal development permit.
(1) Slopes Possessing Endangered Species andor Coastal Sage Scrub and Chaparral Plant
communities: For those slopes mapped as possessing endangered plant/animal species
andor coastal sage scrub and chaparral plant communities, the following policy
language applies:
(a) Slopes of 25% grade and over-shall be preserved in their natural state unless the
application of this policy would preclude any reasonable use of the property, in which
case an encroachment not to exceed 10% of the steep slope area over 25% grade may
be permitted. For existing legal parcels, with all or nearly all of their area in slope area
over 25% grade, encroachment may be permitted; however, any such encroachment
A-6-CII-00-087
Page 11
Coastal Sage Scrub
Southern Maritime
shall be limited so that at no time is more than 20% of the entire parcel (including
areas under 25% slope) permitted to be disturbed from its natural state. This policy
shall not apply to the construction of roads of the City’s Circulation Element or the
development of utility systems. Use of slopes over 25% may be made in order to
provide access to flatter areas if there is no less environmentally damaging alternative
available.
80.2 46.75 2: 1 93.5 33.45
6.7 3.75 3: 1 11.25 2.95
According to the EIR, the following upland habitat types are present on-site: Diegan coastal sage
scrub (80.2 acres), Southern maritime chaparral (6.7 acres), non-native grassland (199 acres), and
native grassland (2.0 acres). Project implementation will result in direct impacts to 46.75 acres of
coastal sage scrub, 3.75 acres of southern maritime chaparral, 122.46 acres of non-native
grassland, 7 pairs of coastal California gnatcatchers, possibly one burrowing owl and an
undetermined number of orange-throated whiptails. The project is located within the Mello I1
segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, and is subject to its habitat protection and
preservation provisions. These provisions require resource protection measures to preserve,
protect and enhance the habitat resource values on naturally vegetated steep sloping hillsides. The
proposed development will impact slopes greater than 25% which also contain native plant
species. These “dual criteria” slopes are protected within the Mello I1 segment of the Local
Coastal Program. Dual criteria slopes not only contain sensitive coastal sage scrub and Chaparral
communities which provide habitat to sensitive plants and animals but also provide a visual
resource and help preserve slope stability. Table 2 provides information on upland habitat and
potential impacts.
Chaparral
Non-Native Grassland 199.0 122.46 0.5:l 61.23 76.54
Native Grassland
Total:
2.0 0.0 NIA NIA 2.0
287.9. 172.96 165.98 114.94
As noted previously, the project site is located both within and outside the coastal zone. The City
found that significant impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level with the
implementation of mitigation measures required by the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program. Mitigation proposed for project impacts to plant communities involve both on-and off-
site conservation of habitat as well as on-and off-site habitat restoration both in and out of the
coastal zone.
The City’s approval provides that approximately 44.5 acres of dual-criteria slopes within
the project site, both inside and outside the coastal zone, will be preserved. A significant
amount of dual-criteria slopes that are proposed to be graded are located within 100 feet
A-6-CII-00-087
Page 12
Within Coastal Zone
Impact Preserve
>25% Native Impacts 8.5 16.4
~25% Native Impacts 20.5 42.3
~25% Non-Native Impacts 117.3 44.9
~25% Non-Native Impacts 10.4 13.2
of wetlands located in the coastal zone. Approximately 58.8 acres of slopes less than
25% but with habitat are being preserved both inside and outside the coastal zone. A re-
vegetation plan will be implemented as part of an overall mitigation program which will
include the restoration of 1.04 acres of habitat on slopes in the coastal zone which are
greater than 25% grade. These re-vegetated slopes will be a part of the greater preserve
area identified in the City’s draft HMP. The City found the project follows the example
of the approach to preservation of slopes with habitat implemented by the Pacific Rim
Specific Plan (Aviara). The Pacific Rim example allowed the disturbance of dual criteria
slopes in exchange for unprotected slopes with habitat. The City found the advantage of
preserving less steep slopes with habitat versus steep slopes with habitat is that the less
steep slopes typically have better quality habitat and more value to wildlife. Table 3
shows potential impacts to steep and nonsteep areas within the project site, for areas that
have native vegetation and those that do not have native Vegetation.
Outside Coastal Zone
Impact Preserve
8.9 13.1
3.7 7.4
23.4 16.5
43.5 14.1
Table 3
Impacts to Steep and Nonsteep Areas (in acres)
The City has indicated that they have undergone nearly two years of consultation with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and
Game (CDFG) to achieve the least environmentally damaging alternative for the site.
During this consultation process several alternative alignments were rejected due to
environmental and engineering feasibility constraints. The resource agencies had
identified at the early consultation phase, the need for a wildlife corridor to serve as a
connection between the area south of Palomar Airport Road through the project to Agua
Hedionda Lagoon. Therefore, while avoidance and minimization of site specific impacts
to sensitive resources were the primary concern during the design effort, preservation of
an area which would effectively hnction as wildlife corridors was another major
consideration. These large corridors were important to provide wildlife (predominately
avian species) with the opportunity to relocate. Wildlife corridors are important for
dispersal of the young and serve as refuge in the event of catastrophic events (e.g. fire,
flood, or other habitat disturbance). However, from an engineering feasibility
perspective, the project site contains several constraints to development: utility corridors,
A-6-CII-00-087
Page 13
roads and steep slopes. On the environmental side, wetland habitats and coastal sage
scrub presented environmental constraints.
The Mello I1 LUP states that up to 10% of the total slopes in the coastal zone greater than
25% possessing endangered planuanimal species andor coastal sage scrub and chaparral
plant communities (dual criteria slopes) may be disturbed, but only when necessary to
allow minimum reasonable use of the site or when necessary to access flatter
development areas. The site contains 24.9 acres of dual criteria slopes in the coastal
zone. Approximately 8.5 acres (34%) of those dual criteria slopes will be impacted;
more than three times as much slope encroachment and impact than is allowed in the
LCP. This proposed significant encroachment is not needed to allow minimal reasonable
use of the site, not for the development of utilities or circulation element roads, nor to
provide access to flatter areas of the site. The proposed impacts are related to the
construction of the clubhouse, conference center, driving range, parking facilities, and
associated golf course improvements. Thus, the appeal has raised a substantial issue
regarding the conformity of the proposal as approved by the City with Policies 3-1 and 4-
3 of the certified Mello I1 LCP.
(G:\San Diego\Reports\AppealsVOOO\A-6-ClI-OO-O87golfcou~e~r.doc)
1127 rf
c n D U
SEE\ 1147 /MAP 0 ,125 .25 .375 .5
miles 1 ln. - ??m ~t.
z 0 N r
t N I
-
EXHIBITNO. 1
APPLICATION NO.
A-6-C I 1-00 -87
Carlsbad City Gdf
Course
Location Map
Figure 3-3
Golf Course Plan
Ciw of Cnrlrhnnd
Jainrary 2000
1000 \
Feet \
@ P&D Environmental Services