HomeMy WebLinkAboutLCPA 02-10; Habitat Management Plan; Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) (16)From:J. WHEN & ASSEI&ES 619 683 5585 01/22/2003 16:56 #155 P.002
7050 Friars Road, Suite 202
San Dlago, Calllornla
921 08-1 136
619,603,5544
619.683.5585 FAX
J. Whalsn Assoclates
Balanclng the needs 01 the environmen! with !nose of business
January 22,2002
Ms. Julie Baker, Chair
City of Carlsbad
planning Commission
1535 Faraday Drive Carlsbad, California
92009
RE: Kfrgis-Wilson Comments on Proposed Adoption of LCP
Amendment to Implement Habitat Management Plan
Dear Chairwoman Baker;
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the proposed
amendments to the City's Local Coastal Program incorporating the California Coastal Commission's (CCC) requested changes to the
Carlsbed Habitat Managemant Plan (HMP). This firm represents
Robert Wilson, who plans to build his dream home on a small part of a 20-acre property in the Agua Hedionda area. The so-called
KirgislWilson property had been participating in the HMP process and
had planned to proceed using the plan standards limiting development
to only 25% of the total land, or about 5 acres out of twenty. Even EO,
until the recent CCC-requested changes, the parties (US. Fish Be
Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish & Game, City of Carhbad, and the property owner) had agreed to a plan, which was good for the environment and still pcrmitkd Mr. Wilson and his four
friends to plan to build their homes,
Mr. Wibon has noCd the ongoing discussions with the Coastal Commission staff on the HMP with interest and concern. Certain key
elements of the originaL HMP are changed, significantly altering the nature of the HMP in the process. The unfortunate precedent set by
these major changes to the underlying concepts of the NCWs, if
adopted statewide as Mr. Wilson understands CCC staff intends, will
make it much more unlikely that a coastal city or county would undertake regonal habitat conservation planning if they were not
obligated to do so.
i
As a result of these key changes, Mr. Wllson may no longef have an
economically viable project To specafy those changes;
619 683 5585 01/22~2003 16:56 #155 P.003
1) No net loss ofhabitat ameuge, not habitat value, as in the other NCCP plans, the effect of which is to require mitigation on top of the already
3;l ratio of open space to development area. Thie requires B property
owner to locate farmland, or some other land fn the coastal zone not
vegetated with habitat ( an existing home?), acquire it and revegetate it
at enormous cost. In effect, if a property owner cannot restore disturbed areas within their om project, they are faced with double
mitigation costs, first to buy the land and then to plant it and ensure its
regrowth. An altemative compiiance process was built into the
regulation to allow waiver^; will this be the only mechanism used due
to the burdensome nature of the standard HMP program?
2) No credit@ onsift? dedication of land to open space, In ?he case of Kirgis/Wilson, almost flfteen am of prime coastal sage scrub and
southem maritime chaparral is supposedly worth nothing as an offset
to the development impacts, This is unprecedented in the entire NW
planning arena in San Dkgo County. of the other plans, including areas within the coastal zone in the approved City of San Diego MSCP plan, get cndit for omite dedication of habitat. The no-credit policy
wa bandied about before the MSCP was approved, but ultimately wa8 rejected because a large property owner can sidestep the pmvision by
withholding the bulls of the property m a remainder. The property
owner cannot legally be compelled to proffer all land when a project
proposal corned forward. Only small property owners are hurt.
3) New and arbitrmj buffers, There is no scientific basis for these buffers. In fact, the development projects in the HMP that afready have hardlines have buffers built into the agreement. The CCC staff request
is simply duplicative and not supported by conservation biology.
Again, an alternative compliance fnechanlsm is proposed to provide relief from the imposition of the arbirtrary buffer standards,
4) An increase in mitigation ratios beyond those of the approved plans for habitat impacts has no correlation with conservation biological
principles, It only pendies property owners who have the bad fortune
to be in the coastal zone. A property mer only 100 feet away across El Camino Real may have only a fraction of the mitigation reequhment8 of his neighbor, even if they have the exact same impactb, How can tNs
be fair?
The net effect of these changes will be uneconomic projects for the
my who cannot afford the extra mitqation costs and loss of
developable land. The draftee of the L,cP axnendments foresaw this regulatory inverse condemnation coming and built m a safety valve
which basically allows for all rules to be waived with the pennissiOn of the Coastal Commission staff. Does this sound like a well-balanced,
Frm:J. WEN & ASSOCIATES 619 683 5585 01/22/2003 16:56 #155 P.004 -
goad plan? Even if it conserves important coastal habitat in Carlsbad,
if no other coastal jurisdiction proceeds with its habitat conservation plans, is the goal of comprehensive regional habitat conservation being
met, or is the opportunity being lost due to regulatory overreach?
Inefficient and onerous as it is, Mr. Wilson may be better off pursuing a
standard ESA section 10 (a) permit under the old and obolete
permitting method which NCCP has put to rest in most areas of its
implementation. He may have to explore other options. If the Planning Commission decide9 the benefits of the HMF are no longer worth the
costs, the most severe loss wiU not be to the property owners, who no
longer would be bound by the HMP strictures. The loss would be to
the native ecosystem of the City of Carlsbad, both within and outside
the coastal zone. With no HMP, there is no money to manage what land has already been preserved. If the only habitat preserved in
Carlsbad is in the cowtal zone, everyone loses because without inland
conservation, coastal conservation is a pomtless, even decorative,
proceae.
Something ha8 to give. Mr, Wileon is asking the help of the Carlsbad Planning Commission to unwind the preceding cited amendments and
return the plan to the original "P, which was eupported by the USFWS, CDPG, the City, and the property owners as a workable plan.
Mr. Wilson very much appreciates and supports the efforts of those
Coastal Commission staffers who worked in good faith with the City
etaff to craft a workable compromise. Unfortunately, notwithstanding
those good efforts, for Mr. Wilson to comply may be infeaeible, If the
City adopts the HMP, therefore, Mr. Wileon will need to immediately
move towards the alternative compliance mechanism.
Instead, to allow the HMP to attain its promise, Mr. Wilson respectfully asks that these changes be made by the Planning Commission as part of
its approval of the LCP amendments by the City. We look forward to
the opportunity to continue working with your staff to dfect these
important changes.
.