HomeMy WebLinkAboutLCPA 02-10; Habitat Management Plan; Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) (52)- EDWARDEWHETLER MARSHAL A. SCARR MATTHEW A PETERSON LARRyN.MURNANE - cHTL[sMPHER J. CONNOLLY
KELLY A GRALEWSKI VICTQRIAE. ADMS ERIC J. PROSSER ELOISE H. FEINSTEIN
OF COUNSEL PAUL A. PETERSON
c-
~ THIS WRITTEN MATERIAL IS SUBMITTED TO THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EX
A MAlTER OF PUBLIC RECORD AND HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO ALL COASTAL COMMISSIONERS, THEIR ALTERNATES, AND THE COASTAL COMMISSION STAFF.
PARTE COMMUNICATION REQUIREMENTS OF PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTIONS 30319-30324. THIS MATERIAL IS
PETERSON & PRICE
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
LAWYERS - 703 PaIornar Airport Road
Suite 200
Carlsbad, California 92009-1042
Telephone (760) 929-1920
Union Bank of California Building
530 “B” Street, Suite 1700
San Diego, California 92101-4454
Telephone (619) 2340361 F~x (760) 929-2206 Fax (619) -
File No.
a 6 146 .OO 1
RNIGHT MAIL
Chairperson Mike Reilly and Members of
The California Coastal Commission
45 Fremont St., Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94105-2219
Re: Thursday, June 12,2003 Agenda Item #8d
City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan/Local Coastal Program Amendment
Dear Chairperson Mike Reilly and Members of
The California Coastal Commission:
We represent Diane & Larry Krasnow and their family and Cheryl & Bob Kevane
and their family (“our clients“) with regard to the above referenced matter.
BACKGROUND
Our clients and their families have separately owned four (4) legal lots that total
approximately 20 acres for the last 30 years. For the last 10 years they have been
attempting to subdivide the property for development. The property is zoned Rl and is
located immediately east of Ambrosia Lane and west of Skimmer Ct. within LCP
Chairperson Mike Reilly and Members of
The California Coastal Commission
June 4,2003
Page 2
Segment Mello I1 (see attached Tab 1 - Aerial Photograph and City Zoning Map).
Please note that our clients' site is surrounded by development with a school to the
south and the extension of an elevated Poinsettia Lane to the north.
The site is extremely degraded. Over the years it has been farmed for tomatoes
and has been overtaken by migrant camps and been used as a convenient dumping
ground (see attached Photographs - Tab 2). Our clients have spent thousands of
dollars attempting to clean up and address the camping and dumping problems.
For the last seven years, our clients have spent a tremendous amount of time
and money working with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the California Department of
Fish & Game ("the Agencies"), and The City of Carlsbad ("City") to effectuate a "hard
line" to be included within the City's Habitat Management Plan ("HMP''). Tab 3 contains
a copy of the City's and the Agencies' approved hard line (Figure 25) from the City's
HMP dated December 1999. This hard line was established based upon onsite surveys
using biological mapping. The hard line was intended to preserve the oak trees on the
site and provide a wildlife corridor through the center of the property.
Chairperson Mike Reilly and Members of
The California Coastal Commission
June 4,2003
Page 3
As a result of the hard line that was approved by the City and the Agencies back
in December of 1999, our clients redesigned their subdivision consistent with the R1
zoning and other applicable restrictions that the City had concerning the development
of the property.
As you can see from reviewing the Staff Report, the California Coastal
Commission Staff ("Commission Staff) challenged the City's HMP and invoked a Federal
Consistency Review. As a result, the entire HMP (which included negotiated hard lines
for the City's golf course and for our clients' properties) was reviewed and revised.
Unfortunately, through this process our clients have now been denied the results of all
of the extensive negotiations that they had with the Agencies and the City. Your Staff
has now taken the position that our clients should not be able to develop 75% of their
property (includinq 2 of their 4 IeGal lots)!
DISCUSSION
When we discovered what the Commission Staff was recommending, we
immediately engaged in extensive negotiations and meetings with the City and with
your Staff in order to reach
of their properties and the
an acceptable solution. Obviously, our clients' loss of 75%
restricting of development to a small area on the western
Chairperson Mike Reilly and Members of
The California Coastal Commission
June 4,2003
Page 4
portion of two of the four legal lots would result in a taking. Our clients would be left
without reasonable, investment-backed use of the land, especially given the history of
land use designations, the R-1 zoning, and the existing certified LCP.
As a result of various meetings with your Staff, Sherilyn Sarb stated to us that if
we could demonstrate to her that the property did not contain Southern Maritime
Chaparral (determined by staff to be ESHA and hence the basis for the more stringent
standards) that our clients would be able to develop both the eastern and the western
portions of the property subject to the implementation of a wildlife corridor between the
two and the establishment of a 50-foot buffer from the oak trees. Based upon these
discussions with your Staff, our clients retained two biologists who each independently
submitted multiple reports to Ms. Keri Akers and Ms. Sarb verifying that the site does
not contain Southern Maritime Chaparral (see attached letter to Ms. Sarb dated
February 25, 2003 and our letter to Peter Douglas dated May 13, 2003 -Tabs 4 and 5).
Our clients also redesigned the subdivision again to accommodate a wider wildlife
corridor and the 50-foot oak buffer.
As you can see from our letter to Peter Douglas in Tab 5, there were two
separate meetings onsite with our clients’ biologists, the California Coastal Commission
Chairperson Mike Reilly and Members of
The California Coastal Commission
June 4,2003
Page 5
biologists Dr. John Dixon and Ms. Caitlin Bean, our clients and your Staff. At the onsite
meeting of April 28, 2003 (with Ms. Sarb present), Dr. Dixon confirmed to our clients
that the habitat on site was a Southern Maritime Chaparral. This conclusion is
confirmed in your Chief Biologist's field notes and was also confirmed to us in a letter
dated February 4, 2003 from Ms. Sarb (see attachment of our letter to Peter Douglas in
Tab 5). In addition, our clients' Biologist REC Consultants, Inc. has again summarized
the habitat onsite and the conclusions of the various meetings that took place (see Tab
6 - confirming Dr. Dixon's conclusion that the site does not contain Southern Maritime
Chaparral). As you can see in Tab 6, page 2, Elyssa Robertson, Principal of REC
explains in detail why the habitat is classified as Chamise Chaparral rather than
Southern Maritime Chaparral.
Since the property does not contain ESHA and is not zoned Limited Control
("LC") (which would have provided further Coastal Commission jurisdiction), it is not
appropriate for Commission Staff to recommend such stringent standards for our
clients' property. Clearly the restrictive development standards that your Staff suggests
will result in a taking of private property without just compensation. Development
would be economically infeasible based upon the cost of the roads, infrastructure, and
Chairperson Mike Reilly and Members of
The California Coastal Commission
June 4,2003
Page 6
other permitting fees associated with the construction of a project with so few units
clustered on a very small portion of only 2 of the 4 existing legal lots.
REVISED HARD LINE
Even though your Staff proposed these very restrictive standards, our clients
nevertheless continued to negotiate in good faith with the City and with Coastal Staff on
a new and revised hard line that would further protect onsite resources. This revised
hard line is contained within Tab 7. As City Staff will testify at the hearing, the City is in
full support of this revised hard line, which provides for a minimum 500-foot wide
wildlife corridor through the center of the property. Of the entire 20 acres site, nearly
45% will be set aside for habitat protection. This 500-foot to 890-foot wide corridor will
also include the 50-foot buffer specifically requested by Ms. Sarb.
Following the City Council Hearing, the Citv decided to submit the revised hard
line relatinq to our clients’ properties in the LCPA submittal. However, your Staff
informed the Citv that they were aoinq to submit the hard line for our clients‘ property
and that Coastal Commission Staff would, in turn, recommend denial of the City’s entire
HMP! Because of that threat, the City did not want to jeopardize its entire HMP.
Therefore, the City decided to omit our clients’ revised hard line. We now have no
Chairperson Mike Reilly and Members of
The California Coastal Commission
June 4,2003
Page 7
alternative but to request that the Commission reinstate the City-approved revised hard
line for our clients’ property as a suggested modification when it is sent back to the City
for final action.
It is our understanding that the City is in full support of this revised hard line for
our clients‘ properties. The City recognized back on June 24, 2002 that imposing the
Coastal Staffs recommended restrictions on this particular piece of property will render
it non-developable (see attached Tab 8 - Transcribed Voice Message from Michael
Holzmiller, Planning Director of the City indicating the infeasibility of imposing the 75%
restriction and other recommendations as contained within the Staff Report for our
clients’ property).
It is interesting to note that the Staff Report does not contain any reference to
the fact that the Coastal Commission’s two biologists, at onsite meetings, confirmed
that our clients’ site did not contain Southern Maritime Chaparral. This significant
omission in the Staff Report highlights why we are asking the Commission to
incorporate our clients‘ revised hard line as a suggested modification for the
Commission‘s and the City‘s adoption.
Chairperson Mike Reilly and Members of
The California Coastal Commission
June 4,2003
Page 8
With implementation of our clients' revised hard line, there will be a substantially
wider wildlife corridor (890 feet wide toward the north, 500 feet wide in the middle, and
720 feet wide toward the south). The original hard line that was approved by the
Aqencies - and the City contained a 185-foot minimum width corridor with an access road
goina riqht throuqh it!
Our clients' property is the only undeveloped property zoned R1 for residential
development in the entire area (see Tab 1 - City Zoning Map) and only one of a very
few areas that had successfully established a hard line in consultation with the City and
the Agencies. This fact alone should clearly differentiate it from any of the adjoining
parcels. In addition, as previously stated, our client's site does not contain Southern
Maritime Chaparral and as such, the significantly more restrictive ESHA standards
should not be applicable to our clients' property.
CONCLUSION
Our clients are not developers or owners of any other undeveloped land. Ms.
Krasnow and Ms. Kevane and their families have owned this property for 30 years. It
represents their life savings and the estates that will be passed on to their children. As
such, we would respectfully request that the Commission: 1) delete reference to the
Chairperson Mike Reilly and Members of
The California Coastal Commission
June 4,2003
Page 9
c
- special standards for our clients' property, and 2) accept the City's approved revised
hard line as shown in Tab 7 to be included as a suggested modification for adoption by
the City.
-
- Thank you for your consideration of this request.
- Si n ce rely,
PETERSON & PRICE
A Professional Corporation
Matthew A. Peterson
- Enclosures
cc: Peter M. Douglas, Executive Director
Ralph Faust, Chief Legal Counsel
Dr. John Dixon
Caitlin Bean
Sherilyn Sarb, District Manager
Chuck Darnm, Senior Deputy Director
Keri Akers, NCCP Program Liaison
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, City of Carlsbad
Elyssa K. Robertson, Principal Biologist, RmEmC Consultants, Inc,
R, Mitchel Beauchamp, Pacific Southwest Biological Services
David Lee Soanes, David Lee Soanes, Ltd.
Diane & Larry Krasnow
Cheryl & Bob Kevane
-
-
L
c
. - . . . . . .
Location of Kevane Property Within
the City of Carlsbad Zoning Map
PETERSON & PRICE
A PROFESS ION A L CORPORATION
-5DWARD E WHIITLER
MARSHAL A. SCARR
.MATTHEW A. PETERSON
LARRY N. MURNANE
KELLY A. GUWS KI
VICTORIA E. ADAMS
ERIC J. PROSSER
ELOISE H. FEINSTUN
- CHRISTOPHER J. CONNOLLY
7
OF COUNSEL PAULA. PETERSON
LAWYERS
Union Bank of California Building
530 “B” Street, Suite 1700
San Diego, California 92101-4454
Telephone (619) 234-0361
Fax (6 19) 234-4786
Urlsbad Offics
703 Palomar Airport Road
Suite 200
Carlsbad, California 92009- 1042
Telephone (760) 929- 1920
Fax (760) 929-2206
File No.
6 146.00 1
VIA FACSIMILE
February 25,2003
Ms. Sherilyn Sarb, District Manager
San Diego Area
California Coastal Commission
7575 Metropolitan Dr., Ste. 103
San Diego, CA 92108-4402
Re: Kevane/Krasnow Property, Carlsbad
Dear Sherilyn:
We are in receipt of your letter dated February 24, 2003. We welcome your review of
surrounding parcels to determine whether or not there should be revisions to other proposed
development so long as your review does not delay the prompt resolution of our clients‘
property.
With regard to our clients‘ specific property, they have already supplied Keri Akers and
Caitlan Bean each with a copy of the biology letter and reports. Included with the REC
Consultants, Inc. report was a map showing the most recent revised development plan in
addition to the various biological resources reflected thereon.
In addition, at our clients’ last meeting with Keri, they indicated to us that they left a
color copy of the proposed development envelope reflecting your requested 50-foot buffer from
- Ms. Sherilyn Sarb, District Manager
San Diego Area
California Coastal Commission - February 25, 2003
Page 2 of 3
- the east side of the oak woodland (to be more precisely determined by a field inspection). We
will be bringing an additional copy of that map to our meeting on Wednesday, February 26,
2003 at 2:30 p.m.
-
As to the western portion of the property, our clients have shown that this area was -
previously farmed with tomatoes during the 1980s. You have an aerial photograph of the
- property, which our clients provided to you, which reflects that the western portion of the
property was completely scraped and bladed, approximately at the same time the school site
was created, since the aerial photo reflects bare ground there also. The western area of the
site contains significant non-native species including clusters of pampas grass and other
invasive plants. We do not believe that any quality coastal sage exists on the western portion
of the property (please refer to the REC Biology Report dated December 2, 2002 in your files).
-
-
-
As to the corridor, the City of Carlsbad along with the USF&WS and F&G (collectively, -
the "Agencies") have already agreed to the adequacy of the corridor when they specifically
approved our clients' original "hardline development area." With the new inclusion of the 50- c
foot buffer from the oak woodland and elimination of the road crossing the oak woodland, the
corridor is larger and wider than originally agreed to by the Agencies. In addition, this is a
-
- corridor that is less than 1,300 feet long and is blocked on the south by the school site and will
be bisected to the north by Poinsettia Lane as it rises significantly above the present terrain. -
- Ms. Sherilyn Sarb, District Manager
San Diego Area
California Coastal Commission
c February 25, 2003
Page 3 of 3
Our clients have minimized encroachment into slopes in excess of 25% (please see +
sheet 9 of our clients‘ latest submittal, Opportunities and Constraints Ana/ysis, a copy of which
was left with Keri at our clients’ last meeting). In addition, Mike Holtzmiller has copies of the
-
documents referred to herein. David Soanes informed our clients that he dropped off at your c
office various planning exhibits which were previously submitted to the City and updated to
reflect our clients’ most recent conversations with your Staff,
-
We are hopeful that the foregoing is responsive to your request. We look forward to a -
conclusion with respect to this matter on Wednesday.
Sincerely,
PETERSON & PRICE
A Professional CorDoration
Mahhew A. Peterson
cc: Peter M. Douglas, Executive Director - Debra Lee, Deputy Director
Keri Akers, NCCP Program Liaison
Michael Holtzmiller, Planning Director, City of Carlsbad
Ron Ball, City Attorney, City of Carlsbad
William E. Tippets, Environmental Program Manager, South Coast Region, California
Department of Fish & Game
David Lee Soanes, David Lee Soanes, Ltd.
Robert Kevane
Larry Krasnow
-
c
-
EDWARD F. WHITKLER - MARSHAL A. SCARR MATTHEW A. PETERSON
LARRY N. MURNANE CHRlSTOPHER J. CONNOLLY
VlCTORlA E. ADAMS ERIC J. PROSSER ELOISE H. FEINSTEIN
- KELLY A. GRALEWSKI
c OF COUNSEL PAUL A. PETERSON
PETERSON & PRICE
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION .-_-- - --.-.-_-__I
LAWYERS
Union Bank of California Building
530 “B” Street, Suite 1700
San Diego, California 92101-4454
Telephone (619) 234-0361
Fax (619) 234-4786
Carlsbad 0 ffi ce
703 Palomar Airpori Road
Suire 200
Carlsbad. California 92009- 1042
Telephone (760) 929- 1920
Fax (760) 929-2206 - File No.
6 146.00 1
VIA FACSIMILE
May 13, 2003
Mr. Peter M. Douglas, Executive Director
California Coastal Commission
45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94105-2219
Re: Lawrence H. Krasnow & Robert F. Kevane
Oaks @ Batiquitos Project
Dear Peter:
As you know, our clients have been working with your staff for over a year now.
Since the February 4, 2003 Carlsbad City Council hearing concerning the above
referenced project, our clients have had numerous meetings with your staff including an
onsite meeting January 13/ 2003 with your biologist, Caitlin Bean and another on April
28, 2003 with your District Manager Sherilyn Sarb, Ms. Bean and your Chief Biologist,
John Dixon. At that onsite meeting, Mr. Dixon confirmed to our clients that in fact the
habitat on site is not Southern Maritime Chaparral. Your in-house biologists at each of
the site visits and by letter from Ms. Sarb (copy enclosed) confirmed this.
It has come as quite a shock to our clients that your staff is now, without any
scientific evidence or support, attempting to reclassify the habitat as Southern Maritime
Mr. Peter M. Douglas, Executive Director
California Coasta I Corn missio n
May 13, 2003
Page 2
Chaparral. With regard to your staff's classification of onsite habitat, staff is apparently
relying on one article written about five years ago by two employees of the wildlife
agencies. We have requested a copy from Keri Akers but as of today have not received
it. We believe that this definition for Southern Maritime Chaparral was created in an
attempt to gain higher mitigation ratios (3-1). As you know, our clients have already
agreed to the higher mitigation even though it is not Southern Maritime Chaparral
habitat. To the best of our knowledge, staff's use of the peculiar definition has received
no support from anyone in the scientific community, including vour own bioloqists, It is
important to note that while this classification may require increased mitigation
requirements in the eyes of the wildlife agencies, it does not preclude development
from their standpoint. Your staff has decided to use this dubious classification in an
attempt to prevent development of our clients' property.
You and your staff also have told us that staff's position on developable area of
the site "is in support of the City of Carlsbad's recommendation." If this is accurate,
then our clients' revised hard-line should be supported by staff because the City of
Carlsbad supports our clients' revised hard-line. In fact, Michael Holzmiller has informed
our clients that at an April 2003 meeting between your staff and City staff, all parties
had agreed to the revised hard-line. As such, the reversal of your staffs position on
this matter also comes as a shock to Mr. Holzmiller.
Mr. Peter M. Douglas, Executive Director
California Coastal Commission
May 13/ 2003
Page 3
Please note that the revised development footprint (assuming we reach
agreement with you) is significantly smaller in area than the originally USF&WS, CDF&G
and City of Carlsbad approved hard-line. This revised proposal results in a substantially
wider (minimum 500 ft.) wildlife corridor. The original approved hard-line proposed
only a 185 ft. minimum width corridor.
Our clients' property is the only undeveloped property zoned R-1 for residential
development in the entire area and one of the very few properties that had successfully
negotiated a hard-line with the City, the USF&WS and CDF8.G. This clearly
differentiates it from any of the adjoining parcels. We cannot help but wonder how
staff will be able to justifv or rationalize its position to the Commission after your Chief
Biologist has already rendered his opinion to the contrary and after your staff has
allowed considerable development on unzoned LC property with like habitat, following
publication of the above referenced questionable article.
At the February 4, 2003 Carlsbad City Council Meeting which approved the
Second Addendum to the Carlsbad HMP, provision was made with the consent of your
staff, for hard-lines (and in particular a hard-line for our client's property), to be
negotiated between property owners, the City and your staff for inclusion in the Second
Mr. Peter M. Douglas, Executive Director
Ca 1 i fo rni a Coas ta I Commission
May 13,2003
Page 4
Addendum mr to the time the Commission hears this matter. We understand that
that hearing will be scheduled for the Commission in June 2003.
Because of this time pressure, we would respectfully request that you review this
matter with the utmost urgency. If you are not in full agreement with our clients and
the City of Carlsbad, we would request a meeting with you (as promised to our clients)
and your Chief Biologist by no later than May 20, 2003. Our clients, their biologist, a
representative of the City of Carlsbad and the wildlife agencies can also participate if
needed.
Peter, as you know, our clients are not developers or owners of any other
undeveloped land. They represent two extended families, which have owned this land
for over thirty years. The value of this property is significant to their families. They
have instructed me to pursue all available means to protect their interests. I hope we
can resolve this matter to avoid long and protracted litigation. If we are not able to
resolve this matter, then our clients will have no alternative but to proceed with its
litigation against the City related to the defective CEQA review (and the California
Coastal Commission concerning a "take") to assert its right to proceed with the original
hard-line approved by the wildlife agencies and the City of Carlsbad.
- Mr. Peter Ma Douglas, Executive Director
California Coastal Commission - May 13,2003 Page 5
7 Thank you for your courtesy.
Sincerely,
- Enclosure cc: Lawrence H. Krasnow
Robert F. Kevane -
PETERSON & PRICE
A Professional Corporation
Matthew A. Peterson
-
s’ ‘E OF-CALIFORNIA -THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Governor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
Sphl DIEGO AREA
7: METROPOLITAN DRIVE, SUITE 103
S, DIEGO. CA 92108-4402
(619) 767-2370
February 24,2003
Mr. Matthew Peterson
Peterson & Price
530 B Street, Suite 1700
San Diego, CA 92101
Re: Kevane Property, Carlsbad
Gear Mr. Teierson:
This letter is a follow-up to our conversation of 211 8/03 regarding the above referenced
property and the upcoming meeting set for 2/26/03 in our office. As we discussed, in
order to move toward identification of a revised “hardline” or development footprint for
this property that is mutually acceptable to the City, Commission staff and
representatives from the Department of Fish and Game and US Fish and Wildlife Service,
it would be helpful if your client would submit for our review a revised development plan
or footprint of developable area, with underlying topography and vegetation included. As
we have advised, we are willing to discuss a revised developable area for the two eastern
parcels. This is due to the fact that the vegetation on this portion of the site is chamise e
chaparral and not southern maritime chaparral as previously identified and used as a basis
for the draft standards in the pending City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program (LCP)
amendment. Such a revised development footprint should avoid slopes in excess of 25%
grade, the oak woodland and previous hardline preserve areas, and provide a minimum
50 foot buffer fiom the oak woodland and 20 foot buffer fiom any existing coastal sage
scrub and/or chaparral habitat. - At this point, we have no reason to modify the standards applicable to the two western
parcels-which we believe contain all ornedy all coastal-sage scrub habitat. The draft
standards in the LCP indicate the development footprint should be limited to a maximum
25% of the property, not including Poinsettia Lane construction, and clustered on the
western portion of the site. As we also discussed, we intend to look at the new
information regarding habitat on the subject site and surrounding parcels to determine
whether or not there should be revisions to other proposed development standards to
assure a viable habitat corridor is still maintained through this area. We do not intend to
look at your client’s property in isolation or outside the context of the comprehensive
preserve management envisioned by the Habitat Management Plan (HMP). Coordination
with the resource agencies will be required to identify the appropriate location and width
of a viable corridor.
I
As I indicated, the LCP amendment and consistency review for the HMP has been
submitted by the City and will be scheduled for hearing by the Commission no earlier
than May 2003. In that time frame, we will work with you, your client, City and agency
Mr. Matthew Peterson
February 24,2003
Page 2
representatives toward revised standards and/or hardline preserve boundary which may
be incorporated into the LCP and HMP at the time of action by the Commission. As
always, the ultimate decision on the LCP amendment and provisions of the HMP rests
with the Commission. Again, in order to receive timely feedback on a revised hardline, it
would be helphl if you would submit your revised proposal to Commission and City
staff prior to our meeting. Please call if you have any further questions.
District Manager
Ken Akers
Deborah Lee
Peter Douglas
Michael Holzmiller
Ron Ball
Nancy Frost
Bill Tippetts
Robert Kevane
(G:\San DiegoEHERt LYMCarlsbad HMP\Kevane letter 2.24.03.doc)
... *. * .
e.,.+ &n E~ine~g~En~l~o~~~t~i. .... .. .* ;...+*.*,,. ... ,. ... ................. . *. . .I. .. ConsultapJnt. ................. .......... : . .- .. ’ * 619.111.13OS 6 19.4 66.0 107 Fax.114.9394 . Far.166.0517 ..... .. .. _. ,. ... .....
May 29.20133
Robert Kevane
8486 La Mesa 81vd. La Mesa; CA 91941
Reference: The Oaks at Batiquitos
Mr. Kevane:
Thisletter is in reference to our meeting with John Dixon, and Caitlin Bean, on April 28, 2003. The ’
purpose, of the meeting to my understanding was to confirm the habitat types that had been originslly
mappgd by REG consultants Inc. and later confirmed by Caitlin Bean on January 13,2003.
We walked the site looking at the vaiius plants paying special attention to the Manzanik (Arcfostaphylos sp.) summer holly ‘(Comemstaphy/k diverSirOlia), and nuttall’s suub oak (Quercus dumosa).. Additionally we looked for wart -stemmed ceanothes, del mar sand aster, and evidence of sandstone onsite. Particular attention was given to the southeasbm and eastern portion of the site
where the majorlty’ of the chamise was located.
It was my understanding at the conclusion of the meeting hat Mr. Dixon’had. classified the
’ southeastern and eastern $&ion as a’Chamise dominated chapare1 with en understory of black sage
and intermingled. with lemonade betry.
’ .
‘
If yau have any question feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
-- &lor Novik
Senior Biologist
' b~yinu Olvlsp , , pmanlal DlvIilon 74 5 Mbsioa Yo sy Rd Suile I09 7 Grosmnt Summil Dr. lo Mesa. Q 91 911 San Dlcgo; (0 92tP8
m.tiae.030~ 6 1~.466.0107
Far.294.9394 . hx8466,0S97
June 3,2003
Robert Kevane
8480 La Mesa Boulevard. 1 LA Mesa, CA91941
Reference The Oaks at Batiquitos
Mr: Wne:
The purpose of thls lettar is to summarize the existing conditions of the Oaks at Batlqub project,
The Oaks at Batiqultos'(0aks) project site Is approximately 21.89 acres (onsite and Mslte acreage comblned) in the City of Carlsbad.
; There are open space and be&lopment lded north and west of the site created by ANI& Phase 111.
I , The*Lohf subdivision by Western Pacicic development is 60 the east of the site and Aviara Oaks Elementary Mlddle'School occurs south of the site. Ambrosia Lane, a developed road, wRh home sites. on a galf course, Is located adjacent to the westerly boundary of the property, Pavmal, an m'sting
residential subdivision, abuts the Oaks site directly adjacent to the southeast praperty corner.
*' The site Is comprised df east and west facing slopes a an intdrmittent draingge course bisecting the
site, A San Diego Gas and Electric easement is found throughout the site: Transient housirig, With
abandoned shacks and trash piles throughout the oak woodland and chaparral habltat, has disturbed many portions of the, site. .
Soils .ansite have been mapped as loamy alluvial land-Huerhuero complex (LvF3). within he category
' which range from 9 to 60 percent slopes, severely eded (USDA 1973). However slopes on slte are moderately to gentfv sloping. .
Chamise chaparral is found in the eastern portion of the site. This habltit Is chara6terlskally dense and' 1s ddrirlhated almost exclusively by charnise (Adenwfoma fasCicu/atum) with some sc4ttered Califqmia bllckwheat (Mgonum Fascicrrlatom) and deerweed (Lofus scdpan'us). Onsk transiqt
housing has disturbed portions of this habfiat. Thii habitat comprises appraximately 7.37 ecres onsite an the w@-facIng slape.
'The City of Cadsbad has mapped all of the chaparral habitat ansite as southem maritime chaparral.
Holland n(I986) ddnes chamise chaparral 'a6 a tall chaparral overwhelmingly dominated by chamlse.
, Askociated species conbibute' littfe cover", Characteristic spkies withim chamlse chaparral can indude species which also..occur on this site including Quercus dumosa, Ceanofhus sp. Eriogonum
fasciculahrm, Rhus sp. And Yucca sp. The Oaks project on the west facing slope Is almost exclusively an impenetrable stand of charnise, and the associated species cD.occur~ In mlrch ftSwer numbers, Furthermore, Holland defines Souhem Maritime Chaparral as an (emphasis added), "open chaparral * dominated by v&rt+temrned .manohus and thick-leaved esshrvood's ma.mnita (AntoStaphylOs
glendu/asa crassifolia) (cu'mntly referred ta as Del Mar manzanita)". Holland gdes on to say that this habitat is "restricted to Torrey Pines State !%serve and a few scatterad nearby lotaliies." TaWy Pines
State Preserve, approximately 13,s miles to the south, is the only major regional site that is capable of.
producing the dense uplifted maritime fog necessary to promote maritime chapad. ,
Page2
L
9. ’
’ In addition to Holland3 habitat dekuiption,‘ the City of Carlsbad‘s draft HMP d$nes cham’& chaparral
as “a community whwe chsrnlse is the overwhelmlng dominanl plant. This species may account for over 90 percent.d the relative mver. The remaining species inclbde shrubs and understory plants common in other types of chaparral.” n7e City‘s DRAFT HMP further defines southern-maritime chaparral as “cherscterlzed by several endemic shrubs indudlng Del mar manqnita, wart stemmed ceenothus, mast spice bush and scrub oak. Other dominant shrubs ‘encountered in this curnrnunlty . are the same as tho*. listed for southern mixed chaparral.” The habitat on the west-facing slope is
lacking these species (with scnrb oak in only limited numbers). Gyen these hjo definitions, the west facing Slop.- located on thispmjec! site would best be defined as chamise.chaparral.
. .
’ Sincerely,
..
VOICE MAIL MESSAGE
TO: MATT PETERSON
MATT THIS IS MICHAEL HOLZMILLER, CITY OF CARLSBAD. I WAS RETURNING
YOUR CALL ABOUT THE KEVANE PROPERTY. IN THE MEETING THAT WE HAD
WITH COASTAL STAFF A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, IT SEEMED LIKE THEY WERE
WILLING TO MAKE A DEAL ON THE KEVANE PROPERTY. THEY ACTUALLY FELT
BASED ON ALL THE INFORMATION THAT WE PRESENTED TO THEM AT THE
MEETING THAT APPLYING ALL OF THOSE STANDARDS ON TOP OF EACH OTHER
TO THE KEVANE PROPERTY WOULD RENDER IT UNDEVELOPABLE, SO I THINK
THEY WERE LOOKING AT A COMPROMISE THAT WOULD ALLOW BOTH EAST AND
WEST END OF THE PROPERTY TO BE DEVELOPED WITH A ROAD OFF OF THE
EAST END AND SO MAYBE YOUR GUY'S IDEA OF TRYING TO ENHANCE OR
ENLARGE THE HABITAT CORRIDOR THROUGH THE MIDDLE WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE
TO THEM BUT I THOUGHT THAT MAYBE YOU GUYS HAD SET UP A FOLLOW UP
MEETING WITH THEM BUT IF YOU HAVEN'T DONE THAT YET, YOU MAY WANT TO
CONTACT THEM TO SEE ABOUT SETTING UP A FOLLOW UP MEETING TO LOOK AT
SOME REVISIONS TO KEVANE'S ORIGINAL PLAN. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS
GIVE ME A CALL I'M AT (760) 602-4601 OKAY, THANKS MATT. BYE.
(Emphasis Added)
RECORDED 6.24.02 @ 3:53 P.M.