Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-10-22; City Council; 13868; ESTABLISHMENT OF PRIORITIZATION SYSTEM FOR INTERIM IMPACTS TO COASTAL SAGE SCRUB HABITATI FOR INTERIM IMPACTS TO COASUAL SAGE SCRUB HABITAT RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. System for Interim Impacts to Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat. ITEM EXPLANATION When the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) listed the California gnatcatcher as a t species in March of 1993, it simultaneously proposed a Special Rule for allowing imp; gnatcatcher and its habitat, as authorized under section 4(d) of the endangered specie primary effect of the Special Rule is to provide an expedited permitting process which is a qualifying projects during the interim period prior to completion and approval of regior The expedited permitting process is generally known as the 4(d) Permit. An explanation permit and other permitting mechanisms available under the endangered species act is p 96-35+ APPROVING the Pric A key provision of the 4(d) Permit is a limitation on the total amount of coastal sage SCI that may be lost during the interim period. FWS has determined that no more than coastal sage scrub existing in the region as of March 1993, and not more than 11 gnatcatchers, can be lost without jeopardizing regional planning. Within San Diego Cour acreage allowance has been allocated to each jurisdiction in proportion to its total amouni sage scrub. Carlsbad’s allocation has been determined to be 165.7 acres. Further detail the allocation and operation of the 5% limitation is provided in Exhibit 3. The City’s 165.7 acre allocation may not be sufficient to accommodate all public a projects that might intend to impact coastal sage scrub during the interim period. One factor is the length of time the interim period will last. Upon approval of Carlsbac Management Plan (HMP) by federal and state authorities, the interim period will conclu 5% limitation will no longer apply. Staff is currently preparing a separate agenda bill 01 steps that will need to be taken to complete the HMP and secure its approval. The City’ is to obtain approval of the HMP as quickly as possible, but it is still too soon to estimate approval might occur. In view of the uncertainty regarding timing of approval of the HMP, it is important th carefully manage its 5% allocation and not allow it to be prematurely depleted prior to l the HMP. When the City’s allocation is exhausted, grading permits could not be approve 1995 that would have established a prioritization system for determining which projects i 1 e 0 Page Two of Agenda Bill No. /3 d?d8 The concern expressed by the BIA was that the City should not adopt a prioritization syst would result in projects being denied the ability to obtain grading permits. BIA argued th equitable system would be to allow projects to proceed on a “first come, first served” basif City’s 5% is exhausted. Staff understands BIA’s concern that prioritization might resull projects not being allowed to go forward. It is not staff’s desire or intent to use the 41 process to delay development projects. However, as indicated previously the City needs t its 5% allocation in order to avoid premature depletion. In attempting to manage the 5% allocation, there are factors which increase the level o and uncertainty for the City. One such factor relates to the total number of gnatcatchers already been taken in the entire southern California region. FWS is currently investigatin the Special Rule’s limitation on the number of gnatcatchers taken has been reached. If tha been reached, the 4(d) process could be terminated by federal action. A report is expect1 question later in October. Another uncertainty factor is the authority federal agencie unilaterally approve permits whose impacts must be subtracted from the City’s 5% allocat continue to issue permits that would allow the total amount of habitat loss to exceed 5 uncertainties place the City in the role of administrator of the 5% allocation without givir full control over access to the 5%. For the past year, staff has been working with the BIA and others to arrive at a resolut would be acceptable to all parties. In the meantime, development activity has begun tr and requests from developers to draw from the City’s 5% allocation have increased. Tt- already approved 4(d) permits for a number of small projects. These projects haw relatively small impacts to coastal sage scrub, with the largest impact being 8.68 acrj impacts have drawn a total of 36.40 acres from the City’s 5%, leaving a current balance acres. These projects are listed in Exhibit 4. The list of projects which have requested requesting access to the 5% in the near future would nearly exhaust the remaining I: shown in Exhibit 5. The ultimate resolution of this situation is for the City to obtain approval of its HMP. Cor the plan has been delayed for approximately two years due to a number of concerns, in( cost to the City, uncertainty regarding the regional framework for the HMP, and biolog raised by the resource agencies. The present circumstances suggest that it would be ad1 to resume and intensify our efforts to obtain approval of the HMP. As mentioned previou program for completion of the HMP will be addressed in a separate agenda bill. Until the WMP is approved, the City needs a means of implementing the 4(d) process ir equitable manner that does not prematurely exhaust the City’s allocation. Therefc recommending that a prioritization program as described in the attached Resolution be a briefly summarize how the program would work, 4(d) permits for projects which would thah50 acres of coastal sage scrub would be processed on a “first come, first served” basi sufficient acres remain in the City’s 5% allocation. Projects which would impact more th would be required to phase their grading in such a way as to avoid premature depletion ( allocation. the City’s 5% is exhausted, the City could no longer issue 4(d) permits, but federal agen 6 0 Page Three of Agenda ill No, /< f&f' Because of the limited amount of coastal sage scrub impact that is available to the City, especially important to guard against unauthorized impacts. Some unauthorized imF already occurred and enforcement actions are being considered. Due to the PO unauthorized impacts to be deducted from the City's 5% allocation, staff will be takir vigorous and proactive stance regarding any potential violations. As part of this process, be sent to the owners of the larger parcels containing coastal sage scrub to advise them o of the City's policy and to caution against activities which might constitute an unauthoriz to coastal sage scrub or other habitats. An important part of the procedures for issuance of 4(d) permits is the mitigation guideli are described in Exhibit 6. These are taken largely from recommendations made by th agencies and other habitat planning efforts in the region. FISCAL IMPACT Adoption of the recommended policies may have fiscal impacts, both positive and negath difficult to quantify at this time. By extending the lifespan of the City's 5% alloc prioritization system's preference for smaller acreage of impacts is likely to have economic effect by allowing a larger number of projects to be constructed. However, difficulties inherent in administration of the Special Rule, the potential exists for unanticir to arise in the future. These costs could include additional staff time to address concerns raised by the B.I.A. and individual developers, as well as legal and other concerns that arc unknown. While it is difficult to weigh the risk of unknown costs against the potential ben prioritization system, it is staff's conclusion that the expected benefits outweigh the potent EXHIBITS 1. Resolution No. 9d-3sG with attachment. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Permitting Mechanisms Available Under the Endangered Species Act Background Regarding the 5% Allocation of Coastal Sage Scrub Acres Itemization of impacts to Coastal Sage Scrub 5% Allocation Pending Projects That May impact Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat Draft City of Carlsbad Mitigation Guidelines I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 96-354 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FEDERAL SPECIAL RULE FOR INTERIM TAKE OF THE CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER. WHEREAS, on March 25, 1993, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service California gnatcatcher as a threatened species, thereby providing the species protections afforded by the federal Endangered Species Act; and WHEREAS, on December 10, 1993, the United States Fish and Wildlife Servic a Special Rule for the gnatcatcher as authorized in Section 4(d) of the Endanger€ Act, making reference to the State of California's program of Natural Cc Conservation Planning (NCCP) and indicating that take of the gnatcatcher is not a 1 the endangered species act if the take is the result of an activity addressed in ai NCCP plan; and WHEREAS, among its provisions the Special Rule provides an expedited F federal approval of take of the gnatcatcher or its habitat, coastal sage scrub, undc conditions during the interim period prior to approval of NCCP plans; and WHEREAS, the Special Rule limits the amount of coastal sage scrub habitat t taken during the interim period to no more than 5% of the total coastal sage sc existing at the time the gnatcatcher was listed, or no more than 116 pairs of gn whichever occurs first; and WHEREAS, Carlsbad's allowable amount of impacts to coastal sage scrub ur limitation has been determined to be 165.7 acres, and the interpretation of the UI Fish and Wildlife Service is that all impacts to coastal sage scrub during the inter Carlsbad, whether permitted by the expedited process or by any other federa processes, must be subtracted from that total; and Ill Ill I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WHEREAS, there are a number of public and private projects which have alr or are anticipated to request permission to take coastal sage scrub prior to apprl City's Habitat Management Plan, the cumulative total of which would exceed 1f and WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the City to ensure that the 165 allowable interim impacts is utilized prudently for the public good and not I depleted; and WHEREAS, a prioritization system is a reasonable and appropriate method 1 that the 165.7 acres of allowable interim impacts is used in a way that best public; and WHEREAS, the policies and procedures contained herein will assure that imp of the Special Rule is carried out in a manner consistent with all applicable feder laws, regulations, and guidelines. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of Carlsbad as follows: , 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That prior to issuance of a grading permit, any projects which would im sage scrub habitat during the interim period, regardless of the method of permitti1 federal Endangered Species Act, shall obtain approval from the City Council fc Coastal Sage Scrub Take Permit which authorizes the project to draw fron allocation of 165.7 acres pursuant to the 5% limitation. - 3. That the prioritization system described in Attachment "A" and made i shall be utilized by the City Council in determining whether an Interim Coastal Take Permit shall be approved for a given project. Ill 2. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 78 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. That all impacts to Coastal Sage Scrub during the interim period shall be and mitigated in accordance with the City of Carlsbad Coastal Sage Scrub Guidelines as provided in Exhibit 6 to Agenda Bill No. 13,868 . Minor revisions implement and carry out the provisions of the Coastal Sage Scrub Mitigation Guid be approved by the City Manager, upon the advice of the City Attorney, without a of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City COL City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 22nd day of OCTOBER , 19 following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Nygaard, Kulchin, Finnila, Hall NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: &;+* k: -- ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk 7 (SEAL) - 3. 0 0 ATTACHMENT “A CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 96-35 Prioritization of Projects for Authorization to Impact Coastal Sage Scrub Habita In considering whether any project will be allowed to impact coastal sage scrub habil during the interim period, the City Manager shall consider the criteria outlined below. Note that these criteria are in addition to the seven required findings stated in the NCCP Conservation Guidelines. The criteria are organized into two categories, Prioritization by Acreage of Impact an Prioritization by Project Type. Both categories must be considered in taking action c any application for an interim Coastal Sage Scrub Take Permit. Prioritization by Acreage of Impacts The City Manager shall first consider the acreage of impacts of projects, as follows: First Priority - Projects which would impact 1 acre or less of coastal sage SCI habitat which is not occupied by the California gnatcatcher. These projects l technically exempt from the requirement to obtain a federal take permit. However, tt impacts must be subtracted from the City’s 5% allocation and mitigation must provided. In order to ensure that appropriate mitigation is provided and to maint Coastal Sage Scrub Take Permit from the City. Second Priority - Projects which would impact 50 acres or less of coastal sa scrub habitat can be considered for issuance of Coastal Sage Scrub Take Pern provided that the City Manager finds that the issuance of the permit would prematurely deplete the City’s 5% allocation and would not jeopardize the City’s abi to permit other projects during the interim period. Third Priority - Projects which would impact over 50 acres of coastal sage scr habitat are strongly discouraged from developing during the interim period unles: can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City Manager that no feasible alternat to the take exists. In order to obtain approval to take 50 acres or greater, the applici must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Manager that it is not feasible to phE the development in such a way as to reduce the interim impact to less than 50 acres. the project can be separated into phases of less than 50 acres, each phase shall considered separately in accordance with the Second Priority guidelines as stai above. The rationale for requiring deferral of impacts over 50 acres is contained in the NatL Community Conservation Planning Process Guidelines dated November 1 993, wh state that “Development decisions having a substantial adverse impact on high va proper accounting of the acreage of impacts, these projects must obtain an lnte First Priority Second Priority Third Priority Fourth Priority Fifth Priority City Capital Projects and Projects of Special Districts and other public agencies which are necessary to meet Growth Managemer Standards or to protect public health, safety or welfare. Private projects which have a development agreement that provides a vested right to build. Private projects which have been targeted by the City’s Economic Development effort. Private projects which have resource agency permits, such as a Section 7 permit, to take coastal sage scrub and which meet the acreage criteria outlined above. All other private projects, on a first-come first-served basis. 0 0 If the City Manager finds that a project merits a sufficiently high priority rating based 1 the criteria, the City Manager may approve an Interim Coastal Sage Scrub Take Perr taking into consideration the amount of acres remaining in the City’s 5% allocation. I the City Manager finds that insufficient acres remain in the City’s 5% allocation, or if City Manager finds that a project does not achieve a sufficiently high priority rating based on the criteria, the City Manager shall deny the Interim Coastal Sage Scrub T: Permit. In the event of a denial, the City Manages’s decision may be appealed to the City Council. The City’s approval of an interim coastal sage scrub loss permit is generally expected tc occur at issuance of grading permit, not at the time of approval of entitlements such a$ tentative maps or master plans. This will mean that a project should have all othei necessary discretionary approvals and must need only a grading permit in order tc request the use of the interim take permit. However, there may be instances in whid the City wishes to commit acres from the 5% allocation to a project in advance of thc project receiving all necessary discretionary approvals. This is expected to be ar unusual occurrence and will be addressed on a case-by-case basis. 0 0 E: Permitting Mechanisms Available Under the Endan! Species Act (ESA) and Related Federal Laws The Section 7 Process This section of ESA requires federal agencies to consult with the Fish and Wildlii (FWS) when a federal project would have an impact on a listed species. This r~ has been extended to include private development projects which have a "feders The federal nexus may take a number of forms including federal funding or the re for another type of federal permit. To take advantage of this mechanism, the involv agency must request the consultation from FWS. Section 7 has been used in a number of cases in which the federal nexus is the re to obtain a 404 permit under the Clean Water Act for impacts to wetlands. For ex: project would have impacts to a creek as well as impacts to coastal sage scrub, tht Engineers could request that a Section 7 consultation on the coastal sage scrub ii included in the 404 permit for the creek impacts. The Section 7 process has benefits for projects by consolidating what would 0th two separate permit processes. Section 7 also contains a provision that man number of days FWS has to comment on the project after a complete application submitted. The primary drawback of Section 7 is the requirement for a federal age1 has declined to request a consultation with FWS even though a 404 permit was Projects in Carlsbad that have successfully used Section 7 to address coastal sq impacts include the South Carlsbad High School, Arroyo La Costa, Carrillo E Rancho Verde. The Section 1 O(a) Process This section was added as an amendment to ESA in 1983. Prior to this, ther permitting mechanism in ESA for private projects which did not have a federal I response to the need for such a mechanism, Congress added Section 10 to ESA for Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs). Section 1 O(a) operates quite differently fro 7. No federal nexus is required. There are no mandated time limits for processin documentation requirements can be extensive, making the process very ex Approximately 20 HCPs have been successfully completed throughout the nation, the Carlsbad/Fieldstone HCP. Benefits of the HCP process are few beyond the mere obtaining of a permit. The c of the process are the considerable time and expense typically involved. The dra Conservation Planning which is an attempt to develop a regional approach to a species listed under ESA. Special Rules Section 4 of ESA deals with species that are listed as threatened rather than enc For threatened species FWS believes that there is somewhat less threat of extir there is more flexibility for planning. As a result, Section 4 allows the Secretary of adopt Special Rules for these species. The Secretary has broad latitude in creatir Rules, and each Special Rule is typically tailored to the situation that exists for a species or habitat type. that a suitable nexus exists. There have been a few cases in which the Corps of the HCP process were a factor in the state's enactment of Natural Go 0 0 The Special Rule for the California gnatcatcher acknowledged that the primary th was disruption of the normal development process. The Special Rule for the g attempted to reconcile conservation of the gnatcatcher with private property righ economic impacts of the listing. It is intended to accomplish this by providing a process that is greatly expedited in comparison with the Section 7 and lO(a) prom For Carlsbad, the drawback of the Special Rule for the gnatcatcher is that total ir limited to 5% of the habitat existing as of March 1993. National Environmental Policv Act (NEPA) NEPA requires that an environmental analysis be performed for any federal actic likely to have a significant effect on the environment. NEPA documents function like environmental impact reports that the City of Carlsbad regularly process pursi California Environmental Quality Act. A NEPA document is required as part of thl of an HCP. NEPA documents are typically not required for permits approved und 7. The Special Rule for the gnatcatcher was accompanied by a NEPA docurr specifically stated that NEPA documents would not be required for individual 4( approved under the Special Rule. for that species is urban development. Likewise, the primary effect of listing the g e 0 E> Background Re ardin 5% Allocation of Coastal BSB age crub Acres The general provisions of the federal 4(d) rule are explained in the agenda purpose of this attachment is to provide further detail regarding how the limitation operates in San Diego County. The Special Rule indicated that up to 5% of the gnatcatchers and coastal s gnatcatchers that could be taken was projected to be between 66 and 1 I6 p number of pairs actually taken thus far is unknown to the City, and for this r discussion will deal only with acres of coastal sage scrub habitat that may be rc The 5% limitation is important for the expedited permit processing that is allov Special Rule. Once the 5% limit is reached, the expedited process would no available. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) could continue t other types of permits. Approval of these other permit types could result i greater than 5% during the interim period. Thus, the 5% limitation is not ar limit on impacts, but rather a limit on the use of the expedited permitting mecha The wording of the Special Rule states that the 5% limitation applies on a “su basis and that a subregional lead or coordinating agency must be designa Diego County as a whole was determined to be a subregion for purposes of c the 5%, and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) agreed tc the coordinating agency. To facilitate coordination, a Regional Cot Coordination Committee (RCCC) was formed consisting of staff members various jurisdictions in the count and representatives of FWS and the Department of Fish and Game (DF 6 ). Using information provided by all of the local agencies, SANDAG calculate amount. This was determined to be 11,371.9 acres for the entire region. R considered how to manage the process of drawing from the 5%. representatives argued for allocating portions of the 5% to parts of the subreg on biological criteria. The rationale for this proposal was to prevent one partia the region, such as the coastal strip, from bearing a disproportionate shz impacts during the interim period. Staff members from the cities and the count that this would create operational difficulties because biologically defined b might cross jurisdictional boundaries. After numerous meetings, it was decided to allocate the 5% to each jurisdici region in proportion to its existing amount of coastal sage scrub. SANDAG p table showing the breakdown by jurisdiction, and this was approved by RCCC. the process by which Carlsbad received the allocation of 165.7 acres of coi scrub impacts (see attachment A). The first indication of difficulties with the allocation system occurred in Chula C City of Chula Vista wished to issue a 4(d) permit for a single project which WOI more than that city’s 5% allocation. That project was approved, and it is Carlsl understanding that the project site has been graded and is being de Correspondence from FWS and DFG indicate that those agencies did nc issuance of the permit even though it exceeded Chula Vista’s allocation. It habitat could be lost from the region prior to approval of NCCP plans. The I FWS 8 0 how the bookkeeping for this impact was reconciled, and it suggests that FWS do not consider the 5% allocations to be absolutely binding on individual juri: However, this point is subject to debate within the region. SANDAG's r information simply shows a negative balance for the City of Chula Vista and indicate a corresponding offset from any other category. Subsequently, a similar situation arose in El Cajon. In this case, there wa: action by the County Board of Supervisors to give acres from the allocatic unincorporated area to El Cajon. The potential for difficulty in Carlsbad became apparent in early 1995 when tt Ranch property owners sought a Section 7 consultation on the coastal si impacts of their project. FWS officials notified City staff that if the coastal s impacts were approved through the Section 7 process, the acreage of impact w to be subtracted from the City's 5% allocation. It was unknown whether FI allow the full impacts requested by Carrillo Ranch or require redesign to reducl City staff monitored the Section 7 consultation but did not actively participate. Recognizing the possibility that the full acreage of impacts requested by Carr could ultimately be approved by FWS, staff produced an agenda bill in Mi recommending a prioritization system. In response to concerns express6 series of discussions with the BIA and other jurisdictions in the region in an find an alternative allocation system. SANDAG coordinated a subcommittee i numerous times to examine possible ways to prevent the problem of premature of a jurisdiction's allocation. One issue that became apparent during these discussions was the fact that 1 decision to allocate the 5% on a jurisdictional basis had never been validated I officials. One way of accomplishing that would have been to have the questior by the SANDAG Board of Directors. However, the majority of staff members jurisdictions decided that review of the allocation system by SANDAG's Directors would not be necessary. Another issue is the lack of clarity regarding how FWS and DFG would r( projects in Chula Vista, Carlsbad, or any city, after that city's 5% allocation is e The most likely scenario is that they would refuse to authorize any further imp: the expedited 4(d) process. In this event, the other permitting mechanisms WOI available to projects in those cities, while projects in other jurisdictions would pi still have access to the expedited 4(d) process. In this scenario, it is un subsequent projects approved under other permitting mechanisms would re1 remaining regional 5% allocation. An alternative response by FWS and DFG would be to continue to allow citie 4(d) permits under the expedited process as long as acres remain in the regior this case, application of the 5% limitation to individual jurisdictions would be c removed, and there would be no need to prioritize projects. A third possible response by FWS and DFG would be to treat Section 7 permits differently from 4(d) permits. This is the alternative advocated by Citl has been proposed to the agencies. However, the agencies thus far have not with this interpretation. In light of the facts outlined above, the City of Carlsbad has three altern addressing the potential exhaustion of its 5% allocation. Building Industry Association (BIA), that agenda bill was not heard. Staff the1 0 e 1. The City could adopt a policy of “first come, first served” until the allocation is exhausted. After that, the other federal permitting mechani: have to be used for public and private projects until the City’s HMP is This alternative has been recommended by the Building Industry Associ not recommended by staff because the remaining acres in the City’s could be depleted rapidly, and subsequent high priority projects would to use the more expensive and time consuming permitting proces alternative gives preference to early projects at the expense of futurt regardless of their benefit to the public. The City could adopt a prioritization system to manage access to the allocation. This is the alternative recommended by staff because it e) that the City’s allocation will last until approval of the HMP, it would irr chances that the allocation would last as long as needed. The City could request the SANDAG Board of Directors to reconsider th to allocate the subregional 5% on a jurisdictional basis. If the SAND, were to decide to allocate on a different basis, such as a regional “first 4 served” system, there would no longer be a concern with any one j prematurely depleting its allocation. Instead, the 4(d) process would be to all jurisdictions and all qualifying projects until the entire subregional of 1 1,372 acres is exhausted. At present rates of development within thc is anticipated that the allocation would last for several years. 2. probable life span of the City’s allocation. Although prioritization cannot 3. 0 e Exhibit 4 itemization of Impacts to Coastal Sage Scrub 5% Allocation Note: Italics indicates that grading permit has not been issued 0 0 Exhibit ! e 0 EXHIBI' Habitat Loss Permit Mitigation Guidelines These mitigation guidelines are intended to: 0 Be used in connection with interim take of coastal sage scrub pursuant to federal 4(d) rule. 0 Ensure that the impacts of interim projects are mitigated such that there is "no loss of habitat value from the present, taking into account management i enhancement. No net loss of habitat value means no net reduction in the abilit! the subregion to maintain viable populations of target species over the long-terr 0 Contribute to the implementation of the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HD by directing interim project mitigation toward those areas of the City identified having the highest potential for long term conservation. 0 Describe specifically how public and private projects must mitigate their coa The HMP is designed as a multi-habitat conservation plan. The emphasis of thc mitigation guidelines is on mitigation for coastal sage scrub impacts, but impact5 other habitat types may also be required on a case-by-case basis. Due to the mi habitat intent of the HMP, mitigation sites need not consist of the same vegetation habitat type@) as the impact site. It is more important that the mitigation site makc meaningful contribution toward implementation of the HMP. An important focus selection of mitigation sites should be to secure connectivity of conserved lands whc connectivity is presently not assured. Mitigation ratios will vary depending upon the quality of the habitat being impact Because the emphasis of the interim take process is on lower quality patches habitat, these mitigation guidelines will be the most detailed and specific in regard lower quality habitats. It should be understood that the mitigation required for impa to lower quality habitat will not be sufficient to mitigate impacts to intermediate or higl quality habitats. Habitat quality rating will utilize the best available information regarding the impact si including but not limited to HMP rating maps, MHCP rating maps, FWS rating mal and detailed site assessment by qualified biologists. Where there may be differenc of opinion regarding the quality rating of a site, FWS and DFG will be consulted, a their opinion will take precedence. These guidelines do not address riparian and wetland impacts which are regulai separately and which require in-kind mitigation, using different ratios and guidelir sage scrub impacts in order to obtain City grading permits. 0 0 from those described here. 1. Mitigation For City projects that impact coastal sage scrub: Mitigation for impacts to lower aualitv habitat will generally be at a ratio of 1 tc Mitigation will in most instances consist of an irrevocable offer to dedicate conservation easement over land already owned by the City or land acqui specifically for mitigation purposes. The mitigation site must have habitat values ec to or greater than the impact site, the location must be consistent with the concepl preserve system as outlined in the draft Habitat Management Plan, and it must acceptable to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the California Departm of Fish and Game (DFG). The mitigation site need not be of the same habitat typc as the impact site, as long as it serves to implement the HMP preserve system. Because the emphasis of the interim take process is on lower and intermediate qu: habitat, every effort will be made to design and direct City projects so that impacts limited to lower quality habitat, to the maximum extent practicable. Some esser public facilities may unavoidably impact intermediate or high quality habitat. In SI cases, the project may still be permitted under the 4(d) process if FWS and D concur on the extent of impact and the mitigation. In all cases of proposed impact! intermediate or high quality habitat, the City will consult with FWS and DFG at earliest opportunity. Mitigation for impacts to intermediate or high quality habitat generally consist of dedication of land at a higher ratio, typically 2 to 1. Construction, repair, or routine maintenance of certain underground utilities r involve highly localized disturbance of coastal sage scrub vegetation witt- construction of permanent above-ground improvements. In such cases, the mitiga will involve revegetation of the disturbed area after the completion of work and onsitt offsite mitigation at a ratio of 1 to 1. Because conserved lands, both onsite and offsite, will need to be managed perpetuity to maintain their habitat values, the City will address management needs a case-by-case basis. II. Mitigation for projects of other public agencies: Mitigation will be negotiated between the affected agency and FWS/DFG for e project. The City typically has no authority to place mitigation requirements on of agencies, but it is recommended that mitigation be such that it contributes to implementation of the HMP preserve system. 111. Mitigation for Private Projects: Mitigation for impacts to lower aualitv habitat will generally be at a ratio of 1 tc Mitigation may be either onsite or offsite. Onsite conservation by dedication remaining habitat will be considered where the conserved area will be contiguous \ 8 e other habitat and where the dedicated open space will have long-term conserva value. In addition, revegetation may be required if the conserved area is disturbec has patches of disturbance that diminish its mitigation value. The mitigation site must have habitat values equal to or greater than the impact z the location must be consistent with the conceptual preserve system as outlined in draft Habitat Management Plan, and it must be acceptable to the U.S. Fish and Wilc Service (FWS) and the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG). The mitiga site need not be of the same habitat type(s) as the impact site, as long as it server implement the HMP preserve system. Offsite conservation shall be within a Preserve Planning Area or Linkage Planning P designated by the HMP. Revegetation may be required if the conserved are: disturbed or has patches of disturbance that diminish its mitigation value. Payment of a mitigation fee may be considered for very small impacts, typically 5 ac or less in size. However, this is expected to be uncommon and only in cases where usual mitigation measures are not feasible. In no case can use of a fee be conside for impacts 10 acres or greater in size. If any fees are collected, the City shall estab a Habitat Mitigation Fee Trust Fund to hold all monies collected. The fees shall expended by the City in such a manner that the impacts that are the reason for the are adequately mitigated and the expenditure serves to implement the HMP prese system. It is anticipated that fee revenues will most typically be used for I: acquisition, either fee title or conservation easement. Because conserved lands, both onsite and offsite, will need to be managed perpetuity to maintain their habitat values, mitigation shall include funding management. This will typically be in the form of an annuity in an amount to determined by the City. For projects that pay the mitigation fee, provisions management will be included in the fee. For impacts to intermediate and higher quality habitat, approvals to impact during interim period will be less frequently granted and will involve a higher level mitigation. In particular, approvals to impact higher quality habitat should be considei extremely rare during the interim period. Much greater emphasis will be placed impact avoidance/minimization. Any project requesting to impact intermediate or higl quality habitat must begin consultation with the City, FWS and DFG at the earli possible stage. There should be no assumption that impacts to intermediate or higl quality habitat will be allowed during the interim period, regardless of the mitigat being offered or the permitting mechanism used. In these cases, applicants should prepared to explore other alternatives, such as deferring development until a1 completion and adoption of the HMP if impacts during the interim period are allowed. When impacts to intermediate and higher quality habitat are allowed, the mitigation I e * generally consist of dedication of land at a higher ratio, such as 2 to 1. Impact: intermediate or higher quality habitat must be mitigated by conservation of hat areas of equal or higher quality. Where impacts to intermediate or higher qui habitat are allowed, applicants should be prepared to spend much more time negotiating the mitigation plan with the City, FWS, and DFG. Because conserved lands, both onsite and offsite, will need to be managed perpetuity to maintain their habitat values, mitigation shall include funding management. This will typically be in the form of an annuity in an amount to determined by the City, with input from FWS, and DFG.