Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1999-06-08; City Council; 15254; Habitat Management Presentation
!i & a % . . p 2 d 5 z - - 0 la- CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGEluDA BILL AB# /&%+ u: MTG. &&+q HABITAT MANAGEMENT PRESENTATION DEPT. PLN CITY MGR w RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council receive the presentation from staff on the Habitat Management Plan, direct staff to distribute the Plan to prope owners and interested parties for a period of 45 days, and ADOPT Resolution of Intention No. -&, stating the intention of the City Council to APPROVE a Mitigated Negative Declaration. ITEM EXPLANATION: In accordance with City Council direction, staff has prepared a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for submittal to the federal and state wildlife agencies for approval. The HMP is intended to provide a comprehensive, citywide plan to preserve the diversity of habitat and protect sensitive biological resources while allowing for additional development consistent with the City’s General Plan and its Growth Management Plan. Staff will be making a full presentation of the plan’s contents to the City Council. To briefly summarize, the Plan will: l Create an open space and wildlife preserve system of approximately 6,400 acres; l Utilize Existing Hardline Areas, Proposed Hardline Areas, and Standards Areas to assemble the preserve system; l Participate in the assembly and conservation of habitat in the regional Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP) Core Area; l Provide justification for take permits, for both public and private projects while providing adequate conservation coverage for 47 species of plants and animals; and l Contribute significantly to regional efforts to conserve the California gnatcatcher and other key species of concern. Staff has worked very closely with the wildlife agencies to incorporate all of their comments into the Plan. Numerous revisions were made to the original draft based on their comments. Affected property owners and other interested parties have not yet had an opportunity to review the full document. Therefore, it is recommended that the Plan be distributed for comment for a period of 45 days. Staff will address any comments received on the Plan and then return to the City Council for final adoption of the Plan. It will be necessary for the City to submit an Implementing Agreement (IA) to the wildlife agencies with the HMP. Staff is providing the City Council with a draft of the IA for review with this Agenda Bill. ENVIRONMENTAL: Staff is proposing that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be approved for the HMP in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A copy of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is being provided to the City Council for review. The attached Resolution of Intention indicates the City Council’s initial position that compliance with CEQA can be achieved by preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. During the 45-day review period for the HMP, staff will accept comments on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. Staff is also proposing that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) in conjunction with its approval of the HMP. A draft outline for the EA is attached for Council review. - PAGE 2 OF AGENDA dlLL NO. /s, 2.9 FISCAL IMPACT: Adoption of the plan will have financial impacts to the City. The magnitude of these impacts is addressed in Section E of the Plan. EXHIBITS: 1. City Council Resolution of Intention No. 9 9 l J/ 2. Habitat Management Plan, Previously Distributed to Council 3. Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, Previously Distributed to Council 4. Draft Implementing Agreement, Previously Distributed to Council 5. Draft Outline for Federal Environmental Assessment (EA) CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION OF INTENTION NO. 99-211 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO APPROVE A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ADOPTION OF THE HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has prepared a Habitat Management Plan in conformance with the State of California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act; and WHEREAS, on 8th day of -Jyne , 1999, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad reviewed the plan and directed staff to distribute the plan to the public for comment; and WHEREAS, following public review and comment on the plan the City Council will consider adoption of the plan for submittal to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game to serve as the basis for issuance of permits; and WHEREAS, adoption of the plan will require compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act for which the City of Carlsbad will serve as Lead Agency, and the City Council wishes to consider the appropriate type of environmental document to prepare; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director has proposed that a Mitigated Negative Declaration should be approved to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act in that adoption of the plan with appropriate mitigation measures is not expected to have a significant adverse impact on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That pursuant to Title 19 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and Sections 21064.5 and 21157.5 of the State Public Resources Code, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad declares its intention to approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration for adoption of the Habitat Management Plan. 3. City staff is hereby directed to continue processing the Mitigated Negative Declaration and to submit the Mitigated Negative Declaration for public review and comment as required by Sections 15072 through 15074 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. 3 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the day of 8th June , 1999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Nygaard, Finnila, Hall & Kulchin NOES: None 1 ATTEST: -2- - L l - 3 0 A m u E Q 0 Ta > W v AS 3 m L u W u 0 W S W u 0 I cn s 0 u l S m c1 3 r HMPCONSERVATION GYCONCEPT STRATE OCEANSIDE Stepping Stone Linkage u w I- s I- m z 0 f- < > & w m z 0 v m k z w z 0 n_ t: 0 v VI m W L m W z W z L Q W c m m W L m W r W xi L Q W S mm w L m s Icr W m 0 Q 0 1 PI m m W L m m m 1 a v s m in S 0 l m ‘S L W m S 0 v .- 0 l m s (7 l - u mm f m Q m W L < W L 0 v m s 0 l - bo W & m w b & w na 0 & a w z a n & QC r n w m 0 nw 0 & r\ (0 “0 E W t: -!I! c 2 2 W > l , 0 L s 0’ 3 1 W u L g zI W i4 W I c W La v W bEi “R Lu 0 t.* m dJ .?d ba 4 m s s *err Q)L Q)m apI z= SW ier WY=3 sue OWU .! -0‘” uLO = Qtm ZWL n -s g - - I 0 w M z 0 - .- I- < > & w m z 0 w QI E 2 .I 3 c s 9, w .m E a 2 a3 3 0 2 2 a x 3 3 0 Y v .LI E QI 2 a3 3 0 k s s 0 4 w oc1 4 w & 0 w n_ w J= t: z 0 I- < n_ v l- & +c na sm “f;; OW a!! m0 WV .L nw =u Tc Yz 4 w & w & 0 v n_ v 3= L. ‘7 0 - - w a, ii 0 .M k m U 0 -5 c 2 I- < > & W m z 0 w w a 1 0 .- s L 34 s 0 u - na t r W 2 W z L a 0 W u c m s W z l - cb E \ r s W E W bn c1s c Ki CrJ w t: L CQ v3 I- .w u 2 u > 0 w CA u w w n, VI L 0 m z 0 n z 0 w ti? l W v W Q VI lb Tt- L cg v W v l W > 0 L Q m 0. W bl3 m L W > 0 u ‘b W v ok > 0 L Q W L m .- u Q) s QO tA v l W E W v S W 3 0 k m z l W t; W I 0 L Q m W u S a z s W W N l - E .- S OM E 0 II -0 W S bn l - z n W a in =r E v) G W l - 0 L CL CrL 0 L m 0 I- < u - - m +c J= L t =c 0 I- c/) l- W < a t: \ c;j al -;ii Et .- crm .- %8 E-5 A- a ZE 0 c, .- $% 3E CL S 0 N v S m m s 0 l - s -0 2 W E E 0 v W L 2 0 l - x = s W E E 0 v W L W L W ti5 t Q - 3 r ,W i’L. ‘rn Q W II Q m L W S W u v cc .- v W Q v) 0 II A r S co Q I S W W m m S m E 0 L E s * QJ ” E z Q) M ‘9 ge E v .- i!!g tr Q) n n i 0 5 L 2 3 m -0 5 E? .M 8 .LI c 0 E 2 .w &, c 0 , Q em c m L W S 3 0 0 xi l - L 0 &n W s w 0 I b I on .w S W W S 0 ;: 0 l - s L W Sb w 0 E L W Y w S 0 l G ‘L sg 0 u w LIE 0 > -3 0 t: L Q l m m E ‘cf S m I S W E W m a S m L= Q W l - E s .v) c= 3 m 0 Er. 4 0 > z E .- \ $8 C * S u s w W u I- d .Gg 0 z S < n 00 w W z m u LLO n n lc 0 rE I 2s Qs I WI w Q) Q .t w s s L 7 L W s W u 0 I t; a Q E l - W N l - E l . S l - t: S 0 l W I m Q l ._ u l W L m Q m W \ 4 W L 0 w CL w r t: I S W E W m m S m E W L W z L .Q 0 II S W E W m m S m E W 2 W w W L Q 0 S 0 l W s r S W E W b I OM w 0 W u S m S W E l W a E \ E W E W bn m E W in b m W z W z L Q S OW s W E W m m S m E L Q w W & 11 0 m w z n z s L s 0 l - % bn .- a 0 PI u r W s 0 r v) -3 w S z S 0 l m s bl) l . _I l n E W c 0 v -0 f z S 0 l - s bn on en E 0 k m w 0 c v S m & ‘c3 W -a W W c w W & b S l - S l m co E W L L g W u L ,I 0 m crt l W _r S W r 0 CL I on E L W Q bla s on ‘CT S b‘ s E ;z 0 W m m E % 3 0 c, .!? s W l m 0 & s 0 m W z m LO 0 1.n = .i =E P, e Lk 3Q wO =0 s=O W Q) 6 ate w w z 4 a Q x 0 w. f- W w 0 & Q Q x w (3 z -- a Q t: 0 W L 0 m 4 w > w S 0 0. s -L W c” 0 u W _r l m T S 0 3 v m Q E OM W N l - f l - S l w cn m W t: E W E W \ l m J m W L W a! I 0, E L W Q W 3 a I s r OM a m r 1 Located in Hardline Area 1 1 Reviewed for Compliance 1 Project Submittal 1 ( Located in Standards Area 1 I I Consultation and wm mvlr Concurrence with Wildlife Agencies and City Reviewed for Compliance with Standards Contained in HMP I _ -CII- I ImAn I I 1 If Complies, Normal ( - MPCOMPLIANCEPROCESS If Project Approved, City 1 ” ( If Complies with Standards, 1 Issues “Take” Permit Processed under Consistency Finding to HMP A r \ If Non-Compliance See Below / If Project Approved, City Issues “Take” Permit f \ Non-Compliance Processing Alternatives Include: I ) Redesign Project 2) Submit for Plan Amendment to HMP x . i. Qm E z ow U E 2 ww -: a PI - gp 2 L t: W 3t E 4 z l - U l - 5 CT w 1 m QI s m U m- El ma m w w m ir S E E m E 24 3 w s z w S m 8 a Q m S W Q 0 W i2 W z k w w m I W 2 2 =i5 L 0 QI Wa UcrJ cr,Q CL0 mar > 5QI aw 0 S 3 2s ws E 4 2 S it! OM r-r u 2 I ti S co S 5 L 0 bll) S l - S 0 N w S W E 4 S .- 3 f;; w S 3 VI S 0 l m s L g S 0 U G L 0- 3 W z m l - “0 w L m w S 3 v) W U S m W 2 W z ii W x m E ;: W E W s 0 .- 3 S W F 9, Sn - I- n n < bn s l - Q w w x ‘b L 0 u W PCI I c w f w m ca c m E w -L I-- 4 a N n -A &- 03 =t: I- 3 0 < & Ir - 0 I 3 v Fki? E 3 mm L gw f L : l - 1 L& 0 U-1 sm 0 L 0 ‘a b mm * ‘& E Q a,- WW E> a,0 Lv + OX wr m 1 m Q w a r t: ‘1=3 W -ucn ‘5 s 0.2 ktt 09 w .E m0 y”s ,s.m z’o se wmg qp .c” sg 13c) 0 l - f=EG -5 v) 3 s-f& vl s urn- S W& v 1 ‘r: 3 l g& 0 a$ 0. w s zs3 na t: r I= 0 s 0 .- s I S a3 ti! L Q c; m ‘t: I Q w 0 u 4 .! z a, u > c l s =5 m 0 bJJ u w bn z c-0 l g aJ r m m bz) s :s 0 0. _r E’ w > 0 L Q Q 4 -0 S m 3 w on > w 1 u l - Ip =r Q A m v Lo * S w Q 0 00 S 0 w 0 g l W L - W E Q5 0 E-er wn ft Er 0 u g EXHBIT 5 DRAFT OUTLINE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (Based on the USFWS NEPA Handbook - Intra-Service Planning and Documentation/Section 30 AM.3.10A) A. COVER SHEET (Cover sheet will include title of the project, date and a statement that the document was prepared by the City of Carlsbad for the USFWS.) B. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION (According to the NEPA Handbook, this section documents the need for the project. The need must be clearly defined to ensure that the proposed action and alternatives address it directly.) 1. Introduction 2. Proposed Action and Decisions Needed 3. Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action 4. Issues and Concerns 5. Other Required Actions C. THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES (This section describes in detail the proposed project as well as alternatives considered. According to the NEPA Handbook, all alternatives should be considered initially. However, only practicable alternatives including no action and the proposed action need to be discussed in detail in the EA. Alternatives should represent other ways to meet the objectives while reducing or eliminating any harmful impacts. A brief record shall be made of those alternatives initially considered but rejected.) 1. Detailed Description of Proposed Action 2. Alternatives 2.1 Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Further Analysis 2.1.1 Postpone Action 2.2 2.1.2 Purchase Mitigation Outside the City Alternatives Retained for Detailed Analysis 2.2.1 No Action Alternative 2.2.2 Focused Acquisition Alternative D. DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT (The Affected Environment Section should describe the area in which the action occurs. Particular mention should be made of the absence of any issues such as significant cultural resources.) 1. Regional and Local Setting 2. Plan Area P h 3. Biological Resources: Discussion combined for Proposed Action, the Focused Acquisition Alternative, and the No Action Alternative. 4. Non Biological Resources: Discussion combined for Proposed Action, the Focused Acquisition Alternative, and the No Action Alternative. 4.1 Air Quality 4.2 Water Quality 4.3 Soils and Seismic Activity 4.4 Transportation 4.5 Housing 4.6 Property Values 4.7 Recreation 4.8 Historic and Cultural Resources 4.9 Noise 4.10 Aesthetics E. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES (Section completed for all topics contained in Section D. A separate analysis of environmental consequences for each alternative would be included for each environmental issue. Additional sections would also be included as identified below.) 1. Biological Resources a) Proposed Action b) Focused Acquisition Alternative c) No Action Alternative 2. Non Biological Resources a) Proposed Action b) Focused Acquisition Alternative c) No Action Alternative 3. Cumulative Impacts 4. Unavoidable Adverse Effects 5. Relationship of Short Term Uses and Long Term Productivity 6. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources F. PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONSULTED G. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT H. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK AND COMPLIANCE 4 ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE Dedicated to Ecosystem Protection and improved Land Use Planning Dan Silver l Coordinator 8424A Santa Monica Blvd., #592 Los Angeles, CA 90069-4267 TEL 323-6.541456 l FAX 323-6541931 June 4,1999 Mayor Bud Lewis and City Council City of Carl&ad 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989 FUG Habitat Management Ilan (Headng date Jime 8,1999)- SUPPORTforrdeave of dn#lfor public comment Dear Mayor Lewis and Councihnembers: The Endangered Habitats League (EHL) has reviewed the draft Habitat Management Plan &IMP). For your reference, EHL is a Southern California organization dedicated to ecosystem protection, improved land use planning, and collaborative conflict resolution which has worked with the City since 1992 on the I-IMP. We commend you for the major progress which has been made. We know that it took great effort and perseverance to complete this draft. It is our unequivocal opinion that the draft is sufficiently sound for release for public comment. At this early point, we are also able to point to strengths in the draft and to some areas where improvement would be desired from our perspective. On the plus side, we are impressed with the treatment of the “Standards Areas.” This represents excellent planning. Also, the City’s leadership in initiating conservation in the MHCP “core area” to the southeast is vital to achieving regional conservation goals. The Habitat Take Permit Fee is another important innovation. Aspects of the implementation program give us pause, however. One of EHL’s goals over the years has been to recognize the value of non-native grassland habitat for birds of prey. No mitigation is proposed for these grasslands or chaparral, nor for coastal sage scrub on private lands unless occupied by gnatcatchers. Concerns related to CEQA are thus raised. We will submit more detailed comments under separate cover, and would appreciate the opportunity to work with you on resolving these matters. The Habitat Management Plan has the potential to create an enormously important natural legacy for the City as well as to streamhne economic development. We share your commitment to a successful plan, and once again urge you to release the draft document for public comment. Sincerely, a I#ayor City CouncU city Manager Dan Silver, MD City Attorney Coordinator City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad- Village Dr. Carlsbad, CA, 9200% 1989 a Mayor City Council City Manager City Attorney RE: Support for the City’s Habitat Management Plant (June 8* Hearing Date) Dear Mayor Lewis and City Council Members: Buena Vista Audubon Society has participated for many years in the habitat planning process in Carlsbad. We are the coastal north San Diego County chapter of the National Audubon Society. Our chapter has over 1,400 members, largely in the cities of Carlsbad, Oceanside, Vista, and San Marcos. We are a non-profit organization dedicated to the enjoyment, appreciation, and preservation of nature. We have a strong educational role, with thousands of school children visiting our nature center on Buena Vista Lagoon each Y--e We are delighted to support the release for public comment of the Draft Habitat Management Plan. We believe this document will be the foundation for a strong and equitable planning process to help preserve our quality of life in Carlsbad. Our membership appreciates the natural values which still exist in our city: the natural beauty, the variety of native plants and animals, and especially the numbers and variety of our native birds. We believe that these natural values are a large part of what sets Carlsbad apart- of what makes Carlsbad special and different from other North County cities. The ordinary citizen may not be able to tell a gnatcatcher from a house sparrow, but he or she knows does know and appreciate our native beauty. We believe the HMP is fair and sound in its approach, and will benefit the development and business communities by unitying the permitting process. It will benefit the native plants and animals by making sure that mitigation projects fit together, and contribute to a viable preserve. This will be a tremendous improvement over the existing piecemeal approach. We will have some specific comments related to details such as coverage for the black shouldered Kite, and avoidance standards for mature riparian forest, which we will submit during the public comment period. But we strongly support the release of the draft for public comment, and congratulate the City on its progress. Conservation Chair June 8, 1999 Tack Henthorn & Associ;?s 5375 Avenida Encinas, Suite D Carlsbad, California 92008 (760) 438-4090 Fax (760) 438-0981 AGENDA ITEM # \ + Honorable Mayor and City Council members City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr. Carlsbad, California 92008 Subject: Habitat Management Plan - Zone 20 properties c: Mayor City Council City Mamger City Attorney city Clerk Honorable Mayor and City Council: Jack Henthorn and Associates represents several properties in the proposed Zone 20 Standards area that have been fully reviewed by City and Wildlife Agency staff members. These projects and their status are noted below: OWNER DEVELOPER STATUS Carnation Spectrum Scheduled for City Council July 6, 1999 DeJong DeJong All City approvals granted: pending LCPA on rezone Hadley Spectrum Scheduled for Planning Commission July 7, 1999 Roesch Standard Pacific Agency/City hard line established; Application complete, in process I I I It is requested that the development boundaries established during consultation with the wildlife agencies and City staff be incorporated as hardline areas in the HMP. This will insure that the agreed upon development areas are fully documented and eliminate future confusion regarding these negotiated settlements. If you have any questions, please contact me at your convenience. file Ray Patchett, City Manager Don Rideout, Senior Planner BCS Carnation DeJong Hadley Roesch Greystone Homes Spectrum Communities Standard Pacific -l- Document5 .,AGENM ??EM # 1 i3. a Mayor CMy council City Manager City Attorney city clerk June 8, 1999 Marron Ventures LLC 8 10 Los Vallecitos Suite 209 San Marcos, California 92069 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 Subject: Habitat Management Plan impacts on Kelly Bartman site Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: Approximately one year ago, Marron Road Ventures, LLC initiated efforts to develop an apartment project on assessor’s parcel numbers 167-030-5155 and 56, located at the east end of Marron Road. Initial meetings with the City staff were encouraging. We were advised to conduct a biological survey of the site to establish how the project might impact any sensitive plant species that might be found on the site. After conducting biological surveys of the site, it was determined that the proposed development envelop would not disturb any sensitive species and that it was unlikely that the site would play a role as a wildlife corridor due to its disturbed nature. The area cited as in the HMP as grassland has historically been farmed by the Kelly Family. It has been fallow for the last several years due to encroachment from surrounding development. This area is the primary area proposed for development on the site. Preliminary plans were submitted to the City Housing and Redevelopment Department reviewed by the housing team and found to be generally acceptable in the fall of 1998. The partnership proceeded to formulate detailed plans for the site. In February 1999, we were advised that although the June 1998 version of the MHCP showed the property as a consultant-recommended conservation area, the City staff was not supporting its inclusion as recommended by the MHCP consultants. The limited mapping available at that time confirmed that the site had not been designated for conservation by the City. Our initial formal application package was submitted in February, 1999. In March we received a response letter from the Planning Department fading our application incomplete and advising that the property had been designated as a “standards” area (in the then-unreleased City HMP). It was noted that inclusion in this standards area requires approximately 75% conservation; a habitat linkage of 400 to 500 feet in width and restoration or enhancement of Coastal Sage Scrub to achieve continuity. The letter went on to state that it would be necessary to consult with the wildlife agencies and the City to establish the actual developable area. It was further noted that the developable area would likely be a strip along Man-on Road. Late last month our development team met with representatives of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. We were advised that the maximum amount of development area that we could anticipate was 25%. The agencies were advised that this level of restriction would not leave an economically viable development area. They suggested that a re-designation to a more intense use such as commercial or light industrial could offset these impacts and were advised that these options were not viable due to conflicts with existing surrounding land uses. The agency representatives noted that in this case the site could become an acquisition site since it was a key piece in maintaining a north south habitat connection. As proposed, approximately 14 acres, or sixty six percent of the 20.65 acre site is slated for disturbance. . However, 100% of the 0.76 acres of Coastal Sage habitat is proposed to be preserved. In addition, approximately 3.93 acres of manufactured slope area will be created and maintained, resulting in a combination of natural and manufactured open areas encompassing 10.29 acres or 49.8 percent of the site. In essence one half of the site will ultimately be left in open space area outside of the actual pad area. The site is bordered by a major shopping center on the west, apartment complexes on the south, a golf driving range on the east and Haymar Drive and Highway 78 on the north. The golf driving range was approved in 1992, effectively severing the Kelly Bartman site from open areas to the east with a large net to catch golf balls that might be hit into the site. (This net would appear to be a significant barrier to the movement of bird species.) It is unclear as to how a site situated in such a manner can be a key element in an east-west wildlife connection. Obviously, the proposal set forth in the HMP and the wildlife agency’s position are unacceptable. There is no nexus between the impacts associated with the development of this site and the rationale for the level of restriction recommended in the draft Habitat Management Plan. Therefore, it is requested that the City consider eliminating this site from designation as a standards area due to its isolated nature, the fact that all sensitive plant species on site are proposed to be preserved and that the application of the standard would render the site economically undevelopable. In exchange, the developer is willing to preserve all sensitive plant species on site, establish development envelop boundaries consistent with the current development proposal and revegetate manufactured slope areas with Coastal Sage plant community species. Thank you for your early consideration of this request. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ManagingPartner, Matron Ventures, LLC , ATTORNEYS AT LAW l FOUNDED 1873 RONALD W. ROUSE, PARTNER DIRECT DIAL NUMBER (619) 699-2579 DIRECTFAXNUMBER(~~~)~~~-S~~~ E-MAILADDRESS:RROUSE@LUCE.COM O~~Fl~~No.:16466-00003 AGENDAllEM# VIA MESSENGER June 7,1999 a Mayor City Council City Rtamger CiZy Attorney Mayor Lewis and Councilmembers City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: June 8, 1999 AB#15,254 Consideration of Draft Habitat Management Plan (YIMP”) Zone 16 Commercial Industrial: Carlsbad Oaks North Owner/Developer: Techbilt Construction Corp. (“Techbilt”) Dear Mayor Lewis and Councilmembers: In the name of protection of endangered species, Carlsbad’s comprehensive Growth Management Program is under attack from state and federal agencies, seeking to permanently and significantly affect the long planned logical and economic patterns of development to the substantial detriment of the City, its property owners and citizenry. Largely without regard to the substantial open space preservation standards already established in Carlsbad intended to protect habitat and enrich the quality of life, even more is being demanded, with the result that the San Diego region in general and Carlsbad as well as its property owners in particular are being asked to shoulder far more constraints and economic losses for national and statewide policies than most other areas. Specifically, for over 20 years Techbilt has owned Carlsbad Oaks North, approximately 414 acres comprising Zone 16, by far the largest remaining undeveloped commercial industrial area located generally east of the City Service Center complex and north of Palomar Airport Road. Techbilt and its predecessors previously developed the Carlsbad Oaks East and West projects and Oaks North has always been the logical extension to round out the City’s employment base. Techbilt is family owned and also owns the Carlsbad Highlands Conservation Bank (“Highlands”) with approximately 100 acres of fully approved mitigation credits remaining there. Techbilt has been actively involved for years with the City staff and agencies in trying to forge a workable HMP while retaining reasonable levels of use for its Zone 16 property to meet the future needs of the City for larger corporate/industrial users. 600 WEST BRO~WAY, SIJITE 2600 l SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 l TELEPHONE (619) 236-1414 l FACSIMILE (619) 232-8311 SAN DIEGO l LA JOLLA l NEW YORK l Los ANGELES * SAN FRANCISCO = CHICAGO LIJ&xwARD, HAMILTON SSCKIPPS LLP ~RNEYSATLAW l FOIJNDED~~~~ Mayor Lewis and Councilmembers June 7,1999 Page 2 Techbilt understands all that the City has been through in negotiating with the agencies and has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to make meaningful concessions to the plan’s success, but not at the excessive loss of development potential on its property. Of its 414 acres, Techbilt originally submitted a detailed 1997 plan to the City to preserve about half of the property permanently (See Attachment “A” Plan 1 -Original TM Design) which exceeds the development standards of the City, and only yields about 151 acres of useable development area of the 414 total. In continuing dialogues with the City and the federal/state agencies over the past two years, Techbilt agreed to reduce its useable area further to 140 acres (See Attachment “B” Plan 2- First Revised Design) and then again to only 133 acres (See Attachment “C” Plan 3-Second Revised Plan), all intended to fix the “hard line” for its property. To give the council some appreciation of the magnitude of such reduction, at current retail market value, the 18 acre reduction represents over $9 Million in useable land. Recognizing that the Council is only being asked to circulate the Draft Plan for a 45 day review period, Techbilt submits the following items for consideration during that period and requests Techbilt be directly involved in working out the final plan and design as it applies to their property, including consideration of the obligations to recognize mitigation lands in the Highlands and the need of Zone 16 to address other important City goals, such as the extension of Faraday/Melrose. Techbilt’s Plan 3 should be incomorated into the HMP. Through the two years of active participation, Techbilt has made significant accommodations to the agencies, working cooperatively with the City to move the HMP forward. Plan 3 represents a substantial concession and deserves the agreed support of the City in negotiations with the agencies. Plan 3 meets all the legitimate biological needs of the agencies and the HMP, while allowing modest net development on substantially unremarkable habitat with no history or record of gnatcatcher presence. Further, the City requested Techbilt to submit reasonable plan modifications in return for incorporating those into the HMP. (See Attachment “D” Letter dated June 1, 1999 and enclosures). The economic viability of the property is being substantially and adversely affected. If too much of the useable area is taken unnecessarily, then it will not be able to support reasonable development levels and contribute to the other important needs of the City for employment opportunities and public facilities such as Faraday/Melrose. Techbilt’s property is a critical link in Carlsbad’s continuing economic health and jobs/housing balance. LUCE~ORWARD, HAMILTON BSCRIPPS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW l FOUNDED 1873 Mayor Lewis and Councilmembers June 7,1999 Page 3 The Habitat designation is incorrect. Techbilt has consistently tried to correct the habitat characterization of its property, most recently in the letter marked Attachment “E” dated June 3, 1999. The discrepancy is more than academic as it affects the biological impacts of development. The property is properly characterized as predominantly “southern mixed chaparral” and has no record of any endangered species actually on site. Its habitat characterization should be accurate and the required mitigation must be proportional to the magnitude and significance of its impacts. Further, as discussed more below, Techbilt has offered portions of its Highlands Conservation Bank to further offset the limited development it requests, but the agencies refuse to fully recognize the mitigation equivalency, contrary to the written 1995 “Carlsbad Highlands Conservation Bank Implementation Agreement” (“Conservation Agreement”). Techbilt needs and deserves the City’s support on this issue as Techbilt has offered Highlands coastal sage/gnatcatcher habitat as mitigation for the rather unremarkable on-site southern mixed chaparral. Carlsbad Highlands Mitigation Eauivalencv. Techbilt’s commitment to habitat mitigation and its cooperative approach all along is demonstrated by the fact that Techbilt owns over 100 acres of full mitigation credits under the Conservation Agreement. As such, Techbilt is entitled to use its Highland’s property to mitigate Zone 16 impacts and the City should cooperate in seeing that effectuated. The Highlands property is qualified for all coastal sage and gnatcatcher credits. It is outrageous that the agencies refuse to recognize its own obligations and commitments to Techbilt in the Conservation Agreement and its full applicability to Zone 16. It adversely impacts the City as well because the agencies are refusing to give credit and thus jeopardizing the viability of Zone 16 along with the employment and public facility benefits it would bring to the City. Constitutional m-inciples of moportionalitv of exactions. The fact that it is federal and state endangered species programs that are at the heart of the HMP does not excuse the City, or those agencies, from conforming its programs, including the HMP, to the constitutional limitations of proportionality of exactions. The HMP and the City’s negotiations with the agencies must be guided by these principles. In fact, it is one of the ironies of the entire process that the state and federal agencies, while controlling the process and mandating excessive levels of exactions, will not accept the liability associated with the LUCE,~ORWARD,HAMILTONQSCRIPPSLLP ATTORNEYSATLAW l FOUNDED 1873 Mayor Lewis and Councihnembers June 7,1999 Page 4 magnitude of its exactions and therefore, the City must proceed with caution to insure that the exactions are constitutionally proportionate. Here, with respect to Zone 16, up until the final draft of the HMP, the property owner and the City were on the same page, but the demands of the agencies have clearly crossed over the line. Techbilt asks that the City support Techbilt’s Plan 3 so that reasonable development and economic viability remain for the property and its significant contributions to the future of the City’s economic vitality, jobs/housing balance and contribution to critical future public infrastructure. Fair, reasonable alternatives and programs have been offered, but it requires the united effort of the City and Techbilt to hold the line. As always, Techbilt is available to meet with the City and the agencies for the mutual success of the HMP and a reasonable plan acceptance by the agencies. LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS LLP RWRljr Encl. cc: City Clerk (via hand delivery w/encl.) Ronald Ball, Esq./City Attorney (via fax w/encl.) Mr. Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director (via fax w/encl.) Mr. Don Rideout, Planner (via fax w/encl.) Mr. Ted Tchang/Techbilt (via fax w/encl.) 1399751.1 :3LAA/l -3ryta\ TM A+ I SW .- - .- - .- - “’ ,, # #i,:..t . .- - - ,... - ,_... :: ” \ .\ .- : .-.+-. CABLSBAD, OAKS NORTH BUk/NESS PARK 7220 ~~~~~~~ inclnor izd En9m.rm9 I suar 204 cart.bad. Colhrma 92009 PlO”M”$ Pfoc*r.onp 3’ .\ 6191Q)l-7700 Sunwng FOX.6 19-g: I-8660 * PLAN 2 -%t nwe~,&--~~~~ + NOT TO SCALE JN 961005 APRIL ‘98 CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH BUSINESS PARK off+7 CONSULT NTS SD0 Pestu coun C;*il Enqinnnnq Suite 100 Aonninp lu-mz\+h~ '2' Cmabd. blilmnia P2006 Plaalnq 619-931-7‘100 Su*rPnq C0s:619-9~1-66M J rkJJBS~%lms\96mZl9 d-23-99 91730 On EST 1475 S603ru. WA-l5l rw-1m-f a PLAEJiik+ ~JWd &wn /t: . . . : :&= .?. pg - --mw,,, . 34,P; 2 ( f23 i.;,, : . IIf ‘_ _ - .- -* _ _.‘- - . _ _’ \ 1 - --‘------‘+-- * l(L-# - . p*- ” 6 - .m I- I - ,-‘ m s -; .- //:////////777///k//l f : I CL-I-,,,#,-r,,1U-.-- MAP No. x1171 NOT TO SCALE JN 961005 04-2s9! I CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH BUSINESS PARK CONSULT 5900 Poslw caurt r Ceil Enqinrcnnq suit* loo Gadsbad. Cdifanio 92OQ6 Plonninp Proc,svq 619-931-7700 Sulwy1nq FO~:6I9-931-86KJ ~~WBS\961m5\9605Zl9 r-23-99 917,30 Or EST Techbilt Construction Corp. 3575 Kenyon St. San Diego, CA 92 110 Telephone (6 19) 223- 1663 Mailing Address P.O. Box 80036 San Diego, CA 92 138 FAX (619) 223-2865 June 1,1999 Mr. Michael Holzmiller City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009 SUBJECT: Carlsbad Oaks North I-IMP hardlines Dear Mike: We have reviewed the draft HMP and have discovered that there apparently has been a potentially serious miscommunication regarding the hardlines for Carlsbad Oaks North that we had all agreed upon. In response to our February 24, 1999 meeting with you and Marty Orenyak, we agreed to revise our subdivision design to give a 200 foot wide buffer along our northern boundary as a consideration to the Los Monos Canyon Preserve. In subsequent conversations with you and Don Rideout, we were told that the City would incorporate our most recent subdivision design into the draft HMP. This revised subdivision design had previously been submitted to City staff by O’Day Engineering and was also given to City staff at our April 28, 1999 meeting with the CDFG and USFWS. A review of the draft HMP shows that the proposed hardline drawing for Carlsbad Oaks North does not conform to our agreed upon subdivision design. Specifically, the proposed hardline drawing shows that the buffer along our northern boundary is larger than 200 feet wide, especially in the northeast comer of our property. There are also some significant discrepancies between our design and the proposed hardline drawing in the area we refer to as “the nose”. The draft HMP hardline has reduced our net pad area in the nose area. We look forward to working with City staff to correct these discrepancies in the draft I-IMP document. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Techbilt Construction Corp. TT:tt -7 Ted Tchang Enclosures: Copy ofproposed I-IMP hardline drawing with major discrepancies circled Copy of Carlsbad Oaks North tentative map design (most recent design) cc: Mr. Don Rideout, City of Carlsbad Mr. Marty Orenyak, City of Carlsbad .* 8, d __. II d I. d d d d d d li II II J d I I 0 e 1 . - L ; _.. : . . . .“. .. -- Figure 10 ‘Carlsbacj Oaks North \i~tiMFdF2B’- 2 9 1997 City of Carlrbad GIS RET ‘! - Techbilt Construction Corp. 3575 Kenyon St. San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone (619) 223-1663 Mailing Address P.O. Box 80036 San Diego, CA 92138 FAX (619) 223-2865 June 3, 1999 Mr. Michael Holzmiller City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009 SUBJECT: Carlsbad Oaks North draft I-IMP Dear Mike: We have additional comments on the draft HMP that we would like City staff to consider. The map titled “Figure 3 Vegetation Map City of Carlsbad” shows that the vegetation on large parts of our property is southern maritime chaparral. In the map titled “Figure 10 Carlsbad Oaks North” those same areas are classified as coastal sage-chaparral scrub. Both of these maps incorrectly identify the vegetation on our property. If you refer to our biology report prepared by Dudek & Assoc., which was submitted as part of the tentative map submittal, the area incorrectly identified as southern maritime chaparral or coastal sage-chaparral scrub is classified as southern mixed chaparral by Dudek and this vegetation was confirmed in a letter by Recon which is included as an addendum to our biology report. We would appreciate it if these errors could be corrected. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Techbilt Construction Corp. Ted Tchang cc: Mr. Don Rideout, City of Carlsbad McMillin A&~nd~Q~;elopment June 4.1999 Mayor Bud Lewis and City Council Members CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad. CA 92008- 1989 VIA HAND DELIVERY Subject: Proposed Habitat Management Plan Relative to Calavera Hills Dear Mayor Lewis and City Council Members: For several months Calavera Hills LLC, comprised of McMillin Companies, LLC and Brookfield Homes (Calavera Hills), has been working diligently with City staff, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish & Game to reach agreement on hardline open space areas for the remainder of our property at Calavera Hills; particularly Villages K, U, W, X and Y. Since purchasing the Calavera Hills property in December, 1997, we have indicated our willingness to establish a reasonable wildlife corridor across Village K in exchange for more developable area in the southerly Villages of U, W, X and Y. The exchange would effectuate a transfer of residential units from Village K to the southerly villages, thereby providing a critical wildlife corridor for the HMP while at the same time maintaining an adequate number of units necessary for the feasibility of our project. City staff and the agencies have expressed their agreement with this concept. Based on this understanding of unit transfer and open space exchange, our LFMP, Master Plan and General Plan Amendment applications have been prepared. Calavera Hills has met on numerous occasions with City staff and the agencies. The last meeting was on April 23, 1999. As a result of that meeting, a hardline proposal for Village K was prepared, accepted by City staff and submitted to the agencies on April 26th. The Village K proposal exceeds the open space preservation recommendations of the City’s draft HMP. With respect to our project as a whole, the open space to development ratio is expected to be 2: 1, in accordance with draft HMP guidelines. For your reference, a proposed hardline exhibit for Calavera Hills is enclosed. As you can see, the net amount of hardline open space for the HMP will increase with our proposal. Ai A A A iki McMillii Realty McMillii Motlgage McMiUii Land Development McMillin Homes McMillin Commercial CORPORATE OFFICE 2727 HOOVER AVENUE NATIONAL CITY CA 91950 TEL ,619) 477.4117 FAX@191 336-3112 www mcmfihn corn I’ I - . Mayor Bud Lewis and City council Members CITY OF CARLSBAD Page 2 June 4. 1999 Calavera Hills is interested in finalizing the hardline open space areas for our project as discussed with and submitted to the City and agencies. A final determination will allow us to proceed with our site development planning for Phase II entitlements in a timely manner. Your support for an expeditious decision on this matter will be appreciated. If you have any questions, or if you need more information, members of our Calavera Hills entitlement and planning team are available to discuss the issues at your convenience. Sincerely, Calavera Hills, LLC McMillin Companies, LLC Managing Member James H. Ondler Senior Vice President JHO/amm Enclosure cc: Ray Patchett, City Manager Lee Rautenkranz, City Clerk Michael J. Holzmiller, Planning Director Don Rideout, Principle Planner David Poole, Brookfield Homes H:\data\acqustnUimoUO\CALZ\O604ltrcouncil.doc . . - KELLYTRUST RICHARD C. KELLY WVDA ITEM # Lb- . r. - cz Mayer .- city council F:h. I# “-A-- W.. lvGba&w City Atto&y c#y- ROBERTPATKELLY Carlsbad City Council 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California June 7,1999 Dear Council Members, Please be advised that I have received and briefly reviewed a copy of the Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad and I take issue with the proposed habitat boundary for the property held by the Kelly Trust at the intersection of Aviara Parkway and Palomar Airport Road. The location of the boundary differs from all of our previous discussions with City staff and is not consistent with the grading plan previously approved by staff on 6-19-89 and the California Coastal Commission, permit no. 6-89-l 27. In the management report, Figure 8, City Golf Course, the setback from the drainage channel has been expanded and appears to far exceed the boundaries shown on our previous approvals. Is the map in error? If so, it needs to be corrected. Otherwise, we need to meet again with staff to determine why the proposed boundaries have been changed and we’d like to take this opportunity to register our strong opposition to those proposed changes. Please advise us as to the accuracy of the report. Thank you. Sincerely, R&fly Robert Pat Kelly 2770 Sunny Creek Road l Carlsbad, CA 92008 l (619) 438-4293 ROBERT E. CALLAHAN JAMES 13. CAVANAUGH WILLIAM R. DEVINE RICHARD J. FOSTER PAUL B. GEORGE ROGER A. GRABLE SUSAN K. HORI ALAN J. KESSEL KENNETH S. KRAMER STEVEN A. McHOLM KATHLEEN CAROTHERS PAONE TIM PAONE JOHN F. SIMONIS MARTIN J. STEIN WILLIAM P. TANNER, Ill DANIEL K. WINTON P9 1000-007 June 8,1999 Hand Delivered Mayor and City Council Members City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: Public Hear& Item: AB #15.254 (June 8,1999) Habitat Manapement Plan for the Citv of Carlsbad: Fox-Miller ProDertv PRE 99-25 Dear Mayor and City Council Members: We are counsel to the owners of the Fox-Miller property, AP No. 212-020-23, in the City of Carlsbad. The property is one of the properties that will be affected by the proposed Habitat Management Plan (HMP). We wish to state our objection to the proposed action of the City Council to approve the HMP and circulate it for public review. The City’s action is premature at this time as we believe additional work should be conducted and the HMP revised before it is made available for public comment. Specifically, there are a number of properties designated as “Proposed Standards Area,” including the Fox-Miller Property, for which no decisions have been made as to either conservation or developable areas. Approving the HMP for public review at this time without resolving issues on these properties is contrary to the expressed desire of the resource agencies who wish to see as many “hardline” determinations as possible before the plan is submitted for their review. We believe the most prudent course of action would be for the City Council to: . Postpone issuing the HMP for public review for sixty (60) days . Instruct City staff to continue working with those landowners who have requested “hard line” determinations for their properties . Circulate a revised HMP only after “hard line” determinations have been made for all properties requesting such The City’s rush to issue a partially-completed HMP is only the latest step in a process that has been designed to prepare a plan on a schedule to accomplish the City’s objectives, and not achieve a 060899/15:54 P91000-007/110451.3 - Mayor and City Council Members June 8,1999 Page 2 region-wide consensus among all affected landowners. We are very disturbed by the single-focused efforts of the City and the lack of notice to or involvement of other affected landowners in what should be a more broad-based, consensus effort. 1. The Citv Failed to Notifv the Fox-Miller ProDertv Landowners of the ImDact of the HMP on Their ProDertv. My clients were never contacted directly by the City regarding the HMP efforts, or its impact on their property. In November, 1998, my client was approached by a private consultant who suggested that we contact the City as we may be an affected property. My clients immediately initiated efforts to find out whether and how their property might be affected by the City’s planning process. Once we understood the nature of the City’s HMP process, my client has made efforts to work with the City to (1) study the existing conditions on the site; (2) understand the conservation objectives of the City; and (3) develop appropriate mitigation for the site that could achieve protection of both sensitive habitat and private property rights. 2. The Citv Has Failed to Provide Timelv ResDonse to the Landowner’s “Hardline” ProDosal. At the suggestion of City staff (Don Rideout), my clients developed a “hardline” plan for the site that proposed conservation and development areas for the property based upon biological studies, sound mitigation concepts, and agency consultation. The “hardline” plan consisted of two components: a site plan that proposed areas for development and conservation, and a supporting biological technical report. The site plan was developed following a meeting on the project site with David Lawhead of the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Julie Vanderwier of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The agencies’ comments and concerns were incorporated into our proposed site plan. In addition to the site plan, our biological consultant, Wendy Loeffler of RECON, completed a biological technical report describing the probable impacts of the site plan and proposed mitigation. The proposed site plan and biological technical report were submitted to Gary Wayne of the City, with a copy to Don Rideout, by letter dated March 3, 1999, with a request that a “hardline” determination for the property be included in the City’s HMP. By letter dated April 27,1999, the City notified us that they had conducted a preliminary review of our site plan, but that the requested “hardline” determination could not be addressed through the preliminary review process; the matter must be addressed through consultation with Planning Director, Michael Holzmiller, and Principle Planner, Don Rideout. The letter stated that Mr. Rideout had reviewed the biological resources study and viewed it as acceptable with regard to methodology and conclusions. 060899/15:40/P91000-007/110451.3 Mayor and City Council Members June 8,1999 Page 3 Following receipt of that letter, we immediately contacted Don Rideout to address this matter with him directly. At that time, Mr. Rideout assured us that a “hardline” determination for the Fox-Miller property would be made prior to sending out the HMP for public comment and review. On May 20, 1999, Mr. Robert C. Ladwig, planner for the Fox-Miller site, contacted Mr. Rideout and received assurances that a “hardline” determination for the Fox-Miller property would be included in the HMP. Just four days later, on May 24,1999, Mr. Rideout called Mr. Ladwig to inform him that, in fact, a “hardline” for the Fox-Miller property would not be included in the current draft of the HMP. Our submittal should be given full consideration by the City as it reflects revisions made to address the concerns of USFWS and CDFG raised during our consultation with them. Mr. Lawhead of CDFG and Ms. Vanderwier of USFWS have verbally indicated support for the proposed “hardline” plan and accompanying mitigation, but are unwilling to review the plan in detail or provide written comments until the City demonstrates they will pursue a “hardline” determination. We have heard that the regulatory agencies would prefer a “hardline” determination for the Fox-Miller property in the HMP. As the HMP will ultimately have to be approved by these agencies, we believe their views on this matter should be given due consideration and credence. 3. The HMP Circulated for Public Review Should be Comnlete and Comurehensive: It Should Not Relv UDon After-the-Fact Addenda to Resolve ODen Issues. Of even greater concern is the City’s proposal to handle outstanding issues through an addendum not subject to public review. Mr. Rideout has informed us that since our hardline determination was not included in the HMP, as we were led to believe, he would try to establish the “hardline” determination during the HMP’s 45-day comment period and include it as an addendum to the HMP. We strongly discourage publication of a draft when the City knows now that it will have to prepare an addendum to address issues resolved during the public review period. Documenting new “hardline” determinations in an “addendum” not circulated for public review denies the public the opportunity to comment on those determinations and to consider those determinations in light of the overall plan. The HMP is being rushed to the City Council without finalizing as many “hardline” determinations as possible. The City, the regulatory agencies, and the Fox-Miller property landowner all have the same goal: “hardline” determinations to provide greater certainty regarding habitat protections that will be afforded under this proposed plan. Common sense dictates that this should be done prior to publishing the HMP. The landowner has consistently followed the requests of the City to develop the necessary data to support a “hardline” determination. We have met with the appropriate resource agencies and included their input in preparation of a final mitigation plan and “hardline” proposal. We feel it is in the best interest of all parties to resolve this matter before sending the HMP out for public comment Making changes later that could be made now will only result in further costs and delays; 060899/15:40/T'91000-007/110451.3 Mayor and City Council Members June 8,1999 Page 4 revised drafts will have to be prepared, and additional public review periods provided. If the City truly wants to expedite completion of the HMP process, we suggest that it resolve as many issues as it can before distributing this draft. This is a significant proposal with significant environmental impacts which the public has the right to review as a comprehensive plan-not in piecemeal fashion. We respectfully request that the HMP not be released for public comment until “hardline” determinations are made on the three or four remaining properties and such determinations are included in the HMP so that the public has an opportunity to review the plan in its entirety. We stand ready to meet with appropriate City personnel to resolve this matter immediately. 4. The HMP Raises Other Concerns Which Must Be Addressed. In addition to our request to postpone public review until the HMP reflects a greater level of completion, we would like to also identify some major areas of concern with the HMP. We wish to reserve the right to provide additional comments during the City’s official comment period on both the HMP and the Negative Declaration, but based upon our preliminary review of the draft HMP, we wish to note the following: . Standards for Transnlantation of the Thread-leaved Brodiaea. Under the draft HMP, specific conservation standards apply to the Fox-Miller property. The HMP requires conservation of 100% of thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea) on-site. (HMP at. D-49.) Under the HMP, conservation includes such activities as management of the land and its resources rather than simply avoidance. (HMP at B-2.) The HMP states that transplantation of any minor narrow endemic populations, not deemed critical populations, may be considered as a management option, if on-site preservation is not feasible. (HMP at F-22.) The Brodiaea on the Fox-Miller property is described as one of four critical populations. (HMP Appendix C-7.) When all these sections are taken together they can be construed to preclude the use of transplantation as a management tool for conserving Brodiaea on the Fox-Miller and other similar properties. This makes little sense when transplantation of a species like Brodiaea can be a very affective conservation and management tool. The relocation of populations within a given piece of property could allow for more effective protection and long-term survival. We feel the language regarding transplantation within Zone 5, found on page F-22 of the HMP, needs to be revised to allow for transplantation on-site of critical narrow endemic populations given a showing that such on-site transplantation will facilitate better long-term protection and conservation. 060899/15:40/P91000-007/110451.3 Mayor and City Council Members June 8,1999 Page 5 . Habitat Take Permit Fee Is Not Sunported. The rationale for, and the amount of, the proposed habitat take permit fee, described on page E-7 of the HMP, are very questionable. One of the primary purposes of the HMP was to allow City development of certain City projects. Therefore, the majority of the costs for the HMP should be absorbed as part of the City projects. Any savings in time or cost to individual landowners, such as Fox-Miller, are negligible. We have still incurred time delays and costs as a result of the HMP process, have still had to negotiate with USFWS and CDFG over mitigation for impacts to endangered species, and must still process any wetlands permits through the Army Corps of Engineers. Imposing a habitat take permit fee on top of all this is unjustified. . Lack of Information Renardinp Pronosed Hard Line Preserve Areas. Figures 8 through 19 of the HMP consist of colored maps showing the proposed hardline preserve areas. However, there is no information in the HMP that describes how the hardlines were determined for each of these areas. Without such information, it is impossible to provide educated comments on the reasonableness of the hardlines or question standards applied for consistency and adequacy. Additional documentation justifying each of the hardline determinations for these properties, the extent of habitat protection to be achieved, and the amount of habitat that are outside of the conservation areas should be included in the HMP. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these preliminary comments. As indicated above, we intend to submit more detailed comments during the public review period once a revised HMP and Mitigated Negative Declaration are released for public comment. We hope, however, that the City will honor our request and postpone publication and public review of this draft until it has fulfilled its prior assurances to private landowners who have requested hardline determinations that those determinations would be completed and included in the HMP before it is circulated for public review. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Susan K. Hori cc: Michael Holzmiller Don Rideout Dean Miller 060899/15:54/P91000-007/110451.3 m MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION for the Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for Natural Communities in the CITY OF CARLSBAD Prepared by City of Carlsbad and Dudek and Associates April 1999 Table of Contents Sections Page Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 A. Proposed Description/Proposed Action 3 B. Summary of Environmental Factors Potentially Affected 49 C. Earlier Analysis 49 D. Determination 50 E. Environmental Impacts (Checklist) 57 F. Discussion of Environmental Impacts 60 G. List of Mitigating Measures 100 Tables 1. HMP Conservation Levels 11 2. Existing Hardline Conservation Areas 15 3. Proposed Hardline Conservation Areas 19 4. Standards Areas 23 5. HMP Species 29 6. Measures for HMP Species 32 7. Narrow Endemic Species 47 8. Mitigation Ratios for Impacts to HMP Habitats 48 9. Vacant Lands Zoned for Urban Uses Converted to Open Space 63 10. Vacant Lands Zoned for Urban Uses within Standards Areas 66 11. Habitat Types Within Carlsbad 75 12. HMP Species and Associated Vegetation Communities 77 13. Narrow Endemic Species List 80 14. Vernal Pool Species 81 15. Other Wetland Species 81 16. HMP Species Significantly Impacted 83 17. Sensitive Non-Covered Species 84 Figures 1. Conservation Components Map 9 2. Existing Hardline Conservation Areas 13 3. Proposed Hardline Conservation Areas 17 4. Proposed Standards Areas 21 5. HMCP Core Area Map 27 6. Existing Take Agreements 53 7. Major EIRs 55 8. Focus Planning Areas 91 City of Carlsbad Planning Department MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION HIM Project Address/Location: City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Project Description: Carlsbad. CA 92009-1576 City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP) (Detailed project description contained in attached Environmental Impact Assessment Form) The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project "as revised" may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Don Rideout or Michael Holzmiller in the Planning Department at (760) 438-1161, extension 4430. DATED: CASE NO: CASE NAME: EIA 99-04 CARLSBAD HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN (HMP) PUBLISH DATE: MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director 2075 La Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-0894 This page left blank ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM CASE NO: El A 99-04 DATE: May 25.1999 CASE NAME: Citv of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP) APPLICANT: Citv of Carlsbad ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2075 Las Palmas. Carlsbad. CA 92009-1576: Tel: 760-438-1161 A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/PROPOSED ACTION 1. BACKGROUND The Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad (Carlsbad HMP, "the Plan") proposes a comprehensive, citywide program to identify how the City, in cooperation with federal and state wildlife agencies, can preserve the diversity of habitats and protect sensitive biological resources within the City while allowing for additional development consistent with the City's General Plan and its Growth Management Plan. In so doing, the Plan is intended to meet federal and state standards for issuance of citywide permits and authorizations for the incidental take of sensitive species in conjunction with private development projects, public projects, and other activities which are consistent with the Plan. The Plan also is designed to serve the following specific functions: • Preserve wildlife and habitats as part of the City's permanent open space system and thereby be a component of the Open Space and Conservation Element of the City's General Plan; • Allow the City to construct public facility and infrastructure projects dictated by the City's Growth Management Plan; • Define the City's contribution to regional efforts to conserve coastal sage scrub (CSS) habitat and species under California's Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) program. The Plan constitutes an Ongoing Multi-Species (OMSP) that is consistent with NCCP guidelines. • Allow projects in the City to fulfill their federal and state Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements for certain species through compliance with the HMP; • Constitute a conservation plan submitted with the City's application to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) for authorization to take certain listed species; and • Constitute Carlsbad's subarea plan within the North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP). • Identify biological conservation standards and mitigation requirements to be applied to the design, environmental review and local permit processing of subsequent projects. 2. Discretionary Actions to be Implemented by the City of Carlsbad under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) The following actions are required by the City of Carlsbad to implement the HMP and are addressed by the environmental review in this document required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) would act as a responsible agency under CEQA for these actions. Changes to the relevant documents associated with these discretionary actions are identified in Appendix A to this document: A. Immediately upon approval of the HMP, the City will adopt an urgency ordinance as permitted by California Government Code Section 65858, to require compliance with the plan while permanent regulatory measures are being drafted and approved. B. The City will amend the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan to incorporate the HMP by reference. Both the Open Space Map contained in the Element, as well as the Land Use Map contained in the Land Use Element will be amended to show the Existing and Proposed Hardline Preserve Areas as Open Space. If necessary or applicable, existing goals, objectives or policies contained in the Element may be amended to strengthen the City's ability to implement the HMP (see Appendix A for recommended amendment wording). C. The City's Open Space Ordinance (Section 21.53.230, Carlsbad Municipal Code) will be amended to add conserved habitat lands, as identified in the HMP, as undevelopable open space lands (see Appendix A for recommended amendment wording). D. The Carlsbad Municipal Code will be amended by the addition of a new section to require lands located within the Standards Areas of the HMP to comply with the specific conservation standards contained in Section D of the HMP (see Appendix A for recommended amendment wording). E. The City's Growth Management Plan contains a requirement that an additional 15% of the otherwise developable land within an LFMZ be set aside for open space purposes. Priorities for use of the 15% standard are contained in the City's Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan. The City will amend this Plan to make the conservation of habitat as identified in the HMP a priority use for the 15% standard in the LFMZs where it is appropriate (see Appendix A for an example). F. The City will comply with all terms and conditions of the IA with USFWS and CDFG. 3. Future Actions Required to Implement the HMP The City has developed the HMP through coordination with the CDFG and the USFWS. Based on coordination with the CDFG and the USFWS, the HMP incorporates language to allow projects to fulfill their federal and state Endangered Species Act requirements through compliance with the HMP. As discussed below, any authorization involving the relationship of the HMP to the Federal Endangered Species Act will need to be provided by the USFWS. This CEQA document is not intended to address the federal requirements of the USFWS or environmental review of future USFWS actions required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Any impacts to endangered species covered under the Federal Endangered Species Act associated with future public or private development projects within the City of Carlsbad that would be allowed under the HMP could not proceed until the USFWS could approve the following: «• • Formal approval and adoption of the Plan will occur through execution of an Implementing Agreement between the City, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the ** California Department of Fish and Game (collectively referred to as the "parties"). m Private development projects would receive take permits by means of the City's authorizations under the Implementing Agreement, which will authorize citywide •• permits for a term of 50 years, with a provision for extensions. urn • In approving the Implementing Agreement, the parties would determine that the plan is "» consistent with the State's Natural Community Conservation Planning Act Conservation m Guidelines, California Endangered Species Act and criteria in Section 10(a) of the federal endangered species act, namely: 1M» m 0 The taking of covered species will be incidental to otherwise lawful activities; „, 0 The impacts of the taking of the covered species will be minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable; 0 Adequate funding for long-term protection of the covered species will be provided; "• and 0 The taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of «i the covered species in the wild. m Based on the above findings, it is anticipated that the following actions would be taken by the USFWS: urn a) Issue a written statement indicating the Service's concurrence that the HMP is '*"* consistent with NCCP Process Guidelines and that, in accordance with the special ,« 4(d) rule, take of coastal California gnatcatchers in conformance with the HMP is not a violation of Section 9 of the federal ESA; •t>8* •»» b) Issue a permit for incidental take of coastal California gnatcatchers, pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the federal ESA;** •» c) Issue a Biological Opinion pursuant to an internal Section 7 consultation and conference that, based on the best available scientific information, federally listed "" species, species currently proposed for federal listing, other species of concern, and m areas designated or proposed as critical habitat will not be jeopardized; "*" d) Execute an agreement with the City ensuring implementation of the HMP and m providing pre-listing assurances that federal authorization for incidental take will be given if species covered by the plan become federally listed, with the authorization '•* provided in the form of a Section 10(a) permit, a biological opinion pursuant to a — Section 7 consultation, or in accordance with the provisions of a special 4(d) rule; and m e) Approve an Environmental Assessment (EA) pursuant to NEPA certifying that the above actions will not result in a significant impact to the environment. 4. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The overall goal of the HMP is to contribute to regional biodiversity and the viability of rare, unique or sensitive biological resources throughout the City of Carlsbad and the larger region while allowing public and private development to occur consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan and Growth Management Plan. The specific biological objectives of the Plan are to: • Conserve the full range of vegetation types remaining in the City, with a focus on rare and sensitive habitats; • Conserve areas of habitat capable of supporting the HMP Species over time; and • Maintain functional wildlife corridors and habitat linkages within the City and to the region, including linkages that connect gnatcatcher populations and movement corridors for large mammals. The specific conservation objectives of the Plan are to: • Maintain functional biological cores; • Maintain functional linkages and movement corridors; • Conserve rare vegetation communities; • Conserve narrow endemic species; and • Apply a "no net loss" policy to the conservation of wetlands, riparian and oak woodland habitats. The specific land use objectives of the Plan are to: • Protect important wildlife habitats while allowing for orderly growth and develop- ment; • Provide a menu of land use measures to protect and conserve habitat according to the Plan including standards relating to mitigation, open space dedications and density transfers; • Provide a framework for coordinating and monitoring the protection and management of biological resources in natural open space; and • Provide for the continued implementation of the Growth Management Plan, particularly the provision for ensuring adequate public facilities to serve new growth. The specific economic objectives of the Plan are to: • Minimize ESA-related mitigation costs to public and private projects; • Allow continued economic growth and development in the City; and • Minimize the overall cost of HMP implementation to the City and its residents. 5. THE PRESERVE SYSTEM AND RESULTING LEVELS OF CONSERVATION The combination of four preserve and assembly components described below will result ultimately in a preserve system of approximately 6,489 acres. Figure 1 generally shows the first three conservation components combined on one map. The fourth component consists of the acquisition of lands in the unincorporated area southeast of Carlsbad. The HMP map, which is contained in the HMP document (Figure 2) shows the entire preserve system within Carlsbad and includes the existing hardline areas, proposed hardline areas, Standards Areas and the areas subject to existing take agreement (Fieldstone/Carlsbad HCP). Table 1 provides the total resulting levels of conservation achieved by the HMP, based on all four major components of the preserve system. The preserve system has been designed, to the maximum extent feasible, to ensure that covered species addressed by the HMP continue to survive in healthy and thriving populations in Carlsbad. Table 1 also shows the conservation levels excluding the area covered by the Villages of La Costa (VLC) HCP take permit. Although this area has not yet developed, the VLC HCP was approved and legal agreements with the property owners and wildlife agencies were entered into prior to the completion of the HMP. The city does not have the authority to require additional conservation on the properties covered by the HCP. If the VLC HCP is excluded from the analysis, the level of conservation is higher in the remainder of the City and resultant take of HMP species is lower. The analysis with the VLC HCP excluded is shown to indicate the level of conservation that will be achieved for the portion of the City over which the City still has control of the conservation outcome. As identified in Table 1, implementation of the HMP will result in the preservation of 66% of the remaining habitat in the City including 64% of the remaining coastal sage scrub habitat. By adding other land to the preserved system (e.g., disturbed habitat) and creating a system of 6,489 acres, the overall conservation level is 74%. When adjusted for the existing VLC HCP take permit, 71% of the remaining habitat is preserved, and 68% of the coastal sage scrub habitat, and the overall conservation level is increased to 78%. The plan also proposes the acquisition and conveyance of 296 acres of habitat in the unincorporated area southeast of Carlsbad (MHCP Core Area). 6. Existing Hardline Preserve Areas This is the first of the four components of the HMP preserve system. These areas include both publicly owned land and privately owned land that have been committed to habitat conservation as a result of existing open space regulations, past development approvals or other actions (see Figure 2). This includes the City's three coastal lagoons and wetlands, the Dawson Los Monos Reserve, as well as preserve areas in Aviara, Villages of La Costa, Carrillo Ranch, Calavera Heights, and other development areas. There are a number of other projects in the City which have obtained permits or approvals from the federal and state wildlife agencies to impact listed species or their habitats and which have agreed to conserve other habitat areas. The proposed conservation areas of these projects are also included in the existing hardline portions of the preserve system. The total acreage of existing hardline areas equals approximately 4,436 acres, or approximately 68% of the 6,489 acre preserve system. Table 2 lists the acres of habitat conserved within exiting hardline areas. One conservation bank in operation in the City is the Carlsbad Highlands Conservation Bank, approved by the USFWS and CDFG in 1995. This bank contains 263 acres of primarily upland habitats, including coastal sage scrub. The conservation bank is included in the preserve system. This page left blank m m Existing Hardline Conservation Areas Proposed Hardline Conservation Areas Proposed Standards Areas Existing Take Agreements Fig.1 Conservation Components Map © 1999 City of Carlsbad QI3 /cargi«2/product»/hmp/r61.97/rigur««dii/nafldecd,aml 06/24/99 . CO IU ~ UJ - -2 Zoo 0. "S o= "U * =CO <D Q. ^Hllg•ftSSSsll TotalEstimatedAcres.ConservedAdjusted forVLC (3)iiiiiUJ ZOO 9* w ° c— (/) ^0 *-«-• o o t/i x1- O co UJ 1 1 Sill a> 73 0) CO.2 £ "o O^5 CO CD ^3 CDCD (/) <n $ 0 = (0!l!l! -__ Q) 2^. s ••» 2 111!! ^, Hi! S?3oCO£1 in ss % COto in" oo eCM ^_ CO ^*w CO ^en ee «5 o o UJH< CDCOCOCNCOCO1 8COCM" ^3 CO ^CM" SCO 1 ^_ ^*.CM T— ^CO CO 0)o>CO si<3£ ^SCMSi COo> ^S ,_o CM COo> ^HO ^- o I ChaparralCMCOo>S inoCO g? 00 COinCO CO CM 0inCM ^_ §SouthernMaritimeChaparralgCMOOEM CM ^S ^CM CN CM CO 0)CM I Oak| Woodland0COf-ooCOin•t CO in ^§ v ono> o ^ ^_i-- CM Tf m I Riparian (5o18COCN o CO ss § *~ n CM_ inm o>in mm T- CMCOCO Sni ^COoCOCO inr- ^CO ^CO m CO ino . S I Grassland81O)CO§} T—mCM 35COCO COO) o *- f-Ol KinCM I Eucalyptus1 Woodland11 This page left blank 12 Figure 2 Existing Hardline Conservation Areas ® 1997 City of Carlibad OI8 /cafgi«2/product»/hmp/r«1.97/figureK)ii/iw«rfiQ5.«ml 03/04/99 to 8o UJa: qs o UJ Q01 < O CO X UJ COt: 1oUJGOK j~* CO 0 CO5 ^ CO i «i_oaO"S5 w2 £3 "5u O) W T>3 C to= 5UJ *?JB O 1aS carIBa * •* T3IB cO jo oS E | g Js « °s5 1S.<o O 1*1IB CO °0 COu slis j n S Nu. c*~ "- o o CMs o 0 o o CM OaoCO o ,- O) O> T- o o o a> CN COT—O o o o CM o o o 0 o CO COCM•o-o o o o CM T- o 0 o o CM 00T—CMCMCM O in CM CM O ^ o> Tt s % in *T~* o o CM CO a> o 05 Si 12 CO CNSicoCO o CO 00CM o in o o £ in §CM00 "- o ^ CM CMCO o o CM CD CO COinT-* O o 0 inCO o o o o CO O) COCMm"• o CO 5 00CM CO ^ O COCO CM 5 O 00CM00mCOO)CO o T-^~ CDa> *• Tj-co 0 in I T— CMO>O* '- T- oCO o 00 ^ o o CM s. CM CO0t— '- O CM T- O o o o - CO ooCM o o CM o ,- o o 8 COCO 8T— COCM O CD 00 O ,J- CM O o '£> T— in o0o o 0 o o o o o o o CO ooo 0 o o o o o o o o ^ sCMCOmCO J 0 s "* CON CO o CMCO COCD 00 sco00CM in COr*- CM ooo CO^ o in § CDCO CD COOO)*~ O o o CD ,_ O o "* 8 8 oCMO*" O 0 o o o o CD o o T- CMOCM 0 o o o o o o o o • el inCMCO 00 o ."- •" CO ^ 0 ^T~ o o CO V-CD00o o o •*• o T— CO o •^ ° CD ooo o 0 o 0 o o o o o in (OeoCM2 S |>. 0> in * s •t T",_ fN.CM ««> 0 CM « ^ W 3o &toIoI Iinra I n£ •i 3 COro JO "E •ainco nj co 15 7. Proposed Hardline Preserve Areas A number of proposed public and private projects have submitted proposed hardline designs for inclusion in the HMP and the preserve system (see Figure 3). Upon approval of the HMP, these proposals will obtain the same conservation status as the existing hardline areas and the City's General Plan will be amended to designate them as open space. Take of habitat and species will be authorized for the designated development portions of the projects. These projects include the City's municipal golf course, Lake Calavera, Veteran's Memorial Park, Hub Park, the Zone 19 Park, Manzanita Properties, SDG&E South Shore properties, Bressi Ranch, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park, Holly Springs, Kelly Ranch, South Coast and the Raceway Property. Detailed boundaries are shown for the individual projects within the Plan. The proposed hardline boundaries on Veteran's Memorial Park which provide a corridor between the City's Municipal Golf Course and properties to the north, constitutes mitigation for the development of the remaining portion of Veterans Memorial Park. A pedestrian trail, park road and five individual and two group passive picnic areas will be permitted in the corridor. The city is proposing to include the 266 acre public property at Lake Calavera as a public project mitigation bank for municipal projects, such as the City's golf course and the major roads shown on the City's Circulation Plan. The other City projects which could be covered by the City mitigation bank are listed in the Plan. One of the objectives of the HMP is permitting for City public facility projects mandated by the Growth Management Plan. The purpose of a public mitigation bank will be mitigation of unavoidable impacts to biological resources resulting from these public facilities projects. The levels of conservation achieved by the proposed hardline component of the preserve system by habitat type are provided in Table 3. The total acreage of conserved habitat resulting from proposed hardline conservation areas is 1,353 acres or approximately 21% of the preserve system. 8. Standards Areas For some key properties within the City which do not have proposed hardline designs for inclusion in the preserve system at this time, the HMP includes conservation goals and standards which will apply to future development proposals in these areas. The goals and standards have been arranged according to the Local Facilities Management Zones (LFMZs) to which they apply. Figure 4 shows the areas of the City and individual properties covered by the Standards Areas. The standards apply only to those specified areas within the LFMZs not already covered by existing and proposed hardline areas, existing take authorizations, or areas shown as development areas on the HMP map. The HMP requires that each Standards Area demonstrate how the goals and objectives of the HMP will be achieved. Where a Standards Area includes multiple ownerships, the HMP requires that the owners coordinate their conservation planning efforts. This planning should ensure that viable biological open space will be comprehensively planned for the zone, rather than having open space areas planned piecemeal for each parcel within the zone. If individual properties are proposed for development within a zone, the property owner must show how the standards will be met. No standards are required for Zones 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23 and 24 because they are already considered developed, are proposing hardline boundaries, or are subject to existing take agreements. The detailed standards are contained in Section D of the Plan. 16 Figure 3 Proposed Hardline Conservation Areas <£> 1997 City of Carlibad 018 /c«^2/producti/hmp/r61.97/fwireidiiMowfiQ6.aml 04/22/99 CO O *~*5?^_ 0 (Ara0) ^ c to 0(0coo c J^ ^2 (5 X •o 0woa 2a. |i-5i a LU 00o: 3 ^~(0a (0 t5 * £ 1 (A1•oa>Q.OOIi3•«a 3 "5u•c0) ^ M -o || t§55 •o J2M O 10 ca•c(0a. £ •o Cj^ <a 3? i E g 2» E t |1| 1(0a. (0 U 2 0 .0w a> 2 w n;|| » 0 =§ 0)0 u. 000T~ "*" o o m o o o o CO •«- oo0 0 o o o o o o 0 o CM ooo 0 o o o o o o o o CO oo0 o o o o o o o o o T COCOlv- 0 o 00CM o CO o CO *~ inCM in ooo o o o o o o o o o CO in"~o 0 o CM o o o o 0 CM r^ COSioin CM v- CO '- ^>CM O CM 05 00 OOO 0 o o o o o o 0 o CO inoo o o o o o o o •* o 0oo o o 0 0 o o o 0 o •<- ooo o o 0 o o o o o o CM inr--oT- CM O CO T— £ in o o o CO CO CMCOCMinCO o o CO CO i^^_ o o $ COCO •<t CO00o"* ^ o CO T— CO T- o o s^~ m COoCMoo o o oin o CN o CM s CM CO CO soo c-en o •*- o f^ o o CO 00CO c- sCMIs.CM o o T- co o o o "* T— oo ooo o o 0 o o o o o o en ooo o o 0 o o 0 o o o o soCO 1— 0 o o o T- a> o o •«- ooo o o o o o o o o o CN^>l ooo o o o 0 o o o o o CO ooo o o 0 o o o o 0 en •* E*"CO o o CO ••- o o o en T- in inCMT-§ T- ,(- £5T~ % f^ ^m V* CM " i o> u> v> 1H 19 The planning standards are based on biological issues defined specifically for each zone based on existing biological conditions and preserve design considerations. These issues are translated into HMP conservation goals, which in general focus on conserving and maintaining major and critical populations of HMP species, major and critical habitat patches within core areas, and landscape linkages and movement corridors between core areas as well as with adjoining jurisdictions. The protection of coastal sage scrub habitat is of particular importance in these remaining, unplanned areas of the City. Therefore, a minimum of 67% of the coastal sage scrub and 75% of the California gnatcatchers shall be conserved in the Standards Areas. Also of particular importance is the protection of Narrow Endemic species. The standards require 100% conservation of Narrow Endemics within Focus Planning Areas. There are several properties within the Standards Areas which are extremely important to planning a viable preserve system because of their geographical location (e.g., linkage) or the habitat type occurring on the property. In order to achieve the necessary level of conservation while also allowing reasonable economic use of these properties, the standards allow 25% of the property to be developed, while 75% will be conserved. The City's projection of levels of conservation within the preserve system achieved by future compliance with the conservation standards by habitat type and by LFMZ are provided in Table 4. The total estimated acreage of conserved habitat resulting from the proposed Standards Areas is 700 acres or approximately 11% of the preserve system. It should be noted that the acreage figures are an estimate based on the information currently available. Precise figures for any specific area will not be known until completion of the review and approval process described above. IP m 20 j Fig. 4 Proposed Standards Areas © 1997 City of Carlsbad QIS /car^«2/product»/hmp/r61.97/figureidir/prop«a.aml 03/04/99 UHl I Ml WQ (0 DISTURBED HABITATSNATURAL HABITATSM105Developed DisturbedAgricultureEucalyptusWoodlandGrasslande(B n fea£OakWoodlandSouthernMaritimeChaparralChaparral111sw«o | 0) ••* m T~ in •* CM OOCM CM -«• CO m N.CM N.CM r«. in in oo oin om T- s a> CM •t •* fe O5CM CM •* Tf CM OCM in CO CO en S T—CM CM(O N a>(O r»- mm i^ V CM S OO T1" oCM O)in CO inCM o0f-oo o o in!•- inm o•^ CM (O ^CM <OS to 1- 23 9. MHCP Participation - As a result of the biological analysis associated with the preparation of the North County Subregional Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP), it has been determined that a large (approximately 500 acres) biological core area primarily for supporting a core population of gnatcatchers is needed in the south-central portion of the MHCP and including the unincorporated area to the southeast of Carlsbad in the general area as shown on Figure 5. The initial biological analysis for the HMP also identified the need to enhance conservation levels, particularly for coverage of the gnatcatcher. In addition, as part of the approval of the Fieldstone HCP, the City was required to take a lead position in identifying the location and potential funding sources for 240 acres in the same general area. In order to satisfy its participation in the MHCP core area, increase conservation levels for the gnatcatcher in the HMP and fulfill it responsibilities under the Fieldstone HCP, the City will effectuate the conservation and conveyance of 296 acres of land within the MHCP core area consisting of the following components: A. Bank of America (VLC) onsite (increased coastal sage scrub preservation within the Villages of La Costa) ,,0 _____I^ aCiGS B. Fieldstone HCP offsite (the difference between additional onsite preservation identified above and the 240 acre need identified in the Fieldstone HCP 228 acres C. Rancho Carrillo offsite conservation (mitigation funds previously paid by Rancho Carrillo Master Plan to be used for offsite acquisition in the MHCP Core Area) 16 acres D. Municipal Golf Course offsite conservation (partial mitigation for development of the City golf course) ,- acres TOTAL 296 ACRES (Note: In order to use 40 acres of this area for golf course mitigation, at least 5 pairs of gnatcatchers must occupy a contiguous portion of the 296 acres.) 10. Covered Species - The plan proposes to provide adequate coverage for the species shown on Table 5. A number of species which were originally included on the covered species list have been removed pending additional information or completion of the MHCP. 11. Measures to Minimize Impact on HMP Species and Mitigation Requirements The primary mitigation for impacts to HMP species under the plan is the conservation and management of habitat for the species in the preserve system. In addition, in compliance with the ESA requirements that the impacts of incidental take be minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable, measures to avoid and reduce impacts will apply on a project-level basis. Conservation goals and measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to HMP species on an individual project basis are summarized in Table 6. Narrow Endemics which are provided an added level of protection are listed in Table 7. These standards will be applied to all public and private projects. Detailed information about the measures for HMP species is included in the plan (Appendix C), together with an analysis of the effects of take and plan implementation on the HMP species. All future projects within the City, in or outside of the preserve, shall also mitigate impacts to habitat based on the mitigation requirements provided below in Table 8, Projects which conserve at least 67% of habitat onsite shall not be subject to offsite mitigation. Habitat conserved onsite shall be credited 24 toward mitigation. After determining the amount of acreage needed for mitigation based on the mitigation ratios, the acres of onsite conserved habitat shall be subtracted from the required acres of mitigation. Mitigation shall occur within the City principally in the focus planning areas unless the City Council authorizes mitigation outside the City. All mitigation sites are subject to City approval. Mitigation banks may be approved by the City and the wildlife agencies, subject to the issuance by the City of a conditional use permit as required by the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 25 This page left blank 26 Lilac ; Fig. 5 _ MHCPCore - Area Map (0o IO "3 3 co i!5 Q. 1 (0<U Covered Speck0uc1-™cONLL 12n *« O Q. O 'M 1CO Mt 1 Scientific Name1 Common Name1 Invertebrates"3•cI £1 «~I Euphyes vestris harbisoni\ Harbison's Dun SkipperQ. 1 CO co"COo *~I Lycaena hermes\ Hermes Copper3 niLU LL I Streptocephalus woottoni1 Riverside Fairy ShrimpO)oo>T—oc CO **"I Panoquina erransIg CO CNc\ Q. LL co I Branchinecta sandiegoensi1 San Diego Fairy ShrimpM•s ffl Q.U. 1i- E G, AG fields, cUJ inLL | Fa/co peregrinus anatumCOLL CD •c c cn§oo"o CO LU S2 1 1 \ Passerculus sandwichensii>I Belding's Savannah SparrovO5•*~8^ 0 ^•o 1 1 o" o5 *~ 5co I Speotyto cunicularia hypugi1 m aV-O Open water0 LULL -a •S \ Pelecanus occidentalis call\ California Brown PelicanO!^O>"ooo"oo s, salt flats |-t»ra 3E Coastal strand,LU LU LL I Sterna antillarum browni\ California Least Tern^^inT—T—O CO oCOyt .8J5 Polioptila califomica califonCD 1 Coastal California Gnatcatct"3_c .a I 1 O10 5£ :c i 1 Cooper's Hawko>v-0)oCOoo B/intertidal |13 SM, shoreline,O O ?"*Sterna e/egansCD coS1 LU cn8"COo CO O*f\JJO*~ 11i | Passerculus sandwichensii1 1 Large-billed Savannah Spar1 UJo ulLL Vireo bellii pusillus1 "55m W COo cn*~8S CO LUy LL I Ra//us longirostris levipes\ Light-footed Clapper RailcnoVO T3 m "S Open water, w0 3"*^I Pandion haliaetusICO coCOO O^*~ f2c Aimophila ruficeps canesce-o ISoCalifomia Rufous-crowneSparrow1 LUOSLL Empidonax traillii extimus1 1 Southwestern Willow Flycafacn*~c»"ooo"oo idy beach.a j2 1C Salt flats, muddunesCO ^LL § §Charadrius alexandrinus ni\1 Western Snowy Plovero 2co CD FWM, estuarie0 o *Plegadis chihi| White-faced Ibis1 ocoO Icteria wrens| Yellow-breasted ChatcTO Q. in mo CM CN ffl *~Dudleya blochmaniae ssp.blochmaniae1 Blochman's DudleyaCNCN Q. CN t CO LUo UJLL Orcuttia califomica\ California Orcutt GrassmO co"CO CM CM" £o Euphorbia miseraCD 1 co £ o CNco"o"CNin"o O co co"COO OJ ct m" mUJLL Q. COCO Arctostaphylos glandulosacrassifolia1 Del Mar ManzanitaCOCN ^| CHP (openingsCO cji co ffl" +1 .CO1 ^* m \ Corethrogyne filaginifolia.viCO CO co "CD COc\ Q. 5 1 CO CM CD LU p LL I Baccharis vanessae1 § UJ I Q." O 2 ^r » o Quercus engelmannii\ Engelmann OakCNCN 2 1 co" * CO^Myosurus minimus ssp. api1 Little MousetailCNS O CO CN CM m *Quercus dumosa1 z § i 1 o" Q." CN 2 m *Brodiaea orcuttii\ Orcutt's BrodiaeaQ. O CN ro m *I Hazardia orcuttiiI Orcutt's HazardiaCO CO CO m jj LULL | Chorizanthe orcuttianak. C I _co CD CNCN Q. CN m ^. Q.I Navarretia fossalisI Prostrate NavarretiaCO COo CM co m *\ Ambrosia pumila\ San Diego Ambrosia29 ?o3 Wc .50** "o o aOCO raH co 0 •rl 0 Covered Spe0uIQoSu. n e 8 £« o "*>3 S(0 imzu £ outl)\ Common Name(Plants (continued)COCOo SiC*7 Cvf ^* i W 1 § § 4 0) 1 oS1 Q COCO SI ^^(QS £ CO CM m LUo UJu. !£ .CO2 kJCO I =ium aristula,g LU I San Diego Button-celery^1 1 C CO o Q. 5 CD" CM CM OQ Cleveland!!CO i 1 San Diego Goldenstar£ Q.<Z 1 *7 CM CM" CO I JC 1 I San D\ego Marsh-elder-CO8S CO CD" CO CM m LUCJ Q. CO §•g CO ."g "c8 I San Diego Thorn-mint£ Q.Io co"COo CM CO m 1 I 1 I Sticky Dudleyao^~T-CSJ8 Q. O CM CM m" Q.TOTO .iS 1 Q) is (0 'g <Sl 1 Summer HollymoCOin"5, 1 a" M CD" > COA m LUO t .toi 35 •S 1 I Thread-leaved Brodiaeac T' £ Q |— o" CO CM co ffl CO1t f^CO torreyana s§ 1 CO £ 1 £ COCO"8" CO Q." 5 •Q d) -| CO T T^CM" 3 Q 1 1 c <§\ Wart-stemmed Ceanothustoo {Amphibians and ReptiiCD Q."Xo co" *"" 1 ^® 1£ « ^,idophorus h§ <§I Orange-throated WhiptailQ.O5co£ Q. i I | •o o ra -^ ra ^Era .5 M I " ".- IQ fl) 1 1 0£ •o•ara >, i u mo'o w" co S ! CD! S CampylcouseiCD co /'aest(0 CD o co CO*! HP tt 30 II 11 If ii II II 11 II I 1 I I i I 1 I II i i i i « i i i i i Codes and Notes 1 Status (Federal/State) FE = Federally endangered. PE = Proposed for federal listing as endangered. FT = Federally threatened. PT = Proposed for federal listing as threatened. C = Candidate for federal listing. BEPA = Bald Eagle Protection Act. CE = State endangered. CT = State threatened. CSC = State Species of Special Concern. * = formerly Category 2 or Category 3 candidate or proposed for federal listing; no current federal status, t = proposed rule to list as endangered or threatened has been withdrawn; no current federal status. Protected = moratorium on hunting. None = no federal or state status. California Native Plant Society (CNPS1 Status List of Species Designation: 1B = Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere (meets CDFG criteria for rare or endangered listing). 2 = Rare or endangered in California, more common elsewhere. 3 = Plants about which more information is needed. 4 = Plants of limited distribution. R-E-D Code R - Rarity 1 = Rare, but found in sufficient numbers and distributed widely enough that the potential for extinction or extirpation is low. 2 = Occurrences confined to several populations or one extended population. 3 = Occurrence limited to one or a few highly restricted populations, or present in such small numbers that it is seldom reported. E - Endangerment 1 = Not endangered. 2 = Endangered in a portion of its range. 3 = Endangered throughout its range. D - Distribution 1 = More or less widespread outside California. 2 = Rare outside California. 3 = Endemic to California. Habitat AG = Agriculture. AM = Alkali marsh. CB = Coastal bluffs. CHP = Chaparral. CLOW = Coast live oak woodland. CSS = Coastal sage scrub. FWM = Freshwater marsh. G = Grassland. MSS = Maritime succulent scrub. OW = Oak woodland. RF = Riparian forest. RP = Riparian. RS = Riparian scrub. RW = Riparian woodland. SM = Saltmarsh. SMC = Southern maritime chaparral. VP = Vernal pool. LFMZ Occurrence . Zones with known significant occurrences of the species. Table 6 MEASURES FOR HMP SPECIES Species Habitat and Population/Location Conservation Goals Management Recommendations and Impact Avoidance/Minimization Measures Acanthomintha ilicifolia (San Diego Thorn-mint) Narrow Endemic • Conserve vernal pool habitat and grassland habitat within preserve areas. • Conserve 4 of 5 major populations and 9 of 13 mapped localities within the City through existing or proposed hardline conservation areas or within a standards area. • Conserve other populations found in the City through designation of the species as a Narrow Endemic. • Manage preserve areas to minimize edge effects, control access, limit disturbance, limit chemical use within immediate vicinity, control non-native competitive species, and maintain hydrology and water quality. • Enhance small populations by introduction of appropriate plant materials as necessary. CO ISJ Acanthamintha ilicifolia. Conditions for coverage - This species is on the HMP list of Narrow Endemics. Because it is a cryptic species of extremely limited range, surveys shall be conducted for this species in all Proposed Hardline Areas and Standards areas, and any areas outside of the Focus Planning Areas, containing suitable habitat. The long-term preserve management plan shall provide area specific management directives for the 13 known populations of San Diego Thorn-mint in Carlsbad, including specific adaptive management measures to protect against detrimental edge effects from adjacent development, recreational impacts and other direct and indirect impacts. __ Ambrosia pumila (San Diego Ambrosia) Narrow Endemic ' If found in Carlsbad, conserve consistent with the standards for Narrow Endemic. • Manage preserve areas to minimize edge effects, prevent disturbance, and protect against frequent or catastrophic fires. • Enhance small populations by introduction of appropriate plant materials as necessary. Ambrosia pumila. Conditions for coverage - This species is on the HMP list of Narrow Endemics. There currently are no known locations in Carlsbad. If any populations are found through subsequent surveys, the long-term preserve management plan shall provide area specific management directives, including specific adaptive management measures to protect against detrimental edge effects from adjacent development, recreational impacts, and other direct and indirect impacts. Coastal sage scrub revegetation projects should consider including this species, where appropriate, in order to expand its range. Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crassifolia (Del Mar Manzanita) Narrow Endemic • Conserve approximately 300 acres of southern maritime chaparral mostly in existing or proposed hardline conservation areas, including a substantial proportion (80% and 92% respectively) of the two major populations in the vicinity of Agua Hedionda Lagoon and Green Valley/Olivenhain in core areas #6 and #8. • Conserve other populations found in the City through designation of the species as a Narrow Endemic. > Manage preserve areas to minimize edge effects, prevent disturbance, and protect against frequent or catastrophic fires. I I I I f 1 I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I i I I I I I I I I I I I I f I I > t 1 ifiiiiiililliif i i i I 1 I i I I t i § i i i I i i § Species Habitat and Population/Location Conservation Goals Management Recommendations and Impact Avoidance/Minimization Measures > Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crassifolia. Conditions for coverage - This species is on the HMP list of Narrow Endemics. The long-term preserve management plan shall provide area specific management directives for the two major populations of Del Mar Manzanita (and all conserved minor populations) in Carlsbad, including specific measures to address the autoecology and natural history of the species and to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire. Adaptive management measures to accomplish this may include prescribed fire. Baccharis vanessae (Encinitas Baccharis) Narrow Endemic • Conserve approximately 300 acres of southern maritime chaparral and 700 acres of other chaparral types. • Conserve the major population on the slopes above Green Valley within an existing hardline conservation area. • Conserve other populations found in the City through designation of the species as a Narrow Endemic. • Manage preserve areas to minimize edge effects, prevent disturbance, and protect against frequent or catastrophic fires. • Enhance small populations by introduction of appropriate plant materials as necessary. • Ensure that preserved populations retain appropriate ratios of male and female plants. Baccharis vanessae. Conditions for coverage - This species is on the HMP list of Narrow Endemics. The long-term preserve management plan shall provide area specific management directives for the 1 known major population of Encinitas Baccharis in Carlsbad, including specific measures to address the autoecology and natural history of the species, reduce the risk of catastrophic fire, and maintain an appropriate ration between male and female plants. Adaptive management measures to accomplish this may include prescribed fire. coco BrodYaea filifolia (Thread-leaved Brodiaea) Narrow Endemic • Conserve vernal pool habitat and grassland habitat within preserve areas. • Conserve the four major populations at Calavera Heights, Carlsbad Highlands, Rancho Carrillo, and Fox property, as well as smaller populations at Newton Business Center, and Fieldstone Northwest. • Conserve other populations found in the City through designation of the species as a Narrow Endemic. • Manage preserve areas to minimize edge effects, control access, limit disturbance, limit chemical use within vicinity, control nonnative competitive species, and maintain hydrology and water quality. • Enhance small populations by introduction of appropriate plant materials as necessary. • Outside of preserve areas, conduct focused surveys during the appropriate season on habitats that may support this species, (grasslands on clay soils). Brodiaea filifolia. Conditions for coverage - This species is on the HMP list of Narrow Endemics. The long-term preserve management plan shall provide area specific management directives for the 5 known major populations (and all conserved minor populations) of Thread-leaved Brodiaea in Carlsbad, including specific adaptive management measures to protect against detrimental edge effects from adjacent development, recreational impacts, and other direct and indirect impacts. Species Habitat and Population/Location Conservation Goals Management Recommendations and Impact Avoidance/Minimization Measures Brodiaea orcuttii (Orcutt's Brodiaea) Narrow Endemic • Conserve vernal pool habitat within preserve areas in conjunction with the City's no net loss of wetlands policy and application of the zone-specific guidelines. • Conserve the major population in the vernal pools near Poinsettia Lane. • Conserve other populations found in the City through designation of the species as a Narrow Endemic. • The population at Manzanita Partners (2 plants) is proposed to be taken. • Manage preserve areas to minimize edge effects, control access, limit disturbance, limit chemical use within immediate vicinity, control non-native competitive species, and maintain hydrology and water quality. • Enhance small populations by introduction of appropriate plant materials as necessary. • Conserve adjacent watershed habitat containing pollinators. Brodiaea orcuttii. Conditions for coverage - This species is on the HMP list of Narrow Endemics and is a vernal pool species. The long-term preserve management plan shall provide area specific management directives for the 1 known major population of Orcutt's Brodiaea in Carlsbad, including specific adaptive management measures to protect vernal pools and their watersheds against detrimental edge effects from adjacent development, recreational impacts, and other direct and indirect impacts. Ceanothus verrucosus (Wart-stemmed Ceanothus) > Conserve approximately 300 acres of southern maritime chaparral and approximately 700 acres of other chaparral habitats within the City. > Conserve substantial percentages of the major populations in the vicinity of Agua Hedionda Lagoon (approximately 95%), Green Valley (approximately 95%) and Palomar Airport Road (approximately 78%) in Core area #6, Linkage F and Core area #8. • Manage preserve areas to minimize edge effects, prevent disturbance, and protect against frequent or catastrophic fires. Ceanothus verrucosus. Conditions for coverage - The long-term preserve management plan shall provide area specific management directives for the 3 known major populations of Wart-stemmed Ceanothus in Carlsbad, including specific measures to address the autoecology and natural history of the species and to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire. Adaptive management measures to accomplish this may include prescribed fire. Revegetation of any chaparral areas should consider use of this species. Chorizanthe orcuttiana (Orcutt's Spineflower) Narrow Endemic • Conserve approximately 300 acres of southern maritime chaparral. • Conserve any populations found in the City through designation of the species as a Narrow Endemic. • Manage preserve areas to minimize edge effects, prevent disturbance, and protect against frequent or catastrophic fires. • Consider experimental reintroduction into preserve areas as appropriate. Chorizanthe orcuttiana. Conditions for coverage - This species is on the HMP list of Narrow Endemics. Because it is a cryptic species of extremely limited range, focused surveys shall be conducted for this species in all Standards Areas, and any areas outside of the Focus Planning Areas that contain suitable habitat. If any populations are found, the long-term preserve management plan shall provide area specific management directives, including specific adaptive management measures to protect against detrimental edge effects from adjacent development, recreational impacts, and other direct and indirect impacts. • i t . j •• • • •11 i * rt ii ii fill ii if i i I i t i l i f t I l f i l j f i f i I i 1 i f i I i i i I i i i i Species Habitat and Population/Location Conservation Goals Management Recommendations and Impact Avoidance/Minimization Measures Comarostaphylis diversifolia ssp. diversifolia (Summer Holly) • Conserve approximately 300 acres of southern maritime and approximately 700 acres of other chaparral habitats within the City. • Conserve at least 75% of the major population in the vicinity of Agua Hedionda Lagoon within Core area #6 and Linkage F. • Manage preserve areas to minimize edge effects, prevent disturbance, and protect against frequent or catastrophic fires. Comarstaphylis diversifolia ssp. diversifolia. Conditions for coverage - The long-term preserve management plan shall provide area specific management directives for the 1 known major population and any other conserved populations of Summer Holly in Carlsbad, including specific measures to address the autoecology and natural history of the species and to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire. Adaptive management measures to accomplish this may include prescribed fire. Revegetation of any chaparral are as should consider restoration of this species. w01 Corethrogyne filaginifolia var. linifolia Del Mar Mesa Sand Aster Narrow Endemic • Conserve approximately 300 acres of southern maritime chaparral, including the two major populations in the vicinity of Agua Hedionda Lagoon and Green Valley/Olivenhain. • Conserve other populations found in the City through designation of the species as a Narrow Endemic. • Manage preserve areas to minimize edge effects, prevent disturbance, and protect against frequent or catastrophic fires. • Enhance small, or restore, extirpated populations by introduction of appropriate plant materials as necessary. • Use in revegetation program where appropriate. Corethrogyne filaginifolia var. linifolia. Conditions for coverage - This species is on the HMP list of Narrow Endemics. The long-term preserve management plan shall provide area specific management directives for the 1 known major population and any other conserved populations of Del Mar Mesa Sand Aster in Carlsbad, including specific measures to address the autoecology and natural history of the species and to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire. Adaptive management measures to accomplish this may include prescribed fire. Dudleys blochmaniae ssp. blochmaniae (Blochman's Dudleya) Narrow Endemic • Conserve the small population identified on the Hieatt property (considered critical because it represents the southern-most • known location for the species) as stated in the conservation standards for Zone 5. • Conserve other populations found in the City through designation of the species as a Narrow Endemic. • Manage preserve areas to minimize edge effects, prevent disturbance, present trampling, and protect against frequent or catastrophic fires. • Enhance small populations by introduction of appropriate plant materials as necessary. Dudleya blochmaniae ssp. blochmaniae. Conditions for coverage - This species is on the HMP list of Narrow Endemics. Because it is a cryptic species of very limited range, surveys shall be conducted for this species in all Proposed Hardline Areas and Standards Areas, and any areas outside of the Focus Planning Areas, containing suitable habitat. The long-term preserve management plan shall provide area specific management directives for the one known population of Blochman's Dudleya and any newly discovered populations in Carlsbad, including specific adaptive management measures to protect against detrimental edge effects from adjacent development, recreational impacts, and other direct and indirect impacts. Dudleys viscida (Sticky Dudleys) * Conserve the major population along San Marcos Creek within an existing hardline conservation area. • Manage preserve areas to minimize edge effects, prevent disturbance, and protect against frequent or catastrophic fires. Dudleys viscida. Conditions for coverage - The long-term preserve management plan shall provide area specific management directives for the 1 known major and critical population of Sticky Dudleya and any newly discovered populations in Carlsbad, including specific adaptive management measures to protect against detrimental edge effects from adjacent development, recreational impacts, and other direct and indirect impacts. Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii (San Diego Button- celery) Narrow Endemic • Conserve vernal pool habitat per the City's wetland policy. • Conserve the major population in the vernal pools near Poinsettia Lane. • Conserve other populations found in the City through designation of the species as a Narrow Endemic. > Manage preserve areas to minimize edge effects, control access, limit disturbance, limit chemical use within immediate vicinity, control nonnative competitive species, and maintain hydrology and water quality. > Conserve adjacent watershed habitat containing pollinators. Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii. Conditions for coverage. This species is on the HMP list of Narrow Endemics and is a vernal pool species. The long-term preserve management plan shall provide area specific management directives for the one known major population of San Diego Button-celery in Carlsbad, including specific adaptive management measures to protect vernal pools and their watersheds against detrimental edge effects from adjacent development, recreational impacts, and other indirect and indirect impacts. • Euphorbia misera (Cliff Spurge) • Conserve coastal sage scrub and coastal bluff scrub habitats. • Conserve the one reported population in an existing hardline conservation area. • Manage preserve areas to minimize edge effects, control access, limit disturbance, limit chemical use within vicinity, control nonnative competitive species. • Use in coastal bluff revegetation where appropriate. Euphorbia misera. Conditions for coverage - The long-term preserve management plan shall provide area specific management directives for the 1 known population of Cliff Spurge and any newly discovered populations in Carlsbad, including specific adaptive management measures to protect against detrimental edge effects from adjacent development, recreational impacts, and other direct and indirect impacts. Ferocactus viridescens (San Diego Barrel Cactus) • Conserve approximately 300 acres of southern maritime chaparral, as well as 700 acres of other chaparral habitats and 2,000 acres of coastal sage scrub > Manage preserve areas to minimize edge effects, prevent disturbance, and protect against frequent or catastrophic fires. ' Salvage plants from impact areas where the impact cannot be avoided, and transplant into appropriate habitat. Ferocactus viridescens. Conditions for coverage - The long-term preserve management plan shall provide area specific management directives for the 1 known population of San Diego Barrel Cactus and any newly discovered populations in Carlsbad, including specific adaptive management measures to protect against detrimental edge effects from adjacent development, recreational impacts, unauthorized collecting, and other direct and indirect impacts. Hazard/a orcuttii (Orcutt's Hazard ia) Narrow Endemic • Conserve approximately 300 acres of southern maritime chaparral. > Conserve other populations found in the City through designation of the species as a Narrow Endemic. > Manage preserve areas to minimize edge effects, prevent disturbance, and protect against frequent or catastrophic fires. il ii i J ii f • *i II t I 11 it II f 1 II II II |i • I i i If i i I i I I lit! I i i i t i 1 i t i i i k i f i i i i i i Hazardia orcuttii. Conditions for coverage - This species is on the HMP list of Narrow Endemics. There currently are no known locations in Carlsbad. If any populations are found through subsequent surveys, the long-term preserve management plan shall provide area specific management directives, including specific adaptive management measures to protect against detrimental edge effects from adjacent development, recreational impacts, and other direct and indirect impacts. Iva hayuseiana (San Diego Marsh Elder) • Conserve approximately 1,000 acres of cismontane alkali marsh, freshwater marsh, and disturbed wetlands and assure no net loss of these types within the City. • Conserve an estimated 70% of the two major populations along San Marcos Creed and Encinitas Creek within existing hardline conservation areas. • Manage preserve areas to minimize edge effects, control access, limit disturbance, limit chemical use within vicinity, control nonnative competitive species, and maintain hydrology and water quality. • Use in wetland revegetation programs where appropriate. Iva hayuseiana. Conditions for coverage - This is a wetland species. The long-term preserve management plan shall provide area specific management directives for the 2 known major and critical populations of San Diego Marsh Elder and any newly discovered populations in Carlsbad, including specific adaptive management measures to protect wetlands against detrimental edge effects from adjacent development, recreational impacts, and other direct and indirect impacts. This species should be considered for use in wetland restoration projects where soil and water conditions are appropriate. Muilla Cleveland!! (San Diego Goldenstar) Narrow Endemic • Conserve native grassland habitat and grassland habitat on clay soils within the preserve areas. • Conserve 6 of 17 mapped locations of a critical population west and east of Rancho Santa Fe Road in the Village of La Costa, per the Villages of La Costa HCP. • Conserve other populations found in the City through designation of the species as a Narrow Endemic. • Manage preserve areas to reduce encroachment by alien plants, minimize edge effects, prevent disturbance, and protect against frequent or catastrophic fires. • Where feasible, salvage corms from impact areas and transplant into appropriate habitat. Muilla Cleveland!!. Conditions for coverage - This species is on the HMP list of Narrow Endemics. Because the one known population in Carlsbad will be reduced as a result of a previously approved take authorization, management shall include transplantation of the corms from the impact area to conserved area(s) with appropriate soils, and management of both the conserved site and transplantation site(s). The long- term preserve management plan shall provide area specific management directives to maintain or increase the population of this species in Carlsbad, including specific adaptive management measures to protect against detrimental edge effects from adaptive management measures to protect against detrimental edge effects from adaptive development, recreational impacts, and other direct and indirect impacts. Myosums minimus ssp. apus (Little Mousetail) Narrow Endemic • Conserve vernal pool habitat per the City's wetland policy. • Conserve the population near Poinsettia Lane. • Conserve other populations found in the City through designation of the species as a Narrow Endemic. • Manage preserve areas to minimize edge effects, control access, limit disturbance, limit chemical use within immediate vicinity, control nonnative competitive species, and maintain hydrology and water quality. • Conserve adjacent watershed habitat containing pollinators. 00 Myosurus minimus ssp. apus. Conditions for coverage - This species is on the HMP list of Narrow Endemics and is a vernal pool species. This long-term preserve management plan shall provide area specific management directives for the one known major population of Little Mousetail in Carlsbad, including specific adaptive management measures to protect from adjacent development, recreational impacts, and other direct and indirect impacts. Navarreita fossa/is (Prostrate Navarreita) Narrow Endemic • Conserve vernal pool habitat per the City's wetland policy. • Conserve the single known population near Poinsettia Lane. • Conserve other populations found in the City through designation of the species as a Narrow Endemic. • Manage preserve areas to minimize edge effects, control access, limit disturbance, limit chemical use within immediate vicinity, control nonnative competitive species, and maintain hydrology and water quality. • Conserve adjacent watershed habitat containing pollinators. Navarreita fossalis. Conditions for coverage - This species is on the HMP list of Narrow Endemics and is a vernal pool species. The long-term preserve management plan shall provide area specific management directives for the one known major population of Prostrate Navarreita in Carlsbad, including specific adaptive management measures to protect vernal pools and their watersheds against detrimental edge effects from adjacent development, recreational impacts, and other direct and indirect impacts. Orcuttia califomica (California Orcutt Grass) Narrow Endemic • Conserve vernal pool habitat per the City's wetland policy. • Conserve the one major population of this plant located south of the Poinsettia Commuter Rail Station. • Conserve other populations found in the City through designation of the species as a Narrow Endemic. • Manage preserve areas to minimize edge effects, control access, limit disturbance, limit chemical use within immediate vicinity, control nonnative competitive species, and maintain hydrology and water quality. • Conserve adjacent watershed habitat. Orcuttia califomica. Conditions for coverage - This species is on the HMP list of Narrow Endemics and is a vernal pool species. The long-term preserve management plan shall provide area specific management directives for the one known major population of California Orcutt Grass in Carlsbad, including specific adaptive management measures to protect vernal pools and their watersheds against detrimental edge effects from adjacent development, recreational impacts, and other direct and indirect impacts. Pinus tome/ana ssp. torreyana (Torrey Pine) • Conserve approximately 300 acres of southern maritime chaparral mostly in existing or proposed hardline conservation areas within the City. • Manage preserve areas to monitor for insect infestations. Pinus torreyana ssp. torreyana. Conditions for coverage - None. Quercus dumosa (Nuttall's Scrub Oak) • Conserve approximately 300 acres of southern maritime chaparral. • Conserve 100% of the two major populations in proposed hardline conservation areas. • Conserve approximately 60% of the other small populations mapped within the City. • Manage preserve areas to minimize edge effects, prevent disturbance, and protect against frequent or catastrophic fires. ii ii ii ii ii i i II l i l « t • 11 fill i t •II II i t i ri r*i ri rt n ri Quercus dumosa. Conditions for coverage - The long-term preserve management plan shall provide area specific management directives for the two known major populations and any other conserved populations of Nuttall's Scrub Oak in Carlsbad, including specific measures to address the autoecology and natural history of the species and to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire. Adaptive management measures to accomplish this may include prescribed fire. Revegetation of any chaparral areas should consider restoration of this species. Quercus engelmannii (Engelmann Oak) • Conserve oak woodland and assure no net loss of oak woodland in the City. • Conserve 4 of 5 mapped individuals in the City. • Manage preserve areas to protect against disturbance and fires. Quercus engelmannii. Conditions for coverage - None. Euphyes vestris harbisoni (Harbison's Dun Skipper) • Conserve approximately 25 acres of oak woodland and approximately 490 acres of riparian habitat within the City (total 87% conservation estimated). • Assure no net loss of riparian and oak woodland habitats within the City per the City's wetland policy. • Manage preserve areas to minimize edge effects, control non-native plants, maintain hydrology and water quality, and protect habitats from physical disturbances. • Restrict human activities in occupied habitat. • Ensure that impacts to any population found constitute less than 87% of the population. Mitigation for any unavoidable impacts should include translocating any individuals by transplanting whole San Diego sedge plants to appropriate habitat. Translocation should be supervised by a qualified biologist. Euphyes vestris harbisoni. Conditions for coverage - The long-term preserve management plan shall provide area specific management directives for the host plant (Carex spissa), including specific adaptive management measures to protect riparian areas against detrimental edge effects from adjacent development, recreational impacts, and other direct and indirect impacts. Carex spissa should be considered for use in wetland restoration projects where soil and water conditions are appropriate to increase the population of Harbison's Dun Skipper. Lycaena hermes (Hermes Copper) Narrow Endemic • Conserve approximately 2,000 acres of coastal sage scrub. • Maintain regional linkages. • Conserve other populations found in the City through designation of the species as a Narrow Endemic. • Manage preserve areas to minimize edge effects, prevent livestock overgrazing, and restrict human disturbance. • Prepare and implement a fire management program for preserve areas as part of the detailed management plan. • Where opportunities arise, enhance and restore coastal sage scrub within preserve areas. • Conduct focused surveys in appropriate habitat. Avoid impacts to any populations to the maximum extent feasible. Mitigate unavoidable impacts by conserving another population elsewhere. Lycaena hermes. Conditions for coverage - The long-term preserve management plan shall provide area specific management directives for the host plant (Rhamnus crocea), including specific adaptive management measures to protect populations of Rhamnus crocea against detrimental edge effects from adjacent development, recreational impacts, and other direct and indirect impacts. Rhamnus crocea should be considered for use in chaparral restoration projects where soil and aspect are appropriate to increase the population of Hermes Copper. coCO Streptocephalus woottoni (Riverside Fairy Shrimp) Narrow Endemic • Conserve the one known major/critical population in the City (Poinsettia Lane Commuter Rail Station pools). • Conserve vernal pool habitat in conjunction with the City's no net loss of wetlands policy. Manage preserves areas to minimize edge effects. 1 Prohibit introduction of pesticides and other pollutants into vernal pools and vernal pool watersheds. 1 Protect vernal pools from off-road vehicles and other activities that can crush eggs and destroy vernal pool habitat. 1 Manage surrounding watershed to maintain water quality and vernal pool hydrology. Streptocephalus woottoni. Conditions for coverage - This species is on the HMP list of Narrow Endemics and is a vernal pool species. The long-term preserve management plan shall provide area specific management directives for the one known major population of Riverside Fairy Shrimp in Carlsbad, including specific adaptive management measures to protect vernal pools and their watersheds against detrimental edge effects from adjacent development, recreational impacts, and other direct and indirect impacts. Panoquina errans (Saltmarsh Skipper Butterfly) • Conserve Saltmarsh habitat at Buena Vista, Agua Hedionda, and Batiquitos Lagoons consistent with the City's wetlands policy. > Assure no net loss of Saltmarsh habitat within the City. • Manage preserve areas to minimize edge effects, control invasive non-native plants, maintain Saltmarsh hydrology and water quality, and protect Saltmarsh habitat from physical disturbances. • Where opportunities arise, restore and enhance habitat in preserve areas. Control exotic plants. • Preserve habitat adjacent to the lagoons to the maximum extent possible. Panoquina errans. Conditions for coverage - The long-term preserve management plan shall provide area specific management directives for salt marsh habitats, including specific adaptive management measures to protect against detrimental edge effects from adjacent development, recreational impacts, and other direct and indirect impacts. Branchinecta sandiegoensis (San Diego Fairy Shrimp) Narrow Endemic 1 Conserve known vernal pool habitat containing fairy shrimp. ' Conserve the only known major/critical population in the planning area (Poinsettia Lane pools). ' Conserve other populations found in the City through designation of the species as a Narrow Endemic. • Manage preserved areas to minimize edge effects. • Prohibit introduction of pesticides and other pollutants into vernal pools and vernal pool watersheds. • Protect vernal pools from off-road vehicles and other activities that can crush eggs and destroy vernal pool habitat. • Manage surrounding watershed to maintain water quality and vernal pool hydrology. Branchinecta sandiegoensis. Conditions for coverage - This species is on the HMP list of Narrow Endemics and is a vernal pool species. The long-term preserve management plan shall provide area specific management directives for the one known major population of San Diego Fairy Shrimp in Carlsbad, including specific adaptive management measures to protect vernal pools and their watersheds against detrimental edge effects from adjacent development, recreational impacts, and other direct and indirect impacts. Cnemidophorus hyperythrus beldingi (Orange-throated Whiptail) • Conserve approximately 2,000 acres of coastal sage scrub, 700 acres of chaparral and 350 acres of southern maritime chaparral where this species may occur. • Maintain linkages between populations in Core Area 7 and areas to the southeast. • Manage preserve areas to restrict activities that would degrade habitat; control predators. • If opportunities arise, consider establishing a relocation program (possibly in Core Area 3 or 7) to initiate new populations or enhance and maintain existing populations. Cnemidophorus hyperythrus beldingi. Conditions for coverage - The long-term preserve management plan shall provide area specific management directives for known or likely locations of Orange-throated Whiptail, including specific adaptive management measures to protect against detrimental edge effects from adjacent development, recreational impacts, and other direct and indirect impacts. Falco peregrinus anatum (American Peregrine Falcon) • Conserve Saltmarsh habitat (i.e., foraging) at Buena Vista, Agua Hedionda and Batiquitos Lagoons and in SRAs consistent with the City's wetlands policy. • Assure no net loss of Saltmarsh habitat within the City. • Manage conserved areas to minimize edge effects, control invasive non-native plants, maintain Saltmarsh hydrology and water quality, protect Saltmarsh habitat from physical disturbances and control predators. • Where opportunities arise, restore and enhance habitat in preserve areas. > Habitat adjacent to the lagoons will be preserved to the maximum extent possible. Falco peregrinus anatum. Conditions for coverage - None. Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi (Belding's Savannah Sparrow) ' Conserve Saltmarsh habitat at Buena Vista, Agua Hedionda, and Batiquitos Lagoons and in SRAs consistent with the City's wetlands policy. 1 Assure no net loss of Saltmarsh habitat within the City. • Conserve all major populations of this species at Agua Hedionda and Batiquitos Lagoons. ' Manage conserves areas to minimize edge effects, control invasive non-native plants, maintain Saltmarsh hydrology and water quality, protect Saltmarsh habitat from physical disturbances, and control predators. > Where opportunities arise, restore and enhance habitat in preserve areas. > Habitat adjacent to the lagoons will be preserved to the maximum extent possible. Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi. Conditions for coverage - The long-term preserve management plan shall provide area specific management directives for the major nesting areas at Agua Hedionda and Batiquitos Lagoons, including specific adaptive management measures to address water quality and protect against detrimental edge effects from adjacent development, recreational impacts, and other direct and indirect impacts. Speotyto cunicularia hypugaea (Burrowing Owl) Conserve approximately 650 acres of grassland habitat. • Manage preserve areas to minimize edge effects, prevent livestock overgrazing, and restrict human disturbance. • Prepare and implement a fire management program for preserve areas as part of the detailed management plan. • Where opportunities arise, enhance and restore native grassland within preserve areas, with priority given to creation of suitable Burrowing Owl conditions.. ; Speotyto cunicularia hypugaea. Conditions for coverage - Protocol surveys for Burrowing Owl shall be conducted in all Standards Areas and any areas outside of the Focus Planning Areas that contain suitable habitat,. If the species is present, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented. Development shall avoid direct impacts to the nest site to the maximum extent practicable. If impacts are unavoidable, any impacted individuals shall be relocated to a conserved area of suitable size and characteristics, using passive or active methodologies approved by the wildlife agencies. In addition, mitigation for impacts to occupied habitat must be provided at the specified ratio. The long-term preserve management plan shall provide area specific management directives for any known or likely Burrowing Owl locations, including enhancement of known, historical and potential burrowing owl habitat. The long-term management plan also shall include monitoring of burrowing owl nest sites to determine use and nesting success, predator control, and establishing a 300 ft. wide avoidance area around occupies burrows within the preserve. Pelecanus occidentalis califomicus (California Brown Pelican) • Conserve Saltmarsh and estuarine habitats at Buena Vista, Agua Hedionda, and Batiquitos Lagoons consistent with the City's wetlands policy. • Assure no net loss of Saltmarsh and estuarine habitats within the City. > Manage preserved areas to minimize contamination by pesticides, oil, and other pollutants; reduce disturbances at important foraging and roosting areas, and maintain lagoon hydrology and water quality (e.g.; 100 foot setback from existing wetland habitats). Pelecanus occidentalis. Conditions for coverage - The long-term preserve management plan shall provide area specific management directives for the major resting areas at Agua Hedionda, Buena Vista and Batiquitos Lagoons, including specific adaptive management measures to address water quality and protect against detrimental edge effects from adjacent development, recreational impacts, and other direct and indirect impacts. Sterna antillarum browni (California Least Tern) • Conserve Saltmarsh and estuarine habitats at Buena Vista, Agua Hedionda, and Batiquitos Lagoons (considered critical locations) consistent with the City's wetlands policy. • Assure no net loss of Saltmarsh and estuarine habitats within the City. • Manage preserved areas to minimize edge effects, control non- native plants, maintain hydrology and water quality, protect habitats from physical disturbances, control predators, and maintain vegetation to provide optimal conditions for breeding. • Where opportunities arise, restore and enhance habitat in preserved areas and preserve habitat adjacent to the lagoon. • Manage nesting sites at Batiquitos Lagoon. Sterna antillarum browni. Conditions for coverage - The major and critical population at Batiquitos Lagoon shall be managed by the California Department of Fish and Game to control predators, control weed growth on nesting areas, and protect against detrimental edge effects from adjacent development, recreational impacts, and other direct and indirect impacts. Incidental take of the species or occupied habitat during the breeding season is prohibited except as specifically authorized on a case-by-case basis. The long-term management plan shall address enhancement of other potential Least Tern nesting areas, such as Buena Vista Lagoon, including nesting sites and water quality. Polioptila califomica califomica (Coastal California Gnatcatcher) • Conserve approximately 2,000 acres of coastal sage scrub. • Conserve mapped Gnatcatcher locations within conserved habitat. • Maintain regional linkages. • Manage preserve areas to minimize edge effects, control cowbirds and predators, prevent livestock overgrazing, and restrict human disturbance. • Prepare and implement a fire management program for preserve areas as part of the detailed management plan. • Where opportunities arise, enhance and restore coastal sage scrub within preserve areas, with priority given to creation of Gnatcatcher breeding opportunities within constrained linkages. Polioptila califomica califomica. Conditions for coverage - Within Standards Areas, 75% of gnatcatchers shall be conserved. The long-term preserve management plan shall provide area specific management directives for all conserved gnatcatcher locations and any other potential habitat, including specific measures to address control of domestic pets, to reduce other edge effects, to minimize disturbance during the nesting season, and to reduce the potential for habitat degradation due to unplanned fire. Adaptive management may include measures to maintain or improve overall habitat quality, including vegetation structure. No clearing of occupied habitat may occur between March 1 and August 15. II II II i I I I I i I i I I i i i I t i i i i i I i I § i i i i Accipiter cooper/7 (Cooper's Hawk) > Conserve approximately 525 acres of breeding and primary foraging habitat and approximately 3,500 acres of secondary foraging habitat. > Assure no net loss of wetland habitats. • Manage preserve areas to minimize disturbances in breeding habitat, restrict removal of oak trees and riparian vegetation, restrict building of trails or roads immediately adjacent to or through breeding areas, and restrict introduction of pesticides or other contaminants. • To the extent practicable, design project to maintain appropriate distances between development and nest sites. • Protect documented nest sites during breeding season. • Where appropriate, enhance oak and riparian woodland habitats. Accipiter cooperii. Conditions for coverage - In Proposed Hardline Areas and Standards Areas with oak woodlands or oak riparian forest, surveys shall be conducted for nesting Cooper's Hawks. If the species is present, no direct impacts to oak woodland or oak riparian forest shall be allowed in the nesting season, and a 300 ft. impact avoidance area around active nest sites shall be maintained. The long-term preserve management plan shall provide area specific management directives for oak woodlands and oak riparian forest, including specific adaptive management measures to protect against detrimental edge effects from adjacent development, recreational impacts, and other direct and indirect impacts. CO Sterna elegans (Elegant Tern) • Conserve Saltmarsh and estuarine habitats at Buena Vista, Agua Hedionda, and Batiquitos Lagoons consistent with the City's wetlands policy. • Assure no net loss of Saltmarsh and estuarine habitats within the City. • Manage preserved areas to minimize edge effects, control non- native plants, maintain hydrology and water quality, protect habitats from physical disturbances, control predators, and maintain vegetation to provide optimal conditions for breeding. • Where opportunities arise, restore and enhance habitat in preserved areas. • Habitat adjacent to the lagoons will be preserved to the maximum extent possible. Sterna elegans. Conditions for coverage - The long-term preserve management plan shall provide area specific directives to protect against detrimental edge effects from adjacent development, recreational impacts, and other direct and indirect impacts. Incidental take of the species during the breeding season is prohibited except as specifically authorized on a case-by-case basis by the wildlife agencies. The long-term management plan shall address enhancement of other potential Elegant Tern nesting areas, such as Buena Vista Lagoon, including nesting sites and water quality. Passerculus sanwichensis rostratus (Large-billed Savannah Sparrow) > Conserve approximately 99% of Saltmarsh habitat at Buena Vista, Agua Hedionda, and Batiquitos Lagoons. > Assure no net loss of Saltmarsh habitat within the City. • Manage conserved areas to minimize edge effects, control invasive non-native plants, maintain Saltmarsh hydrology and water quality, protect Saltmarsh habitat from physical disturbances, and control predators. • Where opportunities arise, restore and enhance habitat in preserve areas. • Habitat adjacent to the lagoons will be preserved to the maximum extent possible. Passerculus sandwichensis rostratus. Conditions for coverage - The long-term preserve management plan shall provide area specific management directives for the potential nesting areas at Agua Hedionda and Batiquitos Lagoons, including specific adaptive management measures to address water quality and protect against detrimental edge effects from adjacent development, recreational impacts, and other direct and indirect impacts. Vireo bellii pusillus (Least Bell's Vireo) • Conserve approximately 495 acres (86%) of riparian habitats. • Assure no net loss of riparian scrub within the City. • Conserve 95% of known point locations for Least Bell's Vireo within preserve areas. • Manage preserve areas to minimize activities that would degrade riparian habitats, restrict the alteration or clearing of riparian vegetation, control exotic invasive vegetation, control cowbirds and predators, and maintain hydrology and water quality in riparian habitats. • Restrict activities in Vireo-occupied habitat during the breeding season, including no clearing of habitat (April 15 to September 15). • Where appropriate, restore or enhance riparian habitat suitable for vireos and other sensitive riparian species. Vireo bellii pusillus. Conditions for coverage - Incidental take of the species or occupied habitat during the breeding season (March 15 to September 15) is prohibited except as specifically authorized on a case-by-case basis. The long-term preserve management plan shall provide area specific management directives for known or potential Least Bell's Vireo nesting areas, including specific adaptive management measures to control brown-headed cowbirds, provide appropriate successional habitat, provide upland buffers for known populations, minimize night lighting, minimize noise impacts, and protect riparian areas against detrimental edge effects from adjacent development, recreational impacts, and other direct and indirect impacts. Rallus longirostris levipes (Light-footed Clapper Rail) • Conserve Saltmarsh habitat at Buena Vista, Agua Hedionda, and Batiquitos Lagoons consistent with the City's wetlands policy. • Conserve freshwater marsh used by Rails during the fall and winter. • Assure no net loss of Saltmarsh or freshwater marsh habitats within the City. • Manage preserve areas to control non-native plants, maintain hydrology and water quality, control predators, and restrict physical disturbances. • Where opportunities arise, restore and enhance habitat in preserved areas. • Restrict human activity near nesting habitat during the breeding season (April 1 through August 31). • Where appropriate, introduce Clapper Rails into suitable, unoccupied habitat. • Pursue experimental cordgrass reintroduction at Batiquitos Lagoon. Rallus longirostris levipes. Conditions for coverage - The long-term preserve management plan shall provide area specific management directives for known or potential nesting areas at Agua Hedionda, Batiquitos and Buena Vista Lagoons and upstream freshwater marsh habitats, including specific adaptive management measures to address water quality and protect against detrimental edge effects from adjacent development, recreational impacts, and other direct and indirect impacts. Pandion haliaetus (Osprey) • Conserve habitat within Buena Vista, Agua Hedionda, and Batiquitos Lagoons (areas are considered critical locations for the species) consistent with the City's wetlands policy. • Assure no net loss of wetland habitats within the City. ^_____ • Manage preserve areas to maintain lagoon hydrology and water quality and restrict activities that would disturb nesting. • Consider provision of nesting platforms adjacent to foraging areas as part of detailed management plan. Pandion haliaetus. Conditions for coverage - The long-term preserve management plan shall provide area specific management directives for foraging are4as at Agua Hedionda, Batiquitos and Buena Vista Lagoons and upstream freshwater marsh habitats, including specific adaptive management measures to address water quality and protect against detrimental edge effects from adjacent development, recreational impacts, and other direct and indirect impacts. ft ii ii i * ii ii t t i r it f i i I i 11k i II II II li i i \ f i if i 1 i I I t f Aimophila ruficeps canescens (Southern California Rufous-crowned Sparrow) • Conserve known locations within proposed and existing hardlined conservation areas. • Conserve approximately 2,000 acres of coastal sage scrub. • Maintain regional linkages. • Manage preserve areas to minimize edge effects, control cowbirds and predators, prevent livestock overgrazing, and restrict human disturbance. • Prepare and implement a fire management program for preserve areas as part of the detailed management plan. • Where opportunities arise, enhance and restore coastal sage scrub within preserve areas, with priority given to creating of breeding opportunities within constrained linkages. Aimophila ruficeps canescens. Conditions for coverage - The long-term preserve management plan shall provide area specific management directives for known or likely locations of Rufous-crowned Sparrow, including specific adaptive management measures to protect against detrimental edge effects from adjacent development, recreational impacts, and other direct and indirect impacts. 01 Empidonax traillii extimus (Southwestern Willow Flycatcher) • Conserve approximately 495 acres of riparian habitats. • Assure no net loss of riparian habitats within the City. • Conserve 95% of any new populations. • Manage preserve areas to minimize activities that would degrade riparian habitats, restrict the alteration or clearing or riparian vegetation, control exotic invasive vegetation, control cowbirds and predators, and maintain hydrology and water quality in riparian habitats. • Restrict human activities in Willow Flycatcher habitat during the breeding season, including no clearing of habitat (May 1 to September 15). • Where appropriate, restore or enhance riparian habitat suitable for Willow Flycatchers and other sensitive species. Empidonax traillii extimus. Conditions for coverage - Incidental take of the species or occupied habitat during the breeding season (May 1 to September 15) is prohibited except as specifically authorized on a case-by-case basis by the wildlife agencies. The long-term preserve management plan shall provide area specific management directives for known or potential Willow Flycatcher nesting areas, including specific adaptive management measures to control brown-headed cowbirds, provide appropriate successional habitat, provide upland buffers for known populations, minimize night lighting, minimize noise impacts, and protect riparian areas against detrimental edge effects from adjacent development, recreational impacts, and other direct and indirect impacts. Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus (Western Snowy Plover) • Conserve Saltmarsh and estuarine habitats at Buena Vista, Agua Hedionda, and Batiquitos Lagoons consistent with the City's wetlands policy. • Assure no net loss of Saltmarsh and estuarine habitats within the City. • Conserve all major populations within the City, i.e., at Agua Hedionda and Batiquitos Lagoons. • Assure no direct impacts to nesting areas. • Manage preserve areas to minimize edge effects, control non-native plants, maintain hydrology and water quality, protect habitats from physical disturbances, and control predators. • Where opportunities arise, restore and enhance habitat in preserved areas. • Restrict activities near nesting habitat during the breeding season (April 1 through August 31). • If populations are present during the non-breeding season, implement access control measures if warranted. Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus. Conditions for coverage - The major and critical population at Batiquitos Lagoon shall be managed by the California Department of Fish and Game to control predators, control weed growth on nesting areas, and protect against detrimental edge effects from adjacent development, recreational impacts, and other direct and indirect impacts. Incidental take of the species or occupied habitat during the breeding season (April 1 through August 1) is prohibited except as specifically authorized on a case-by-case basis. The long- term management plan shall address enhancement of other potential Snowy Plover nesting areas, such as Buena Vista Lagoon, including nesting sites and water quality. Plegadis chihi (White-faced Ibis) • Conserve approximately 1,150 acres of marsh, water, and estuarine habitat within preserve areas and assure no net loss of these habitats within the City. • Conserve populations at Buena Vista and Batiquitos Lagoons, including a critical breeding population at Buena Vista Lagoon. • Manage preserve areas to minimize edge effects, control non-native plants, maintain hydrology and water quality, and protect habitats from physical disturbances. • Restrict human activities in occupied habitat during the breeding season (March to June). • Enhance habitat to increase breeding and wintering populations. Plegadis chihi. Conditions for coverage - The long-term preserve management plan shall provide area specific management directives for foraging areas at Agua Hedionda, Batiquitos and Buena Vista Lagoons and upstream freshwater marsh habitats, including specific adaptive management measures to address water quality and protect against detrimental edge effects from adjacent development, recreational impacts, and other direct and indirect impacts. o> Icteria wrens Yellow-breasted Chat) • Conserve riparian habitat within preserve areas, and assure no net loss of riparian habitats within the City. • Manage preserve areas to minimize activities that would degrade riparian habitats, restrict livestock overgrazing and the alteration or clearing of riparian vegetation, control exotic invasive vegetation, control cowbirds and predators, and maintain hydrology and water quality in riparian habitats. • Restrict human activities in occupied habitat during the breeding season. • Where appropriate, restore or enhance riparian habitat suitable for this and other sensitive species. Icteria wrens. Conditions for coverage - Incidental take of the species or occupied habitat during the breeding season is prohibited except as specifically authorized on a case-by-case basis. The long-term preserve management plan shall provide area specific management directives for known or potential Yellow-breasted Chat nesting areas, including specific adaptive management measures to control brown-headed cowbirds, provide upland buffers for known populations, and protect riparian areas against detrimental edge effects from adjacent development, recreational impacts, and other direct and indirect impacts. I 1 I > II II II I > I 1 I A II II I » I I I 1 I • 11 VI II II Table 7 Narrow Endemic Species •** Scientific Name Acanthomintha illicifolia Ambrosia pumila Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crassifolia Baccharis vanessae Brodiaea filifolia Brodiaea orcuttii Chorizanthe orcuttiana Corethrogyne filaginifolia var. linifolia Dudleya blochmaniae ssp. blochmaniae Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii Hazard/a orcuttii Muilla Cleveland!! Myosurus minimus ssp. apus Navarretia fossalis Orcuttia californica Lycaena hermes Streptocephalus woottoni Branchinecta sandiegoensis Common Name San Diego Thorn-mint San Diego Ambrosia Del Mar Manzanita Encinitas Baccharis Thread-leaved Brodiaea Orcutt's Brodiaea Orcutt's Spineflower Del Mar Mesa Sand Aster Blochman's Dudleya San Diego Button-celery Orcutt's Hazardia San Diego Goldenstar Little Mousetail Prostrate Navarretia California Orcutt Grass Hermes Copper Riverside Fairy Shrimp San Diego Fairy Shrimp 47 Table 8 Mitigation Ratios for Impacts to HMP Habitats Habitat Group and Type A. Coastal salt marsh, alkali marsh, freshwater marsh, estuarine, salt pan/mudflats, riparian forest, riparian woodland, riparian scrub, vernal pools, disturbed wetlands, flood channel, fresh water (1) B. Beach, southern coastal bluff scrub, maritime succulent scrub, southern maritime chaparral, Engelmann oak woodland, coast live oak woodland, native grassland (3) C. Gnatcatcher occupied coastal sage scrub Mitigation Ratio by Type of Impacted Habitat No-net-loss goal (mitigation ratio varies by type replacement habitat) of 3:1 (2) 2:1 (3) Footnotes: 1. Group A habitats are associated with wetlands. Impacts to these habitat types are subject to review under Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act or Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code. 2. It is assumed that all habitat types in Group B will be included in the proposed preserve system. Small, isolated patches of low quality southern maritime chaparral may be located outside a preserve area and maximum avoidance and onsite conservation is preferred. 3. Maximum avoidance and onsite conservation of Group C habitat is encouraged. 12. Financing At the present time, it is not anticipated that implementation of the HMP will require any public acquisition of privately owned land within the City unless the City chooses to acquire land or mitigation credits to provide additional mitigation for public facility projects. Funding associated with implementation of the Plan will be necessary and consists of the following components: Acquisition in the MHCP Core Area, Habitat Management, Program Administration, and Preparation of a Preserve Management Plan. Funding for the above four responsibilities are identified and explained in the plan. 13. Preserve Management The HMP provides a framework for management of the current and future preserve areas. Management goals specific to each local facilities management zone are provided in the plan. Area-specific management directives will be developed in accordance with this framework plan and the zone-level goals to address management issues at the site- specific level. Area-specific management directives will be prepared as lands are conserved and incorporated into the preserve and will include any species-specific management required as conditions of the take authorizations. This framework management plan generally addresses the following management actions: • Habitat restoration and revegetation • Hydrology and flood control • Recreation and public access • Species reintroduction • Enforcement • Adaptive management P an Mir it m m 48 B. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: off _ The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially *•' Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. dH Land Use and Planning Q Transportation/Circulation D Public Services ** D Population and Housing ^] Biological Resources D Utilities & Service Systems D Geological Problems Q Energy & Mineral Resources Q Aesthetics **• D Water D Hazards D Cultural Resources D Air Quality D Noise D Recreation E3 Mandatory Findings of Significance twnr C. EARLIER ANALYSES. mi Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA •— process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (See section 15063(c)(3)(D) of CEQA Guidelines). 1. Master EIR for the General Plan Update - In 1994, the City completed a comprehensive, 20 year update of the City's General Plan. The biological section of the ** Master EIR incorporated information from the draft HMP and used this information to formulate mitigation measures to reduce biological impacts from future development consistent with the General Plan to a level of less than significant. One of the purposes *** of the adoption of the HMP is to allow the City to develop according to its General Plan. The Master EIR for the General Plan has already addressed biological impacts '"* associated with development of the City consistent with the General Plan and, .w therefore, it is a primary resource used in this document and a primary basis for preparing a mitigated negative declaration for the HMP. In addition, the Master EIR "™ addressed, as an alternative project, preserving additional land for habitat purposes in ^ order to comply with the Endangered Species Act and protect gnatcatcher habitat. This alternative in the Master EIR was considered an environmentally superior alternative. In ^ that the proposed HMP protects sensitive habitat and is meant to achieve compliance ^ with the Endangered Species Act, adoption of the HMP has positive environmental effects versus development according to the General Plan without adoption of the HMP. ** 2. In addition to the General Plan MEIR, several large projects within Carlsbad have ^ already undergone environmental review which included analysis of conservation of """ sensitive species and habitats. Some of these projects have also received federal and *•* state permits to take listed and unlisted species. These projects collectively cover a significant portion of the City as shown in Figures 6 and 7 and are described below: 'tMMh ** Existing Take Agreements <*M • The Fieldstone Habitat Conservation Plan (HOP) was approved in 1995. The -" total plan area is approximately 1,900 acres. Approximately 700 acres is conserved ^ onsite, and there is an offsite obligation of $1 million. The impacts authorized by the ""* HCP include construction of Rancho Santa Fe Road, as well as private *• development. An EIR was prepared and certified in 1992 for the road project and adjacent private development. The development has not yet commenced. 49 The Carrillo Ranch project was permitted by means of a Section 7 consultation in 1996. It provides for onsite conservation of approximately 252 acres, including a significant population of Brodiaea filifolia. An offsite mitigation obligation of $500,000 was also required. An EIR was prepared for the project and certified in 1993. The project is now under construction. The Arroyo La Costa project was permitted by means of a Section 7 consultation in 1994. It provides for onsite conservation of approximately 136 acres, including a significant population of Del Mar Manzanita. An EIR was prepared for the project and certified in 1990. The project is now under construction. The Rancho Verde project was permitted by means of a Section 7 consultation in 1995. It was addressed by a Mitigated Negative Declaration in 1990 and provides for onsite conservation of approximately 165 acres. The project is now under construction. Other Maior Proiects/EIRs m • Poinsettia Shores project was addressed by a Mitigated Negative Declaration in 1994. • Poinsettia Properties EIR was certified in 1998. • Zone 20 Specific Plan EIR was certified in 1993. Ml • EIR for the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project was certified in 1990. • Aviara (formerly Pacific Rim) EIR was certified in 1987. m • Green Valley EIR was certified in 1993. • Terraces at Sunny Creek EIR was certified in 1998. &a• Shelley project EIR was certified in 1998. As depicted in Figures 6 and 7, a substantial portion of the City has been addressed by l* previous environmental documents that have analyzed the issue of conservation of species and habitats. Taken together with the General Plan MEIR, the projects described above * and the present Mitigated Negative Declaration for the HMP, provide a very high level of W environmental information and analysis has been provided on the potential effects of development on wildlife and habitat. ** D. DETERMINATION _, « n I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. p [3 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation _ measures described in the project description and discussion of environmental impacts have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. m D I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and * an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. «« D I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at «w least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier — document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. #r4 50 ** I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier document pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier document, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. Planner Signature Date ecTolanninq Director's Signature Date 51 This page left blank * * Phi 52 Figure 6 Existing Take Agreements Figure 7 Major EIRs © 1999 City at Carlsbad PIS /cargis2/products/hmp/r61.97/fiQuro«dir/nogdec7.aml 06/24/99 E. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Checklist! STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. (Rationale for Conclusions is provided in Section D - discussion of Environmental Impacts.) I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? b) c) d) e) f) Seismic ground shaking? Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? Landslides or mudflows? Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? h) Expansive soils? i) Unique geologic or physical features? Potentially Significant Impact D D D n D D D D D D D D D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated m n n n n n D n n n n n n n n nn Less than Significant Impact D n n m n El m n n n n n n n n n n No Impact n EI El n El n n El El El El El El m El El El 57 IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, EH EH EH ^ ""* or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related EH EH EH Kl ** hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration EH EH EH EE1 "* of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? "r d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any [~] | | | [ [>?] ^ water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction EH EH EH Kl •» of water movements? f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either [~~] | | EH E3 ' m through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of *, groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? EH EH EH S -B h) Impacts to groundwater quality? EH EH EH S m i) Substantial reduction in the amount of Q Q Qj ^] «• groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? *•V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to | [ | | [ [ fj^[ "* an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? EH EH EH Kl "* c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or Q [ | EH 13 cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? | [ | | |~~[ M P VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the m proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? | [ | | ^ | [ i*f b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., | | | | f^| | | ^ sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? *•» c) Inadequate emergency access or access to FJ | | EH Kl nearby uses? ^ d) Insufficient parking capacity onsite or offsite? | | [ | [~~| ^1 e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting | [ | | | | alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts? [ | [ [ | [ |P VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their EH ^1 EH EH habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, H> and birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage I I M I II | mtrees)? L-J Kii L_I i_i m' ^ c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., | | r^[ | | r~j ^ oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal | I M I II | m>-pool)? I_J 1^1 l_l L_l ^ e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? [~~| I I F>?] I I 58 ™ VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation | | [ [ plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and | | | | inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known | | | | mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of | | | | hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency | | | | response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential I I I I health hazards? L-J d) Exposure of people to existing sources of | | | [ potential health hazards? e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable | | | | brush, grass, or trees? X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? | | | | D D b)Exposure of people to severe noise levels? D D D D D XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e) Other governmental services? D D D D D D D D D D D XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: Power or natural gas?a) b) c) facilities? d) e) 0 9) Communications systems? Local or regional water treatment or distribution Sewer or septic tanks? Storm water drainage? Solid waste disposal? Local or regional water supplies? D n n n n n n n n n XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? b)Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? n n n n n 59 XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? | | | | | | ^| b) Disturb archaeological resources? | | | | ^| | | c) Affect historical resources? I II I E^l I I ^_^ ^_^ • • ^_^ d) Have the potential to cause a physical change [ | | | ^<3 I I which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within [~~] | | 03 IZ3 the potential impact area? XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or FJ [ | HU 13 regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? | | | | CH Kl XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade | | f^| | | | | the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are FJ ^ | | | | individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects dl CD [3 0 which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? F. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. LAND USE AND PLANNING a. Would the proposal conflict with general plan designation or zoning? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated i. Consistency with Environmental Goals of the General Plan as well as the Mitigation Requirements of the General Plan Update EIR Implementation of the HMP is consistent with the intent of the General Plan for the conservation of habitat for biological resources as well as the preservation of open space within the City. The Open Space and Conservation Element of the 1994 adopted General Plan states that Open Space for plant and animal life and habitat conservation is considered a Category 1 Citywide priority. The Open Space and Conservation Element requires that the City prepare a Habitat Management Plan, "to provide a planning framework specifically designed to protect such resources." The need for an HMP has also been incorporated in the 1992 Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan. Category 1 open space resources to be addressed by the HMP, according to the General Plan, include plant life, animal life as well as habitat for plants and animals, nature preserves, water features, beaches (bluffs and banks), canyons and 60 hillsides, wetlands as well as riparian areas. Based on the requirements of the General Plan as well as the Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan, the City incorporated conceptual requirements for a future HMP in the environmental analysis conducted for the EIR for the 1994 General Plan update. The biological resources section of the 1994 General Plan update EIR was based on a biological resources report prepared in support of the HMP in 1992. Preliminary HMP studies available in 1994 indicated that seven planning areas within the City had the greatest biological value. An evaluation of the impacts of future development within these seven planning areas was evaluated in the EIR and significant impacts were identified. Mitigation measures identified in the EIR were related to species and habitat preservation, wetland/riparian habitat preservation, conservation efforts, new development requirements and trail system requirements. The mitigation measures identified in the EIR are also incorporated into the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan. With implementation of the measures identified in the EIR, the EIR concluded that impacts to biological resources associated with the General Plan update would be mitigated to below a level of significance. As discussed in the Project Description the intent of the proposed HMP is to implement the requirements of the General Plan regarding preservation of open space and conservation of biological resources in order to allow future development to proceed in accordance with the General Plan. In general, the conservation levels shown in Table 1 of this document are consistent with the environmental goals of the General Plan considering that multiple habitats for plant and animal species would be conserved within a 6,489 acre preserve. Also as shown in Table 1, the preserve includes, as required by the General Plan Category 1 Open Space which includes habitat for plant and animal species. Habitats conserved within the HMP include coastal sage scrub, chaparral (including southern maritime chaparral), salt marsh, freshwater marsh, riparian and grassland. (See discussion in response to comments VILA, Biological Resources, for further discussion of conservation levels associated with the HMP.) In accordance with the requirements of the General Plan and the update EIR, the City has coordinated with regional conservation efforts and, as a result, the HMP represents a subarea plan for the North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan. The HMP was also developed to be consistent with the guidelines required by the State of California's Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) efforts. In addition, all specific requirements of the General Plan and the update EIR related to trail location, wetland habitat buffer areas, no-net-loss of wetlands, adequate buffers between new development and environmentally sensitive lands have been incorporated into Section F of the HMP which contains the adjacency guidelines necessary to implement the HMP Plan. ii. Consistency with General Plan and Zoning Land Use Patterns As discussed in the project description, implementation of the HMP would involve a General Plan Amendment (GPA) as well as amendments to the City's Open Space Ordinance and Municipal Code. These amendments are identified 61 in Appendix A to this document. The GPA would involve revisions to the Land "" Use Map of the Land Use Element as well as Open Space Map contained in the — Open Space and Conservation Element to incorporate the open space boundaries of the Existing and Proposed Hardline Areas. The municipal code *" will need to be revised to require that future developments comply with the — conservation standards for the Standards Areas of the HMP. As described ^ below, it is not anticipated that the GPA and amendments to the Municipal Code will create significant conflicts with the adopted General Plan or the Municipal — Code. m Existing Take Areas *" Table 9 lists the vacant land designated for urban uses that would be converted «•• to permanent open space with implementation of the HMP within the Existing Take Areas. The acreages listed below for the Existing Take Areas have been m approved by the City and the wildlife agencies as a part of existing take "• authorizations for the Villages of La Costa Habitat Conservation Plan. These take authorizations were approved through legal agreements with the property "* owner and wildlife agencies in 1995, prior to completion of the HMP. As a result, "* the land use conversions associated with these existing take areas are not ^ regarded as an impact of the HMP. Mk Existing Hardline Preserve Areas <m Land use conversions associated with the Existing Hardline Preserve Areas m shown in Table 9 are not regarded as conflicts with the land use patterns of the adopted General Plan. All of the Existing Hardline Preserve Area acreages m listed below are associated with publicly owned land and privately owned land n that have been committed to habitat conservation as a result of existing open space regulations, or past development approvals. As a result, any land use •" changes associated with committing these areas to open space have been m evaluated by the City in association with previous development proposals and are not regarded as impacts of the HMP to approved land use patterns. *" •UK Proposed Hardline Preserve Areas Proposed Hardline Preserve Areas represent areas committed to open space based on coordination between the City and private landowners for larger ** development projects within the City as well as areas currently owned by the „, City. As shown in Table 9, 423 acres of Proposed Hardline Areas consist of land currently designated for low density residential uses, and 272 for Planned "* Community. A majority of these urban lands converted to open space have p been voluntarily included in the HMP in association with larger developments m within the City including Lake Calavera, Manzanita Properties, Bressi Ranch, Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park, Holly Springs, Kelley Ranch, South Coast p and the Raceway Property. L 62 Table 9 Vacant Lands Zoned for Urban Uses Converted to Open Space In Association with the Existing Take Areas, Existing Hardline Preserve Areas, and the Proposed Hardline Preserve Areas Zoning Category Low Density Residential Medium to High Density Residential Planned Community Industrial Commercial Public Utility Agriculture Open Space1 Vacant lands Zoned for Urban Uses Converted to Open Space (acres) Existing Take Areas <1 <1 1,113 0 <1 5 2 <1 Existing Hardline Preserve Areas 539 24 2,695 46 51 10 1 969 Proposed Hardline preserve Areas 423 <1 272 135 <1 73 1 410 1 Areas currently zoned for open space uses The open space boundaries of these projects have been incorporated into the HMP. For each of these projects the portion of the site designated for development will be developed with the land uses anticipated for that project area by the General Plan. In some cases the City and the private applicant will incorporate clustering on lands outside of the open space areas to allow for the intensity of residential development allowed by the General Plan for that area to be consistent with that of the adopted General Plan. Considering that a majority, 423 acres, of land converted to open space is currently designated for low density residential uses and 272 for Planned Community, it is anticipated that clustering would allow for generally the same type of single family residential units to be developed and meet the anticipated residential unit count for the individual project without requiring a different type of residential use such as multiple family housing. By allowing density transfer and clustering techniques on these projects, as a mitigation measure, the total number and type of residential units within these projects will not be substantially altered from that anticipated by the General Plan. In addition, the density bonus program associated with the City's affordable housing program will be implemented in association with projects that conserve open space under the HMP requirements for Proposed Hardline Areas. Under the adopted Growth Management Plan of the City, when a project does not develop the maximum number of units, the unused units are not lost. They go into what is called the "excess dwelling unit bank" . Units from the excess dwelling unit bank can be transferred to other projects within the City that are eligible for density increase. 63 The density bonus provision is available to all residential projects within the City, «• including those subject to the.HMP, and would ensure that the number of — residential units anticipated for the City by the General Plan could be developed after adoption of the HMP. Provided that density transfer and clustering •" techniques will be permitted and incorporated into private development projects m in accordance with the City Growth Management Plan to create the proposed Hardline Preserve Areas, the establishment of these preserve areas would not *"* significantly alter the residential land use patterns or the number of units m anticipated by the adopted General Plan. It should also be noted that all projects included in the Proposed Hardline Areas and any density transfers associated "" with those projects would be subject to subsequent CEQA review. •* Table 9 indicates that approximately 135 acres of industrial land would be "" converted to open space in association with the Proposed Hardline Areas. It is •* not anticipated that the same type of clustering and density transfer techniques ^ utilized for residential areas would apply to industrial areas considering the height and lot coverage limits for industrial and commercial structures required "* by the City. As a result, a majority of the industrial acres committed to open ^ space as a part of the HMP would not be replaced and would represent a loss in the total amount of industrial uses developed within the City. However, the loss "* of acreage for industrial uses associated with the Proposed Hardline Areas is m relatively minor when viewed in context. The estimated 135 acres lost repre- sents approximately 6% of the 2,174 acres designated for industrial uses by the ** General Plan. In addition, the conserved areas were planned in cooperation with m the landowners and in view of the constraints already existing on the land. ^ Therefore, the loss of this industrial land is not considered to be a significant conflict with the General Plan or zoning. •» Lands designated for Public Utility shown in Table 9 is owned by San Diego Gas and Electric, consisting of Agua Hedionda Lagoon and south shore area. The •" City has a long-term lease over a portion of this area. The City and SDG&E are •» proposing hardline open space areas that will provide corridors between the City's municipal golf course, Veteran's Memorial Park, and Agua Hedionda m Lagoon. The water area of the lagoon will continue to be used as cooling water «* for the Encina power generating station. The adjacent land area has been determined to be unnecessary for any essential public utility purposes. As a "" result, commitment of these lands to permanent open space is not regarded as a ** conflict with the General Plan or zoning. W$' Standards Areas v> Development within Standards Areas is subject to the requirements of the HMP m regarding specific conservation measures to ensure compliance with zone-level j| and species specific standards As shown in Table 1 of this document, the conservation goal for the Standards Areas is to preserve a total of 700 acres of p various habitats. In order to allow reasonable use of properties within the H Standards Areas, the standards allow varying percentages of the property to be developed. The most restrictive standards, which apply to only six properties, •» require that 75% of each property be conserved while 25% of each property is w allowed to develop. Conservation levels on other projects will be based on a survey of the resources present, species and habitat avoidance requirements, * 64 * preserve design standards, and the mitigation ratios for habitat groups. Table 10 lists the zoning for vacant lands within the Standards Areas shown in Figure 4 of this document. Of the 1,731 acres of vacant lands within the Standards Areas, approximately 700 acres would need to be conserved while the remaining 1,031 acres would be developed in accordance with the underlying zoning. As noted in Table 10, approximately 90% of the vacant areas within the Standards Areas are zoned for low density residential uses. In conjunction with implementing the open space conservation goals within the Standards Areas, the City will permit development of a reasonable portion of each parcel and will allow for clustering to occur, (i.e. density transfer from the open space to the development areas). Clustering on areas currently designated for low density residential uses would not likely involve a change from single family to multifamily residential uses considering that the underlying zoning for low density residential typically allows development of residential uses on large lots (density ranges from 1 unit/7,500 square feet to 1 unit/40,000 square feet). As a result, it is anticipated that clustering of residential units within the 1,536 acres of vacant land within the Standards Areas would allow a similar number of units and a similar type of development as envisioned in the General Plan. Thus, it is not anticipated that implementation of the conservation goals within the Standards areas would significantly alter land use patterns within the City as long as clustering and density transfers are permitted. Table 10 indicates that approximately 16 acres of industrial land and 20 acres of commercial land are subject to the requirements of the Standards Areas. As discussed above for the Proposed Hardline Preserve Areas, it is not anticipated that the same type of clustering and density transfer techniques utilized for residential areas would apply to industrial/commercial areas due to the City's height and lot coverage limitations for industrial and commercial structures. On the other hand, within the standards areas at least 25% of the property zoned for these commercial and industrial uses could be developed. In addition, these properties are already constrained from development by the presence of wildlife habitat. The HMP does not constitute an additional constraint. Given the relatively minor acreage of industrial or commercial uses lost in association with the Standards Areas, and that a portion of the area zoned for commercial or industrial could be developed with these uses, the loss of this industrial or commercial land is not considered to be a significant conflict with the General Plan or zoning. 65 Table 10 Vacant Lands Zoned for Urban Uses within Standards Areas Zoning Category Low Density Residential Medium to High Density Residential Planned Community Industrial CommerciaJ Open Space1 Vacant Land within Standards Areas (Acres) 1,563 63 49 16 20 20 1 Areas currently zoned for open space uses b. Would the proposal conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? No impact. See response to comment l-a. Implementation of the HMP is consistent with the environmental goals of the City General Plan. The City has developed the HMP through coordination with the USFWS and DFG. Based on this coordination, the HMP incorporates language to allow projects to fulfill their federal and state requirements under the Endangered Species Act through compliance with the HMP. Any authorization involving the relationship of the HMP to the Federal Endangered Species Act will need to be provided by the USFWS. This CEQA document is not intended to address the federal requirements of the USFWS or environmental review of future USFWS actions required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Any impacts to endangered species covered under the Federal Endangered Species Act associated with future public or private development projects within the City of Carlsbad that would be allowed under the HMP could not proceed until the USFWS can determine that the project is consistent with the requirements of the ESA as well as the State NCCP guidelines. Considering that implementation of the HMP would not preclude the USFWS from implementing the ESA or the State NCCP guidelines it is not considered to be in conflict with the requirements of the USFWS. Implementation of the HMP would also not conflict with regional conservation plans including the North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP). The HMP is intended to function as a subarea plan for the MHCP. As discussed in Section VIl-a, the HMP incorporates the accepted standards of the MHCP regarding wildlife corridors and other conservation measure for species. As shown in Figure 1, the HMP incorporates a series of biological resource core areas interconnected by a series of linkages. Where feasible these linkages conform with the MHCP standards of 800-1000' in width. In addition, as shown m m m 66 in Figure 1, core biological resources areas are proposed to be included in the preserve along the northern, eastern, and southern borders of the City that would allow for connections with other regional preserve areas in adjacent jurisdictions. The HMP also provides for 296 acre contribution toward the MHCP Gnatcatcher Core Area that was identified through coordination with agencies participating in the planning process for the MHCP. c. Would the proposal be compatible with existing land use in the vicinity? No impact. As shown in Figure 1, areas proposed to be included in the preserve would be surrounded by existing and planned urban land uses associated with build-out of the General Plan. As discussed in Comment Vll-a, measures have been incorporated into the adjacency guidelines of Section F of the HMP to ensure that preserve lands are compatible with adjacent land uses. Measures have been incorporated into the adjacency guidelines including provisions for fuel management to avoid any fire hazards associated with natural vegetation adjacent to urban uses. The adjacency guidelines also allow for access to all public facilities such as water and sewer lines to local agencies to allow for repairs and replacement as needed. The adjacency guidelines also include measures to avoid impacts from adjacent urban uses on sensitive biological resources located within the preserve. The adjacency guidelines provide for fencing between preserve areas and urban uses to control access. Provisions for trails are also incorporated to control public access within preserve areas and protect sensitive biological resources. The adjacency guidelines also provide for buffers between urban uses and sensitive biological resources. d. Would the proposal affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? Less than significant impact. The City evaluated the impact of buildout of the General Plan including establishing an open space preserve area on areas identified as Important Farmland by the California Department of Conservation as a part of the EIR for the 1994 General Plan update. The EIR concluded that build out of the General Plan would result in conversion of farmland to urban uses. The EIR identified potential impacts to important farmlands and identified mitigation measures. Mitigation for impacts to farmland associated with buildout of the General Plan includes establishment of new agricultural preserves for areas within the coastal zone where feasible, utilizing proper design criteria for new development to maximize the preservation of agricultural lands and payment of a fee for converting agricultural uses to urban uses. The agriculture conversion fee is already in place and is being used to sustain other agricultural operations within the City and the region. Implementation of the HMP may extend to areas identified as Important Farmlands by the California Department of Conservation and the General Plan update EIR. Based on a review of Figure 1 of this document as well as the important farmland map contained in the 1994 General Plan update EIR, vacant areas identified as important farmland adjacent to El Camino Real, Palomar Airport Road, Cannon Road and Poinsettia Lane may be included in the preserve. As shown in Table 6, the HMP open space system associated with the Existing and Proposed Hardline Preserve Areas would extend into two acres 67 zoned for agricultural uses. However, no farmland would be included in the preserve system until the property is proposed for development, at which point •» the agricultural use would be lost in any case. Although establishing the preserve u- would preclude agriculture within two areas, implementation of the HMP would not be considered to be a significant impact on planned agricultural operations. — Given the minor acreage of areas zoned for agriculture to be included in the M HMP preserve system, it is not anticipated that inclusion of farmlands would conflict with the ability of the City to promote development of agricultural uses in "» other portions of the City designated for those uses in accordance with the ,„ requirements of the General Plan. Land proposed to be included in the HMP would include approximately 100 ' •* acres not zoned for agriculture but currently supporting agricultural uses. However, implementation of the HMP is not considered a direct impact to these "* agricultural operations. In association with the 1994 General Plan update all of m the 100 acres were designated for urban or open space uses. Removal of these ^ agricultural uses was, therefore, evaluated as a part of the EIR for the General "* Plan update and mitigation was identified for designation of these agricultural "" uses for urban or open space. As shown in Table 6, implementation of the HMP „. would involve conversion of only two acres of land zoned for agricultural purposes. As a result the HMP is considered to be consistent with the intent of "* the General Plan regarding existing and planned agricultural operations within „, the City. UM e. Would the proposal disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an •» established community (including a low-income or minority community)? m No impact. Implementation of the HMP involves the establishment of an open "• space preserve consisting of existing vacant lands. As a result, no features of •* the project would disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an existing community. "* «•»' II. POPULATION AND HOUSING ^ a. Would the proposal cumulatively exceed official regional or local "" population projections? — tm Less than significant impact. Commitment of vacant lands to an open space preserve would not directly generate population within the City. As a result, *f establishment of the preserve would not generate population that exceeds local •» projections. m As discussed in response to comment I.a, implementation of the HMP would m involve conversion of lands designated for urban uses to permanent open space. Within the Proposed Hardline Preserve Areas and the Standards Areas, land designated for urban uses including primarily low density residential, medium to -i high density residential as well as planned community would be converted to „„ open space in association with the HMP. To compensate landowners, the General Plan and HMP permits clustering and density transfer to allow for — development of residential areas at a higher intensity in areas outside of the m 68 •* preserve. As shown in Tables 9 and 10, 90% (1,563 acres) of the vacant lands within the Standards Areas are designated for low density residential uses, and 76% (695 acres) of the 906 acres of urban zoning within the Proposed Hardline Preserve Areas are zoned for low density residential or planned community. Therefore, it is anticipated that clustering and density transfer within areas outside of the proposed preserve could be used to allow for the same number and intensity of residential units to be located in areas outside of the preserve as that planned for the area by the General Plan. As discussed in response to comment I.a, clustering on areas currently designated for low density residential uses would not likely involve a change from single to multifamily residential uses considering that the underlying zoning for low density residential typically allows development of residential uses on large lots (density within low density residential ranges from 1 unit/7,500 square feet to 1 unit/40,000 square feet). Considering that implementation of the HMP would not involve an increase in the number of residential units anticipated within the Proposed Hardline Preserve Areas and Standards Areas it is not anticipated that the project would indirectly cause an increase in population beyond that anticipated by the General Plan. b. Would the proposal induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension or major infrastructure?) Less than significant impact. See response to comment II.a. Although implementation of the HMP would allow for clustering and increased intensity of development within areas outside of the preserve within the Proposed Hardline Preserve Areas and Standards Areas, an increase from the number of residential units anticipated for these areas by the General Plan would not be allowed. As a result, it is not anticipated that changes in land use patterns associated with implementation of the HMP would involve substantial growth in areas outside of the preserve beyond that anticipated by the General Plan. c. Would the proposal displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? No impact. Implementation of the HMP would involve establishment of an open space preserve consisting of currently vacant lands. As a result, no existing housing would be displaced in association with the project. III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS a. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving fault rupture? No impact. The HMP is a conservation plan that involves the acquisition and maintenance of land as habitat for sensitive biological resources. The HMP does not specifically permit any development. As a result, implementation of the HMP would not expose people to geologic hazards including fault rupture, seismic activity, landslides, unstable soil conditions, or land subsidence. The potential exists that passive and active recreation uses allowed within the preserve such as trails and 69 picnic facilities could be subject to damage from geologic hazards or seismic activity. However, use of passive recreation facilities by park visitors would take place on an intermittent basis and is not considered to be a significant long term exposure of people to geologic and seismic hazards. Due to the regional nature of seismic activity, the Final Master Environmental Impact report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update - March 1994 is referenced and addresses seismic impacts within the City in association with implementation of the General Plan. The EIR for the Carlsbad General Plan Update provides a detailed analysis regarding the potential impacts to sites within the City of Carlsbad due to seismic activity. The report also provides measures to minimize these impacts. b. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismic ground shaking? No impact. See response to comment Ill-a. c. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? No impact. See response to comment Ill-a. d. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? No impact. See response to comment Ill-a. e. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving landslides or mudflows? No impact. See response to comment Ill-a. f. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? No impact. See response to comment Ill-a. g. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving subsidence of the land? No impact. See response to comment Ill-a. h. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving expansive soils? No impact. See response to comment Ill-a. i. Would the proposal result in or expose people to unique geologic or physical features? No impact. Implementation of the HMP would involve the preservation of land as habitat for sensitive biological features. Areas proposed to be included in the 70 preserve include important physical features within the city such as beaches, bluffs and hillsides that exceed 40% slope. IV. WATER a. Would the proposal result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? No impact. The HMP is a conservation plan that involves the acquisition and maintenance of land as habitat for sensitive biological resources. The HMP does not specifically permit any development. As a result, implementation of the HMP would not involve changes to existing drainage patterns or runoff pattern within areas proposed to be included in the preserve. Conservation activities associated with the HMP for lands within the preserve would involve creation and enhancement of riparian areas. The HMP anticipates that offsite mitigation required for impacts from development to wetlands should be directed to areas proposed to be included in the preserve. Implementation of creation and enhancement plans for riparian areas within the preserve would not involve adverse impacts to existing drainage patterns. Any alteration of drainage or run off patterns associated with creation or enhancement of wetlands is regarded as a beneficial impact to the drainage. In addition, any mitigation programs anticipated by the HMP would be reviewed and approved by the U.S. Army Corps in association with permitting under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. b. Would the proposal result in exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? No impact. No adverse impacts are anticipated. Any watercourses subject to flooding proposed to be included in the HMP would be preserved in permanent open space. c. Would the proposal result in discharge into surface waters or other alterations of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? No impact. See response to IV.a. In addition, the Master EIR for the General Plan update - March 1994 concludes that with implementation of mitigation measures including preservation of natural water courses, flood plains, shoreline lagoons, waterways, lakes, and ponds as well as use of landscaping in naturalized channels, sediment control measures and best management practices would mitigate impacts associated with build out of the General Plan to water quality to below a level of significance. Implementation of the HMP would implement the water course preservation goals of the General Plan and would be considered a beneficial impact to water quality in the City considering that the preserve would include important water features designated as open space by the General Plan and required as mitigation in the EIR prepared for the General Plan. d. Would the proposal result in changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? No impact. See response to IV.a and IV.c. e. Would the proposal result in changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? 71 No impact. See response to IV.a and IV.c. f. Would the proposal result in changes in the quality of groundwater, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? No impact. No groundwater basins are located within the City of Carlsbad (City of Carlsbad, March 1994). As a result, implementation of the HMP would not impact any groundwater sources. g. Would the proposal result in altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? No impact. See response to comment IV-f. h. Would the proposal result in impacts to groundwater quality? No impact. See response to comment IV-f. i. Would the proposal result in substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? No impact. See response to comment IV-f. V. AIR QUALITY a. Would the proposal violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? No impact. The HMP is a conservation plan that involves the acquisition and maintenance of land as habitat for sensitive biological resources. The HMP does not specifically permit any development. As a result, implementation of the HMP would not directly impact air quality or result in an increase in pollution generating uses. In addition, as discussed in the Final EIR for the General Plan Update, the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin," and as a result, any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant. Therefore, continued develop- ment to build-out as proposed in the updated general plan will have a cumulative significant impact on the air quality of the region. Measures are recommended in the EIR to reduce impacts to air quality. However, the impact will remain significant and unmitigated. The City has adopted a statement of overriding considerations in association with the EIR for the General Plan update. b. Would the proposal expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? No impact. See response to comment V-a. c. Would the proposal alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate? No impact. See response to comment V-a. 72 d. Would the proposal create objectionable odors? No impact. See response to comment V-a. VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION a. Would the proposal result in increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? Less than significant impact. The HMP is a conservation plan that involves the acquisition and maintenance of land as habitat for sensitive biological resources. The HMP does not specifically permit any development. As a result, implementation of the HMP would not directly impact traffic congestion or result in an increase in traffic generating uses. As discussed in Section I, Land Use, the preserve associated with the HMP generally corresponds to that associated with adopted Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan. As a result, existing and planned regional transportation facilities approved as a part of the 1994 General Plan update would not be affected with implementation of the HMP. As discussed in the Final EIR for the General Plan Update, build-out of the General Plan would result in significant and unmitigable impacts to traffic circulation associated with 14 intersections within the City. The EIR for the General Plan requires measures to reduce impacts from subsequent development on traffic congestion. However, the impact will remain significant and unmitigated. The City has adopted a statement of overriding considerations in association with the EIR for the General Plan update. b. Would the proposal result in hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than significant impact. See response to comment Vl-a. c. Would the proposal result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? No impact. See response to comment Vl-a. Implementation of the HMP would not prohibit the use of existing or approved access roads to public facilities currently located within areas proposed to be conserved as open space in association with the preserve. In addition, essential public facilities such as existing sewer or water lines including access roads to existing sewers are permitted within the preserve by the HMP. d. Would the proposal result in insufficient parking capacity onsite or offsite? No impact. See response to comment Vl-a. e. Would the proposal result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? No impact. See response to comment Vl-a. In addition, implementation of the HMP would not preclude the extension of any planned trails or the continued use of trails associated with the City of Carlsbad City-Wide trail system. Section F of the HMP states that public access is appropriate in selected areas of the preserve to allow entry to recreational areas and promote understanding and appreciation of the 73 natural resources. Section F of the HMP also includes specific guidelines for the expansion of recreational uses such as trails for pedestrians and mountain biking within the preserve. f. Would the proposal result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks?) No Impact. See response to comments Vl-a and Vl-e. g. Would the proposal result in rail, waterborne, or air traffic impacts? No Impact. See response to comment Vl-a. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a. Would the proposal result in impacts to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to, plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Existing Vegetation Communities within City: According to the research completed for the HMP, natural vegetation including coastal sage scrub, chaparral, southern maritime chaparral, oak woodland, marsh, riparian and grassland cover approximately 8,797 acres of the City. The remainder of the City is agricultural lands, disturbed lands or developed lands. Table 11 summarizes the distribution of existing vegetation types. 74 Table 11 Habitat Types within Carlsbad1 Vegetation Type Grassland2 Coastal sage scrub Chaparral (undifferentiated types) Southern maritime chaparral Oak woodland Eucalyptus woodland Riparian scrub, woodland and forest Marsh, estuarine, freshwater and other wetlands Sub-total, Habitat3 Agricultural Disturbed Developed Sub-total, Developed and Disturbed TOTAL, ALL LANDS WITHIN CITY OF CARLSBAD Acres 1,807 3,377 970 401 29 257 574 1,382 8,797 1,854 1,277 12,649 15,780 24,577 Excludes areas designed as not a part (N.A.P.) in HMP. This category includes both native (perennial) and non-native (annual) grasslands. The acreage of each cannot be distinguished at this time due to the absence of detailed survey data for several large grassland areas. Includes vegetated areas in impact areas of projects with USFWS and CDFG approved mitigation plans. Conserved Vegetation Communities: Table 1 in the project description indicates the HMP conservation levels for each habitat type. As shown in Table 1, a percentage of the total acres of each habitat type existing in the City would be impacted in association with incidental take permitted in association with implementation of the HMP. As indicated in Table 1, approximately 762 acres of coastal sage scrub (38% of existing acreage adjusted for Villages of La Costa existing take permit), 129 acres (16%) of chaparral, 28 acres (9%) of Southern maritime chaparral, 801 acres (57%) of grassland, and 153 acres (61%) of eucalyptus woodland would be eliminated in association with incidental take allowed outside of the preserve. In addition, 60 acres (12%) of riparian areas and 97 acres (7%) of freshwater and saltwater marsh habitats are anticipated to be outside of the ultimate preserve areas. However, this does not mean that there will be impacts of this magnitude to wetlands because wetlands are conserved both inside and outside the preserve system. Impacts to wetlands are expected to be minimal because of the City's standard which encourages avoidance of wetland impacts as the first priority. Where impacts to wetlands are unavoidable, the City's standard of "no net loss of function and value" will apply. These natural vegetation communities are regarded as sensitive habitats for plant and animal species found on the HMP Species List. As a result the loss of a percentage of the existing the coastal sage scrub, chaparral, southern maritime chaparral, riparian, marsh, grassland and eucalyptus woodland vegetation 75 communities associated with incidental take would be considered a direct significant impact of the HMP. Impacts to HMP Species: Table 12 indicates the habitat utilized by the HMP plant and animal species. As shown in Table 12, a total of seven HMP species utilize coastal sage scrub, five species utilize chaparral habitat, eight utilize southern maritime chaparral habitats, three utilize woodlands, four utilize riparian habitat, twelve utilize marsh habitat, seven utilize vernal pools, and five utilize grasslands. Four species use multiple habitats. 76 (0 HI (M UJ CO oo UJoUJ Q UJSooCO CO CO UJ oUJQ.CO Q. •oCO105OB «E §* £1(0 .2 CO•o (0 •ooo5 c on 0 E t 1aaCO O 5 & o a>O O)n(0 M0'o to X Acanthomintha ilicifolia(San Diego thorn-mint)X Ambrosia pumila(San Diego ambrosia)X ^>2 32 a.COCO Arctostaphylos glandulosa(Del Mar manzanita)X X Baccharis vanessae1(Encinitas baccharis)X Brodiaea filifolia(Thread-leaved brodiaea)X Brodiaea orcuttii(Orcutt's brodiaea)X X Ceanothus verucosus1(wart-stemmed ceanothusX Chorizanthe orcuttiana(Orcutt's spineflower)X X ^ 1 21 "cL COCO .2 Comarostaphylis diversifol(summer-holly)X co "55Q .co >2 CO Corethrogyne filaginifolia vsand aster)X CD'5CD F I Dudleya blochmaniae ssp.(Blochman's dudleya)X 1 g 1i X ...1a Eryngium aristulatum var.(San Diego button-celery)X "oTff Euphorbia misera (cliff spuX Ferocactus viridescens(San Diego barrel cactus)X Hazardia orcuttii(Orcutt's hazard ia)X Iva hayesiana(San Diego marsh-elder)77 (0UJ d) c CM UJi oo UJCD UJ O UJ5 O O(0(0 Q § (0UJ UUJ 0- (0 0. •ocnCOCO015 w|||Riparian•ocJO oo5 E « 20) C i- £••§ a o£.cw S o 15t &CO U A °s! wo '3 (0 X Wu///a Cleveland!!(San Diego goldenstar)X 1 Myosurus minimus ssp. apus (Little MousiX Navarretia fossalis (Prostrate Navarretia)X "w" to Orcuttiana califomica (California Orcutt GrX P/nus torreyana ssp. torreyana(Torrey pine)X Quercus dumosa(Nuttall's scrub oak)X Quercus engelmannii(Engelmann oak)X Euphyes vestris harbisoni(Harbison's dun skipper)X Lycaena hermes(Hermes copper)X Streptocephalus woottoni (Riverside FairyShrimp)X Panoquina errans(Salt Marsh skipper butterfly)X 'to Branchinecta sandiegoensis (San Diego FShrimp)X X 1 Cnemidophorus hyperythrus beldingi4\ (orange-throated whiptail)X Fa/co peregrinus anatum(American peregrine falcon)X in c Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi (BeldSavannah sparrow)X Speotyto cunicularia hypogaea(burrowing owl)X Pelecanus occidentalis califomicus(California brown pelican)X Sterna antillarum browni(California least tern)78 (0 UJ Ml™ 0) 3 «• .E m o ^** ci *. UJ M CO1* oo zg 1UJ CD UJ O UJ O O(0 (0 (0UJ oUJQ.(O Q. •ocCOMM2o15 toE §* £1CO n 1£ (0•ocJS oo E « S0 E i- £'•= S.M .— a. OT S y 1COaa O _ 3 3?5 W O> (O SpeciesX 5?Polioptila californica califom(coastal California gnatcatclX jM^S. ^ X U) O I io X Sterna elegans(elegant tern)X i **••!2 If Passerculus sandwichensis(large-billed savannah spanX V/reo belli pusillus(least Bell's vireo)X Rallus longirostris levipes2(light-footed clapper rail)X Pandion haliaetus (osprey)X f COa.CO 03c.1c o Aimophila ruficeps canesce(southern California rufous-X o>-c Empidonax traillii extimus2(southwestern willow flycatcX 23 Charadrius alexandrinus nil(western snowy plover)X "to" — 5 <0 CO^"r II if X Icteria wrens(yellow-breasted chat)3ISCO o> ocCO £ 0E .c "O <i)Q) ^^m 2 § W "« c/> -a•am . c 1 Species are anticipated to2 Federally protected under3 State endangered species4 Species of Special Concer79 The HMP provides for conservation of all plant species located within the City referred to as Narrow Endemics. In accordance with the requirements of the HMP, preservation of all populations of these plant species found within the City either inside of the preserve must be conserved. Conservation policies of the HMP for Narrow Endemics require that species within the preserve be avoided and that populations located outside of the preserve be avoided or conserved where feasible. Considering that implementation of the HMP would allow minimal loss of Narrow Endemics, incidental take associated with implementation of the HMP would not result in significant impacts to the species shown on the following Table: Table 13 NARROW ENDEMIC SPECIES LIST Scientific Name Common Name Acanthomintha ilicifolia San Diego Thorn-mint Ambrosia pumila San Diego Ambrosia Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crassifolia Del Mar Manzanita Baccharis vanessae Encinitas Baccharis Brodiaea filifolia Thread-leaved Brodiaea Brodiaea orcuttii Orcutt's Brodiaea Chorizanthe orcuttiana Orcutt's Spineflower Corethrogyne filaginifolia var. linifolia Del Mar Mesa Sand Aster Dudleya blochmaniae ssp. blochmaniae Blochman's Dudleya Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii San Diego Button-celery Hazard/a orcuttii Orcutt's Hazardia Muilla Cleveland!! San Diego Goldenstar Myosurus minimus ssp. apus Little Mousetail Navarretia fossalis Prostrate Navarretia Orcuttia califomica California Orcutt Grass Branchinecta sandiegoensis San Diego Fairy Shrimp Stretocephalus woottoni Riverside Fairy Shrimp Lycaena hermes Hermes Copper A number of the plant species noted above would be completely conserved in by the HMP standard regarding vernal pools. As indicated in the list below, seven of the HMP species are associated with vernal pools. Considering that only minimal impacts to vernal pools would be allowed under the HMP, and the "no net loss of function and value" standard would be applied, implementation of the HMP would not result in significant impacts to the species identified on the following Table: 80 Table 14 - VERNAL POOL SPECIES *" Brodiaea orcuttii (Orcutt's Brodiaea) •m. Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii (San Diego Button-celery) Myosurus minimus ssp. apus (Little Mousetail) *"* Navarretia fossalis (Prostrate Navarretia) — Orcuttia califomica (California Orcutt Grass) Stretocephalus woottoni (Riverside Fairy Shrimp) *• Branchinecta sandiegoensis (San Diego Fairy Shrimp) «• The HMP also provides for virtually 100% conservation of other wetland habitat *» types within the City, including salt marsh, freshwater marsh, and riparian habitats m within the City. Table 15 below indicates the HMP species that utilize primarily salt marsh, freshwater marsh, and riparian habitats. Considering that only minimal *. impacts to these species and habitats will be allowed, and any permitted impacts would be subject to the "no net loss of function and value" standard, it is not m anticipated that incidental take associated with implementation of the HMP would „„ adversely impact these species: - Table 15 OTHER WETLAND SPECIES — Rallus longirostris levipes (light-footed clapper rail) Panoquina errans (salt marsh skipper butterfly) ** Numemius americanus (long-billed curlew) «. Falco peregrinus anatum (American peregrine falcon) Pandion haliaetus (osprey) ** Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi (Belding's Savannah sparrow) ^ Pelecanus occidentalis californicus (California brown pelican) Sterna antillarum browni (California least tern) ** Sterna elegans (elegant tern) Passerculus sandwichensis rostratum (large-billed savannah sparrow) *"* Agelaius tricolor (tricolored blackbird) «• Charadrius alexandrinus nirvosus (western snowy plover) *" Table 1 of this document shows the HMP conservation levels for each habitat type. m As shown in Table 1, a percentage of the total of each habitat type existing Citywide would be impacted in association with incidental take allowed under the HMP. For "• purposes of this analysis any habitat impacted by future development under the - incidental take provisions of the HMP could contain individuals of the HMP plant species or serve as habitat for HMP animal species. A majority of the HMP species ** are protected under the Federal or State Endangered Species Acts or are m considered to be regionally sensitive species. Direct impacts to sensitive species covered by the HMP or incidental take of habitat associated with HMP species is *» regarded as a significant impact of the HMP. Table 16 summarizes the plant and animal species that would be significantly impacted through incidental loss of habitat "" allowed by the HMP. M* Impacts to Non-Covered Sensitive Species: The species listed in Table 17 may "" be located within the City but are not covered by the take authorization associated ^ with the HMP. Three of the species are currently listed as endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). The HMP does not preclude the *" 81 enforcement of the requirements of the ESA for these species. Future develop- ments within the City that may impact these species will need to comply with the requirements of the ESA and are not authorized to take these species by the HMP. As a result, implementation of the HMP would not result in a significant impact to these species. Implementation of the HMP also does not authorize impacts to non-covered State Species of Concern listed in Table 16. All future private and public development projects within the City are subject to environmental review under CEQA.. Potential impacts and mitigation requirements for the State Species of Special Concern associated with future development within the City would be addressed as a part of the separate environmental review under CEQA for those individual projects. The anticipated federal and state actions allowing incidental take associated with implementation of the HMP are based on the covered HMP species. Impacts on uncovered federal species or species listed as threatened or endangered that may be listed subsequent to implementation of the HMP would require either an amendment to the HMP or a separate permit from the USFWS and/or CDFG and determination of additional measures and responsibilities. As a result, there would be no significant direct impacts from incidental take associated with the HMP on uncovered species that are listed as endangered subsequent to approving the HMP. 82 (O CO ^5 IA£c3§mm O0 C ,0 •K£0)o> 0) COH — C0) XJ'o —f 'i o 3acted in Associat£ >>cies SignificantQ.(0 Q. X •o«^fl•Asso £ IH(0s c CB ~CO^LJSLL A»Southern MaritimeChaparralChaparral.Q OV) oonW 1 8o •c-2.0 ^c gSs£illIII2^ co CO |C c 55 O)Q) Q) Hi^» £2* "o> E —isI-?a co •^ ~"~"S a>£ m O w 1 1 Arctostaphylosglandulosa ssp.crassifolia(Del Mar manzanita)CO3 8 Ceanothus verua(wart-stemmedceanothus)Aimophila ruficepscanescens(southern Californiarufous-crownedsparrow)i_c cos."CO ®3 ^3•goOS ^^3 -2 co .8 -Q"C -n * ® .3 O •s 8Q) ._ ^f L^^» i| 'i(5 c x -2 _ _CD <0 -O c CD a) O *^ 3 ^»^» 3 ? u i"^ o 1.uj 35 ~J2.<^ CO Ceanothus verucosu.(wart-stemmedceanothus)Comarostaphylisdiversifolia ssp.diversifolia(summer-holly)Cnemidophorushyperythrus beldingi(orange-throatedwhiptail)COi§ 5 •C -Q ^ 03 •§ °%isi 52- CO O "to c 5fl) t_•fe ^ * i•sl11 Comarostaphylisdiversifolia ssp.diversifolia(summer-holly)&Cnemidophorushyperythrus beldh(orange-throatedwhiptail)Polioptila californicacalifornica (CoastalCaliforniaGnatcatcher)coc Ferocactus viridesce,(San Diego barrelcactus)Pinus torreyana ssp.torreyana(Torrey pine)Quercus dumosa(Nuttall's scrub oak)83 •o(0 JQ Q..ECO t "8 3£ o (0 .> X c o*i •oGrasslan i10 c I £ 10•o 1"O i 1«5Q. A£u 1uCO§>«CO 1 oo Ammodramussavannarum(grasshoppersparrow)Cicindelalatesignataoblivosa1- 4(oblivious tigerbeetle)§ T?^ COQ. 3 0^. f£ 1-i 11111en SsS en ~ '•^» co 0>"eo ^Q. 3 COI|L ^ "S /• X ^oUj o ci^3 •S o JT ~^ §3o c •-§ o 125. CO 'o Euphydryas edithquino2(quino checkerspibutterfly)iCicindelalatesignataobliviosa1- 4(oblivious tigeibeetle)co *~ 1 f 0, % l^tlSill "w3CO 0)o c O "O O> Q> 8s£ 6> !oS ». g Lc! ^ C ^- ^" lll|§| ^« 5 ~^z SsO 5 cts i mo s S.t S 1| J C> CO•5S JO CD •^-2 Perognathuslongimembris2pacificus(Pacific pocketmouse)DipodomysStephens? -2-3(Stephen'skangaroo rat)Rana auroradraytonii1- 2(California red-legged frog)"5fio> * CO52 r- Q-2-6 « |§E til^ c^^lo 1 1 Amphispiza belli t(Bell's sage sparr*^p "t^ ^§Clemmysmarmorata pallh(southwesternpond turtle)Campylorynchusbrunneicapilluscousei (CactusWren)X 8s§ 5rai o! *i Agelaius tricoloi(Tricoloredblackbird)IT,Phrynosomacoronatum blainvi(San Diego homelizard)Numeniusamericanus1(Long-billedCurlew)t S CO CD O CCO —£ | _c •K COCu ^^i . w 0) CO -0-Q ai . c 3 fc 8 » IIP III!lu • o o> ,%•Q) J- C CO m "S co = c co<D CO 0} el) O Q) <D O 0) T3 -JS 0)Q. 0 JS Q. CO U- CO CO W m 84 ^- (M P) ^ Indirect Impacts to Preserve Areas from Adjacent Development: As the preserve is established indirect impacts to HMP species could result from edge effects within or adjacent to the preserve. Portions of the preserve will include some smaller habitat patches that are isolated by existing or planned development within the City. Examples include the Existing and Proposed Hardline areas immediately north of Batiquitos lagoon as well as the proposed hardline conservation areas south of Agua Hedionda and along the eastern border of the City immediately north and south of Palomar Airport Road. Within and adjacent to the preserve edge effects may result from active and passive recreation, agriculture, public facilities, mineral extraction and itinerant worker camps. Specific indirect impacts associated with these uses include human intrusion, toxic chemicals (fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and other hazardous materials), noise, dust, night lighting, soil erosion, exotic plants and animals, litter, fire, and hydrologic and drainage changes. Section F of the HMP contains Adjacency Guidelines that would minimize indirect impacts from development adjacent to the preserve. These guidelines include restrictions that must be addressed in the planning of any development/habitat interface. Issues addressed by the adjacency guidelines include fire management, erosion control, landscaping restrictions, fencing, signs and lighting as well as predator and exotic species control. Fire management will include efforts to ensure human safety by providing adequate setbacks from conserved habitat areas. Erosion hazards would be controlled by development of erosion control plans that will address slope stabilization and surface drainage associated with adjacent developments. Landscaping restrictions are included in the HMP to minimize the extent of non-native and invasive species that extend within the preserve. Management recommendations are also included in the HMP to control fencing within the preserve to avoid impacts to wildlife movement as well as protect sensitive biological resources. Lighting impacts would be minimized by requiring that night lighting be shielded and directed away from the preserve. Predator control activities will include education of the public, cowbird trapping, native predator control, and exotic plant control through methods such as mechanical and chemical methods. Section F of the HMP also contains restrictions for access within the preserve. Human activities within the preserve will be restricted to passive recreational uses such as hiking and some active recreation uses such as mountain biking. Off-road motorized vehicle would not be permitted within the preserve. All public access trails developed within the preserve would be directed to areas of the least biological sensitivity. The General Plan and Master EIR identify measures necessary to minimize impacts to water quality and hydrology from development within the City. The General Plan requires that best management practices be incorporated into the storm drainage systems of any developments. Best management practices include measures to reduce the velocity of runoff from developments. Implementation of Best management practices will minimize the impacts of runoff from adjacent develop- ments on the water quality and hydrology of the preserve. Mitigation Incorporated Into HMP for impacts to vegetation communities and HMP Species Vegetation Communities: Impacts to vegetation communities as well as plant and animal species would be mitigated to below a level of significance though measures 85 incorporated into the HMP, including habitat conservation and maintenance of the preserve. Table 1 indicates the vegetation community preservation levels. With implementation of the HMP a 6,489 acre preserve would be established that includes 2,146 acres of coastal sage scrub, 701 acres of chaparral, 353 acres of Southern Maritime chaparral, 27 acres of oak woodland, 498 acres of riparian habitat, 1,273 acres of fresh and saltwater marsh, 667 acres of grassland, 98 acres of eucalyptus woodland, and 726 acres of disturbed lands. As indicated in Table 1, approximately 66% of the existing natural habitat within the City would be preserved with implementation of the HMP (71% if adjusted for the Villages of La Costa existing take agreement). When the conservation of disturbed lands is included, the conservation rate rises to 74% (78% adjusted for VLC). HMP Species Mitigation: Table 6 of this document lists the conservation measures required for HMP species that would mitigate impacts to these species to below a level of significance. As shown in Table 6, measures for HMP Species conservation include habitat and population/local conservation goals for each species involving conservation of habitat associated with the particular species. In addition, to conservation goals, the HMP includes Management Recommendations and Impact Avoidance Minimization Measures for each HMP species. Details regarding management recommendations are contained in Section F of the HMP. Management recommendations are summarized below: • Management of preserve areas to minimize edge effects by controlling access limiting disturbance, limiting chemical use within vicinity, and controlling nonnative competitive species. • Adjacency standards also provide for protection against frequent or catastrophic fires. Specific measures required to minimize edge effects are listed in Section F of the HMP as adjacency standards; • Enhancement of small populations by introduction of appropriate plant materials; • Where opportunities arise, restore and enhance habitats such as coastal sage scrub, coastal dune habitat; Restrict human activities in occupied habitat of HMP animal species to outside of breeding season; Maintenance of salt marsh hydrology and water quality and protection of Salt Marsh from disturbance; Control cowbirds and other predators; • Where appropriate consider relocation programs for some species. b. Would the proposal result in impacts to locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. See response to comment VI l-a. 86 c. Would the proposal result in impacts to locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. See response to comment Vll-a. d. Would the proposal result in impacts to wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. See response to comment Vll-a. Implementation of the HMP would allow for minimal loss of riparian and freshwater marsh habitat in association with incidental take, primarily within the Standards areas. The HMP's standard for wetlands is to require avoidance as the first priority. Where complete avoidance is not feasible, the mitigation would be required to meet the "no-net-loss of function and value" standard. 88% of the existing riparian areas and 93% of marsh areas are included within the designated preserve system, including preservation of all areas characterized by salt marsh. In addition, the HMP is not intended to preclude the requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act or state wetland protection laws. Prior to implementation of grading plans, future developments within the City that may involve impacts to wetlands would need to obtain permits in association with Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act from the US. Army Corps of Engineers as well as Section 1600 of the CDFG code and a 401 certification or waiver from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. e. Would the proposal result in impacts to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? Less than significant impact. In the development of the HMP the need for linkages between core areas characterized by sensitive biological resources was incorporated into the Plan. Based on the existing distribution of vegetation and sensitive species, HMP Cores, Linkages and Special Resource Areas were identified as shown on Figure 8. As shown in Figure 8, and as discussed below, the individual Core areas are proposed to be connected by linkages. The HMP proposes that a linkage be created between Core areas 1 and 2. Core area 1 (Buena Vista Lagoon and adjoining wetlands) is currently connected with Core 2, which consists of primarily grassland and riparian vegetation and patches of coastal sage scrub via Buena Vista Creek. The HMP proposes to maintain that linkage. Existing linkages A and B connect Core areas 2, 3 and 4. Core area 3 will be the largest contiguous core area in the HMP preserve system (approximately 800 acres) characterized by coastal sage scrub and a significant gnatcatcher population. Core area 4 includes Agua Hedionda Lagoon and upland habitats immediately east and south of the lagoon. Core 2 and Core 3 are connected by a short stepping stone linkage (Linkage A) of approximately 24 acres dominated by coastal sage scrub. Core areas 3 and 4 are connected by linkage B which is characterized by grassland. Although Linkage A is constrained in width by existing development, Linkage B crosses currently undeveloped land that is entirely within a Standards Area. The exact width and location of linkage B will be determined through compliance with the Standards for Zone 14. 87 Core Areas 3 and 5 are connected by Linkage C. Core area 5 is located along the eastern border of the City and is characterized by stands of oak woodland, riparian *. forest, southern maritime chaparral, mixed chaparral, grassland and coastal sage scrub. Linkage C is approximately 0.5 mile long and contains small fragments of ** coastal sage scrub and agricultural land. It is entirely within a Standards Area. Its M exact width and location will be determined through compliance with the Standards for Zone 15. • m MtCore areas 5, 6 and 7 are connected by Linkages D and E. Linkage D is approximately 3 miles long and consists of coastal sage scrub, chaparral, grassland M and riparian habitats. Where Linkage D passes through the Carlsbad Raceway property, the linkage is shown in a Proposed Hardline design. Where Linkage D "" passes through Rancho Carrillo, it is shown as Existing Hardline open space. m Linkage E, which is constrained by existing development, consists of a grassland corridor approximately 0.5 mile long and varying in width from 80 to 400 feet. Core "• area 6 consists of coastal sage scrub, southern maritime chaparral, oak woodland, m grassland, and vernal pools. Core area 7 is the second largest contiguous core area within the HMP preserve system and contains a critical population of gnatcatchers «* and large blocks of coastal sage scrub. ^ Linkage F connects core areas 4, 6 and 8. It is partially constrained by existing •» development. It include Existing Hardline open space, Proposed Hardline areas, and m Standards Areas. Core area 8 consists of maritime succulent scrub, salt marsh, coastal sage scrub, and eucalyptus woodland. Linkage area F is a stepping stone m link approximately 1 mile long consisting of coastal sage scrub, southern maritime chaparral, and small patches of other habitat types. ** •» As shown by comparing Figure 1, 2 and 3 with Figure 8, portions of the linkages would be conserved primarily through Existing Hardline Conservation Areas, m> Proposed Hardline Conservation Areas and conservation within Standards Areas. m Conservation of portions of these existing linkages and core areas as a part of the HMP is regarded as a benefit of the project to wildlife movement. *"* In establishing the linkages and core areas within the HMP, some vacant land that currently accommodates wildlife movement would be converted to urban uses that m are developed outside of the preserve. For example, Linkages A, B, C and F are proposed to be conserved in part through mitigation requirements associated with "* Standards Areas. Considering that not all habitat would be preserved in these ** Standards Areas, some potential for wildlife movement would be lost. Loss of this habitat is considered to be an impact of the project to wildlife movement. "* m However, the linkage areas to be preserved in association with the conservation strategies would be consistent with the wildlife corridor guidelines established for the m North County MHCP. In general, the HMP requires that corridors be 1,000 ft. in M width and provide breeding and "live in" capability for species. Where linkages are somewhat constrained by existing development/disturbance or fragmented land *» ownership, the corridors would range in width from 400 to 1,000 feet. A majority of to the corridor widths anticipated by the HMP would range from 800 to 1,000 feet in width, including Linkage Areas B, C, F and all of the HMP Core Areas. *• Ml Some areas patches of native vegetation to be included in Existing Hardline Areas are currently constrained by surrounding development and consequently are less •» than the width specified in regional standards. Based on the research completed for m the HMP, the City anticipates that some isolated patches of habitat within Existing and Proposed Hardline Areas would be less than 400 feet in width. Examples of this m 88 •• Core Areas 3 and 5 are connected by Linkage C. Core area 5 is located along the eastern border of the City and is characterized by stands of oak woodland, riparian forest, southern maritime chaparral, mixed chaparral, grassland and coastal sage scrub. Linkage C is approximately 0.5 mile long and contains small fragments of coastal sage scrub and agricultural land. It is entirely within a Standards Area. Its exact width and location will be determined through compliance with the Standards for Zone 15. Core areas 5, 6 and 7 are connected by Linkages D and E. Linkage D is approximately 3 miles long and consists of coastal sage scrub, chaparral, grassland and riparian habitats. Where Linkage D passes through the Carlsbad Raceway property, the linkage is shown in a Proposed Hardline design. Where Linkage D passes through Rancho Carrillo, it is shown as Existing Hardline open space. Linkage E, which is constrained by existing development, consists of a grassland corridor approximately 0.5 mile long and varying in width from 80 to 400 feet. Core area 6 consists of coastal sage scrub, southern maritime chaparral, oak woodland, grassland, and vernal pools. Core area 7 is the second largest contiguous core area within the HMP preserve system and contains a critical population of gnatcatchers and large blocks of coastal sage scrub. Linkage F connects core areas 4, 6 and 8. It is partially constrained by existing development. It include Existing Hardline open space, Proposed Hardline areas, and Standards Areas. Core area 8 consists of maritime succulent scrub, salt marsh, coastal sage scrub, and eucalyptus woodland. Linkage area F is a stepping stone link approximately 1 mile long consisting of coastal sage scrub, southern maritime chaparral, and small patches of other habitat types. As shown by comparing Figure 1, 2 and 3 with Figure 8, portions of the linkages would be conserved primarily through Existing Hardline Conservation Areas, Proposed Hardline Conservation Areas and conservation within Standards Areas. Conservation of portions of these existing linkages and core areas as a part of the HMP is regarded as a benefit of the project to wildlife movement. In establishing the linkages and core areas within the HMP, some vacant land that currently accommodates wildlife movement would be converted to urban uses that are developed outside of the preserve. For example, Linkages A, B, C and F are proposed to be conserved in part through mitigation requirements associated with Standards Areas. Considering that not all habitat would be preserved in these Standards Areas, some potential for wildlife movement would be lost. Loss of this habitat is considered to be an impact of the project to wildlife movement. However, the linkage areas to be preserved in association with the conservation strategies would be consistent with the wildlife corridor guidelines established for the North County MHCP. In general, the HMP requires that corridors be 1,000 ft. in width and provide breeding and "live in" capability for species. Where linkages are somewhat constrained by existing development/disturbance or fragmented land ownership, the corridors would range in width from 400 to 1,000 feet. A majority of the corridor widths anticipated by the HMP would range from 800 to 1,000 feet in width, including Linkage Areas B, C, F and all of the HMP Core Areas. Some areas patches of native vegetation to be included in Existing Hardline Areas are currently constrained by surrounding development and consequently are less than the width specified in regional standards. Based on the research completed for the HMP, the City anticipates that some isolated patches of habitat within Existing and Proposed Hardline Areas would be less than 400 feet in width. Examples of this 89 s type of highly constrained corridor include Linkage Areas A, D, and E. While these more isolated patches would not meet the regional guidelines, the linkages in OT question are already limited in width by existing development, and the HMP will not further reduce their width. ** n* The combination of all of the Linkages and Core Areas as shown in Figure 8, with proper maintenance and adaptive management as outlined above in section Vll.a., — will accommodate wildlife movement through Carlsbad to the rest of the region. As ^ a result, it is not anticipated that loss of habitat associated with incidental take in areas outside the preserve would result in significant adverse impacts to wildlife "• movement. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES - urn a. Would the proposal conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?n*. No impact. The HMP is a conservation plan that involves the acquisition and „ maintenance of land as habitat for sensitive biological resources. The HMP does not specifically permit any development. As a result, implementation of the HMP "* would not directly result in an increase in energy consuming uses or the use of non- renewable resources. UK b. Would the proposal use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner?m No impact. See response to comment Vlll-a. c. Would the proposal result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ** resource that would be of future value to the region and state residents? w Less than significant impact. Mineral resources which would be of future value to "* the region or state by the 1996 Update of Mineral Land Classification completed by „, the Department of Conservation as well as the analysis associated with the EIR for the General Plan Update have been identified within the area proposed to be m included in the HMP preserve. Implementation of the HMP would preclude use of these areas for future mineral extraction. "" Ul The Final EIR for the 1994 General Plan update contains a summary of the existing extractive operations within the County. As discussed in the EIR, mineral resources m are no longer being extracted within the City. Mineral resources within the City •* include abandoned gravel pit operations, salt evaporation ponds. Active mineral extraction within the vicinity of the City is limited to ongoing rock quarry operations of W the South Coast Materials company south of SR-78. This area has been master m planned in association with the Calavera Hills Master Plan. The EIR for the General Plan Update EIR concluded that the remaining mineral resources are not planned to p be extracted in the future and that buildout of the general plan would not adversely || impact mineral resources. 90 _l I—I t—I .,—I I—I I—I I—I i—I i — t i — i i — i i — i i — i i — i i — i SRA2 Detail Fig. 8 Focus Planning Areas Generalized Boundaries Only HMP Core Linkages Special ResourceArea (SRA) ® 1997 City of Carlsbad QI8 /cargi»2/product»/hmp/r61.97/fiflufeidlr/n»gdecc.aml 06/24/99 *" Considering that the HMP preserve is generally consistent with that identified in the ^ Open Space and Conservation element of the General Plan, implementation of the HMP would not adversely impact existing or planned mineral extraction operations. •** Although implementation of the HMP would preclude future extraction of mineral resources within the preserve, no existing or planned operations would be affected. """ In addition, no areas designated for mineral operations by the General Plan would •** be converted to open space in association with the preserve. *" IX. HAZARDS •"*• m a. Would the proposal involve a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals •» or radiation)? ,-Ht No impact. The HMP is a conservation plan that involves the acquisition and *<* maintenance of land as habitat for sensitive biological resources. The HMP does not specifically permit any development. As a result, implementation of the HMP1-1 would not involve the use of materials that pose a risk for explosion or release of „ hazardous substances. b. Would the proposal involve possible interference with an emergency response „ plan or emergency evacuation plan? "" No impact. See response to comment IX.a and Vl.c. As noted in response to ^ comment Vl.c, the HMP would allow access to existing public facilities located in areas proposed to be included in the preserve. « c. Would the proposal involve the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard?4HI « Less than significant impact. See response to comment IX-a. In addition, as noted in Section F of the HMP, implementation of the HMP would - result in beneficial impacts through maintenance of existing drainage courses and restoration or minimization of changes to natural hydrological processes within areas "* proposed to be included within the preserve. Maintenance of existing drainages is ,„ regarded as an environmental benefit of the HMP with respect to avoiding potential for flooding associated with future alteration of drainage courses within the City. am „ Section F of the HMP also includes adjacency guidelines to minimize fire hazards associated with development adjacent to the preserve. According to Section F of *" the HMP, fire management within the preserve involves providing adequate setbacks, reducing fuel loads within areas where fire may threaten human safety or "" existing development, suppressing fires once they have started, and providing am access of fire suppression equipment and personnel. *" d. Would the proposal involve exposure of people to existing sources of •«* potential health hazards? """ Less than significant impact. See response to comment IX.c. •am. m e. Would the proposal involve increased fire hazard in areas with flammable "" brush, grass or trees? "" 93 Less than significant impact. See response to comment IX.c. X. NOISE a. Would the proposal result in increases in existing noise levels? No impact. The HMP is a conservation plan that involves the acquisition and maintenance of land as habitat for sensitive biological resources. The HMP does not specifically permit any development. As a result, implementation of the HMP would not directly result in an increase in existing noise levels. b. Would the proposal result in exposure of people to severe noise levels? No impact. See response to comment X.a. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in the area of fire protection? Less than significant impact. The HMP is a conservation plan that involves the acquisition and maintenance of land as habitat for sensitive biological resources. The HMP does not specifically permit any development. As a result, implementation of the HMP would not directly result in a need for new or altered government services including fire service, police service or create a additional demand for water and sewer service within the City. Section F of the HMP includes Adjacency Guidelines to minimize fire hazards associated with development adjacent to the preserve. According to Section F of the HMP, fire management within the preserve involves providing adequate setbacks, reducing fuel loads within areas where fire may threaten human safety or existing development, suppressing fires once they have started, and providing access of fire suppression equipment and personnel. Implementation of these Adjacency Guidelines would not adversely impact existing levels of service to these areas by the fire department. b. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in the area of police protection? No impact. See response to comment XI.a. c. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in the area of schools? No impact. See response to comment Xl.a. d. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in the area of maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Less than significant impact. See response to comment IX.a and Vl.c. As noted in response to comment Vl.c, the HMP may allow access to and maintenance of 94 existing public facilities located in areas proposed to be included in the preserve. e. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in the area of other governmental services? Less than significant impact. The proposed project does not involve the generation of new residents; therefore, new demand would not be placed on other government services. Additional city services would be required for preserve management. However, establishing the preserve will take years. As a result, it is anticipated that the City could augment staff as preserve management need increases. XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to power or natural gas? Less than significant impact. The HMP is a conservation plan that involves the acquisition and maintenance of land as habitat for sensitive biological resources. The HMP does not specifically permit any development. As a result, implementation of the HMP would not directly create an additional demand for power, natural gas, commun-cations systems or water and sewer service within the City. As noted in response to comment Vl.c, the HMP would allow access to and maintenance of existing public facilities located in areas proposed to be included in the preserve. As a result it is not anticipated that implementation of the HMP would adversely impact service of existing public facilities. In general, the HMP allows for extension of public facilities such as above ground or underground utilities within the preserve. However, extension of these facilities within areas of the preserve characterized by significant biological resources would be prohibited. As a result, future developments proposed adjacent to the preserve may need to design projects to direct utilities to planned roadways and minimize impacts within the preserve. Considering that implementation of the HMP would not preclude extension of water or sewer facilities within the preserve significant impacts to future development plans and associated utilities and service systems are not anticipated. b. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to communications systems? Less than significant impact. See response to comment XII.a. c. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Less than significant impact. See response to comment XII.a. d. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to sewer, septic systems, or wastewater treatment and disposal facilities? 95 Less than significant impact. Implementation of the HMP may involve a realignment of the Agua Hedionda interceptor sewer line to accommodate the preserve. Given the lack of details regarding possible alternative alignments for these facilities a determination of significance cannot be made at this time. Actual construction as well as the ultimate alignment of the line would be the subject of separate environmental review and mitigation if necessary would be identified at that time. Considering that implementation of the HMP would only require modifications to the alignment to avoid sensitive biological resources and would not preclude the construction of the line it is not anticipated that implementation of the project would result in a significant adverse alteration to sewer service. e. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to storm water drainage? Less than significant impact. See response to comment XII.a. f. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to solid waste materials recovery or disposal? Less than significant impact. See response to comment XII.a. g. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water supplies? Less than significant impact. See response to comment XII.a. XIII. AESTHETICS a. Would the proposal affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? No impact. The HMP is a conservation plan that involves the acquisition and maintenance of land as habitat for sensitive biological resources. The HMP does not specifically permit any development. As a result, implementation of the HMP would not adversely impact views from public or private vantage points. Implementation of the HMP would result in preservation of areas that include important landforms, drainages and vacant areas with natural vegetation. Preservation of these areas in permanent open space is regarded as an environmental benefit of HMP to existing views of natural areas from public and private vantage points. b. Would the proposal have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? No impact. See response to comment XI11.a. XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES a. Would the proposal disturb paleontological resources? No impact. The HMP is a conservation plan that involves the acquisition and maintenance of land as habitat for sensitive biological resources. The HMP does not specifically permit any development. As a result, implementation of the HMP would not involve grading that would disturb geologic formations with the potential to 96 contain paleontological resources. Management recommendations contained in Section F of the HMP proposed that activities such as habitat restoration or creation as well as disturbance associated with passive recreational uses such as trails take place within the preserve where necessary. The proposed preserve areas extend into areas identified as Potentially Significant Fossil Areas by the 1994 General Plan Update EIR. The extent of these activities has not yet been determined and will depend on mitigation requirements of future developments. However, it is not anticipated, that typical ground disturbance associated with the type of activities allowed within the preserve would involve excavation depths necessary to disturb formations within the potential to contain paleontological resources. b. Would the proposal disturb archaeological resources? Less than significant impact. Implementation of the plan would involve creation of an open space preserve. Commitment of the preserve areas to permanent open space would be regarded as an environmental benefit of the project with respect to preservation of cultural resources within the preserve areas. Development in the portions of the City outside of the HMP, as well as possible disturbance of preserve lands in association with restoration and creation activities allowed by the HMP, could result in disturbance and potentially significant impacts to cultural resources. The EIR completed for the General Plan update evaluated potential impacts of development in the City to cultural/historic resources. Significant impacts were identified by the EIR and mitigation identified by the EIR. The list of mitigation measures contained in the Update EIR must be complied with by all future development to mitigate impacts to cultural and historic resources. In general, the proposed preserve areas extend into portions of the City identified as Known Archaeologically Sensitive areas by the General Plan update EIR. As a result, disturbance associated with preserve management activities such as habitat creation or trails development could impact cultural or historic resources. As mitigation for potential impacts to cultural resources associated with disturbance of preserve areas associated with management activities such as habitat creation or development of passive and active recreational facilities, mitigation measures contained in the 1994 General Plan update EIR as well as measures identified by the Cultural Resources guidelines of the City must be implemented prior to disturbance associated with management activities. The General Plan EIR measures and the Cultural Resource Guidelines of the City include methods for investigations of cultural and historic resources and presents a systematic method of preserving resources if found. These methods pertain to cultural resources from the prehistoric periods through historic periods. c. Would the proposal affect historical resources? Less than significant impact. See response to comment XlV-b. d. Would the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Less than significant impact. See response to comment XlV-b. 97 e. Would the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Less than significant impact. See response to comment XlV-b. XV. RECREATION a. Would the proposal increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? No impact. The HMP is an open space conservation plan that does not directly result in development of urban uses. As a result, implementation of the project would not create a demand for parks. Preservation of over 6,785 acres in permanent open space would create recreational opportunities for the City. As discussed in Section F of the HMP, recreational opportunities allowed within the preserve would be limited to passive uses including hiking, and bird watching. Active recreational uses such as picnicking, and mountain biking may also occur in or adjacent to the preserve, if restricted to the edges of the preserve lands or in buffer zones. b. Would the proposal affect existing recreational opportunities? No impact. Existing recreational opportunities would not be adversely impacted by the proposed project considering that creation of an open space preserve would not generate residents that would increase the demand for existing active neighborhood parks. As discussed in response to comment XV.a, passive and active recreational opportunities such as hiking and mountain biking would be increased through establishment of a 6,785 acre preserve. XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals, or eliminate important examples of the major periods California history or prehistory? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. See responses to comment Vll-a through Vll-e. Implementation of the HMP would result in direct significant impacts to vegetation communities including coastal sage scrub, chaparral, southern maritime chaparral, riparian, marsh, grassland and eucalyptus woodland habitats in association with incidental take allowed by the HMP. Incidental take of these habitats would also result in direct impacts to HMP species listed in Table 5. Mitigation for impacts to loss of sensitive vegetation communities and species would be mitigated to below a level of significance through implementation of the conservation strategy and preserve management guidelines contained in the HMP. As discussed in response to comments VII a-e, implementation of the HMP would result in the conservation of a 6,785 acre multi-species preserve. Preserve management activities will include creation and restoration of habitats within the preserve. 98 b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the efforts of probable future projects.) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Establishing an open space preserve would not directly involve development of urban uses. As a result, it is not anticipated that implementation of the project would contribute to significant cumulative impacts identified by the 1994 General Plan update EIR associated with build-out of the General Plan including cumulatively significant impacts to soils, hydrology, water, noise, air quality degradation, aesthetics, circulation, and utilities. Implementation of the HMP would contribute to the decline of native plant and animal species within the county and region in association with loss due to incidental take outside of the preserve (See response to comments Vll.a-e). Loss of habitat as well as direct impacts of the project to sensitive plant and animal species project combined with that associated with ongoing development in the region is considered to be cumulatively significant. However, the contribution of the project to this cumulative loss would be mitigated through implementation of measures incorporated into the HMP. The HMP would involve the establishment of a 6,785 acre multiple species preserve that includes multiple habitats and sixty-six plant and animal species. As discussed in Section Vll-e the project would conserve an integrated network of core biological resource areas and linkages that would accommodate wildlife movement within the City as well as from other areas in the region. The wildlife corridor systems provides core biological resources areas and linkages along the eastern border of the City that would accommodate existing movement of wildlife between the City and the adjacent Cities of San Marcos, Oceanside and Encinitas and unincorporated portions of San Diego County. Implementation of the HMP has also been coordinated with other regional conservation efforts. The HMP is intended to be consistent with the guidelines of California's Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) program to develop regional conservation goals for coastal sage scrub as well as plant and animal species. The project would serve as a subarea plan for implementation of the North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP). The MHCP is a regional planning effort that will address the regional conservation efforts of cities and unincorporated areas in the northern portion of the County of San Diego. The HMP has been developed in association with ongoing MHCP efforts and is consistent with the guidelines of the MHCP with respect to wildlife corridor size and habitat conservation goals. Implementation of the HMP could have a cumulative effect on existing residential land use and zoning if the density transfer and clustering measures permitted by the General Plan and the HMP are not utilized. The City must be willing to allow and should encourage clustering and density transfers, when requested, so that the residential uses allowed by the General Plan are not significantly and cumulatively impacted. As discussed in response to comments l.e and VIII.b, implementation of the project would preclude extraction of mineral resources and conducting agricultural operations within preserve areas. Areas proposed to be included in the preserve contain areas identified as potentially containing significant mineral deposits as well as areas identified as important farmlands by the 1994 General Plan Update EIR. As a result, implementation of the HMP would contribute to the loss of important farmlands and sources of aggregate material associated within ongoing 99 development in the area. However, the establishment of HMP and open space preserve like that proposed was addressed in the 1994 General Plan update. No locally important or regionally important mining operations or agricultural operations that were identified as a part of the 1994 General Plan Update process would be removed or precluded with implementation of the HMP. As a result, the contribution of the HMP to the regional loss of these resources is not considered to be significant. c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than significant impact. Based on the analysis of the above questions, it has been determined that there would be no significant adverse direct or indirect effect on human beings. The HMP does not specifically permit any development. As a result, implementation of the HMP would not involve the use of materials that pose a risk for explosion or release of hazardous substances. As discussed in Section IX, Hazards, preserve management practices would contribute to environmental benefits with respect to human safety. Maintenance of existing drainages is regarded as an environmental benefit of the HMP with respect to avoiding potential for flooding associated with future alteration of drainage courses within the City. Section F of the HMP includes adjacency guidelines to minimize fire hazards associated with development adjacent to the preserve. According to Section F of the HMP, fire management within the preserve involves providing adequate setbacks, reducing fuel loads within areas where fire may m threaten human safety or existing development, suppressing fires once they have started, and providing access of fire suppression equipment and personnel. The m HMP would also allow access to existing public facilities located in areas proposed to be included in the preserve. m G. LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES * 1. Mitigation Incorporated Into HMP for Direct and Cumulative Impacts to m Vegetation Communities and HMP Species H Vegetation Communities "* M Impacts to vegetation communities as well as plant and animal species would be mitigated though measures incorporated into the HMP including habitat conservation J as well as maintenance of the preserve. Table 1 indicates the vegetation community » preservation levels. With implementation of the HMP a 6,785 acre preserve would be established that includes 2,146 acres of coastal sage scrub, 70 acres of H chaparral, 353 acres of southern maritime chaparral, 27 acres of oak woodland, 489 m acres of riparian habitat, 1,273 acres of fresh and saltwater marsh, 667 acres of grassland and 98 acres of eucalyptus woodland. As indicated in Table 1, m approximately 66% of the existing natural habitat within the City would be preserved m with implementation of the HMP. (71% of the natural habitat is preserved if adjustment is made for Villages of La Costa existing take agreement.) „, HMP Species Mitigation HP Table 5 of this document identifies the species which are provided coverage by the m HMP. The number of species initially on this list was reduced in order to mitigate impacts to species which were not adequately provided coverage by the Plan. Table P* 100 » 6 of this document lists the conservation measures required for HMP species. As shown in Table 6, Measures for HMP Species include local habitat and population conservation goals for each species. In addition, to conservation goals, the HMP includes Management Recommendations and Impact Avoidance Minimization Measures for each HMP species. Management recommendations generally include the following (Details regarding management recommendations are contained in Section F of the HMP): • Management of preserve areas to minimize edge effects by controlling access limiting disturbance, limiting chemical use within vicinity, control nonnative competitive species. Adjacency standards also provide for protection against frequent or catastrophic fires. Specific measures required to minimize edge effects are listed in Section E of the HMP as adjacency standards; • Enhancement of small populations by introduction of appropriate plant materials; • Where opportunities arise, restoration and enhancement of habitats such as coastal sage scrub coastal dune habitat, • Restriction on human activities in occupied habitat of HMP animal species to outside of breeding season; • Maintenance of wetland hydrology and water quality and protection of wetlands from disturbance, including vernal pools; • Control of cowbirds and other predators; • Prevent livestock overgrazing; • If appropriate consideration of relocation programs for some species. 2. Mitigation for Direct and Cumulative Impacts to Land Use and Zoning Mitigation for potential impacts to residential zoning and land use consists of permitting density transfers and clustering so that sensitive habitats can be preserved, while still allowing an appropriate level of residential development to occur, consistent with the General Plan. 101 APPENDIX A Discretionary Actions to be Implemented by City of Carlsbad under the California Environmental Quality Act Carlsbad HMP Land Use Regulatory/ Implementation Mechanisms A. Open Space and Conservation Element Appendix D-2 B. Open Space Appendix D-3 C. Conservation Standards Appendix D-4 D. Growth Management Performance Standard Appendix D-5 E. Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan Excerpt Appendix D-6 F. City Council Policy No. 43 Appendix D-8 A-1 Carlsbad HMP Open Space and Conservation Element Excerpt from Pages 27 - 29 (adopted by City Council September 6,1994) GOALS A.7 A city which makes every possible effort to preserve sensitive flora and fauna. A.8 A city which preserves a variety of unique conservation areas to accommodate the needs of humans, plants and animals. A.9 A city which protects wildlife habitat through the preservation and enhancement of significant feeding, nesting, and breeding areas. A .10 A city which preserves, to the maximum extent possible, the existing level of biodiversity. OBJECTIVES B.6 To develop, a multi-species habitat program that is consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of this Element B.12 To protect rare, threatened or endangered plant and animal communities. B.14 To coordinate city habitat management planning efforts with federal, state and local agencies, and other planning efforts of the City. IMPLEMENTING POLICIES AND ACTION PROGRAMS C.2 Amend ordinances as necessary to define sensitive and constrained lands consistent with the City's habitat management planning efforts, and prohibit development and density credit thereon. C.22 Participate in the statewide and regional plans (the state of California's Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP), efforts with SANDAG and other north county cities in the preparation of a North County Wildlife Forum Multi-species Habitat Conservation Plan), to conserve sensitive environmental resources. efforts. C.23 Coordinate planning and development of a citywide open space system with habitat planning C.25 Coordinate the protection of wetlands, woodlands, riparian areas, and other sensitive habitat areas with appropriate state and federal protection agencies. C.26 Encourage and participate in regional planning efforets to protect environmentally sensitive species from extinction. NEW C.34 Require the planning and development of all future projects to comply with the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan incorporated herein by reference. A-2 Carlsbad HMP Excerpt from Carlsbad Municipal Code 21.53.230 Residential density calculations, residential development restrictions on open space and environmentally sensitive lands. (a) For the purposes of Titles 20 and 21 of this code, residential density shall be determined based on the number of dwelling units per developable acre of property. (b) The following lands are considered to be undevelopable and except for (B) and (10) shall be excluded from density calculations: (1) Beaches; (2) Permanent bodies of water; (3) Floodways; (4) Slopes with an inclination of greater than forty percent or more; (5) Significant wetlands; (6) Significant riparian or woodland habitats; (7) Land subject to major power transmission easements; (8) Land upon which other significant environmental features as determined by the environmental review process for a project are located; (9) Railroad track beds. (10) Habitat Preserve Lands as identified in the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan ( c) No residential development shall occur on any property listed in subsection (b). Subject to the provisions of Chapters 21.33 and 21.110, the city council may permit limited development of such property if, when considering the property as a whole, the prohibition against development would constitute an unconstitutional deprivation of property. The planning commission or city council, whichever the final discretionary body for a residential development may permit accessory facilities, view areas, and vehicular parking areas, to be located in floodpiains (subject to Chapter 21.31) and on land subject to major power transmission easements. Note: New wording underlined, bold and in italics. A-3 Carlsbad HMP Conservation Standards Addition to Carlsbad Municipal Code 21.53.245 Conservation of lands located within standards areas of Habitat Management Plan Lands located within the standards area of the Preserve System identified in the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan whall comply with the specific conservation standards contained in the Plan. A-U Carlsbad HMP GROWTH MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE STANDARD 1996 Excerpt from Appendix II CITYWIDE FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS PLAN, September 16, PUBLIC FACILITY AND SERVICE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Open Space Fifteen percent of the total land area in the zone exclusive of environmentally constrained non- developable land must be set aside for permanent open space and must be available concurrent with development A-5 Carlsbad HMP Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan Excerpt V. LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan Zone 17 Gross Area: Zone Open Space Status: General Plan: Zoning: Growth Management 15 Percent Open Space: Local Facilities Management Plan: Major Developments: Development Status: Existing/Approved Open Space: Constrained Open Space Per City Growth Management Plan: Trails Svstem: 593 acres There are no approved development plans in this zone and it is therefore considered not committed in terms of the delineation of future open space areas. The City's General Plan designates land uses throughout the zone. (Due to the scale of the General Plan Land Use Map and other mapping constraints, not all designated open space is necessarily shown on the map, and therefore, there may be apparent discrepancies between the open space figure below and the figures in Tables 1 and 3.) The following acreages are measured from the current General Plan Land Use Map: Land Use Open Space Residential Commercial Industrial Schools Railroad Other Gross Acreage 175 255 0 0 0 N/A 163 Zone 17 is designated Limited Control (L-C). Development within this zone is must meet the requirements of the growth management 15 percent open space performance standard. There is no Local Facilities Management Plan for this zone, but a plan is in the initial planning stages. There are no proposed developments at this time. The Bressi Ranch is the major property ownership in this zone. N/A There are no existing open space areas in public ownership or secured through approved development plans in this zone. Steep slopes (over 25 percent) are the primary constraint in this zone. Trail Segment No. 35 is proposed to run north from Carrillo Way connecting to Palomar Airport Road at the future intersection of 168 A-6 Carlsbad HMP V. LOCAL FAQLmES MANAGEMENT ZONE AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Open Spice and Conservation Resource Management Plan Primary Open Space Action Priorities: Secondary Open Space Action Priority: High Priority Implemented Through Other Programs: Melrose( see Maps 11 and 14). The east-to-west Segment No. 34 will form a major connection from Carrillo Ranch, to the future Alga None Park site (see Map 14). Plant/Animal life/Habitat (la.): Wildlife corridor functions should to be addressed as an important component of a greenway defined for the southern pan of this zone. The site planning and'design for this greenway will need to examine the location of facilities for public access so as to not impact natural resource values. The greenway design should incorporate riparian enhancement where appropriate. Canyons/Hillsides (le.); Scenic/Cultural/Educational (4a.): There is a series of small canyons which extend perpendicular to the east side of El Camino Real Where possible, these should be preserved in natural open space as an aesthetic amenity visible from the roadway. Greenways (3c.); Trails (3d.): The east-to-west Trail Segment No. 34 should be located within an open space corridor which would reach from the City boundary with San Marcos, (there is also an open space corridor in this valley in San Marcos) west to the Alga None Park site, and ultimately onward to the Zone 19 Park site. Alia Mira Park, and via a northward spur, to Veteran's Memorial Park in Zone 8. This greenway corridor should be the primary focus for open space in this zone (Segment 35 on Maps 11 and 14). An additional greenway corridor should be planned to connect from Palomar Airport Road and Trail Segment No. 26 southward along the east side of the zone. The greenways and trails can be adjusted as warranted, as better information becomes available through additional field work, further environmental analysis, more detailed planning, or similar future planning activities as may be approved by the Planning Department. The maintenance and liability of the Carlsbad Trail System will be the responsibility of the City of Carlsbad. Land Use Buffers/Entries (4b.): Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real are two of the most heavily traveled routes in Carlsbad. The expansion of open space within the viewsheds of these designated scenic roadways should be considered when land use plans are defined for this zone. School Grounds (3a.): There may be potential in the future to establish/enhance joint use agreements at school sites in the zone. Assessing the need for and negotiation of any joint use agreements is the responsibility of the Parks and Recreation Department. Public Parks/Recreation Areas (3b.): Planning, design, and management of the public parks in the zone are guided by the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan and administered by the Parks and Recreation Department. 169 A-7 Carlsbad HMP Council Policy Statement No. 43 City of Carlsbad COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT General Subject: Proposition E "Excess" Dwelling Unit Allocation Specific Subject:Formal Procedure Establishing Guidelines for Allocation of Proposition E "Excess" Dwelling Units 43Policy No. Date Issued 4/22/97 Effective Date 4/22/97 Cancellation Date Supercedes No. Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads, Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File PURPOSE To establish guidelines for allocation of "excess" dwelling units when, following the adoption of all residential Local Facilities Management Plans within a quadrant, the Proposition E quadrant cap is greater than the number of dwelling units approved or issued after November 4, 1986, plus the allowable units per the Growth Management Control Points. STATEMENT OF POLICY Although it should not be mandatory that excess dwelling units be allocated if they become available and it would be desirable to not attain the ultimate residential dwelling unit caps established by the adoption of Proposition E, the following criteria is established to determine eligibility for consideration of "excess" dwelling unit allocation, subject to the required findings in Proposition E. Projects eligible for consideration in order of priority include: =irst Priority 1. Housing development for lower-income households where allowable housing expenses paid by the qualifying household does not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the gross monthly income, adjusted for household size, at eighty percent (80%) of the county median income. 2. Density transfers, clustering of development and dwelling unit locational adjustments which are proposed in order to preserve larger areas of sensitive habitat as identified in the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan. 3. Infill Single Family Subdivisions that meet all development standards and where proposed lot sizes will be equal to or greater than adjacent subdivided properties. New text in bold italics A-8