Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-04-03; City Council; 16141; Request For Access To County LandCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL AB# 1(o,j41 m: MTG. 4 -3 -0 1 REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO 4(d) ACRES FROM THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DEPT. PLN CITY MGR RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 270s I- lo-3 _- ALLOWING qualifying -projects to utilize acreage from the County’s 5% allocation of 4(d) land, subject to certain limitations. ITEM EXPLANATION: Backqround The listing of the California gnatcatcher as a threatened species established the requirement for a federal permit to impact any coastal sage scrub vegetation. A special process was created to address projects with relatively small impacts. This process is commonly known as the 4(d) Permit. The 4(d) Permit process was established as an interim solution to allow for the removal of coastal sage scrub habitat prior to the approval of a Habitat Management Plan. One of the key features of the 4(d) process was a provision stating that no more than 5% of the coastal sage scrub in the region could be lost prior to approval of long-term conservation plans. It is important to bear in mind that the 5% allocation simply established a ledger for tracking amounts of habitat allowed to be taken. Any reference to 4(d) land or acres has no relationship to actual land or acres. It is simply a bookkeeping exercise. The 5% limitation was allocated on a proportional basis to each of the cities in the county and to the unincorporated area. In this manner, the County of San Diego received the largest allocation. The City of Carlsbad was authorized 165.7 acres of 4(d) land to allocate to projects with small impacts to coastal sage scrub until the HMP could be adopted. At this time, Carlsbad has less that 1.5 acres remaining of the 4(d) land and all of that has been allocated to specific City projects. Therefore, there is no 4(d) land available for private development projects in Carlsbad. The City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP) was expected to be approved during the summer of 2000. However, due to the California Coastal Commission’s requirement for a Federal Consistency Review, approval of the HMP has been delayed. At this time, the City is meeting with the Coastal Commission staff regarding the substantive issues to be addressed in the Consistency Review. It is not known when resolution of outstanding issues will occur or when the HMP will be ultimately approved. The delay in approval of the HMP, coupled with exhaustion of Carlsbad’s allocation of 4(d) acres, creates a permitting dilemma for a number of projects, particularly those with small impacts. Larger projects are typically able to negotiate their own permits with the wildlife agencies. However, small projects often cannot afford the cost or time to pursue these permits, or they may lack the legal nexus for certain types of permits. One way to permit projects with small impacts is to draw 4(d) acres from the allocation given to the County of San Diego. The Board of Supervisors has adopted a policy for such requests (Exhibit 4) and several cities have already utilized it. To start the process the County must receive a letter from the City describing the proposed project and requesting the transfer of 4(d) acres. The project applicant must then pay a fee to the County for permission to draw from its ledger. The fee is approximately $18,000 for each acre that the applicant wishes to charge against the County’s allocation. The fee paid to the County is in addition to the regular mitigation that the project must provide to offset its impacts. PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 1 b I / q ( Ranch0 La Costa Villaqe This agenda bill was prepared in response to a specific request from a project applicant. The project in question is Ranch0 La Costa Village (SDP 99-07). The following is background regarding that project. Ranch0 La Costa Village is a commercial project at the corner of La Costa Avenue and Ranch0 Santa Fe Road. It will impact 1.7 acres of low quality coastal sage scrub. In May of 1996, a 4(d) permit was approved by the City for an earlier version of the project. That project was not built, and the 4(d) permit expired after one year. In May of 1998, a new 4(d) permit was approved for the project under a new developer. This time, mitigation was purchased at the Manchester Mitigation Bank in Encinitas. Again, the project was not constructed, and the 4(d) permit expired after one year. The current project, Ranch0 La Costa Village (SDP 99-07) was approved by the Carlsbad Planning Commission on August 2, 2000. The current developer wishes to proceed in advance of approval of the HMP. No other permitting mechanism appears to exist, and the applicant has written a letter to the City requesting permission to transfer 4(d) acres from the County of San Diego (Exhibit 3). Policy Considerations The request from Ranch0 La Costa Village raises policy considerations that go beyond that specific project. There are both positive and negative impacts that could result from the transfer of 4(d) acres from the County of San Diego to the City of Carlsbad. These are outlined below: Potentially Positive Effects: 1. Projects with small impacts could be allowed to proceed in advance of approval of the HMP. These projects would provide certain benefits to the community. Ranch0 La Costa Village, for example, is a commercial project that will serve the residents of this portion of the Southeast Quadrant where no commercial developments currently exist. Upon development of this commercial property, the City would acquire additional sales tax revenues. 2. Public Works projects could apply for the transfer 4(d) land and be allowed impact habitat in advance of approval of the HMP. In such cases, the City would be required to pay the $18,000 per acre fee to the County. Potentially Negative Effects: 1. This action could set a precedent for other projects to request a transfer of 4(d) land from the County to the City. Once the City approves the first transfer, it will be difficult to say no to any subsequent request. If a large number of projects are allowed to utilize this mechanism, support for eventual approval of the HMP may be weakened. This concern can be addressed by establishing criteria that projects must meet in order to utilize this permitting mechanism. The recommended criteria that projects must meet are outlined below. 2. The City’s relationship with the County may be altered in unknown ways by reliance on the County’s 4(d) allocation. Proposed Criteria Staff recommends drawing from the County’s allocation 4(d) acres if a project meets the following criteria: l The wildlife agencies do not object to the use of 4(d) for the project l The impact is no more than 5.0 acres of coastal sage scrub l The project is not shown as a Hardline Area or Standards Area in the December 1999 draft of the HMP as approved by the City Council. The rationale for these criteria is to allow permitting for small projects with small habitat impacts on properties that are inconsequential for conservation purposes. Ranch0 La Costa Village is an PAGE 3 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 1 b ! 1 4 1 example of such a project. Larger projects that are either a Hardline Area or Standards Area in the HMP should be required to wait until final approval of the HMP or pursue their own permitting options. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the City of Carlsbad associated with the recommended action. The developer of the Ranch0 La Costa Village project will be required to pay the County of San Diego $18,000 per acre and a $5,000 deposit for processing. EXHIBITS: 1. City Council Resolution No. 2 &) / - / 03 2. Location Map 3. Letter from Hofman Planning Associates, dated January 11, 2001 4. County of San Diego Board of Supervisors Policy Number l-122. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2001-103 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO 4(D) ACRES FROM THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO WHEREAS, in 1993 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service adopted a Special Rule to regulate impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat ; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Special Rule it was determined that the San Diego region is limited to removal of no more than 5% of the total acreage of coastal sage scrub that was existing at that time; and WHEREAS, Carlsbad’s allocation of the 5% was set at 165.7 acres, which has now been exhausted; and WHEREAS, the project known as Ranch0 La Costa Village (SDP 99-07) has been approved by the City of Carlsbad, and construction of that project will require impacts to 1.7 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat; and WHEREAS, the County of San Diego has established a policy under which it will make available some of its unused allocation of acres for qualifying projects in the incorporated cities; and WHEREAS, the Ranch0 La Costa Village project has submitted a request to make use of the County’s process; and WHEREAS, in view of the exhaustion of the City’s allocation of acres, other public and private projects may also request access to the County’s allocation. 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 the City Council approves the request from the Ranch0 La Costa Village project to pursue access to the County of San Diego’s allocation of 5% acres. 3. That the City Council will consider requests from other public and private projects to access the County of San Diego’s allocation of 5% acres if such projects meet the following criteria: a. All of the findings required for issuance of a 4(d) Habitat Loss Permit can be made. .i f f 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 b. The wildlife agencies do not object to the use of this mechanism for the project in question. c. The total impact of the project is no greater than 5.0 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat. d. The project in question is neither a Hardline Area nor a Standards Area in the Draft City of Carlsbad Habitat Management dated December 1999. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council held on the 3rd day of April , 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Finnila, Nygaard and Hall. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ATTEST: Q+g@-@Lbm LORR&JE M. WOOD, City Clerk (SEAL) -2- EXHIBIT 2 RANCH0 LA COSTA VILLAGE SDP 99X)7 EXHIBIT 3 Hofman Planning Associates Planning Pr=Ilez t Management Flscai Analysis January 11.2001 Marty Orenyak. Community Development Director City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad. CA 92008 SUBJECT: Ranch0 La Costa Village (SDP 99-07); 4d Permit Processing with the County of San Diego Dear Marty: This letter serves as a request for a letter from the City of Carlsbad to the County of San Diego agreeing to a transfer of 4d permit land. The land transfer would allow the Ranch0 La Costa Village project located on the southwest comer of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road and La Costa Avenue to obtain grading permits and begin construction. Background information regarding the site proposed for development and a detailed explanation regarding the processing of a 4d permit through the County of San Diego for the project is included below. Background In May of 1996, a 4d permit was approved by the Carlsbad City Council for the loss of 1.7 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat for a project known as the La Costa Plaza by Bums Development Company. Since the Bums Development Company did not obtain a grading permit within a year of the approval of the 4d permit, the permit expired. In May of 1998, another 4d permit was approved by City Council for the loss of 1.7 acres of habitat for a revised project known as La Costa Village. As a part of the permit application, an updated habitat impact assessment was conducted. The updated assessment determined that the impacts to the habitat were 0.64 acres of coastal sage scrub, 0.42 acres of disturbed sage scrub and 0.22 acres of burned coastal sage scrub for a total of 1.28 acres. However, upon consultation with US Fish and Wildlife, we were informed that the impacts would still have to be mitigated for 1.7 acres of impact at a ratio of 1: 1 based on the site assessment conducted as a part of the original La Costa Plaza project. Within one month of the approval of the 4d permit, mitigation acreage was purchased in the Manchester Avenue Conservation Bank in Encinitas. Again, a grading permit was not issued within one year of the approval of the 4d permit and the permit expired. The property owner requested a refund from the conservation bank and this was refused by the owners of the bank. Our intent would be to use this purchased land for mitigation if the city approves this request. 5900 Pasteur Court l Suite 150 l Carlsbad l CA 92008 l (760) 438-1465 0 Far: (760) 438-2443 7 In December of 1998. a Site Development Plan (SDP) was submitted for the site to accommodate a future drug store and to eliminate a drive-thru restaurant. This project is known as Rancho La Costa Village and was approved by the Carlsbad Planning Commission on .4ugust 2. 2000. Condition 14 of Planning Commission Resolution 4809 for SDP 99-07 (Ranch0 La Costa Village) requires consultation with US Fish and Wildlife regarding project impacts or permits needed for the removal of coastal sage scrub (CSS) if the City of Carlsbad does not have an approved Habitat Management Plan (HMP) in effect. Unfortunately, the processing of the City’s HMP has been stalled by the Coastal Commission and it is not known when the HMP will ultimately be approved. Condition 14. therefore, required that this project consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service. In September 2000, John Martin of Fish and Wildlife Service informed us that this project was a candidate for a “low effect” Habitat Conservation Plan pursuant to Section 1 O(a) 1 (b) of the Endangered Species Act. We were subsequently advised by Mr. Martin, however, that since the CSS on the site is of low quality and does not contain any endangered or threatened species, the removal of the CSS is not considered a “take” of a listed species. Therefore, Section 1 O(a)1 (b) does not apply and no permit is necessary from the Fish and Wildlife Service. He went on to say, however, that even though no federal permit is required, the project must still obtain a permit from the City of Carlsbad for the habitat loss under the provisions of Section 4d. As you know, each city in San Diego County as well as the County itself was allocated a certain number of acres to allow for habitat loss under the 4d permit process. Carlsbad has issued a number of 4d permits that have used most of the land allocated under the 4d permit process. The small amount of remaining land available is being retained by the City for its own needs and this land is not available for private development. Our client has no other choice than to pursue the avenue we are proposing. Proposal Since it is unknown when the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan will be approved and since there is no more land available for the issuance of a 4d permit through the City, we are requesting that the City agree to allow for the transfer of 4d permit land from the County to the City and provide the County with a letter agreeing to such transfer. The County of San Diego has a substantial number of 4d permit acres available and is willing to sell this land for use by the City of Carlsbad for the purpose of granting a 4d permit for the Ranch0 La Costa Village project. The new 4d permit would require the Ranch0 La Costa Village project to mitigate at a 1: 1 ratio for the take of 1.7 acres. The cost for purchase by the county would be $17,000 - $18,000 per acre depending on the quality of the habitat. In addition, our client would also have to provide mitigation for this take. We are proposing that the mitigation previously paid for in the form of the Manchester Conservation Bank satisfy the mitigation requirement for this project. ,4n application to process the 4d permit has been submitted to Mr. Bob Asher at the County for review:. Enclosed is a copy of the cover letter that accompanied the application. Mr. Asher has agreed to process the application up to the point of scheduling a hearing before the Board of Supervisors. The County will only schedule for the hearing after it receives a letter from the City of Carlsbad agreeing to the transfer of 4d permit land from the County to the City. Mr. Asher has indicated that the 4d permit could be processed relatively quickly and a hearing date could be set within six to eight weeks. Since this request may have to be forwarded to the City <:ouncil for final approval, we would respectfully request your prompt attention to this matter. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this request further, please call me at this office. Sincerely, Bill Hofman BH:SW enclosure cc: Ray Patchett Ron Ball Michael Holzmiller Don Rideout Anne Hysong Cynthia Bell 3 9 Hofman Planning Associates F!sr,,?*:- -1 >-- -’ ,,2z: . J ‘“-‘- ’ ,, n P c-3 - ; -c, t e, T ciz., :.-- , . . J January 8.2000 Bob .4sher County of San Diego 5201 Ruffin Road. Suite B Mail Stop 0650 San Dieoo C4 9’177 E’ . --- SUBJECT: Carlsbad (southwest comer of Ranch0 Santa Fe Road and La Costa .\\.enue) - Ranch0 La Costa Village: 4d Permit Processing Dear Bob: This lerter senses as a formal request for the processing of a -td Permit and is accompanied b> background information regarding the site proposed for development. Background In May. of 1996. a -Id permit \vas approved by the Carlsbad City Council for the loss of 1.7 acres of coastal sage scrub on the project site. This Ad Permit was for a project known as the La Costa Plaza by Bums Development Company. Since the Burns Development Company did not obtain a grading permit within a year of the approval of the 4d Permit. the Permit was not issued. In May of 1998, another 4d Permit was approved by City Council for the loss of I .7 acres of habitat for a revised project known as La Costa Village. As a part of the permit application. an updated habitat impact assessment was conducted. The updated assessment determined that the impacts to the habitat were 0.64 acres of coastal sage scrub, 0.42 acres of disturbed sage scrub and 0.22 acres of burned coastal sage scrub for a total of 1.28 acres. However. upon consultation with US Fish and Wildlife, we were informed that the impacts would still have to be mitigated for 1.7 acres of impact at a ratio of 1: 1 based on the site assessment conducted as a part of the La Costa Plaza project. Within one month of the approval of the 4d Permit, mitigation acreage was purchased in the Manchester Avenue Consenation Bank in Encinitas. Again. a grading permit was not issued within one year of the approval of the 4d Permit and the Permit was not issued. By December of 1998, a revision to the plan resulted in the need to process a new Site Development Plan (SDP) for the City of Carlsbad. This project is known as Ranch0 La Costa Village. It was approved by the Carlsbad Planning Commission on August 2, 2000. Condition 14 of Planning Commission Resolution 4809 for SDP 99-07 (Ranch0 La Costa Village) requires 5;;: jrJsys2. z;,;:- . S?,te 150 . c~3’ls~,~g . CL C2Or)f l :‘,gJ‘: 4p-:ic: l F :* ,:;cir;; ‘31-242: consultation with US Fish and Wildlife regarding project impacts or permits needed for the remov,al of coastal sage scrub (CSS) if the City of Carlsbad does not ha\,e an appro\.ed Habitat Management Plan in effect. Unfortunateiy. the processing of the City.‘s HMP has been stalled by the Coastal Commission and it is not known when the HMP will ultimately be approved. Pursuant to the previously mentioned condition. this project must consult with Fish and WVildlife. In September of this year we were told by John Martin of Fish and Wildlife that this project may be a candidate for a --low effect” Habitat Conservation Plan pursuant to Section 1 O(a)l(b) of the Endangered Species Act. However. since that time. we were advised by Mr. Martin that because the area containing the CSS is of low quality and does not contain any endangered or threatened species. the removal of the CSS is not considered a ‘-take” of a listed species. Therefore, Section 1 O(aj 1 (b) does not apply. He went on to say that even though Section 1 O(a) 1 (b) does not apply. it does not preclude the project from obtaining a permit for the habitat loss. In the opinion of Fish and Wildlife. this project must obtain a 4d Permit from the City of Carlsbad. As you knovv. each city in San Diego County as well as the County itself was allocated a certain number of acres to allow for habitat loss under the 4d Permit process. The City of Carlsbad has issued a number of 4d Permits that have used most of the land allocated under the -Id Permit process. The City is retaining the small amount of remaining land available for its own needs. The City has stated that this land will not be available for priv,ate development. Proposal It is our understanding that the County of San Diego has a substantial number of -Id Permit acres available and would be willing to sell this land for use by- the Cit!; of Carlsbad for the purpose of granting a -Id Permit for the Ranch0 La Costa Village project. This letter senes as the formal request to begin the Id Permit process with the County of San Diego. As wse discussed on the phone. there are a few items that must be completed in order for the County to begin processing the 4d Permit. The primary item that we must provide is a letter from the City of Carlsbad agreeing to the transfer of 4d Permit land from the Counp to the Cit\-. The City of Carlsbad is currently in the process of discussing the procedure that must be devised in order to allow for such a transfer between the City and the County. We are requesting that the County begin the review of the information provided with an understanding that the proposal will not be scheduled for a public hearing until the County has received a letter from the City of Carlsbad agreeing to the transfer. The other items that we are providing as a part of this submittal package are as follows: t. C. d. Processing Deposit - Check for $5,000 City of Carlsbad - Planning Commission Resolution No. 4809, August 2,200O Approving the SDP for the Ranch0 La Costa b’illage Project City of Carlsbad - Planning Commission Resolution No. 4808 Approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Ranch0 La Costa Village City of Carlsbad - City Council Agenda Bill 14,671; CSS Take Permit, May 12, 1998 Approval of the 4d Permit in 1998 2 e. f. 0 Z’ h. i. Lxtter from Ogden Environmental and Energ> Services - March I 1. 1998 Impact .i.s.se.ssment of‘ the .vitc Letter from California Department of Fish and Game - June 2. 1998 Acknowledgment of the cr/7pro\ul cfrhe &i Pu-mir Letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Senice - June 15. 1998 Acknowledgment of the LIJ)PI.OVLI~ qf‘the 4d Permit Letter from Tech-Bilt. Inc. - June 9. 1998 Acknowledgment of the .sule of canserxuion credits Ranch0 La Costa Village - Site Plan. Revised December 14.2000 If you have any questions or if you would like any additional information. please feel free to contact Stan Weiler or me at 760.438.1165. Sincerely. Bill Hofman BH:SW:em enclosures ,,=-.r. r-T , .-L, L&---r -wi;t e7 . --- .‘-.&: =- ;C:r--- - -_ -. .--- * & ‘. COUNTY- OF SAN DIEGO, CALlFbRNtA 8 BOARD OF SUPEWISORS POLICY Subject USE OF THE COUNW 5 PERCENT ALLOWABLE Policy Number Page LOSS OF COASTAL SAGE SCRUB BY OTHER JURlSDlCTlONS ’ . I-l22 OR PROPERTY OWNERS ld3 Puroose This policy sets forth the v for Cities to US9 part of the COUnvS 5 percent take allowWI~ for Coastal sage 6wub (CSS). AS part of the Habitat LOSS pfOe% in corrfofmanC8 t0 S8diOn 4(d) of the Federal Endangered Species Aet (FESA) (16 U.S.C.§1533(d). ~88 also Fed. Reg. vol. 58. ~0. 236, Dec. 10, 1979), each jurisdiction is allowed a loss of up to 5 percent of its CSS habitat if it is actively developing 8 Natural Communities Conservation Plan (Cat. F&h & Gam’e ~ Code 52800 et seq.). A$ smaller jurisdictions have used up their 5 percent allotment of habitat / loss, they have requested the County to share part of its 5 percent a!lOtm@nt. This Policy will ensure that the County Is given fair return for allowing other, jurisd#lons to use the Count)/s 5 percent loss allowance for CSS and will further the goals of open sp&e planning by providing open space land Of generating revenue that can be used to acquire open space. Funds generated by this policy will be placed into an interest-bearing trust account, with p+ipal and interest used for open space acquisition and management only. Backsround f ’ Listing of the California gnatcatcher in 1993 requires a FESA Section lo(a) (16 U.S.C. §l!j39) or \ Section 7 Permit before tiny CSS can be cleared. Under the Natural Communitieg Conservation Program (NCCP) in conjundion with the 4(d) rule of the FESA, a loss of up to 5 percent of Coastal sage scrub (CSS) is allowed providedfhe jurisdiction in which the take is oc#lm’ng is enrolled in actively developing a NCCP. As consecvation plans are approved in eati jurisdiction, the 5 perC8nt limit n0 longer applies. The jurisdictions within San Diego County agreed that each jurisdiction would maintain and account for its own 5 percent a[low&le takes. Several jurisdictions in the County have reached their 5 percent limit of alloWble CSS loss w do not have enough to author& the clearing of CSS by proposed development projects. Other jurisdictions have requested that.the Bo&d allow the loss of CSS in their jurisdiction to be counted against the County’s total CSS 5 pemnt allotment Establishing procedures for sue requssts and conditions under which they’can b6 granted will formal& the process so’that property owners and other jurisdictions will know what will be required of them in advance of starting the permit approval process. _ 1 i Po!icy It is the policy of the Board’ of Supervisors that 12, A.8 J-l’!256 1e:26 E15EE52i55 CLEW CF Tt-E EC&D F&E 82 :- C’OUNTY OF’SAN DIEGO, CALIFORti&’ ‘. ‘BOARD OF SUPERVISORS POLICY . Subject USE OF THE COUNTY’S 5 PERCENT ALLOWABLE Policy Number. Page , LOSS OF COASTAL SAGE SCRUB BY OTHER JURISDICTIONS c , x-122 7hf ? -he County will require a formal request and process for allowing projects located in other lrisdictions to use the Coi~nty’s 5 percent allocation of CSS loss. Compensation for’the use of he County’s 5 percent allocation will be required. This wmpensation will take the form.df land )r money of equivalent value to the number of acres of “take.” Any funds generated by.this equirement will be used to acquire open space in the unincorpora.Ied area that will benefit San Iiego County. In each case, first priority will be given to lands which are located in the same ;upervisorial district as the lands being used for mitigation. Funds will be placed into an interest- Iearing account. Principal and interest will be used for open space acquisiti,on and management My. ieouestino the use of the Cobnty’s 5 percent Coastal saqe scrub loss allocation for a project Incorporated cities or private property owners whose projects are being processed by a city or snother jurisdiction within San Diego County must submit to the Dir&or of Planning and Land Jse a letter requesting the use of the County’s 5 percent loss allocation. This letter will include a Droject name and description, the project location and jurisdiction, and the number of acres of CSS that will be lost due to the impacts of the project. Tne following requirements must be met.in ordei to qualify for the use of the County’s 5 percent allotment: ‘: 1. The project must conform with .all requiremet?ts of the Wildlife Agencies for minimizing impacts to CSS. 2. The jurisdiction for which the project is requesting the use of the county 5 percent allotment must have exhausted its own Coastal sage scrub 5,percent take allocation. 3. Compensation must occur as described below. Compensation Project applicants will be required to compensate the County for allowing the CSS JOSS to’ be counted againsi the.County’s total. The compensation may consist of either’land’in fee title given io the County or an equivalent dollar amount. The land will be pur&)ased in’ the . tinincorporated area neat the area of impact and containing habitats similar tb those being Impacted. The acreage of this land will be equal to the acreage of the 5 permnt ibat is needed. to be counted aga,inst the County’s’ 5 percent take allocation. H it is not ‘feasibleto provide land, the project applicant may provide a monetary payment equal to the cost of Jand that would have. been required to be purchased. The funds will be prioritized for use in the same supervisorial . . district and geographical area as the land used for mitigation.’ . . . . ,. 12/11/1998 18~26 615btl3,LZ39 CLERxffTkEBxRD FcsG ~3 . . : I . . ._ 7 -. : . . . : . &litilT~ OF SAN && GAiiFOkNlA . -. : _. . :.: i '. ’ FdAkd OF SUPERVlsdRs POLJCY ( Subject ” Policy’ - I USE OF THE CdJWS 5 PERCENT ALLOWABLE Number page ff h.msu;Sa a&& tb & mquiremehts listed above, the Dim&x of the Department of Pl8ming a$ Land Us4pvii@epare a letter to the Board of Supervtxxo with a fwpmmd3tion to appfove the reque& . tf the &Ud ElPPfDVUS the Zip@hffs w the COUr7t)i will inform the prow pmpo@d, thd ju&diiofl pfOC8SSing the pfOjeCt and he V&Me Agencies of the Board’s decisiorL ,;‘.’ . . . f . . Sun& Datq ’ . . . . . . . . This tioli& will i+ iwiewod~tqr ‘+nthuanw by’ December 31,203. . . . . BdaidAdioti . . . ., ,. 10:13;98 ‘(16) : ’ :,. (.I : . .’ : .’ : . : . , .- . : . . . . .* . . .’ . . . . . . . . . . : . : . . . . . . CA6 &fer&,& ‘--- . . . . . : . ;I. .oepa&enw Plal&j&nd Land use . . Depmbncmt d pad& ancf Recreation . ‘= ‘3. . Depaftment of Genwal’S*ces $, J -L-.,4 !ya iy..zJ 24: ls&n .-.e- p;;‘!;’ <<‘y’~?* y:; .‘*./ * -; ~~~OLWVEPERCENTPQL~&tf,j~ . . -.. . * . ‘: . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . _.: ” . . 15