HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-02-04; City Council; 17067; Habitat Management Plan/Municipal Golf CourseAB# 17,067
MTG. 02/04/03
DEPT. PLN &
CITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL
TITLE: -
COURSE/LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT
HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLANlMUNlClPAL GOLF
LCPA 02-10/Dl02-01 (HMP ADDENDUM #2)
DEPT. HD.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council ADOPT Resolutions No. 2003-038 2003-039 2003-040
ADOPTING the Negative Declaration and APPROVING an gmendment to {he Local Coasial
Program for the Mello I, Mello II and Agua Hedionda Segments (LCPA 02-10) and Addendum No. 2
to the Habitat Management Plan, CERTIFYING that the Habitat Management Plan complies with the
California Coastal Act and the California Coastal Management Program and that it will be conducted
in a manner consistent with such Program and DIRECTING staff to submit revisions to the Municipal
Golf Course plan to the California Coastal Commission in order to resolve the pending appeal of the
Golf Course Coastal Development Permit (CDP 97-25).
ITEM EXPLANATION:
This item involves several actions related to applying additional habitat protection and conservation
standards required by the California Coastal Commission to the remaining undeveloped properties in
the coastal zone including the city's proposed Municipal Golf Course. The Local Coastal Program
Amendment (LCPA 02-10) includes revisions and additions to incorporate the measures into three
Local Coastal Plan segments (Mello If, Mello I and Agua Hedionda). The city's Habitat Management
Plan (HMP), originally approved by Council on September 21, 1999, is proposed to be amended by
adding an Addendum (Addendum #2) to incorporate the coastal habitat protection standards into the
HMP document. The City Council must then certify that the HMP is consistent with the Coastal Act
and the California Coastal Management Program pursuant to the request for Consistency Review
granted by the federal Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) in August 2000.
Finally, the City Council is being asked to consider and authorize staff to make several design
revisions to the plans for the Municipal Golf Course in order to comply with the new habitat
standards and resolve the pending Coastal Commission appeal of the golf course Coastal
Development Permit (CDP 97-25). Background information, detailed action descriptions and
analysis are provided in the attached Planning Commission Staff Report.
On January 22. 2003, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 5-1 (White) to
recommend to City Council adoption of a Negative Declaration and to recommend approval of the
Local Coastal Program Amendment and the HMP Addendum. Although the Planning Commission
voted to support these actions, the Commissioners indicated that they had strong reservations about
the impact of the additional conservation standards on private property in the coastal zone, the
intervention by the Coastal Commission so late in the process and the relinquishment of local land
use control to a state agency.
The revisions to the design of the golf course are described in detail in the Planning Commission
Staff Report. A summary of the revisions is contained in Exhibit 7 to this agenda bill. These
revisions have been made in order to completely eliminate any impacts to wetlands, reduce impacts
to dual-criteria slopes to less than 10% and to provide for more on-site creation of habitat. In
conjunction with the design revisions to the Municipal Golf Course, the Planning Commission at its
meeting of January 22, 2003, unanimously approved an Addendum to the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR 97-01) that it previously certified' for the golf course. The Commission also
recommended that if the Council decides to proceed with the permitting of the golf course, that the
Council direct staff to make the necessary design revisions snd submit them to the Coastal
Commission in order to resolve the appeal of the golf course Coastal Development Permit.
PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 17* 067
ENVIRONMENTAL:
The Planning Commission has determined that the Local Coastal Program Amendment and the
Addendum #2 to the Habitat Management Plan would not have a significant effect on the
environment since the actions only involve incorporating additional conservation and protection
measures for habitat located in the Coastal Zone into the HMP and LCP. These actions do not
specifically authorize or permit any development project which will be required to undergo separate
environmental review. The Planning Director issued a Negative Declaration for the actions on
December 20,2002.
The Planning Commission also approved an Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
previously certified by the Commission for the Municipal Golf Course. The Addendum addresses the
design revisions proposed to the golf course which reduce impacts to sensitive habitat areas.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Staff estimates that $135,000 has been spent on the preparation and processing of the Local
Coastal Program Amendment, Dl 02-01 (Addendum #2 to HMP), and Golf Course Revisions since
the time Federal Consistency Review was granted to the Coastal Commission. This estimate
includes staff time (594 hours), consultant expenses and materials. It is estimated that it will cost an
additional $15,000 in staff time and consultant support by the time the items are acted on by the
California Coastal Commission and the wildlife agencies. Prior to Coastal Commission involvement
(August 2000), the City had expended approximately $1 million to prepare the Habitat Management
Plan.
Other costs associated with the implementation of the HMP include:
1. The city-owned Lake Calavera property will be contributed to the preserve system,
representing approximately $4.8 million in land value (valued as open space). In return, the
City will receive mitigation credits that can be used to mitigate a wide variety of City projects.
2. The City’s participation in the MHCP Core Area will involve a total cost of approximately $6
million. The source of funds include previously committed mitigation funds from Villages of
La Costa and Rancho Carrillo, proposed mitigation from the City’s golf course, and the
proposed In-lieu Mitigation Fee program. Because of the amount of time that has elapsed
from when the Council originally approved the concept of having an in-lieu mitigation fee, the
fee study will need to be updated and the fee increased. With an update to the fee, the
above sources will fully cover the estimated costs for the MHCP Core Area.
3. The City will have other recurring costs to manage City-owned habitat lands, including Lake
Calavera and the Hub ParWeterans Memorial Park area and for overall administration of the
HMP program.
EXHIBITS:
1.
2.
3. 4.
5.
6. 7.
9.
a.
City Council Resolution No.
02-01 (Addendum #2 for HMP)
City Council Resolution No. 2003-039 , (Federal Consistency Certification)
City Council Resolution No. 2003-040 , (Golf Course Revisions)
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5360, 5361, 5362, and 5363
Planning Commission Staff Report, dated January 22, 2003
Summary of Golf Course Revisions
Comment Letters.
Draft Excerpt Planning Commission Minutes, dated January 22,2003 (not available
Golf Course Schematics and Revised Routing Plan (Previously distributed).
2003-038 , (Negative Declaration/LCPA 02-1OlDl
until 2/4/03)
a
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. 2003-038
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR A LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
AMENDMENT AND AN ADDENDUM TO THE HABITAT
MANAGEMENT PLAN AND APPROVING SAID LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT AND ADDENDUM TO THE
HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN TO ADD HABITAT
DEVELOPED PROPERTIES IN THE COASTAL ZONE.
CASE NAME: HABITAT MANAGEMENT PIAN
CASE NO.: LCPA 02-1O/DI 02-01 (HMP ADDENDUM #2)
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning
Commission did, on January 22, 2003, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law
to consider a Negative Declaration, Local Coastal Program Amendment, and Addendum to the
Habitat Management Plan and recommended their approval; and
CONSERVATION STANDARDS TO REMAINING UN-
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the 4th day of
February, 2003, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said Negative Declaration, Local
Coastal Program Amendment, and Addendum to the Habitat Management Plan and at that time
received recommendations, objections, protests, and comments from all persons interested in
or opposed to LCPA 02-10 and Dl 02-01 (Addendum #2 to Habitat Management Plan).
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does
hereby resolve as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct
2. ' That the findings of the Planning Commission as contained in Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 5360, 5361 and 5362 are incorporated herein by reference and
are the findings of the City Council.
Resolution No. 5360, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference.
3. : That the Negative Declaration is adopted as shown in Planning Commission
approved as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5361, on file with the City Clerk and
4. That the amendment to the Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 02-10) is
incorporated herein by reference, except as amended to remove references to the Tabata
Property (APNs 214-170-54 and 72) shown in Policy 3-8.7. In addition, staff is authorized to
include any hardline boundaries negotiated prior to consideration of the Amendment by the
California Coastal Commission.
5. That the Addendum to the Habitat Management Plan (Dl 02-01 Addendum #2) is
approved as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5362, on file with the City Clerk and
1
1 1
-
4
c -
t
5
E
4
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
incorporated herein by reference, except as amended to remove references to the Tabata
Property (APNs 214-170-54 and 72) shown in Section D 7-14 G.
6. That the approval of LCPA 02-10 shall not become effective until it is approved
by the California Coastal Commission and the Habitat Management Plan is given final approval
by an Incidental Take Permit issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City oi
Carlsbad on the 4th day of February, 2003, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Finnila, Kulchin, Hall and Packard.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
-2-
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. 2003.-039
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
THE CARLSBAD HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN COMPLIES
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, FINDING AND CERTIFYING THAT
WITH THE ENFORCEABLE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA
COASTAL ACT AND CALIFORNIA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM AND THAT IT WILL BE CONDUCTED IN A MANNER
CONSISTENT WITH SUCH PROGRAM.
CASE NAME: HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
CASE NO.: LCPA 02-10
WHEREAS, the Code of Federal Regulations 15 CFR Part 930, Subpart D.
requires that any activity affecting any coastal use or resource be conducted in a manner
consistent with approved coastal management programs; and
WHEREAS, for the State of California Coastal Act of 1976 as amended serves
as the approved management program; and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is considering issuance of a
Section lO(a) Incidental Take Permit to the City of Carlsbad based on the Habitat Management
Plan, thereby triggering the requirement for review and certification of consistency with the
Coastal Act; and
WHEREAS, the California Coastal Commission initially challenged the
consistency of the City's proposed Habitat Management Plan with the Coastal Act; and
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad thereafter resolved the consistency issues
raised by the California Coastal Commission by revising the proposed Habitat Management
Plan for coastal zone properties in Addendum #2 and by revising its Local Coastal Program to
incorporate habitat conservation requirements requested by California Coastal Commission
staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all facts and information provided to
it, including the Second Addendum to the Habitat Management Plan, attached to Planning
Commission Resolution 5362 and incorporated herein by reference, the Local Coastal Program
5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
I
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
Amendment, and other pertinent information, as required by the California Coastal
Commission’s staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of th,e City of Carlsbad, on the 4th day of
FEBRUARY , 2003, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the consistency of
the Habitat Management Plan with the Coastal Act and at that time received and considered all
written correspondence, testimony, recommendations, and comments from all interested
persons.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does
hereby find and resolve as follows:
1 That the above recitations are true and correct.
2 That substantial evidence has been provided demonstrating the manner in which
the Habitat Management Plan is consistent with the California Coastal Act.
3 That the City of Carlsbad has consulted with the affected federal agency, the
US. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the California Coastal Commission regarding reasonably
foreseeable coastal effects and consistency, and has considered the views, guidance,
recommendations and comments of those agencies. The City of Carlsbad has furnished those
agencies with copies of all documents pertinent to the consistency certification.
4 That ,based on all of the facts, information, documents and testimony, the
Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan dated December 1999, with Two Addenda complies with
....
....
. . ..
. . ..
....
....
....
. . ..
Page 2 of 3 of Resolution No. 2003-039
-2- 6
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
the enforceable policies of the California Coastal Act and California Coastal Management
Program and that it will be conducted in a manner consistent with such program.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of FEBRUARY
2003, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Finnila, Kulchin, Hall, Packard
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
Page 3 of 3 of Resolution No. 2003-039
-3-
1
1
L
I -
t
I
E
S
la
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-040
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING STAFF TO MAKE
NECESSARY REVISIONS TO THE MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE
DESIGN AND SUBMIT THE REVISIONS TO THE COASTAL
COMMISSION IN ORDER TO RESOLVE THE PENDING
APPEAL BY THE COASTAL COMMISSION.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE
CASE NO.: CDP 97-25
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2000, the California Coastal Commission appealed thf
I Coastal Development Permit for the City’s Municipal Golf Course Project; and
I WHEREAS, City and Coastal Commission staff have discussed revisions to the
I Golf Course plans to address the issues raised by the Coastal Commission appeal; and
WHEREAS, Coastal Commission staff has indicated that if certain revisions tc
the layout of the Golf Course are made to eliminate any impacts to wetlands and reduce
impacts to other habitat types that the appeal can be resolved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did on 4th day Of FEBRUARY
2003, review and consider the revisions to the Golf Course Plans; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on January 22. 2003, adopted an
Addendum to the previously certified Environmental Impact Report for the Golf Course (EIR 97-
01), attached to Planning Commission Resolution 5363 and incorporated herein by reference,
to address the revisions.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, does hereby
resolve as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the City Council directs staff to submit the necessary revisions to the
Municipal Golf Course plans to the California Coastal Commission in order to resolve the
Commission’s pending appeal of the Coastal Development Permit (CDP 97-25) for the Golf
Course.
....
....
....
7
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
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 4th day of FEBRUARY 2003, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Finnila, Kulchin, Hall, Packard
NOES: None
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
Page 2 o 2 of Resolution No.
2003--040 -2-
1 - 1
3 -
4
c
t - I
8
s
1c
11
12
13
14
15
It
17
18
19
2c
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
!
I
I
I
I
I
)
,
I
,
1
I
I
1
EXHIBIT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5360
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT AND
ADDENDUM #2 TO THE HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
TO ADD HABITAT CONSERVATION AND PROTECTION
STANDARDS TO THE REMAINING UNDEVELOPED
PROPERTIES IN THE CITY’S COASTAL ZONE.
CASE NAME: HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
CASE NO.: LCPA 02-10DI 02-01
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has filed a verified application for an
amendment to the Local Coastal Program and an Addendum to the Habitat Management
Plan affecting properties located within the boundaries of the City’s Coastal Zone; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 22nd day of January, 2003
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration
according to Exhibit “ND” dated December 20,2002, and “PII” dated December
16,2002 attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
1
L
1
,
f
s
1C
11
12
12
14
15
It
17
18
1s
2G
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a.
b.
C.
d.
it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration HABITAT
MANAGEMENT PLAN - LCPA 02-101DI 02-01, the environmental impacts
therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
based on the EL4 Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 22nd day of January, 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Whitton, Dominguez,
Heineman and Segall
NOES: Commissioner White
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ce PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5360 -2-
- City of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation: CITY OF CARLSBAD -COASTAL ZONE
Project Description: Local Coastal Program Amendment to incorporate the Habitat
Management Plan and Second Addendum to the Habitat
Management Plan. The project consists of amending the City of
Carlsbad’s certified Local Coastal Program to include references to
the Habitat Management Plan and revisions to the Habitat
Management Plan needed for consistency between the two
documents.
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, a
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. 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 in the Planning Department at
(760) 602-4602.
DATED:
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
PUBLISH DATE:
December 20,2002
LCPA 02-10
Local Coastal Program Amendment for
Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan
December 20,2002
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad. CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-3600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us @
ENVIROh’MENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOFW - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: LCPA 02-10
DATE: December 16.2002
BACKGROUND
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
CASE NAME: Local Coastal Proeram Amendment for Carlsbad Habitat Manaeement
PladSecond Addendum to Habitat Manaeement Plan
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv of Carlsbad
CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER. Don Rideout. Princiual Planner
PROJECT LOCATION Coastal Zone
PROJECT SPONSORS NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv of Carlsbad. 1200 Carlsbad Villaee
Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Various
ZONING: Various
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing
approval or participation agreements): California Coastal Commiision
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SElTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
The City of Carlsbad is urouosine an amendment to its certified Local Coastal Proeram (LCP’I to
incoruorate the Habitat Manaeement Plan (HMP) and to make other revisions to the LCP
necessary for consistency with the conservation urovisions of the uudated Habitat Manaeement
Plan. The HMP is a Citvwide uroeram for conserving wildlife suecies and their habitats,
particularly suecies listed as endaneered or threatened. The HMP was adouted bv the City
Council in Seutember 1999. The existine LCP for Carlsbad consists of six seements. of which
Villaee Redeveloument Area. West Batiauitos and East Batiauitos. The three segments to be
three will be amended by the urouosed action. The sements that will not be amended are the
HMP. In order to ensure consistency between the HMP and the LCP. both documents are being
amended currently contain uolicies and reouirements for wildlife conservation that ure-date the
amended to refer to each other. The HMP revisions are titled “Second Addendum to the Carlsbad
Habitat Manaeement Plan Based on Comments from the California Coastal Commission and
Including Miscellaneous Revisions” dated December 16. 2002.
The urouosed action is the establishment of land use regulations and not a develoument uroiect.
It involves amending the Local Coastal Promam to incoruorate an existine uolicv and reeulatory
document, the Habitat Management Plan. Therefore. the following environmental analysis deals
only with the uotential for the urouosed reeulations to result in an adverse imuact on the
environment.
1 Rev. 07/03/02
12
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
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.
0 Aesthetics 0 Geology/Soils
[XI Agricultural Resources [XI HazarddHazardous Materials
0 Air Quality 0 HydrologyNater Quality
0 Biological Resources 0 Land Use and Planning
0 Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
0 Noise
0 Population and Housing
0 Public Services
0 Recreation
0 TransportatiodCirculation
2 Rev. 07/03/02
/3
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
I fmd that the proposed project COULD NOT have a sigdkant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have
I fmd that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL WACT REPORT is required.
I fmd that the proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant impact 1) bas 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. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
I fmd 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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
/17 ,/* Planner Signature Date I
3 Rev. 07/03/02
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
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
biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information
Impact Assessmeni appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. Thls checklist identifies any physical,
to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or
. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported
by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is
projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to
document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. . “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not . “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation
significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.”
The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
9 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly
9 Based on an “EM-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the
adverse.
EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or environment, but 4 potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a
supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental
document is required. . When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR
if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable
standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made
pursuant to that earlier EIR. . A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or
any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment. . If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there
measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially
are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation
may be prepared.
Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration
4 Rev. 07/03/02
/3&
. An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to
the following circumstances: (1) the potentially sigmticant adverse effect has not been discussed or
mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation
Considerations” for the sigmfkant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EN; (3)
measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant: (2) a ‘Statement of Overriding
proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the
EM-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect,
level of significance.
or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under m, Particular attention should be given to discussing
mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant.
5 Rev. 07/03/02 14
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Potentially Significant Impact I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a State scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
11. AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES - (In determining
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the California
Depamnent of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would
the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
111. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance
management or air pollution control district may be relied
criteria established by the applicable air quality
upon to make the following determinations.) Would the
project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Significant Potentially
Incorporated Impact Impact Mitigation Significant No
Unless Less Than
0 ON
0 om
0 ON
0 om
0
0
0
0
0
om
6 Rev. 07/03/02 /7
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Potentially
Significant lmpact
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
0
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 0
0
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
W. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special SUNS
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by California Depamnent of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
0
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian,
aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural
policies, or regulations or by CaIifornia Department
community identified in local or regional plans,
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
0
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defmed by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filing, hydrological intemption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
0
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
0
0 f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
sensitive? 0 g) Impact mbutav areas that are environmentally
Significant Potentially
Incorporated lmpact lmpact
Mitigation Significant ho
Unless Less Than
0
17
0
0
0
0
om
om
om
om
om
om
0 OB
0 OB
0 om
7 Rev. 07/03/02 /8
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Significant Potentially
Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Potentially Significant Impact Significant No
Less Than
Impact Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
!j15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi-
cance of an archeological resource pursuant to
!j15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi-
cal resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or shuctures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
Division of Mines and Geology Special
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
or that would become unstable as a result of the
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soils, as defmed in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
0 0
0 0
0
0
0 OIXI
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
om om
0
0
0
0 0
om 0 0
8 Rev. 07/03/02 /?
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
e) Have soils incapable of adequately suppomg the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
0 0 OB
Vn. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
0 0
0 0 b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset '
hazardous materials into the environment?
and accident conditions involving the release of
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
0 0
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
environment?
0 CI
e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airpon or public use airport, would
residing or working in the project area? the project result in a safety hazard for people
0
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
0 0
0 cl
0 0
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fnes,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ~ Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? 0'0
0151
0151
El151
IXIO
9 Rev. 07/03/02
40
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Significant Potentially
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Potentially Slgnificant Impact Significant
Less Than
Impact
0
Impact
lU0
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with ground water recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local ground water table
level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not suppon
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c) Impacts to groundwater quality?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would
site?
Ixl
0 0
0 0
€3
[XI 0
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in
a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
0 0 0 IXI
f) Create or contribute moff water, which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation
map?
i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area smctures,
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
j) Expose people or smctures to a significant risk of
loss injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface
waters.
0 151
0 0
O
IXI
[XI
0 0 0 [XI
151 0 0
0 0 [XI
IXI 0
m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals,
pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics,
nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash)
into receiving surface waters or other alteration of
receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
[XI
10 Rev. 07/03/02 a/
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Potentially Significant
Impact
n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or
wetland waters) during or following construction? 0
0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired
water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section
303(d) list?
receiving water quality objectives or degradation of 0
beneficial uses?
0
p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater
IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING -Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
mitigating an environmental effect?
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
plan or natural community conservation plan? 0
o
0
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) 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?
0
0 b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
XI. NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels
in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of
other agencies?
groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise 0
levels?
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing 0
without the project?
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above 0
levels existing without the project?
0
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
Potentially Significant
Mitgation Slgnificult No lncorparated Impact lmpact
Unless Less Than
0 05
0 om
0 om
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ON om
om
0'
on
om
om
om
11 Rev. 07/03/02 22
Issues (and Supporfing Infomution Sources).
Potentially
Significant
Impact
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2
project area to excessive noise levels?
the project expose people residing or working in the
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Xu. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC.SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered government facilities, a
need for new or physically altered government
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
VJ Other public facilities?
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
accelerated?
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
0
0
0
Significant
Potentially
incorporated Impact lmpact Mnigation Significant KO
Unless Less Than
0 UIXI
0 om
0 om
OM
0
0
0
12 Rev. 07/03/02 2.3
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Potentially
Significant
Impact
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the consmction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
0
XV. TRANSPORTATIONiTRC - Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
street system (Le., result in a substantial increase in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
either the number of vehicle nips. the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
0
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways?
0
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
0
0 d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0
t) Result in insufficient parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn-
outs, bicycle racks)?
0
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the
project:
a) Exceed wastewater treament requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treahnent facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which would
cause significant environmental effects? ,
0
0
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
significant environmental effects?
facilities, the construction of which could cause
0
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
0
Potentially
Significant Unless Mitlganon
incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Slgnificmt KO
Less Than
Impact Impact
OIXI
OB
OIXI
OB
OB
13 Rev. 07/03/02
issues (and Suppolting Information Sources). Polentially Significant Potentially Unless Slgnificant Mingatlon Significant KO Less Than
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
fzeatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
0 UISI
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
OB
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 0 UISI
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the OB
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?
0
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumula-
tively considerable” means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the
probable future projects?)
effects of other current projects, and the effects of
0 0
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
0 0
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES
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. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
C) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document
and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
14 Rev. 07/03/02 95-
A Mitigated Negative Declaration was previously prepared and certified for the Habitat Management Plan. This
document is on file with the City of Carlsbad Planning Department nnder file number EM 99-04. That document
analyzed all of the potential environmental effects of implementation of the Habitat Management Plan and
concluded that there will be potentially significant impacts to biology and land use unless mitigation measures are
adopted. Mitigation measures were adopted as part of the certification of EIA 99-04 that adequately reduce the
impacts to below the level of significance.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The following is an analysis and discussion of the potential environmental effects of the proposed Local Coastal
Program Amendment and the Second Addendum to the HMP.
I. AESTHETICS.
Amending the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program to include the already adopted Habitat Management Plan
will not have any effect on aesthetics. All development projects will be required to undergo environmental
review during which aesthetics will be analyzed.
11. AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES
(e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature,
could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
Less than significant. LCPA 02-10 could potentially result in a decrease in the amount of agricultural land
due to the proposed policy which requires creation of habitat as partial or full mitigation for impacts to
biological resources. The creation of habitat may take place on agricultural land if such land is purchased
by a project applicant for mitigation purposes. in that event there would be a conversion of the mitigation
land from agricultural use to wildlife habitat. However, this impact will be less than significant. The
development and does not entail any of the same impacts.
conversion of agricultural land to another type of open space use is qualitatively different from urban
111. AIR QUALITY-Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No Impact. Amending the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program to include the already adopted Habitat Management
Plan will not have any effect on air quality. The following discussion provided more detailed background on the
status of air quality in Carlsbad and the region.
Carlsbad is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non-attainment area for ozone (Q), and a
state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PMlo). The periodic
violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for
ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be
undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the
Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San
Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG).
A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state-
mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-attainment areas having
serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by
the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to
regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996.
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly
The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are
incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city’s and the
presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that
County’s general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project
the project would not have an adverse regional airquality impact.
15 Rev. 07/03/02 J&
Section 15125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific
reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality
management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set
fonh the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California
Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the
following:
Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan?
Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area?
The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being
implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions of the City’s General Plan and the RAQS.
implementation of the regional plan.
Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict with or obstruct
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
No Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station is in the City of Oceanside. Data available for this
monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the state
one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and 2001) and one day in 2001 for the federal 8-hour average for
quality standards have been recorded recently.
ozone and one day for the 24-hour state standard for suspended particulates in 1996. No violations of any other air
C) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
No Impact. The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. As
purely regulatory and does not authorize any development. Given the lack of emissions associated with the
described above, however, there would be no emissions associated with the proposed project because the project is
proposed project, air quality would be the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. According to
the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(i)(3), the proposed project will not make any contribution to cumulative
impacts.
d) Expose sensitlve receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
No Impact. As described above, the proposed project would not result in any pollutant emissions or concenmtions.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
No Impact. As described above, the proposed project would not result in any pollutant emissions or objectionable
odors.
IV. Biological Resources
No impact. The proposed project deals primarily with biological resources in that it involves incorporating
permit any development project or any impacts to biological resources. The proposed action modifies
the Habitat Management Plan into the City’s Local Coastal Program. This action does not authorize or
certain provisions of the Local Coastal Program to provide higher levels protection for biological resources.
The present Local Coastal Program provides some protection for wetlands and habitats located on steep
areas other than steep slopes. In addition, the proposed LCPA 02-10 includes enhanced buffer requirements
slopes. The proposed LCPA 02-10 provides greater protection for wetlands and for habitats located on
and the requirement for a long-term management and monitoring program for species and habitats.
Any development projects which would have the potential to impact biological resources are currently
required to undergo an extensive review and permitting process which includes biological surveys of the
project site, compliance with the Habitat Management Plan, compliance with the Local Coastal Program
(for properties located inside the Coastal Zone), CEQA compliance, public hearings, issuance of local ’
permits, and issuance of state or federal permits if required. These existing plans and regulatory
mechanisms ensure that potentially significant biological impacts are disclosed and fully mitigated.
16 Rev. 07/03/02 27
Habitat Management Plan into the Local Coastal Program and making miscellaneous adjustments for
The proposed project supports and strengthens the existing regulatory process by incorporating the adopted
consistency.
V. Cultural Resources “f
No Impact. Because the proposed project does not authorize any grading, excavation, or soil disturbance of
any kind, the project will not have any effect om cultural resources. Protection of cultural resources will
continue to be governed, both inside and outside the Coastal Zone, by the City of Carlsbad Cultural
Guidelines dated December 1990 which are incorporated in the General Plan.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
No Impact. As noted above the proposed project does not authorize any grading, excavation, or soil
disturbance of any kind. The project does not modify any of the existing regulations dealing with grading
or earth moving. Therefore, the project will have no impact on geology and soils.
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Less than Significant Impact. Because the proposed project is a purely regulatory action that does not
authorize any development, it will not have the potential to create a hazard to the pubic or the environment.
The project does not authorize the transportation, use, or release of any hazardous materials or waste.
By encouraging the conservation of native vegetation in the Coastal Zone, the project has the potential to
result in a slight increase in the risk of wildland fues. However, the proposed project contains within it
regulations regarding fuel modification zones and setbacks of development from native vegetation.
Therefore, the potential impact is less than significant.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
No Impact. Because the proposed project is a purely regulatoty action that does not authorize any
development, it will not have the potential to affect hydrology or water quality. All development projects
are required to meet all federal, state, and local regulations, including the federal Clean Water Act,
California Adminiswative Code Title 23, and specific basin plan objectives identified in the “Water Quality
Control Plan for the San Diego Basin.” The Water Quality Control Plan identifies specific objectives for
the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit and its subareas. All development projects must obtain a National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System permit prior to constmction. The permit will require that the project develop
and implement specific erosion control and storm water pollution prevention plans to protect water quality.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING
No Impact. The proposed LCPA 02-10 does not have the potential to divide an existing community
not conflict with any adopted plan, regulation or habitat conservation plan because the purpose of the
because it is a purely regulatory action dealing with conservation of biological resources. The project will
project is to bring applicable plans and regulations into consistency with each other. This will be
accomplished by amending the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program to incorporate by reference the Habitat
Management Plan, and making other miscellaneous changes.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES
No Impact. Because the proposed project is a purely regulatoly action that does not authorize any
development, it will not have the potential to affect mineral resources. Existing locations for mineral
extraction exist outside the Coastal Zone and will not be affected by the proposed LCPA.
XI. NOISE
No Impact. Because the proposed project is a purely regulatory action that does not authorize any
nolse.
development, it will not have the potential to create any noise impacts or expose sensitive receptors to
17 Rev. 07/03/02 638
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
NO Impact. The project consists of amending the Local Coastal Program to incorporate an existing policy
document, the Habitat Management Plan. This action has no potential to induce growth or to displace
existing housing or people.
WI. PUBLIC SERVICES
No Impact. The proposed project has no potential to impact Fire, Police, Schools, Parks, or other public
services.
XIV. RECREATION
No Impact. The project has no potential to impact recreational facilities.
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
No Impact. Because the proposed project is a purely regulatory action that does not authorize any
development, it will not have the potential to create any transportation or traffic impacts. The proposed
project will not add any trips to existing roads. The project does not modify or conflict with the regional
congestion management plan. The project does not include any aviation components and would not result
in a change of air traff~c patterns or result in substantial safety risks. The project will not affect any
emergency routes. The project will not affect parking capacity. The project will not conflict with adopted
policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS
No Impact. Because the proposed project is a purely regulatory action that does not authorize any
water, wastewater, storm drainage, or landfills.
development, it will not have the potential to create any impacts to utilities or services systems including
EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning
Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008.
1. Mitigated Negative Declaration EL4 99-04, Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City
of Carlsbad, April 1999, on file in the Planning Department.
18 Rev. 07/03/02 47
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5361
A RESOLUTION OF THE.PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CARLSBAD
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (LCP) TO AMEND TEXT
WITHIN THE MELLO 11, MELLO I AND AGUA HEDIONDA
SEGMENTS OF THE LCP DOCUMENT TO REVISE AND TO
ADD HABITAT PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION
MEASURES TO PRPOPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN THE
BOUNDARIES OF THE COASTAL ZONE
CASE NAME: HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
CASE NO: LCPA 02-10
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad, has filed a verified application for an
amendment to the Local Coastal Program to incorporate habitat conservation standards
affecting properties located in the City’s Coastal Zone; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Local Coastal Program amendment affects three LCP
segments as set forth in Exhibits “A” (Mello I1 segment), ”B” (Mello I segment), and “C”
(Agua Hedionda segment) attached hereto and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request for a Local Coastal Program
Amendment as provided in Public Resources Code Section 30574 and Article 15 of Subchapter
8, Chapter 2, Division 5.5 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations of the California
Coastal Commission Administrative Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 22nd day of January, 2003,
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to the Local Coastal Program Amendment.
WHEREAS, State Coastal Guidelines requires a six week public review period
for any amendment to the Local Coastal Program.
30
1
2
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
la
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) At the end of the State mandated six week review period, starting on December 5,
2002, and ending on January 10, 2003, staff shall present to the Planning
Commission a summary of the comments received.
I
i
C) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
LCPA 02-10 based on the following findings and subject to the following
condition:
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of 'HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN -
1. That the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment contains habitat protection
standards and conservation measures which are necessary to protect coastal
resources, sensitive habitat, and endangered species which is required by the
California Coastal Act.
2. That the proposed Local Coastal Amendment meets the requirements of, and is in
conformity with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act and all applicable
policies of the Mello 11, Mello I and Agua Hedionda segments of the Carlsbad Local
Coastal Program not being amended by this amendment
3. That the proposed amendment to the Mello 11, Mello I and Agua Hedionda
segments of the Local Coastal Program is required to maintain consistency between
the proposed Habitat Management Plan and the Coastal Plan regarding the
protection of sensitive habitat in the Coastal Zone.
Condition:
1. The Local Coastal Program Amendment shall become effective upon the final
approval of the HMP and Incidental Take Permit by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
..
...
...
PC RES0 NO. 5361 -2- 3f
1
2
2
4
c -
t - I
E
s
1(
I1
1;
1:
1'
1:
IC
1;
18
15
2(
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting to the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 22nd day of January, 2003, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES : Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Whitton, Dominguez,
Heineman and Segall
NOES: Commissioner White
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
cw PLANN~NG COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5361 -3-
LCPA 02-10 -Exhibit A
MELLO 11 SEGMENT REVISIONS
3. PROTECTION OF SENSITIVE NATIVE VEGETATION AREAS
POLICY 3-1 CARLSBAD HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN (HMP)
Certain areas of Carlsbad coastal zone have very high habitat value. These areas are not suitable for
farming. These areas exhibit a large number and diversity of both plant and animal species, several of
which are threatened because of extensive conversion of mixed Chaparral and Coastal Sage scrub habitats
to urban or agricultural uses. Also, well-established and well-maintained vegetation is a major deterrent
to soil erosion and attendant difficulties.
The Carlsbad Habitat Manapement Plan (HMP) is a comurehensive, citvwide Dropram to identifi how
the citv. in cooperation with federal and state agencies. can ureserve the diversitv of habitar and protect
sensitive bioloaical resources within the citv and the Coastal zone.
The HMP has been urepared as uart of the San Diepo Countv Multiple Habitat Conservation Prowam
{MHCP). The MHCP will establish a coordinated habitat ureserve svstem to urotect listed species and
rare native vepetation while accommodating repional develoument needs. The HMP provides a
comurehensive ulan for creation and management of urouosed preserve areas in the coastal zone, alonq
with aupropriate criteria for develoument reauirements and delineation of develoument/ureservation
boundaries. The creation of an effective habitat ureserve requires a careful balancinp of acauisition,
preservation and mitipation requirements, as well as enforceable monitoring, remediation, and an
adeauatelv hnded maintenance prowam for the ureserve area.
Section 30240(a) of the Coastal Act establishes a suecific mandate for resource preservation. It states. in
part, "/e)nvironmentallv sensitive habitat areas shall be protected apainst any sipnificant disruution of
habitat values ..." Environmentallv sensitive habitat area (ESHA) is defined in Section 30107.5 of the
Coastal Act as "any area in which ulant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or esuecially
valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosvstem and which could be easilv disturbed or
degruded bv human activities and developments. "
The repional nature of the habitat preservation effort sets the MHCP and HMP auart from other ulans
affectinp ESHA, where the noncomprehensive nature of the ulans and lack of repional resource urotection
standards reauire more strinpent limitations to coastal ESHA impacts for individual sites. The clustering
and concentration of develoument awav from sensitive areas that will result from the prouosed standards
contained in the HMP and identified in the uolicies below will provide a larper. more contimous ureserve
area than if development on the same urouerties were to be approved on a lot-bv-lot basis.
3-1.1 Habitat Manapement Plan
The document titled "Habitat Manapement Plan for Natural Communities in the Citv of
Carlsbad. December 1999 with Two Addenda-" Olereafier referred to as HMP) is
incoruorated herein bv reference. The Second Addendum dated December. 2002 contains
additional conservation standards and habitat protection uolicies that auplv within the
Coastal Zone. The HMP has been developed so as to implement and be consistent with all
other provisions of this LCP. as amended. Anv chanpes to the HMP that affect
develoument within the coastal zone (including. but not limited to. chanaes to mitipation
requirements) shall be certified bv the Coastal Commission as LCP amendments prior to
becominp effective.
38 33
3-1.2 Environmentallv Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA)
Pursuant to Section 30240 of the California Coastal Act. environmentallv sensitive habitat
areas, as defined in Section 30107.5 of the Coastal Act. shall be urotected aaainst anv
sianificant disruution of habitat values. and onlv uses dependent on those resources shall
be allowed within those areas.
3-1.3 Coastal Saae Scrub
Coastal Saae Scrub is a resource of uarticular importance to the ecosvstems of the Coastal
Zone. due in Dart to the uresence of the Coastal California matcatcher (Federal
Threatened) and other mecies. Properties containina Coastal Saae Scrub shall conserve a
minimum 67% of the Coastal Saae Scrub and 75% of the anatcatchers onsite,
Conservation of anatcatchers shall be determined in consultation with the wildlife
apencies.
3-1.4 Oak Woodland
Oak woodland is a closed to relativelv ouen stand of trees within which a dominant tree
species is a species of Oak. In coastal southern California. that suecies is aenerallv Coast
Live oak (Ouercus aarifolia). which is commonlv found on sloues and riuarian situations.
Shrubs varv from occasional to common, and the herb laver is often continuous and
dominated bv a variety of annual passes.
3-1.5 Streams
A stream is a touoprauhical feature with a clear bed and bank that ueriodicallv conveys
water.
3-1.6 Euhemeral Drainaees and Euhemeral Streams
Euhemeral drainages and ephemeral streams are touoarauhic features that convev water,
but onlv durine and shortlv after rainfall events in a tvuical vear.
3-1.7 Wetlands
Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 30121 and Title 14. California
Code of Remiations Section 13577/b). 'wetland' means lands within the coastal zone
which may be covered ueriodicallv or uermanentlv with shallow water and include
saltwater marshes. freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamus,
mudflats. and fens. Wetland shall include land where the water table is at. near. or above
the land surface Iona enough to vromote the formation of hvdric soils or to suuuort the
growth of hvdrouhvtes. and shall also include those tyues of wetlands where vepetation is
lackina and soil is uoorlv developed or absent as a result of frequent and drastic
fluctuations of surface water levels. wave action, water flow, turbidity or hiph
concentrations of salts or other substances in the substrate. A ureuonderance of hvdric
soils or a ureuonderance of wetland indicator suecies shall be considered uresumutive
evidence of wetland conditions.
Wetlands shall be delineated followina the definitions and boundan, descriutions in
Section 13577 of the California Code ofRepulations.
Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 30233. no imuacts to wetlands shall
be allowed exceut as follows:
39
a. The dikinp. filling. or dredgina of oDen coastal waters. wetlands. estuaries, and lakes
shall be permitted in accordance with other auulicable Drovisions of this division,
where there is no feasible less environmentallv damaging alternative. and where
feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental
effects. and shall be limited to the followina:
(I) New or exuanded Dort. enerm. and coastal-deuendent industrial facilities,
includina commercial fishina facilities.
(2) Maintaininp existing. or restoring ureviouslv dredaed, deDths in existing
navigational channels. turnina basins, vessel berthing and mooring areas. and
boat launching ramDs.
(3) In wetland areas onlv, entrance channels for new or auanded boating
facilities: and in a degraded wetland, identified bv the Deuartment of Fish and
Game uursuant to subdivision 6) ,of Section 30411, for boatina facilities if: in
conjunction with such boatina facilities. a substantial aortion of the degraded
wetland is restored and maintained as a bioloaicallv uroductive wetland. The
size of the wetland area used for boating facilities. including berthina suace,
turning basins. necessary navigation channels, and anv necessarv suuuort
service facilities. shall not exceed 25 percent of the degraded wetland.
(4) In oDen coastal waters. other than wetlands. includinp streams. estuaries, and
lakes, new or exDanded boatina facilities and the Dlacement of structural
pilinas for public recreational piers that urovide public access and recreational
ouuortunities.
(5) Incidental uublic service Duruoses. including but not limited to. burvina cables
and uiues or insoection of Diers and maintenance of existing intakes and outfall lines.
(6) Mineral extraction. includina sand for restorinp beaches, except in
environmentallv sensitive areas.
(7) Restoration Dumoses.
(8) Nature studv. aauaculiure, or similar resource deuendent activities.
b. Dredping and snoils disuosal shall be planned and carried out to avoid simificant
disruption to marine and wildlifi? habitats and wafer circulation. Dredge spoils
suitable for beach reulenishment should be transuorted for such uuruoses to
appropriate beaches or into suitable lona shore current svstems.
e. In addition to the other orovisions of this section. diking. fillinp. or dredging in existing
estuaries and wetlands shall maintain or enhance the functional caDacihr ofthe wetland
or estuary. Anv lagoon alterations shall be limited to very minor incidental public
facilities. restorative measures, and nature studv. if otherwise in accordance with this
division.
40 35
d. Erosion control and flood control facilities constructed on watercourses can imuede
the movement of sediment and nutrients which would otherwise be carried bv storm
runoff into coastal waters. To facilitate the continued deliverv of these sediments lo the
littoral zone. whenever feasible. the material removed from these facilities may be
placed at auurouriate uoints on the shoreline in accordance with other auulicable
provision of this division. where feasible mitipation measures have been urovided to
minimize adverse environmental effects. Asuects that shall be considered before
issuinp a coastal develoument uermit for such uuruoses are the method of ulacement.
time of year ofvlacement, and sensitivity of the ulacement area.
3-1.8 Wetland Mitipation Requirements
Jf imuacts to a wetland are allowed consistent with Policv 3-1.7. mitigation shall be
provided at a ratio of 3:l for riparian imuacts and 4:1 for saltwater or freshwater wetland
or marsh impacts.
3-1.9 No Net Loss ofHabitat
There shall be no net loss of Coastal Sage Scnib. Maritime Succulent Scrub. Southern
Maritime Chaparral. Southern Mixed Chauarral. Native Grassland, and Oak Woodland
within the Coastal Zone of Carlsbad. Mitipation for imuacts to anv of these habitat tvues,
when uermitted, shall include a creation comuonent that achieves the no net loss standard.
Substantial restoration of hiehlv degraded areas (where effective functions of the habitat
tvue have been lost) may be substituted for creation subject to the consultation and
concurrence of the US. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish
and Game (wildlife aaencies). The Coastal Commission shall be notified and vrovided an
ouuortunitv to comment uuon urouosed substitutions of substantial restoration for the
reauired creation component. Develoument shall be consistent with Policv 3-1.2 of this
section, unless vroposed impacts are suecificallv identified in the HMP: these imuacts
shall be located to minimize imuacts to Coastal Sage Scrub and maximize protection of the
Coastal California gnatcatcher and its habitat.
3-1.10 Upland Habitat Mitipation Reauirements
Where imuacts to the habitats stated in 3-1.9 are allowed. mitipation shall be urovided as
follows:
a. The no net loss standard shall be satisfied as stated in 3-1.9. Tvuicallv this will consist
of creation of the habitat tvue beinp imvacted for substantial restoration where
allowed) at a ratio ofat least I:I as provided in the HMP.
b. Onsite preservation is not elipible for mitication credit in the coastal zone. Onsite or
off-site ouen suace preserve areas may be utilized to satisfi reauired mitipation for
habitat imuacts associated with develoument if the preserve areas are disturbed and
suitable for restoration or enhancement, or thev are devoid of habitat value and
therefore suitable for the I:I mitipation component requiring creation or substantial
restoration of new habitat. Substantial restoration is restoration that has the effect of
gualitativelv changina habitat tvue and mav meet the creation reauirement if it restores
habitat tvue that was historicallv uresent, but has suffered habitat conversion or such
extreme decradation that most of the uresent dominant svecies are not Dart of the
41 36
orirrinal vepetation. Substantial restoration contrasts with 'enhancement activities
which include weedina or plantinn within vepetation that retains its historical
character. and restoration of disturbed areas to increase the value of existinn habitat
which mav meet other mitipation requirements pursuant to the HMP.
c. ImDacts to Coastal Saee Scrub shall be mitigated at an overall ratio of 2:1, with the
creation component satisfiinp half of the total oblipation. The remainder of the
mitipation oblipation shall be satisfied Dursuant to the provisions of the HMP.
d. Impacts to Southern Maritime ChaDarral or Maritime Succulent Scrub shall be
mitipated at an overall ratio of 3:l. with the creation comDonent satisfvina one-third of
the total oblipation. The remainder of the mitigation oblipation shall be satisfied
pursuant to the Drovisions of the HMP.
e. ImDacts to Southern Mixed Chaparral, Native Grassland. and Oak Woodland shall be
mitipated resuectivelv at ratios of I:l. 3:I. and 3:1 with the creation component
satisfvinp the oblipation or one-third of the total oblipation. The remainder of the
mitipation obligation shall be satisfied Dursuant to the Drovisions ofthe HMF'.
f: Mitigation for imDacts within the coastal zone should be Drovided within the coastal
zone if possible. Darticularlv the 1:1 creation comDonent, in order to have no net loss
of habitat within the coastal zone. Mitieation measures on land outside the Coastal
Zone may be acceDtable if such mitigation would clearlv result in higher levels of
habitat Drotection and value and/or would orovide sianificantlv preater mitieation
ratios. and the mitipation area is Dart of the HMP. Land area inside and outside the
coastal zone which serves as mitigation for habitat imDacts in the coastal zone shall be
permanenth retired from development Dotential and secured as Dart of the HMP
preserve management Dlan as a condition ofdevelopment aDurova1.
g. Habitat mitipation reauirements other than the creation or substantial restoration
comaonent mav be uartiallv or wholly fulfilled bv acauisition of existinp like habitat
and/or retirement of deve1oDment credits on existinn like habitat with permanent
preservation as Dart of the HMP nreserve manapement nlan.
h. AN mitipation areas, onsite and offsite. shall be secured with a conservation easement
in favor of the wildlife apencies. In addition. a Dreserve manapement plan shall be
prepared for the mitipation areas. to the satisfaction of the Citv, the wildlik apencies,
a&
funding to Drotect the Dreserve as oven sDace and to maintain the biolopical values of
the mitination areas in DerDetuitv. Manapement Drovisions and fundinp shall be in
place arior to anv imDacts to habitat. At a minimum. monitorinp reDorts shall be
reauired as a condition of develoament aaproval after the first and third vear of
habitat mitipation efforts. The Dreserve manapement Dlan shall be incornorated into
the Imulementation Plan of the LCP through an LCP amendment within one vear of
Commission cerfication of the HMP as Dart of the certified LCP.
i. If anv conflict should arise between these Policies of the LCP and the Drovisions of the
HMP. the LCP shall take Drecedence.
42
37
3-1.11 Hiphlv Constrained Properties
There are proverties in the Coastal Zone that are entirely or almost entirelv
constrained bv environrnentallv sensitive habitat area (ESHA). In these cases. one of
the followinp additional standards shall applv: If more than 80% of the urovertv bv area is covered with ESHA at least 75% of the
prouertv shall be conserved, OR
Ifthe City, with the concurrences of the wildlife aeencies and the Coastal Commission
throuph an LCP amendment, auuroves a Hardline ureserve boundaw for anv of the
above-described prouerties as uart of the HMP, then the amount of onsite ureservation
as identified in the Hardline boundaw shall auulv.
3-1.12 Buffers and Fuel Modification Zones
Buffers shall be urovided between all oreserved habitat areas and develoument.
Minimum buffer widths shall be provided as follows:
a. IO0 fi. for wetlands
b. 50 ti. for riuarian areas
c. 20 fi. for all other native habitats (coastal sape scrub, southern maritime
chauarral. maritime succulent scrub, southern mixed chavarral. native prassland,
oak woodland)
Anv urouosed reductions in buffer widths for a suecific site shall reauire sufficient
information to determine that a buffer of lesser width will urotect the identified
resources. Such information shall include, but is not limited to. the size and tvue of the
development and/or provosed mitipation (such as ulantinp of vegetation or the
construction of fencinp) that will also achieve the uurvoses of the buffer. The
California Department of Fish and Game. the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
Coastal Commission staffshall be consulted in such buffer determinations.
No develoument. pradinp. or alterations. includinp clearinp of vepetation. shall occur
in the buffer area, exceut for:
a. Modification Zone 3 to a maximum of 20 fi for uuland and non-rivarian habitat.
No fuel modification shall take place within 50 fi. of rivarian areas. wetlands. or
oak woodland.
b. For buffer areas 50 fi. or ereater in width. recreation trails and uublic uathwavs
within the first IS feet of the buffer closest to the develovment. urovided that
construction of the trail or uathwav and its uroposed use is consistent with the
preservation poals for the adjacent habitat. and that avurouriate measures are
taken for uhvsical separation from sensitive areas.
Buffer areas that do not contain native.habitat shall be landscaped usinn native vlants.
Sipnape and vhvsical barriers such as walls or fences shall be reauired to minimize
edpe effects of develovment.
43
POLICY 3-2 BUENA VISTA LAGOON
Developments located along the first row of lots bordering Buena Vista Lagoon, including the
parcel at the mouth of the lagoon (See Exhibit 4.5, Page 60), shall be designated for residential
development at a density of up to 4 dwelling.units per acre. Proposed development in this area
shall be required to submit topographic and vegetation mapping and analysis, as well as soils
reports, as part of the coastal development permit application. Such information shall be provided
as a part of or in addition to any required Environmental Impact Report, and shall be prepared by
qualified professionals and in sufficient detail to enable the City to locate the boundary of wetland
and upland areas and areas of slopes in excess of 25%. Topographic maps shall be submitted at a
scale sufficient to determine the appropriate developable areas, generally not less than a scale of
1” - 100” with a topographic contour interval of 5 feet, and shall include an overlay delineating
the location of the proposed project. Criteria used to identify any wetlands existing on the site
shall be those of Section 30121 of the Coastal Act and based upon the standards of the Local
Coastal Program mapping regulations, and shall be applied in consultation with the State
Department of Fish and Game.
Development shall be clustered to preserve open space for habitat protection. Minimum setbacks
of at least 100 feet from wetlands shall be required in all development, in order to buffer such
sensitive habitat areas from intrusion unless otherwise permitted Dursuant to Policv 3-I.12. Such
buffer areas, as well as other open space areas required in permitted development to preserve
habitat areas, shall be permanently preserved for habitat uses through provision of an open space
easement as a condition of project approval.
The density of any permitted development shall be based upon the net developable area of the
parcel, excluding any portion of a parcel which is in wetlands.
Storm drain alignments as proposed in the Carlsbad Master Drainage Plan which would be carried
through or empty into Buena Vista Lagoon shall not be permitted, unle4ss such improvements
comply with the requirements of Sections 30230,30231, 30233, and 30235 of the Coastal Act by
maintaining or enhancing the functional capacity of the lagoon in a manner acceptable to the State
Department of Fish and Game.
Land divisions shall only be permitted on parcels bordering the lagoon pursuant to a single
planned unit development permit for the entire original parcel.
POLICY 3-3 BATIOUITOS LAGOON
Erosion drainage and sedimentation of Batiquitos Lagoon were previously addressed, in the
certified Local Coastal Program prepared by the Coastal Commission for the areas subject to
AB462 (Mello I Segment) (See Exhibit 1.1). Development within the area which is the subject of
that plan AB462 (Mello I Segment), and of AB1971 (Mello I1 Segment), shall also be required to
meet those same policies. Much of the Batiquitos Lagoon watershed is designated in this plan for
continued agricultural use which does not require a coastal development permit. When a costal
development permit is required, however, conditions shall be imposed which will assure that the
permitted development will be carried out in a manner that assures protection of the water quality
of the lagoon. Removal of major vegetation, for instance, requires a coastal development permit,
and such permitted activity shall be conditioned to limit the manner, time and location of
vegetation removal so as to minimize soil erosion.
44
39
Development shall be clustered to preserve sensitive habitat areas and maintain the maximum
amount of permanent open space feasible. At a minimum, the following policies shall regulate
development in areas adjacent to the lagoon:
a. A minimum setback of 100 feet from the wetland shall be required, with the wetland area
determined as described in Policy 3-2, Buena Vista Lagoon on Page 38.
b. At least two-thirds (2/3) of any permitted development shall be clustered on the half of the
property furthest away from the lagoon at the base of the bluff.
c. Existing mature trees shall be preserved.
d. An offer to dedicate land for public recreation use, in favor of the City of Carlsbad or State
Coastal Conservancy and irrevocable for a term of 21 years, shall be required as a
condition of development. The required land dedication shall be of a size adequate to
accommodate public use facilities including some picnic tables and public parking, and
shall include a public access trail parallel to the lagoon shore of at least 15 feet in width
with unobstructed views to the lagoon.
e. To facilitate provision of public use area and preservation of environmentally sensitive
lands and to maintain the outstanding visual resources in the area surrounding the lagoon,
and additional density credit of one dwelling unit per acre of developed land shall be
provided for each two and on half percent (2 1/2%) of total lot area, excluding wetlands,
which is maintained in open space and public recreation in excess of fifty percent (SO%) of
the total lot area, excluding wetlands.
f. Land divisions shall only be permitted on parcels bordering the lagoon pursuant to a single
planned development permit over the entire original parcel. The base residential density
shall be a maximum of 12 dwelling units per gross acre, excluding wetlands, subject to
increase as provided in Policy 3-3 3) above.
POLICY 3-4 GRADING AND LANDSCAPING REOUREMENTS
In addition to the requirements of the model grading ordinance in the Carlsbad Master Drainage
Plan, permitted new development shall also comply with the following requirements:
a. Grading activity shall be prohibited during the rainy season: from October 1st to
April 1'' of each year.
b. All graded areas shall be landscaped prior to October 1st of each year with either
temporary or permanent landscaping materials, to reduce erosion potential. Such
landscaping shall be maintained and replanted if not well established by December
1st following the initial planting.
C. The October 1st nradina season deadline mav be extended with the auproval of the
Citv Engineer subiect to imuiemeniation bv October Isr of special erosion control
measures designed to prohibit discharpe of sediments off-site during and after the
gradinp operation. Extensions bevond November 15th mav be allowed in areas of
verv low risk of impact to sensitive coastal resources and mav be auuroved either
4s
40
as Dart of the oripinal coastal develoument uermit or as an amendment LO an
existinp coastal develoument uermit.
d. If any of the resuonsible resource apencies prohibit madine ouerations durina the
summer Erading period in order to urotect endanpered or rare suecies or sensitive
environmental resources. then aradina activities mav be allowed durinp the winter
by a coastal develoument uermit or uermit amendment, urovided that auurouriate
best management practices (BMPs) are incorporated to limit votential adverse
imuacts from winter pradina activities.
POLICY 3-5 KELLY RANCH
a. Maximum Densitv of Develooment
(I) Residential densities in the 433-acre Kelly Ranch shall be permitted and based on the
underlying LCP Land Use designation. The residential land use designations shall
represent the maximum density permitted subject to application of requested density
bonuses pursuant to Chapter 21.86 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the applicable
resource protection provisions of the certified LCP.
(2) Approximately 2.8 acres located adjacent to and west of Cannon Road, CDP 98-47 are
designated Open Space with an interpretive center of Agua Hedionda Lagoon designated
as an allowable use.
b. Coastal Commission Permit 6-84-617 Amiculture
Agricultural preservation policies for the 433-acre Kelly Ranch have been deleted by LCP
amendment of 1-85.
c. Preservation of Stem Sloues. Sensitive Vegetation and Erosion Control
Any development proposal that affects steep slopes (25% inclination or greater) shall be required
to prepare a slope map and analysis for the affected slopes. The slope mapping and analysis shall
be prepared during CEQA environmental review on a project-by-project basis and shall be
required as a condition of a coastal development permit.
(1) Areas and Slopes Possessing Endangered Species andor Coastal Sage Scrub and Chaparral
Plant communities; for those slopes possessing endangered planthima1 species andor
Coastal Sage Scrub and Chaparral plant communities, the following policy language would
apply:
a) Costal Sage Scrub and Chaparral plant communities shall be preserved in their
natural state, within designated open space areas shown on the LCP Kelly Ranch
Open Space map.
b) Restoration of the disturbed areas within the delineated open space shall be
required as a condition of subdivision approval and shall be developed in
consultation with the Department of Fish and Game. The disturbed areas shall be
revegetated and existing vegetation enhanced with native species to serve as upland
transitional habitat to low-lying wetlands and environmentally sensitive habitat
46
LC(
areas north and west of Cannon Road. The restoration and enhancement plan shall
include a maintenance and monitoring component to assure long-term productivity
and continuance of the habitat value.
c) Upon dedication of a conservation easement or in fee dedication, or upon
recordation of offers to dedicate the Kelly Ranch Open Space to the City of
Carlsbad or other public entity, development of steep slopes over 25% grade may
occur in areas outside the designated open space. Such encroachment shall be
approved by the Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service as consistent with the State and Federal Endangered Species Act.
Dedication will assure preservation of a viable upland habitat comdor and scenic
hillsides.
d) Slopes and habitat areas within the designated open space, shall be placed in a
permanent open space conservation easement or dedicated in fee as a condition of
subdivision approval. The purpose of the open space easement shall be to reduce
the potential for localized erosion and slide hazards, to prohibit the removal of
native vegetation except for creating authorized firebreaks and/or planting fire
retardant vegetation and to protect visual resources of importance to the entire
community. The easement shall be granted to the City of Carlsbad to be
maintained and managed as part of the LCP open space system for Kelly Ranch.
(2) Drainage and Runoff Rates: Drainage and runoff shall be controlled so as not to exceed at
any time the rate associated with property in its present state and appropriate measures
shall be taken in and/or offsite to prevent siltation of lagoons and other environmentally
sensitive areas.
(3) Installation Timing of Drainage and Runoff Control Measures: The appropriate measures
shall be installed prior to onsite grading.
d. Brush Management
A fire suppression plan shall be required for all residential development adjacent to designated
open space subject to approval by the City of Carlsbad Fire Department. The fire suppression plan
shall incorporate a combination of building materials, sufficient structural setbacks from native
vegetation and selective thinning designed to assure safety from fire hazard, protection of native
habitat, and landscape screening of the residential structures. No portions of brush management
Zone 1 and 2 as defined in the City of Carlsbad Landscape Manual shall occur in designated open
space areas. Zone 3 may be permitted designated open space upon written approval of the Fire
Department and only when native fire retardant planting is permitterld to replace high and
moderate fuel species required to be removed.
e. Sittinaxking,
Due to severe site constraints, innovative sitting and design criteria (including shared use of
driveways, clustering, tandem parking, pole construction) shall be incorporated to minimize paved
surface are. Dwelling units shall be clustered in the relatively flat portions of the site.
47
f. Road in Open Space
Access Roads shall be a permitted use within designated open space subject to an approved coastal
development permit, only when necessary to access flatter areas and when designed to be the least
environmentally damaging feasible alternative. Wildlife corridors shall be required when
necessary to facilitate wildlife movement through the open space area.
g. Other Uses in Open Space
The designated open space on Planning Area D may be modified to accommodate daycare
facilities and RV parking which meet the following criteria, subject to an approved coastal
development permit.
h. Water Ouality
All new development, substantial rehabilitation, redevelopment or related activity, shall be
designed and conducted in compliance with all applicable-local ordinances including Chapter
15.12 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code Stormwater Management and Discharge Control
Ordinance, the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction when performing public
works, and applicable provisions of the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges
Associated with Construction Activity issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (State
Board Order No. 92-08-DWQ), and any subsequent amendments, and the San Diego NPDES
Municipal Storm Water Permit issued to San Diego County and cities by the California Regional
Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board Order No. 90-42) and any amendment, revision or
re-issuance thereof.
In addition the following shall apply:
New development and significant redevelopment of private and publicly owned properties must
incorporate design elements andor Best Management Practices (BMPs) which will effectively
prevent runoff contamination, and minimize runoff volume from the site in the developed
condition, to the greatest extent feasible. At a minimum, the following specific requirements shall
be applied to development of type and/or intensity listed below:
Residential Development
Development plans for, or which include residential housing development with greater
than 10 housing units shall include a drainage and polluted runoff control plan prepared by
a licensed engineer, designed to infiltrate, filter or treat the volume of runoff produced
from each and every storm even up to and including the 85th percentile 24-hour runoff
event, prior to conveying runoff in excess of this standard to the stormwater conveyance
system. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the consulting soils engineer or
engineering geologist to ensure the plan is in conformance with their recommendations.
The plan shall be designed in consideration of the following criteria, and approved prior to
issuance of a coastal development permit:
a) Maximize the percentage of permeable surfaces and green space to allow more
percolation of runoff into the ground and/or design site with the capacity to convey
or store peak runoff from a storm and release it at a slow rate so as to minimize the
peak discharge into storm drains or receiving water bodies;
48
b) Use porous materials for or near walkways and driveways where feasible;
c) Incorporate design elements which will serve to reduce directly connected
impervious area where feasible. Options include the use of alternative design
features such as concrete grid driveways, and/or pavers for walkways;
d) Runoff from driveways, streets and other impervious surfaces shall be collected
and directed through a system of vegetated and/or gravel filter strips or other media
devices, where feasible. Selected filter elements shall be designed to 1) trap
sediment, particulates and other solids and 2) remove or mitigate contaminants
through infiltration and/or biological uptake. The drainage system shall also be
designed to convey and discharge runoff from the building site in a non-erosive
manner.
e) Selected BMPs shall be engineered and constructed in accordance with the design
specifications and guidance contained in the California 'Stormwater Best
Management Practices Handbook (Municipal).
f) The plan must include provisions for regular inspection and maintenance of
structural BMPs, for the life of the projectl
Parkins Lots
Development plans for, or which include parking lots greater than 5,000 sq. A. in size
and/or with 25 or more spaces, susceptible to stormwater, shall:
a) Incoporate BMPs effective at removing or mitigating potential pollutants of
concern such as oil, grease, hydrocarbons, heavy metals and particulates from
stormwater leaving the developed site, prior to such runoff entering the stormwater
conveyance system, or any receiving water body. Options to meet this requirement
include the use of vegetative filter strips or other media filter devices, clarifiers,
grassy swales or berms, vacuum devices or a combination thereof. Selected BMPs
shall be designed to collectively infiltrate, filter or treat the volume of runoff
produced from each and every storm even up to and including the 85" percentile
24-hour runoff event. BMPs shall be engineered and constructed in accordance
with the guidance and specifications provided in the California Stormwater Best
Management Practices Handbooks (Commercial and Industrial).
All Develouments
a) A public education program designed to raise the level of awareness of water
quality issues around the lagoon including such elements as catch basin stenciling
and public awareness signs;
b) A landscape management plan that includes herbicide/pesticide management.
Such measures shall be incorporated into project design through a water
qualityhban runoff control plan and monitoring program to ensure the discharge
from all proposed outlets is consistent with local and regional standards. Such
49
i.
J.
k.
measures shall be required as a condition of coastal development permit approval at
the subdivision and/or development state, as appropriate.
Vista Points: Public vista points shall be provided at two locations, one in Planning Area J and the
other entirely within Planning Area L or including portions of Planning Area L and the disturbed
high points of adjacent Planning Area D, to provide views of the Pacific Ocean, Agua Hedionda
Lagoon and its environs, and shall be accessible to the public at large. Vista points may be located
in disturbed open space areas subject to approval by the Department of Fish and Game. Support
parking shall be provided and my be located either on street or off-street within close proximity to
the vista point(s). Dedications necessary to provide the vista points and access to the vista points
shall be a condition of coastal development permit approval at the subdivision stage.
Public Trails: A public trails system that links Agua Hedionda Lagoon, the interpretive center, the
street system, open space areas and public vista point(s) shall be provided in consultation with the
California Department of Fish and Game. Trails provided outside of the public right-of-way , as
defined in the Open Space Conservation and Resource Management Plan. Trails shall be installed
concurrent with residential development and are indicated on Exhibit 19 (Conceptual Open Space
& Conservation Map).
Public StreetdGated Communities: The street systems shall provide public access and support
parking for the public trail system and vista points in the residential developments located in
Planning Areas J, K and K of Kelly Ranch. Public access may be provided through public streets,
or private streets with public access easements or deed restriction. Private gated communities
shall not be permitted within those planning areas.
POLICY 3-6 SEAPOINTEENCINAS CREEK
Permitted uses within the wetlands and designated upland buffer of the Ward property @ortion of Parcel
#214-010-Ol), shall be limited to access paths in uplands, aquaculture, fencing, nature study projects or
similar resource dependent uses, wetland restoration projects and other improvements necessary to protect
wetlands.
POLICY 3-7 CITY OWNED LANDS ADJACENT TO MACARIO CANYON AND VETERANS
MEMORIAL PARK
The Citv of Carlsbad owns auuroximatelv 521 acres in and adjacent to Macario Canvon. A municiual
golf course has been urouosed for a uoriion of the urouertv, and a oublic uark is ulanned for another
portion. Develoument of the prouertv shall be subject to the followinp policies repardinp protection of
habitat:
a. The impact and conservation areas for the Municiual Golf Course are shown as a
Hardline desim in the HMP (Fimre 8 Revised). and which shall serve as the
standard of review for determinim areas in which develoument may occur in the
future. Areas shown for conservation shall not be imuacted or disturbed exceut for
reveptation. restoration and other similar activities related to mitication. Areas
shown for impact mav be fully developed with auvrouriate mitination.
b. Anv imuacts to Coastal Sape Scrub shall be mitipated bv on-site creation ai a rate
of 2:1 in compliance with the no net loss standard stated in Policv 3-1.2. Onsite
revegetation or restoration mav be done on apricultural. disturbed or non-native
50
45
grassland areas. For impacts to the Coastal California matcatcher. additional
mitipation shall be urovided by acauisition and wesewation at a I:] ratio of land
supporting matcatchers. Imuacts to dual criteria sloues shall not exceed 10% in
compliance with Policy 4-3(b).
C. In order to provide a viable north-south wildlife corridor across Macario Canvon,
the area shown on the HMP Hardline map as “Veterans Memorial Park Wildlife
Corridor” shall be conserved concurrent with any imuacts to the Macario Canvon
properh,. No development shall occur within the Wildlife Corridor except a
desianated trail and rest areas alonp the trail.
d. Protection and manapement of all mitipation areas shall be consistent with Policv
3-l.lO.fand h.
e. The area shown as “Veterans Memorial Park Development Area” is desimated for
public recreational use. It is the intent of this uolicv that the uublic uark area be
developed so as to maximize vublic access and vrovide a varieh, of recreational
ouuortunities. Steer, sloue areas shall be Dlanned for more uassive tvue uses with
gradinp ofsuch areas limited to the amoun’t necessary to allow such uses.
I: Sepments of the Citvwide Trail System viewuoints and other ouportunities for public access shall be incorporated into the development areas.
g. In the riparian area of Macario Canvon Creek, two crossinas shall be allowed, as
shown in the HMP Hardline exhibit. Crossinp #I shall utilize the existinn farm
road. Crossinp #2 shall utilize a bridee sunn structure. No riparian imuacts shall
occur for either crossina.
h. The desim of rivarian buffers shall be as shown in the HMP. Buffers shall be
Iandscaued with avurouriate native. non-invasive plants to urovide a natural
transition between recreational areas and riparian habitat, as well as to
discourape human intrusion into the riparian area. Apuropriate siminp and
fencinp will also be utilized as urovided in Section 3-1.12.
POLICY 3-8 OTHER PARCELS - SPECIFIC HABITAT PROTECTION STANDARDS
The followinp standards are intended to be midelines for develovment and habitat ureservation. based
uuon best available information at the time these standards were orepared. The standards auulv to
parcels primarilv in Zones 20 and 21 shown on Exhibit A in the HMP Addendum #2 and that are located
within the bioloaical core and linkape areas desimated in the MHCP. and are in addition to the
auulicable standards contained in Policv 3-1 and the HMP. The standards are intended to direct
development to existing disturbed areas to the maximum extent feasible, limit impacts to native vepetation
and establish viable core and linkape areas as delineated in the HMP. In peneral. each urouertv shall be
allowed to develou at least 25% of the site with apurouriate mitipation as suecified in Policies 3-1.9
throuph 3-1.12. When individual properties are prouosed for rezoning or develoument, detailed
bioloaical information will be reauired to determine whether the uroposal is consistent with Policv 3-1
and the standards below, based upon the actual woe. location and condition of onsite resources. and the
apurouriate locations of develoument and ureservation areas.
51 46
3-8.1 Assessor's Parcel No. 207-100-48 (Aura Circle) Avoid removal of maritime succulent
scrub. Preserve at least 75% of coastal sape scrub. Mitieate habitat imuacts by creation
or enhancement of like habitat adiacent to Ama Hedionda Lagoon if uossible. as Dart of
overall mitigation reguirements.
3-8.2 Assessor's Parcel No. 212-120-33 (Hieatt - No imuact to vernal uools. Minimize imuact to
vernal uool watersheds.
3-8.3 Assessor's Parcel No. 212-010-3 (Kirpis) - Preserve 75% of DroDertv with develoament
clustered immediatelv adiacent to KeNv Ranch.
3-8.4 Assessor's Parcel No. 215-070-38 (Fernandez) - Cluster develoDment on disturbed areas
to the maximum extent feasible. Maximum 10% imuact on CSS and SMC for access
purposes.
3-8.5 Assessor's Parcel No. 215-040-03 (Murova) - Cluster develoDment on disturbed areas to
the maximum extent feasible. Maximum 10% imuact on CSS and SMC for access
purDoses.
3-8.6 Assessor's Parcel No. 215-070-13 and 36 (Promenade) - Cluster develoument on
disturbed areas. No imDacts to native habitat allowed.
3-8.7 Assessor's Parcel No. 214-1 70-54, 58. 59. 72 ,74. 75. 79. 80. 81. 84. 85
[Thomuson/Tabata) - Cluster development on disturbed areas. No impacts to native
habitat allowed.
3-8.8 Assessor's Parcel No. 215-080-04 and 22 (Redeemer bv the Sea) - Cluster development on
disturbed areas. No imoacts to native habitat allowed.
3-8.9 Assessor's Parcel No. 212-040-50 (Emerald Point) - DeveloDment limited to disturbed and
non-native massland areas. No impacts to native habitat allowed.
3-8.10 Assessor's Parcel No. 215-020-06 (RWSB) - Develoument limited to disturbed oortion of
proDeriv adiacent to Cassia Lane. ImDacts to SMC habitat limited to construction of
Poinsettia Lane and additional 10% encroachment for onsite access.
3-8.11 Assessor's Parcel No. 215-020-07 (Maldonado) - Cluster develoument southwest of future
Poinsettia Lane extension. No imDacts to the coast oak woodland and riparian area exceDt
for Poinsettia Lane extension. Consider wildlife crossing through Poinsettia Lane
reauired bv wildlife resource aeencies. The disturbed area northeast OfPoinsettin Lane is
recommended for offsite mitipation for other uroDerties in Zone 21.
3-8.12 Assessor's Parcel No. 215-050-21 Namikas) - Develonment shall be limited to a maximum
of 25% of the urouertv. not including Poinsettia Lane construction. and shall be clustered
on the western uortion of the uroDertv. No imuacts to coast oak woodland. riparian areas
or wetlands exceDt for Poinsettia Lane extension.
52
3-8.13 Assessor’s Parcel No. 215-050-22 (Sudduth) - Development shall be limited to a maximum
of 25% of the property. not includina Poinsettia Lane construction. and shall be clustered
on the western uortion of the urouertv. No impacts to coast oak woodland, riuarian area
or wetlands except for Poinsettia Lane extension.
3-8.14 Assessor’s Parcel No. 215-050-44. 45, 46. 47 Kevane) - Develoument shall be limrted to
a maximum of 25% of the urouertv. not includina Poinsettia Lane construction and shall
be clustered on the western uortion of the urouerty. No imuacts to coast oak woodland,
riuarian areas or wetlands exceut for Poinsettia Lane extension.
3-8.15 Assessor’s Parcel No. 215-050-12 (Reiter) - Develoument shall be limited to a maximum of
25% of the Drouertv. not includinp Poinsettia Lane construction and shall be clustered on
the western uortion of the urouertv. No imuacts to coast oak woodland. riuarian areas or
wetlands exceut for Poinsettia Lane extension.
3-8.16 Assessor’s Parcel No. 215-050-73 (Levatino) - Maximum 25% develoument clustered on
the southern uortion of the urouertv.
The parcel suecific standards listed above are adouted because hardline ureserve boundarv lines
were not established at the time of ureuaration of the HMP. The uuruose of the standards is to
ensure that future development is sited to ureserve the maximum amount of ESHA within the
coastal zone, and to establish a viable habitat corridor and ureserve area in Zones 20 and 21. If
the Citv, with the concurrence of the wildlife apencies and the Coastal Commission throuah an
LCP amendment. subsequentlv auuroves a hardline ureserve boundarv for any of the above-
described urouerties as Dart of the HMP, then the onsite preservation included in the hardline
preserve boundarv shall auulv.
4. GEOLOGIC, FLOODPLAIN AND SHORELINE HAZARD AREAS
POLICY 4-1 COASTAL EROSION
(4 Development Along Shoreline
For all new development along the shoreline, including additions to existing development, a site-
specific geologic investigation and analysis similar to that required by the Coastal Commission’s
Geologic Stability and Bluff top Guidelines shall be required; for permitted development, this report
must demonstrate bluff stability for 75 years, or the expected lifetime of the structure, whichever is
greater. Additionally, permitted development shall incorporate, where feasible, sub-drainage systems
to remove groundwater from the bluffs, and shall use drought-resistant vegetation in landscaping, as
well as adhering to the standards for erosion control contained in the Carlsbad Master Drainage Plan.
A waiver of public liability shall be required for any permitted development for which an assurance of
structural stability cannot be provided.
(b) Beach Sand Erosion
Pursue mitigation measures which address the causes of beach sand erosion; sand dredging and use of
the Longer Tube to reduce wave energy are two such measure which have been suggested. The City
should continue to participate in the Regional Coastal Erosion Committee’s studies of the causes and
cures for shoreline erosion.
53
4f
(c) Shoreline Structures
Revetments, breakwaters, groins, harbor channels, seawalls, cliff retaining walls and other such
construction that alters natural shoreline processes shall be permitted when required to serve coastal-
dependent uses or to protect existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion, and when
designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply. As a condition of
coastal development permit approval, permitted shoreline structures may be required to replenish the
beach with imported sand. Provisions for the maintenance of any permitted seawalls shall be included
as a condition of project approval.
Projects which create dredge spoils shall be required to deposit such spoils on the beaches if the
material is suitable for sand replenishment.
(4 Undevelopable Shoreline Features
No development shall be permitted on any sand or rock beach or on the face of any ocean bluff, with
the exception of access ways to provide public beach access and of limited public recreation facilities.
POLICY 4-2 LANDSLIDES AND SLOPE INSTABILITY
The soils investigations now required as part of the land subdivision process are adequate to identify
with specific areas of landslide and instability. However, these investigations will need to be
particularly thorough in those areas with La Jolla Group soils which have been identified for potential
future development.
Currently, soils investigations are only required for subdivisions. In future, any development
proposed for areas known to be prone to landslide shall include a geologic investigation identifymg
appropriate mitigation measures, and such geologic report shall be substantially as has been required
by the Coastal Commission’s George Stability and Bluff top Develop Guidelines.
POLICY 4-3 ACCELERATED SOIL EROSION
(4 Areas West of 1-5 and the Existing Paseo del Norte and Along El Camino Real Upstream of Existing Storm Drains
For areas west of the existing Paseo del Norte, west of 1-5 and along El Camino Real immediately
upstream of the existing storm drains, the following policy shall apply:
A site-specific report prepared by a qualified professional shall be required for all proposed
development, identifying mitigation measures needed to avoid increased runoff and soil erosion. The
report shall be subject to the requirements of the model erosion control ordinance contained in the
Appendix to the Carlsbad Master Drainage Plane (June, 1980), and to the additional requirements
contained herein. Such mitigation shall become an element of the project, and shall be installed prior
to the initial grading. At a minimum, such mitigation shall require construction of all improvements
shown in the Master Drainage Plan for the area between the project site and the Lagoon (including the
debris basin), as well as: restriction of grading activities to the months of April through September of
each year, revegetation of graded areas immediately affer grading; and a mechanism for permanent
maintenance if the City declines to accept the responsibility. Construction of drainage improvements
54
may be through formation of an assessment district, or through any similar arrangement that allots
costs among the various landowners in an equitable manner.
(b) All Other Areas
This policy applies to all other areas except those subject to Policies 3-5 and 3-7 above.
Any development proposal that affects steep slopes (25% inclination or greater) shall be required to
prepare a slope map and analysis for the affected slopes. Steep slopes are identified on the PRC Tour
maps. The slope mapping and analysis shall be prepared during the CEQA environmental review on a
project-by-project basis and shall be required as a condition of a coastal development permit.
(1) Slopes Possessing Endangered Species and/or Coastal Sage Scrub and Chaparral Plant-
Communities.
For those slopes mapped as possessing endangered planthimal species and/or Coastal
Sage Scrub and Chaparral plant communities, Policies 3-1 and 3-8 and the following
provisions would applv:
a) Slopes of 25% grade and over shall be preserved in their natural state, unless the
application of this policy would preclude any reasonable use of the property, in
which case an encroachment not to exceed 10% of the steep slope area over 25%
grade may be permitted. For existing legal parcels, with all or nearly all of their
area in slope area over 25% grade, encroachment may be permitted; however, any
such encroachment shall be limited so that at no time is more than 20% of the
entire parcel (including areas under 25% slope) permitted to be disturbed from its
natural state. This policy shall not apply to the construction of roads on the City's
Circulation Element or the development of utility systems. Uses of slopes over
25% may be made in order to provide access to flatter areas if there is no less
environmentally damaging alternative available.
b) No further subdivisions of land or utilization of Planned Unit Developments shall
occur on lots that have their total area in excess of 25% slope unless a Planned
United Development is proposed which limits grading and development to not
more than 10% of the total site area.
c) Slopes and areas remaining undisturbed as a result of the hillside review process,
shall be placed in a permanent open space easement as a condition of development
approval. The purpose of the open space easement shall be to reduce the potential
for localized erosion and slide hazards to prohibit the removal of native vegetation
except for permitted firebreaks and/or planting fire retardant vegetation
and to protect visual resources of importance to the entire community.
d) The percentape of steev dove encroachment listed in la) and Ib) above mav be
modified onlv for develovment consistent with the auvroved HMP and the resource
habitat protection policies includinp Policv 3 above. and apuroved as Dart of the
Citv 's Incidental Take Permit oursuant to the adovted HMP.
55
(2) All Other Steep Slope Areas
For all other steep slope areas, the City Council may allow exceptions to the above grading
provisions provided the following mandatory findings to allow exceptions are made:
a) A soils investigation conducted by a licensed soils engineer has determined the
subject slope area to be stable and grading and development impacts mitigatable for
at least 75 years, or life of structure.
b) Grading of the slope is essential to the development intent and design.
c) Slope disturbance will not result in substantial damage or alteration to major
wildlife habitat or native vegetation areas and is consistent with the habitat
protection uolicies contained in Policies 3-1 and 3-8.
d) If the area proposed to be disturbed is predominated by steep slopes and is in
excess of 10 acres, no more than one third of the total steep slope area shall be
subject to major grade changes.
e) If the area proposed to be disturbed is predominated by steep slopes and is less than
10 acres, complete grading may be allowed only if no interruption of significant
wildlife corridors occurs.
f) Because north-facing slopes are generally more prone to stability problems and in
many cases contain more extensive natural vegetation, no grading or removal of
vegetation from these areas will be permitted unless all environmental impacts have
been mitigated. Overriding circumstances are not considered adequate mitigation.
(3) Required Runoff Control Plan
No development shall be permitted except pursuant to submittal of a runoff control plan
prepared by a licensed engineer qualified in hydrology and hydraulics; such approved
plans shall assure that there would be no increase in peak runoff rate from the developed
site over the greatest discharge expected from the existing undeveloped site as a result of a
10-year frequency storm. Runoff control shall be accomplished by a variety of measures,
including, but not limited to, onsite catchment basins, detention basins, siltation traps and
energy dissipators, and shall not be concentrated in one areas.
(4) Required Drainage of Erosion Control Facility Maintenance Arrangements
Development approvals shall include detailed maintenance arrangements for providing the
ongoing repair and maintenance for all approved drainage or erosion-control facilities.
(5) Installation and Timing of Permanent Runoff and Erosion Control Devices
All permanent runoff control and erosion control devices shall be developed and installed
prior to concurrent with any onsite grading activities.
56
(6) Required Open Space Easements on Undeveloped Slopes
All undevelopable slopes shall be placed in open space easements as a condition of
development approval.
51
DRAFT
MELLO I SEGMENT REVISIONS
LCPA 02-10 -Exhibit B
POLICY 7 -PROTECTION OF SENSITIVE NATIVE VEGETATION AREAS
The Carlsbad Habitat Manapement Plan (HMP) is a comorehensive, citvwide Dropram to identifv
how the citv, in cooperation with federal and state apencies. can ureserve the diversitv of habitat
and orotect sensitive biolopical resources within the citv and the Coastal zone.
The HMP has been prepared as Dart of the San Diepo Countv Multide Habitat Conservation
Prorram (MHCP). The MHCP will establish a coordinated habitat oreserve system to orotect listed
species and rare native vepetation while accommodatine repional develooment needs. The HMP
provides a comprehensive ulan for creation and manazement of DrODOSed oreserve areas in the
coastal zone, alonp with auorooriate criteria for develooment reauirements and delineation of
deve/oDment/Dreservation boundaries. The creation of an effective habitat oreserve reauires a
careful balancinp of acauisition. oreservation and mitipation requirements. as well as enforceable
monitoring. remediation and an adeauatelv funded maintenance Dropram for the ureserve area.
Section 30240/a) of the Coastal Act establishes a specific mandate for resource oreservation. It
states, in Dart, “(e)nvironmentallv sensitive habitat areas shall be vrotected apainst anv sienificant
disruotion of habitat values ... ” Environmentallv sensitive habitat area (ESHA) is defined in Section
30107.5 of the Coastal Act as “any area in which ulant or animal life or their habitats are either
rare or esueciullv valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosvstem and which could
be easilv disturbed or demaded bv human activities and developments.
The repional nature of the habitat oreservation effort sets the MHCP and HMP auart from other
plans affectinn ESHA. where the noncomorehensive nature of the plans and lack of regional
resource urotection standards reauire more strinpent limitations to coastal ESHA imuacts for
individual sites. The clusterinp and concentration of development awav from sensitive areas that
will result from the DroDOSed standards contained in the HMP and identified in the uolicies below
will provide a laraer. more contipuous oreserve area than if develooment on the same oroperties
were to be aouroved on a lot-bv-lot basis.
7-1.1 Habitat Manapement Plan
The document titled “Habitat Manapement Plan for Natural Communities in the Citv of
Carlsbad. December 1999 with Two Addenda” (hereafter referred to as HMP) is
incoruorated herein bv reference. The Second Addendum dated December 2002 contains
additional conservation standards and habitat orotection oolicies that aoolv within the
Coastal Zone. The HMP has been develoued so as to imulement and be consistent with all
other orovisions of this LCP, as amended. Anv chanpes to the HMP that affect develooment
within the coastal zone (includina. but not limited to, chanpes to mitipation reauirementsl
shall be certified bv the Coastal Commission as LCP amendments orior to becoming
effective.
7-1.2 Environmentallv Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA)
y
areas, as defined in Section 30107.5 of the Coastal Act. shall be urotected aaainst any
14
53
significant disruption ofhabitat values. and onlv uses deuendent on those resources shall be
allowed within those areas.
7-1.3 Coastal Sage Scrub
Coastal Sape Scrub is a resource of particular importance to the ecosvstems of the Coastal
Zone. due in part to the presence of the Coastal California gnatcatcher (Federal
Threatened) and other species. Properties containinn Costal Sage Scrub shaIl conserve a
minimum 67% of the Coastal Sage Scrub and 75% of the pnatcatchers onsite.
Conservation of matcatchers shall be determined in consultation with the wildlife
apencies.
7-1.4 Oak Woodland
An oak woodland is a closed to relativelv ouen stand of trees within which a dominant tree
species is a species of oak. In coastal southern California. that species is eenerallv Coast
Live Oak fouercus agrifolia). which is commonlv found on slopes and riuarian situations.
Shrubs van, from occasional to common and the herb laver is ofien continuous and
dominated bv a variety of annual grasses.
7-1.5 Streams
A stream is a touoprauhical feature with a clear bed and bank that periodicah convevs
water.
7-1.6 Ephemeral Drainapes and Ephemeral Streams
Ephemeral drainapes and ephemeral streams are toDoPrauhic features that convey water.
but onlv durinp and shortlv afier rainfall events in a tyuical year.
7- I. 7 Wetlands
e
ofRepulations Section 13577fi). 'wetland' means lands within the coastal zone which may
be covered Deriodicab or permanenth with shallow water and include saltwater marshes,
freshwater marshes, oven or closed brackish water marshes, swamps. mudflats and fens.
Wetland shall include land where the water table is at, near or above the land surface long
enough to vromote the formation of hvdric soils or to support the erowth of hvdronhvtes
and shall also include those tvues of wetlands where vepetation is lacking and soil is poorly
developed or absent as a result of freauent and drastic fluctuations of surface water levels.
wave action. water flow, turbidity or hiph concentrations ofsalts or other substances in the
substrate. A vrevonderance of hvdric soils or a ureuonderance of wetland indicator
species shall be considered presumptive evidence of wetland conditions.
Wetlands shall be delineated followinp the definitions and boundarv descriptions in Section
I3577 ofihe CaIifirnia Code OfRepulations.
be allowed exceut as urovided in that Section.
15
DRAFT
7-1.8 Wetland Mitipation Reauirements
If impacts to a wetland are allowed consistent with Policv 7-1.7, mitipation shall be
provided at a ration of 3:l for riuarian impacts and 4:1 for saltwater or freshwater
wetland or marsh impacts.
7-1.9 No Net Loss ofHabitat
There shall be no net loss of Coastal Sape Scrub, Maritime Succulent Scrub, Southern
Maritime Chaparral. Southern Mixed Chauarral. Native Grassland and Oak Woodland
within the Coastal Zone of Carlsbad. Mitipation for impacts to anv of these habitat tvues,
when uermitted. shall include a creation comuonent that achieves the no net loss standard.
Substantial restoration of hiphlv depraded areas (where effective functions of the habitat
tvpe have been lost) mav be substituted for creation subject to the consultation and
concurrence of the US. Fish and Wildlife Sewice and the California Department of Fish
and Game (wildlife anencies). The Coastal Commission shall be notified and provided an
opaortunitv to comment uuon urouosed substitutions of substantial restoration for the
reauired creation component. Development shall be consistent with Policv 7-1.2 of this
section, unless proposed impacts are specificallv identified in the HMP: these impacts shall
be located to minimize imuacts to Coastal Sape Scrub and maximize protection of the
Coastal.California matcatcher and its habitat.
7-1.10 Upland Habitat Mitieation Reauirements
Where imuacts to the habitants stated in 7-1.9 are allowed, mitination shall be urovided as follows:
a. The no net loss standard shall be satisfied as stated in 7-1.9. Tvuicallv this will consist
of creation of the habitat tvpe beine imuacted (or substantial restoration where allowed)
at a ratio of at least I:I as urovided in the HMP.
b. Onsite ureservation is not elipible for mitipation credit in the coastal zone exceut as
provided in subsection p. below.
c. Impacts to Coastal Sage Scrub shall be mitigated at an overall ratio of 2:I. with the
creation comuonent satisfline half of the total obliaation. The remainder of the
mitipation oblipation shall be satisfied pursuant to the provisions of the HMP.
d. Imuacts to Southern Maritime Chaparral or Maritime Succulent Scrub shall be mitipated
at an overall ratio of 3:1, with the creation comuonent satisflinn one-third of the total
oblipation. The remainder of the mitipation oblipation shall be satisfied uursuant to the
provisions of the HMP.
e. Imuacts to Southern Mixed Chauarral. Native Grassland and Oak Woodland shall be
mitipated resuectivelv at ratios of 1:l. 2.1 and 3.1, with the creation comuonent
satisflinp the obligation or one-third of the total oblipation. The remainder of the
mitipation obliration shall be satisfied uursuant to the provisions of the HMP.
f: .Mitipation for imuacts within the coastal zone should be provided within the coastal
zone if uossible. oarticularlv the It1 creation comuonent. in order to have no net loss of
16
54
DRAFT
habitat within the coastal zone. Mitipation measures on land outside the Coastal Zone
may be acceptable if such mitigation would clearlv result in higher levels of habitat
rotection and value and/or would urovide sknificantlv preater mitipation ratios and
;he mitigation area is Dart of the Hip, Land area inside and outside the coastal zone
which serves as mitipation for habitat impacts in the coastal zone shall be uermanently
retired from development uotential and secured as Dart of the HMP preserve
manapement plan as a condition of develoument amroval.
g. Onsite of off-site open sDace Preserve areas mav be utilized to satisfi reauired
mitigation for habitat imuacts associated with develoDment if the ureserve areas are
disturbed and suitable for restoration or enhancement. or thev are devoid of habitat
value and therefore suitable for the 1:I mitipation comuonent reauirinp creation or
substantial restoration of new habitat. Substantial restoration is restoration that has the
effect of aualitativelv chanpinp habitat tvue and mav meet the creation reauirement if it
restores habitat tvpe that was historicallv present, but has suffered habitat conversion or
such extreme dearadation that most of the present dominant suecies are not Dart of the
oripinal vegetation. Substantial restoration contrasts with enhancement activities which
include weedina or Dlantinp within vegetation that retains its historical character. and
restoration of disturbed areas to increase the value of existinr habitat which mav meet
other mitipation reauirements Dursuant to the HMP.
h. Habitat mitipation reauirements other than the creation or substantial restoration
comuonent mav be Dartiallv or whollv fulfilled bv acauisition of existinp like habitat
andor retirement of development credits on existinp like habitat with uermanent
preservation as part of the HMP areserve manapement plan.
i. All mitipation areas. onsite and offsite. shall be secured with a conservation easement in
favor of the wildlife agencies. In addition, a ureserve management Dh shall be
preuared for the mitipation areas, to the satisfaction of the Citv. the wildlife agencies
and the Coastal Commission. The ureserve manapement ulan shall ensure adeauate
fundina to protect the ureserve as open space and to maintain the biological values of
the mitieation areas in DerDetuitv. Management provisions and fundim shall be in dace
prior to any imuacts to habitat. At a minimum, monitorinp reports shall be reauired as a
condition of develoument aDuroval after the first and third vear of habitat mitiration
efforts. The ureserve manapement ulan shall be incoruorated into the Implementation
Plan of the LCP throuph an LCP amendment within one year of Commission
certification of the HMP as part of the certified LCP.
j. If anv conflict should arise between the Policies of the LCP and the urovisions of the
HMP, the LCP shall take urecedence.
7-1.1 1 Hiphlv Constrained Prooerties
There are urouerties in the Coastal Zone that are entirelv or almost entirelv constrained bv
environmentallv sensitive habitat area (ESHA). In these cases. one of the following
additional standards shall aDolv:
a. If more than 80% of the Drouertv bv area is covered with ESHA at least 75% of the
prooertv shall be conserved. OR
17
b. If the Cirv. with the concurrences of the wildlife apencies and the Coastal Commission
throuph an LCP amendment, aouroved a Hardline ureserve boundarv for any of the
above-described uroperties as part of the HMP. then the amount of onsite preservation
as identified in the Hardline boundorv shall apolv.
7-1.12 Buffers and Fuel Modification Zones
Buffers shall be provided between all preserved habitat areas and development. Minimum
buffer widths shall be urovided as follows:
a. 100 feet for wetlands
b. 50 feet for riuarian areas
e. 20 feet for all other native habitats (coastal sape scrub, southern maritime chauarral,
maritime succulent scrub. southern mixed chauarral. native prassland, oak woodland).
Buffer widths shall be measured from the edpe of oreserved habitat nearest the
develoument to the closest uoint of development. For wetlands and riuarian areas
possessinp an unvepetated bank or steep slope (meater than 25%). the buffer shall be
measured from the top of the bank or steep slooe rather than the edpe of habitat. unless
there is at least 50 feet between the riuarian or wetland area and the toe of the slope. If the
toe of the sloue is less than 50 feet from the wetland or riparian area, the buffer shall be
measured from the top of the slope.
Anv uroposed reductions in buffer widths for a specific site shall reauire suficient
information to determine that a buffer of lesser width will urotect the identified resources.
Such information shall include, but is not limited to. the size and tvue of the develoument
and/or proposed mitipation (such as ulantina of vepetation or the construction of fencind
that will also achieve the purvoses of the buffer. The California Department of Fish and
Game, the US. Fish and Wildlife Service. and the Coastal Commission staff shall be
consulted in such buffer determinations.
No development. wadinn or alterations, includinp clearins? of vepetation. shall occur in the
buffer area, excevt for:
a. Fuel modification Zone 3 to a maximum of 20 feet for uuland and non-riuarian habitat.
No fuel modification shall take dace within 50 feet of riuarian areas. wetlands or oak
woodland.
b. Recreation trails and public uathwavs within the first 15 feet of the buffer closest to the
develooment, urovided that construction of the trail or uathwav and its uroposed use is
consistent with the preservation poals for the adjacent habitat and that aourooriate
measures are taken for uhvsical seuaration from sensitive areas.
Buffer areas that do not contain native habitat shall be landscaped wine native ulants.
Sipnape and uhvsical barriers such as walls or fences shall be reauired to minimize edB
&ects of development.
18
7-1.13 Hardline Preserve Boundaries
The vurvose of the standards listed above is to ensure that the future develovment is sited
to ureserve the maximum amount of ESHA within the coastal zone. and to establish viable
habitat corridors and vresewe areas. If the Citv, with the concurrence of the wildlife
arencies and the Coastal Commission throuph an LCP amendment subseauentlv avvroves
a Hardline preserve boundan, for anv proverties as Dart of the HMP, then the onsite
preservation included in the Hardline preserve boundan, shall avplv.
7-1.14 Steev Slove Encroachments
The vercentare of steev dove encroachment allowed by the drainape and erosion control
policies mav be modified for develovment consistent with the habitat vrotection policies
listed above and avnroved as Dart of the adovted HMP.
19 58
DRAFT
LCPA 02-10 -Exhibit C
AGUA EIEDIONDA SEGMENT REVISIONS
3-13PROTECTION OFSENSITIVE NATIVE VEGETATIONAREAS
the citv. in cooDeration with federal and state agencies. can Dreserve the diversitv of habitat and urotect
sensitive biolopical resources within the citv and the Coastal zone.
The HMP has been urepared as uart of the San Diepo County Multiple Habitat Conservation Propram
(MHCP)). The MHCP will establish a coordinated habitat preserve svstem to protect listed sDecies and
rare native vepetation while accommodating regional development needs. The HMP urovides a
comurehensive ulan for creation and management ofurouosed Dreserve areas in the coastal zone. along
with amrouriate criteria for develoument reauirements and delineation of develoumenthreservation
boundaries. The creation of an effective habitat ureserve requires a careful balancinp of acauisition,
preservation and mitipation reauirements. as well as enforceable monitorinp. remediation and an
adeouatelv funded maintenance Droram for the ureserve area.
Section 30240la) of the Coastal Act establishes a svecific mandate for resource ureservation. It states,
in Dart‘ “lehironmentallv sensitive habitat areas shall be Drotected apainst any sipnificant disruDtion
ofhabitat values ... ” Environmentallv sensitive habitat area fESHA) is defined in Section 30107.5 ofthe
Coastal Act as “anv area in which olant of animal life or their habitats are either rare or esuecially
valuable because of their suecial nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easilv disturbed or
depraded bv human activities and develo~ments. ”
The renional nature of the habitat ureservation effort sets the MHCP and HMP avart from other plans
affecting ESHA. where the noncomurehensive nature of the ulans and lack of regional resource
protection standards reauire more stringent limitations to coastal ESHA imoacts for individual sites.
The clusterinp and concentration of develoument awav from sensitive areas that will result from the
proDosed standards contained in the HMP and identified in the policies below will Drovide a lorper,
more contieuous preserve area than if develoument on the same DroDerties were to be aouroved on a lot-
by-lot basis.
3-13-1.1 Habitat Manapement Plan
The document titled “Habitat Manapement Plan for Natural Communities in the Citv of
Carlsbad, December 1999 with Two Addenda” fiereafter referred to as HMP) is
incorDorated herein bv reference. The Second Addendum dated December. 2002
contains additional conservation standards and habitat vrotection Dolicies that ODD&
within the Coastal Zone. The HMP has been develoved so as to implement and be
consistent with all other orovisions of this LCP, as amended. Anv chanpes to the HMP
that affect develoDment within the coastal zone hcludina. but not limited to. changes to
mitination reauirements) shall be certified bv the Coastal Commission as LCP
amendments urior to becoming effective.
3-13-1.2 Environmentallv Sensitive Habitat Areas IESHA)
Pursuant to Section 30240 of the California Coastal Act. environmentallv sensitive
habitat areas, as defined in Section 30107.5 of the Coastal Act. shall be Drotected
26 59
DRAFT
apainst anv significant disruption of habitat values. and onlv uses dependent on those
resources shall be allowed within those areas.
3-13-1.3 Coastal Sape Scrub
Coastal Sape Scrub is a resource of particular importance to the ecosvstems of the
Coastal Zone. due in part to the presence of the Coastal California anatcatcher (Federal
Threatened) and other species. Properties containinp Coastal Sape Scrub shall conserve
a minimum 67% of the Coastal Sape Scrub and 75% of the pnatcatchers onsite.
Conservation of pnatcatchers shall be determined in consultation with the wildlife
azencies.
3-13-1.4 Oak Woodland
An oak woodland is a closed to relatively open stand of trees within which a dominant
tree species is a species of oak. In coastal southern California. that species is eeneraily
Coast Live Oak fouercus aprifolia). which is commonlv found on slopes and riparian
situations. Shrubs van, from occasional to common, and the herb laver is ofien
continuous and dominated bv a varietv of annual arasses.
3-13-1.5 Streams
A stream is a touoaraphical feature with a clear bed and bank that oeriodicaih convevs
water.
3-13-1.6 Ephemeral Drainapes and Ephemeral Streams
Ephemeral drainages and ephemeral streams are touoaraohic features that convw
water. but only durinn and shortlv afier rainfall events in a tvpical vear.
3-13-1.7 Wetlands
Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 30121 and Title 14. California
Code of Remlations Section 13577a). 'wetland' means lands within the coastal zone
which may be covered periodicalh or uermanentlv with shallow water and include
saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes. swamps,
mudflats and fens. Wetland shall include land where the water table is at. near or above
the land surface lona enounh to promote the formation of hvdric soils or to SUDDOrt the
growth of hvdroDhvtes. and shall also include those twes of wetlands where veeetation
is lackinp and soil is poorlv developed or absent as a result of freauent and drastic
fluctuations of surface water levels. wave action, water flow, turbiditv or hiph
concentrations of salts or other substances in the substrate. A urenonderance of hvdric
soils or a ureponderance of wetland indicator species shall be considered presumptive
evidence of wetland conditions.
Wetlands shall be delineated followinn the definitions and boundan, descriutions in
Section 13577 ofthe California Code ofRePulations.
Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 30233. no impacts to wetlands
shall be allowed except as provided in that Section.
21
PRAFT
3-13-1.8 Wetland Mitipation Reauirements
If impacts to wetlands are allowed consistent with Policv 3-13-1.7, mitination shall be
provided at a ratio of 3:l for riparian impacts and 4:l for saltwater or freshwater
wetland or marsh impacts.
3-13-1.9 No Net Loss ofHabitat
There shall be no net loss of Coastal Sage Scrub, Maritime Succulent Scrub. Southern
Maritime Chaparral. Southern Mixed Chaparral. Native Grassland and Oak Woodland
within the Coastal Zone of Carlsbad. Mitipation for impacts to anv of the habitat &Des,
when permitted, shall include a creation component that achieves the no net loss
standard. Substantial restoration of highly depraded areas (where effective functions of
the habitat tvne have been lost) may be substituted for creation subject to the
consultation and concurrence of the US. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California
Department of Fish and Game (wildlife apencies). The Coastal Commission shall be
notified and provided an opportunitv to comment upon proposed substitutions of
substantial restoration for the required creation component. Development shall be
consistent with Polin, 3-13-1.2 of this section, unless proposed impacts are specifically
identified in the HMP: these impacts shall be located to minimize impacts 10 Coastal
Sape Scrub and maximize protection of the Coastal California pnatcatcher and its habitat.
3-13-1.10 Upland Habitat Mitipation Reauirements
Where impacts to the habitats stated in 3-13-1.9 are allowed. mitieation shall be
provided as follows:
a. The no net loss standard shall be satisfied as stated in 3-13-1.9. TvDicah this will
consist of creation of the habitat tvpe beinp impacted (or substantial restoration
where allowed) at a ration of at least 1 :I as provided in the HMP.
b. Onsite preservation is not eligible for mitipation credit in the coastal zone except
as provided in subsection P. below.
c. Impacts to Coastal Sage Scrub shall be mitipated at an overall ratio of 2:1 with
the creation com~onent satisfvinp half of the total oblipation. The remainder of
the mitipation oblipation shall be satisfied pursuant to the provisions of the HMP.
d. Impacts to Southern Maritime Chaparral of Maritime Succulent Scrub shall be
mitipated at an overall ratio of 3:l. with the creation component satisfvina one-
third of the total oblipation. The remainder of the mitipation oblipation shall be
satisfied pursuant to the provisions of the HMP.
e. Impacts to Southern Mixed ChaDarra[. Native Grassland and Oak Woodland shall
be mitipated respectivelv at ratios of I:l, 2:1 and 3:13 with the creation component
satisfvinp the oblipation or one-third of the total oblipation. The remainder of the
mitication oblipation shall be satisfied pursuant to the provisions of the HMP.
28
DRAFT
f Mitipation for imuacts within the coastal zone should be provided within the
coastal zone. ifvossible. Darticularlv the 1:I creation comuonent, in order to have
no net loss of habitat within the coastal zone. Mitipation measures on land outside
the Coastal Zone mav be acceptable if such mitipation would clearlv result in
hipher levels of habitat urotection and value and/or would provide sipnificantlv
greater mitipation ratios, and the mitigation area is part of the HMP. Land area
inside and outside the coastal zone which serves as mitipation for habitat impacts
in the coastal zone shall be permanentlv retired from develoument potential and
secured as Dart of the HMP preserve manapement plan as a condition of
development auoroval.
g. Onsite of off-site open mace preserve areas mav be utilized to satisfv reauired
mitipation for habitat impacts associated with develoument if the ureserve areas
are disturbed and suitable for restoration or enhancement, or thev are devoid of
habitat value and therefore suitable for the 1:I mitipation component reauiring
creation or substantial restoration of new habitat. Substantial restoration is
restoration that has the effect of aualitativelv chanpinn habitat tvpe and mav meet
the creation reauirement if it restores habitat fvpe that was historicallv uresent.
but has suffered habitat conversion or such atreme depradation that most of the
present dominant species are not Dart of the oripinal vepetation. Substantial
restoration contrasts with enhancement activities, which include weedinp. or
planting within vepetation that retains its historical character, and restoration of
disturbed areas to increase the value of existina habitat which mav meet other
mitipation reauirements uursuant to the HMP.
h. Habitat mitipation reauirements other than the creation or substantial restoration
component mav be uartiallv or whollv fulfilled bv acquisition of existinp like
habitat and/or retirement of development credits on existinp like habitat with
permanent preservation as Dart of the HMP preserve manapement ulan.
i. All mitipation areas. onsite and offsite. shall be secured with a conservation
easement in favor of the wildlife agencies. In addition, a ureserve manaeement
plan shall be prepared for the mitipation areas, to the satisfaction of the Citv. the
wildlife apencies and the Coastal Commission. The preserve manapement olan
shall ensure adeauate fundinp to urotect the ureserve as ouen mace and to
maintain the biolopical values of the mitipation areas in ueruetuitv. Manapement
provisions and fundinz shall be in place prior to any impacts to habitat. At a
minimum, monitorinp revorts shall be reauired as a condition of develoument
auuroval after the first and third vear of habitat mitipation efforts. The ureserve
manapement ulan shall be incorvorated into the Imulementation Plan of the LCP
throuph and LCP Amendment within one vear of Commission certification of the
HMP as vart of the certified LCP.
j. If any conflict should arise between Policies of the LCP and the urovisions of the
HMP. the LCP shall take urecedence.
29
DRAFT
3-13-1.11 Hiehlv Constrained Properties
There are properties in the Coastal Zone that are entirelv or almost entirelv constrained
by environmentallv sensitive habitat area (ESHA). In these cases, one of the following
additional standards shall apdv:
a. If more than 80% of the prooertv bv area is conserved with ESHA at lease 75% of
the propertv shall be conserved. OR
b. If the Citv. with the concurrences of the wildlife anencies and the Coastal
Commission throuph an LCP amendment, apuroved a Hardline preserve boundaw
for any of the above-described properties as part of the HMP, then the amount of
onsite preservation as identified in the Hardline boundan, shall aDdV,
3-13-1.12 Buffers and Fuel Modification Zones
Buffers shall be provided between all preserved habitat areas and development.
Minimum buffer widths shall be provided as follows:
a. 100 feet for wetlands
b. 50 feet for riparian areas
c. 20 feet for all other native habitats (coastal sage scrub. southern maritime
chauarral, maritime succulent scrub, southern mixed chaparral. native prassland,
oak woodland).
Buffer widths shall be measured from the edge of oreserved habitat nearest the
development to the closest point of development. For wetlands and riparian areas
possessinp an unvepetated bank or steep slope (greater than 25%). the buffer shall be
measured from the top of the bank or steep slope rather than the edpe of habitat. unless
there is at least 50 feet between the riparian or wetland area and the toe of the slope. If
the toe of the slope is less that 50 feet from the wetland or riparian area. the buffer shall
be measured from the top of the slope.
Anv DrODOSed reductions in buffer widths for a specific site shall reauire suficient
information to determine that a buffer of lesser width will protect the identified
resources. Such information shall include. but is not limited to, the size and tvoe of the
development and/or prouosed mitigation (such as planting of vepetation or the
Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Coastal construction of fencing) that will also achieve the purposes of the buffer. The California
Commission staffshall be consulted in such buffer determinations.
NO
the buffer area, except for:
a. Fuel modification Zone 3 to a maximum of 20 feet for upland and non-riparian
habitat. No fuel modification shall take place within 50 feet of riuarian area,
wetlands or oak woodland.
30 63
DRAFT
b. Recreation trails and uublic Dathwavs within the first I5 feet of the buffer closest
to the deve1oDment. urovided that construction of the trail or pathway and its
roDosed use is consistent with the ureservation aoals for the adiacent habitat. and
?hat aDDroDriate measures are taken for Dhvsical SeDaration from sensitive areas.
Buffer areas that do not contain native habitat shall be landscaued usinp native plants.
Sipnape . and uhvsical barriers such as walls or fences shall be reauired to minimize
edee effects of develoDment.
3-13-1.13 Hardline Preserve Boundaries
The DurDose of the standards listed above is to ensure that future develoument is sited to
preserve the maximum amount of ESHA within the coastal zone. and to establish viable
habitat corridors and preserve areas. If the Citv, with the concurrence of the wildlife
apencies and the Coastal Commission throuph an LCP amendment subseauentlv
aDuroves a Hardline Dreserve boundary for anv moperties as Dart of the HMP. then the
onsite preservation included in the Hardline ureserve boundarv shall aoulv.
3-14 GRADING AND LANDSCAPING REOUIREMENTS
In addition to the reauirements of the model pradinp ordinance in the Carlsbad Master Drainape Plan.
permitted new develoDment shall also comdv with the followinp reauirements:
a. Gradinp activitv shall be prohibited durina the rainy season: fiom October I" to April I" of each
year.
b. All waded areas shall be landscaped urior to October I" of each year with either temnorarv or
permanent landscaDinp materials, to reduce erosion uotential. Such 1andscaDina shall be
maintained and replanted if not well-established bv December I" followinp the initial plantin&
c. The October 1'' pradinp season deadline may be extended with the amraval of the Citv Engineer
subiect to imulementation bv October 1" of special erosion control measures desipned to urohibit
discharpe of sediments off-site durinp and afrer the aradinp oDeration. Extensions bevond
November IS" mav be allowed in areas of very low risk of imuact to sensitive coastal resources and
mav be aDDroved either as Dart of the original coastal develoDment uermit or as an amendment to
an existing coastal develooment Dermit.
d. If anv of the responsible resource agencies prohibit wadinp ouerations durinp the summer wading
period in order to Drotect endanpered or rare sDecies or sensitive environmental resources. then
gradinp activities mav be allowed durine the winter bv a coastal devefoument permit or oermit
amendment. vrovided that aDDroDriate best manapement Dractices /BMPs) are incotvorated to limit
potential adverse impacts from winter nradinp activities.
31
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
21
28
prepare
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5362
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
MENDING APPROVAL OF ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE
HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN TO INCORPORATE
ADDITIONAL HABITAT CONSERVATION STANDARDS
FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE COASTAL ZONE AND TO ESTABLISH
CONFORMANCE WITH THE CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM.
CASE NAME: HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
CASE NO: DI 02-01
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 2 to the Habitat Management Plan has been
CITY OF CITY CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOM-
d by the Planning Director and submitted to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Addendum was prepared in order to establish consistency
between the Habitat Management Plan and new conservation standards being added to the
City’s Local Coastal Program; and
WHEREAS, California State law requires consistency between all Local
Coastal Plan and Zoning regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Addendum promotes the original intent of the HMP, which
is to protect sensitive habitat; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 22nd day of January, 2003
consider said matter and all factors relating to the Discussion Item; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the meeting, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of Addendum No. 2 to the Habitat
Management Plan as contained in Exhibit “X” to this resolution.
Findings:
1. The Addendum will create consistency between the Habitat Management Plan and
the Local Coastal Plan.
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
2. The Addendum is consistent with the original intent of the Habitat Management
Plan which is to ensure the conservation of sensitive habitat while also allowing
compatible economic development of public and private property.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 22nd day of January, 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Whitton, Dorninguez,
Heineman and Segall
Commissioner White
PC RES0 NO. 5362 -2-
ATTEST:
Planning Director
EXHIBIT “X”
SECOND ADDENDUM TO THE
CARLSBAD HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
BASED ON COMMENTS FROM
THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
AND INCLUDING MISCELLANEOUS
REVISIONS
December 16,2002
Second Addendum to HMP - Page # 1
A. BACKGROUND TO SECOND ADDENDUM
The Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad (HMP)
was approved by the Carlsbad City Council on September 21, 1999. Subsequently, the
first addendum was prepared based on comments by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and California Department of Fish and Game. The completed document dated
December 1999 with Addendum was submitted to the wildlife agencies for approval of
an Incidental Take Permit under section lO(a)(l)(B) of the Endangered Species Act.
In August 2000 the federal Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management granted
the California Coastal Commission’s request for a Consistency Review of the HMP.
This action precluded approval of the Incidental Take Permit until the Coastal
Commission has approved the Consistency Review. The purpose of the Consistency
Review in this case is to determine whether issuance of the Incidental Take Permit to
Carlsbad would be consistent with the California Coastal Act.
As a result of discussions between the City of Carlsbad and the Coastal Commission, it
was determined that the Consistency Review should be accompanied by revisions to
the HMP and to the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program. This Second Addendum
comprises the revisions to the HMP as recommended by the Coastal Commission.
B. REVISIONS
1. Revise Section D. Conservation Strategy by the addition of a new Subsection
beginning on Page D-96 as follows:
7. Additional Conservation Standards To Be Applied To Properties in the
Coastal Zone.
7-1
7-2
Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA)
Pursuant to Section 30240 of the California Coastal Act, environmentally sensitive habitat areas, as defined in Section 30107.5 of the Coastal Act, shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shali be allowed within those areas.
Coastal Sage Scrub
Coastal Sage Scrub is a resource of particular importance to the ecosystems of the Coastal Zone, due in part to the presence of the
Coastal California gnatcatcher (Federal Threatened) and other species. Properties containing Coastal Sage Scrub located in the Coastal Zone
shall conserve a minimum 67% of the Coastal Sage Scrub and 75% of the gnatcatchers onsite. Conservation of gnatcatchers shall be
determined in consultation with the wildlife agencies.
Second Addendum to HMP - Page # 2
7-3 Oak Woodland
which a dominant tree species is a species of oak. In coastal southern An oak woodland is a closed to relatively open stand of trees within
California, that species is generally Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia),
which is commonly found on slopes and riparian situations. Shrubs vary
from occasional to common, and the herb layer is often continuous and
dominated by a variety of annual grasses.
7-4 Streams
A stream is a topographical feature with a clear bed and bank that
periodically conveys water.
7-5 Ephemeral Drainages and Ephemeral Streams
Ephemeral drainages and ephemeral streams are topographic features
that convey water, but only during and shortly after rainfall events in a
typical year.
7-6 Wetlands
Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 30121 and Title
14, California Code of Regulations Section 13577(b). 'wetland' means
lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or
permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes,
freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps.
mudflats. and fens. Wetland shall include land where the water table is
of hydric soils or to support the growth of hydrophytes, and shall also
at, near, or above the land surface long enough to promote the formation
include those types of wetlands where vegetation is lacking and soil is
poorly developed or absent as a result of frequent and drastic
fluctuations of surface water levels, wave action, water flow, turbidity or
high concentrations of salts or other substances in the substrate. A
preponderance of hydric soils or a preponderance of wetland indicator
species shall be considered presumptive evidence of wetland conditions.
Wetlands in the Coastal Zone shall be delineated following the definitions
and boundary descriptions in Section 13577 of the California Code Of
Regulations.
Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 30233, no impacts
to wetlands shall be allowed in the Coastal Zone except as provided in
that Section.
7-7 Wetland Mitigation Requirements
mitigation shall be provided at a ratio of 3:1 for riparian impacts and 4:l
If impacts to a wetland are allowed consistent with Policy 7-6 above,
for saltwater or freshwater wetland or marsh impacts.
7-8 No Net Loss of Habitat
There shall be no net loss of Coastal Sage Scrub, Maritime Succulent
Scrub, Southern Maritime Chaparral, Southern Mixed Chaparral, Native
Grassland, and Oak Woodland within the Coastal Zone of Carlsbad.
Mitigation for impacts to any of these habitat types, when permitted, shall
Second Addendum to HMP - Page # 3
include a creation component that achieves the no net loss standard.
functions of the habitat type have been lost) may be substituted for
Substantial restoration of highly degraded areas (where effective
creation subject to the consultation and concurrence of the US. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game (wildlife
agencies). The Coastal Commission shall be notified and provided an
opportunity to comment upon proposed substitutions of substantial
restoration for the required creation component. Development shall be
consistent with Policy 7-1 of this subsection, unless proposed impacts
are specifically identified in the HMP; these impacts shall be located to
Coastal California gnatcatcher and its habitat.
minimize impacts to Coastal Sage Scrub and maximize protection of the
7-9 Upland Habitat Mitigation Requirements
Where impacts to the habitats stated in 7-1 are allowed, mitigation shall
be provided as follows:
a. The no net loss standard shall be satisfied as stated in 7-8. Typically
this will consist of creation of the habitat type being impacted (or
provided in the HMP.
substantial restoration where allowed) at a ratio of at least 1:l as
b. Onsite preservation is not eligible for mitigation credit in the coastal
zone. Onsite or off-site open space preserve areas may be utilized to satisfy required mitigation for habitat impacts associated with
development if the preserve areas are disturbed and suitable for
restoration or enhancement, or they are devoid of habitat value and
therefore suitable for the 1:l mitigation component requiring creation
or substantial restoration of new habitat. Substantial restoration is
restoration that has the effect of qualitatively changing habitat type
and may meet the creation requirement if it restores habitat type that
was historically present, but has suffered habitat conversion or such
extreme degradation that most of the present dominant species are
not part of the original vegetation. Substantial restoration contrasts
with enhancement activities which include weeding or planting within
vegetation that retains its historical character, and restoration of
disturbed areas to increase the value of existing habitat which may meet other mitigation requirements pursuant to the HMP.
c. Impacts to Coastal Sage Scrub shall be mitigated at an overall ratio of
2:1, with the creation component satisfying half of the total obligation.
The remainder of the mitigation obligation shall be satisfied pursuant
to the provisions of the HMP.
d. Impacts to Southern Maritime Chaparral or Maritime Succulent Scrub
shall be mitigated at an overall ratio of 3:i. with the creation
component satisfying one-third of the total obligation. The remainder
of the mitigation obligation shall be satisfied pursuant to the provisions of the HMP.
e. Impacts to Southern Mixed Chaparral, Native Grassland, and Oak
Woodland shall be mitigated respectively at ratios of l:l, 3:l. and
3:1, with the creation component satisfying the obligation or one-third
of the total obligation. The remainder of the mitigation obligation
shall be satisfied pursuant to the provisions of the HMP.
Second Addendum to HMP - Page # 4
f. Mitigation for impacts within the coastal zone should be provided
within the coastal zone if possible, particularly the 1:l creation
component, in order to have no net loss of habitat within the coastal
zone. Mitigation measures on land outside the Coastal Zone may be
acceptable if such mitigation would clearly result in higher levels of
greater mitigation ratios, and the mitigation area is part of the HMP.
habitat protection and value andlor would provide significantly
mitigation for habitat impacts in the coastal zone shall be
Land area inside and outside the coastal zone which serves as
permanently retired from development potential and secured as part
of the HMP preserve management plan as a condition of
development approval.
g. Habitat mitigation requirements other than the creation or substantial
acquisition of existing like habitat and/or retirement of development
restoration component may be partially or wholly fulfilled by
credits on existing like habitat with permanent preservation as part of
the HMP preserve management plan.
h. All mitigation areas, onsite and offsite. shall be secured with a
conservation easement in favor of the wiidlife agencies. In addition, a
areas, to the satisfaction of the City, the wildlife agencies, and the
preserve management plan shall be prepared for the mitigation
adequate funding to protect the preserve as open space and to
Coastal Commission. The preserve management plan shall ensure
maintain the biological values of the mitigation areas in perpetuity.
Management provisions and funding shall be in place prior to any
impacts to habitat. At a minimum, monitoring reports shall be
required as a condition of development approval after the first and
third year of habitat mitigation efforts. The preserve management plan shall be incorporated into the Implementation Plan of the LCP
through an LCP amendment within one year of Commission
certification of the HMP as part of the certified LCP.
i If any conflict should arise between the provisions of the HMP and
the policies of the LCP. the LCP shall take precedence.
7-10 Highly Constrained Properties
There are properties in the Coastal Zone that are entirely or almost
entirely constrained by environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA). In
these cases, one of the following additional standards shall apply:
a. If more than 80% of the property by area is covered with ESHA at
least 75% of the property shall be conserved, OR
b. If the City, with the concurrences of the wildlife agencies and the
Coastal Commission through an LCP amendment, approves a
Hardline preserve boundary for any of these properties as part of the HMP, then the amount of onsite preservation as identified in the
Hardline boundary shall apply.
7-1 1 Buffers and Fuel Modification Zones
Buffers shall be provided between all preserved habitat areas and
development. Minimum buffer widths shall be provided as follows:
a. 100 ft. for wetlands
b. 50 ft. for riparian areas
Second Addendum to HMP - Page # 5
b. 50 ft. for riparian areas
c. 20 ft. for all other native habitats (coastal sage scrub, southern
maritime chaparral, maritime succulent scrub, southern mixed
chaparral, native grassland, oak woodland).
Buffer widths shall be measured from the edge of preserved habitat
nearest the development to the closest point of development. For
wetlands and riparian areas possessing an unvegetated bank or steep
slope (greater than 25%), the buffer shall be measured from the top of
the bank or steep slope-rather than the edge of habitat, unless there is at
least 50 ft. between the riparian or wetland area and the toe of the slope.
area, the buffer shall be measured from the top of the slope.
If the toe of the slope is less than 50 feet from the wetland or riparian
Any proposed reductions in buffer widths for a specific site shall require
sufficient information to determine that a buffer of lesser width will protect
the identified resources. Such information shall include, but is not limited
to, the size and type of the development and/or proposed mitigation
(such as planting of vegetation or the construction of fencing) that will
also achieve the purposes of the buffer. The California Department of
Commission staff shall be consulted in such buffer determinations.
Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Coastal
shall occur in the buffer area, except for:
No development, grading, or alterations, including clearing of vegetation,
a. Fuel modification Zone 3 to a maximum of 20 ft. for upland and non- riparian habitat. No fuel modification shall take place within 50 ft. of
riparian areas, wetlands, or oak woodland.
b. Recreation trails and public pathways within the first 15 feet of the
buffer closest to the development, provided that construction of the
trail or pathway and its proposed use is consistent with the
measures are taken for physical separation from sensitive areas.
preservation goals for the adjacent habitat, and that appropriate
native plants. Signage and physical barriers such as walls or fences
Buffer areas that do not contain native habitat shall be landscaped using
shall be required to minimize edge effects of development.
7.12 Grading and Landscaping Requirements
In addition to the requirements of the model grading ordinance in the
comply with the following requirements:
Carlsbad Master Drainage Plan, permitted new development shall also
a. Grading activity shall be prohibited during the rainy season: from
October 1st to April 1st of each year.
b. All graded areas shall be landscaped prior to October 1st of each
year with either temporary or permanent landscaping materials. to
reduce erosion potential. Such landscaping shall be maintained and
replanted if not well-established by December 1st following the initial
planting.
Second Addendum to HMP - Page # 6
c. The October 1st grading season deadline may be extended with the
approval of the City Engineer subject to implementation by October
1st of special erosion control measures designed to prohibit discharge of sediments off-site during and after the grading
operation. Extensions beyond November 15th may be allowed in
areas of very low risk of impact to sensitive coastal resources and
may be approved either as part of the original coastal development
permit.
permit or as an amendment to an existing coastal development
d. If any of the responsible resource agencies prohibit grading
operations during the summer grading period in order to protect
endangered or rare species or sensitive environmental resources,
then grading activities may be allowed during the winter by a coastal
development permit or permit amendment, provided that appropriate
best management practices (BMPs) are incorporated to limit potential
adverse impacts from winter grading activities.
7.13 City Owner Lands Adjacent To Macario Canyon and Veterans Memorial
Park
The City of 'Carlsbad owns approximately 521 acres in and adjacent to
municipal golf course has been proposed for a portion of the property,
Macario Canyon, a portion of which is located in the Coastal Zone. A
and a public park is planned for another portion. Development of the
property shall be subject to the following policies regarding protection of
habitat:
a. The impact and conservation areas for the municipal golf course are
shown as a Hardline design in the HMP (Figure B Revised) and,
which shall serve as the standard of review for determining areas in
which development may occur in the future. Areas shown for
conservation shall not be impacted or disturbed except for
revegetation, restoration, and other similar activities related to
mitigation. Areas shown for impact may be fully developed with
appropriate mitigation.
b. Any impacts to Coastal Sage Scrub shall be mitigated by on-site
creation at a ratio of 2:l in compliance with the no net loss standard
stated in 7-1. Onsite revegetation or restoration may be done on
agricultural, disturbed or non-native grassland areas. For impacts to
the Coastal California gnatcatcher, additional mitigation shall be
supporting gnatcatchers. Impacts to dual criteria slopes shall not provided by acquisition and preservation at a 1:l ratio of land
exceed 10%.
c. In order to provide a viable north-south wildlife corridor across
Macario Canyon, the area shown on the HMP Hardline map as
"Veterans Memorial Park Wildlife Corridor" shall be conserved concurrent with any impacts to the Macario Canyon property. No
development shall occur within the Wildlife Corridor except a
designated trail and rest areas along the trail.
d. Protection and management of all mitigation areas shall be
consistent with 7-9(f) and (h).
Second Addendum to HMP - Page # 7
'13
e. The area shown as Veterans Memorial Park Development Area” is
designated for public recreational use. It is the intent of this policy
that the public park area be developed so as to maximize public
access and provide a variety of recreational opportunities. Steep
slope areas shallbe planned for more passive type uses with grading
of such areas limited to the amount necessary to allow such uses.
f. Segments of the Citywide Trail System viewpoints. and other
opportunities for public access shall be incorporated into the
development areas.
g. In the riparian area of Macario Canyon Creek, two crossings shall be
allowed, as shown in the HMP Hardline exhibit. Crossing #1 shall
structure. No riparian impacts shall occur for either crossing.
utilize the existing farm road. Crossing #2 shall utilize a bridge span
h. The design of riparian buffers shall be as shown in the HMP. Buffers
shall be landscaped with appropriate native, non-invasive plants to
provide a natural transition between recreational areas and riparian
habitat, as well as to discourage human intrusion into the riparian
area. Appropriate signing and fencing will also be utilized.
7-14 Other Parcels - Specific Habitat Protection Standards
The following standards apply to those parcels in Zones 20 and 21 shown on Exhibit A to this Addendum which are located within the
biological core and linkage areas designated in the MHCP. They are
in addition to the applicable, general conservation standards
contained in 7-1 through 7-11 and the HMP. The standards are
intended to direct development to existing disturbed areas to the
maximum extent feasible, limit impacts to native vegetation, and
establish viable core and linkage areas as delineated in the HMP. In
general, each property shall be allowed to develop at least 25% of
the site with appropriate mitigation as specified in 7-8 through 7-1 1.
When individual properties are proposed for rezoning or
development, detailed biological information will be required to
determine whether the proposal is consistent with the HMP,
subsection 7 and the standards below, based upon the actual type,
location and condition of onsite resources, and the appropriate
locations of development and preservation areas.
A. Assessor’s Parcel No. 207-100-48 (Aura Circle) - Avoid removal of
maritime succulent scrub. Preserve at least 75% of coastal sage
scrub. Mitigate habitat impacts by creation or enhancement of like
habitat adjacent to Agua Hedionda Lagoon if possible, as part of
overall mitigation requirements.
B. Assessor‘s Parcel No. 212-120-33 (Hieatt) - No impact to vernal pools. Minimize impact to vernal pool watersheds.
C. Assessor‘s Parcel No. 212-010-3 (Kirgis) - Preserve 75% of property
with development clustered immediately adjacent to Kelly Ranch.
D. Assessor’s Parcel No. 215-070-38 (Fernandez) - Cluster
development on disturbed areas to the maximum extent feasible.
Maximum 10% impact on CSS and SMC for access purposes.
Second Addendum to HMP - Page # 8
E. Assessor's Parcel No. 215-040-03 (Muroya) - Cluster development
on disturbed areas to the maximum extent feasible. Maximum 10%
impact on CSS and SMC for access purposes.
F. Assessor's Parcel No. 215-070-13 and 36 (Promenade) - Cluster
development on disturbed areas. No impacts to native habitat
allowed.
G. Assessor's Parcel No. 214-170-54, 58. 59, 72, 74, 75, 79, 80, 81, 84
and 85 (ThompsonlTabata) - Cluster development on disturbed
areas. No impacts to native habitat allowed.
H. Assessor's Parcel No. 215-80-04 and 22 (Redeemer by the Sea) -
Cluster development on disturbed areas. No impacts to native
habitat allowed.
I. Assessor's Parcel No. 212-040-50 (Emerald Point) - Development
limited to disturbed and non-native grassland areas. No impacts to
native habitat allowed.
J. Assessor's Parcel No. 215-020-06 (RWSB) - Development limited to
disturbed portion of property adjacent to Cassia Lane. Impacts to
SMC habitat limited to construction of Poinsettia Lane and additional
10% encroachment for onsite access.
K. Assessor's Parcel NO. 215-020-07 (Maldonado) - Cluster
development southwest of future Poinsettia Lane extension. No
impacts to the coast oak woodland and riparian area except for
Poinsettia Lane extension. Consider wildlife crossing through
Poinsettia Lane if required by wildlife resource agencies. The
disturbed area northeast of Poinsettia Lane is recommended for
offsite mitigation for other properties in Zone 21.
L. Assessor's Parcel No. 215-050-21 (Namikas) - Development shall be
limited to a maximum of 25% of the property, not including Poinsettia
Lane construction, and shall be clustered on the western portion of
the property. No impacts to coast oak woodland, riparian areas or
wetlands except for Poinsettia Lane extension.
M. Assessor's Parcel No. 215-050-22 (Sudduth) - Development shall be
limited to a maximum of 25% of the property, not including Poinsettia
the property. No impacts to coast oak woodland, riparian areas or
Lane construction, and shall be clustered on the western portion of
wetlands except for Poinsettia Lane extension.
N. Assessor's Parcel No. 215-05044, 45, 46, 47 (Kevane) -
Development shall be limited. to a maximum of 25% of the property,
not including Poinsettia Lane construction, and shall be clustered on
the western portion of the property. No impacts to coast oak woodland, riparian areas or wetlands except for Poinsettia Lane
extension
0. Assessor's Parcel No. 215-050-12 (Reiter) - Development shall be
limited to a maximum of 25% of the property, not including Poinsettia
Lane construction, and shall be clustered on the western portion of
the property. No impacts to coast oak woodland, riparian areas or
wetlands except for Poinsettia Lane extension.
Second Addendum to HMP - Page # 9
P. Assessor’s Parcel No. 215-050-73 (Levatino) - Maximum 25%
development clustered on the southern portion of the property.
The parcel specific standards listed above are adopted because hardline
of the HMP. The purpose of the standards is to ensure that future
preserve boundary lines were not established at the time of preparation
development is sited to preserve the maximum amount of ESHA within
the coastal zone, and to establish a viable habitat corridor and preserve
area in Zones 20 and 21. If the City, with the concurrence of the wildlife
agencies and the Coastal Commission through an LCP amendment,
subsequently approves a Hardline preserve boundary for any of the
above-described properties as part of the HMP, then the onsite
preservation included in the Hardline preserve boundary shall apply.
2. The attached Figure 8 - Revised - City Golf Course shall replace the existing
Figure 8 on Page D-19.
3. Hardline Preserve Boundary maps (attached) for the Summit Property and the
Mandana Property shall be incorporated into the HMP and identified as Figures
34 and 35.
Second Addendum to HMP - Page # 10
7L
Figure 8 - Revised
City Golf Course
850 425 0 850 S
Pmted 15 JmuW 2003 har~,sup~unuplann~nplRsl.wG~ouns.m~d
Feet
78
1 Fig.ure 34 1 Summit at Carlsbad Property .+
S
Figure 35
Mandana Property +
S
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5363
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD,. CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT FOR THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE
CASE NAME: HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN/MUNICI-
PAL GOLF COURSE
CASE NO.: EIR 97-01 ADDENDUM
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad certified a
Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 97-01) for the Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course
on June 7,2000; and
WHEREAS, certain design modifications to the plans for the Municipal Golf
Course have been made in order to comply with new habitat protection standards for
properties in the Coastal Zone being incorporated into the Carlsbad Local Coastal
Program; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director has reviewed the modifications to the
design of the Golf Course and has prepared an Addendum to Environmental Impact
Report, EIR 97-01, according to Exhibit “Y,” attached hereto and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 22nd day of January, 2003,
hold a.duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the Addendum, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Addendum.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That the Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the
Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course as contained in Exhibit “Y” is hereby
APPROVED based on the following findings:
81
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
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find that the Addendum
to Final EIR 97-01 has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines, and the Environmental Review
Procedures of the City of Carlsbad.
2. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad finds that the Addendum to Final EIR
97-01 reflects the independent judgment of the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission.
3. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find that adoption of an
Addendum to EIR 97-01 is appropriate and in conformance with CEQA in this case
because some changes or additions to EIR 97-01 are necessary, but none of the
conditions described in Section 15162 of CEQA calling for preparation of a subsequent
EIR have occurred, in that:
A. There are no significant new environmental effects and no substantial
increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect. The
design revisions to the plans for the Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course
are a result of complying with additional habitat protection standards
in the Coastal Zone. The revisions would result in greater protection
of coastal habitat resources and would reduce the severity of
previously identified impacts. B. There has been no substantial change with respect to the circumstances
under which the project is being undertaken.
C. There is no new information of substantial importance that was not known
at the time of preparation of EIR 97-01.
D. Except for increased on-site restoration, the mitigation measures are
not considerably different from those analyzed in EIR 97-01 and there are
no mitigation measures previously found not to be feasible that are now
found to be feasible which would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects of the project.
...
l..
1..
PC RES0 NO. 5363 -2-
1
2
1 -
4
L -
c
* I
t
I
1(
11
1;
1:
1'
I!
1t
1:
1)
l!
2(
2:
2:
2:
2r
21
2(
2:
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 22nd day of January, 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Whitton, Dominguez,
Heineman and Segall
NOES: Commissioner White
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Gk
R. Chaimerson
CA&SF& PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST: .
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5363 -3- 83
EXHIBIT Y
ADDENDUM TO MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE EIR
On June 7, 2000, the Carlsbad Planning Commission approved Coastal Development Permit CDP
97-25 and certified Environmental Impact Report EIR 97-01, approving the Carlsbad Municipal Golf
Course. Subsequently, the California Coastal Commission appealed the CDP 97-25 based on
concerns regarding impacts to biological resources in the coastal zone portion of the project, in
particular wetlands and coastal sage scrub on slopes.
The City of Carlsbad held discussions with the Coastal Commission regarding their concerns,
resulting in modifications to the golf course design which completely eliminated all wetland impacts
in the Coastal Zone portion of the project and reduced other habitat impacts. The revised golf course layout is shown on Attachment B. The existing golf course layout is shown on Attachment A. The following is a summary of the design modifications:
1. The approximate 5 acre commerciallindustrial pad at the northeast comer of Hidden Valley
Road and Palomar Airport Road has been deleted to avoid any impacts to wetlands.
2. The golf practice range has been narrowed slightly and reoriented to avoid wetland impacts.
3. Hole 1 has been relocated to avoid wetland impacts
4. The most northwesterly cart path between holes 12 and 13 has been deleted, eliminating a
creek crossing and thereby avoiding wetland impacts.
5. Existing hole #I2 has been deleted in order to provide greater protection for one gnatcatcher
territory. It has been replaced by a new hole on agricultural land located between existing
holes 13 and 15. Holes 12, 13 and 14 have been renumbered to reflect these revisions.
6. The approximate 6.7 acre industrial parcel located on the north side of College Boulevard
and to provide greater protection for one gnatcatcher territory.
has been reconfigured to reduce impacts to coastal sage scrub, to enlarge a wildlife corridor,
7. The cart path between holes 15 and 16 has been modified to reduce wetland impacts.
8. Habitat impacts are being mitigated by increased on-site creation of like habitat at a 2:l ratio.
As a result of the above described revisions, all impacts to wetlands and southern maritime
chaparral in the Coastal Zone have been eliminated. The following table shows the revised impacts
to onsite sensitive vegetation and the modified mitigation requirements as a result of the revised
Coastal Zone
Coastal Zone
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department EXHIBIT 5
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application complete date:
P.C. AGENDA OF: January 22,2003 Project Planner: Don Rideout
Michael Holzmiller
Project Engineer:
SUBJECT: LCPA 02-101EIR 97-01 ADDENDUM ID1 02-01 (HMP ADDENDUM #2) -
HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN - Request for an amendment to the City’s
Local Coastal Program (LCP) by amending three LCP segments (Mello 11, Mello
I and Agua Hedionda) to add habitat conservation standards to remaining
undeveloped properties in the Coastal Zone, adding an addendum (#2) to the
City’s Draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP) to incorporate the additional
standards, adopting a Negative Declaration for the additional standards and
approving an Addendum to the previously certified Environmental Impact Report
(EIR 97-01) for the City’s Municipal Golf Course .
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5360
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration, and ADOPT Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 5361 and 5362 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of Local
Coastal Plan Amendments (LCPA 02-10) and DI 02-01 for HMP Addendum No. 2, and ADOPT
Planning Commission Resolution No. 5363 APPROVING an Addendum to EIR 97-01; and that
the Planning Commission forward a minute motion to the City Council to direct staff to submit
design revisions to the Municipal Golf Course plan to the California Coastal Commission in
order to resolve the pending appeal of Golf Course Coastal Development Permit (CDP 97-25).
11. INTRODUCTION
This item involves several actions related to applying additional habitat protection and
conservation measures to the remaining undeveloped properties in the City’s coastal zone. The
LCPA includes revisions and additions to incorporate the measures into three LCP segments
(Mello 11, Mello I and Agua Hedionda). The City’s draft Habitat Management Plan is also
proposed to be amended by adding an Addendum (Addendum #2) to incorporate the coastal
habitat protection standards into the HMP document. Finally, several design revisions to plans
for the City’s Municipal Golf Course are being proposed in order to comply with the new coastal
habitat standards. A detailed description of the actions is provided in this report, as well as an
analysis of how the actions are consistent with applicable City plans and programs including the
General Plan, the City’s Coastal Program and the draft HMP. Staffs analysis concludes that the
actions are consistent with these plans and programs and, therefore, staff is recommending
support of the requested actions.
LCPA 02-10iEIR 97-01 Addendum1 02-01HMP Addendum #2 -
HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
January 22,2003
Page 2
111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
A. BACKGROUND
Since 1991 the City of Carlsbad has been working on a HMP. The purpose of the plan is to
conserve sensitive species and their habitat while also providing for compatible public and
private development. The HMP was approved by the Carlsbad City Council on September 21,
1999. Subsequently, the first addendum was prepared based on comments by the US. Fish and
Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game. The completed document dated
December 1999 with Addendum was submitted to the wildlife agencies for approval of an
Incidental Take Permit.
In August 2000 the federal Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management granted the
California Coastal Commission’s request for a Consistency Review of the HMP. This action
precluded approval of the Incidental Take Permit until the Coastal Commission has approved the
Consistency Review. The purpose of the Consistency Review in this case is to determine
whether issuance of the Incidental Take Permit to .Carlsbad would be consistent with the
California Coastal Act. As a result of discussions between the City of Carlsbad and the Coastal
Commission, it was determined that the Consistency Review should be accompanied by
revisions to the HMP and to the Carlsbad LCP. The revisions are the subject of this staff report.
In addition to the revisions to the HMP and LCP, this staff report addresses modifications to the
proposed Municipal Golf Course. On June 7,2000, the Carlsbad Planning Commission certified
Environmental Impact Report EIR 97-01 and approved Coastal Development Permit CDP 97-25,
approving the Golf Course project. Subsequently, the California Coastal Commission appealed
CDP 97-25 based on concerns regarding impacts to biological resources in the coastal zone
portion of the project. Modifications have been made to the Golf Course design addressing the
Coastal Commission’s concerns. An addendum to EIR 97-01 has been prepared and is attached.
The Golf Course project modification is closely linked to both the HMP and LCP, and the
various actions are therefore being processed concurrently, as further described below.
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
LCP AMENDMENTS - The Carlsbad LCP consists of six segments. Three of these segments
are proposed for revision at this time. They are Mello I, Mello 11, and Agua Hedionda. The
remaining three segments (Village Redevelopment Area, West Batiquitos and East Batiquitos)
have been reviewed and do not require amendment.
Mello I1 contains the majority of undeveloped land and habitat in the coastal zone. The table
below is a summary of the key provisions added to the Mello I1 segment. For further detail,
please refer to the revised text of Mello II which is provided as Exhibit “A” to Resolution No.
5361.
LCPA 02-1OiEIR 97-01 Addendud1 02-01HMP Addendum #2 -
HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
January 22,2003
TABLE 1. MAJOR CONSERVATIOh
Impacts to Habitat
Mitigation
Wetlands
Clonservation Standards
Buffers
Zolf Course
Preserve Management Plan
IEASURES IN THE COASTAL ZONE
Impacts to Environmentally Sensitive Habitat
Areas (ESHA) are prohibited unless
specifically identified in the HMP.
Mitigation must include creation of new
habitat of the type being impacted at a ratio of
1 : 1 to achieve a "no net loss" standard.
Additional mitigation must be as previously
identified in the HMP. Offsite mitigation inside
the coastal zone is preferred but may be outside
the coastal zone if it would result in greater
biological benefit.
No impacts to wetlands except for uses
allowed by Coastal Act. When allowed,
impacts must be mitigated at 4:l ratio.
Detailed conservation standards are provided
for 15 specified properties. If 80% or more of a
property is ESHA, 75% of the property must
be conserved. At least 67% of coastal sage
scrub and 75% of gnatcatchers must be
preserved. Hardline boundaries can be
negotiated in lieu of standards. Boundaries
differing from standards require LCP
amendment.
100 ft. for wetlands. 50 ft. for riparian and
coast live oak woodland. 20 A. for all other
native habitat. Trails and fuel modification
zone 3 are permitted in buffers.
Coastal Commission can support if it complies
with new Mello II standards.
Plan must be prepared within 1 year from
approval of Hh4P. Must be adopted by LCP
amendment.
?or Mello I and Agua Hedionda, the same measures as stated above apply, with the exception of
:he list of 16 specified properties and the golf course. The revised text of Mello I and Agua
3edionda are provided as Exhibits "B and "C" to Resolution No. 5361.
LCPA 02-10/EIR 97-01 Addendum/DI 02-01HMP Addendum #2 -
HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
January 22,2003
Page 4
HMP SECOND ADDENDUM - In order to reflect the new standards that will apply inside the
coastal zone and to maintain consistency with the LCP, a second addendum to the HMP has been
prepared. The addendum, which is provided as Exhibit “X” to Resolution No. 5362, incorporates
all of the new LCP provisions outlined above, in most instances using identical wording. In
addition, the addendum includes new Hardline boundaries for two properties that are outside the
coastal zone (the Summit and Mandana). These Hardline boundaries have been prepared during
the time that the approval of the HMP has been on hold.
GOLF COURSE - Due to the revisions needed to the Municipal Golf Course design for
compliance with new coastal habitat protection policies, it is necessary to process an addendum
to the certified Environmental Impact Report for the Golf Course (EIR 97-01). The addendum,
which is provided as Exhibit “Y” to Resolution No. 5363, describes the changes that have been
made in the design, provides schematic exhibits showing the original and revised layouts, and
includes a revised table of impacts and mitigation. With respect to mitigation, a greater amount
of on-site habitat creation will be provided in order to comply with the new standards being
included in the Local Coastal Program. In addition all impacts to wetlands and southern
maritime chaparral inside the Coastal Zone have been eliminated. Because the changes to the
Golf Course were for the purpose of greater habitat protection, all impacts have been reduced
compared with EIR 97-01 as originally certified. In conjunction with the EIR addendum, staff is
also recommending that the Planning Commission, by motion, recommend to the City Council
that the revision to the Golf Course design be submitted to the Coastal Commission to resolve
the pending appeal of CDP 97-25.
IV. ANALYSIS
The recommendation of approval for these actions was developed by analyzing consistency with
city plans and programs, more specifically, the General Plan, the LCP and the draft HMP. The
following analysis section discusses consistency with each of these.
A. General Plan
The proposed actions are consistent with the applicable policies of the General Plan.
Particularly relevant are policies contained in the Land Use and Open Space and
Conservation Elements. The actions are consistent with the following stated policies of
the Land Use and Open SpaceKonservation Elements:
Develop and retain open space in all categories of land use;
Participate in programs that restore and enhance the City’s degraded natural
Implement, to the greatest extent feasible, the natural resource protection policies
Preserve open space areas in as natural a state as possible;
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-
resources;
of the LCP;
LCPA 02-10EiR 97-01 Addendud1 02-OlHMP Addendum #2 -
HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
Januarv 22.2003
species Habitat Conservation Plan), to conserve sensitive environmental
resources;
0 Coordinate planning and development of a citywide open space system with
habitat planning efforts;
0 Minimize the encroachment of development into wetland and riparian areas;
Coordinate the protection of wetlands, woodlands, riparian areas, and other
sensitive habitat areas with appropriate state and federal protection agencies;
0 Encourage and participate in regional planning efforts to protect environmentally
sensitive species from extinction;
Require adequate buffers between new development and environmentally
sensitive habitats;
0 Require private development which impacts sensitive resources to provide
appropriate mitigation measures, so that the existing biodiversity within the City
is maintained;
Require that at the time of any discretionary approval, any land dedicated to the
City for its habitat or scenic value, have an appropriate easement and/or zoning
placed on it for resource protection; and
Recognize and implement the policies of the California Coastal Act and the
Carlsbad LCP when reviewing potential development in the coastal zone.
B. Local Coastal Program
Compliance with the City’s certified LCP is determined by analyzing whether the
proposed LCP amendment and I”P addendum are consistent with all other applicable
policies or provisions of the LCP and the Coastal Act. Listed below are the policy areas
addressed by the three LCP segments and an explanation of how the proposed project
complies with the policy. Note: Although the three segments use slightly different
terminology to describe these policy areas, all three address the same issues.
Table 2 -COMPLIANCE WITH LCP POLICIES
Policy Areas
The proposed project may have a minor To prevent the Agriculture
Compliance Purpose
premature conversion
habitat. However, this conversion is allowed urban uses
conversion from agriculture to wildlife of agricultural lands to
effect on agriculture by encouraging
by Policy 2-1 of Mello 11, which states: “Any
acreage under the control of a public entity
for a public recreation or open space use
shall be exempt from Policy 2-1 and be
permitted to convert from an agricultural use
9, ...
Geologic existing LCP provisions regarding these instability, soil Hazards
Nothing in the proposed project affects the To address slope
erosion, floodplains,
and seismic hazards
hazard areas. All existing provisions remain
in full effect.
LCPA 02-1OiEIR 97-01 AddenddI 02-OIHMP Addendum #2 -
HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
January 22,2003
Table 2 -
Public Works
Recreation and
Visitor-serving
Facilities
Visual
Resources
Public Access
Environmentally
Sensitive
Habitat
30MPLIAh’CE WIT1
To assure that
necessary
infrastructure
elements are provided
in a manner that
minimizes impacts to
coastal zone resources
To assure that
adequate opportunities
are provided for
public recreation and
facilities to serve
visitors to the coast
To assure that
development in the
coastal zone
minimizes visual
obstruction of public
coastal views
To provide the public
with maximum
opportunities for free
access to the coastline
To achieve optimum
protection of wildlife
habitat resources in
the coastal zone
LCP POLICIES, Continued
The proposed project furthers this policy by
establishing habitat protection standards that
apply to public works projects as well as
private development.
The proposed project does not preclude
development of any areas designated for
recreation or visitor-serving facilities. In
fact, by resolving issues of species and
habitat protection, the project facilitates
recreational development of Veterans
Memorial Park and Hub Park, as well as
privately owned properties designated for
such uses.
Among the action recommendations in the
LCP is “preservation of natura1 vegetation
on steep slopes” which is supported by the
project. The project does not affect or
modify any other provision of visual
resources protection.
Nothing in the proposed project effects the
existing LCP provisions regarding public
access. All existing provisions remain in full
effect.
The proposed project addresses
Environmentally Sensitive Habitat by
recommending new conservation and
development standards for properties in the
coastal zone. These new standards have been
developed in coordination with Coastal
Commission staff for the express purpose of
implementing LCP and Coastal Act policies
for the protection of habitat and species.
As demonstrated in the above discussion, the proposed project is fully consistent with the
certified LCP.
C. Habitat Management Plan
The purpose of the HMP is to promote conservation of rare habitats and species as
required by state and federal law, while also facilitating compatible economic
development of public and private land. The HMP as originally approved in 1999 did not
make any distinctions between land inside and outside the coastal zone. In response to the
LCPA 02-10EIR 97-01 AddendumlDI 02-01HMP Addendum #2 -
HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
January 22,2003
Coastal Commission’s concerns, that distinction is now being made, resulting in modified
standards for conservation in the coastal zone. The coastal zone standards, while different
from the original HMP, remain consistent with the intent of the HMP. The differences are
primarily in the areas of mitigation, Hardline Properties, treatment of highly constrained
properties, and buffers. The following discussion explains the differences between the
1999 HMP and the proposed coastal zone standards.
Compared with the 1999 HMP, the coastal zone standards generally increase the
required mitigation ratios. The coastal standards also require that 1 : 1 creation of new
habitat be a component of the mitigation. The coastal standards do not give credit for
onsite preservation of existing habitat, but credit is given for substantial restoration.
Two coastal zone properties shown as Hardlines in the 1999 HMP will be subject to
new standards which may affect their Hardline boundaries. These properties are the
City Golf Course and Kevane. The process for agreement on Hardlines is modified to
include the Coastal Commission and to require a LCP amendment when Hardlines
differ from the standards.
The 1999 HMP recognized that some properties are highly constrained, and a 75%
conservation standard was applied to these. The coastal zone standards increase the
number of parcels that are subject to the 75% standard. Requirements for conservation
of coastal sage scrub and gnatcatchers remain unchanged.
The coastal zone standards generally increased the required buffer for all habitat types.
Although the proposed coastal zone standards will create differences in the handling of
properties inside and outside the coastal zone, the proposed standards remain consistent with the
original intent of the Hh4P.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An environmental analysis of the proposed actions was conducted and no significant impacts
were identified. The proposed actions deal primarily with biological resources in that it involves
incorporating additional conservation and protection measures for habitat located in the Coastal
Zone into the HMP and the City’s LCP. This action does not authorize or permit any
development project or any impacts to biological resources. The proposed action modifies
certain provisions of the Local Coastal Program and makes additions to the HMP to provide
higher levels of protection for biological resources. The present LCP provides some protection
for wetlands and habitats located on steep slopes. The proposal provides greater protection for
wetlands and for habitats located on areas other than steep slopes. In addition, the proposal
includes enhanced buffer requirements and the requirement for long-term management and
monitoring program for species and habitats.
Any development project which would have the potential to impact biological resources are
currently required to undergo an extensive review and permitting process which includes
biological surveys of the project site, compliance with the HMP, compliance with the LCP (for
properties located inside the Coastal Zone). CEQA compliance, public hearings, issuance of
local permits, and issuance of state or federal permits if required. These existing plans and
93
LCPA 02-10/ElR 97-01 Addendm1 02-OIHMP Addendum #2 -
HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
January 22,2003
regulatory mechanisms ensure that potentially significant biological impacts are disclosed and
fully mitigated.
Because the actions were determined not to have any adverse impacts on the environment, a
Negative Declaration was issued by the Planning Director on December 20,2002. Notice of the
Negative Declaration was provided to the State Clearinghouse and to the County Clerk and
published in the newspaper. No written comments were received in response to the notice.
The actions would result in several design revisions to the previously approved plans for the
City's proposed Municipal Golf Course for which an EIR (EIR 97-01) was certified. These
revisions are a result of complying with the additional habitat protection standards of the actions.
The revisions would result in greater protection of coastal habitat resources and, would reduce
the severity of previously identified impacts. Therefore, pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15164
of the California Environmental Quality Act, an Addendum to the previously certified EIR has
been prepared.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5360 (Neg. Dec.)
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5361 (LCPA)
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5362 (DI - HMP Addendum)
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5363 (EIR Addendum)
5. Revised Golf Course Routing Plan (previously distributed)
SUMMARY OF GOLF COURSE REVISIONS
1. The approximate 5 acre commerciallindustrial pad at the northeast corner of Hidden Valley Road and Palomar Airport Road has been deleted to avoid any impacts to wetlands.
2. The golf practice range has been narrowed slightly and reoriented to avoid wetland impacts.
3. Hole 1 has been relocated to avoid wetland impacts
4. The most northwesterly cart path between holes 12 and 13 has been deleted, eliminating a
creek crossing and thereby avoiding wetland impacts.
5. Existing hole #I2 has been deleted in order to provide greater protection for one gnatcatcher
territoly. It has been replaced by a new hole on agricultural land located between existing
holes 13 and 15. Holes 12, 13 and 14 have been renumbered to reflect these revisions.
6. The approximate 6.7 acre industrial parcel located on the north side of College Boulevard has been reconfigured to reduce impacts to coastal sage scrub, to enlarge a wildlife corridor,
and to provide greater protection for one gnatcatcher territory.
7. The cart path between holes 15 and 16 has been modified to reduce wetland impacts.
8. Habitat impacts are being mitigated by increased on-site creation of like habitat at a 2:l ratio.
As a result of the above described revisions, all impacts to wetlands and southern maritime
to onsite sensitive vegetation and the modified mitigation requirements as a result of the revised chaparral in the Coastal Zone have been eliminated. The following table shows the revised impacts
Coastal Zone
Outside Coastal Zone
95
Jack Henthorn & Associates
5365 Avenida Encinas, Suite A
Carlsbad, Californin 92008
(760) 438-4090
Fax (760) 438-0981
EXHIBIT 7
January 8,2003
Mr. Don Rideout
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Subject: Habitat Management Plan Recommendations from Coastal Commission
Emerald Point (BCS) Assessor Parcel Number 212-040-50
As you are aware, the owners of the Emerald Point property have been working with the
City and the wildlife agencies regarding the development of their site for the past several
years. The owner’s representatives met with representatives of US. Fish and Wildlife
Service, California Department of Fish and Game and the City of Carlsbad to establish
development envelop.
The owners then proceeded with design studies and filed development applications with
the City of Carlsbad. The application that is on file demonstrates that 10.83 acres (over
60%) of the 18 acre site is classified as disturbed (previous agricultural activity) or
developed (Sapphire Road improvements).
The proposed development will impact 0.24 acres of the 4.86 acres Coastal Sage (CSS)
found on the site, a preservation-level in excess Of 95%. None of the other habitat types
found on site will be impacted and all non-impacted habitat will be placed in appropriate
easements. The CSS impacts are currently proposed to be mitigated through on site
revegetation of non-native grassland areas at a 2:l ratio..
The attached Biological Resources Assessment provides additional information relating
to the habitat types found on site and the potential project impact.
Section 3-8.9 of the HMP draft proposed by the Coastal Commission states “No impacts
to native habitat allowed.”
Other similar parcels identified in the HMP are permitted to have impacts of up to 10% of
the total CSS and SMC for access purposes, including on site access. Due to the
restrictions on this site related to avoiding steep slopes, airport noise contours and a
variety of other regulatory land use restrictions, the Commission’s recommendation
would cause an undue economic hardship on the owner. Therefore it is requested that the
language in Policy section 3-8.9 be revised to read as follows: “Maximum 10% impact on
CSS habitat.”
If you have any questions or need additional information relating to this site, please
contact me at your convenience.
/\sincerely, /
ip aci E, Henthom
Authorized Representative.
Copies: A. Hummel
L. Sellinger
K. Akers, California Coastal Commission, S.D.
Anita M. Hayworth
Biological Consultant
1235 Meadow Wood Place
Encinitas, CA 92024
30 October 2002
Mr. Jack Henthorn
Jack Henthorn and Associates
5375 Avenida Encinas
Suite D
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Update of the BiologicaI Resources andlmpact Assessment ofthe EmeraIdPointe Estates
(BCS Propeq), Carlsbad, CA
Dear Mr. Henthorn, ,
Der our telephone conversation, I have reviewed the biological resources mapping for the
approximately 17-acre Emerald Pointe Estates project. The purpose of this letter is to provide an
update of the existing conditions of the property, if needed, and provide a re-evaluation and update
of the mitigation requirements, if needed. The property is located south of Palomar Airport Road,
and west of El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California. Laurel Tree Road and the Laurel Tree
Apartment development borders the western edge of the property. Cobblestone Sea Village (Mar
Brisa) development is located to the south and east, and agricultural land borders the north.
The original biological survey was by me on 4 January 1997. A focussed survey for rare plants was
conducted on 13 April 1997. The results of those survey visits were reported in a letter addressed to
you dated 22 December 1998.
The 2002 existing conditions of the site were evaluated through a site visit and a review of a 2002
aerial photograph of the site. The site has remained essentially unchanged from the conditions
reported in the 1998 letter report. Thus the following table (Table l), extracted from the biology
report and updated to reflect the new proposed impacts, provides the current conditions and the
proposed impacts.
Plant Community Open Space Direct Existing
Acreage Impacts'
Disturbed
4.62 0.24 4.86 Coastal Sage Scrub
0 0.33 0.33 Developed
4.81 5.69 10.50
IChaDarral 0.79 0 0.79 1
As noted in Table 1, a total of 0.24 acre of coastal sage scrub is proposed to be impacted by the
project. Implementation of the proposed project would result no losses to sensitive plant species or
other sensitive vegetation communities. The impact to the coastal sage scrub is a direct function of
the requirement for fire suppression zones and only involves the thinning of underbrush. The
impact to the coastal sage scrub vegetation community will require mitigation.
Updated Mitieation Measures
The Emerald Pointe Estates project includes in the project design the granting of an open space
easement over 87 percent (4.62 acres) ofthe coastal sage scrub on the property. The onsite impact to
coastal sage scrub is 0.24 acres. Although the City ofcarlsbad Habitat Management Plan is still in a
draft form, the mitigation is calculated to be in conformance with that draft document. Mitigation
for the impact to 0.24 acre of coastal sage scrub is recommended to consist of 0.5 acre of coastal sage
scrub revegetation. There are areas onsite that are suitable for revegetation and these areas will be
delineated by you and provided to the City. In general, areas of non-native grassland are suitable for
restoration to coastal sage scrub. These areas are located on the northern portion of the property.
The open space easement also includes the preservation of 100 percent ofnative and non-native
grasslands, chaparral and a population of the rare plant species, San Diego thorn-mint.
Please feel free to contact me at (760) 942-5147 with questions or if you require additional
information.
Very truly yours,
Page 2 99
January 9,2002
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
Attn: Don Rideout
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mr. Rideout:
Please accept the following comments on the Proposed LCP Amendment on behalf of
San Diego Audubon Society; Surfiider Foundation, San Diego Chapter; Preserve
Calavera; California Native Plant Society, San Diego Chapter; and National Wildlife
Federation. We are pleased that the current LCP amendments for the Carlsbad HMP
provide much stronger protections than the original draft HMP. We appreciate the City’s
good-faith attempt to address the concerns raised in earlier comments. In general the
LCP amendments do a good job of ensuring consistency with the HMP and of complying
with the Coastal Act and habitat conservation planning requirements. We have some
concerns about the following issues and would urge that modifications be made to
address them.
Invasive Plant Suecies
Our organizations are very concerned with increasing problems associated with invasive
non-native species in the coastal area. We urge you to take an active role in preventing
the spread of invasive plant species. The problems caused by invasives can be witnessed
in any North County coastal lagoon (Buena Vista, Hedionda, and Batiquitos, for
example), and along most major thoroughfares (including 1-5, Palomar, 101, or Canon
Rd.). Pampas Grass (Corraderia selloana) is the most problematic species, but Tamarisk,
Arundo, Myoporum, and others have found refuge and are taking up too much space in
our natural areas as well. The State of California will soon list the following plants as
noxious weeds Arundo (Arundo donax) and Tamarisk (Tamarix sp.).
The problem lies in the ease of acquiring these invasive species. Homeowners and
developers can readily go into local nurseries and buy Pampas Grass and Myoporum. If
they plant them on property that borders open space the impact to habitat is direct. Even
when planted remotely, the impacts are significant, as both plants are wind dispersed and
can spread their seeds for miles. In order to truly preserve our ecologically sensitive
coastal habitats and protect the public’s investment of tax dollars in the MHCP program,
we feel a greater emphasis should be placed on controlling the widespread use of invasive
exotic plant species.
Please see the enclosed Guide to Environmentally Sensitive Brush Management (City of
San Diego) for a complete listing of invasive exotic plants threatening California’s open
space. We urge the City of Carlsbad to prohibit the use of invasive exotic plants for all
new development within the coastal development. An important supplement would take
Funding
Page 38 (Policy 3-1, 3rd Paragraph) of the LCP states that “[Tlhe creation of an effective
habitat preserve requires a careful balancing of acquisition, preservation and mitigation
requirements, as well as enforceable monitoring, remediation, and an adequately funded
maintenance program for the preserve area.” We agree that adequate funding is key to
the success of the program. We urge the City to work with SANDAG on identifying a
regional fimding source. We also urge the City to make a regular and significant
allocation from its general fund for education, and to institute the Habitat Take Permit
Fee for maintenance, management, administration, etc.
Water Ouality
We encourage you to mirror the language for water quality protections in the recently
approved Malibu LCP. Water quality provisions in the proposed LCP amendments
should be at least as stringent as those in the Malibu LCP. Also, it is strongly
recommended that a strong stream buffer zoning policy that is consistent with the
Carlsbad Watershed Management Plan be adopted. This can be found in further detail in
the Carlsbad Watershed Management Plan, section 5-4, Action #l.
Golf course
The golf course design exhibits are not included in the LCP. Please send them to: SD
Audubon, 4891 Pacific Highway, Suite 112, San Diego, CA 921 10 when they are
available.
The Coastal Act explicitly limits allowable impacts to Environmental Sensitive Habitat
Areas (ESHAs). Golf courses are not one of the impactshses allowed. Many activities
permitted in flood plains, such as public parks, golf courses, and agriculture, eliminate or
drastically reduce riparian habitat and are very damaging to riparian wildlife (Faber 1989
- see enclosure). Our wetlands in California have been reduced to 5% of their historic
range; therefore, we strongly oppose the development of the golf course in sensitive
wetland areas.
It has been proven.by scientists such as Phyllis Faber that a Golf Course has negative
impacts to its surrounding areas. Golf courses within the coastal zone are of particular
concern because of the potential for leaching of biocides and fertilizers into ponds and
coastal waters. These chemicals then enter the food web and degrade water quality,
thereby threatening animal and human health. Research has found that the average golf
course uses the following: 200 tons of fertilizer per month, 18 pounds of pesticide per
treated acre per year- 5 times as much as agriculture, and 1,000,000 gallons of water per
lo a
day. New golf course designs have become more environmentally friendly, but the
specific requirements to assure that have not been built into this LCP or the city’s general
guidelines. An example of such a course is at Kiawah Island in South Carolina, adjacent
to a fragile coastal wetlands area. Standards to assure such design need to be adopted
now.
Additionally, public opinion puts open space ahead of public golf courses in terms of
priority. In 1999 and 2000, the City of Carlsbad conducted public opinion surveys to
ascertain the attitudes and concerns of residents regarding the quality of life in Cqlsbad.
For two years in a row, residents named excessive growth and development as their top
concern, followed closely by increasing traffic congestion. In addition, the preservation
of open space was residents’ top priority with regard to city programs and facilities.
When rating the importance of facilities, “Open Space” was first, followed by “Nature
Trails,” “Swimming Pools,” “Basketball Courts,” and finally, “Public Golf Courses.” We
urge you to consider this information when analyzing the potential golf course.
Thank you very much for considering these comments.
Sincerely,
Allison Rolfe, San Diego Audubon Society
Marco Gonzalez, Surfrider Foundation, San Diego Chapter
Diane Nygaard, Preserve Calavera
Carolyn Martus, California Native Plant Society, San Diego Chapter
Steve Torbit, National Wildlife Federation, Western Natural Resource Center
10 3
Jack Henthorn & Associates
5365 Auenida Encinas, Suite A
Carlsbad, California 92008
(760) 438-4090
Fax (760) 438-0981
January 17,2003
Don Rideout
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad. CA 92008
Subject: Habitat Management Plan Request for Aura Circle
APN 207-100-48
Dear Mr. Rideout:
As you are aware, the owners of the Aura Circle property have been working with the
City and the California Coastal Commission regarding the development of their site. This
cooperative effort has led to a redesign of the site plan which minimizes edge effect impacts and
leaves a significant portion of the site in open space. The open space area will preserve on-site
sensitive habitats and provide opportunities for the restoration of degraded areas. Consequently,
the owners request that the Aura Circle site be designated a Habitat Management Plan (HMP)
hardline area. The site is currently designated as a standards area in the draft HMP.
The enclosed Biological Technical Report was revised by the owner’s biotogicat
consultant following a field meeting with the Coastal Commission’s staff biologist, Caitlin Bean,
on January 14,2003. The text and graphics reflect the revised development envelope, and the
habit types illustrated have been identified and revised where necessary per Ms. Bean’s
recommendations.
If you have any questions or require additional information regarding this site, please
contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
- .Y, Assoctate Planner
encl.
cc: G. Green
J. Gallagher
K. Akers, California Coastal Commission, SD lk -1- lo 4
Financial Management Company
January 2 1 ; 2003
Mr. Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director
City of Carlsbad Planning Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008-7314
Re: The Oaks at Batiquitos
Dear Mike,
Enclosed are letters to each of the planning commissioners regarding our request to be
made at the January 23rd meeting for a change in the language of the Second Addendum
to the Carlsbad HMP. Per our discussion this morning, it is my understanding that you
will arrange for each Commissioner to receive his or her copy before the meeting.
A copy of one letter, with attachments, is also enclosed for your information.
Thank you for your assistance and attention.
Sincerely,
Lawrence &/ H. Krasnow
Enclosures
I6769 Bernard0 Center Drive, Suite 24. San Diego, California 92 128 Telephone (858) 487-8030 Facsimile (858) 673-4264 /o 5
PROPOSED CHANGE TO
SECOND ADDENDUM TO THE CARLSBAD HABITAT
MANAGEMENT PLAN BASED ON COMMENTS FROM THE
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION AND INCLUDING
MISCELLANEOUS REVISIONS
Dated December 16,2002
Page 52. Delete 3-8.14 in its entirety and substitute the following:
“3-8.14 Assessor’s Parcel No. 215-050-44,45,46,47
(Kevane) - Development shall be limited to that area shown
as developable on figure 25, Kevane, of the December 1999
approved Habitat Management Plan for Natural
Communities in the Cty of Carlsbad. No unmitigated
impacts to coastal oak woodland, riparian areas or wetlands
except for necessary utilities and requirements of the City of
Carlsbad for fire and safety reasons.”
KEVANElKRASNOW
THE OAKS AT BATIQUITOS - CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA
REASONS TO SUPPORT PROPOSED CHANGE TO
SECOND ADDENDUM TO THE CARLSBAD HABITAT MANAGEMENT
PLAN BASED ON COMMENTS FROM THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL
COMMISSION AND INCLUDING MISCELLANEOUS REVISIONS
Dated December 16,2002
Over the past ten years we have been working with the City of Carlsbad, US.
Department of Fish and Wildlife and the California Department of Fish and Game.
Three years ago we came to a joint agreement with all three of these agencies. to
support our project as presently designed. All three agencies agreed to a hardline
development plan and included this plan within the City’s Habitat Management Plan
(HMP).
FAIRNESS
Property has been in Family ownership for over thirty years.
Property has been properly zoned (R-I) for the proposed
development for over twenty years.
Map and planning has been in process for over ten years and
included hundreds of meetings between ourselves, our biologists, our
engineers and land planners, along with the City of Carlsbad Planning
and Environmental personnel, and the Departments of Fish and
Game and Fish & Wildlife personnel. This is not a project that was
conceived yesterday, but rather a project that has evolved through a
collaborative effort of hundreds of experts.
Development proposal is consistent with surrounding property and
community.
The property is located 2 % miles inland from the coast.
The local jurisdiction and both wildlife agencies have agreed to the
For the proposed development, the property does not require a zone
hardline set forth as figure 25.
change.
NEED -
Proposed project is consistent with smart growth and provides
All services are available adjacent to the property.
Schools, shopping, new library and workplaces are all very close
needed housing in the area.
(walking distance for all of these activities).
1
SAFETY
Current condition of property provides cover for illegal activity.
Schoolchildren walk through property every day on their way to and
from the middle and elementary school, located adjacent to the
parcel.
Uncontrolled brush is a fire hazard to existing homes surrounding
property.
HABITAT PROTECTION
Almost half the property will remain in perpetual open space, cared
for by Homeowner’s Association.
Vacant property invites squatters, trash dumping and other habitat
destruction. We spent more than $13,000 within the past year
cleaning up after squatters and illegal dumping.
The proposed hardline has been agreed to by the City of Carlsbad
environmental department; the California Department of Fish and
Game and the United States Department of Fish & Wildlife, after their
review of various biology reports and numerous site visits with our
biologists, engineers and ourselves.
Lawrence H. Krasnow
16769 Bemardo Center Dr. #24
San Diego. CA 92128
(858) 6734264 Fax
e-mail: Iarrvk@inarne.com
(858) 487-8030
Robert F. Kevane
8480 La Mesa Blvd.
La Mesa, CA 91941
(619) 5834124
(619) 697-8480 Fax
e-mail: lamesatax@aol.com
(619) 697-2001
2
JAMES M, HICKS
LAND b. INMSTMWT SUS
January 2 I 2003
Mr. Don Rideout
Planning Department
CITYOF CARLSBAD
Carlsbad, CA 92008
1635 Faraday Avenue
Re: Case File LCPA 02-IO/EIR 97-01 AddendumDI 02-01 (HMP Addendum #2)
Levatino Property\ APN 215-050-73
Dear Don:
For the last three years I have met with you. representatives of the California Department
of Fish & Game, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the California Coartal Commission regarding the proposed limitation of development outlined in the amended Habitat Management Plan on the property owned by Mrs. Joseph Levatino which is currently rand LC (Limited Control). situated at the NWC ofEl Camioo Real and Dove
Lane.
1 have attached to this letter my moa recent wrrespondence to the wildlife agencies and
the coastal commission on this subject, Based upon our research we believe it is not
economically feasible to limit development on this property to 25% of its total acreage.
As you know, I am in the process of obtaining a reaffirmation from the wildlife agencies of their earlier approval to allow up to Soo/o of the property to be developed as outlined on
mapping we had provided to them. Your office has already indicated you would continue
to support your approval ofthat outline, We are in hopes that the California Coastal
Commission will ape with the City ofcarlsbad and the wildlife agencies to allow this
outline to be approved in “hardline” form and incorporated into the LCP as provided in the amended Habitat Management Plan,
Each of the LC lands in the City of Carlsbad is unique, not only as to their physical
makeup but also their development constraints as required by the City of Carlsbad and
the other controlling agencies.
The purpose of this letter is to ask that the City of Carlsbad’s Planning Commission fully
Support those sections ofthe amended HMP which will protect impacted LC lands and
not limit them to the development of only 25% of their propeny.
5150 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD, CA 02008 (760) 438-2017 (780) 438-4048 FAX
675 SIERRA ROSE DR.. YIOZ RENO, NV 8861 1 (775) 770-2617 (775) 770-2018 FAX Jhkk.apowrrnet.net
. . . . . . - . .
JAMES M+ HICKS LAND 6' INMSlMEM SALES
October 2 I, 2002
Ms. Keri Akers
Coastal Program Analyst
State of California CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
757s Mctropoliran Drive, Suite 103
San Diego, CA 92 108-4402
Re: Levatino Propeny
Carlsbed. CA
Dear Keri:
Over the past few months I have worked closely with you in an attempt to bring you up- to-date regarding the status of the above-referenced property as it relates to the City of
Carlsbad's Habitat Management Plan, the needs ofthe U.S Fish & Wildlife Service and
the concerns of le California Depaement of Fish & Game. The purpose of these visits
was to provide you with a summary ofthe detailed work that had been completed by these three entities as ir related to the development of the Levatino properry The recent
emergence of the California Coastal Commission into these early discussions was not
anticipated. Although. discussions on the development of this property were held with
the staff at the California Coastal Commission on more than one occasion
I have carefully reviewed your notes from our last meeting and discussed them with Mr.
Jack Henthorn who has been a consultant on the Levatino property for the past several
years. We have the following comments to make on selective topics as they relate to the
environmental status of the property and the constraints of development.
HJjA Contentp
We have determined that the developable portions of the property could, in fact. be
impacted by slightly less than 80% of ESHA. We continue to work on a determination of
those net lands available for development.
L3Qzs
The intersection spacing rquirements mandated by the City of Carlsbad will not allow
primary access from El Camino Real. The primary access mus1 be tnken from Dove
Lane. In order not to impact the small wetland area on the site, to meet the intersection
spacing requirements for Dove Lane and, to meet the grading criteria the primary access
must be taken toward the central portion of the property. For safety purposes, a
secondary access is required. The wetland limitations and the intersection spacing
requirements will not allow for a secondary access on Dove Lane. The secondary access for emergency purposes, to be located along El Camino Real, must be located toward the central ponion of the property as well to meet the criteria set forth by the Engineering
5150 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD, CA 92008 (760) 438-2017 (700) 438-4048 FAX
675 SIERRA ROSE DR., Y102 * RENO, NV 89511 (775) 770-2017 (775) 770-2018 FAX jhickaOpowernet.ns1
Department at the City of Carlsbad as well as the Carlsbad Fire Department. Both
required acce86 points must be located toward the central portion of the property
Tooovraahv
The property is long and narrow. with substantial street improvement requirements on
both El Camino Real and Dove Lane. There is a 45 foot setback requirement along El
Camino Real. To avoid 25% slopes, and ESHA. as well as provide the required access
and setback requirements needed to develop the property is not physically possible.
There are approximately 3.69 acres of Disturbed Coastal Sage, Annual Non-Native
Grassland, Developed Land and other Disturbed Habitat on the property. These habitats
are scattered over the entire property. The connection of these specific habitats to
provide for an economically feasible site for development is not possible 89 well.
KW
There is only one small waland area identified on the property According to the
Biological Survey that was conducted on the property, this area consists of 0.03 acres of land. .All efforts will be made to provide for a 100' setback from this small wetland area.
25% Develooment Constraint\ Reasonable Economiu
Accordin8 IO rhe Growth Management Ordinance of the Ciry of Carlsbad and the Oeneral
Plan of the City, the Levatino Property has been allowed to develop 65 residential units
based upon approximately 11 acres of "unconstrained" land as defined to determine allowable density. In order to develop the property to its intended use, the City of
Carlsbad (and other controlling agencies) will require that specific "on-site" and "off- site" improvements be completed. They will also require that fees be paid. As the unit count on the property is reduced (Le. 25% maximum dte development), the individual costs per unit will increase, which will impact the economic viability of the property.
While many LC lands in the City of Carlsbad contain Environmentally Sensitive Habitat
Areas, they are not all alike and we do not believe they should all be held to the game
development constraints. As you can see with the Levatino property, provisions for
access,' types of ESHA. setback requirements, required roadways. abuttinrJ land uses,
slopes, allowable lot coverage, sound attenuation walls, mitigation requirements, height
limitations, utility eowments, topography, zoning and emergency requirements, to name a
few, all impact each property differenrly, It is my understanding that the California Coastal Commission had been working under that premise for the past several years.
And in fact, have recently approved development in Zones 20 and 21 during that time.
Other Agency Cammen3
The primary goal of rhe meetings between the City of Carlsbad, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service. the California Department of Fish & Game and the consultants representing the Levatino property was IO define that property’s role in the Habitat Management Plan. TO
that end, we arrived at a mutually acceptable buildinB “envelope” with an emphasis on
preserving the northern 50% of the property in Core # 6 + even thought the property has
no direct physical relationship to Core #6 and is not a part of any proposed Linkage Area.
The general consensus of those meetings was that the Levatino property played no major role in the Habitat Management Plan.
SummJm,
In Carlobad alone, the California Coastal Commission has approved the development of
thousands of acres of land. The Levatino propeey is completely surrounded by some of
thaw approvals. There has been much precedence set on the part of the Coastal Commisrion and, in most cases. it has not limited maximum site development to 25% .
The cumt draft text of the Habitat Management Plan. proposed by the City of Crrlsbad
almost three years ago with suppon from the US Department of Fish & Wildlife and the
California Department of Fish & Game, will have a major impact upon what private
landholdings throughout the & City may qualify for development. As with my efforts
on the Levatino property. it is my understanding that other property owners in the City of
Carlsbad were working closely with these groups to work out a mutually beneficial
Wangement. In addition, others were meeting with the Coastal Commission staff as
well.
Unlike those landowners located outside of the coastal zone. owners of property in the
coastal zone are currently faced with a double jeopardy in the preparation and adoption of
the Habitat Management Plan, They have to not only meet the IMP criteria as set forth
by the City of Carlsbad. the U.S. Department ofFish & Wildlife and the Californir
Department of Fish & Game, but also suffer erther from the “overlap” of the California
Coastal Commission. They have already given up on “Cores” and “Linkaye$’ and. in
many cases, there is very little left to give.
In an effort to complete the Habitat Management Plan I do not believe the California
Coastal Commission has to compromise the LCP. But 1 would hope they would take into consideration the impact the Habitat Management Plan has already made on propeny owners located wirhin the coastal zone. And first and foremost, determine whether the
Plan achieves its major goal. Which, 1 hsd always thought was a mutdly defined goal.
As to the Levatino property, we ask the California Coastal Commission consider approval of the building “envelope” as outlined in my earlier letter to you. In our
discussions with the City of Carlsbad, the U.S. Department of Fish & Wildlife and the California Department of Fish & Game, we agreed to eliminate approximately 50% of the
land for development; although we felt we had a strong argument as to why we should
not be 90 impacted. In exchange. we would be allowed to develop the remaining 50%.
Having not been a pan of the discussions, we had no idea that the California Coastal
Commission was going to anher limit our development by another 50%
In closing, I would like to thank you very much for taking the time to meet with me and
discuss with you the concerns ofthe Levatino family I am in hopes that a final Plan can
be developed that not only achieves the goals of the HMP, but also considers those of the
impacted landowners in the coastal zone,
// 5
January 13,2003
Ms. Nancy Frost
Wildlife Biologist
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME
4949 Viewridge Avenue San Diego, CA 92123
Re: Levatino Property
NWC El Camino Real Dove Lane
Carlrbad, CA
Dear Nancy:
Attached with this letter you will find a copy ofthe Prdiminlvy Vegetation and
Biological Resource Impact Report on the Levatino property which wa8 prepared by
Dudek and Associates on January 12.2000. This work was contracted a( the suggestion
of Mr. David Lawhead of your department and Ms. Julie Vandenvier ofthe u.s,
Department of Fish & Wildlife Services. I have also enclosed an aerial photograph
identifying the property.
Following the early inception of the City of Carlsbad’a Habitat “egement Plan (HMP) 1 held several meetings with Mr. Don Rideout at the City explaining to him the financial
impact to the Levatino property should the HMP only allow the development of 25% of
the land as was originally proposed. At the suggestion of Mr. Rideout we had several
joint meetings with the City of Carlsbad, the CDF&G and the USF&WS over a period of
about nine months in an effort to come to an agrement M to what portion of the property
could be economically viable for development and still meet the guidelines and
both the CDF%G and the USF&WS. objectives of the City of Carlsbad’r Habitat Management Plan 89 well the concerns of
As a result of these meetings. the CDF&G, the USF&WS and the City of Carlsbad had all agreed verbally that the shaded portion of the property shown on Figure 4 ofthe Dudek study would be defined in the HMP as land suitable for development and auch property would be outlined in “hard-line boundaries” and incorporated into the HMP. The overall
consensus was that the Levatino property did not contain a high level of sensitive habitat
and, more importantly because it is surrounded by development, it would not play an
effective role in contributing to the goals and objectives for Core #6 as a viable habitat
comidor. Unfortunately, prior to bringing this egrcement to letter form, the Californir
Coaatal Commission indicated a preference to be a part of the planning process in the formation of the HMP as it releted to properties under their jurisdiction. Of particular
importance to them were the LC landr in the coastal zone.
51 50 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD, CA e2008 peo) 438-2017 veo) 430.4048 FAX 675 SIERRA ROSE DR,, (102 RENO, NV 8S511 * (775) 770-2017 (775) 7742018 FAX ]hkksOpwrrnet.nrl
For the past 10 months I have been meeting with Ms. Keri Aka, at the California Coastal
the City of Carlsbad regarding the approved “hard4ne boundaries” of the Levatino
Commission in an attempt to bring the Commiaeion into alignment with the agencies and
ProPel-tY.
In the final drafl of the Habitat Management Plan, as a result of numerous meetings
between the Coastal Commission and the City of Cprlsbad there are provisions that allow for the development of more than 25% of the Levatino property. For example, it is stated
in the Plan that “If the City, with the concurrences of the wildlife agencies and the
Coadal Commission through an LCP amendment, approves a Hardline preserve
boundary for any of these properties a8 part of the W. then the amount of onsite
preservation as identified in the Hardline boundary shall apply.”
The Plan hnher goes on to say that “The parcel specific standards listed above arc
adopted because hardline preserve boundary lines were not enablirhed at the time of
preparation of the I”. The purpose of the standards is to ensure that liiture
development is sited to preserve the maximum amount of ESHA within the Coaltal zone and to establish a viable habitat corridor and preserve arm in Zones 20 and 21. If the City, with the concurrence of the wildlife agencie6 and the Coastal Commission through
an LCP amendment, subsequently approves n Hardline preserve boundary for my of the
above-dercribed properties as pm of the HMP, then the onsite preservation included in
the Hardline preserve boundary shall apply.”
And finally. under the Major Coastal Comml~slon Requuted Revisions to HMP, the negotiated position is that “Hardline boundarien can be negotiated in lieu of standards.
Boundaries differing from standards require a Local Coastal Plan Amendment (LCPA).”
The purpose ofthis letter is ask ifthc California Deputrnent ofFil& Game would re-
afnrm their earlier position regarding the approval of the “hard-line boundaria” for the
Levatino propeny as shown on Figure 4 in the Dudek Report.
I have already spoken with Don Ridcout on this matter and he has stated that the Clty of
Carlsbad would agree to eupport the approximately 8 acre “hard-line boundpry” as shown in the Dudek Report
subject With the re-affirmation of the City of Carlsbad, the CDF&G and the USF&WS I am in hopes of meeting with Mr. John Martin of the USFBWS next week on this same
it is my goal to ask that the Coastal Commission follow the recommendations of the City
and the agencies regarding this matter and adopt the “hard-line boundary” in the Dud&
Report.
I will be meeting with Keri Akers and the State Biologin &om the California Coutd
Commission on the Levatino property next Tuesday, Janruvy 14’, 10 tour the site and develop an opinion from her regarding the approval of the Dudek boundaries.
7
Your assistance and cooperation in this matter would be greatly appreciated.
skawhmu Cc: Mrs. Joseph Levatino Mr. Andrew Potter, Esq. Mr. Don Rideout
JAMES M, HICKS
LANO 6, INMSTMENT SALES
January 13,2003
Mr. John Martin
Biologist
6010 Hidden Valley Road
Carlsbnd, CA 92009
Re: Levatino Property
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICES
WC El Camino Real Dove Lane
Carlsbad, CA
Dw Mr. Martin:
Attached with this letter you will find a copy of the Preliminary Vegetation md
Biological Resource Impact Report on the Levatino property which was prepared by
Dudek and Associates on Janurvy 12,2000. This work was contracted at the luuggestion
of Mr. David Lawhead of the California Department of Fish & Game and MI. Julie
Vandewier of your department, I have also encloaed an asrial photograph identifying the
P'OPW
Following the early inception of the City of Carlebad's Habitat Management Plan (HMP)
I held several meetings with Mr. Don Rideout at the City explaining to him the financial
impact to the Levatino property should the HMP only allow the development of 25% of
the land as was originally proposed. At the suggestion of Mr. Rideout we had 8weral joint meeting8 with the City of Carlsbad, the CDFkG and the USFBWS over a period of
about nine months in an effort to wme to an agreement as to what portion of the property
could be economically viable for development and still meet the guidelines and
both the CDF&G and rhe USFBrWS.
objectives of the City of Carlsbad'o Habitat Management Plan as well as the concerns of
As a result of these meednge, the CDF&G, the USF&WS and the City of Carlsbad had dl
agreed verbally that the shaded portion of the property shown on Figure 4 of the Dudek
study would be defined in the ?l" as land suitable for development and such prom
would be outlined in "hard-line boundaries" and incorporated into the HMP. The 0d1 consensue was that the Levatino property did not contain a high level of sensitive habitat
and, more importantly because it is sunounded by development, it would not play an
effective role in contributing to the Boals and objtCtiws for Core #6 as a viable habitat
corridor. However, the northern 50% of the property WM required for preservation
becauee of it8 "proximity" to the SDO&E easement located on the east side of El Camino
Real. Unfortunately, prior to bringing this agreement to letter foq the California Coastal
Commirrion indicated a preference to be a pan of the planning process in the formation
of the HMP as it related to properties under their jurisdiction. Ofpanic~lar importance to
them were the LC lands in the coastal zone.
SI50 AVENIDA ENCINAS 'CARLSBAD, CA 82008 * (780) 4383017 (780) 430.4048 FAX
875 SIERRA ROSE DR., X102 RENO, NV 88611 (776) 77O.2017 * (775) 770-201B FAX ]hicktOpowmrrwl.nd
For the past 10 months I have been meeting with Ms. Keri Akers at the California Coastal
Commission in an attempt to bring the Commisaion into alignment with the agencies and the City of Carlsbad regarding the approved “hard-line boundaries” of the Levatino
propmy.
In the final draft of the Habitat Management Plan, as a result of numerous meetings bmvben the Coastal Commission and the City of Carlabad. there are provisions tbt allow
for the development of more than 25% of the Levatino property. For example, it is stated in the Plan that “If the City, with the concurrences ofthe wildlife agencies and the
Coastal Commission through an LCP amendment, approves a Hardline preserve
boundary for any of these properties as part of the I”, then the amount of onsite preservation as identified in the Hardline boundary shall apply.’’
The Plan finher goes on to say that “The parcel specific standards listed above M
rdopted because hardline preserve boundary lines were not established at the time of
preparation of the W. The purpose of the standard8 is IO ensure that fbture development is sited to preserve the maximum amount of ESHA within the coastal zone and to establish a viable habitat corridor and preserve area in Zones 20 and 21. Ifthe
City, with the concurrence of the wildlife agencies and the Coastal Commission through
an LCP amendment, subsequently approv- a Hardline preserve boundary for any ofthe
abovbdescribed propenieo m par! of the HMP, then the onsite preservation included in the Hardline preserve boundary shall apply.”
And finally, under the Major Coartal Cornmission Requtrted Rwbionr to HMP, the
negotiated position is that “Hardline boundaries can be negotiated in lieu of nandardr. Boundaries differing from standards require a Local Coastal Plan Amendment (LCPA).”
The purpose of this letter is ask if the U.S. Department ofFish & Wildlife Services would
reaffirm their earlier position regarding the approval of the “hard-line boundlrieB” far
the Levatino property as shown on Figure 4 in the Dudek Report.
I have already spoken with Don Rideout on thir matter and he has stated that the City of
Carlsbad would agree to support the approximately 8 acre “hard-line boundary” as shown
in the Dudek Report
I have drafted and delivered a similar letter to W. Nancy Froat of the CDFBrO on thir same subject. With the re-affirmation of the City of Carlsbad, the CDF&G and the
WSF&WS it is my 8oal to ask that the Coastal Commission follow the recommendations
of the City and the agencies regarding this matter and adopt the “hard-line boundary” in
the Dudek Repon.
1 will be meeting with Keri Akers nnd the State Biologist from the California Coastal
Commission on the Levatino property next Tuesday, January 14*. to tour tho site and
develop an opinion from her regarding the approval of the Dudek boundaries.
Your assistance and cooperation in this matter would be greatly appreciated.
Mr. Andrew Potter, Esq.
Mr. Don Rideout
Q
January 22,2003
Julie Baker, Chairperson
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
1535 Faraday Drive
Carlsbad, California 92009
RE Proposed Adoption of LCP Amendment to Implement Habitat Management Plan
Dear Ms. Baker:
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments to the City's
Local Coastal Program to implement the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (I").
, San Diego Gas & 6Iemic Company (SDG&E) owns approximately 250 acres in the Agua
Hedionda area. The City sometimes calls this property the "South Shore Property."
Furthering company land planning objectives for the South Shore Property, SDG&E was
one of the first landowners to participate in the HMYs efforts to predetermine preserve
and development boundaries for habitat-containing land in the City. SDG&E is proud
of the agreement made, which "hardlines" approximately 50 acres of the property into
open space, nearly 100% of the native habitat This initial agreement was balanced and
provided a "win" for all concerned.
In contrast, SDG&E believes that the scope of the proposed amendments fails to address
an appropriate balancing of interests that habitat conservation planning takes into
account, and focuses instead on stringent and unyielding principles associated with
coastal zone regulation. While these conflicts can perhaps only be reconciled at the state
and federal levels, SDG&E understands the need for the City to move forward with its
approval of the HMP.
Therefore, SDG&E makes the following two comments on the proposed amendments:
The proposed buffers should be returned to case-by-case. The hardlines for the
South Shore Property took into account the desired separation of development
and open space. Adding any more land to buffers would be a superfluous and
unjustified sequestering of private land
The proposed Hi" amendment appears to restrict or eliminate access
opportunities to the shoreline. This restriction may affect access to the one Agua
Hedionda lagoon beach which was retained for eventual use by recreationists m
using the City's future Hub Park or other nearby facilities. SDG&E requests that
the beach access to this area is confirmed in the HMP.
SDG&E respectfully asks that these changes be made by the Planning Commission as
part of its approval of the LCP amendments by the City. Given that the majority of the
land on the South Shore Property wiU be likely be used by the public as park or open
space, SDG&E's requested changes can only improve the public's ability to use and
enjoy coastal resources.
We look forward to the opportunity to continue working with your staff to effect these
important changes.
Very huly yours,
Donald E. Haines
Manager
Land Planning and Natural Resources
cc: Don Neu, City of Carlsbad
Don Rideout, City of Carlsbad
Frm:J. WHALEN & ASSKIATES 619 683 5585 01/22/2003 16:56 #I55 P.002
7050 Friars Road. Suite 202
San Olago. Calllornia
92108-1136
619.683.5544
519,683,5585 FAX
J.WhalenAsroclatos
Balanclng Iha noeds 01 the cnviroomen! wilh :nose 01 businnss.
Ms. Julie Baker, Chair
City of Carlsbad
Planning Commission
1535 Faraday Drive Carlsbad, Caltfornia
92009
RE: Kirgis-Wilson Comments on Proposed Adoption of LCP
Amendment to Implement Habitat Management Plan
Dear Chairwoman Baker;
Thank you for this oppo&ty to comment on the proposed
amendments to the city'^ Local Coastal Program incorporating the California Coastal Commission's (CCC) requested changes to the
Carkbad Habltat Management Plan (HMP). This finn represents Robert Wilson, who plans to build his dream home on a small part of a
20-acre property in the Agua Hedionda area. The sosslled
Kirgis/Wilson property had bea, participating in the HMP process and
had phed to proceed using the plan standards limitlng development
to only 25% of the total land, or about 5 acres out of twenty. Even so, una the recent CCC-quested changes, the parties (US. Fish &
Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish & Game, City of Carlnbad, and the property owner) had agreed to a plan, which was
good for the enviKmment and still permttted Mr. Wileon and his four
friends to plan to build their homes.
Mr. W&on has noted the ongoing discussion6 with the Coastal Commission staff on the HMP with interest and concern. Certain key elements of the original HMP are changed, significantly altering the nature of the HMP in the procesa. The unfortunate precedent set by these major changes to the underlying concepts of the NCCP's, if adopted statswide as Mr. Wilson understands CCC staff intends, will
make it much more unlikely that a coastal city or county would
undertake regional habitat conservation planning if they were not obligated to do so.
As a result of these key changes, Mr. Wilson may no longer have an
economically viable project To specify tho= changes:
/a t'
Frm:J. WHALEN & ASSOCIATES 619 683 5585 01/22/2003 16:s #155 P.003
1) No net loss ofhubifut ncrcugc, not bMtat value, as in the other NCCP
plans, the effect of which is to quh mitigation on top of the already 31 ratio of open space to development area. This requires a property
owner to locate fannland, or some other land in the coastal zone not vegetated with habitat ( an existing home?), acquire it and revegetate it
at enormous cost. In effect, if a property owner cannot restore disturbed areas within their own project, they are faced with double mitigation costa, fimt to buy the land and then to plant it and ensure its
regrowth. An altemative compliance prows war built into the
regulation to allow waivers; wffl this be the only mechanism used due
to the burdensome nature of the standard HMP program?
2) No weditp omite dedicution ofland to open opuce. In the case of
Kirgis/WilscR almost fifteen acres of prime coastal sage scrub and
southem maritime chaparral is supposedly worth nbthing as an offnet
to the development impacts. This is unprecedented in the entire NW
planning arena in San Diep County. B]1 of the other plans, including areas within the coastal zone in the approved city of San Diego MSCP plan, get wdit for onalte dedication of habitat. The no-credit poky
wt~ bandied about before the MSCP was approved, but ultimately was
repcted because a large property owner can sidestep the provision by
withholding the bulk of the property am a remainder. The property
owner cannot legally be compelled to proffer all land when a project proposal comes forward. Only small property ownen are hurt.
3) New md mbitnay buw. There is no scientific basis for these buffers. In fact, the development projects fn the HMP that already have hardlina have buffers built into the agreement. The CCC staff request
is simply duplicative and not supported by conservation biology.
Again, an alternative compliance med\anlsm is proposed to provlde rcllef fmrn the imposition of the arbirkary bufkr standards.
4) An increase in mitigation rutioe beyond those of the approved plans for habitat impacts has no correlatron with conservation biological principles. It only penalizes property owners who have the bad fortune
to be in the coastal zone. A property owner only 100 ket away acrosa El Camino Real may have only a fraction of the mitigation requiremento
of hie neighbor, even if they have the exact same impacts. How can thb
be fa&?
The net cfkct of these changes will be uneconomic projetto for the many who cannot afford the extra mitigation costs and loss of
developable land. The drafters of the LCP amendmenb foresaw this m@tory inverse condemnation coming and built in a shty valve which basically &OW5 for all rules to be waived with the permission of the Coastal Commission staff. Does thia sound like a well-balanced,
/a 5
Frm:J. WHALEN & ASCIATES 619 683 5585 01/22/2003 16% #155 P.004
good plan? Even if it conserves important coastal habitat in Carlsbad,
if no other coastal jurisdiction proceeds with its habitat conservation plans, is the goal of comprehensive regional habitat conservation being
met, or is the opportunity being lost due to regulatory overreach?
Inefficient and onerous as it is, Mr. Wilson may be better off pursuing a
standard ESA section 10 (a) permit under the old and obsolete
permitting method which NCCP has put to rest in most areas of its
implementation. He may have to explore other options. If the FlRnning
Commission decides the benefits of the HMP am no longer worth the
costs, the most severe loss will not be to the property owners, who no
longer would be bound by the HMP strictures. The loss would be to
the native ecosystem of the City of Carlsbad, both within and outside
the coastal zone. With no HMP, there is no money to manage what
land haa already been preserved. If the only habitat premed in
Carlsbad is in the coastal zone, everyone loses because without inland
conservation, coastal conservation is a pointless, even decorative,
procesa.
Something ha8 to give. Mr. Wileon in asking the help of the Carlsbad Planning Commission to unwind the preceding ated amendments and
return the plan to the original HMP, which was supported by the USPWS, CDPG, the City, and the property owners as a workable plan.
Coastal Commission staffers who worked in good faith with the City
Mr. Wileon very much appreciates and supports the efforts of those
staff to craft a workable compromise. Unfortunately, notwithstanding
those good efforts, for Mr. Wilson to comply may be infeasible. If the
City adopts the HMP, therefore, Mr. Wilson will need to immediately
move towardd the alternative compliance mechanism.
Instead, to allow the HMP to attain it6 promise, Mr. Wilson respectfully ash that these changes be made by the planning Commission a6 part of
its approval of the LCP amendments by the City. We look forward to
the opportunity to continue working with your staff to effect these
important changes.
‘9 BrianRegan
* Robert Wilson
S:\JWA\C~lm*\ulfu\ \wW-LCP~~~.Qc -3-
From: Michael Holzmiller
To:
2/4/03 10:12AM
Ray Patchett
Subject:
Date:
HMP Agenda Item for Tonite's Council Meeting
Ray:
to the adoption of the LCPA and whose property is shown as standards areas in the LCPA are currently
negotiating with the city, the wildlife agencies and the Coastal Commission staff to agree on hardline
of the Council Agenda Bill), the hardline boundaries take precedance over the standards. None of the
preserve boundaries. If this is accomplished, per Policy 3.8 of the LCPA(1ocated on handwritten Page 48
property owners will have completed negotiations before tonite's Council meeting but will probably reach
agreement before the LCPA is heard by the Coastal Commission in three months. If agreement is
reached before that time, staff has no objection to including the negotiated hardlines into the present
concurs with this approach, the action would be to authorize staff at tonite's meeting to include any LCPA rather than making the property owner do a separate, follow-up LCPA at a later time. If the Council
negotiated hardline boundaries for the standards properties identified in the LCPA if the negotiations are
concluded prior to consideration of the item by the California Coastal Commission. Staff discussed this with Coastal Commission staff this morning and they agree with this approach.
As was mentioned in the Council briefings yesterday, several of the property owners who are objecting
cc: Don Rideout; Jane Mobaldi; Ron Ball; Sandra Holder
Encinitas Ranch Company, L.P.
February 4,2003
City Council
City of Carlsbad
Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad ,California
Re: LCPA 02-10/EIR 97-01 ADDENDUM/ DI 02-01 (HMP ADDENDUM #2)- HABITAT MANAGEMENT
PLAN
City Council Hearing February 4,2003
Dear Mayor Lewis and Members of the Council:
We are the owners of APN 21 1-040-33-00, a parcel of approximately 15 acres located east of the Costco Store
and south of Palomar Airport Road. A significant portion of the property is wetland.
However, approximately 3 acres has been consistently identified in the general plan as planned indushial uses,
and the City has imposed assessments for roads etc. on the property based on such designation. The property
freeway. We believe that these uses are within 100' of the wetlands.
also includes major sewer and water easements for the various agencies connecting to the facilities west of the
The language of the proposed HMP at section 7-1.12 requires that "___ buffer of lesser width shall require
sufficient information to determine that a buffer of lesser width will protect the identified resource." Given the
existing use of the land, and prior determinations by this Council and the Coastal Commission of the
public utilities will no longer be permissible. It does not appear that the language contemplates a process or
requirements for protection, it appears likely that the entire use of the property, including the existing major
standards, which will avoid such a taking of the land by this action.
If we are correct in our understanding of the language and process in the HMP, then we believe that
compensation for the loss will be both necessary and appropriate should the Council adopt the HMP in the form
submitted. We urge the Council to amend if necessary to provide a realistic process to avoid a "take " of the
property and the key public utility easement
Very Truly Yours,
Encinitas Ranch Comuanv. LP
By: Carltas Company, General Partner 1 ,I By: Carltas Company, General Partner 1 ,I
Christopher C. Calkins, President
CCCISO
CC: Raymond R. Patchett, City Manager
Lorraine M. Wood, City Clerk
Ronald R. Ball, City Attorney
John C. White, President-Carltas Development Company
5600 Avenida Encinas - Suite 100 - Carlsbad, California 92008452 U.S.A. Telephae: (760) 431-5Mx) Fax (760) 431-9020
.-.
PETERSON & PRICE
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
LAWYERS
.,."-.l~.""" _I_"""-
Union Bank of California Building
San Diego, California 92101-4454
530 "B" Street, Suite 1700
Telephone (619) 234-0361
Fax (619) 234-4786
703 Palomar Airport Road
Carlsbad. California 92009-1042
Suite 200
Telephone (760) 929-1920
fax (760) 929-2206
OF mUNSEL PAULA. PETERSON
~~~~~ File No. 6146.001
February 3,2003
Mayor Claude A. "Bud" Lewis and
Members of the City Council
City Of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989
Re: Tuesday, February 4, 2003
Habitat Management Plan LCPA 02-10/EIR 97-01
Addendum/DI 02-01 (HMP Addendum #2)
Dear Mayor Lewis and Members of the City Council:
We represent Larry Krasnow and his family and Bob Kevane and his family with
regard to the above referenced matter.
Our clients own four (4) legal lots that comprise approximately 20 acres. The
property is zoned R-1 and is located immediately east of Ambrosia Lane and to the west
of Skimmer Court within LCP Segment Section Mello I1 (see attached Tab 1). Our
clients have owned these 4 lots for over 30 years and have been, for the last 10 years,
attempting to subdivide the property for development. In fact, over the last 7 years
they have spent an extensive amount of time and money in negotiating with the US.
Mayor Claude A. "Bud" Lewis and
Members of The City Council
February 3, 2003
Page 2
Fish & Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish & Game, and the City of
Carlsbad to effectuate a "Hard Line" for the Habitat Management Plan ('HMP") which
would limit the amount of development on the site. This Hard Line was scientifically
developed based upon specific biological mapping and surveys and in negotiations with
the US. Fish & Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish & Game. This
Hard Line preserves the Oaks and a wildlife corridor through the center of the property
(see attached copy of the approved Hard Line Figure 25 from the City of Carlsbad
Habitat Management Plan dated December 1999 -Tab 2). As a result of the Hard Line
that was approved by the City and the Agencies in December of 1999, our clients
designed a subdivision which would have accommodated the wildlife corridor and would
have achieved approximately 46 dwelling units.
Recently, the California Coastal Commission Staff has taken a very aggressive
stance concerning the HMP and has indicated that unless the City complies with all of
the Coastal Commission Staff's demands, that the Coastal Commission Staff will not
recommend certification of the Plan to the California Coastal Commission.
As a result of the Coastal Commission Staff recommendations, unfortunately our
clients have lost the right to develop 75% of their property, including 2 of their 4 lots!
Mayor Claude A. "Bud" Lewis and
Members of The City Council
February 3, 2003
Page 3
The Staff recommended policies (that were dictated by the Coastal Commission
Staff) for our clients' property restrict development to a maximum of 25% of the site
and do not allow any development on the easterly 2 lots. This criteria was not based
upon biological constraints. In fact, Caitlin Bean, the HCP/NCCP Coordinator and staff
biologist for the State of California Coastal Commission (from Santa Cruz, California)
recently visited the site on January 13, 2003 with our clients. Ms. Bean concurs with
both of the projects' independent biologists representing the owners, that the site does
not contain southern maritime chaparral, but rather has been appropriately categorized
as chamise chaparral. These very restrictive development standards as contained
within the Staff Report as Policy No. 3-8.14, clearly result in a taking of private property
without just compensation. Development would be economically infeasible based upon
the cost of the roads, infrastructure and other permitting fees associated with the
construction of the project.
Our clients do not believe it is appropriate or fair that the HMP should result in a
taking of three-quarters of our clients' private property for public open space.
Finally, we have reviewed Negative Declaration (Resolution No. 5360) for the
LCP Amendment and HMP Addendum No. 2 and find that it has not been prepared in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The implementation of Staff's
Mayor Claude A. "Bud" Lewis and
Members of The City Council
February 3, 2003
Page 4
recommendation would physically divide an established community. Our clients'
property is an infill site virtually surrounded by development. Further, it would conflict
with the applicable Land Use Plans, Policies and Regulations which allow for residential
development on this property in accordance with the standards associated with the R-1
zoning.
Further, we believe that the adoption of these standards as it relates to our
clients' property will result in cumulative impacts to the City's housing needs. None of
the above referenced items were considered or addressed within the Negative
Declaration prepared for the HMP. As such, we assert that the environmental
documentation for the adoption of this HMP and Amendment to the Local Coastal Plan
is inadequate and does not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.
Based upon all the above, we would respectfully request that the City Council
incorporate our clients' Compromise Proposal into the HMP which they have forwarded
to you for your consideration. You will note that this Compromise Proposal provides for
significantly more open space preservation than the originally negotiated Hard Line.
This reduced proposal will result in a project that is economically viable and fair given
the very long history that our clients have been attempting to develop their property.
Mayor Claude A. ”Bud” Lewis and
Members of The City Council
February 3, 2003
Page 5
Should you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
PETERSON & PRICE
A Professional Corporation
Matthew A. Peterson
Enclosures
cc: Ray Patchett, City Manager
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director
Ron Ball, City Attorney
Lorraine Wood, City Clerk
Larry Krasnow
Bob Kevane
(All with copy of enclosures)
1
Location of Kevane Property Within
the City of Carlsbad Zoning Map
2
Encinitas Ranch Company, L.P.
February 4,2003
City Council
City of Carlsbad
Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad ,California
Re: LCPA 02-10EIR 97-01 ADDENDUM/ DI 02-01 (HMP ADDENDUM #2)- HABITAT MANAGEMENT
PLAN
City Council Hearing February 4,2003
Dear Mayor Lewis and Members of the Council:
We are the owners of APN 21 1-040-33-00, a parcel of approximately 15 acres located east of the Costco Store
and south of Palomar Airport Road. A significant portion of the property is wetland.
I
However, approximately 3 acres has been consistently identified in the general plan as planned industrial uses,
and the City has imposed assessments for roads etc. on the property based on such designation. The property
also includes major sewer and water easements for the various agencies connecting to the facilities west of the
freeway. We believe that these uses are within 100' of the wetlands.
The language of the proposed HMP at section 7-1.12 requires that ".. . buffer of lesser width shall require
sufficient information to determine that a buffer of lesser width will protect the identified resource." Given the
existing use of the land, and prior determinations by this Council and the Coastal Commission of the
requirements for protection, it appears likely that the entire use of the property, including the existing major
public utilities will no longer be permissible. It does not appear that the language contemplates a process or
standards, whch will avoid such a taking of the land by this action.
If we are correct in our understanding of the language and process in the HMP, then we believe that
compensation for the loss will be both necessary and appropriate should the Council adopt the HMP in the form
submitted. We urge the Council to amend if necessary to provide a realistic process to avoid a "take " of the
property and the key public utility easement
Very Truly Yours,
Encinitas Ranch Company, LP
By: Carltas Company, General Partner I
Christopher C. Calkins, President
ccc/so I
CC: Raymond R. Patchett, City Manager
Ronald R. Ball, City Attorney
Lorraine M. Wood, City Clerk
John C. White, President-Carltas Development Company
5600 Avenida Encinas - Suite 100 - Carlsbad, California 92008-4452 U.S.A.
' Telephone: (760) 43 1-5600 Fax (760) 43 1-9020
1
L
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
All-hfisk
cmmuNy r/
Date&,aw-m
FottheInforrmdIanofthe:
RESOLUTION NO. 2003 038
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR A LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT AND AN ADDENDUM TO THE HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN AND APPROVING SAID LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT AND ADDENDUM TO THE
HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN TO ADD HABITAT
DEVELOPED PROPERTIES IN THE COASTAL ZONE. CASE NAME: HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
CASE NO.: LCPA 02-10IDI 02-01 (HMP ADDENDUM #2)
CONSERVATION STANDARDS TO REMAINING UN-
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning
Commission did, on January 22, 2003, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law
to consider a Negative Declaration, Local Coastal Program Amendment, and Addendum to the
Habitat Management Plan and recommended their approval; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the
day of , 2003, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said
Negative Declaration, Local Coastal Program Amendment, and Addendum to the Habitat
Management Plan and at that time received recommendations, objections, protests, and
comments from all persons fnterested in or opposed to LCPA 02-10 and Dl 02-01 (Addendum
#2 to Habitat Management Plan).
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does
hereby resolve as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct,
2. That the findings of the Planning Commission as contained in Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 5360, 5361 and 5362 are incorporated herein by. reference and
are the findings of the City Council.
3. That the Negative Declaration is adopted as shown in Planning Commission
Resolution No. 5360, 'on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference.
4. That the amendment to the Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 02-10) is
approved as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5361, on file with the City Clerk and
incorporated herein by reference. In addition, staff is authorized to include any hardline
boundaries negotiated prior to consideration of the Amendment by the California Coastal
Commission. .
//I
I .-
I
1
1
L
C -
c
7
E
c
la
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
J
..
26
27
28
5. That the Addendum to the Habitat Management Plan (Dl gZ-01 Addendum #2) i: approved as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5362, on file 'with the City Clerk ant
incorporated herein by reference.
6. That the approval of LCPA 02-10 shall not become effective until it is approvet by the California Coastal Commission and the Habitat Management Plan is given final approva
by an Incidental Take Permit issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City oi
Carlsbad on the ~ day of , 2003, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST
LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-2-
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public
hearing at the City Council Chambers at 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at
6:OO p.m. on Tuesday, February 4, 2003, to consider a request for an amendment to the City’s
Local Coastal Program (LCP) by amending three LCP segments (Mello II, Mello I and Agua
Hedionda) to add habitat conservation standards to remaining undeveloped properties in the
Coastal Zone, approving an Addendum to the previously certified Environmental Impact Report
(EIR 97-01) for the City’s Municipal Golf Course and Dl 02-01, adding an addendum (#2) to the
City’s Draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP) to incorporate the additional standards, and
adopting a Negative Declaration for the additional standards.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after January 31, 2003. If you have
any questions, please call Don Rideout in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4602.
If you challenge the amendment to the City’s Local Coastal Program, the addendum to the
previously certified Environmental Impact Report for the City’s Municipal Golf Course, the
addition of an addendum (#2) to the City’s Draft Habitat Management Plan to incorporate the
additional standards and/or the Negative Declaration for the additional standards in court, you
may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn:
City Clerk’s Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public
hearing.
CASE FILE: LCPA O2-IO/ElR 97-01 ADDENDUM/DI 02-01 (HMP ADDENDUM #2)
CASE NAME: HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
PUBLISH: MONDAY, JANUARY 20,2003
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public
hearing at the City Council Chambers at 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at
6:OO p.m. on Tuesday, February 4, 2003, to consider a request for an amendment to the City’s
Local Coastal Program (LCP) by amending three LCP segments (Mello II, Mello I and Agua
Hedionda) to add habitat conservation standards to remaining undeveloped properties in the
Coastal Zone, approving an Addendum to the previously certified Environmental Impact Report
(EIR 97-01) for the City’s Municipal Golf Course and Dl 02-01, adding an addendum (#2) to the
City’s Draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP) to incorporate the additional standards, and
adopting a Negative Declaration for the additional standards.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after January 31, 2003. If you have
any questions, please call Don Rideout in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4602.
If you challenge the amendment to the City’s Local Coastal Program, the addendum to the
previously certified Environmental Impact Report for the City’s Municipal Golf Course, the
addition of an addendum (#2) to the City’s Draft Habitat Management Plan to incorporate the
additional standards and/or the Negative Declaration for the additional standards in court, you
may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn:
City Clerk’s Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public
hearing.
CASE FILE: LCPA O2-IO/ElR 97-01 ADDENDUM/DI 02-01 (HMP ADDENDUM #2)
CASE NAME: HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
PUBLISH: MONDAY, JANUARY 20,2003
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
JFIN-16-2883 16:19 UNION-TRIBUNE
COPLEY NEWSPAPER8
TELECOPIER TRANSMISSION COVER PAGE
619 293 2430 P.01/02
From: Gwen Watson
Telephone #: (619) 293-1460
Fax #: (61 9) 297-6081
ma Add res:
Union -Tribune Publishing Co.
Legal Advertising - Gwen .
P.O. Box 120191
San Diego, CA 921 12 '
366 43Ccdik7 ehysi'cal Addrw:
Telephone #: 350 Carnino de la Reina
lbo 7LU &9L7 San Diego, CA 92108
Fax #:
# of Pages: (including this one)
This is a copy of y u d ertisement. Please proof and advise me of,any
changes by A.$+1Y 'today:
This is an enlarged proof.. The original measures a &I&kWLG 61/ lo l&
I
The date(s). for publication is (are)
The total cost for publishing is:
PREPAYMENT IS REQUIRED UNLESS,YOU HAVE AN ESTABLISHED
ACCOUNT WITH US. NO PROCESSING'OF LEGAL ADS ON THURSDAY
AFTERNOON AND ALL DAY FRIDAY.
360 CAMINO DE LA REINA.
P.O. BOX IRI, SAN DIE~O, CALIFORNIA ea11e-4108
TELEPHONE 619-a99-313¶
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public
hearing at the City Council Chambers at 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at
6:OO p.m. on Tuesday, February 4, 2003, to consider a request for an amendment to the City’s
Local Coastal Program (LCP) by amending three LCP segments (Mello II, Mello I and Agua
Hedionda) to add habitat conservation standards to remaining undeveloped properties in the
Coastal Zone, approving an Addendum to the previously certified Environmental Impact Report
(EIR 97-01) for the City’s Municipal Golf Course and Dl 02-01, adding an addendum (#2) to the
City’s Draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP) to incorporate the additional standards, and
adopting a Negative Declaration for the additional standards.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after January 31, 2003. If you have
any questions, please call Don Rideout in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4602.
If you challenge the amendment to the City’s Local Coastal Program in court, you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described
in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the
public hearing.
CASE FILE: LCPA 02-IO/EIR 97-01 ADDENDUMlDlO2-01 (HMP ADDENDUM #2)
CASE NAME: HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
PUBLISH: [DATE]
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
Smooth Feed SheetsfM Use template for 510CF
CARLSBAD UNlF SCHOOL DIST CITY OF ENClNlTAS
801 PINE AVE 505 S VULCAN AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008 ENClNlTAS CA 92024
CITY OF OCEANSIDE CITY OF VISTA
300 NORTH COAST HWY PO BOX 1988
OCEANSIDE CA 92054 VISTA CA 92085
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE STE 100 SAN DIEGO CA 92123 9174 SKY PARK CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE
6010 HIDDEN VALLEY RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY
SERVICES
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
MICHAEL HOLZMILLEWDON
RIDEOUT
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DlST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
STE 103
7575 METROPOLITAN DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STE B
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
SANDAG
STE 800
401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
I.P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
DEPT
01/14/2003
AVERY@ Address Labels Laser 5160@
Smooth Feed SheetsfM
MURPHY HOWARD F TRUST 10-06-
' 89
400 N LA COSTA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92009
REDEEMER BY THE SEA
LUTHERANCHURCHOFC
6355 CORTE DEL ABET0 #lo0
CARLSBAD CA 92009
RUDVALIS JOSEPH A&BARBARA
G TRS
P 0 BOX 130665
CARLSBAD CA 92013
STANDARD PACIFIC CORP
5750 FLEET ST #200
CARLSBAD CA 92008
TABATA FAMILY TRUST 01-14-83
P 0 BOX 943
CARLSBAD CA 9201 8
TOMLINSON FRANK N&CARMA J
P 0 BOX 2577
CAPISTRANO BEACH CA 92624
YAMAMOTO ADOLFINA C TR
1201 VIA LA JOLLA
SAN CLEMENTE CA 92672
BOB LADWIG
SUITE 300
703 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
ALI SHAPOURI
SHAPOURI AND ASSOCIATES
P 0 BOX 676221
RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067-
6221
JIM WHALEN
SUITE 202
7050 FRIARS ROAD
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108
NAKADA TRUST 10-02-01
1 MAHOGANY RUN
COT0 DE CAZA CA 92679
REITER TERRY R&MARGARET E
6 SADDLEBACK RD
PALOS VERDES PENINSULA CA
90274
SAN DIEGO GAS&ELECTRIC CO
MAILSTOP E
P 0 BOX 1831
SAN. DIEGO CA 921 12
PLANNING SYSTEMS
SUITE 100
1530 FARADAY AVENUE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
TABATA ISOKAZU
P 0 BOX 943
CARLSBAD CA 9201 8
V I P PARTNERS
3532 DONNA DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JACK HENTHORN
SUITE A
5365 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92008
JAMES E WHALEN PRESENT
J WHALEN ASSOCIATES
4517 SANTA MONICA AVENUE
SAN DIEGO CA 921 07-2905
JIM HICKS
SUITE 102
675 SIERRA ROSE DRIVE
RENO NV 8951 1
RUTH LOVE
SDG&E
HQ5
101 ASH
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
Use template for me;
NAMIKAS MATTHEW TRUST 08-23-
73 ET AL
1555 SANTA SABINA CT
SOLANA BEACH CA 92075
REITER TERRY&M
SARKARIA DALJIT S&ELAINE
P 0 BOX 5766
ORANGE CA 92863
STEWARD GLEN
2541 RUDDER RD
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
THOMPSON DAVID B&KAREN R
REVOCABLE TRUST
P 0 BOX 130758
CARLSBAD CA 9201 3
WINTER RAY R&CONSTANCE L M
REVOCABLE TRU
1909 MEADOW RD
WALNUT CREEK CA 94595
BILL HOFMAN
SUITE 150
5900 PASTEUR COURT
CARLSBAD CA 92008
ALI SHASHANI
P.O. BOX 18197
IRVINE CA 92623
ALI SHAPOURI
P.O. BOX 676221
RANCHO SANTA FE, CA 92067
BOB GOURLEY
501 50 lST AVENUE
ARCADIA, CA 91006
@AVERY@ Address Labels Laser 5 160@
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
BANK-OF COMMERCE TR
P 0 BOX 85410
SAN DIEGO CA 921 86
I A D J HOLDINGS L L C
C/O ARlE DEJONG
622 E MISSION RD
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
BAKER WILLIAM&DONNA M
FAMILY TRUST
18552 ERWIN ST
RESEDA CA 91 335
BOLTON GEORGE R
6519 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CALVARY CHAPEL NO COAST
71 88 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92009
BCS PROGRAM L - 2
NEWPORT FINANCIAL CENTER
1303 AVOCADO AVE
NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660
DAYBREAK COMMUNITY CHURCH
2270 CAMINO VlDA ROBLE #M
CARLSBAD CA 92009
CAMERON LAIRD&CATHERINE A
1252 PALMA VISTA CT
ESCONDIDO CA 92025
CARDOSA MICHAEL J&NANCY C
6579 BLACK RAIL RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LARRY JETT
LANlKAl MANAGEMENT
1815 ASTON AVENUE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
DELGUIDICE DAVID&VERA
34 MANATEE WAY
CRAWFORDVILLE FL 32327
GlLLlGAN MICHAEL J
4465 ADAMS ST
CARLSBAD CA 92008
GALLAGHER JOSEPH A
C/O MSK DEVELOPMENT GROUP
5142 AVENIDA ENCINAS #D
CARLSBAD CA 92008
FERNANDEZ VICTORIA TR P 0 BOX 395
CARDIFF CA 92007
GREEN FAMILY TRUST 10-08-97
1565 HOTEL CIR S #390
SAN DIEGO CA 921 08
HIDALGO ERNEST M
13422 PENN ST
WHllTlER CA 90602
HIEATT FAMILY LIVING TRUST 04-
18-90
P 0 BOX 9672
RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067
KEVANE ROBERT F&CHERYL L
8480 LA MESA BLVD
LA MESA CA 91941
HUBER FAMILY TRUST 08-01-02
6407 EL PAT0 CT
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KELLY LAND CO
C/O D LARRY CLEMENS
201 1 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD #206
CARLSBAD CA 92009
LYNN WILLIAM R&CANDACE C
6575 BLACK RAIL RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
KlRGlS 1996 TRUST
4452 HOCKADAY DR
DALLAS TX 75229
LEVATINO JOSEPH V&NOREEN L
1983 TRUST
22121 MALIBU LN
HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646
MALDONADO DAVID&OLIVIA
1590 BASSWOOD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MANZANITA PARTNERS L L C
1155 CUCHARA DR
DEL MAR CA 92014
MELLGREN FLORENCE L
P 0 BOX 1861
CARLSBAD CA 9201 8
MUROYA FAMILY TRUST 05-18-98
P 0 BOX 131016
CARLSBAD CA 9201 3
MlTSUUCHl BYPASS TRUST
C/O NANCY M MlTSUUCHl
9 SUNLIGHT
IRVINE CA 92715
MOORE GUY S JR EST OF
C/O GENEVA M J MOORE
183 3RD AVE #626
CHULA VISTA CA 91 910
aAVERY@ Address Labels Laser 5 160@
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 516P
.JIM BOERER
535 NORTH HIGHWAY 191
SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075
STUART FISK
SUITE 150
5900 PASTEUR COURT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
SERGIO MALDONADO
1590 BASSWOOD AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
MARC PERLMAN
4275 CEDROS AVENUE
SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075
JOHN MARTIN
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE
6010 HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
KERl AKERS
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SUITE 103 7575 METROPOLITAN DRIVE
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108
MARIANNE HIRSCHBERG
371 9 BENNINGTON COURT
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ALI SHASHANI
P.O. BOX 181 97
IRVINE, CA 92693
DAVID MALDONADO
1590 BASSWOOD AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
TOM JONES
P.O. BOX 2740
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
LEE ANNCARRANZA
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
6010 HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD
@AVERY@ Address Labels
ALLISON ROLFER
SAN DIEGO AUDOBON
SUITE 11 2
4891 PACIFIC HIGHWAY
SAN DIEGO, CA 92110
JOHN TOMLINSON
P.O. BOX 759
BREA, CA 92822
JACK HENTHORN
SETH SCHULBERG
1530 FARADAY AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
BILL TIPPETS
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
FISH & GAME
4949 VIEWRIDGE AVENUE
SAN DIEGO, CA 92123
Laser 5 140@
* CALTRANS DISTRICT 11
BILL FIGGE
MAIL ST 50
P 0 BOX 85406
SAN DIEGO CA 92186-5406
REG WATER QUALITY CONTROL BD
STE 100
9174 SKY PARK CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMIN WESTERN REG BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
PO BOX 92007 2800 COTTAGE WAY
LOS ANGELES CA 90009 SACRAMENTO CA 95825
BARRY BRAYER, AWP-8 RONALD M JAEGER
BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION & HSG AGENCY CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK
PATRICIA W NEAL DEPUTY SEC HOUSING SUPERINTENDENT
STE 2450 1901 SPINNAKER DR
980 NINTH ST SAN BUENA VENTURA CA 93001
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
COASTAL CONSERVANCY
STE I1 00
1330 BROADWAY
OAKLAND CA 94612
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
GARY RESOURCE CONSER
STE 102
DAVIS CA 95616
2121-C SECOND ST
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
CHAIRMAN
722 JACKSON PL NW
WASHINGTON DC 20006
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
LOS ANGELES DlST ENGINEER
PO BOX 271 1
LOS ANGELES CA 90033
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
CLIFFORD EMMERLING, DIR
STE 350
901 MARKET ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
STE 400
61 1 RYAN PLAZA DR
ARLINGTON TX 7601 1-4005
DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIV
P 0 BOX 944246
SACRAMENTO CA 94244-2460
DEPARTMENT OF FOOD & AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
STEVE SHAFFER, AGRICULTURE RESOURCES DOUG WICKIZER, ENVIR COORD
RM 100 P 0 BOX 944246
1220 N ST SACRAMENTO CA 94244-2460
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
DUNCAN LENT HOWARD, REG ADMIN DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
450 GOLDEN GATE AV RM 700
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102 IIOWESTAST
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RM 5504
1120 N ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
ENERGY RESOURCES, CONSERVATION &
DEVELOPMENT COMM
CHUCK NAJARIAN
1516 NINTH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
* MARINE RESOURCES REGION, DR & G
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, SPR
350 GOLDEN SHORE
LONG BEACH CA 90802
NATIONAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC
ADMIN OCRM,55MC4
NlORM - 3
1305 EAST-WEST HWY
SILVER SPRING MD 20910
OFFICE OF PLANNING & RESEARCH
OFFICE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
PO BOX 3044
SACRAMENTO CA 93044
SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION &
DEVMT COMMISSION
BILL TRAVIS
STE 2600
50 CALIFORNIA ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 941 11-4704
STATE LANDS COMMISSION
DWIGHT SANDERS
STE 1005
100 HOWE AV
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-8202
U S BUREAU OF LAND MGMT
STE RM W 1834
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
U S BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
MID-PACIFIC REGION
U S FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE
2800 COTTAGE WAY
STE W-2605
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-1 888
* U S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
LILY ALYEA
STE 702
333 MARKET ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105-2197
WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BD
PO BOX 100
SACRAMENTO CA 95801
SANDAG-LAND USE COMMISS
NAN VALERIO
STE 800
401 "B" STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
USDA - RURAL DEVELOPMENT
DEPT 41 69
430 "G" ST
DAVIS CA 95616
CALIFORNIA RESOURCES AGENCIES
STE 131 1
1416 9TH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
. CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
JAN SOBEL
5934 PRIESTLY DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
REG.WATER QUALITY CONTROL BD
STE 100
9174 SKY PARK CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340
CITY OF ENCINITAS .
COM DEV DEPT
505 S VULCAN AV
ENCINITAS CA 92024
SANDAG-EXEC DIRECTOR
GARY GALLEGOS
STE 800
IST INT'L PLAZA 401 "B" ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
LESLIE ESPOSITO
1893 AMELFI DR
ENCINITAS CA 92024
ANTHONY & DICKY BONS
25709 HILLCREST AV
ESCONDIDO CA 92026-8650
U S FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE
JOHN MARTIN
6010 HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD
CARLSBAD CA 92009-
TABATA FARMS
PO BOX 1338
CARLSBAD CA 9201 8-1 338
SIERRA CLUB S D CHAPTER
CRAIG. ADAMS
3820 RAY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
CYRIUMARY GIBSON
12142 ARGYLE DR
LOS ALAMITOS CA 90702
a LAKESHORE GARDENS
BILL McLEAN
7201 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92009
JOHN LAMB
1446 DEVLIN DR
LOS ANGELES CA 90069
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC
KIM BLESSANT
101 ASH STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101-
COUNTY OF SD SUPERVISOR BILL HORN
ART DANELL
RM 335
1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
S D CO PLANNING & LAND USE DEPT
JAON VOKAC
5201 RUFFIN ROAD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
STE 8-5
LANIKAI LANE PARK -
SHARP SPACE 3
6550 PONTO DRIVE
CARLSBAD CA 92008
STATE LANDS COMMISSION
MARY GRIGGS
STE 100 S
100 HOWE AV
SACRAMENTO CA 95825-8202
PERRY A LAMB
890 MERE POINT RD
BRUNSWICK ME 04011
CRA PRESIDENT
LEE ANDERSON
5200 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92008
* COASTAL CONSERVANCY
RICHARD RETECKI
STE 1100
1330 BROADWAY
OAKLAND CA 9461 2
DALE/DONNA SCHREIBER
7163 ARGONAUTA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
FLOYD ASHBY
416 LA COSTA AV
ENClNlTAS CA 92024
GEORGE BOLTON
6583 BLACKRAIL RD
CARLSBAD CA 92009
@
CITY OF CARLSBAD
163 5 FARADAY AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
ATTN: JANICE BREITENFELD
STATE OF CALIFORNIA} ss.
County of San Diego}
The Undersigned, declares under
penalty of perjury under the laws of the
State of California: That .... She is a
resident of the County of San Diego.
THAT .... She is and at all times herein mentioned
was a citizen of the United States, over the age of
twenty-one years, and that .......... She is not a
party to, nor interested in the above entitled
matter; that .... She is ................................ Chief
Clerk for the publisher of .....................
The San Diego Union-Tribune
a newspaper of general circulation, printed and
published daily in the City of San Diego, County
of San Diego, and wbch newspaper is published
for the dissemination of local news and
intelligence of a general character, and which
newspaper at all the times herein mentioned had
and still Kas a bona fide subscription list of
paying subscribers, and which newspaper has
been established, printed and published at regular
intervals in the said City of San Diego, County of
San Diego, for a period exceeding one year next
preceding the date of publication of the notice
hereinafter referred to, and which newspaper is
not devoted to nor published for the interests,
entertainment or instruction of a particular class,
profession, ,trade, calling, race, or denomination,
or any number of same; that the notice of which
the annexed is a printed copy, has been published
in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper
and not in any supplement thereof on the
following date, to-wit:
JANUARY 20.2003
'h6kation
Affidavit of Publication of
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City
Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a
public hearing at the City Council Chambers
at 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad,
California, at 6:OO p.m. on Tuesday, February
4, 2003, to consider a request for an amend-
ment to the C%.y!s Lcxal Co"-
(LCP) by amending three LCP segments
(Mello 11, Mello I and Agua Hedionda) to add
habitat conservation standards to remaining
undeveloped properties in the Coastal Zone,
approving an Addendum to the previously
certified Environmental Impact Report (Em
97-01) for the City's Municipal Golf Course
and DI 02-01, adding an addendum (#2) to the
City's Draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP)
to incorporate the additional standards, and
adopting a Negative Declaration for the addi-
tional standards.
Those persons wishing to speak on this pro-
posal are cordially invited to attend the pub-
lic hearing. Copies of the staff report will be
available on and after January 31, 2003. If
you have any questions, please call Don
Rideout in the Planning Department at (760)
602-4602.
If you challenge the amendment to the
City's Local Coastal Program, the addendum
to the previously certified Environmental
Impact Report for the City's Municipal Golf
Course, the addition of an addendum (#2) to
the City's Draft Habitat Management Plan to
incorporate the additional standards and/or
the Negative Decldration for the additional
standards in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else
raised at the pubpc hearing described in this
notice or in written correspondence delivered
to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk's
Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad,
CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE:LCPA 02-10/EIR 97-01 ADDENDUM/DI
02-01 (HMP ADDENDUM #2)
b CASE NAME:HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
PUBLISH: MONDAY, JANUARY 20, 2003
PROOF OF PUBLIC- .TION This space is * the County Clerk's Filing Stamp -
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the
above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of
the printer of Proof of Publication of
North County Time
Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen anc
Times-Advocate and which newspapers havc
adjudicated newspapers of general circulati
the Superior Court of the County of San 1
State of California, for the County of San 1
that the notice of which the annexed is a
copy (set in type not smaller than nonparie:
been published in each regular and entire is
said newspaper and not in any supplement t
on the following dates, to-wit:
JANUARY 20,2003
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjuI
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at SAN MARCOS, Cali]
this 20TH
of JANUARY, 2003
Signature
uideveloped properties in the Coastal Zone, approvin an Addendum to the reviousl certified Environmental &I pact Report (EIR 97-01ffor the 6i s Munici al plf Course and DI 02-01 , addin$an addendwnK2) to theby s Draft Habitat Man ement lan (HMP) to inco rate the additional standards, and %opting a Negative Declararrn for the additional standards.
nose rsons wishing to s ak on this proposal are corw invited% attend the ublicqearin Co ies of the staff rep$ will be available on and &er January 81 2833. If ou have any ues- tions, lease call Don Rideout in the blanning Jepartment atb601
If you challenge the amendment to the City's .heal Coastal Program the addendum to the previously ceded Environmental Impact & rt for the Ciiy's Munid al Golf Course, the addition oj an .adden& (#2 to the City's Dr & Habitat MTt Plan ta rate the a ditional standards and/or the N ative Declara- the additional standards in court, ou may limited to raking only those issues you or someone eL raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad Attn: Ci Clerk's OfBce, 1200
public h& Carlsbad Vill e Drive, Carlsbad, CA 9200 ?i , at or.prior to the
602-&2.
d
CASEFrn LCPA 02-10 EIR 97-01 ADDENDUM/DI 02-01 (HMP ADDAUM #2)
CASENAME: HABITAT MANAGEMENT PIAN
PUBLISH, MONDAY, JANUARY 20,2003
CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
1
STaTE OF CALIFORNIA -THE RESOURCES AGENCY -
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SAN DIEGO. CA 921084402
(619) 767-2370 For Information of tbc:
SAN DIEGO AREA
751s METROPOUTAN DRIVE, SUITE 103
All Receive
CITY COUNCIL
August 3,2001
Michael Holzmiller
Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008-73 14
RE: Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan and Golf Course
Dear Mr. Holzmiller:
Coastal Commission staff have reviewed Mr. Martin Orenyak’s letter of May 14,2001,
regarding the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP) and the proposed City golf
course that is currently before the Commission on appeal of the City’s approval of a
coastal development permit. We have conducted a detailed review of the draft HMP and
the golf course plans, and have met several times with City staff to discuss our concerns
about potential adverse impacts to coastal zone resources. We appreciate the City’s
commitment to work with the Commission and the extensive effort expended in the
preparation of the HMF’. We offer the following information to assist you in modifying
this plan in a manner that is feasible, meets the City’s needs and ensures protection of
coastal resources consistent with the requirements of California’s federally approved
coastal management program &e., the Coastal Act). Our comments are based upon the
draft HMP dated December 2000. Although we recently learned that a revised draft plan
was released for public review in June 2001, we were not informed of the release nor
provided with a copy of the document for our review; therefore, our review and
comments may require some revision if substantive changes have been made in the
current public review draft.
Current Status of HMP, LCP and the Coastal Environment
When meeting with Commission staff, the City expressed frustration with the
Commission’s review and comments concerning the proposed golf course and the HMP,
and stated that the Commission should have been involved in the HMP process at an
earlier stage. Although Commission staff was aware that the HMP was being prepared,
the City has had a fully certified local coastal program (LCP) in place since 198 1, and we
assumed that the HMP would be developed in a way that would strengthen the existing
LCP land use and habitat protection requirements. We did not anticipate that the City
would adopt a plan that conflicts with the provisions of the certified LCP which is, after
all, the operative and controlling land use regulatory mechanism under the law. If the
City had wanted to make substantive changes to its certified LCP to reflect provisions
being considered in the evolving HMP, the City could have sought specific consultation
1
Michael Holzmiller
August 3,2001
Page 2
and direction from Commission staff as to how such provisions could best be
incorporated into the LCP. Unfortunately, as currently proposed, the HMP and golf
course design would allow adverse land use impacts to natural slopes and wetlands that
are clearly inconsistent with the certified LCP, and that do not meet Coastal Act
requirements for the protection of environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHAs).
Since the City’s LCP was certified twenty years ago, many important changes have
occurred affecting the status of coastal habitats and the species that depend on their
integrity. There have also been changes in the laws governing environmental
stewardship and ecosystem protection. In 199 1 , the California Natural Communities
Conservation Planning (NCCP) program was established, with a pilot program to protect
coastal sage scrub (CSS) communities in Southern California that provide habitat for the
California gnatcatcher. In 1993, the California gnatcatcher was listed as threatened under
the federal Endangered Species Act. Recent court rulings, particularly Bolsa Chica Land
Trust v. Superior Court (1999) 7 1 Cal.App.4” 493, have strengthened Coastal Act
protections of ESHAs and have confirmed the Commission’s responsibility to protect
ESHA as it exists on the ground, resulting in higher levels of ESHA protection than
commonly provided in many older LCPs. Finally, the City is currently transitioning a
number of formerly agricultural properties from a holding zone (Limited Control/LC) to
zones that allow urban development. These LC properties comprise much of the
remaining undeveloped land in the City’s coastal zone, and contain valuable habitat,
some of which is ESHA. It is clear that the City’s LCP should be amended and updated
to address these and other issues, and should be amended to incorporate the proposed
HMP to the extent that it affects coastal zone resources which are protected pursuant to
the Coastal Act.
Even if the City elects not to incorporate the HMP into its LCP, the Commission should
be included in the list of reviewing agencies, in order to ensure consistency with the LCP
and Coastal Act requirements and to provide a mechanism for interagency cooperation, at
least to the extent that coastal zone resources are affected. The Commission should be
notified of proposed actions in the coastal zone such as HMP amendments, specific
development plans in the so-called “standards” areas and the developable portions of the
“hardline preserve” properties, revisions to the preserve area boundaries, and changes to
the implementing agreement. The Commission should also be consulted concerning
conservation easements and development agreements which affect coastal zone resources
and properties included in the HMP, or properties outside the coastal zone which are
intended to be used as mitigation for adverse impacts to coastal zone resources.
Background of HMPMHCP and Relationship to Coastal Act
The HMP will function as the City’s sub-area plan within the larger framework of the
Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP), which is still in draft form and ultimately
will apply to approximately 186 square miles in northwestern San Diego County. Once
approved, the MHCP and its subarea plans will serve as a Habitat Conservation Plan
(HCP) under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regulations. These plans will
replace interim regional restrictions on the “take” of California gnatcatchers and other
Michael Holzmiller
August 3,2001
Page 3
covered species, and will allow limited “incidental take” of those species under the
Endangered Species Act. The MHCP and subarea plans are also intended to meet the
criteria for the southern California NCCP program. The objectives of the southern
California NCCP program include identification and protection of habitats in sufficient
amount and distribution to ensure long-term conservation of coastal sage scrub
communities and the California gnatcatcher, as well as other listed species and sensitive
habitat types.
In general, the HCP and NCCP processes, as implemented through the HMP, are
intended to promote the preservation of important natural resources by identifying and
implementing an interlinked natural communities preserve system, and by directing
development to the most appropriate areas with the least adverse impacts. Through these
multi-species and multi-agency natural community planning and management processes,
both state and federal resource agencies (i.e., the California Department of Fish and
Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) have adopted a long-range approach to
habitat management and species conservation that differs substantially from the more
traditional piecemeal and fragmented mitigation approaches to addressing adverse habitat
impacts. Although HCPs have been prepared for areas as small as a single lot, the MHCP
and its subarea plans are intended to function at the citywide or regional level, instead of
focusing on impacts to individual properties.
Commission staff supports the underlying goals and objectives of the HCP/NCCP
programs and does not think their goals and objectives and those set forth in the Coastal
Act are mutually exclusive. Although the focus of the programs differ, many of the
natural resources at stake are the same, and the ultimate goal of protecting covered
species and sensitive habitats is shared by all these programs. Therefore, it is both
possible and necessary for the HMP and LCP to be implemented in an integrated fashion
so that each complements and supports the other, and together provide the highest overall
level of protection for sensitive natural coastal resources within the City of Carlsbad. It is
for these reasons, which are more fully discussed and explained below, that Commission
staff is prepared to recommend to the Commission approval of an integrated, regional
natural resources planning and management program (such as the HMP) that will result
in some adverse impacts to ESHAs within the coastal zone and that provides for the
compensation and mitigation of those losses outside the coastal zone.
Coastal Act Reauirements
As explained in our previous letter of January 24,2001, the City’s application for an
incidental take permit (ITP) pursuant to Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
requires that the City submit a federal consistency certification to the Commission. The
Commission will review the lTP application, federal consistency certification, and other
supporting information to ensure that the HMP is consistent with California’s federally
approved coastal management program (i.e., the Coastal Act). Additionally, because the
Commission will be asked to rely on the HMP as providing the ways and means to ensure
that Coastal Act requirements are met in circumstances where the loss of sensitive coastal
Michael Holzmiller
August 3,2001
Page 4
resources in the coastal zone will be compensated and mitigated in areas outside the
coastal zone, the adequacy of the HMP will be evaluated relative to Coastal Act policies
and Commission practice.
Section 30107.5 of the Coastal Act defines an “environmentally sensitive area” (ESHA)
as “any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially
valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily
disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments.’’ Section 30240 requires
that “environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant
disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed
within those areas.” These Coastal Act provisions or standards support a finding that
areas within the coastal zone containing CSS, which are occupied by listed species (e.g.,
gnatcatchers) or used for foraging by those species, are ESHAs. Commission staff made
this finding relative to the golf course site and concluded that similar findings can
probably be made for other coastal zone properties and to the HMP as a whole. Other
vegetative communities, such as southern maritime chaparral (SMC), may also be
determined to be ESHA based upon the presence of endangered plant and animal species
and/or their foraging habitat. Potential exceptions to this standard, which will be made
on the basis of case-by-case scientific review, may include areas of isolated habitat or
very small habitat areas which do not-significantly contribute to the support of a
population.
In addition to wildlife and habitat protection policies, the Coastal Act includes land use
policies which address other aspects of development. For example, section 30250 of the
Public Resources Code provides that new residential, commercial and industrial
development shall be located within, contiguous with, or in close proximity to existing
developed areas and/or areas with adequate public services, and where it will not have
significant adverse impacts on coastal resources. This section is generally interpreted as
promoting concentration of development in or adjacent to existing developed areas in
order to reduce sprawl and its attendant impacts to coastal zone resources. The HMP
proposes to preserve large, contiguous blocks of habitat with the highest natural resource
value relative to covered species, and to generally locate development away from these
areas. In exchange for the benefits derived from a share of the incidental take authorized
under the HCP, which will result in some impacts to gnatcatchers and associated adverse
impacts to CSS, landowners must agree to place the majority of their properties and
associated sensitive habitat areas into open space through a conservation easement that
then becomes part of the MHCP preserve.
The Coastal Act acknowledges that conflicts may occur between one or more of its
policies, and “in such cases, conflicts should be resolved in a manner which on balance is
the most protective of significant coastal resources.” (Section 30007.5) In order to
protect corridors of viable, connected habitat area which take into account the mobility
and foraging requirements of listed and covered species, it may be preferable to take a
regional approach to the preservation of ESHAs. Instead of preserving all ESHAs in
place where they are found, which could result in excessive fragmentation, reduced
habitat values and difficulties in monitoring and management, it may be more protective
Michael Holzmiller
August 3,2001
Page 5
of ESHA resources to focus on regional conservation approaches that concentrate
development away from the habitat of greatest overall value. Such an approach could
ensure the health and viability of larger, connected sensitive vegetative communities that
support listed and covered species within the City’s jurisdiction. Based upon the staff‘s
review of the HMP, the following requirements, if applied and adhered to within the
coastal zone and with respect to areas outside the coastal zone to the extent such areas are
intended as mitigation for adverse impacts on ESHAs in the coastal zone, would result in
a habitat management plan that could meet the requirements of the HCP and the NCCP as
well as the Coastal Act.
Principles for Establishment of HMP Preserve Area
In general, the Coastal Act prescribes a regulatory approach to habitat protection. We
recognize that creation of an effective habitat preserve requires a careful balancing of
preservation and mitigation requirements, and must provide an enforceable monitoring,
remediation and adequately funded maintenance program for the preserve area. A
principal consequence of the HCP process is to allow the “incidental take” of some
individuals while maintaining the general health and viability of a listed species
population. Commission staff are prepared to recommend to the Commission approval of
a program that may have some adverse impacts to ESHAs in order to obtain greater
overall protection of contiguous, high-quality habitat. However, based on available
information in the draft HMP, staff cannot conclude that the pattern of development and
the ways and means proposed for the preservation of environmentally sensitive habitat
will be more protective of ESHA than retention of all habitat in place. To meet Coastal
Act requirements, additional information and assurances are required to demonstrate that
the HMP contains sound, scientifically-based principles for preserve design and location;
that it includes a meaningful monitoring and remediation program (where mitigation
credits are being provided); that financing for acquisition, mitigation, monitoring,
remediation (where applicable), and management is adequate and ensured; and that
enforcement to ensure effective implementation of the plan is built into the program.
Federal regulations for monitoring and funding requirements associated with the
implementation of an HCP that will result in the authorized “incidental take” of listed
species are located in 50 CFR 3 17.22(b) (endangered wildlife) and 17.32(b) (threatened
wildlife). Pursuant to this regulation, the applicant must identify the steps that will be
taken to monitor, minimize, and mitigate impacts, the funding that will be available to
implement such steps, and the procedures to be used to deal with unforeseen
circumstances. The applicant must also identify what alternative actions to the “take” of
a listed species were considered and the reasons why such alternatives are not proposed
to be utilized. Monitoring guidelines are also described in the USFWS 5-Point Policy
[Federal Register Vol. 65 (106), p. 35254, Final Addendum to the Handbook for Habitat
Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permitting Process]. These guidelines
include:
1. Periodic accounting of incidental take that occurred in conjunction with the
permitted activity;
Michael Holzmiller
August 3,2001
Page 6
2. Survey to determine species status, appropriately measured for the particular
conservation program (e.g., presence, density or reproductive rates);
3. Assessment of habitat conditions;
4. Progress reports on fulfillment of the operating conservation program (e.g.,
habitat acres acquired and/or restored); and
5. Evaluations of the operating conservation program and its progress toward its
intended biological goals.
USFWS policies for mitigation to impacted habitat are set forth on pages 3-21 of the
Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook. These policies include mitigation
requirements which locate replacement habitat as close as possible to the area of impact,
include the same type of habitat, and provide support for the same species. Additionally,
when a mitigation program involves creation of new habitat or restoration of degraded
habitat, the techniques used should be proven and reliable, or else have contingency
measures or adaptive management procedures in place to correct for any failure to
achieve the biological goals of the program. Because the guidelines set forth in the
USFWS Handbook are consistent with the concerns and approaches the Commission has
taken in the implementation of its regulatory responsibilities under the Coastal Act, we
can apply these guidelines in our evaluation of the City’s HMP.
Recommended Changes to the HMP
The December 2000 draft HMP does not appear to meet the guidelines summarized
above. The HMP does not indicate how the current preserve design and alignment is
superior to alternative preserve configurations that could have been selected and located
withn the identified biological core and linkage area (BCLA) to maximize habitat
protection and minimize the need for the “incidental take” of listed species. In the case
of National Wildlife Federation v. Babbitt (E.D. Cal. 2000) 128 F.Supp.2d 1274 1291-3,
the U.S. District Court invalidated an incidental take permit (lTP) for failure to
demonstrate that the impacts of the take of listed species had been minimized “to the
maximum extent practicable” as required by ESA 9 lO(a)(2)(B)(ii). In general, the plan
should contain information sufficient to document that the proposed preserve design
represents the least environmentally-damaging feasible alternative. When this matter
comes formally before the Commission, we will, at that time, conduct an independent
review of each site on an individual basis.
It is not clear how the funding necessary to implement the HMP will be guaranteed in
order to cany out the identified acquisitions and mitigation program, or, alternatively,
how the HMP will be implemented if the projected and necessary funds are not received.
The court in Babbitt, supra, also invalidated the ITP before it on the additional ground of
the failure of the ITP to provide for adequate funding to implement the associated HCP in
violation of ESA 9 lO(a)(2)(B)(iii). The HMP should additionally stipulate that the
preserve will be maintained in perpetuity. This requires a dedicated management
authority with a reliable and predictable source of funding for maintenance and
monitoring, and, where applicable, remediation and adaptive management if unforeseen
Michael Holzmiller
August 3,200 1
Page 7
circumstances should warrant it. The plan should also specify the means for transferring
management responsibilities if the management authority should cease to exist. The
HMP should include a detailed plan for monitoring, management and enforcement that is
realistic, has adequate funding in place, and which spells out responses to unforeseen
situations or occurrences requiring enforcement or remedial action.
Although we believe the HMP should ultimately be incorporated into the LCP through
appropriate amendment, until that is accomplished and to ensure consistency between the
LCP and HMP, both of these plans should, at a minimum, be cross-referenced to make
clear the purpose and operative effect (i.e., legal authority) of each program in the coastal
zone. The HMP should also state that, in case of any conflict between the LCP and
HMP, the provisions of the LCP govern and must be met within the coastal zone. The
HMP should indicate that all current habitat protection requirements of the LCP will be
maintained under the HMP within the coastal zone, including requirements for protection
of naturally-vegetated slopes greater than 25% (dual-criteria) and wetlands. These
requirements are found in Policies 3-1 and 3-7 of the Carlsbad LCP.
In addition to the protection of habitat values, the City must retain protections of steep
slopes, highly scenic areas, natural landforms and public coastal access as required by
Sections 30251 and 30253 of the Coastal Act. The draft HMP currently proposes that
“standards areas” be held to conservation goals and provisions that allow at least 25%
development of the site and that provide for the preservation of a minimum of 67% of
coastal sage scrub and 75% of gnatcatchers on each site, regardless of any “incidental
take” authorization. This provision in the draft HMP is inconsistent with the
requirements of Policy 4-3@)(l)(a) of the certified LCP, which allows a maximum 20%
of a site to be adversely impacted if the site is nearly all or entirely in steep slopes. The
20% maximum impact limitation should also be made applicable to sites which are nearly
all or entirely covered with ESHA. Additionally, the HMP should be revised to be
consistent with current LCP limitations on impacts to dual-criteria slopes, and should
indicate that no more than 20% of a site that is nearly all or entirely composed of dual-
criteria slopes may be developed. A program for the transfer of development credits to
avoid development on highly-constrained sites should also be encouraged.
Preserve areas in the coastal zone, or preserve areas outside the coastal zone that are
intended to mitigate for adverse impacts inside the coastal zone, must be secured in a
manner that will ensure permanent preservation of the area solely for habitat conservation
and other clearly compatible uses, such as low-impact passive recreation (walking trails,
etc.). Acceptable means of securing preservation include conservation easements with
the Commission named as a beneficiary for enforcement purposes, inclusion of the
Commission on the Implementing Agreement, or a transfer of fee title to a public or non-
governmental land conservancy or conservation entity. It is not sufficient to merely
rezone a portion of a property for open space, in the absence of such additional protective
measures and/or a corresponding amendment to the certified LCP.
Mitigation Reauirements
The draft HMP contains provisions for mitigation of adverse impacts to coastal sage
scrub and other native vegetative communities. In reviewing the Carlsbad HMP, staff
Michael Holzmiller
August 3,2001
Page 8
will evaluate adverse impacts to ESHA in the coastal zone on a site-by-site basis to
determine if such adverse impacts are permissible under the Coastal Act, and if so,
whether they are adequately offset or mitigated by revegetation, habitat restoration,
habitat creation, and/or other habitat enhancement measures either on or offsite. This
approach would be predicated on the Commission’s exercise of its ability to resolve
conflicts in a manner that is most protective of coastal resources. The mitigation program
must include creation of new habitat; the area of such created habitat must be at a ratio of
at least 1: 1 to the area adversely impacted. It is preferred that adverse impacts within the
coastal zone be mitigated inside the coastal zone. Mitigation outside the coastal zone will
be considered acceptable if, in addition to meeting the criteria identified above, the
mitigation clearly ensures higher levels of habitat protection and value in the context of a
regional habitat preservation program. However, it should be understood that
preservution of existing, onsite vegetation will not be considered as mitigation under the
Coastal Act. Currently, the draft HMP states that if 67% of habitat is preserved onsite,
the property owner will not be subject to additional offsite mitigation requirements. This
provision is not acceptable for mitigation as defined by the Coastal Act.
The HMP should identify the “hardline preserve” areas and the “standards” areas of land
that contain sensitive vegetation andor are highly constrained, and should, with some
degree of specificity, indicate the amount and location of sensitive vegetation on each
site. To the extent feasible, the HMP should also identify the amount of habitat proposed
to be lost for development in “hardline preserve” areas. The HMP proposes a 2: 1
mitigation ratio for adverse impacts to CSS that support nesting listed species, and 1: 1
mitigation for unoccupied CSS, coastal sagekhaparral mix, and non-southern maritime
chaparral. A mitigation ratio of 3: 1 is proposed for adverse impacts to beach habitat,
southern coastal bluff scrub, maritime succulent scrub, southern maritime chaparral, and
native grass. These habitat types are also recommended for inclusion in the proposed
preserve system to the maximum extent feasible. We recommend that beach habitat be
removed from the list of habitats with permissible adverse impacts, and that mitigation
ratios of 2: 1 for all CSS and 3: 1 for all of the remaining communities be established in
the coastal zone. The mitigation ratios we recommend take into account the foraging
value of non-occupied CSS and CSS-mixture areas, compensate for the initial lower
habitat value of an immature vegetative community, and the fact that the success rate of
revegetation efforts is often less than 100%.
Although the HMP specifies that there should be no net loss of wetlands in the area
covered by the HMP, this provision is inconsistent with Coastal Act Section 30233,
which restricts development in coastal wetlands to specific, very limited resource-
dependent activities when there is no feasible alternative that is less environmentally
damaging. Policy 3-7 of the certified LCP reflects this stringent protection against
adverse impacts to coastal wetlands. However, if development is proposed that is
consistent with Section 30233 and Policy 3-7, mitigation for adverse impacts within the
coastal zone should be required at a ratio of 3: 1 for riparian areas and 4: 1 for vernal pools
and salt marsh.
Successful mitigation requires detailed planning based on scientific principles, and a
commitment to monitoring and maintenance in order to sustain the mitigation program
Michael Holzmiller
August 3,2001
Page 9
until the replacement community is successfully established. Adequate financial
commitments and assurances that are enforceable must be directly tied to development
proposals to ensure that the proposed mitigation will actually be implemented and
completed. Page 3-23 of the HCP Handbook states that “when habitat losses permitted
under an HCP are permanent, protection of mitigation lands normally should also be
permanent.” Therefore, prior to allowing adverse impacts, it is essential to provide
secured mitigation sites that will be preserved in perpetuity, as well as adequate funding
necessary for mitigation, monitoring, management, and, where applicable, remediation.
These measures are of particular concern to us if the program proposed as mitigation for
adverse impacts in the coastal zone includes mitigation sites outside the coastal zone.
Standards for Undeveloped ProDerties in the Coastal Zone
The draft HMP divides the preservation areas into three categories: areas which are
already preserved, “hardline” preserve areas for which there exist negotiated
development agreements, and “standards” areas for which there is limited guidance
relative to future habitat preservation and the siting of new development. The
Commission has reviewed several individual development proposals on “hardline”
preserve and “standards” area properties. Some of these were approved (Kelly Ranch,
Roesch), and another was denied (Manzanita) because the Commission found, among
other things, that the proposed project-driven LCP amendment was premature and could
prejudice a comprehensive planning effort for protection of the biological core and
linkage areas (BCLA) within the coastal zone that were included in the HMP.
Many properties included in the “standards” areas are currently zoned Limited Control
(LC), which was a zoning designation approved in the 198 1 LCP for areas which were in
transition from agriculture to urban land uses. At the time the LCP was certified, it was
not known what the appropriate standards applicable to future buildout of these properties
would be. However, it was clear at that time that residential zoning was not appropriate
due to topography, environmental sensitivity, and then existing agricultural use. The
certified LCP implementation plan specifies, in Section 21.39.010 of the City’s zoning
code, that future land use planning for LC areas should be carried out prior to any
rezoning of these lands for urban development. Although this planning has not yet been
undertaken, individual rezoning requests, in the form of LCP amendments, continue to be
submitted to the Commission on a piecemeal basis without any analysis or understanding
of their cumulative effect on ESHAs and on the viability of the evolving HMP that
includes some of the areas in question.
As previously noted, the “standards” areas identified in the HMP include much of the
remaining undeveloped land in Carlsbad. Additionally, there are other undeveloped
properties in the coastal’zone which are within the identified boundaries of the BCLA but
which have not been included in the “standards” areas. Some of these undeveloped
properties may contain significant ESHA resources, which should be incorporated into
the HMP preserve area if possible. There are also undeveloped properties inside and
outside of the “standards” areas which do not contain significant amounts of ESHA, but
their location may make them important linkage points for a preferred BCLA corridor
orientation. The most appropriate alignment of the final BCLA corridor in the coastal
Michael Holzmiller
August 3,2001
Page 10
zone could then be established based upon the inclusion of all undeveloped properties in
the BCLA, most of which are located in Zones 20 and 21. The HMP currently does not
include criteria that are sufficiently specific to ensure there will be an appropriate level of
planning for optimum corridor design, nor does it include any assurance there is a
commitment to the completion of a preserve corridor through the “standards” areas.
In general, the HMP should include specific policies that identify the following:
preferred corridor locations based on the actual location of resources; the concentration of
development away from ESHA and corridor areas; and the siting of reasonable
development areas concentrated on the least-sensitive portions of the site in order to
preserve the largest contiguous blocks of ESHA. Avoidance of adverse impacts to
ESHAs is always the preferred alternative, followed by minimization of adverse impacts
and the determination of the least environmentally-damaging feasible alternative. When
adverse impacts are identified, feasible mitigation measures should be concurrently
spelled out, along with the enforceable commitments to ensure the availability of
adequate funding to effectively carry out the identified mitigation measures.
The HMP should also provide guidelines for fuel management which require fuel
modification lines to be located within the development envelope and outside of the
preferred open space preserve corridors. Fuel management zones 1 and 2 should be
accommodated within the development envelope, and sufficient setbacks should be
provided to guard against any significant encroachment of fuel modification activities
into the preserve open space. Only fuel management zone 3 may be an acceptable
expansion beyond the development envelope, if habitat disruption is extremely limited.
Appropriate and permanent buffers for transition areas adjacent to wetlands and ESHAs
should also be established. Habitat buffers should also be incorporated into the HMP
preserve area whenever feasible.
Carlsbad MuniciDal Golf Course
We understand that the golf course is critical to the City’s participation in the HMP
process. The mitigation required by the USFWS for adverse impacts resulting from
development of the golf course includes a financial contribution that is vital to the
acquisition of critical habitat in what has been identified as a Core Area in San Diego
County outside the coastal zone. The Core Area is identified in the MHCP as the largest
area of high-quality gnatcatcher habitat with an existing dense population, centrally
located to the proposed north-south regional corridor connections.
In order for Commission staff to be able to recommend approval of the proposed golf
course, the following minimum criteria must be met:
1. The proposal must meet the minimum standards of the certified LCP for protection of
dual-criteria slopes and wetlands. Buffers must be established to protect wetlands
outside of the habitat preserve corridor areas.
2. The habitat preserve corridor on the eastern side of the site must be based on an
alignment that is best suited to preserve the largest contiguous blocks of ESHA and
Michael Holzmiller
August 3,2001
Page 11
gnatcatcher habitat. This will require elimination of the proposed light industrial sites
in that area. Commission staff is prepared to work with the golf course designer to
identify appropriate cart path routing in order to minimize habitat disruption.
3. Impacts to CSS and other native vegetation must be mitigated as previously
described. Buffering of ESHA areas should also be addressed.
We hope this information is helpful to you in making the necessary changes to the HMP
and LCP to ensure consistency with Coastal Act requirements. As previously noted, our
comments are based on the information provided in the December 2000 draft HMP, and
we recognize that additional information provided by the City may result in changes to
our recommendations. If you have any questions regarding these matters, or need further
information, please call Ken Akers in the San Diego office at (619) 767-2370, or James
Raives in the San Francisco office at (415) 904-5200. Commission staff are available to
meet with you to discuss the HMP and our recommendations, and to assist with
development of a mitigation implementation plan which can be incorporated into the
HMP and satisfy both HCP and Coastal Act requirements for areas within the coastal
zone.
Sincerely,
Deborah Lee, Deputy Director
California Coastal Commission
Cc: Ray Patchett J
Nancy Gilbert, USFWS
Bill Tippits, CDFG
HCP Team