HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-01-24; City Council; 18418; Habitat Management Plan ImplementationPAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO.
Ordinance has been revised by the addition of a requirement of the Planning Director to consult with
the Finance Director on the funding of management.
The proposed Zone Code Amendment is consistent with the applicable portions of the City's General
Plan, Local Coastal Program, and HMP and Implementing Agreement therefore staff and the
Planning Commission are recommending approval of the Negative Declaration, ZCA 05-01, and
LCPA 05-09.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
The proposed HMP Implementation ordinances project was reviewed for any potential adverse
impacts to the environment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). No
construction or development is involved with this proposed ordinance and, based upon analysis, no
significant adverse environmental impacts would be created. Therefore, the Assistant Planning
Director issued a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration on October 4, 2005.
One comment letter from the Wildlife Agencies was received in response to the environmental review
public notice. The letter did not object to the issuance of a Negative Declaration; rather it contained
recommended revisions to the proposed ordinances. All of these recommendations were
incorporated into the Zone Code Amendment.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed action addresses several of the HMP implementation processes or steps; namely the
requirements for permitting the incidental take of listed HMP species, criteria for HMP consistency
determinations, and the ongoing maintenance and monitoring for HMP preserve open space not
owned by the City. Therefore, the fiscal impacts to the City for the proposed adoption of the HMP
implementing ordinances are limited to the staff time and resources needed to process HMP permits,
conduct HMP consistency review, and evaluate the preserve management plans and financing for
private developments involving open space preservation.
Other HMP implementation steps, such as the recently approved Open Space Management Plan
and the pending HMP Mitigation In-lieu Fee program, have more direct fiscal impacts to the City in
that they address the management and monitoring of City-owned HMP preserve open space and the
City acquisition of additional HMP preserve land. The fiscal impacts due to these implementation
steps are discussed in the corresponding agenda bills.
EXHIBITS:
1. Ordinance No. NS-783
2. City Council Resolution No. 2006-016
3. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5993, 5994, and 5995
4. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated December 7, 2005
5. Excerpt of Draft Planning Commission Minutes, dated December 7, 2005
6. Summary of public comments and staffs responses.
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Michael Grim, (760) 602-4623, mgrim@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
ORDINANCE NO. NS-783
1
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
2 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AMENDING THE LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM AND TITLE 21 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE
3 ADDITION OF A NEW CHAPTER 21.210 TO THE ZONING
ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENTS,
4 STANDARDS, AND PROCEDURES FOR HABITAT
PRESERVATION AND MANAGEMENT IN CONFORMANCE
5 WITH THE CITY'S HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN AND BY
AMENDING OTHER EXISTING CHAPTERS TO ESTABLISH
6 CONSISTENCY AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HABITAT
MANAGEMENT PLAN.
7 CASE NAME: HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION
8 CASE NO.: ZCA 05-01
9 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does ordain as follows:
10 SECTION 1: That Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by the
addition of a new Chapter 21.210 to read as follows:
12
Chapter 21.210
13
Habitat Preservation and Management Requirements
Sections:
21.210.10 Purpose and Intent
n 21.210.11 Definitions
21.210.12 Applicability
21.210.13 Habitat Preservation Requirements
17 21.210.14 Habitat Management Requirements
21.210.15 Permits Required
18 21.210.16 HMP Permit
21.210.17 Habitat Management Plan Amendment
jo 21.210.18 Guidelines
21.210.19 Enforcement Measures - Violations and Remedies
20 21.210.10 Purpose and Intent.
21 The purposes and intent of this chapter are to:
22 A. Implement the goals and objectives of the land use and the open space/conservation
elements of the Carlsbad general plan;
23 B. Implement the city's habitat management plan, the Implementing Agreement and
conditions, the North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP), the state's
24 Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) and 10(a)1(B) permit conditions;
C. Preserve the diversity of natural habitats in the city and protect the rare and unique
25 biological resources located within those habitats;
D. Assure that all development projects comply with the habitat preservation and
26 conservation standards contained in the habitat management plan;
E. Provide a process for permitting limited, incidental impacts to occur to natural habitat
27 areas and the species located therein; and
F. Provide a process for allowing minor amendment from the habitat preservation and
28 conservation standards under limited, specified circumstances.
1 21.210.11 Definitions.
2 The following definitions are established:
A. Whenever the following terms are used in this chapter, they shall have the meaning
3 established by this section:
1. "Conditions of Coverage" means the measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate for
4 impacts to habitat and the covered species located therein and the conditions and
terms of the approval of the HMP by the wildlife agencies contained in the HMP
5 Implementing Agreement.
2. "Conservation" means to keep protected habitat and the species located therein
6 from loss, decay or depletion and to move the species toward recovery.
Conservation also describes all actions related to maintaining and managing
habitat and providing a viable habitat preserve system in the city. Conservation
_ and preservation are similar terms and are used in much the same way.
Preservation connotes the act of setting aside or securing habitat, whereas
q conservation is generally more broad and includes activities such as
management of the habitat.
1Q 3. "Covered Species" means the species for which take authorization is provided
because long-term viability has been determined to be adequately maintained
<< under the HMP as identified in lists 1, 2, and 3, Exhibit "A" to the Implementing
Agreement. The HMP addresses the species identified as list 1 in a manner
12 sufficient to meet all of the criteria for issuing an incidental take permit. Take
authorization for species of lists 2 and 3 is contingent on other MHCP Subarea
13 Plans being permitted and/or funding for enhanced management of preserved
areas.
14 4. "Development Project" means any use of a property, including grading, clearing
and grubbing, construction, alteration of any magnitude or activities incidental
15 thereto which requires a discretionary or ministerial permit, entitlement or
approval issued under Titles 15, 18, 20 or 21 of the Municipal Code.
16 5. "Habitat" means the environment or the environmental conditions of a specific
location where species or a population of such species lives, occurs or occupies.
17 It includes both natural and native habitat.
6."Habitat In-Lieu Mitigation Fee" means a per-acre fee charged for impacts to on-
13 site habitat as an alternative to acquiring off-site habitat to mitigate for such
impacts.
19 7. "Habitat Management Plan" means the comprehensive plan which identifies how
the city can preserve and conserve the diversity of habitat and protect rare
20 species and biological resources within the city while allowing for additional
development consistent with the city's General Plan and its Growth Management
21 Plan. In so doing, the Plan allows the city to issue permits and authorization for
the incidental take of rare species in conjunction with private development
22 projects, public projects, and other activities which are consistent with the Plan.
8. "Hardline Preserve Areas" means properties which are already part of or are
23 planned to be part of the HMP habitat preserve system. "Existing" hardline
preserve areas are depicted on Figure 5 of the HMP and have already been
24 conserved for their habitat value due to permitting actions occurring in the past
before approval of the HMP. "Proposed" hardline preserve areas are properties
25 whose preservation and development areas have been planned as part of the
HMP. These areas have been agreed-upon in coordination with the landowners,
26 the City, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the California Department of Fish
and Game. If the area proposed for development and proposed for
27 conservations are in conformance with the HMP, the development will be allowed
under the HMP.
28
-2-
1 9."HMP" means the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (dated December 1999 as
amended, final approval November 2004).
2 10. "HMP Permit" means the permit required when a development project impacts,
either directly or indirectly, habitat in the city.
3 11. "Implementing Agreement" or "IA" means the legal document which defines the
roles, responsibilities, activities and conditions that will be undertaken by the city
4 and the wildlife agencies to provide for the preservation, conservation and
management of habitat and the species covered under the HMP.
5 12. "Incidental Take Permit" means the taking of an HMP Covered Species incidental
to and not the purpose of carrying out otherwise lawful activities.
6 13. "Management of Habitat" means all the activities and actions necessary to ensure
that the habitat preserve system in the city remains viable and protected for the
species that are located there including maintenance, biological monitoring and
adequate funding for same.
14. "MHCP" means the Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan, a comprehensive
subregional plan which addresses multiple species habitat needs and the
preservation of natural vegetation in a 175 square mile area in northwestern San
Diego County.
15. "Mitigation" means measures undertaken to diminish or compensate for the
negative impacts of a development project or activity on areas of habitat, native
vegetation or species located therein including minimizing the impact by feasible
avoidance, repairing or restoring the area of impact or compensating for the
impact by replacing or providing substitute resources.
16. "Narrow Endemic Species" means native species with restricted geographic
distributions, soil affinities and/or habitats, and for purposes of the HMP, species
. that in addition have important populations within the Plan area, such that
substantial loss of these populations or their habitat within the HMP area might
jeopardize the continued existence or recovery of that species and therefore
special conservation standards are required.
17. "NCCP" means the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act of 1991.
18. "Preserve" means an area set aside and managed for the protection of wildlife
, 7 and biological resources.
19. "Preservation" means to keep in safety; protect from danger or harm; to keep
.« intact or unimpaired; maintain. Preservation and conservation are similar terms
and are used in much the same way. Preservation connotes the act of securing
the land and its values, whereas conservation generally is more broad and
includes activities such as management of the land and its resources.
2Q 20. "Property Analysis Record (PAR)" means a computerized database methodology
used to calculate the costs associated with the management, maintenance and
monitoring of natural habitat areas.
21. "Standards Areas" means properties whose preservation and development areas
22 have not yet been planned as part of the HMP. Instead, preservation and
conservation standards have been developed for these properties which must be
23 complied with when a development project is submitted for the property.
22. "Wildlife Agencies" means the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California
24 Department of Fish and Game.
25 21.210.12 Applicability
26
A. All development projects and fuel modification activities in the City shall comply with the
27 habitat preservation and conservation standards contained in the City's Habitat
Management Plan (HMP) as well as the Implementing Agreement, Permit conditions.
28
-3-
1 The MHCP, the NCCP and 10(a)1(B) permit conditions, and the requirements contained
in this chapter. All requirements of the HMP are incorporated herein by reference.
2 B. No grading of habitat in the City, including clearing and grubbing, shall occur pursuant to
Title 15 of the Municipal Code until all the processing and permitting requirements of this
3 chapter are fulfilled.
4
21.210.13 Habitat Preservation Requirements.
The provisions of this section shall apply to all development projects as follows:
A. Hardline Preserve Areas. Properties or areas of the City identified in the HMP as existing
hardline preserve areas are shown on Figure 5 of the HMP. Properties or areas of the
City identified in the HMP as proposed hardline preserve areas are shown on Figures 8
through 25 and 34 through 40 of the HMP. These areas shall be prohibited from
development located in or encroaching into the hardline preserve area. Minor
modifications to the boundaries of the proposed hardline preserve area shall only be
allowed if approved as an equivalency finding pursuant to Section 21.210.18 of this
chapter. Incidental take of covered species and direct impacts to habitat shall only occur
outside the boundaries of the hardline preserve areas. Hardline preserve areas are to
be designated as biological open space and preserved in such designation in perpetuity.
B. Standards Areas. Properties or areas of the city identified in the HMP as standards
areas (HMP Figure 26) shall comply with all the habitat preservation standards contained
in Section D.3(C) of the HMP which are incorporated by reference. Incidental take of
2 covered species and direct impacts to habitat shall not be permitted in these areas until a
development project is approved which complies with the standards and provides any
land to the habitat preserve areas as required by the standards.
C. Additional mitigation. In addition to setting-aside land for the preserve area, all impacts
to habitat and covered species shall be mitigated as follows:
., a. All development projects which impact habitat shall provide on-site or off-site
replacement habitat in accordance with the mitigation ratios contained in Table 11
in Section D.6 of the HMP. Preference shall be given for on-site mitigation unless
off-site mitigation provides for improved quality or configuration of open space.
Replacement habitat shall be identified as part of the approval of the
development project.
i« b. Larger, connected areas of habitat that is not impacted by development or brush
management and preserved on-site within the boundaries of the property where
the project is located shall be credited toward the mitigation ratios.
If at least 67% of the habitat on the property where the development project is
2Q located is preserved, the project shall not be required to obtain off-site mitigation
land in compliance with the mitigation ratios except if: 1) the project would
otherwise be inconsistent with the HMP, IA, MHCP, and NCCP and 10(a)1(B)
permits; 2) the proposed on-site preservation would reduce the City's ability to
22 meet the specific habitat conservation obligations in the HMP; and /or 3) the
areas to be preserved on site would not benefit the City's preserve system (e.g.,
23 habitat exists in a small, isolated patch or patches outside of the Focus Planning
Area, and containing no Narrow Endemic species).
24 d. Mitigation of impacts through habitat restoration or habitat creation shall be
allowed in limited circumstances and shall be mitigated at a higher ratio as
25 determined by the City in consultation with the wildlife agencies.
D. Additional conditions. In addition to the requirements, standards and conditions
26 contained in A, B and C of this Section, the following additional conditions of coverage
shall apply to all development projects. These conditions are intended to reference
27 existing requirements and conditions contained in the HMP, IA, MHCP, and NCCP and
10(a)1(B) permit conditions; the conditions listed below are not intended to add
28
-4-
1 additional requirements or conditions above those contained in the HMP, IA, MHCP, and
NCCP and 10(a)1(B) permit conditions:
2 1. Impacts to Narrow Endemic Species shall be avoided to the maximum extent
practicable in conformance with the Narrow Endemic Species Policy contained in
3 the MHCP and incorporated herein by reference, however where impacts to a
Narrow Endemic Species population are demonstrated to be unavoidable,
4 impacts shall be limited to 5% of the total Narrow Endemic Species population
within the boundaries of the property where the development project is located.
5 Relocation of the Narrow Endemic Species cannot be used to meet the 5%
numeric standard.
6 2. Grading for a development project during wildlife breeding seasons shall be
prohibited, except as provided by the HMP and MHCP, unless a minor
adjustment is specifically approved by the city and the wildlife agencies.
3. All development projects shall be located and designed to minimize overall
impacts to natural habitat.
4. All fuel modification (brush management) zones required as a result of the
development project, and as required by the Fire Marshal, shall be located
outside the preserve areas, shall be considered impacted and shall be mitigated
according to C of this section.
5. Impacts to wetland and riparian habitats shall be avoided to the maximum extent
possible. All development projects that would affect these habitats must
demonstrate that the impacts: 1) cannot be avoided by a feasible alternative, 2)
have been minimized to the maximum extent practicable, 3) mitigated at a
. minimum 3:1 ratio and 4) will be mitigated in ways that assure no net loss of
habitat value or function.
14 6. Impacts to vernal pools shall be avoided. In the event that no project alternative
is feasible that avoids all impacts on a particular property, the impacts must be
., minimized and mitigated to achieve a no net loss of biological functions and
values through strict adherence to the Wetland Avoidance and Mitigation Criteria
(Section 3.6.1 of MHCP Volume I), Standard Best Management Practices (MHCP
Appendix B), and Revegetation Guidelines (MHCP Appendix C).
7. In the standards areas, 67% of coastal sage scrub and 75% of the gnatcatchers
located in the area shall be preserved. Some areas may preserve more or less
than these percentages due to parcel size, location, resources, or long term
conservation potential as approved by the City and the Wildlife Agencies.
8. All development projects shall comply with the applicable standards of the MHCP
(dated March 2003) and the measures to minimize impacts to covered species
2Q described in Section D.6, Table 9 and Appendix C of the HMP.
9. All development projects located in the coastal zone shall also be required to
2} comply with the additional, general conservation standards contained in Section
D.7, Standards 7-1 through 7-12 of the HMP and the additional, parcel-specific
22 conservation standards contained in Section D.7, Standards 7-13 and 7-14 of the
HMP as incorporated into the Local Coastal Program.
23 E. Habitat in-lieu mitigation fee. Development projects which are subject to additional
mitigation pursuant to Subsection C of this section and which impact habitat types D, E
24 and F listed in Table 11 of the HMP shall pay a fee in an amount to be determined by
City Council resolution, in-lieu of providing on-site or off-site mitigation land. The fee
25 shall be used to fund the acquisition of habitat land in the MHCP as required by the HMP
and Implementing Agreement. The fee shall be adjusted as necessary to acquire
26 suitable habitat on a per acre basis comparable to the land being developed.
27
28
-5-
21.210.14 Habitat Management Requirements.
2 | All development projects shall be required to provide for the permanent management,
maintenance and biological monitoring in perpetuity of all on site and off site mitigation land and
3 | all habitat preserve areas within the boundaries of the property in which the project is located
according to the provisions of this section:
4 | A. Standard of management. All preserve areas shall be managed, maintained and
monitored according to the standards contained in Section F.2 of the HMP, Volume 2
and 3 of the MHCP and the Citywide Open Space Management Plan.
B. Funding of management. Based upon the management plan required by Subsection B of
this Section, the developer shall provide a non-wasting endowment or other secure
financial mechanism acceptable to the Planning Director to the identified conservation
entity in an amount sufficient for management, maintenance and monitoring of the
preserve areas and mitigation land in perpetuity. The endowment will be tied to the
preserved land for which it is provided and will be held by the City or a third-party
financial entity approved by the City with demonstrated success in managing
I endowments. Only the interest accrued from the endowment shall be paid to the
property manager.
C. Conservation easement required. A conservation easement shall be placed on all
preserve areas to ensure the area will be preserved in perpetuity, managed and
11 maintained for its biological value and to prevent uses which will impair or interfere with
the conservation of the area. At a minimum, the required conservation easement shall
' include the following:
, i. Identification of grantee, underlying land ownership, and third party
' beneficiaries including the City and the Wildlife Agencies.
., „. Permitted and prohibited uses.
' iii. Grantor's duties and responsibilities as per the preserve management
1. i plan, which may be amended from time to time.
iv. Enforcement provisions.
1 fi D. Preserve Management Plan. Prior to recordation of a final map (if applicable) or prior to
issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall be required to submit a plan to identify
how the preserve areas and mitigation land will be managed and maintained for the first
year after the areas are set-aside for preservation. The plan shall include the costs for
managing and monitoring the areas in perpetuity and shall identify a conservation entity,
subject to approval by the Planning Director, to serve as preserve manager and who
possesses the necessary biological qualifications and experience to manage and
monitor the preserve areas in perpetuity. The plan shall be based on the results of a
20 Property Analysis Record (PAR) or other method acceptable to the Planning Director.
The plan shall commit the preserve manager to prepare a permanent Preserve
Management Plan and annual work plans and shall give the city the right to enforce the
preparation and execution of the plans. The plan shall be approved by the Planning
22 Director. The preserve management plan shall include the following:
An overall vision of the preserve area, its role in the Citywide preserve
23 system and its regional relationship.
The baseline biological conditions as identified in field surveys of the
24 property not more than one-year old including an identification of the
covered species that occur or have the potential to occur in the preserve
25 area and the known or expected threats to the biological value of the area.
iii. Identification of resource management goals and specific conservation
26 objectives based on the vision for the preserve area and baseline
biological conditions.
27 iv. Area-specific management directives based on the resource goals and
conservation objectives.
28
-6-
1 v. A description of preserve-level and subregional monitoring activities which
shall be consistent with the HMP and MHCP Volume I and
2
Appendix D of the citywide Open Space Management Plan contains an outline of the
3 required format for preserve management plans.
4 E. Annual work plan. Each year, the Preserve Manager shall be obligated to submit to the
Planning Department an annual work plan for each preserve area. The work plan shall
5 identify specific problems and how they will be addressed, the planned monitoring and
management actions for the year and include a prioritization of specific management
needs and area-specific management directives.
21.210.15 Permits Required.
A. Impacts to habitat and covered species shall not occur in the city until the permits
required by this chapter have been approved. The permits required by this chapter shall
" be processed concurrently with any other development permits required by Titles 15, 18,
20 and 21 of the Municipal Code.
11 21.210.16 HMP Permit.
An HMP permit shall be required for any development project which directly or indirectly impacts
natural habitat in accordance with the procedures set forth in this section.
13 A. Application requirements. An application for an HMP permit may be made by the record
owner or owners of the property affected by the development project or the authorized
agent of the owner or owners. The application shall be filed with the Planning Director
upon application forms provided by the Planning Director. At the time of filing the
., application, the applicant shall pay a processing fee in an amount specified by City
Council resolution. The application shall be accompanied by a biological report, which
allows for detailed review to determine compliance with this chapter. The biological
report shall include the following:
1. A biological survey prepared by a biologist which identifies the location and
quantifies all habitat and vegetation on the property (or any offsite work area). The
1« survey shall also identify any covered species, the location of any offsite wetland,
riparian habitat, oak woodland, nesting raptors or narrow endemic species located
within 100 feet of the property. If the biological survey is conducted outside the
acceptable time of year for identifying narrow endemic species, but the biologist
2Q identifies that narrow endemic species could be present on the property, then
surveys for narrow endemic species must be conducted during acceptable time of
year in accordance with wildlife agencies protocols if such protocols exist. The
processing of the HMP permit application will be held in abeyance until the
22 applicant submits subsequent surveys conducted during the acceptable time of the
year.
23 2. For projects located in a proposed hardline area, a map shall be submitted
showing the precise boundary of the proposed development area and the proposed
24 preserve area consistent with the proposed hardline preserve area figures
contained in the HMP.
25 3. For projects located in the standards areas, an analysis shall be submitted which
exactly and clearly identifies how the project complies with the standards and
26 conditions contained in the HMP and MHCP, IA, any applicable permit conditions in
the NCCP and 10(a)1(B) permits, the hardline preserve boundaries which would
27 result from compliance with the standards and how the project is being located on
the least biologically sensitive portion of the property.
28 -7-
1 4. For projects which impact narrow endemic species, the following information shall
be provided:
2 a. A graphic depiction of all narrow endemic species located on the property
where the development project is located;
3 b. A written biological description of the status of the narrow endemic species;
c. Quantification of both preservation of narrow endemic species and impacts to
4 narrow endemic species associated with the project including direct and
indirect effects on an area and individual plant basis;
5 d. A written report of the feasibility or infeasibility of total avoidance of narrow
endemic species population(s);
6 e. A written description of project design features that reduce indirect effects
such as edge treatments, landscaping, elevation differences, minimization
and/or compensation through restoration or enhancement and consistently
with the MHCP adjacency standards.
5. For projects which impact wetlands, the following information shall be provided:
a. A graphic depiction of all wetlands located on the property where the
" development project is located;
b. A written biological description of the status of the wetlands;
10 c. Quantification of proposed impacts to wetlands associated with the project;
d. Written analysis of the inability to avoid impacts to wetlands;
* e. Written description of project design features that minimize impacts to
wetlands including buffers as described in Section 7-11 of the HMP.
2 6. An analysis of how the development project complies with the additional
preservation conditions contained in Section 21.210.13(D) of this chapter.
7. A description of proposed additional mitigation consistent with Section 21.210.13(C
1 . and E) of this chapter.
8. Any other information, data or analysis deemed necessary by the Planning
1 <. Director.
B. Review process. An application for a HMP permit or HMP permit amendment shall be
*, processed and approved concurrently with any other development permits required by
Titles 11, 15, 18, 20 and 21 of this code. The same decision-making body or official
which has the authority to finally approve, conditionally approve or deny the other
development permits required for the project shall have the authority to finally approve,
conditionally approve or deny a HMP permit. Amendments to HMP permits shall be
acted on by the same decision-making body that approved the original HMP permit and
any subsequent HMP permit amendments. The decision of the decision-making body or
official is final and effective ten calendar days after the adoption of the resolution or
2Q written decision, unless within such ten-day period the applicant or any other interested
person files a written appeal utilizing the same appeal procedure applicable to the other
permits which are processed concurrently with the HMP permit. If no other discretionary
permits are being processed concurrently with the HMP permit, then the appeal
22 procedures contained in Chapter 21.54, Sections 21.54.140 and 21.54.150 of this Title
shall apply.
23 C. Incidental take permit. If a development project impacts an HMP covered species and
an incidental take permit is required under the authority of the citywide incidental take
24 permit issued for the HMP, the Planning Director shall have the authority to issue the
take permit as long as an HMP permit has been approved for the project by the
25 appropriate decision-making body or official pursuant to Subsections A and B of this
section.
26 D. Required findings. No HMP permit shall be approved unless the decision-making body
or official finds that:
27 1. The development project complies with the purpose and intent provisions of
Section 21.210.10 of this chapter.
28
-8-
1 2. The proposed development is in compliance with all provisions of the Carlsbad
Habitat Management Plan (HMP), the Implementing Agreement, the Multiple
2 Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP), the Natural Community Conservation Plan
(NCCP) and 10(a)1(B) permit conditions, the preservation requirements set forth
3 in Section 21.210.13 of this chapter and the management requirements set forth in
Section 21.210.14 of this chapter.
4 3. The project design as approved by the city has avoided and minimized impacts to
habitat and covered species to the maximum extent feasible.
4. If applicable, the take of covered species is consistent with the Citywide incidental
take permit issued for the HMP, will be incidental to otherwise lawful activities
related to construction and operation of the project and will not appreciably reduce
the likelihood of survival and recovery of the species.
21.210.17 Habitat Management Plan Amendment.
Certain HMP implementation actions will require an amendment to the HMP as follows:
A. Minor amendments.
1. Equivalency findings. Minor changes to the boundary of a proposed hardline
preserve areas or other HMP maps which do not reduce the acreage or quality of
habitat are considered minor amendments to the HMP and can be approved by the
City with equivalency findings. The city shall provide written notice of the
equivalency findings to the wildlife agencies, and unless the agencies object within
30 days of notification, the change will be considered automatically approved. If
objections are raised, the City will meet with the agencies to resolve the objection
and written approval of the change from the Agencies will be required.
2. Consistency findings. The conversion of standards areas to hardline preserve
areas and the processing of certain City projects not shown as hardline preserve
*,. areas in the HMP are considered minor amendments to the HMP and can be
approved by the City with consistency findings as follows:
a. Conversion of standards areas to hardline preserve areas. If the Planning
Director determines that the new hardline preserve area boundary conforms to
17 the standards contained in Section D.3(C) of the HMP, the Director shall consult
with the wildlife agencies as part of the environmental review process for the
18 development project. If objections to the new preserve area boundaries are not
received during the public review period for the environmental review process
19 from the wildlife agencies, consistency findings shall be prepared and adopted as
part of the normal development permitting process for the project.
20 b. City projects. For city projects not proposed as hardline preserve areas and not
requiring any discretionary review and permitting process, the city shall review
21 the project for compliance with the standards contained in Section 21.210.13. If
the city project complies, it shall be determined to be consistent with the HMP
22 and the Planning Director shall make consistency findings.
3. Other minor amendments.
23 a. Minor amendments may also be considered for the following cases:
The total impact to habitat is less than one acre, the habitat is not occupied by
24 a covered species, does not impact a Narrow Endemic Species or a wetland
and the habitat mitigation in-lieu fee is assessed pursuant to Section
25 21.210.13(E) of this chapter;
The development project is an essential public works project resulting in a
26 public facility or infrastructure that benefits the community at large and strict
adherence to the requirements would render the project completely infeasible;
27
28
-9-
1 iii. Strict application of the requirements of this chapter would result in
development of less than 25% of the property. Development shall occur on
2 the least biologically sensitive portion of the property.
iv. The alternate design results in a biologically superior development.
3 b. Process for minor amendments for these cases. A request for a minor
amendment shall be processed concurrently with any other permit required for
4 the development project. Supporting data and information shall be submitted by
the applicant for the minor amendment which clearly demonstrates that the
project design, siting and size are the minimum necessary to make the project
feasible or provide an economically viable use of the property. The Planning
Director shall consult with and obtain approval from the wildlife agencies in
reviewing a request for a minor amendment. The minor amendment shall require
the approval or conditional approval of the Planning Commission or City Council
based on whichever authority is the final decision-maker on the concurrent
permit(s) [Note: Such projects may require a Major Amendment (described
below) depending upon the nature of the impact and conflict with the HMP, IA,
MHCP, and NCCP and 10(a)1(B) permits].
Required findings. No minor amendment request shall be approved unless the
decision-making body finds that:
i. If applicable, the project is an essential public works project that will service
the community at large; and
ii. The proposed project and all project alternatives have been analyzed in an
appropriate environmental (CEQA) document; and
iii. The impacts to habitat have been minimized to the maximum extent
practicable; and
14 iv. The project has mitigated its impacts to the maximum extent practicable.
v. The project does not reduce the ability to meet the specific habitat
15 conservation obligations of the HMP, IA, MHCP, and NCCP and 10(a)1(B)
permits.
B. Major amendments. Removal of lands from conserved areas, or reconfiguration of
hardline areas resulting in a decrease of acreage, quality of habitat, or function of the
17 conserved area shall constitute a major amendment to the HMP. Additions to the
covered species list shall also require a major amendment to the plan. Major
amendments shall require public, environmental review (CEQA and NEPA) and will be
subject to the following amendment process:
19 1. The City will initiate a pre-amendment review with the wildlife agencies. In this
review, the City will present a report that identifies the change or the affected
20 species. The purpose of the review meeting will be to determine whether adequate
information is available to consider approval of the change.
21 2. Within 90 days of the review meeting, the wildlife agencies will notify the City that
they have sufficient information to act on the proposed change; have specific items
22 of additional information necessary to properly evaluate the proposed changes; or
have determined that additional data collection and analysis is necessary for
23 adequate evaluation of the impacts of the proposed change.
3. Where specific items of additional information are requested, the City will provide the
information to the extent it is reasonably available within 90 days. Where additional
data collection and analysis are requested, the agencies will provide a detailed
^ explanation of what is required and the purpose of the data and analysis.
4. Once the additional information is received, the agencies shall notify the City within
30 days whether the change is approved. If approved, the change shall constitute
27 an amendment of the Plan which shall then be presented to the City Council for
approval and adoption.
28 -10-
21.210.18 Guidelines
A. From time to time, the Planning Director may upon review by the City Attorney prepare
guidelines to assist in the implementation of this chapter or the HMP, including but not3 limited to, wetland preservation and mitigation. The Planning Director shall have the
authority to approve and publish any guidelines.
21.210.19 Enforcement Measures - Violations and Remedies
A. Whenever the Planning Director determines that a violation of this chapter has occurred
or an individual has impacted habitat without the benefit of a HMP permit, the following
enforcement measures and remedies may be undertaken by the Planning Director, in
lieu of or in addition to any remedial actions undertaken in accordance with Section
„ 15.16.140 of the Municipal Code.
1. Stop Work Notice. The Planning Director shall issue a stop work order demanding
that all activities in violation of this chapter be stopped until a valid HMP permit is
obtained and corrective action is authorized by the Planning Director.
2. Corrective Action. The Planning Director, in consultation with the Wildlife
Agencies, shall determine the extent of corrective action necessary to cure the
,, violation. Corrective action may include a higher mitigation ratio than specified in
Table 11 of Section D.6 of the HMP.
3. Owner-Notification. The owner of the property shall be notified in writing that a
violation has occurred. The notification shall specify the location, nature and extent
of the activity or condition which contributed to the violation, the corrective action
needed to cure the violation and the period of time deemed necessary by the
14 Planning Director to correct the violation. The appeal process contained in Section
21.51.140 of this code shall apply to the Planning Director's determination.
15 4. Record Notice of Violation. In the event that the owner does not correct the
violation in the manner or within the time period requested by the Planning Director,
the Planning Director shall record a notice of HMP violation against the property
with the county recorder. Upon completion of any corrective action and/or issuance
17 of a valid HMP permit and upon payment of the investigation fee required pursuant
to this section, the Planning Director shall file a notice of release of HMP violation
lg with the county recorder releasing the property from the notice of violation.
5. Prohibition of Development Permits. Any property which has a notice of HMP
19 violation recorded against it shall be prohibited from obtaining or using any
development permit pursuant to Titles 18, 20 and 21 of this code until after all
20 corrective actions are taken in accordance with the requirements of the Planning
Director and, a notice of release of violation has been recorded with the county
21 recorder.
6. Investigation Fee. An investigation fee established by City Council resolution shall
22 be paid by the person responsible for the violation in accordance with the
provisions of this chapter. The payment of such investigation fee shall not relieve
23 any person from the performance of the corrective work or otherwise complying
with the requirements of this chapter.
24 7. Criminal Penalises. Each person, firm or corporation who commences or does any
activity contrary to the provisions of this chapter, or otherwise violates the
25 provisions of this chapter, is guilty of an infraction. Every day during any portion of
which any violation of any provisions of this title is committed, continued or
26 permitted by such person, firm or corporation, shall be deemed a separate violation
and shall be punishable as provided in this title and in Section 1.08.010(b) of this
27 code.
28
-11-
1 8. Abatement of Public Nuisance. Any activity commenced or done contrary to the
provisions of this chapter, or other violation of this chapter, shall be, and the same
2 is declared to be, a public nuisance. Upon order of the City Council , the City
Attorney shall commence necessary proceedings for the abatement of any such
3 public nuisance in the manner provided by law. Any failure, refusal, or neglect to
obtain a permit as required by this chapter shall be prima facie evidence of the fact
4 that a public nuisance has been committed in connection with any activity
commenced or done contrary to the provisions of this chapter.
9. Civil Action. The City Attorney may, at the request of the Planning Director, initiate
any appropriate civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction to enforce the stop
work notice, including the required corrective actions, including the recovery of any
funds expended by the city to abate any public nuisance resulting from an unlawful
act as defined in Section 15.16.170 of the Municipal Code and any additional civil
penalties provided for by law.8
SECTION 2: That Section 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by
adding a new (6) to Section 21.33.010 of the O-S Open Space Zone to read as follows:
"21.33.010(6). Protect areas set-aside and preserved as natural habitat and the
biological resources located in the areas in conformance with the City's Habitat Management
12 Plan"
SECTION 3: That Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by adding
a new Section 21.33.045 to the O-S Open Space Zone to read as follows:
., "21.33.045. Open space preserved in conformance with the Habitat
Management Plan.
16 A. Notwithstanding Sections 21.33.020, 21.33.030 and 21.33.040 of this
chapter, no development, uses, structures or activities shall be permitted in
areas zoned for open space which have been set-aside and preserved for
natural habitat in conformance with the City's Habitat Management Plan
i o except as provided below:
(1) Activities related to the management, maintenance and biological
monitoring of the habitat by the managing entity as required by the
Habitat Management Plan and city and other regulatory agency
20 permits and approved by the Wildlife Agencies in the Habitat
Management Plan and/or MHCP in order to preserve and protect the
property for natural habitat purposes. Fuel modification activities are
not allowed within the preserve areas;
22 (2) Planting and maintaining of locally native trees, shrubs and other
native landscaping elements in order to restore or enhance the habitat
23 area as required by the Habitat Management Plan and city and other
regulatory agency permits and approved by the Wildlife Agencies in
24 the Habitat Management Plan and/or MHCP including the
appurtenances necessary to maintain the native landscaping placed
25 thereon;
(3) Trails which are approved as part of the citywide trail program and
26 which are located in conformance with city and other regulatory
agency permits and are consistent with the Habitat Management Plan
27 and MHCP Volume I, section 6.3.8 for public access, and approved by
the Wildlife Agencies;
28
-12-
1 (4) Passive recreation uses such as hiking, picnicking and bird watching if
allowed by the city and other regulatory agency permits and approved
2 by the Wildlife Agencies;
(5) Existing utility easements;
3 (6) Additional easements, subject to approval of the Wildlife Agencies,
that are consistent with the preservation of the natural condition of the
4 property, do not impair or interfere with the conservation values of the
property and do not compromise the overall levels of conservation in5 the preserve or adversely affect preserve and species goals;
(7) Fencing as required by the managing entity and which does not
6 adversely affect wildlife movement and approved by the Wildlife
Agencies;
7 (8) Signing which identifies the property as a habitat preserve and
informs persons of the nature and restrictions on the property and
8 approved by the Wildlife Agencies; and
(9) Other, minor ancillary uses or structures which have been specifically
" approved as part of the Habitat Management Plan or as allowed by
city or other regulatory agency permits and approved by the Wildlife
10 Agencies. Ancillary structures that are specific to a project
development, such as storm drains or detention basins, shall be11 allowed outside the preserve (any exceptions shall follow the
appropriate process for a boundary adjustment
B. A Conservation Easement shall be placed on all open space areas set-
aside and preserved as natural habitat in conformance with the Habitat Management Plan. The
Conservation Easement shall ensure that the property will be preserved in perpetuity and will be
managed and maintained for its natural habitat value. The easement shall specifically list all
allowable and prohibited open space uses."
SECTION 4: That Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by adding
a new (3) to Section 21.95.140 of the Hillside Development Regulations to read as follows:
"21.95.140(3). The proposed modifications will result in the preservation of
i« natural habitat as required by the City's Habitat Management Plan and the required amount of
preservation could not be achieved by strict adherence to the requirements of Section 21.
19 95.120."
2Q SECTION 5: That Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by adding
21 a new (E) to Section 21.95.140 of the Hillside Development Regulations to read as follows:
22 "21.95.140.
E. Inside the coastal zone, the decision-making body or official may approve
23 encroachments to slopes of twenty-five percent grade and over in order to preserve natural
habitat s required by the City's Habitat Management Plan, in accordance with Chapter 21.203 of
24 the Municipal Code, provided that the required amount of preservation could not be achieved by
strict adherence to the requirements of Sections 21.95.120(A) and (B) of this chapter."
25 SECTION 6: That Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended by adding
26 a new (d) to Section 21.203.040(A)(1) to read as follows:
27
"21.203.040(A)(1)
28
-13-
1 d. Notwithstanding (a) and (b) above, encroachments to slopes of twenty-
five percent grade and over may be permitted in order to preserve natural habitat as required by
2 the City's Habitat Management Plan and the required amount of preservation could not be
achieved by strict adherence to the to the requirements of (a) and (b)."
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after
4
its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be
published at least once in a publication of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within
6
fifteen days after its adoption. (Not withstanding the preceding, this ordinance shall not become
effective within the City's Coastal Zone until approved by the California Coastal Commission.)8
///9
10 '"
11 '"
12 '"
13 '"
14 '"
15 '"
16 '"
17 '"
18 '"
19 '"
20 I"
21 m
22 ///
23 /"
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28
-14-
1 ///
2 ///
3 INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City
4 Council on the 7th day of March. 2006, and thereafter.
5 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
6 Carlsbad on the day of 2006, by the following vote, to wit:
7 AYES:
8 NOES:
9 ABSENT:
10 ABSTAIN:
11 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY
12
13 RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney
14
15
16 CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
17
18 ATTEST:
19
20 LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
21 (SEAL)
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-15-
1 RESOLUTION NO. 2006-016
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE
3 DECLARATION AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
AMENDMENT FOR THE HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
4 IMPLEMENTATION
CASE NAME: HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
5 IMPLEMENTATION
CASE NO.: ZCA 05-01/LCPA 05-09
6
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning
7
Commission did, on December 7, 2005, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law
8
to consider a Negative Declaration and Local Coastal Program Amendment; and
9
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 7th day of
10
March , 2006, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said Negative
Declaration and Local Coastal Program and at that time received recommendations, objections,
protests, comments of all persons interested in or opposed to the Negative Declaration and/or
ZCA 05-01/LCPA 05-09; and14
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Carlsbad, California, as follows:16
1. That all recitations are true and correct.
18 2. That the City Council approves ZCA 05-01 and LCPA 05-09 and the
19 findings of the Planning Commission as set forth in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5994
and 5995, on file with the City Clerk and made a part hereof by reference, are the findings and
20 conditions of the City Council.
21 3. That the application for a Negative Declaration and Local Coastal
Program Amendment for the Habitat Management Plan Implementation Zone Code Amendment
22 is approved as shown in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5993 and 5994.
23
24
25
26
27
28
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 7th day of March 2006, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Hall, Kulchin, Packard, Sigafoose
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
CLAUDE A.
ATTEST:
c£°/'^u"Vr^'\'^\
~ .-£• •"_«_»^>*r,*^l>-A 'ii —
OD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
Exhibit 3
1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5993
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A ZONE
4 CODE AMENDMENT AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
AMENDMENT TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER TO THE ZONING
ORDINANCE AND TO AMEND OTHER EXISTING
6 CHAPTERS FOR PURPOSES OF IMPLEMENTING THE
CITY'S HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN.
7 CASE NAME: HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION
8 CASE NO.: ZCA Q5-01/LCPA 05-09
9
WHEREAS, the City, "Applicant," has filed a verified application with the City
10
of Carlsbad regarding property described as:
11
Citywide
1 3 ("the Property"); and
14 WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
15 request; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of December 2005,
17
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
18
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
2Q and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
21 considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
22 relating to the Negative Declaration.
23 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
24
Commission as follows:
25
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.26
27 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration,
28 Exhibit "ND," according to Exhibits "NOI" dated October 4, 2005, and "PII"
dated September 19, 2005, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the
following findings:
ID
Findings:
2 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
3
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration analyzing the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
b. the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
7 Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
o
c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
10 d. based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
11
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
13 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of December 2005, by the
14 following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez,
, , Heineman, Montgomery, and Whirton
17 NOES:
18 ABSENT:
19 ABSTAIN:
20
21
22 JEFFRE rTSEGALL, 6fmrperson
23 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
24
ATTEST:
25 " ^
26
DONNEU
Assistant Planning Director
28"
PC RESO NO. 5993 -2-
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
CASE NAME:
CASE NO:
PROJECT LOCATION:
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Habitat Management Plan (HMP) Implementation
ZCA 05-01/LCPA 05-09 -
Citywide
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Miscellaneous amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to
implement and require compliance with the City's recently approved Habitat Management Plan
(HMP). The amendments include a new chapter of the Zoning Ordinance titled Habitat
Preservation and Management Requirements. A Local Coastal Program Amendment is
necessary because the Zoning Ordinance is the implementing ordinance for the Local Coastal
Program.
PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental
review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of
Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) did not identify any potentially
significant impacts on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration will be
recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council.
A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Negative
Declaration 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 the date of this notice.
The proposed project and Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval/adoption by
the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be
issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Michael
Grim in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4623.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD October 4. 2005 through November 2. 2005
PUBLISH DATE October 4. 2005
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbcJanuary 30,2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: ZCA05-01/LCPA 05-09
DATE: September 19. 2005
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Habitat Management Plan rHMF) Implementation
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv of Carlsbad
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Michael Grim. (760) 602-4623
4. PROJECT LOCATION: Non-site specific - Citvwide Application
5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv of Carlsbad. 1635 Faradav Ave.
Carlsbad CA 92008
6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Not Applicable
7. ZONING: Not Applicable
8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing
approval or participation agreements): California Coastal Commission
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
The project consists of miscellaneous amendments to the City's Zoning Ordinance in order to
fully implement and require compliance with the City's recently approved Habitat Management
Plan (HMP). A Local Coastal Program Amendment is necessary because the Zoning Ordinance
is the implementing document for the City's Local Coastal Program. A new chapter of the
Zoning Ordinance will be created (Chapter 21.210) entitled "Habitat Preservation and
Management Requirements." This chapter will contain provisions, standards and permitting
requirements to ensure that all development projects in the city comply with the HMP. Other
existing chapters of the Zoning Ordinance are proposed for minor amendments in order to ensure
consistency with the new chapter (21.210) and the HMP. The project does not involve a specific
site or zone in the Citv but rather is applicable citywide. The project proposes no physical
Rev. 07/03/04
development citywide. and since it affects regulations and permitting procedures citvwide. there
is no specific project site with a specific environmental setting or surrounding land uses.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: None
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.
I I Aesthetics
I I Agricultural Resources
I I Air Quality
I I Biological Resources
I Cultural Resources
I I Geology/Soils I I Noise
HI Hazards/Hazardous Materials CH Population.and Housing
I | Hydrology/Water Quality I I Public Services
Land Use and Planning | | Recreation
Mineral Resources
I | Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Transportation/Circulation
Utilities & Service Systems
Rev. 07/03/04
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
[Xj I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I | I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have
been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I I I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I I I find that the proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
I I I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier 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.
Date 7 '
Assistant Planning Director's Signature Date
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
Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical,
biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information
to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or
to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
• 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
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to
projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source
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
significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
• "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
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 die mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
• "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly
adverse.
• Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the
environment, but all potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or
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
are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation
measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially
Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration
may be prepared.
Rev. 07/03/02
• An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to
the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse effect has not been discussed or
mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation
measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding
Considerations" for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3)
proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the
EIA-Part n analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect,
or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a
level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing
mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant.
Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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?
H. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the California
Department 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?
m. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
D
D D
D
D
D
D D
D III
n n D
D n
n
Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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)? _
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
IV. 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 status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian,
aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations or by California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filing, hydrological interruption, 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?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
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?
g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally
sensitive?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
D
n n
n
n n EI
a a
a a
a
Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES-Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi-
cance of an archeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
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?
VL GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures 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
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
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,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and' potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18
- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
a
Q
a
a
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless . Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
n n n
nan
n a . a
nan
n n n •
a
a
n
a
Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
VH.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
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?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
environment?
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 airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
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?
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 fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
n n n
n n
n
n
D D
n
n
n n
n n
Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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 support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c) Impacts to groundwater quality?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern 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?
f) Create or contribute runoff 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 structures,
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
j) Expose people or structures 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.
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)?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
D
n
D
n
n
n
n
n
n n
n n
n
n n
n n
n n
n
n
n
nn
n
m
Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or
wetland waters) during or following construction?
o) Increase in any pollutant to an .already impaired
water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section
303(d)list?
p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater
receiving water quality objectives or degradation of
beneficial uses?
DC. 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
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
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?
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?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundboume vibration or groundbourne noise
levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
D
D
D D
D
D
D
D
D
n
D
n n
n n
n n
. Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing .or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
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?
XH. 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?
Xm. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with die 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?
v) 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
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
D
D D
D D
D
D
D
n
n
D D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways?
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?
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?
f) Result in insufficient parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn-
outs, bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the
project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which would
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
D
D D
n
n n
nn
n
n
n
n
n n
Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
n n
nan
nan
n a a
n
e) Result in a determination by the waste water
treatment 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?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
XVH. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are 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
effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects?)
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
XVm. EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EER, 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 on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
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.
Rev. 07/03/02
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. AESTHETICS
The project does not have the potential for aesthetic impacts. No development projects are proposed or
permitted by this action. No grading, construction or development of any kind is proposed or permitted by
this project,
H. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
No agricultural lands will be affected by these amendments to the Zoning Ordinance.
ffl. AIR QUALITY—Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non-attainment area
for ozone (03), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter
(PM10). 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
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly
regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996.
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
County's general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project
presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that
the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact.
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
forth 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 a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area?
• Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan?
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.
Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict or obstruct
implementation of the regional plan.
In addition to the above, the project under consideration at this time has no potential to create air quality impacts
because it is solely a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to implement the recently approved Habitat Management Plan.
No physical development projects are proposed or permitted by this action.
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 to the project site is in the City of Oceanside. Data available
for this monitoring site through April 2002, indicates 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
Rev. 07/03/02
average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour state standard for suspended particulates in 1996. No violations of
any other air quality standards have been recorded recently.
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. The
proposed project would not. represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in
emissions throughout the air basin. Air Quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is
implemented.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
No Impact. The proposed project is solely an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to implement the HMP and
would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
No Impact. The project has no potential to result in objectionable odors.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The project does not have the potential for significant impact to biological resources because it is only an
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to implement the city's recently approved Habitat Management Plan
as such greater protection and management of biological resources will occur which is a positive effect. No
development projects are proposed or permitted by this action. No grading, construction or development of
any kind is proposed or permitted by this action.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
The project does not have the potential for significant impacts to cultural resources because it is solely an
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to implement the city's recently approved Habitat Management Plan.
No development projects are proposed or permitted by this action. No grading, construction or
development of any kind which could potentially impact cultural resources is proposed or permitted by this
action.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The project does not have the potential for significant impacts to geology and soils because it is solely an
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to implement the city's recently approved Habitat Management Plan.
No grading, construction or development of any kind which could potentially impact cultural resources is
proposed or permitted by this action.
VIL HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The project does not have the potential for significant impacts to hazards and hazardous materials because
it is solely an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to implement the city's recently approved Habitat
Management Plan. No development projects are proposed or permitted by diis action. No grading,
construction or development of any kind which could potentially impact cultural resources is proposed or
permitted by this action.
Vm. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The project does not have the potential for significant impacts to hydrology and water quality because it is
solely an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to implement the city's recently approved Habitat
Management Plan. No development projects which could potentially impact water quality are proposed or
permitted by this action. No grading, construction or development of any kind which could potentially
impact cultural resources is proposed or permitted by this action.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING
The proposed project is a Land Use and Planning action in that it consists of a Zoning Ordinance
Amendment to implement the HMP.
The project is consistent with the General Plan. Specifically, the Open Space and Conservation Element
and the Land Use Element were recently amended to reference the HMP and to require all development
Rev. 07/03/02
projects to comply with the Plan. No development projects are proposed or permitted by this action. No
grading, construction or development of any kind is proposed or permitted by this action.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES
The project does not have the potential for significant impacts to mineral resources. No grading or
construction of any kind could potentially impact mineral resources is proposed or permitted by this action.
XL NOISE
•The project does not have the potential for generating significant noise impacts because it is solely an
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to implement the city's recently approved Habitat Management Plan.
. No development proposed or permitted by this action.
XH. POPULATION AND HOUSING
The project does not have the potential for generating significant population and housing impacts because it
is solely an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to implement the city's recently approved Habitat
Management Plan. No development is proposed or permitted by this action. The action will not impact the
amount of housing permitted in the city because residential density is allowed to be transferred to portions
of property that least impact biological resources.
Xm. PUBLIC SERVICES
The project does not have the potential for generating significant impacts to public services because it is
solely an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to implement the city's recently approved Habitat
Management Plan. No development is proposed or permitted by this action.
XIV. RECREATION
The project does not have the potential for generating significant impacts to recreation because it is solely
an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to require development projects to comply with the city's recently
approved Habitat Management Plan. No grading, construction or development of any kind is proposed or
• permitted by this action.
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
The proposed project is an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that development projects
comply with the city's Habitat Management Plan. It does not, however, approve any development projects
which could impact transportation or vehicular traffic, result in traffic hazards or impact emergency access
or parking as such, the proposed project will not have any significant impacts on transportation/traffic.
XVI. UTILmES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS
The project does not have the potential for generating significant impacts to utilities and service systems
because it is solely an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to implement and require compliance with the
city's recently approved Habitat Management Plan. No grading, construction or development of any kind
is proposed or permitted by this action.
XVH. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The project does not have the potential for generating significant impacts to mandatory findings of
significance because it is solely an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to implement and require
compliance with the city's recently approved Habitat Management Plan. No grading, construction or .
development of any kind is proposed or permitted by this action.
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. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01).
City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994.
2. City of Carlsbad General Plan, Open Space and Conservation Element, Land Use Element City of
Carlsbad Planning Department
3. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad (2004, with Implementing
Agreement and Terms and Conditions). City of Carlsbad Planning Department
Rev. 07/03/02
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES OF APPLICABLE1!
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR
WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE-PROJECT.
Date Signature
Rev. 07/03/02 ,,—
LLI o^/uru WJHSI rwc*.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Carlsbad Fist and Wildlife Office
60 1 0 Hidden Valley Road
Carlsbad, California 92011
(760)431-9440
FAX (760) 4.1 1-5902 + 9618
California Department of Fish & Game
South Coast Region
4949 Via wridgs Avenue
S^ D;j|go, California 92123
(858)4^7-4201
FAX (858) 4674299
« i 2
In Reply Refer To:
FWS/CDFO-SDG-847.6
Mb Mb Grim
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
1 635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Re: Negative Declaration (SCH# 2005101012) on the draft Zoning Ordinance Amendments
for the Implementation of the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan
.' t
Dear Mr. Grim:
The California Department of Fish and Game (Department) and U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) (collectively, "Wildlife Agencies") have reviewed the October 4, 2005,
Negative Declaration (ND) on the draft Zoning Ordinance Amendments (ZOAs) for the
implementation of the City of Carlsbad's (City) Habitat Management Plan (HMP). The
Wildlife Agencies have reviewed the ZOAs to evaluate potential conflicts with the City's
HMP, Implementing Agreement (IA), Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP)
Subregional Plan, and the Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) and
I0(a) 1(B) permit conditions for the City's HMP.
The comments provided herein are based on the information provided in the ZOAs, IA,
MHCP, the NCCP and 10(a)l(B) permit conditions, and our participation in other
regional conservation planning efforts. We are pleased with the progress the City has
made on the implementation of the HMP and would like to thank the City for the
continued efforts of their staff who have been working cooperatively with Wildlife
Agency staff on implementing the HMP. We offer our comments on the ZOAs below to
help the City ensure the HMP will be implemented effectively and efficiently:
Section 21.210.10 Purpose and Intent
Item B should be changed to read "Implement the City's habitat management plan, IA,
MHCP, and NCCP and 10(a)l(B) permit conditions."
TAKE PRIDE*I
iNy^M ERICA
5>U UJAb I PAtfc B3
Mike Grim (FWS-SDG-847.6) 2
Section 21.210.11 Definitions
1. Conservation: The terra conservation also refers to helping move the species toward
recovery. •* "" "~ ""**•"
2. Development Project: Please ensure the definition of "Development Project" is
adequately inclusive to ensure impacts to natural habitats could not be adversely affected.
?or example, is Ehe current definition adequate to restrict grubbing and fuel modification
activities? This is important to address since the requirements of this chapter only apply
to "development projects."
3. Habitat: Since the following terms are used throughout the document: "natural habitat"
and "native habitat," it would be useful for the definition of "habitat" to clarify that it
includes both natural and native habitat.
4. Hardline Preserve Areas: This definition may confuse some, as it did the Department of
Interior's Solicitor. To rectify such confusion, we recommend splitting this term into two
defined terms as hi the HMP; one for existing hardline preserves and the other for
proposed hardline preserves. It should also be made clear that no development will occur
within the proposed preserve portion of the hardline projects. Thus, the term "Proposed
Hardline Preserve Areas" would have the same definition as provided, but the language in
the second sentence changed to read "If the area proposed for development and the area
proposed for conservation are in conformance with the HMP, the development will be
allowed under (he HMP."
5. MHCP: The MHCP preserve is not all "native vegetation." The language should be
changed to "natural vegetation."
Section 21.210.12 Applicability
Item A should ensure that all the necessary documents are abided by. Thus, please add
compliance to the IA, MHCP, and NCCP and 10(a) 1 (B) permit conditions.
Section 21.210.13 Habitat Preservation Requirements
1. Hardline Preserve Areas: Again mis may be confusing to lump all hardline preserve areas
together. It may be more clear and effective to have a section on existing hardline
preserve areas and a section for proposed preserve areas. Both of which should have the
following statement added after the first sentence: "prohibited from development located
in or encroaching into the hardline preserve area. Hardline preserve areas are to be
designated as biological open space (the removal of such designation is prohibited) and
preserved in perpetuity."
2. Standards areas: Please add the following text after the first sentence: ",..D.3(c) of the
HMP, which are hereby incorporated by reference into this document"
3. Additional Mitigation; item b: This section should clarify that it does not apply to slivers
of remaining habitat or habitat completely isolated from the FPA.
4. Additional Mitigation; item c: This text is verbatim to the HMP; however, it would
benefit us to pro-vide more detail in this ordinance of how you account for 67 percent of
the habitat. For -sxample, if the project was impacting 80 percent of CSS, but preserving
67 percent of the natural land on site (i.e., the preserved area is all non-native grassland),
J.o:«bU COAST PAGE 84
Mike Grim (FWS-SDG-847.6) 3
someone might argue that they are meeting the conditions of the HMP; however, the City
would have a difficult time to meet their obligation mat at least 67 percent of CSS will be
preserved Citywide. In addition, it is likely that a small isolate^ area of habitat outside of
the FPA would be proposed to be preserved on-site by a project proponent in order not to
mitigate off-site or pay the in-lieu-fee. This would not benefit building the City's
preserve system and should not be considered acceptable mitigation. Thus, we would like
to work with th* City on crafting specific language to insert in the ordinance to clarify the
intent of the HMP in order to ensure projects have mitigated fully and appropriately, in
particular by avoiding out-of-kind mitigation that could leave the City out-of-atep with
the conservation goals for each habitat type.
5. Additional conditions; item 1; We agree with the language in this section; however, we
recommend citing the narrow endemic policy in the MHCP and incorporating the policy
by reference since this section only summarizes the standard.
6. Additional conditions; item 4: The following language should be added to this sentence
"outside the preserve areas, considered permanently impacted and mitigated
appropriately."
7. Additional conditions; item 5: No impacts to vernal pool habitat could occur without
concurrence from the Wildlife Agencies and possibly a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
permit. la addition, to receive coverage for vernal pool species, no impacts to pools or
their watersheds could occur, as stated in MHCP Volume EL These conditions should be
stated in the ordinance.
8. Additional conditions; item 6: The term "generally" should be removed to be consistent
with the HMP which states that 67 percent of CSS and 75 percent of gnatcatchers "shall"
be preserved. The ordinance must match the standard of the HMP and not lessen it.
9. Additional conditions; item 8: This sentence is vague. Either define the term "reviewed"
or require that the standards of the MHCP be met and the applicant provide in writing
how each of the standards of the MHCP are being met by the project
Section 21.210.14 Habitat Management Requirements
1. Interim Preserve Management Plan: The text seems to be a little out of order. To avoid
confusion, it may be better to move the second sentence (The plan shall be based on a
PAR...) to after the third sentence (The plan shall include the costs...).
2. Funding of Management: How do we rectify any potential funding shortfalls that may be
created by the PAR being conducted on the interim preserve management plan rather than
the permanent preserve management plan? This, could be a significant problem if not
rectified when the PAR is funded by a project applicant, and it would be the
responsibility of the City to fund the difference in the future.
3. Permanent Preserve Management Plan; item ii: To avoid confusion or arguments later by
project proponents, this item should clarify that the baseline biological conditions need to
be based on recent (i.e., no more than I year old) field surveys of the site.
H3
uru su UJttSi KAlst. U5
Mike Grim (FWS-SDG-847.6) 4
Section 21.210.16 HMP Permit
1. Application Requirements; item 1: The biological survey should also be adequate to
identify any cbvered species on site. """
2. Application Requirements; item 2: The current language could be misinterpreted to
assume that projects will be located in the preserve. This is the same issue as identified
earlier. Thus, we recommend changing the language to the following "Tor projects
located in a proposed hardline area, a map shall be submitted showing the precise
boundary of the proposed development area and proposed preserve area, consistent with
the proposed hardline preserve area figures contained in the HMP."
3. Application Requirements; item 3: The projects should not only show how they are
consistent with the HMP, but also with all volumes of the MHCP, IA, and any applicable
permit conditions in the NCCP and 10(a) 1 (B) permits.
4. Required Findings; item 2: The IA, MHCP, and NCCP and 10(a)l (B) permit conditions
should also be identified here.
Section 21.210.17 Deviation from Requirements
1. This entire section either needs to be rerrioved or significantly rewritten with a new title
because it is not possible to create the ability for someone to deviate from the HMP,
MHCP, IA, and NCCP and lO(a)l(B) permit conditions by this ordinance. Any deviation
that would allow a project, regardless of the applicant (private entity or City), to not meet
the requirements as stated in the above mentioned documents is not permissible without
resubmitting a new plan to the Wildlife Agencies, conducting CEQA and NEPA public
review, and entering into a new IA, NCCP permit, and 10(a)i(B) permit. Please note,
there is potential to change the preserve from that identified in the HMP through a
boundary adjustment under the major amendment procedures identified in the plan and
described later in this ordinance. Any such changes would need the concurrence of the
Wildlife Agenciss.
2. We recognize that the internal process the City chooses to use to process projects under
the HMP is the City's discretion and we would support a simpler process for projects
under one acre and essential City projects; however, it is not possible for such projects to
have a reduced set of standards. All projects must fully implement the HMP, IA, MHCP,
and NCCP and 10(a)l(B) permit conditions. If the City would like to develop a different
permitting process for some projects, such as those less than one acre in size, we would
like to work with the City on such a process.
Amendment to Chapter 21.33 of the Zoning Code-Open Space Zone (o-s) for HMP
Implementation Purposes:
1. After consultation with the Department of Interior's Office of the Solicitor, we are
concerned that this amendment does not fulfill the purpose of ensuring that preserved
lands are preserved exclusively and in perpetuity for conservation purposes consistent
with the HMP, L\, MHCP, NCCP permit, and 10(a)l(B) permit. This language appears
to allow uses that were not identified in the HMP, IA, MHCP, NCCP permit, and
.. 10(a)l(B) permil; and analyzed by the Wildlife Agencies in our permitting processes.
Mike Orim (FWS-SDG-847,6) _ 5
s'
2. Section 2.A: Add "and approved by the Wildlife Agencies" after "as provided bebw."
3. Section 2.A.(l): Please ensure thiffdoes not allow fuel modification activities hi the
preserve. This should not be a problem because all fuel modification areas are to be fully
sited within the development area.
Section 2.A,(2): Remove the extra space before "native trees."
Section 2-A.(3): Replace "which are in located" with "which a» located" and add "and
are consistent with HMP requirements and MHCP Volume I, section 63.8 for public
access" at the end of the sentence. This section would allow trails in the preserve that
have not necessarily been reviewed by the Wildlife Agencies. Thus, please add "with
Wildlife Agency concurrence" to the end of the sentence. Please note that new trails that
present new impacts to the preserve would need to be analyzed under the California
Environmental Quality Act.
6. Section 2-A.(5): Add "existing" before "utility easements."
7. Section 2.A.(6); It is our understanding that access for police and firs departments and
existing utility easements is allowed within the preserve without being specifically
mentioned here. Thus, we recommend sinking this language from the ordinance. If such
language is needed for the police and fire departments to enforce the law and/or suppress
fires, we recommend using language that allows access by the fire and police departments
to take any prudent action necessary under emergency conditions to prevent, abate, or
mitigate significant injury to persons and/or property. Such language should not be
necessary for utility easements since only existing easements are allowed and access to
such easements will already have been granted,
8. Section 2.A.(9): Ancillary structures that are specific to a project development, such as a
storm drain or detention basin, shall be outside the presorve (any exceptions shall go
through the appropriate process for a boundary adjustment),
A mendment to Chapter 21.95 of the Zoning Code .
1. Subsection A,3: What arc the requirements of Section 21,95.120?
Thank you for the opportunity to review ths 20 As. If you have any questions concerning the
contents of this letter, please contact Lee Ann Carranza (Service) at 760-431-9440 or Nancy
Frost (Department) at (SSS) 637-5511.
Sincerely.
iTharsss O«.oar^^___y MicagVJ. Mulli
Asaistant Field Supervisor Deputy Regional Manager
U-S. Fish and Wildlife Service California Department of Fish and Game
1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5994
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT TO ADD A
4 NEW CHAPTER 21.210 AND TO AMEND OTHER EXISTING
CHAPTERS OF THE CODE FOR PURPOSES OF
IMPLEMENTING THE CITY'S HABITAT MANAGEMENT
6 PLAN.
CASE NAME: HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
7 IMPLEMENTATION
CASE NO: ZCA 05-018
9 WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 21.52.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal
10 Code, the Planning Director has prepared an amendment to Title 21 of the Municipal Code
11 (Zoning Ordinance) relating to implementation of the City's Habitat Management Plan; and
12 WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is set forth in the draft City Council
13
Ordinance, Exhibit "A" dated December 7, 2005, and attached hereto HABITAT
14
MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION - ZCA 05-01; and
15
, /- WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of December, 2005,
17 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
18 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, analyzing the information submitted by
20 staff and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all
21
factors relating to the Zone Code Amendment.
22
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
24 Commission as follows:
25 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
2" B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
2? Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of THE HABITAT
MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION - ZCA 05-01, based on the
28 following findings:
Findings:
2 1. That the proposed Zone Code Amendment ZCA 05-01 is consistent with the Land Use
3 and Open Space and Conservation Clements of the General Plan which provide for
the protection and preservation of designated natural habitats in the City through
the implementation of the City's Habitat Management Plan.
2. That the proposed Zone Code Amendment is consistent with the Habitat
5 Management Plan, the approval of the Plan by the state and federal wildlife
agencies, the Implementing Agreement for the Plan and the conditions of the
7 citywide Incidental Habitat Take Permit issued by the Federal Government.
o0 3. That the proposed Zone Code Amendment is consistent with the State Coastal Act and
o the City's Local Coastal Program in that it will protect natural habitat and
biodiversity in the city by implementing the habitat preservation standard
10 contained in the State Coastal Plan and the Local Plan.
4. That the proposed ZCA reflects sound principles of good planning in that it serves to
protect natural habitats in the city in conformance with the Habitat Management
12 Plan.
13 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
14
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 7th day of December, 2005, by the following
,,- vote, to wit:
17 ..
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez,
18 Heineman, Montgomery, and Whitton
19 NOES:
20 ABSENT:
21
ABSTAIN:
22"
23
24 ^_
JEFFRJE N. SEGALLTChairperson
25 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
26 ATTEST:
27
28
DON NEU
Assistant Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 5994 -2- . , -7
1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5995
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CARLSBAD
4 LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDING TITLE 21 OF
THE MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDING TITLE 21 OF THE
5 MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE) BY ADDING A
6 NEW CHAPTER 21.210 AND BY AMENDING OTHER
CHAPTERS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PURPOSES
7 OF IMPLEMENTING THE CITY'S HABITAT MANAGEMENT
PLAN.
8 CASE NAME: HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION
y CASE NO: LCPA 05-09
10
WHEREAS, the Planning Director has prepared an amendment to Title 21 of the
11
Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) relating to implementation of the Habitat Management
,-, Plan; and
14 WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance is the implementing ordinance for the City of
15 Carlsbad Local Coastal Program; and
WHEREAS, California State law requires that the Local Coastal Program and
17 Zoning Ordinance be in conformance, and therefore, an amendment to the Local Coastal
18
Program is required in conjunction with an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance (implementing
~~ ordinance) to ensure consistency between the two documents; and
21 WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad, "Applicant," has filed a verified application
22 for an amendment to the Local Coastal Program; and
T"5 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Local Coastal
24 Program Amendment as show on Exhibit "A" dated December 7, 2005, attached to Planning
25
Commission Resolution No. 5994 and incorporated herein by reference, as provided in Public
26
Resources Code Section 30574 and Article 15 of Subchapter 8, Chapter 2, Division 5.5 of Title
2g 14 of the California Code of Regulations of the California Coastal Commission Administrative
Regulations; and
1 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of December 2005,
2 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
3
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
4
^ and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
5 relating to the Local Coastal Program Amendment; and
7 WHEREAS, in accordance with State Coastal Guidelines requirements, the Local
Q Coastal Program was subject to a six-week public review period, starting on September 23,
9 2005 and ending on November 4, 2005, and the Planning Commission considered all comments
10
received prior to the Planning Commission hearing, if any.
11
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
13 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
14 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
15 B) At the end of the State mandated six week review period, starting on September
, 6 23, 2005, and ending on November 4, 2005, staff shall present to the Planning
Commission and City Council a summary of the comments received.
17
C) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
18 Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of LCPA 05-09 -
HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION based on the
following findings, and subject to the following conditions:
20 Findings:
21
1. That the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment meets the requirements of, and is
22 in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act and all applicable policies
of the Mello I, Mello II, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, East Batiquitos Lagoon, West
Batiquitos Lagoon, and the Village Redevelopment Plan segments of the Carlsbad
24 Local Coastal Program not being amended by this amendment, in that it ensures
consistency with the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, and does not alter any other
25 coastal zone regulations, land use designations or policies, and any further proposals
must comply with all of the above in addition to the amendments approved by this
26 action.
^77 2. That the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment will implement the Carlsbad
2g Habitat Management Plan as incorporated into the Local Coastal Plan and will
protect natural habitats in the City.
PC RESO NO. 5995 -2- . . -
3. That the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment is required to ensure consistency
2 with the proposed Zone Code Amendment (ZCA 05-01) and the Local Coastal Plan.
3 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting ta the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on the 7th day of December 2005, by the following
vote, to wit:
6
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez,
7 Heineman, Montgomery, and Whitton
8 NOES:
9 ABSENT:
10
ABSTAIN:
11 "
12
13
14 „
JEFFRE N. SEGALL, Chairperson
15 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
16
17 ATTEST:
18
19 DONNEU
2Q Assistant Planning Director
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Tlie City of Carlsbad Planning Department Exhlbit 4
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No•0
P.C. AGENDA OF: December 7,2005
Application complete date: N/A
Project Planner: Mike Grim
Project Engineer: N/A
SUBJECT: ZCA 05-01/LCPA 05-09 - HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION - Request for a recommendation of adoption of a
Negative Declaration and recommendation of approval of a Zone Code
Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to add a new chapter to the
code and to amend several chapters of the code for purposes of implementing the
City's recently approved Habitat Management Plan (HMP).
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5993,
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration and ADOPT Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 5994 and 5995 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of Zone Code
Amendment ZCA 05-01 and Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 05-09 based upon the
findings contained herein.
II. INTRODUCTION
The project was originally scheduled for November 16, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.
Due to comments received from the Wildlife Agencies, the project was continued to December
7, 2005 to allow staff and the agencies the opportunity to resolve the outstanding issues. All
issues have been resolved and the attached staff report and attachments have been revised to
reflect the resulting changes in the proposed HMP Implementing Ordinances. As such, the date
of the staff report and resolutions has been revised to December 7, 2005.
HI. ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Staff Report (with attachments), dated December 7, 2005.
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No•0
P.C. AGENDA OF: December 7, 2005
Application complete date: N/A
Project Planner: Mike Grim
Project Engineer: N/A
SUBJECT: ZCA 05-01/LCPA 05-09 - HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION - Request for a recommendation of adoption of a
Negative Declaration and recommendation of approval of a Zone Code
Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to add a new chapter to the
code and to amend several chapters of the code for purposes of implementing the
City's recently approved Habitat Management Plan (HMP).
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5993,
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration and ADOPT Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 5994 and 5995 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of Zone Code
Amendment ZCA 05-01 and Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 05-09 based upon the
findings contained herein.
II. INTRODUCTION
This proposed Zone Code Amendment would add a new chapter, Chapter 21.210, to the Zoning
Ordinance relating to the requirements and procedures for habitat preservation and management
in conformance with the City recently-approved Habitat Management Plan (HMP). Sections of
other chapters of the Zoning Ordinance are also proposed for amendment to establish
consistency and full implementation of the HMP. These chapters are Chapter 21.33 - Open
Space Zone, Chapter 21.95 - Hillside Development Regulations and Chapter 21.203 - Coastal
Resource Protection Overlay Zone. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that all future
development projects comply with the HMP and to effectuate full implementation of the HMP.
Because the City's Zoning Ordinance is the implementation ordinance for the City's Local
Coastal Program (LCP) an LCP Amendment is also proposed to establish consistency between
the proposed amended Zoning Ordinance and the LCP.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The City's Habitat Management Plan (HMP) received its final approvals from the Wildlife
Agencies in November 2004. As a result, the City has authority to issue permits (Citywide
10(A) Permit under the State and Federal Endangered Species Act) for further development
projects which impact habitat in return for setting-aside and requiring maintenance of a 6,500
acre preserve system to conserve sensitive wildlife habitat and the species that inhabit this
habitat. As part of the approval of the HMP, the city also entered into an Implementing
Agreement which requires several follow-up actions to fully implement the HMP and ensure
future compliance with the Plan. The initial step in completing the required follow-up occurred
ZCA 05-01/LCPA 05-09 - HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
December 7, 2005
Page 2
in May of 2005 when the Planning Commission and City Council approved amendments to the
Land Use and Open Space and Conservation Elements of the General Plan (GPA 04-05 and GPA
05-02) which incorporated references and policy statements related to the HMP into the
elements. The General Plan Amendments established the policy foundation for the Zone Code
Amendment which is the subject of the proposed actions now before the Planning Commission.
The Zone Code Amendment consists of four components as follows:
1) Adding an entirely new chapter to the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 21.210)
specifying the standards and procedures for habitat preservation and management
to be required in conjunction with the approval of any development project in the
city;
2) Amending the O-S Open Space Zone (Chapter 21.33 of the Zoning Ordinance) to
prohibit development and establish the uses permitted on land included in the
HMP habitat preserve areas and zoned O-S;
3) Amending Section 21.95.140 of the Hillside Development Regulations (Chapter
21.95 of the Zoning Ordinance) to allow a modification to the regulations if strict
adherence would preclude a development project from complying with the habitat
preservation requirements of the HMP; and
4) Amending Section 21.203.040 of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone
(Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance) to allow consideration of increased
encroachment into slopes of twenty-five percent or more in the coastal zone if the
encroachment is essential in order for a development project to comply with the
habitat preservation requirements of the HMP.
All of the components of the Zone Code Amendment are being proposed in order to establish full
implementation and to ensure compliance with the HMP. As mentioned previously, because the
City's Zoning Ordinance is the implementing ordinance for the City's Local Coastal Program, an
accompanying LCP Amendment is also proposed. During the required six-week public noticing
period for the LCP Amendment, three comment letters were received (California Native Plant
Society, North County Open Space Coalition, and Carlsbad Watershed Network) which are
attached to the staff report as Attachment 8. Many of the revisions suggested in the comment
letters have been incorporated into the ZCA and LCPA. Other suggestions will be handled
through guidelines or discussions with the commentors.
IV. ANALYSIS
This Zone Code Amendment is being proposed in order to achieve implementation of the City's
Habitat Management Plan (HMP) and to ensure that all development projects comply with the
Plan. Staffs analysis of the Amendment consist of three parts: A) a detailed description of the
components of the Amendment, B) conformance with the City's General Plan and C)
conformance with the Local Coastal Program.
ZCA 05-01/LCPA 05-09 - HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
December 7,2005
Page 3
A. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT
The Zone Code Amendment consists of four components which are described below:
The first component is the creation of a new chapter of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the
requirements, standards and procedures for preserving and maintaining habitat in the City in
conformance with the HMP. The Zoning Ordinance would be amended by the addition of a new
chapter, Chapter 21.210. The chapter would include definitions, habitat preservation
requirements, habitat management and maintenance requirements, required permits to impact
habitat, and enforcement measures. The chapter also includes a section which describes the
circumstances under which an exemption to the requirements of the chapter and the HMP can be
considered and a section pertaining to amendments to the HMP. The section of the chapter
containing requirements for habitat preservation (Section 21.210.13) identifies habitat areas to be
preserved and the standards, conditions and mitigation that all development projects must meet
in order to comply with the HMP. It references where these standards, conditions, and
mitigation measures are specifically described in the HMP including the special, parcel-specific
requirements for projects in the Coastal Zone. Section 21.210.14 requires all development
projects to provide for the permanent management, maintenance and biological monitoring of all
habitat preserve areas and mitigation land and describes the procedures for ensuring adequate
management. Section 21.210.16 requires the approval of an HMP Permit for any project which
contains habitat and describes the process for approval of the permit. A stand-alone copy of the
new Chapter 21.210 - Habitat Preservation and Management Requirements is attached as
Attachment 4.
The second component of the Zone Code Amendment proposes to amend the O-S Open Space
Zone. The O-S Zone will be applied to all future areas added to the HMP habitat preserve areas
and all existing preserve areas not zoned O-S which will be rezoned to O-S. Presently, the O-S
Zone permits uses and structures which are inappropriate in an area set-aside for habitat
preservation which generally should be precluded from development and development-related
structures. Therefore, a new section (Section 21.33.045) is proposed to be added to the O-S
Zone which list the uses, structures, and activities which would be permitted in areas zoned for
open space but preserved for natural habitat in conformance with the HMP. Staff is also
proposing that a new statement of Intent and Purpose be added to Section 21.33.010 of the O-S
Zone relating to protecting habitat areas preserved in conformance with the HMP. An excerpt
from the O-S Zone showing the new additions underlined is attached to the staff report as
Attachment 5.
The next part of the Zone Code Amendment proposes adding wording to the existing section of
the Hillside Development Regulations relating to the consideration of a modification to the
regulations (Section 21.95.140). Presently, a modification can be considered when certain,
specified circumstances exist. The new wording would add a new circumstance and allow the
Planning Commission to also consider a modification when strict adherence to the regulations
cannot be achieved in order for a project to preserve habitat in compliance with the HMP. An
excerpt from the Hillside Development Regulations showing the new wording underlined is
attached to the staff report as Attachment 6.
The final component of the Zone Code Amendment pertains to the Coastal Resource Protection
Overlay Zone. Presently, Section 21.203.040 of the Overlay Zone requires slopes of twenty-five
ZCA 05-01/LCPA 05-09 - HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
December 7,2005
Page 4 -
percent grade and over in the coastal zone to be preserved in their natural state. Encroachments
into these slopes to a maximum often percent are permitted under specified circumstances. Staff
is proposing to add wording which would allow the Planning Commission to consider
encroachments of ten percent or greater where it is necessary in order to preserve the amount of
habitat required by the HMP and the preservation cannot be achieved by strict adherence to the
existing regulation. An excerpt from the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone showing the
new wording underlined is attached to the staff report as Attachment 7.
B. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
As noted previously, the Planning Commission and City Council recently approved amendments
to the Land Use and the Open Space and Conservation Elements of the General Plan (GPA 05-01
and GPA 05-02) pertaining to the HMP. These amendments: 1) incorporated the HMP by
reference; 2) added policy statements regarding the protection of natural habitats and biodiversity
in the City in conformance with the HMP; and 3) added action programs to require the city to
fully implement the HMP and ensure that all development projects comply with the Plan. The
purpose of this Zone Code Amendment is to comply with the recently approved amendments to
the General Plan so that consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance is
achieved. Therefore, the proposed ZCA is in conformance with the Land Use and Open Space
and Conservation Elements of the City's General Plan.
C. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM CONFORMANCE
In 2003, the California Coastal Commission approved the HMP and associated Local Coastal
Program Amendments to incorporate the HMP by reference into the Coastal Program and to
include all the general habitat preservation standards as well as specific parcel-by-parcel
standards applicable in the City's coastal zone. The Coastal Commission found that the HMP
was in conformance with the State Coastal Act which sets a high priority for the protection of
natural habitats in the coastal zone. The Coastal Commission's approval was conditioned on the
City completing the necessary follow-up steps to fully implement the HMP which is the purpose
of this proposed Zone Code Amendment. Since the Zoning Ordinance is the implementing
document for the Local Coastal Program, a new Local Coastal Program Amendment is being
proposed to establish consistency between the two documents. Therefore, ZCA 05-01 is in
conformance with the City's Local Coastal Program.
Based upon the above analysis, staff is recommending approval of the Zone Code Amendment
(ZCA 05-01) and corresponding Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 05-09).
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Zone Code Amendment is proposed in order to implement and ensure compliance with the
City's Habitat Management Plan. The amendment does not involve or accompany a specific
development proposal or involve a specific site or zone in the city. If the amendment is
approved, any proposal to develop a specific site in conformance with the HMP would be
required to comply with CEQA. An Initial Study (EIA Part II) was prepared for the requested
action and it was determined that no adverse environmental impacts will result from the approval
of ZCA 05-01 and LCPA 05-09. Therefore, the Assistant Planning Director has issued a Notice
of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration. A 30-day review period was conducted from October
ZCA 05-01/LCPA 05-09 - HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
December 7, 2005
Page 5
4, 2005 through November 2, 2005. Only one comment letter was received in response to the
Notice of Intent for a Negative Declaration during the public review period. The comment letter
was a joint response from the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and is attached to Resolution 5993 approving the Negative Declaration. The
letter did not object to the issuance of a Negative Declaration, rather it provided comments
recommending revisions to the Zone Code Amendment. Most of the revisions have been made
and the others have been discussed with the agencies. Therefore, staff recommends adoption of
the Negative Declaration.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5993 (Neg. Dec.)
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5994 (ZCA)
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5995 (LCPA)
4. Stand-alone version of Chapter 21.210 - Habitat Preservation and Management
Requirements
5. Underline version of excerpt from O-S Open Space Zone
6. Underline version of excerpt from Hillside Development Regulations
7. Underline version of excerpt from Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone
8. LCPA comment letters
ATTACHMENT 4
Stand-alone Version of
Chapter 21.210 New Chapter 21.210
Habitat Preservation and Management Requirements
Sections:
21.210.10 Purpose and Intent
21.210.11 Definitions
21.210.12 Applicability
21.210.13 Habitat Preservation Requirements
21.210.14 Habitat Management Requirements
21.210.15 Permits Required
21.210.16 HMP Permit
21.210.17 Exemption from Requirements
21.210.18 Habitat Management Plan Amendment
21.210.19 Guidelines
21.210.20 Enforcement Measures - Violations and Remedies
21.210.10 Purpose and Intent
The purposes and intent of this chapter are to:
A. Implement the goals and objectives of the land use and the open space/conservation
elements of the Carlsbad general plan;
B. implement the city's habitat management plan, the Implementing Agreement and
conditions, the North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP), the state's
Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) and 10(a)1(B) permit conditions
C. Preserve the diversity of natural habitats in the city and protect the rare and unique
biological resources located within those habitats;
D. Assure that all development projects comply with the habitat preservation and
conservation standards contained in the habitat management plan;
E. Provide a process for permitting limited, incidental impacts to occur to natural habitat
areas and the species located therein; and
F. Provide a process for allowing exemptions from the habitat preservation and
conservation standards under limited, specified circumstances.
21.210.11 Definitions.
The following definitions are established:
A. Whenever the following terms are used in this chapter, they shall have the meaning
established by this section:
1. "Conditions of Coverage" means the measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate
for impacts to habitat and the covered species located therein and the conditions
and terms of the approval of the HMP by the wildlife agencies contained in the
HMP Implementing Agreement.
2. "Conservation" means to keep protected habitat and the species located therein
from loss, decay or depletion and to move the species toward recovery.
Conservation also describes all actions related to maintaining and managing
habitat and providing a viable habitat preserve system in the city. Conservation
and preservation are similar terms and are used in much the same way.
Preservation connotes the act of setting aside or securing habitat, whereas
conservation is generally more broad and includes activities such as
management of the habitat.
3. "Covered Species" means the species for which take authorization is provided
because long-term viability has been determined to be adequately maintained
6-7
under the HMP as identified in lists 1, 2, and 3, Exhibit "A" to the Implementing
Agreement. The HMP addresses the species identified as list 1 in a manner
sufficient to meet all of the criteria for issuing an incidental take permit. Take
authorization for species of lists 2 and 3 is contingent on other MHCP Subarea
Plans being permitted and/or funding for enhanced management of preserved
areas.
4. "Development Project" means any use of a property, including grading, clearing
and grubbing, construction, alteration of any magnitude or activities incidental
thereto which requires a discretionary or ministerial permit, entitlement or
approval issued under Titles 15, 18, 20 or 21 of the Municipal Code.
5. "Habitat" means the environment or the environmental conditions of a specific
location where species or a population of such species lives, occurs or occupies.
It includes both natural and native habitat.
6. "Habitat In-Lieu Mitigation Fee" means a per-acre fee charged for impacts to on-
site habitat as an alternative to acquiring off-site habitat to mitigate for such
impacts.
7. "Habitat Management Plan" means the comprehensive plan which identifies how
the city can preserve and conserve the diversity of habitat and protect rare
species and biological resources within the city while allowing for additional
development consistent with the city's General Plan and its Growth Management
Plan. In so doing, the Plan allows the city to issue permits and authorization for
the incidental take of rare species in conjunction with private development
projects, public projects, and other activities which are consistent with the Plan.
8. "Hardline Preserve Areas" means properties which are already part of or are
planned to be part of the HMP habitat preserve system. "Existing" hardline
preserve areas are depicted on Figure 5 of the HMP and have already been
conserved for their habitat value due to permitting actions occurring in the past
before approval of the HMP. "Proposed" hardline preserve areas are properties
whose preservation and development areas have been planned as part of the
HMP. These areas have been agreed-upon in coordination with the landowners,
the City, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the California Department of Fish
and Game. If the area proposed for development and proposed for
conservations are in conformance with the HMP, the development will be allowed
under the HMP.
9. "HMP" means the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (dated December 1999 as
amended, final approval November 2004).
10. "HMP Permit" means the permit required when a development project impacts,
either directly or indirectly, habitat in the city.
11. "Implementing Agreement" means the legal document which defines the roles,
responsibilities, activities and conditions that will be undertaken by the city and
the wildlife agencies to provide for the preservation, conservation and
management of habitat and the species covered under the HMP.
12. "Incidental Take Permit" means the taking of an HMP Covered Species incidental
to and not the purpose of carrying out otherwise lawful activities.
13. "Management of Habitat" means all the activities and actions necessary to ensure
that the habitat preserve system in the city remains viable and protected for the
species that are located there including maintenance, biological monitoring and
adequate funding for same.
14. "MHCP" means the Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan, a comprehensive
subregional plan which addresses multiple species habitat needs and the
preservation of natural vegetation in a 175 square mile area in northwestern San
Diego County.
15. "Mitigation" means measures undertaken to diminish or compensate for the
negative impacts of a development project or activity on areas of habitat, native
vegetation or species located therein including minimizing the impact by feasible
avoidance, repairing or restoring the area of impact or compensating for the
impact by replacing or providing substitute resources.
16. "Narrow Endemic Species" means native species with restricted geographic
distributions, soil affinities and/or habitats, a~nd for purposes of the HMP, species
that in addition have important populations within the Plan area, such that
substantial loss of these populations or their habitat within the HMP area might
jeopardize the continued existence or recovery of that species and therefore
special conservation standards are required.
17. "NCCP" means the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act of 1991.
18. "Preserve" means an area set aside and managed for the protection of wildlife
and biological resources.
19. "Preservation" means to keep in safety; protect from danger or harm; to keep
intact or unimpaired; maintain. Preservation and conservation are similar terms
and are used in much the same way. Preservation connotes the act of securing
the land and its values, whereas conservation generally is more broad and
includes activities such as management of the land and its resources.
20. "Property Analysis Record (PAR)" means a computerized database methodology
used to calculate the costs associated with the management, maintenance and
monitoring of natural habitat areas.
21. "Standards Areas" means properties whose preservation and development areas
have not yet been planned as part of the HMP. Instead, preservation and
conservation standards have been developed for these properties which must be
complied with when a development project is submitted for the property.
22. "Wildlife Agencies" means the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California
Department of Fish and Game.
21.210.12 Applicability
A. All development projects and fuel modification activities in the City shall comply with the
habitat preservation and conservation standards contained in the City's Habitat
Management Plan (HMP) as well as the Implementing Agreement, Permit conditions,
the MHCP, the NCCP, the 10(a)1(B) permit conditions, and the requirements contained
in this chapter. All requirements of the HMP are incorporated herein by reference.
B. No grading of habitat in the City, including clearing and grubbing, shall occur pursuant to
Title 15 of the Municipal Code until all the processing and permitting requirements of this
chapter are fulfilled.
21.210.13 Habitat Preservation Requirements.
The provisions of this section shall apply to all development projects as follows:
A. Hardline Preserve Areas. Properties or areas of the City identified in the HMP as existing
hardline preserve areas are shown on Figure 5 of the HMP. Properties or areas of the
City identified in the HMP as proposed hardline preserve areas are shown on Figures 8
through 25 and 34 through 40 of the HMP. These areas shall be prohibited from
development located in or encroaching into the hardline preserve area. Minor
modifications to the boundaries of the proposed hardline preserve area shall only be
allowed if approved as an equivalency finding pursuant to Section 21.210.18 of this
chapter. Incidental take of covered species and direct impacts to habitat shall only occur
outside the boundaries of the hardline preserve areas. Hardline preserve areas are to
be designated as biological open space and preserved in such designation in perpetuity.
B. Standards Areas. Properties or areas of the city identified in the HMP as standards
areas (HMP Figure 26) shall comply with all the habitat preservation standards contained
in Section D.3(C) of the HMP which are incorporated by reference. Incidental take of
covered species and direct impacts to habitat shall not be permitted in these areas until a
development project is approved which complies with the standards and provides any
land to the habitat preserve areas as required by the standards.
C. Additional mitigation. In addition to setting-aside land for the preserve area, all impacts
to habitat and covered species shall be mitigated as follows:
a. All development projects which impact habitat shall provide on-site or off-site
replacement habitat in accordance with the mitigation ratios contained in Table 11
in Section D.6 of the HMP. Preference shall be given for on-site mitigation unless
off-site mitigation- provides for improved quality or configuration of open space.
Replacement habitat shall be identified as part of the approval of the
development project.
b. Larger, connected areas of habitat that is not impacted by development or brush
management and preserved on-site within the boundaries of the property where
the project is located shall be credited toward the mitigation ratios.
c. If at least 67% of the habitat on the property where the development project is
located is preserved, the project shall not be required to obtain off-site mitigation
land in compliance with the mitigation ratios except if: 1) the project would
otherwise be inconsistent with the HMP, IA, MHCP, and NCCP and 10(a)1(B)
permits; 2) the proposed on-site preservation would reduce the City's ability to
meet the specific habitat conservation obligations in the HMP; and /or 3) the
areas to be preserved on site would not benefit the City's preserve system (e.g.,
habitat exists in a small, isolated patch or patches outside of the Focus Planning
Area, and containing no Narrow Endemic species).
d. Mitigation of impacts through habitat restoration or habitat creation shall be
allowed in limited circumstances and shall be mitigated at a higher ratio as
determined by the City in consultation with the wildlife agencies.
D. Additional conditions. In addition to the requirements, standards and conditions
contained in A, B and C of this Section, the following additional conditions of coverage
shall apply to all development projects:
1. Impacts to Narrow Endemic Species shall be avoided to the maximum extent
practicable in conformance with the Narrow Endemic Species Policy contained in
the MHCP and incorporated herein by reference, however where impacts to a
Narrow Endemic Species population are demonstrated to be unavoidable,
impacts shall be limited to 5% of the total Narrow Endemic Species population
within the boundaries of the property where the development project is located.
Relocation of the Narrow Endemic Species cannot be used to meet the 5%
numeric standard.
2. Grading for a development project during wildlife breeding seasons shall be
prohibited unless a minor adjustment is specifically approved by the city and the
wildlife agencies.
3. All development projects shall be located and designed to minimize overall
impacts to natural habitat.
4. All fuel modification (brush management) zones required as a result of the
development project, and as required by the Fire Marshal, shall be located
outside the preserve areas, shall be considered impacted and shall be mitigated
according to C of this section.
5. Impacts to wetland and riparian habitatsshall be avoided to the maximum extent
possible. All development projects that would affect these habitats must
demonstrate that the impacts: 1) cannot be avoided by a feasible alternative, 2)
have been minimized to the maximum extent practicable, 3) mitigated at a
minimum 3:1 ratio and 4) will be mitigated in ways that assure no net loss of
habitat value or function.
6. Impacts to vernal pools shall be avoided. In the event that no project alternative
is feasible that avoids all impacts on a particular property, the impacts must be
minimized and mitigated to achieve a no net loss of biological functions and
values through strict adherence to the Wetland Avoidance and Mitigation Criteria
(Section 3.6.1 of MHCP Volume I), Standard Best Management Practices (MHCP
Appendix B), and Revegetation Guidelines (MHCP Appendix C).
7. In the standards areas, 67% of coastal sage scrub and 75% of the gnatcatchers
located in the area shall be preserved. Some areas may preserve more or less
than these percentages due to parcel size, location, resources, or long term
conservation potential as approved by the City and the Wildlife Agencies.
8. All development projects shall comply with the applicable standards of the MHCP
(dated March 20032) and the measures to minimize impacts to covered species
described in Section D.6, Table 9 and Appendix C of the HMP.
9. All development projects located in the coastal zone shall also be required to
comply with the additional, general conservation standards contained in Section
D.7, Standards 7-1 through 7-12 of the HMP and the additional, parcel-specific
conservation standards contained in Section D.7, Standards 7-13 and 7-14 of the
HMP as incorporated into the Local Coastal Program.
E. Habitat in-lieu mitigation fee. Development projects which are subject to additional
mitigation pursuant to Subsection C of this section and which impact habitat types D, E
and F listed in Table 11 of the HMP shall pay a fee in an amount to be determined by
City Council resolution, in-lieu of providing on-site or off-site mitigation land. The fee
shall be used to fund the acquisition of habitat land in the MHCP as required by the HMP
and Implementing Agreement. The fee shall be adjusted as necessary to acquire
suitable habitat on a per acre basis comparable to the land being developed.
21.210.14 Habitat Management Requirements.
All development projects shall be required to provide for the permanent management,
maintenance and biological monitoring in perpetuity of all on site and off site mitigation land and
all habitat preserve areas within the boundaries of the property in which the project is located
according to the provisions of this section:
A. Standard of management. All preserve areas shall be managed, maintained and
monitored according to the standards contained in Section F.2 of the HMP, Volume 2
and 3 of the MHCP and the Citywide Open Space Management Plan.
B.
C. Funding of management. Based upon the interim management plan required by
Subsection B of this Section, the developer shall provide a non-wasting endowment or
other secure financial mechanism acceptable to the Planning Director to the identified
conservation entity in an amount sufficient for management, maintenance and monitoring
of the preserve areas and mitigation land in perpetuity. The endowment will be tied to
the preserved land for which it is provided and will be held by the City or a third-party
financial entity approved by the City with demonstrated success in managing
endowments. Only the interest accrued from the endowment shall be paid to the
property manager.
D. Conservation easement required. A conservation easement shall be placed on all
preserve areas to ensure the area will be preserved in perpetuity, managed and
maintained for its biological value and to prevent uses which will impair or interfere with
the conservation of the area. At a minimum, the required conservation easement shall
include the following:
i. Identification of grantee, underlying land ownership, and third party
beneficiaries including the City and the Wildlife Agencies,
ii. Permitted and prohibited uses,
iii. Grantor's duties and responsibilities as per the preserve management
plan, which may be amended from time to time,
iv. Enforcement provisions.
E. Preserve Management Plan. Prior to recordation of a final map (if applicable) or prior to
issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall be required to submit a plan to identify
how the preserve areas and mitigation land will be managed and maintained for the first
year after the areas are set-aside for preservation. The plan shall include the costs for
IP I
managing and monitoring the areas in perpetuity and shall identify a conservation entity,
subject to approval by the Planning Director, to serve as preserve manager and who
possesses" the necessary biological qualifications and experience to manage and
monitor the preserve areas in perpetuity. The plan shall be based on the results of a
Property Analysis Record (PAR) or other method acceptable to the Planning Director.
The plan shall commit the preserve manager to prepare a permanent Preserve
Management Plan and annual work plans and shall give the city the right to enforce the
preparation and execution of the plans. The plan shall be approved by the Planning
Director. The preserve management plan shall include the following:
i. An overall vision of the preserve area, its role in the Citywide preserve
system and its regional relationship.
ii. The baseline biological conditions as identified in field surveys of the
property not more than one-year old including an identification of the
covered species that occur or have the potential to occur in the preserve
area and the known or expected threats to the biological value of the area.
iii. Identification of resource management goals and specific conservation
objectives based on the vision for the preserve area and baseline
biological conditions.
iv. Area-specific management directives based on the resource goals and
conservation objectives.
v. A description of preserve-level and subregional monitoring activities which
shall be consistent with the HMP and MHCP Volume I and II.
Appendix D of the citywide Open Space Management Plan contains an outline of the
required format for preserve management plans.
F. Annual work plan. Each year, the Preserve Manager shall be obligated to submit to the
Planning Department an annual work plan for each preserve area. The work plan shall
identify specific problems and how they will be addressed, the planned monitoring and
management actions for the year and include a prioritization of specific management
needs and area-specific management directives.
21.210.15 Permits Required.
A. Impacts to habitat and covered species shall not occur in the city until the permits
required by this chapter have been approved. The permits required by this chapter shall
be processed concurrently with any other development permits required by Titles 15, 18,
20 and 21 of the Municipal Code.
21.210.16 HMP Permit.
An HMP permit shall be required for any development project which directly or indirectly impacts
natural habitat in accordance with the procedures set forth in this section.
A. Application requirements. An application for an HMP permit may be made by the record
owner or owners of the property affected by the development project or the authorized
agent of the owner or owners. The application shall be filed with the Planning Director
upon application forms provided by the Planning Director. At the time of filing the
application, the applicant shall pay a processing fee in an amount specified by City
Council resolution. The application shall be accompanied by a biological report, which
allows for detailed review to determine compliance with this chapter. The biological
report shall include the following:
1. A biological survey prepared by a biologist which identifies the location and
quantifies all habitat and vegetation on the property (or any offsite work area). The
survey shall also identify any covered species, the location of any offsite wetland,
riparian habitat, oak woodland, nesting raptors or narrow endemic species located
within 100 feet of the property. If the biological survey is conducted outside-the
acceptable time of year for identifying narrow endemic species, but the biologist
identifies that narrow endemic species could be present on the property, then
surveys for narrow endemic species must be conducted during acceptable time of
year in accordance with wildlife agencies protocols if such protocols exist. The
processing of the HMP permit application will be held in abeyance until the
applicant submits subsequent surveys conducted during the acceptable time of the
year.
2. For projects located in a proposed hardline area, a map shall be submitted showing
the precise boundary of the proposed development area and the proposed
preserve area consistent with the proposed hardline preserve area figures
contained in the HMP.
3. For projects located in the standards areas, an analysis shall be submitted which
exactly and clearly identifies how the project complies with the standards and
conditions contained in the HMP and MHCP, IA, any applicable permit conditions in
the NCCP and 10(a)1(B) permits, the hardline preserve boundaries which would
result from compliance with the standards and how the project is being located on
the least biologically sensitive portion of the property.
4. For projects which impact narrow endemic species, the following information shall
be provided:
a. A graphic depiction of all narrow endemic species located on the property where
the development project is located;
b. A written biological description of the status of the narrow endemic species;
c. Quantification of both preservation of narrow endemic species and impacts to
narrow endemic species associated with the project including direct and indirect
effects on an area and individual plant basis;
d. A written report of the feasibility or infeasibility of total avoidance of narrow
endemic species population(s);
e. A written description of project design features that reduce indirect effects such
as edge treatments, landscaping, elevation differences, minimization and/or
compensation through restoration or enhancement and consistently with the
MHCP adjacency standards.
5. For projects which impact wetlands, the following information shall be provided:
a. A graphic depiction of all wetlands located on the property where the
development project is located;
b. A written biological description of the status of the wetlands;
c. Quantification of proposed impacts to wetlands associated with the project;
d. Written analysis of the inability to avoid impacts to wetlands;
e. Written description of project design features that minimize impacts to wetlands
including buffers as described in Section 7-11 of the HMP.
6. An analysis of how the development project complies with the additional
preservation conditions contained in Section 21.210.13(0) of this chapter.
7. A description of proposed additional mitigation consistent with Section
21.210.13(0 and E) of this chapter.
8. Any other information, data or analysis deemed necessary by the Planning
Director.
B. Review process. An application for a HMP permit or HMP permit amendment shall be
processed and approved concurrently with any other development permits required by
Titles 11, 15, 18, 20 and 21 of this code. The same decision-making body or official
which has the authority to finally approve, conditionally approve or deny the other
development permits required for the project shall have the authority to finally approve,
conditionally approve or deny a HMP permit. Amendments to HMP permits shall be
acted on by the same decision-making body that approved the original HMP permit and
any subsequent HMP permit amendments. The decision of the decision-making body or
official is final and effective ten calendar days after the adoption of the resolution or
written decision, unless within such ten-day period the applicant or any other interested
person files a written appeal utilizing the same appeal procedure applicable to the other
permits which are processed concurrently with the HMP permit. If no other discretionary
permits are being processed concurrently with the HMP permit, then the appeal
procedures contained in Chapter 21.54, Sections 21.54.140 and 21.54.150 of this Title
shall apply.
C. Incidental take permit. If a development project impacts an HMP covered species and
an incidental take permit is required under the authority of the citywide incidental take
permit issued for the HMP, the Planning Director shall have the authority to issue the
take permit as long as an HMP permit has been approved for the project by the
appropriate decision-making body or official pursuant to Subsections A and B of this
section.
D. Required findings. No HMP permit shall be approved unless the decision-making body
or official finds that:
1. The development project complies with the purpose and intent provisions of
Section 21.210.10 of this chapter.
2. The proposed development is in compliance with all provisions of the Carlsbad
Habitat Management Plan (HMP), the Implementing Agreement, the Multiple
Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP), the Natural Communities Conservation Plan
(NCCP) and 10(a)1(B) permit conditions, the preservation requirements set forth
in Section 21.210.13 of this chapter and the management requirements set forth in
Section 21.210.14 of this chapter.
3. The project design as approved by the city has avoided and minimized impacts to
habitat and covered species to the maximum extent feasible.
4. If applicable, the take of covered species is consistent with the Citywide incidental
take permit issued for the HMP, will be incidental to otherwise lawful activities
related to construction and operation of the project and will not appreciably reduce
the likelihood of survival and recovery of the species.
21.210.17 Habitat Management Plan Amendment.
Certain HMP implementation actions will require an amendment to the HMP as follows:
A. Minor amendments.
1. Equivalency findings. Minor changes to the boundary of a proposed hardline
preserve areas or other HMP maps which do not reduce the acreage or quality of
habitat are considered minor amendments to the HMP and can be approved by the
City with equivalency findings. The city shall provide written notice of the
equivalency findings to the wildlife agencies, and unless the agencies object within
30 days of notification, the change will be considered automatically approved. If
objections are raised, the City will meet with the agencies to resolve the objection
and written approval of the change from the Agencies will be required.
2. Consistency findings. The conversion of standards areas to hardline preserve areas
and the processing of certain City projects not shown as hardline preserve areas in
the HMP are considered minor amendments to the HMP and can be approved by
the City with consistency findings as follows:
a. Conversion of standards areas to hardline preserve areas. If the Planning
Director determines that the new hardline preserve area boundary conforms to
the standards contained in Section D.3(C) of the HMP, the Director shall consult
with the wildlife agencies as part of the environmental review process for the
development project. If objections to the new preserve area boundaries are not
received during the public review period for the environmental review process
from the wildlife agencies, consistency findings shall be prepared and adopted as
part of the normal development permitting process for the project.
b. City projects. For city projects not proposed as hardline preserve areas and not
requiring any discretionary review and permitting process, the city shall review
the project for compliance with the standards contained in Section 21.210.13. If
the city project complies, it shall be determined to be consistent with the HMP
and the Planning Director shall make consistency findings.
3. Other minor amendments.
a. Minor amendments may also be considered for the following cases:
i. The total impact to habitat is less than one acre, the habitat is not occupied by
a covered species, does not impact a Narrow Endemic Species or a wetland
and the habitat mitigation in-lieu fee is assessed pursuant to Section
21.210.13(E) of this chapter;
ii. The development project is an essential public works project resulting in a
public facility or infrastructure that benefits the community at large and strict
adherence to the requirements would render the project completely infeasible;
iii. Strict application of the requirements of this chapter would result in
development of less than 25% of the property. Development shall occur on
the least biologically sensitive portion of the property [Note: Such projects
may require a Major Amendment (described below) depending upon the
nature of the impact and conflict with the HMP, IA, MHCP, and NCCP and
10(a)1(B) permits].
iv. The alternate design results in a biologically superior development.
b. Process for minor amendments for these other cases. A request for a minor
amendment shall be processed concurrently with any other permit required for
the development project. Supporting data and information shall be submitted by
the applicant for the which clearly demonstrates that the project design, siting and
size are the minimum necessary to make the project feasible or provide an
economically viable use of the property. The Planning Director shall consult with,
and obtain approval from, the Wildlife Agencies in reviewing a request for such a
deviation. The deviation shall require the approval or conditional approval of the
Planning Director, Planning Commission, or City Council based on whichever
authority is the final decision-maker on the concurrent permit(s). Note: Such
projects may require a Major Amendment (described below) depending upon the
nature of the impact and conflict with the HMP, IA, MHCP, and NCCP and
10(a)1(B) permits].
c. Required findings. No minor amendment request shall be approved unless the
decision-making body finds that:
i. If applicable, the project is an essential, public works project that will service
the community at large; and
ii. The proposed project and all project alternatives have been analyzed in an
appropriate environmental (CEQA) document; and
iii. The impacts to habitat have been minimized to the maximum extent
practicable; and
iv. The project has mitigated its impacts to the maximum extent practicable,
v. The project does not reduce the ability to meet the specific habitat
• conservation obligations of the HMP, IA, MHCP, and NCCP, and 10(a)1(B)
permits.
B. Major amendments. Removal of lands from conserved areas, or reconfiguration of
hardline areas resulting in a decrease of acreage, quality of habitat, or function of the
conserved area shall constitute a major amendment to the HMP. Additions to the
covered species list shall also require a major amendment to the plan. Major
amendments shall require public, environmental review (CEQA and NEPA) and will be
subject to the following amendment process:
1. The City will initiate a pre-amendment review with the wildlife agencies. In this
review, the City will present a report that identifies the change or the affected
species. The purpose of the review meeting will be to deiermine whether adequate
information is available to consider approval of the change.
2. Within 90 days of the review meeting, the wildlife agencies will notify the City that
they have sufficient information to act on the proposed change; have specific items
of additional information necessary to properly evaluate the proposed changes; or
have determined that additional data collection and analysis is necessary for
adequate evaluation of the impacts of the proposed change.
3. Where specific items of additional information are requested, the City will provide the
information to the extent it is reasonably available within 90 days. Where additional
data collection and analysis are requested, the agencies will provide a detailed
explanation of what is required and the purpose of the data and analysis.
4. Once the additional information is received, the agencies shall notify the City within
30 days whether the change is approved. If approved, the change shall constitute
an amendment of the Plan which shall then be presented to the City Council for
approval and adoption.
21.210.19 Guidelines
A. From time to time, the Planning Director may upon review by the City Attorney prepare
guidelines to assist in the implementation of this chapter or the HMP, including but not
limited to wetland preservation and mitigation. The Planning Director shall have the
authority to approve and publish any guidelines.
21.210.20 Enforcement Measures - Violations and Remedies
A. Whenever the Planning Director determines that a violation of this chapter has occurred
or an individual has impacted habitat without the benefit of a HMP permit, the following
enforcement measures and remedies may be undertaken by the Planning Director, in
lieu of or in addition to any remedial actions undertaken in accordance with Section
15.16.140 of the Municipal Code.
1. Stop Work Notice. The Planning Director shall issue a stop work order demanding
that all activities in violation of this chapter be stopped until a valid HMP permit is
obtained and corrective action is authorized by the Planning Director.
2. Corrective Action. The Planning Director, in consultation with the Wildlife Agencies,
shall determine the extent of corrective action necessary to cure the violation.
Corrective action may include a higher mitigation ratio than specified in Table 11 of
Section D.SoftheHMP.
3. Owner-Notification. The owner of the property shall be notified in writing that a
violation has occurred. The notification shall specify the location, nature and extent
of the activity or condition which contributed to the violation, the corrective action
needed to cure the violation and the period of time deemed necessary by the
Planning Director to correct the violation. The appeal process contained in Section
21.51.140 of this code shall apply to the Planning Director's determination.
4. Record Notice of Violation. In the event that the owner does not correct the
violation in the manner or within the time period requested by the Planning Director,
the Planning Director shall record a notice of HMP violation against the property
with the county recorder. Upon completion of any corrective action and/or issuance
of a valid HMP permit and upon payment of the investigation fee required pursuant
to this section, the Planning Director shall file a notice of release of HMP violation
with the county recorder releasing the property from the notice of violation.
5. Prohibition of Development Permits. Any property which has a notice of HMP
violation recorded against it shall be prohibited from obtaining or using any
development permit pursuant to Titles 18, 20 and 21 of this code until after all
corrective actions are taken in accordance with the requirements of the Planning
Investigation Fee. An investigation fee established by City Council resolution shall
be paid by the person responsible for the violation in accordance with the
provisions of this chapter. The payment of such investigation fee shall not relieve
any person from the performance of the corrective work or otherwise complying
with the requirements of this chapter.
Criminal Penalities. Each person, firm or corporation who commences or does any
activity contrary to the provisions of this chapter, or otherwise violates the
provisions of this chapter, is guilty of an infraction. Every day during any portion of
which any violation of any provisions of this title is committed, continued or
permitted by such person, firm or corporation, shall be deemed a separate violation
and shall be punishable as provided in this title and in Section 1.08.010(b) of this
code. -—
Abatement of Public Nuisance. Any activity commenced or done contrary to the
provisions of this chapter, or other violation of this chapter, shall be, and the same
is declared to be, a public nuisance. Upon order of the City Council , the City
Attorney shall commence necessary proceedings for the abatement of any such
public nuisance in the manner provided by law. Any failure, refusal, or neglect to
obtain a permit as required by this chapter shall be prima facie evidence of the fact
that a public nuisance has been committed in connection with any activity
commenced or done contrary to the provisions of this chapter.
Civil Action. The City Attorney may, at the request of the Planning Director, initiate
any appropriate civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction to enforce the stop
work notice, including the required corrective actions, including the recovery of any
funds expended by the city to abate any public nuisance resulting from an unlawful
act as defined in Section 15.16.170 of the Municipal Code and any additional civil
penalties provided for by law.
ATTACHMENT 5
Excerpt i n Chapter 21.33-Open
Space Zone-Underlined version
Chapter
O-S OPEN SPACE ZONE
Sections:
2133.010 Intent and purpose.
21.33.015 Carlsbad State Beach.
_ 2133.020 Permitted uses and structures.
2133.030 Permitted accessory uses and
structures.
2133.040 Uses and structures permitted
by conditional use permit.
* 2133.050 Lot area, minimum.
2133.060 Building height.
2133.010 Intent and purpose.
The intent and purpose of the O-S zone is to:
(1) Provide for open space and recreational uses
which have been deemed necessary for the aestheti-
cally attractive and orderly growth of the communi-
ty;
(2) Protect and encourage said uses wherever
feasible;
(3) Be used in conjunction with publicly owned
property utilized as parks, open space, recreation
areas, civic centers and other public facilities of a
similar nature;
(4) Designate high priority resource areas at time
of development that, when combined would create
a logical and comprehensive open space system for
the community;
(5) Implement the goals and objectives of the
general plan. (Ord. 9385 § 2 (part), 1974)
(6) Protect areas set-aside and preserved
as natural habitat and the biological resources
located in the areas in conformance with the
City's Habitat Management Plan.
2133.015 Carlsbad State Beach.
Developments on Carlsbad State Beach will re-
quire permits subject to the requirements of the
certified local coastal program. The local coastal
program certified a coastal shoreline development
overlay zone applicable to Carlsbad State Beach. It
also established policies for the overall master plan
for the area. (Ord. NS-365 § 2, 1996)
2133.020 Permitted uses and structures.
In the O-S open space zone only the following
uses and structures are permitted subject to ine
requirements of this chapter and to the development
standards provided in Chapters 21.41 and 21.44:
(1) Beaches and shoreline recreation, public; „.
(2) Bicycle paths;
(3) Horse trails;
(4) Open space easements;
(5) Parks, public;
(6) City picnic areas;
(7) City playgrounds;
(8) Public access easement, nonvehicular;
(9) Public lands;
(10) Scenic easements;
(11) Slope easements;
(12) Transportation rights-of-way;
(13) Vista points;
(14) Agricultural uses as follows:
(A) Held and seed crops,
(B) Truck crops,
(C) Horticultural crops,
(D) Orchards and vineyards,
(E) Pasture and rangeland,
(F) Tree farms,
(G) Fallow lands. (Ord. 9461 § 1 (part), 1976;
Ord. 9385 § 2 (part), 1974)
2133.030 Permitted accessory uses and
structures.
The following accessory uses and structures are
permitted on the same terms as the permitted uses
specified in Section 21.33.020: Public restrooms,
clubhouses, parking areas, barbecue and fire pits.,
playground equipment, stairways, patios, changing
rooms, pool filtering equipment, fencing and other
similar accessory uses and structures required for the
conduct of the permitted uses. (Ord. 9385 § 2 (part),
2133.040 Uses and structures permitted by
conditional use permit
Subject to the provisions of Chapter 21.50, the
following uses and structures are permitted by con-
ditional use permit:
(1) Group or organized camps;
(2) Marinas;
625 (Carlsbad 12-96)
21.33.040 ATTACHMENT 5 - Page 2
(3) Playfields and athletic fields, including courts;
(4) Public facilities, structures;^
(5) Recreational campgrounds;
(6) Stables and riding academies, public;
.(7) Other related cultural, entertainment and
recreational activities and facilities; . ::
(8) Golf courses;
(9) Swimming pools;
(10) Tennis courts;
(U) Private playgrounds;
(12) Privt^" picnic areas;
(13) Stands for the display and sale of aquacul-
ture products grown on the premises. (Qrd. 9808 §
2,1986; Ord. 9507 f 3,1978; Ord. 9385 § 2 (part),
1974)
is
21.33.045 Open space preserved in
conformance with the Habitat
Management Plan.
A. Notwithstanding Sections 21.33.020,
21.33.030 arid 21.33.040 of this chapter,
no development, uses, structures or
activities shall be permitted in areas
zoned for open space which have been set-
aside and preserved for natural habitat
in conformance with the City's Habitat
Management Plan except as provided below:
(1) Activities related to the manage-
ment, maintenance and biological monitor-
ing of the habitat by the managing entity
as required by the Habitat Management Plan
and city and other regulatory agency. _
permits and approved by the Wildlife
Agencies in the Habitat Management Plan
and/or MHCP in order to preserve and
protect the property for natural habitat
purposes. Fuel modification activities
are not allowed within the preserve area;
(2) Planting and maintaining of
locally native trees, shrubs, and other
native landscaping elements in order to
restore or enhance the habitat area as
required by the Habitat Management Plan
and city and other regulatory agency
permits and approved by the Wildlife
Agencies in the Habitat Management Plan
and/or MHCP including the appurtenances
necessary to maintain the native land-
scaping placed thereon;
(3) Trails which are approved as -
part of the citywide trail program and
which are located in conformance.with
city and other regulatory agency permits
and are consistent with the Habitat
Management Plan and MHCP Volume I, section
6.3.8 for public access, and approved by
the Wildlife Agencies;
(4) Passive recreation uses such as
hiking, picnicking and bird watching if
allowed by the city and other regulatory
agency permits and approved by the Wild-
life Agencies;
(5); Existing utility easements;
(6) Additional easements, subject to
approval of the Wildlife Agencies, that
are consistent with the preservation of
the natural condition of the property, do
.not impair or interfere with the conserva-
tion values of the property and do not
compromise the overall levels of conserva-
tion in the preserve or adversely affect
preserve and species goals;
(7) Fencing as required by the man-
aging entity and which does not adversely
-affect wildlife movement and approved by
the Wildlife Agencies;
(8) Signing which identifies the
property as a habitat preserve and informs
persons of the nature and restrictions on
the property and approved by the Wildlife
Agencies; and
(9) Other, minor ancillary uses which
have been specifically approved as part of
the Habitat Management Plan or as allowed
by city or other regulatory agency permits
and approved by the Wildlife Agencies.
Ancillary structures that are specific to
a project development, such as storm drains
or detention basins, shall be allowed out-
side the preserve (any exceptions shall
follow the appropriate process for a boun-
ary adjustment).
21.33.050 Lot area, minimum.
There shall be no minimum lot area established
for the 0-S zone district. The size of the lot shsQE&e
dependent upon the existing or proposed use. (Ord.
9385 § 2 (part), 1974)
(Carlsbad IZ-95)626/634
21.95.130
from Sections 21.38.141(Q(l)(a) and 2U03-
.040(A)(1) of the municipal code. (Ord. NS-524 §§
3, 4, 2000: Ord. NS-446 § 1 (part), 1998)
21.95.140 Modifications to the development
and design standards. ',..•'
A. Outside the coastal zone, the decision-making
body or official may approve a-modification to the
hillside development and .design standards of Sec-
tion 21.95.120 if it finds that the proposed develop-
ment complies with, the purpose and intarft provi-
sions of Section 21.95.010 and makes one or more
of the following findings:
1. The proposed modification will result in
significantly more open space or undisturbed area
than would a strict adherence to the requirements of
Section 21.95.120.
2. The proposed modification will result in the
development of manufactured slopes which are more
aesthetically pleasing and natural appearing iftan
would a strict adherence to the requirements of
Section 2155.120.
3. The proposed modification will result
in the preservation of natural habitat as
required bv the City's Habitat Management
Plan and the required amount of preservation
could not be achieved bv strict adherence
to the requirements of Section 21.95.120.
B. Any request for a modification to the devel-
opment and design standards of mis chapter shall be
accompanied by two preliminary grading plans. One
plan shall illustrate how a site would be developed
with a strict adherence to the requirements of Sec-
tion 21.95.120. The second set shall illustrate the
extent and type of the requested modification. This
plan shall also be accompanied by any other docu-
mentation needed by the decision-making body to
determine that the proposed modifications will result
hi a superior project with less adverse environmental
impacts. '
C. If a modification is proposed to allow grading
in excess of ten thousand cubic yards/acre of cut or
fill, or a manufactured slope in excess of forty feet
ATTACHMENT 6
Excerpt f no. Chapter 2l.95-HUlside
Development Regulations-Underlined
version
in height, the applicant -dmfl submit both, written and
graphic exhibits to justify the proposed grading to
the satisfaction of the decision-making body or
. official. In addition, a detailed mitigation and land-
scaping plan shall be submitted as part of me appli-
cation. This plan foafl illustrate the mitigation mea-
sures and landscaping utilized to screen the pro-
posed grading. .
D. Development on land designated for nonresi-
dential development shall comply with all require-
ments of this chapter except Sections 21.95.120(D)
and 21.95.120(E). Any nomssidential project pro-
posing grading hi excess of ten thousand cubic
yards per acre or creating slopes in excess of forty
feet in height sbaH provide both written and graphic
exhibits to justify me proposed grading to the satis-
faction of the decision-making body. (Ord. NS-524
§ 5, 2000; Ord, NS-446 § 1 (part), 1998)
E. Inside the coastal zone, the
decision-making body or official may
approve encroachments to slopes of
twenty-five percent grade and over in
order to preserve natural habitat as
required by the City's Habitat Management
Plan, in accordance with Chapter 21.203
of the municipal code, provided that the
required amount of preservation could
not be achieved by strict adherence to
the requirements of Sections 21.95.120(A)
and (B) of this chapter.
(Carlsbad 4-00)812
.IU
21.203.030
Chapter 21.201 of this code. (Ord. NS-365 § 22
(part), 1996)
21.203.040 Development standards.
The following specific development standards
shall be applied to areas within the coastal resource
protection overlay zone as part of the coastal devel-
opment permit. Such standards shall control, not-
withstanding the provisions of the underlying zone
and shall include:
A. Preservation of Steep Slopes and Vegetation..
Any development proposal that affects steep slopes
(twenty-five percent 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 the CEQA environmental
review on a project-by-project basis and shall be
required as a condition of a coastal development
permit.
1. Outside the Kelly Ranch property, for those
slopes mapped as possessing endangered plant/
animal species and/or coastal sage scrub and chapar-
ral plant communities, the following policy language
applies:
a. Slopes of twenty-five percent grade and over
shall be preserved in their natural state, unless the
application of this policy would preclude any rea-
sonable use of the property, in which case an en-
croachment not to exceed ten percent of the steep
slope area over twenty-five percent grade may be
permitted. For existing legal parcels, with all or
nearly all of their area in slope area over twenty-five
percent grade, encroachment may be permitted;
however, any such encroachment shall be limited so
that at no time is more than twenty percent of the
entire parcel (including areas under twenty-five
percent slope) permitted to be disturbed from its
natural state. This policy shall not apply to the
construction of roads of the city's circulation ele-
ment or the development of utility systems. Uses of
slopes over twenty-five percent 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
i .tt.^.TUV.LCJ.'N i /
Ex^rpt from Chapter 21.203-Coastal
Re >urce Protection Overlay Zone-
Underlined version
that have their total area in excess of twenty-five
percent slope unless a planned unit development is
. proposed which limits grading and development to "
not more than ten percent 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-ieciuce the potential for
localized erosion and slide hazards, to prohibit the
removal of native vegetation except for creating
firebreaks and/or planting fire retardant vegetation
and to protect visual resources of importance to the
entire community
d. Notwithstanding (a) and (b) above, encroachments
to slopes of twenty-five percent grade and over may
be permitted in order to preserve natural habitat as
required by the City's Habitat Management Plan and
the required amount of preservation could not be*
achieved by strict adherence to the requirements of
(a) and (b).
2. Within the Kelly Ranch property, for those
slopes possessing endangered plant/animal species
and/or coastal sage scrub and chaparral plant com-
munities, the following policy language applies:
a. Coastal sage scrub and southern maritime
chaparral plant communities shall be preserved in
their natural state within designated open space
areas shown on the LCP Kelly Ranch open space
map and addressed in Policy 3-5 of the certified ;
LCP land use plan.
b. The open space shown on the Kelly Ranch
open space map shall be secured through conserva-
tion easements or dedicated in fee at the time of
subdivision approval. The easements shall be grant-
ed to the city or other public entity and maintained
and managed as part of the LCP Kelly Ranch open
space system.
c. Restoration of disturbed areas within the
designated open space through revegetation of dis-
turbed areas and enhancement of existing vegetation
with native upland species shall be required, in
consultation with the Department of Rsh and Game,
as a condition of subdivision approval. The restora-
(Carlsbad 8-01)814-36
I
California Native plant Society
Marcela Escobar-Ecke November 1st, 2005
Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 05-09 HMP Implementation
Dear Ms. Escobar-Ecke:
Please accept the following comments on the Local Coastal Program
Amendment LCPA 05-09 HMP Implementation on behalf of the San Diego Chapter of
the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). The CNPS is a statewide non-profit
organization of amateurs and professionals with a common interest in California's native
plants. The Society seeks to increase understanding of California's native flora and to
preserve this rich resource for future generations.
Editing style: Language that is proposed for addition is noted with bold underlining
and language that is proposed for deletion or replacement is noted with RED BOLD
and is followed with suggested replacement language and reasoning.
Section 21.033.045 (2) should be revised to include the following language, "Planting
and maintaining of locally native trees, shrubs and other native landscaping elements
in order to restore or enhance the habitat area as required by the Habitat Management
Plan and city and other regulatory agency permits including the installation of
underground pipe systems, sprinklers, and appurtenances necessary to maintain the
native landscaping placed thereon;
It is important to specify 'locally' as in plants that are known to occur in native habitat
areas of Carlsbad, CA. "Native" should also be defined in the 21.210.11 definitions
section.
installation of underground pipe systems, sprinklers: For the purpose of native
plant restoration, the requirement for underground pipe systems is costly and
unnecessary and can cause unnecessary harm to the preserved habitat area. This
language should be deleted.
Section 21.033.045(5) Utility easements. Comment: Utility easements should follow
similar guidelines concerning vegetation trimming outside of breeding
season and it should be specified whether or not trimming along utility
easements is allowed beyond the existing trail or road. It has been
observed along several utility easements that trimming goes into existing
habitat that is counted towards the MHPA. If the utility companies or cities
(sewer easements) are going into habitat (as they currently are) mitigation
measures should be implemented. Additional encroachments for future
utility easements should be considered an impact and subject to the same
I Dedicated to tf?e preservation of California native flora
ATTACHMENT 8
California Native P/ant Society
mitigation and habitat management requirements specified for
development projects in 21.210.12 - 17. 7/?ere /s a/so a current problem
regarding grading on utility road easements. This is usually done in a way
that promotes erosion, sedimentation and impacts on natural habitats.
Impacts resulting from emergency and routine access should be
monitored, documented, and appropriately mitigated, including indirect
impacts (e.g. spread of non-native species, soil erosion).
Section 21.033.045 (9) "as allowed by the city and other regulatory agency permits" If
the ancillary use is not already covered under the HMP, the city should not
have discretion over changes without proper documentation and
consultation with the regulatory agencies.
Section 21.210.11 Definitions
Add the following definition
Native species: Native species are plants that naturally occur in the
native habitats of Carlsbad. CA.
Section 21.210.13(A)
"Incidental take of covered species and direct impacts to habitat shall only
occur outside the boundaries of the hardline preserve areas." Shouldn't there be an
exception for narrow endemic species?
Section 21.210.13(0) Question: Are the hardlined projects "self mitigated with on-site
conservation, or do they also have to mitigate in accordance with the ratios in Table 11?
Section 21.210.13(C)(b) should be revised to read as follows," Habitat that is not
impacted by development or brush management shall be credited toward mitigation
requirements."
Section 21.210.13(C)(c) Question: Where does the 67% come from. In the City of San
Diego, inside the preserve developers can build on 25% by right, but must conserve
75%. The Carlsbad HMP was following the same guidelines, 75% conservation and
25% development?
Section 21.210.13(C)(d) Comment: The 'limited circumstances' referred to in this
section should be clearly defined and should not be allowed for narrow endemic plant
species since habitat creation for narrow endemic plant species such as Brodiaea
filifolia has been shown scientifically to be ineffective and impossible due to plants
association with rare soil types.
Dedicated to tfye preservation of California native flora
•—t
California Native plant Society
Section 21.210.13(D)(1) Comment 1: "Maximum extent practicable" and "unavoidable"
can and most likely will be interpreted to mean different things depending on the
context, those two terms should be clearly defined to avoid problems in the future.
Comment 2(this also applies to wetland and riparian habitats, including vernal pools) -
Impacts to these habitat should be avoided first, then minimized, and finally, if all else
fails, mitigated. This is where deviations language would really help because it would
define circumstances under which impacts could be permitted. The City of San Diego
MSCP has already defined language that could be cut and pasted and used into this
section. It describes three circumstances under which a "deviation" would be permitted
and then it lists "findings" that must be made to qualify for the deviation. The 3
circumstances are:
o For essential public health and safety projects for existing residents
o For ensuring that no economic hardship occurs (i.e. avoiding a 5th amend.
taking)
o When the result would be a biological superior alternative
Section 21.210.13(D)(2) Question: What would define a 'minor adjustment?'
Section 21.210.13(D)(3) Question and comment: How will projects be designed to
minimize overall impacts to natural habitat? The City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan
(Section 1.4.3, Adjacency Guidelines,
htto://www.sandiego.Qov/mscp/pdf/subareaplan/landuse.pdf) requires that lighting,
drainage, landscaping, grading, access, and noise do not negatively affect the City's
MHPA. Regarding invasive species, the plan requires that "No invasive non-native
plant species shall be introduced into areas adjacent to the MHPA."
Section 21.210.13(D)(6) Question: Where does the 67% come from? Comment: It
seems that the percentage should be the limit, and that the sentence which says "some
areas may preserve more or less" should be removed if the percentage is to be
meaningful.
Section 21.210.13(D)(8), Comment: the term 'overall' should be deleted. Projects must
be in conformance with the plan; inclusion of the term 'overall' muddies this
requirement. What is 'overall conformance'? This would seem to mean that not all
provision would have to be complied with.
Section 21.210.13(E), Comment: the last sentence regarding the in-lieu fund should be
revised to state that "The fee shall be reviewed and adjusted as necessary by the City
to ensure that the per-acre fee is adequate to: 1) Acquire habitat of an equal or better
quality than the land mitigated through the in-lieu fee; and 2) Create a non-wasting
endowment for management of the land as outlined in Section 21.210.14 of this
document." This or other MHCP requirements should also specify that the account
should not accumulate beyond one million dollars, or some other specified amount, e.g.,
Dedicated to tfje preservation of California native flora
"1 Li
California Native plant Society
that the City must stay current on acquisitions through the in-lieu fee program. The
City's habitat tracking reports should also include summary accounting of the amounts
received through the in-lieu fee program', where it has been used, and current balance.
Section 21.210.14(B), second sentence, should be revised to read, "The plan shall be
based on the results of a Property Analysis Record (PAR) or other method acceptable
to the Planning Director and the wildlife agencies." It is very difficult to assess
management funding requirements, and the PAR system takes into account many
variables to help determine the funds necessary. The MHCP documents should be set
up to ensure that adequate funding is collected and that this determination is not made
lightly; as management and monitoring adequacy will depend on it.
Section 21.210.14(6), third sentence, should be revised as follows, "The plan shall
include the costs for managing and monitoring....and who possesses the necessary
biological qualifications and experience to manage and monitor the preserve areas in
perpetuity. At a minimum, the lead land manager should have: 1) A bachelor's
degree or higher in biology or a closely related field: and either 2a) At least five
years of local biological experience: or 2b) Two five of experience in land
management."
Section 21.210.14(8), last sentence, should be revised as follows, "The plan shall
commit the preserve manager to prepare a permanent Preserve Management Plan and
annual work plans. The City is responsible for enforcement of plan preparation
and execution."
Section 21.210.14(C), the following final sentence should be added, "Only the interest
accrued from the endowment shall be paid to the property manager."
Section 21.210.16(A), Comment: The biological survey requirements are weak and
require expansion and clarification. A more specific document detailing biological
survey and reporting requirements should be developed. At a minimum, the
requirements should include surveys of animal species present or potentially present
on-site and in a 100-foot buffer area. Focused surveys should be required not
only for narrow endemic species, but for any federally or state listed plant or animal,
and/or for CNPS Listed plant species with potential to occur on site, except in areas
entirely outside of 'hard line' or 'standard line' areas. This information is necessary to
assess project conformance with the program requirement that development occur in
the least sensitive portion of the site. The requirements should also specify that surveys
shall be performed and reports signed by San Diego County-certified biologists, or
biologists certified through a similar certification process created by the city. Many
municipalities in other Counties, such as Riverside, use their County's biologist list to
ensure professional competence.
I Dedicated to tlje preservation of California native flora
California Native plant Society
Section 21.210.16(A)(1) Comment: It is good to see the requirement for surveys to be
conducted at the appropriate time of year but exceptions should be made for special
circumstances such as catastrophic fires or below average rainfall. Some rare annual
plant species such as Brodiaea filifolia may not come back the first year after a fire and
some don't bloom during drought years so surveys could miss documentation of these
species.
Section 21.210.16(A)(5), Comment: more specific discussion of when impacts to
wetlands are allowed should be developed. The City of San Diego has developed draft
wetland deviations in cooperation with a working group made up of development and
environmental group representatives. This or similar language should be incorporated
into the Carlsbad regulations and is available through the City of San Diego MSCP
group.
Section 21.210.16(C), Question: What biological qualifications does the city planning
director have to make a decision that an incidental take permit can be authorized? The
city should hire its own qualified biologist to assist in making these decisions.
Section 21.210.17, Comment: with the exception of item #3, it is unclear why these
deviations are included. In order for the plan to be successful, all projects must comply
with the program's provisions. Allowing loopholes for small projects and for public
facilities projects at the discretion of the Planning Director renders the proposed
program ineffectual. Giving the permittee (i.e. City) authority to disregard HCP
regulations at their discretion, especially for the jurisdictions' own public works projects,
creates a classic "fox guarding the chicken house" scenario. It is also fundamentally
unfair to require most private development to comply with the city's regulations, but
allow the city to exempt itself. Further, the description is broad enough such that almost
any facility used by more than a few individuals might be deemed a public facility, e.g.,
private streets, etc. With the inclusion of these deviations, there are no assurances
that covered species will be adequately protected. At a minimum, the public project
deviation must be removed from the program in order for a finding of 'no jeopardy1 to be
made. If a small projects deviation is to be included, the portions of the regulation that
can be deviated from should be spelled out. Small projects should still require
mitigation at the specified rate. Other jurisdictions with NCCPs (e.g., MSCP
participants) must abide by their own NCCP regulations, there is no reason the City of
Carlsbad should be different. In addition, the public should be notified about any
deviations and given a 90 day public comment period. The proposed deviation process
does not require any consultation with any qualified biologist and merely rests with
individuals with no biological experience.
Section 21.210.18 (A)(1) Comment: should be revised so that approval from the
wildlife agencies is required for boundary adjustments. Additionally, further
specifications for adjustments should be made, e.g., no impacts to wildlife corridors,
Dedicated to tl?e preservation of California, native flora
California Native plant Society
similar or improved management efficiency, etc, The public should also be notified
about minor amendments and given a 90 day comment period.
Section 21.210.20(A)(1) Comment: should be revised as follows, "Stop Work Notice.
The Planning Director shall issue a stop work order..." This should not be an optional
task.
General Comments, items that should be included:
1. Enforcement language with penalties relevant to habitat conservation, not just a
fine. Simply, "if X happens, the penalty is Y" - not discretionary.
2. Language that clarifies that mitigation sites must be identified as a condition of
the permit (not to happen after the fact).
3. Language that prohibits the use of leftover CSS "take" (as per the 4(d) rule) from
other jurisdictions. This is not what was intended with the 5% rule.
4. Language (probably near E on Page 5) that makes it clear that management
must be consistent with HMP requirements.
5. Language that makes it clear that habitat protection ordinances do not trump
existing steep slope and flood zone protections
6. Will there be language for making boundary adjustments? If so the language
should result in the conveyance of an equivalent amount of conservation.
7. Invasive Species: Considering the amount of taxpayer dollars being currently
spent to control invasive species, this would seem like the appropriate time to
modify the city's landscape and technical manual to comply with the MHCP
guidelines and prohibit the use of invasive species within one mile of preserve
boundaries. Recent development projects near preserve areas have included
the use of invasive species such as Pennisetum setaceum and Dimorphotheca
sinuate. The continued allowed use of invasive species will only result in future
economic and environmental problems for the city and jeopardize the MHCP.
8. Public projects should be required to use locally native plant species for
landscaping and erosion control.
9. When will enforcement practices take effect and how should the public report
them? There are numerous existing cases of private property owners adjacent to
preserve areas who have impacted the preserve, essentially extended their
property into the 'preserved' areas.
Cindy Burrascano
Conservation Chair
San Diego Chapter of the CNPS
PO Box 121390
San Diego CA 92112-1390
(619)421-5767
wAvw.cnpssd.org
info@,cnpssd.org
Dedicated to t^e preservation of California, native flora
November 1,2005 RECEIVED
Marcela Escobar-Ecke KOV 0 f 2005
Planning Director CITY OF CAP? QDA
City of Carlsbad PLA w v • vo^ SBA
1635 Faraday Avenue ^AN.NiNQ DEPT
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: Local Coastal Program Amendment
LCPA 05-09 HMP Implementation
Dear Director Escobar-Ecke:
The attached comments on the Local Coastal Program Amendment- HMP
Implementation are submitted on behalf of the North County Open Space Coalition
(NCOSC). NCOSC is a coalition of local conservation organizations who have been
working for a regional conservation plan for north county. We have a long history of
cooperatively working with the city of Carlsbad on these issues- from comments on the
MHCP, to assisting with achieving the successful kick-off of the new municipal golf
course.
We are committed to continuing that cooperative working relationship as you complete
the final steps required for full implementation of the HMP and the associated
implementing agreements with the wildlife agencies and approval of these LCP
amendments by the California Coastal Commission.
Attached are our comments on your proposed LCP amendments. While these draft
ordinances address many of our issues of concern, there are still several areas where
we believe further refinement/clarification will help us all achieve the goal we are
working towards- an effective conservation plan for your city. In addition to these
ordinances there are still many areas where the full details of how this plan will be
carried out need to be detailed in formal city guidelines and policy documents. Two
areas where we believe some immediate work is needed are clarifying the conditions
under which wetlands impacts will be allowed, and protection for stream buffers. The
Carlsbad Watershed Network has done extensive work on these two issues and will be
submitting their comments separately.
We would be happy to meet with you to discuss these comments and to address any
questions/concerns that you might have.
Sincerely,
Dave Grubb
On Behalf of North County Open Space Coalition
ATT.
Comments on Carlsbad HMP Ordinances 11/01/05
21.33.045
Sect 2 (3) Trails are not a concern, but infrastructure that can be associated with trail
use, such as trailhead parking lots are not an allowed use under the
MHCP, although some have been included in recent projects. Any use not
specifically allowed should be assumed to not be allowed- and this would
include parking lots.
Sect 2 (3) Picnic areas can have both direct and indirect impacts. If this is to be
included as an allowed use, then there should be specific conditions
associated with this- such as location on the development edge, closed
trash containers, regular trash pick up, signage restricting feeding wildlife,
and enforcement which should be addressed in the area specific
management plan.
21.210.13
Sect A Add provision that allows future additions to hardline to be covered by
this ordinance without a need to specifically amend this ordinance.
Sec C.a Add a general preference for on-site mitigation unless off site provides for
an improved quality or configuration of open space. Wetland impacts
should also be mitigated within the same sub-watershed.
Sec D.5 Wetlands creation, per the MHCP is at a 3:1 ratio which should be
specified. The conditions for wetlands deviation need to be addressed in a
guidelines document (see comments to be submitted by CWN).
Sect E. Add that priorities shall be for mitigation:
1. within the same sub-watershed.
2. if no appropriate habitat in the sub-watershed then within another sub-
watershed of the City of Carlsbad.
3. if there is no suitable habitat in the city of Carlsbad, then the within the
MHCP core area.
The process for use of the fee should be included such as time frame for
implementation of mitigation, and the ability to use for advance habitat
banking that could later be allocated to a specific project.
21.210.14
Sec C Add that third party financial entity to be approved by the city.
Sec D Clarify who holds the underlying land ownership in case there is a default
by the non-profit land management company and/or the financial entity.
Comments on HMP Ordinances
This should be specified as the city or another public agency which must
be clarified in the conservation easement.
Sect E Approval by the Planning Director makes this an administrative process
with no opportunity for public input, or review/comment by the wildlife
agencies. Since the Planning Director has no formal qualifications in
biology/botany this does not provide sufficient assurances that species
specific management actions, conditions related to protection of narrow
endemics, or special resources like vernal pools have been addressed.
There needs to be a more open process with provisions for technical
review of the permanent management plan.
Sect F An annual report to the Planning Department is just the first part of a
system for monitoring effective management of these lands. The process
needs to also include reporting at a public meeting that provides
opportunities for public comment.
There also needs to be some land of mechanism for raising issues of non-
compliance with plan conditions, HMP or MHCP requirements.
21.210.16 HMP Permit
Sect A.5 Protection of wetlands is critical to the success of the entire plan. This section
needs to be expanded to include description of the conditions under which
wetlands impacts will be allowed, and how deviations will be evaluated. The
language developed by the city of San Diego provides a good model. (These
wetlands specific deviations are distinct from the general deviation standards
included in sect 21.210.17).
Protection of stream buffers is a key element in protecting the entire wetlands
corridor- and in many cases the associated wildlife corridor. Stream buffer
requirements need to be specified, with conditions for assessing their
adequacy to protect both the amount and function of the buffer. (i.e.- it is not
just a number of feet).
Sec B Appeals of other project conditions require signatures of nearby residents or
payment of several hundred dollars of fees. Open space areas often have few
nearby residents and the benefit is to the general public- and not a developer.
Appeals of HMP permits/amendments should not require any fee payments.
Sec D 3. Add "and with deviation standards included hi Sec A.Sand 21.210.17."
21.210.17 Deviation from Requirements
Comments on HMP Ordinances
Sec A. 1 This should only apply to habitat types D, E, and F. The MHCP did not
provide for eliminating all small impacts from consideration in the overall
preserve design- nor are they exempt from CEQA.
Sec A.2 Some public infrastructure projects were anticipated in the MHCP and are
identified in the HMP. Others are not. Only those that were specifically
approved with the MHCP should be covered under this section.
Sec A.3 Delete the phrase " and therefore denial of all economically viable use of the
property." The MHCP and HMP protect reasonable use of property, which is
assumed to be at least 25%. Less than that does not necessarily equate to "all"
economic value. This is not correct as stated.
21.210.18 HMP Amendment
Sec A. 1. Is it understood that such equivalency findings are processed as part of the
project approvals and as such are included as part of the project approvals-
cither at the Planning Commission or City Council meeting?
21.210.20 Enforcement Measures
Sec A.2 It would be helpful if this section specified two types of violations and
associated corrective actions. The first are really items that occur in advance of
permit issuance- usually illegal clearing or other habitat impact which would
constitute a permanent impact if not corrected. These often are intentional
actions, and may take years to fully mitigate. The penalty needs to clearly be
punitive, costly and provide incentive to everyone to fully comply with the
conditions of the HMP to protect sensitive habitat. Other violations may be
minor items related to project conditions such as a shopping center getting
careless on trash pick-up, or lights next to open space having exceeded allowed
levels. These have temporary impacts and can be easily corrected.
Add that all fees collected for violations will be used to mitigate the effects of
such violations. The number and land of violations, amount of fees/penalties
collected, and use of such fees should all be included hi the annual report on
preserve management.
It is unclear when such fees will go into effect and where the amount is specified.
Will this all be included as part of the approved financing plan and package of
implementing ordinances?
Comments on HMP Ordinances
cum
Carlsbad Watershed Network RECEIVED
November 1,2005 . n~r\s ^
<-'' < OF CARLSBADMarcela Escobar-Ecke, Planning Director, City of Carlsbad PLANNING IJTOT
1635 faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008 ' ° i-'Cr' f
Subject: Comments on Local Coastal Program- HMP Implementation
Dear Director Escobar-Ecke:
The attached comments on the Local Coastal Program Amendment- HMP Implementation are submitted on behalf
of the Carlsbad Watershed Network (CWN). CWN is a coalition of local government, non-government,
government, and resource agency representatives whose organizational vision is "To protect, restore and enhance
the quality and beneficial uses of water, habitats, and other natural resources of the watersheds of the Carlsbad
Hydrologic Unit (CHU) and the adjacent coastal shoreline." The Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit comprises seven
watersheds of streams in coastal north San Diego County.
To that end in 2003 we prepared and issued the "Carlsbad Watershed Management Plan," which documents
current condition of the hydrologic unit and proposes recommendations and action plans to address problems
within each of the watersheds in the CHU. The entire Plan can be found at
http://proiectcleanwater.org/html/ws carlsbad plan network.html.
Our initial focus was to address the issue of invasive plant species. We secured $3.9 million through a State of
California Proposition 13 grant to remove major infestations of key invasive species. The Dr. Alan Thum Invasives
Removal Project is now entering its second year (see
http://www.carlsbadwatershednetwork.org/invasives project.php). The City of Carlsbad has already received
significant benefit from this project through invasive plant removal, re-planting with native species, and public
outreach and education.
Our focus in the next year will be on working with local cities to improve stream buffers and wetland protection.
Attached are draft guidelines we propose for inclusion with your HMP ordinance implementation. Without such
guidelines we do not believe the HMP will be able to provide adequate protection for these watersheds. The NCCP
focus is on land, whereas ours is on the water. Your HMP ordinances provide an appropriate vehicle to address
these two resources in an integrated way. This approach will benefit project review and the permitting process with
both the wildlife and water quality resource agencies.
We are at the beginning of this process and will continue to develop these guidelines and others on watershed
protection and impervious cover in the next few months. However, we felt it important to submit them in draft form
during your public review period.
We would be happy to meet with you to discuss these guidelines more substantively and to address any questions
or concerns that you might have. We look forward to working with you and the other cities in north San Diego
County toward programs that protect our sensitive land and watershed resources. I can be reached at (760) 436-
2632 or broth@cox.net.
Sincerely,
Braa Roth
Acting Chairperson
Attachments: Riparian buffer guidelines; Wetland deviation guidelines
Carlsbad Watershed Network, c/o 2428 links Way, Vista, CA 92081 ivww.carlsbadivatersbednetwork.org
Habitat Management Plan, City of Carlsbad November 1,2005
Modifications proposed by the Carlsbad Watershed Network
Guidelines on Riparian and Wetland Buffers
Add to Section 21.210.13 Section D5: "4) is in compliance with Stream and Riparian
Buffer Guidelines."
Add the following section:
Guidelines for Stream and Riparian Habitat Buffers
The function and quality of wetlands and riparian habitats cannot be preserved without
the provision of adequate buffers. Wetlands, including vernal pools, tidal- and non-tidal
marshes, and aquatic stream habitats are protected in general from direct impacts by state
and federal laws. However, their structures and functions are often degraded by indirect
impacts. Buffer areas are therefore needed to protect these resources, including both
undisturbed adjacent upland areas, and measures to protect hydrology. Here we address
stream protection. Estuarine and vernal pool habitat protection will be addressed
separately.
Riparian habitats, found along streams, are recognized in the MHCP and are afforded
protection therein from direct impacts. (See Table 3-2 and 3-5, Final MHCP Plan,
Volume II.) Riparian habitats support the wetland ecosystem through provision of tree
canopy and cover to moderate water temperature; varied habitat types required for
portions of aquatic species life cycles; carbon and nutrients in the form of leaf litter,
woody debris and terrestrial insects; they also filter pollutants and sediment; and
moderate stream hydrology. Buffers are also needed to protect the riparian habitat itself,
including protection of tree roots from compaction and over-irrigation, protection of
seedlings, wildlife habitat and corridors, and protection of soil microflora that are
responsible for essential biogeochemical cycles.
Buffer Standards
The following standards shall be used in designing buffers for streams:
- All wetland and riparian habitat types shall be protected by appropriate buffers.
- Buffers shall be designed to accommodate the "buildout" condition of the stream; i.e.
the stream in the width, depth, and configuration projected to be the end result of
upstream development, which will be larger than the existing stream under the current
practice of continued addition of impervious surface to the watersheds, and due to the
lag time required for the stream to respond to altered hydrology.
- Buffers shall generally be a minimum of 100 feet in width, with an absolute minimum
in areas adjacent to occupied least bell's vireo habitat.
- The buffer area is measured from the outer edge of riparian vegetation. Where
riparian vegetation line is difficult to determine, a minimum of 25 feet shall be•
designated from the top of the bank as the Streamside zone.
The buffer shall consist of three zones. Each zone performs specific, necessary
functions, all of which must be considered in determining the appropriate width for
each of the three zones. These zones are described in Table 1.
Table 1 Buffer Zone Requirements (1)
Characteristics Streamside Zone Middle Zone Outer Zone
Function
Width
Vegetative Target
Stormwater
management tools
Protect the physical
integrity of the
stream ecosystem;
includes the entire
riparian zone
Min 50 feet plus
wetland and critical
habitat
Pre-development
riparian plant
community,
especially riparian
woodlands
Delivery conduits
only with force
dissipaters
Provide distance
between upland
development and
streamside zone;
buffer riparian
habitat
50 to 100 feet
depending upon
stream order, slope
and 1 00 year flood
plain
Pre-development
riparian or upland
plant community
Off-line flow-
through soft-bottom
treatment wetlands,
detention basins
Prevent
encroachment and
filter backyard
runoff
25 foot minimum
setback to structures
Native habitat
encouraged but may
be landscaped; no
permanent
structures; no septic
systems; limited
irrigation
BMPs allowed that
treat up to 100 ca
(1) From Stormwater Managers' Resource Center: Aquatic Buffers Fact Sheet and The
Practice of Watershed Protection, Article 39. ;
The Streamside Zone protects the physical integrity of the stream ecosystem. The
width of this zone needs to be adjusted to allow for stream channel meandering and to
protect property from flood damage, in the stream's projected build-out configuration
and behavior (unusually larger and more dynamic than at present). Middle zone
width varies depending upon stream order (greater width for higher order stream) and
to include the boundary of the 100- year flood plain. Width shall also be increased to
irjclude steep slopes (those over 25%), wetlands within or adjacent to the 100-year
flood plain and critical habitat. The Outer Zone may be outside of the protected
habitat boundaries, but functions as part of the wetlands buffer by having no
permanent structures, minimal impervious cover, and restricted landscape palette and
irrigation (see below).
The Streamside and Outer Zone widths are relatively fixed, whereas the Middle Zone
is more flexible in order to accommodate site-specific conditions such as the flood
plain width.
- The buffer shall consist of native vegetation with species type and cover appropriate
for site conditions in both the Streamside and Middle Zones, and only non-invasive
species in the Outer Zone.
Riparian buffer delineation shall be determined concurrent with wetlands delineation
in consultation with the Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish
and Game, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The three zones of the wetland
and riparian buffers should be individually identified on zoning maps, and protected
by recorded open space easements and other appropriate planning mechanisms;
stormwater ordinances should be consistent with riparian buffer goals to the
maximum extent possible.
- Temporary fencing or some other method should be used to keep construction
activities outside of the buffer.
Permanent cat-proof fencing at least 6' in height shall be used inside the development
footprint to prevent cats, dogs, and humans from uncontrolled entry into Streamside
and Middle buffer areas from adjacent land uses; trapping on non-native species,
including domestic pets and cowbirds, may be undertaken to protect riparian covered
species.
- Roadways and other crossings of the buffers shall be avoided and minimized in
concert with the design for such crossings of the associated wetland habitat; in
general, such crossings should minimize impacts to habitat.
Restricted Uses in Buffer Areas
- Wetland mitigation sites involving constructed BMPs must be located outside of the
Streamside and Middle buffer zone; restoration activities to improve the condition of
the Streamside and Middle Zones may take place in those areas with appropriate
review, if existing habitat is not permanently compromised.
- The Streamside Zone restricts all uses except essential flood control, limited storm
water outflow channels, utility easements, and limited roadway crossings; if all of
these uses are in conformance with wetlands avoidance/minimization conditions.
- The Middle Zone restricts all uses except those allowed in the Streamside Zone,
unpaved pedestrian and bicycle trails, and storm water management facilities if not
detrimental to zone function. Such stormwater treatment facilities are only allowed if
the following conditions are met: maximum contributing drainage basin does not
exceed 100 acres, ponds are used only to manage stormwater quantity and quality
within the buffer, and they are not hardscaped. :
- The Outer Zone generally allows residential and commercial uses, except permanent
structures and septic systems, provided the zone does not exceed 10 % impervious
cover within each 100 linear feet. "Irrigation is restricted in order to protect stream
hydrology and water quality, and to reduce invasion by non-native plant and ant
species. Urban runoff should be treated before being released into the buffer areas or
directed to storm water systems with treatment mechanisms; lighting adjacent to the
buffer should be shielded and directed away from riparian areas; noise should be
limited to less than 60 dB at the appropriate point in the buffer to protect breeding
birds.
Buffer Management
Buffers shall be managed through all stages of the development process as follows:
A. Mapping
Potential riparian and wetland habitat buffers should be identified at a municipal level
along all blue-line drainages; acquisition in deed or through easement of lands for buffers
should be a high priority; restoration sites should be identified, prioritized, and matched
with funding and/or mitigation opportunities.
B. During Development
Delineation shall occur through out the development process from initial plan review
through construction by inclusion of the following: 1) require buffer delineation be
shown on preliminary and final plans 2) field verify accuracy of delineation i.e. that
buffers are computed and mapped properly, 3) check suitability of the use of buffer for
stormwater treatment, 4) insure that stormwater BMP's are properly integrated into the
correct buffer zone, 5) examine any buffer crossings for adverse effects on buffer
function, 6) mark buffer limits on all plans, 7) conduct a pre-construction stakeout of
buffers to define the limit of disturbance, and mark disturbance boundary with silt fence
and signs, and 8) include buffer delineation and concerns in pre-construction walk-
through with contractors.
C. Maintenance
Maintenance of the buffer and allowed uses within the buffer shall be considered in
establishing project conditions, including deed restrictions if needed.
D. Management Plan
Specific management actions shall be included in a riparian area plan within the preserve
management plan that address protection of the wetland and riparian buffers . This shall
include signage, public education and outreach about benefits, restricted uses, value of
native landscaping; and evaluation of buffer in annual work plan and report on preserve
condition. ;
E. Monitoring
Designated buffer areas should be monitored annually to note detrimental factors
including in particular trash deposition, illegal trails, erosion, and non-native species;
actions to eliminate such impacts should be initiated immediately.
Modifications to the Buffer
Where the width of the flood plain and open space is no longer sufficient to protect the
riparian habitats, modifications of the above requirements may be made such that the
functions of the buffer are carried out. This may require the installation of engineered
swales, catchments, plantings, bioengineering bank retention measures, etc.
However, wherever possible, bank stabilization hardscape and engineered flood control
structures should be removed from the stream to allow for dynamic stream behavior,
which will ultimately also reduce erosion, increase ground-water re-charge, and promote
varied riparian habitat structure.
Hydrology
Stream hydrology should be managed in order to support designated aquatic and riparian
habitats. This should include cooperative efforts with upstream land-use planning and
storm water authorities to prevent hydro-modification, and to restore hydrology to pre-
development conditions wherever possible.
Wetland Deviation Guidelines November 1/05
San Diego County has lost over 90% of its original wetlands. Protection of the remaining
wetlands is essential for the preservation of the endangered/threatened species covered through
regional and local habitat conservation plans. Wetland habits are so essential that they are
specifically identified for special consideration in federal law, state law, the regional Multiple
Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP) and Carlsbad's Habitat Management Plan(HMP). The
MHCP established the regional policy that there was to be no net loss of wetlands. This policy is
incorporated into the HMP. Local policy also must comply with related requirements that all
wetlands impacts must first be avoided, then minimized, and only after all such reasonable
actions have been taken are impacts allowed. These Wetland Deviation Guidelines are intended
to provide further clarification of the process that must be followed to assure that any wetlands
impacts are in compliance with these requirements.
The purpose of this'deviation process is to provide a mechanism for relief from the strict
application of wetland regulations when necessary to implement an essential public service
project that cannot be located elsewhere. For the purposes of this discussion, essential public
projects will be limited to public projects identified in City land use plans adopted prior to
January 1, 2005 and to linear infrastructure (e.g., waterlines, sewers, and roads) identified in
adopted City land use plans.
A. Findings
Wetlands impacts will be considered when a proposed project meets all of the following criteria:
/. The project is an Essential Public Service Project identified in an adopted City Land
Use Plan; and
The project is an essential public service project (e.g., circulation element road, trunk
sewer, water main) that will service the community at large and not just a single
property/project. The project must be identified in an adopted City land use plan that
envisioned the development of the project and must still be essential in both location and
need.
2. The proposed project and all project alternatives, both practicable and impracticable,
a?e fully disclosed and analyzed in an appropriate CEQA document; and
Alternatives to the proposed project have been comprehensively included in the CEQA
document and/or the biological technical report of the CEQA document (e.g. Mitigated
Negative Declaration). Alternatives must include the following: 1) A no project
alternative; 2) A wetlands avoidance alternative, including an analysis of alternative sites
irrespective of ownership; and 3) An appropriate range of substantive wetland impact
minimization alternatives. Public review of the environmental document must occur
pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. Projects proposing to utilize this deviation section
after initial CEQA public review must include the new information and re-circulate the
CEQA document, \ •
£•'• '<•*"•••Y c.-'
3. The potential impacts to wetland resources have been minimized to the maximum
extent practicable; and
The project is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative considering all
the technical constraints of the project (e.g., roadway geometry, slope stability,
geotechnical hazards, etc). Recognizing the wetland resources involved, minimization to
the maximum extent practicable may include, but is not limited to, pipeline tunneling,
bridging, Arizona crossings, and/or arch culverts that maintain full hydrologic function
and wildlife movement. The project applicant will solicit input from the Resource
Agencies prior to the first public hearing.
4. The proposed project has fully mitigated its impacts according to the Biology
Guidelines.
All impacts have been mitigated according to the requirements of the City's Biology
Guidelines and the project would not have a significant adverse impact to the MSCP.
Mitigation has been provided pursuant to Table 2 of the Biology Guidelines.
B. Economic Viability
It is the intent of the City of Carlsbad to ensure that all private development shall fully comply
with the policies, regulations and management obligations established under the HMP. It is also
the intention of the City to respect constitutionally protected private property rights. In rare
circumstances, it may be necessary to deviate from the strict application of HMP regulations in
order to preserve a private property owner's right to an economically viable use of property
pursuant to current U.S. Supreme Court takings law. The purpose of this deviation process is to
disclose, evaluate and objectively determine the economic viability of a proposed project with
and without the granting of a deviation. This process is intended to ensure that if a deviation is
to be granted for economic viability, it will only be done for circumstances not of the applicant'.?
making. This means that a deviation should not be granted to achieve economic viability when
the primary reason a project is economically unviable, absent the deviation, is because of a poor
investment decision by a land owner. An economic viability deviation should not be based
solely on a prospective rezone. Any deviation for economic viability should be the minimum
necessary to achieve economically viable use of the property. In the case where the findings
below can be made^ it is the intent of the City at its sole discretion to offer to compensate willing
sellers at market value for protection of high quality wetlands depending on funding availability
and acquisition priorities. Any offers to acquire the property and the results of the offer will be
presented^ to the City Council at the time they consider HMP Consistency Findings.
Findings
Wetlands impacts deviation will be considered when a proposed project meets all of the
following criteria:
/. Applicant has disclosed and provided all information for the City to determine whether
the deviation is necessary to achieve an economically viable use of the property,
including all of the following required information:
a. A range of project alternatives that include the no project alternative, a wetlands
avoidance alternative, and alternative(s) that show substantive minimization of
impacts to wetlands.
b. The date the applicant purchased or otherwise acquired the property and from
whom.
c. The purchase price and the documentary transfer tax paid by the applicant for the
property. The applicant must provide for a current appraisal to establish that the
purchase price was appropriate given market value at the time of purchase. The
appraisal shall be prepared by an outside appraiser with recent experience in the
type of appraisal being requested, and supervised by the City of Carlsbad Real
Estate"Department. The applicant will deposit monies into a special fund
established by the City to hire, supervise and pay for the appraisal and associated
City staff costs. The City will use a revolving list of qualified outside appraisers to
prepare appraisals. All appraisals must be prepared by an appraiser licensed in the
State of California and be in compliance with current Uniform Standards of
Professional Appraisal Practice. All appraisers considered for selection will be
required to fully disclose their employment history prior to selection. Any
communication between the applicant and the appraiser shall occur only in the
presence, which includes conference calls, of designated City staff. City staff shall
respond to all third party requests in a timely manner. For the purposes of this
section, applicant shall include the applicant's employees and shall not include the
applicant's consultants, design professionals, contractors, and subcontractors.
Comparable land values used for this purpose should have similar restrictions, to
the maximum extent possible, as those on the property as identified in 1 (d) below.
The final complete appraisal shall be available to the City decision-maker and
interested public prior to the discretionary hearing. An appraisal summary
statement shall be provided to the City decision-maker for the discretionary hearing.
d. The general plan, zoning or similar land use designations applicable to the property
at the time the applicant acquired it, as well as any changes to these designations
that occurred after acquisition.
e. Any development restrictions or other restrictions on use, other than government
regulatory restrictions described in (d) above, that applied to the property at the
time the applicant acquired it, or which have been imposed after acquisition.
f. Any change in the size of the property since the time the applicant acquired it,
including a discussion of the nature of the change, the circumstances and the
relevant dates. ' :
g.' A discussion of whether the applicant has sold, leased, or donated a portion of or
interest in, the property since the time of purchase indicating the relevant dates,
sales prices, rents, and nature of the portion or interests in the property that were
: sold or leased. : -
h. Any title reports, litigation guarantees or similar documents in connection with all
or a portion of the property of which the applicant is aware.
i. Any offers to buy all or a portion of the property which the applicant solicited or
received, including the approximate date of the offer and offered price.
j. The applicant's costs associated with the ownership of the property, annual ized to
the extent feasible, for each of the years the applicant has owned the property,
including property taxes, property assessments, debt service costs (such as
mortgage and interest costs), and operation and management costs.
k. Any rent received from the leasing of all or a portion of the property and any
income generated by the use of all or a portion of the property over years of
ownership of the property. If there is any such income to report, it should be listed
on an annualized basis along with a description of the uses that generate or has
generated such income.
1. Topographic, vegetative, hydrologic and soils information prepared by a qualified
professional, which identifies the extent of the wetlands on the property.
m. An analysis of the economic viability of alternatives discussed in (a), above (as
required per CEQA and/or the 404 b(l) guidelines under the Clean Water Act) and
an assessment of the economic viability of the project compared to the alternatives
which takes into account all project costs, including mitigation. The analysis of
alternatives shall include an assessment of how each alternative will impact all
wetlands and environmentally sensitive lands adjacent to and within the overall
project plan area.
2. The economic information has been reviewed by City staff and outside economic
consultant, and the City Council makes findings that all economically viable use of a
property mil be removed with strict application of the HMP.
The application for an economic viability determination has been reviewed by City Staff
in consultation with a professional outside economic consultant. The economic
consultant will provide an opinion to the City on whether any of the CEQA and/or
4Q4b(l) alternatives that avoid and minimize wetland impacts provide economically
viable use of the subject property. The City Real Estate Department will select a qualified
outside economic consultant to develop an economic viability analysis. Any
communication between the applicant and the economic consultant shall occur only in
the presence, which includes conference calls, of designated City staff. The applicant will
deposit monies into a special fund established by the City to hire, supervise and pay for
the economic viability analysis and associated City staff costs. All consultants
considered for selection will be required:to fully disclose their employment history
selection, the economic viability analysis must include an analysis of the project's cost
burden (including all mitigation costs associated with the project), a residual larid value
analysis, market'absorption and fiscal impacts analysis. City Manager recommendations
tq the decision rnaker shall disjcuss the economic viability information and professional
opinion of the economic consultant, andireflect the independent judgment of the City
Manager,
a
The full economic viability findings, City Manager recommendations and the economic
consultant's professional opinion, including summary documentation provided by the
economic consultant that is not proprietary ("trade secret") pursuant to the Public
Records Act (California Government Code section 6250, et seq.) shall be available to the
City decision-maker and interested public prior to the discretionary hearing. A summary
report of the economic viability findings, City Manager recommendations, and
professional opinion of the economic consultant shall be provided to the City decision-
maker for the discretionary hearing.
3. The proposed project has avoided, minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent
practicable, given the economic viability of the project.
The project mitigation must conform to the Biology guidelines or the lack of full
mitigation compliance must be justified as part of the economic viability determination.
The deviation process will not be used solely to reduce or eliminate mitigation
requirements. The project applicant will solicit input from the Resource Agencies prior
to the first public hearing.
C. Biologically Superior Alternative
It is the intent of the City of Carlsbad to protect and manage biological resources in full
accordance with the regulations of the HMP. However, in rare instances, a deviation from the
strict application of the policies and regulations may be warranted if an alternative can be
proposed by the project applicant that achieves a superior biological result which provides a clear
net increase in quality and viability (functions and value) for the type of biological resource
being impacted.
The purpose of this deviation is to describe a process for disclosing, evaluating and objectively
determining the appropriate circumstances for when a Biologically Superior Deviation can be
granted. It is the intent that this type of deviation process should only be used to impact low
quality wetlands, including vernal pools. Proper analysis under this deviation process would
justify a conclusion that if the deviation is granted, the lower quality biological resource is
expendable in exchange for the extraordinary mitigation as identified by finding three below and
offered to not only offset the loss of the resource but to also appreciably increase the overall
function and value of the resource being impacted.
Findings
Deviation from the HMP will be considered for wetlands impacts when a proposed project meets
all of the following criteria:
/. The proposed project, including a no project alternative, a wetlands avoidance
alternative and a biologically superior alternative is fully disclosed and analyzed in an
appropriate CEQA document; and
* - . *• • ' '
The CEQA document must fully analyze and describe the rationale for why the proposed
project is considered to result in the conservation of a biologically superior resource
compared to strict compliance with the provisions of the ESL. Public review of the
environmental document must occur pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. Projects
proposing to utilize this deviation section of the ESL after initial CEQA public review
must include the new information and re-circulate the CEQA document.
2. The wetland resources being impacted by the proposed project are of low biological
quality; and
Low biological quality will be specific to the resource type impacted (e.g., vernal pools,
non-tidal-salt marsh, riparian, and un-vegetated channels).
Factors to determine biological quality include:
• Diversity of native flora and fauna present.
• Rarity of the wetland community in light of the historic loss and remaining
resources.
• Use of the wetland by federal and/or state endangered, threatened, sensitive, rare
and/or other indigenous species.
• Proximity of the wetland resource areas to larger natural open spaces.
• Restoration potential.
• . Significant hydrologic, water quality, or flood control value.
• Ecological role of the wetland in the surrounding landscape, including:
consideration of the current functioning of the wetland in relation to
historical functioning of the system.
function of the wetland.
connectivity to other wetland or upland systems (including use as a stopover
or stepping stone by mobile species).
Only wetlands with little or no economically practicable restoration potential considering
their biological role in the surrounding landscape could be considered low quality.
Presence of exotics is only one indicator of low biological quality.
Wetland quality will be thoroughly analyzed in the project's biological technical report
given the factors listed in Tables 1, 2 or 3 and based on best available scientific
information. Wetland quality determinations shall be a discretionary action made on a
case-by-case basis, with not all low-quality factors required to make a low quality
determination. Alternatively, the presence of any significant (e.g. in amount or degree)
factor may preclude a determination of low quality. All factors in the appropriate table
shall be carefully considered when making a wetland quality determination.
City staff shall review information provided by the applicant and provide an opinion to
the City Manager. The City Manager's opinion shall be included as part of the staff
report recommending action on the CEQA document.
a. Vernal Pools: Determination of Low Quality
(1) Characterizations of vernal pool flora and fauna must be accomplished
during the proper seasons. Surveys must be done between December and
May to ensure adequate characterization of the vernal pools. Adequate
surveys should be done to determine ponding and vernal pool flora and
fauna. Surveys for fairy shrimp must be done in accordance with current
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service fairy shrimp survey protocol.
(2) Timing of the first rainfall and subsequent filling of the basins should be
determined during the evaluation process. Rainfall and ponding should be
monitored throughout the wet season.
Table 1:
Factors for Considering Vernal Pool Quality
Factors
Endangered and
Sensitive Species
Flora and Faunal
Diversity
Habitat Function
Potential for
Ecosystem
Enhancement
Status of
Watershed
Source and
Quality of Water
Lower Quality Indicators
No endangered or rare vernal pool species, as identified in the
following list:
Brodiaea orcuttif, Downingia cuspidata,
Eryngium aristulatum ssp, parishii,
Myosurus minimus var. apus,
Navarettiafossalis,
Orcuttia californica, Pogogyne abramsii,
Pogogyne nudiuscula, Streptocephalus woottonii*
+When within vernal pool basins and watersheds.
* When within vernal pools.
Low species richness of vernal pool endemic plants and/or animals.
Few individuals present.
Few basins with a cumulatively small amount of habitat (basin
surface area) relative to other nearby vernal pool complexes.
Severe compaction of the watershed. Unable to find historic basins.
Basins isolated from areas of native pollinators (i.e., intact
surrounding native uplands).
Hardpan or clay substrate irrevocably damaged.
Watershed partially developed, irrevocably altered, or inadequate to
supply water for vernal pool viability.
Urban runoff from partially developed watershed. Water source is in
part or exclusively from human-caused runoff which could be
eliminated by diversion.
b. Salt Marsh, Salt Panne, and Mudflats: Determination of Low Quality
(1) Wetlands with either surface or sub-surface tidal-influence (e.g. coastal
salt marsh, salt panne and mudflats] will never be. considered low quality
and are excluded from the biologically superior deviation process. A
biologically superior deviations alternative must not be granted for tidally
• influenced wetlands. ) ' ,.• • '
(2) Characterizations of flora and fauna must be accomplished during the
proper season. Surveys must be done at the most appropriate time to
characterize the resident and migratory species.
(3) Water and soil salinity testing should be conducted in areas of
questionable tidal influence. Evaluations of tidal influence must include
the highest spring and neap tides.
Table 2:
Factors for Considering Salt Marsh, Salt Panne, and Mudflats Quality
Factors
Federal or State
Listing
Habitat Function
Potential for
Ecosystem
Enhancement
Connectivity
Hydrologic
Function
Lower Quality Indicators
No use by federally and/or state endangered or threatened plant
or animal species.
Little or no function as coastal salt marsh, salt panne, or mudflat
habitat, including habitat for migratory birds.
Low feasibility for restoration of tidal influence (e.g., > 1/4
miles).
Low connectivity to other wetland or upland systems (including
little use as a stopover or stepping stone by mobile species),
considering the resources.
Volume and retention time of water within the wetland not
significant enough to aid in water quality improvements.
No significant flood control value or velocity reduction
function.
c. Freshwater or Brackish Wetlands: Determination of Low Quality
(1) Tidally influenced brackish wetlands will never be considered low quality
and are excluded from the biologically superior deviation process.
(2) Characterizations of freshwater and brackish wetlands flora and fauna
. must be accomplished during the proper season. Surveys must be done at
the most appropriate time to characterize the resident and migratory
species.
(3) Hydrologic evaluations of the effects of any impacts on the upstream and
downstream biota and flooding must be conducted as part of the review
process.
Table 3:
Factors for Considering Freshwater and Brackish Wetland Quality
Factors
Federal or State
Listing
Flora and Faunal
Diversity
Habitat Function
Ecological Role
of the Wetland
Potential for
Ecosystem
Enhancement
Connectivity
Hydrologic
Function
Lower Quality Indicators
No use by federal and/or state endangered or threatened plant or
animal species.
Low species richness of native plants and/or animals present.
Little or no function as freshwater wetland habitat, including
habitat for migratory birds.
Project would not change or alter historic functions of the
wetland in its regional context.
Historical functioning of the wetland was and is low.
The wetland is small and isolated from other wetlands.
Within the context of the surrounding landscape, there is low
feasibility for enhancement/restoration to significant habitat or
hydrologic functioning.
Low connectivity to other wetland or upland systems (including
little use as a stopover or stepping stone by mobile species),
considering the resources.
Volume and retention time of water within the wetland not
significant enough to aid in water quality improvements.
No significant ground water recharge occurs within the wetland
(based on drainage study).
No significant flood control value or velocity reduction
function.
3. The proposed project and proposed mitigation results in a biologically superior net
gain in overall function and values for the type of wetland resource being impacted;
and projects impacting low quality wetlands mitigate for their impacts as described
below.
Project mitigation shall include:
a. Wetland creation or restoration of an equal acreage of the same type of wetland
resource that is being impacted. For every one acre of wetland resource being
impacted at least one acre of the same type of wetland habitat must be created or
restored (i.e., "in-kind" mitigation resulting in no-net loss); and
b. Additional acreage that is necessary to meet the mitigatipn requirements set-forth
below can be provided; by: : >
(1) Additional restoration or creation of the same type of wetland being
• impacted; -
(2) Off-site acquisition and permanent conservation of existing high quality
wetlands of the same type being impacted, and/or :
(3) Enhancement of low quality wetlands of the same type being impacted
that result in high quality wetlands. . •
All proposed mitigation must demonstrate an increase in the overall function and values
for the type of wetland resource being impacted compared to the pre-mitigation
conditions. Increased function can include an increase in the availability of habitat for
native fauna, an increase in native flora diversity, a decrease in invasive species, an
increase in ground water recharge, water quality improvements and sedimentation
deposition rates. Success criteria using best currently available information for the
particular resource being impacted will be required as part of the restoration plan.
Mitigation for projects impacting vernal pools shall include salvage of sensitive species
from vernal pools to be impacted, introduction of salvaged material into restored vernal
pool habitat where appropriate (e.g. same vernal pool series), and maintenance of
salvaged material pending success of restored vernal pools. Salvaged material shall not
be introduced to existing vernal pools containing the same species outside the vernal pool
series absent consultation with and endorsement by vernal pool species experts not
associated with the project (i.e. independent expert).
Superior Biological Mitigation will be achieved by the following mitigation ratios:
TABLE 4:
(A) Wetland Mitigation Ratios for Biologically Superior Deviation
HABITAT TYPE
Coastal Wetlands
Riparian Forest or Woodland (oak, sycamore, or
willow)
Riparian Scrub
Riparian Scrub in Coastal Overlay Zone
Freshwater Marsh
Freshwater Marsh in Coastal Overlay Zone
Natural Flood Channel
Disturbed Wetlands
Vernal Pools
Marine Habitats
Eelgrass Beds
MITIGATION RATIO
8:1
6:1
4:1
6:1
4:1
8:1
4:1
4:1
4:1 to 8:1
4:1
4:1
Note: Mitigation must be provided within or adjacent to the MHPA.
4. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and
Game have concurred with the Biologically Superior Alternative.
Approval shall come in the form of a written response supporting the biologically
superior alternative during the CEQA public review process in which the proposed
biologically superior mitigation has been evaluated. Lack of an unequivocal response
within the CEQA review period is deemed to be concurrence.
Exhibit 5
Planning Commission Minutes December 7,2005 Page 2
3. CUP 268x4 - FIRE STATION NO. 4 - Request for a retroactive expansion of CUP 268x3
for an indefinite period of time to allow the continued operation^pEre Station No. 4 on
the northwest corner of Buttercup Road and gmj^o^tlJneVn Local Facilities
Management Zone 4.
4. CT 05-08/PUD 05-06 - FARADAY SPECTRUM - Request for approval of a Tentative
Tract Map and Non-residential Planned Unit Development permit for the subdivision of
4.56 acres into nine postage stamp lots and one common lot on property generally
located on the north side of Faraday Avenue between Priestly Drive and Rutherford Road
in Local Facilities Management Zone 5.
Mr. Neu stated Items 2, 3, and 4 are normally heard in a public hearing context; however, they appear to
be minor in routine and nature with no outstanding issues and Staff is recommending approval. He
recommended the public hearing be opened and closed, and that the Commission take all items as a
group, including any errata sheets and proceed with a vote as consent. If the Commission or any
members of the public wish to pull the items, Staff would be available to respond to any questions.
Chairperson Segall asked if the Commissioners or any members of the public wished to pull Item 2, 3, or
4, or speak on the item. Seeing none, he opened and closed Public Testimony.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Montgomery and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission approve Items 2, 3, and 4, including the errata sheet for Item 4.
VOTE: 7-0
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman,
Montgomery, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Chairperson Segall closed the public hearing on Items 2, 3, and 4, and asked Assistant Planning Director
Don Neu to introduce the next item.
Mr. Neu stated agenda Item 6 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE - will be
continued until February.
Mr. Neu introduced the next item.
1. ZCA 05-01/LCPA 05-09 - HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION -
Request for a recommendation of adoption of a Negative Declaration and
recommendation of approval of a Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program
Amendment to add a new chapter to the code and to amend several chapters of the code
for purposes of implementing the City's recently approved Habitat Management Plan
(HMP).
Mr. Neu introduced Item 1 and stated Senior Planner Mike Grim would make the Staff presentation.
Chairperson Segall opened the public hearing on Item 1.
Mr. Grim gave a detailed presentation on the project, briefly discussed the errata sheet and stated he
would be available to answer any questions.
Chairperson Segall asked if there were any questions of staff. Seeing none, he asked if there were any
members of the audience who wished to speak on the item.
Chairperson Segall opened public testimony on the item.
Planning Commission Minutes December 7,2005 Page 3
Brad Roth, 1507 Rubenstein Av, Cardiff, representing the Carlsbad Watershed Network, gave a detailed
presentation and stated his concerns regarding protecting the wetlands and the extinction of plants and
animals. He recommended that the guidelines submitted and the recommendations of the North County
Open Space Coalition, California Native Plant Society and the State and Federal Wildlife Agencies be
included in the HMP Implementing Ordinance. Mr. Roth stated that if those entities cannot be included
tonight, would they be included in the future and what the expected timeframe for adoption is.
Commissioner Montgomery asked Mr. Roth what specific items the Carlsbad Watershed Network
believes are missing from the HMP. Mr. Roth stated that stream buffer protection guidelines and
wetlands deviation guidelines are two items the Carlsbad Watershed Network believes should be
included in the HMP.
Dolores Welty, 2076 Sheridan Rd, Leucadia, read a prepared letter dated November 15, 2005/December
7, 2005 and asked that it become part of the permanent record. The letter identified her concerns
regarding the HMP Implementation Ordinance.
Andrew Mauro, 808 Capri Rd, Encinitas, representing the North County Open Space Coalition, stated
there are three issues which need to be addressed in order for the HMP to be successful. The three
priorities are 1) established priorities for mitigation of wetland and riparian impacts; 2) level of public
review of annual reports and individual preserve reports; and 3) incorporation of submitted wetland
guidelines or give a timeline when these will be formalized.
Fred Sandquist, 6408 Crossbill Ct, Carlsbad, member of the Carlsbad Watershed Network, stated he
supports the input from the Carlsbad Watershed Network as presented by Brad Roth.
Wayne Callaghan, 38 Redhawk, Irvine, asked that any decisions regarding the HMP be put off until the
City corrects the inconsistencies between the previous Coastal Commission actions to delineate the
hardline preserve and the HMP Standards. Chairperson Segall asked Mr. Callaghan to specify how his
concerns apply to the action before the Commission tonight. Mr. Callaghan stated the HMP
Implementation will move his property into a hardline area/standards area.
Chairperson Segall asked if there were any other members of the audience who wished to speak on the
item. Seeing none, he closed public testimony on the item.
Chairperson Segall asked staff to respond to the issues raised by the speakers.
Mr. Grim stated Staff agrees with the guidelines that were presented by the Carlsbad Watershed Network.
However, Staff does not feel it is appropriate to have the guidelines included in the ordinance. Mr. Grim
stated staff would be developing the guidelines in the near future.
Commissioner Baker asked how the guidelines presented by the Carlsbad Watershed Network relate to
the Implementing Ordinance. Mr. Grim stated the guidelines establish parameters which give a better
understanding of how to best implement the HMP. Marcela Escobar-Eck, Planning Director, stated that
the guidelines would be incorporated by reference into the ordinance.
Chairperson Segall inquired as to who would approve the guidelines. Ms. Escobar-Eck stated the
guidelines would be approved administratively with public input.
Mr. Grim stated that all of the comments received from the wildlife agencies have been incorporated into
the implementing ordinance.
Mr. Grim discussed the recovery plan included in the HMP.
Ms. Mobaldi made a statement regarding the lawsuit which Dolores Welty discussed. Ms. Mobaldi further
discussed the "no surprises" clause.
Commissioner Montgomery inquired about the permit revocation rule. Ms. Mobaldi stated the permit
revocation rule is currently included in the HMP and gave a detailed explanation of the rule.
Commissioner Montgomery further asked about the recovery plan and what its intent is. Mr. Grim
Planning Commission Minutes December 7,2005 Page 4
explained the recovery plan. Ms. Escobar-Eck described the Preserve Management Plan required by
each project and the role of the Preserve Steward position. Ms. Escobar-Eck clarified that the while the
Preserve Management Plans for individual projects can be approved by the Planning Director, the actual
Preserve Management Plan in the Open Space Management Plan, the annual reporting must go through
a public review process with a clearly defined steps and timelines required. Commissioner Montgomery
inquired how Staff envisions the public review period and what forum it would take place. Ms. Escobar-
Eck stated that the Preserve Steward would be tasked with creating the various processes such as this
and within the timeframes identified in the Open Space Management Plan as well as public outreach.
Commissioner Montgomery inquired about Mr. Callaghan's project and if the implementation of the HMP
will in any way affect it. Mr. Grim stated that the project will not be affected by the implementation of the
HMP. Mr. Grim also stated he has discussed alternatives with the Project Planner. Mr. Grim further
stated he does not know how the property ended up as a 50% developable area in the HMP. Mr. Grim
discussed the steps which will need to be taken in order for Mr. Callaghan to proceed with his project.
Chairperson Segall asked what Mr. Callaghan believed his property was defined as under the HMP. Mr.
Grim stated a number of years ago, Mr. Callaghan outlined a preserve area and there is a hardline
preserve area along some of the boundaries of his property which followed the line of the existing habitat.
That area was identified and incorporated into the hardline preserve but somehow was not reflected in the
HMP standards section. Ms. Mobaldi stated that Mr. Callaghan's comments are not part of the subject
matter of the item before the Commission tonight and it is more of an individual concern.
Mr. Grim addressed the comments by the North County Open Space Coalition and further described the
annual workplan within the Open Space Management Plan.
Commissioner Dominguez asked if any other municipalities have worked with other agencies or coalitions
in developing guidelines so that the City would not have to reinvent the wheel. Ms. Escobar-Eck stated
the City of San Diego has been through the process previously and she is hoping to pull from some of
their experiences. Mr. Grim stated he is presently on a committee with SANDAG where there are other
municipalities going through the HMP process and ideas are frequently discussed and shared.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Montgomery, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 5993, recommending
adoption of the Negative Declaration and ADOPT Planning Commission
Resolutions No. 5994 and 5995 recommending approval of Zone Code
Amendment ZCA 05-01 and Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 05-09
based upon the findings contained herein including the errata sheet.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Whitton stated he is pleased to see the cooperation between the various agencies and
committees to create a very comprehensive and effective plan.
Commissioner Dominguez concurred with Commissioner Whitton.
Commissioner Heineman stated it is remarkable the depth of studies to create the plan and further stated
Staff has done a fantastic job.
Commissioner Cardosa stated Staff has done a great job but also stated his concerns regarding the
guidelines and hopes staff will move forward with those quickly.
Commissioner Baker stated she is pleased that the various groups concerned with conservation of
habitat, open space and preservation have been able to work the City to develop a plan that will work with
everyone. She also stated she hopes the guidelines will have the necessary information that will give the
protection and guidance that the City needs to have.
Commissioner Montgomery commented that it is important to keep the habitat in Carlsbad.
|00
Planning Commission Minutes December 7,2005 Page 5
Chairperson Segall concurred with his fellow Commissioners. He stated it is a good process when the
community can be involved in City processes and their concepts and ideas are part of the end result.
VOTE: 7-0
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman,
Montgomery, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Chairperson Segall closed the public hearing on Item 1 and asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item.
Chairperson Segall asked Assistant Planning Director Don Neu to introduce the last item.
5. SP 3KB) - WINDSONG COVE - Recommendation for approval of a Negative
Declaration and a Specific Plan Amendment to allow all purpose vehicular egress from
the southern end of Layang Layang Circle to the southern end of Harbor Drive through an
existing gated emergency access road generally located east of the south end of Harbor
Drive in Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
Senior Planner Christer Westman and Assistant Engineer David Rick gave a detailed presentation and
stated they would be available to answer any questions.
Commissioner Whitton asked what the width of the internal roads in Windsong Cove and Windsong
Palms are and if they were two-way streets. Mr. Rick stated they the road is two-way and are 24 feet
wide.
Commissioner Whitton stated his concerns regarding the straightness of the road entering the emergency
access as depicted in the exhibit. Mr. Rick stated the road is correctly depicted in the exhibit.
Commissioner Whitton asked if Windsong Palms was included in the petition. Mr. Rick stated they were
not.
Commissioner Whitton commented that the emergency way was narrow with a bend in the road. Mr. Rick
stated the emergency access ways are straight and 20 feet wide.
Commissioner Dominguez asked if Windsong Cove, Windsong Palms and Ocean Pointe had originally
been proposed to be a unified applicant to provide access to both areas. Mr. Rick stated that in the
original Specific Plan, approved in 1972, it had been proposed to make them one Master Plan and
connected.
Commissioner Dominguez asked if there had been any coordination since 1972 for a joint application.
Mr. Rick stated the developments have changed through amendments.
Commissioner Dominquez asked if staff had any record of the comments from residents on Harbor Drive
regarding the City giving written assurance that new development would not have access to Harbor Drive.
Mr. Rick stated staff reviewed previous records, minutes and staff reports for commitments, but was
unable to find any validation.
Commissioner Cardosa asked if there is any City requirements or conditions that would require the
opening of the emergency access. Mr. Rick stated there is a requirement by the Fire Department that an
opticom sensor be installed for emergency vehicles to activate the gate. Without it the existing vehicle
must use a key.
Chairperson Segall asked for an explanation of an opticom sensor. Mr. Rick explained that it is a sensor
much like a gate opener used from a vehicle.
Commissioner Cardosa asked how long it would take to add the sensor. Mr. Rick stated it would only be
installed if the project were approved as an egress only.
Exhibit 6
December 5, 2005
TO: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Planning Department
SUMMARY OF STAFF RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED
REGARDING HMP IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCES
Staff received several letters of comments regarding the HMP Implementing
Ordinances (ZCA 05-01/LCPA 05-04) from environmental organizations. The
letters contained: 1) suggestions for text revisions to ordinances primarily for
clarification purposes; 2) comments regarding issues with certain parts of the
ordinance; and 3) general questions concerning implementation of the HMP.
Staff met with representatives of the organizations and attempted to respond to
their comments regarding general questions. Provided below is a summary of
staffs response to the other comments regarding text changes and issues of
concern. Because many of the comments were similar, staff has grouped the
comments into categories or themes followed by a general summary of staffs
response.
TEXT REVISIONS- A number of comments were received suggesting revisions
to the text of the ordinance in order to make things clearer or to enhance the
requirements of the ordinances.
Staff Response- Staff agreed with almost all the suggested text revisions. Staff
made revisions to the ordinance before it was presented to the Planning
Commission to address 14 of the text revision comments submitted by the
organizations. Specifically, the ordinances were revised as requested in
Comment #'s 1,3,6,13,16,17,18,25 of the letter from the California Native Plant
Society and Comment #'s 4,5,7,8,16,17 of the letter from the North County Open
Space Coalition.
WETLANDS GUIDELINES- All of the letters, particularly the letter from the
Carlsbad Watershed Network, requested that the city include guidelines in the
ordinance to address impacts associated with wetland habitats similar to the
guidelines adopted by the City of San Diego.
Staff Response- Staff agrees that guidelines specifically addressing wetland
habitats should be prepared and approved by the city. However, staff does not
believe that they should be included in the ordinance but rather prepared as a
I02.
SUMMARY OF STAFF RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS
December 5, 2005
Page 2
separate guidelines document similar to the process used by the City of San
Diego. The ordinance already contains a section for the preparation of follow-up,
implementation guidelines and staffs purpose in proposing that section of the
ordinance was to address more encompassing implementation items such as
this.
EXEMPTIONS FROM THE ORDINANCE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS
(PREVIOUSLY TITLED "DEVIATIONS")- There were concerns expressed
about the section of the ordinance allowing exemptions from the standards and
requirements of the HMP Implementing Ordinance. These concerns were similar
to the ones expressed by the Wildlife Agencies in their comment letter to the city.
Staff Response- As a result, staff has met with the Wildlife Agencies and agreed
to revise the ordinance to eliminate the exemption section of the ordinance.
Instead, the types of projects that could have previously qualified for an
exemption would now be required to be publicly processed as a minor
amendment to the HMP.
MANAGEMENT. MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING OF THE HABITAT
PRESERVE SYSTEM- Numerous comments were submitted regarding habitat
management. Although the ordinance contains the general procedures and
requirements for management, more specific details were requested for inclusion
in the ordinance.
Staff Response- In the meeting with representatives from the environmental
organizations that submitted comments, staff explained that most of the
comments, concerns and questions about management of the HMP preserve
system are being considered and addressed in a separate document, the Open
Space Management Plan, which is scheduled for review by the City Council. The
Plan contains details about the structure and process for management and the
costs for providing the management. The Plan recommends that the city hire a
biological expert (consultant) to serve as a "preserve steward" to coordinate and
evaluate the effectiveness of the preserve management and maintenance and to
oversee the ongoing biological monitoring of the system. Having a biological
consultant also addresses the comments made regarding the ability of staff to
have the expertise to review and evaluate maintenance of the habitat preserve.
Staff provided copies of the Open Space Management Plan to the
representatives of organizations. "
HABITAT IMPACT MITIGATION FEE- Several comments were made regarding
the use of the habitat impact mitigation fee and the location of additional
acquisition of habitat land using the fee.
Staff Response- This fee has already been designated in the HMP and
Implementing Agreement to be used to fund the acquisition of land in the MHCP
SUMMARY OF STAFF RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS
December 5, 2005
Page 3
Gnatcatcher Core Area southeast of Carlsbad. In fact, most of the land has been
acquired by the master developer of the Villages of La Costa and the fee will be
used for reimbursement. A report on the update of the fee program has been
prepared by staff and will be reviewed by the City Council in the near future.
USES ALLOWED IN HABITAT AREAS ZONED AS OPEN SPACE- A couple of
comments were made regarding the allowable uses and the adverse impact they
may have in the habitat areas which will be zoned Open Space (O-S).
Staff Response- As proposed by staff, the changes to the O-S zone will only
allow uses that have specifically been approved as part of the HMP or other
specific permits already approved by the wildlife agencies, other agencies and
the city. Any impacts associated with the allowable uses have already been
addressed in the HMP or the agency permits.
BIOLOGICAL SURVEY REQUIREMENTS- Concerns were expressed regarding
the required content of biological surveys and the qualifications of the consultants
preparing the surveys.
Staff Response- Staff believes that the details regarding biological surveys and
qualifications would be more appropriately addressed in guidelines. Staff has
already prepared some draft guidelines and would be willing to get input from
interested parties in finalizing them.
MITIGATION FOR IMPACTS TO HABITAT ALLOWED BY THE HMP- A
number of comments were made regarding the required mitigation for impacts to
habitat that are specifically allowed by the HMP and how projects will be
reviewed to ensure that they minimize impacts to habitat. Also, concern was
expressed about the ordinance provision that does not require additional on-site
or off-site mitigation if a project is preserving 67% percent or more of the on-site
habitat. A comment was made about the 75% habitat preservation requirement of
the HMP that applies to some properties in the city
Staff Response- The proposed ordinances require a new permit, an HMP Permit,
to be processed concurrently with any other required permits for a development
project. The review of the new permit and the required findings for approval of
the permit will ensure that all standards and requirements of the HMP
implementing ordinances will be met and that impacts will be minimized to the
maximum extent possible. The approved HMP already contains required
mitigation ratios for habitat impacts and special requirements and conditions for
impacts to endemic habitat species. The provision that does not require
additional mitigation for projects that preserve 67% of the habitat on-site is
already contained in and was specifically approved as part of the HMP. It was
determined with the concurrence of the wildlife agencies that if a project is
conserving 67% of the on-site habitat that additional mitigation should not be
Io4
SUMMARY OF STAFF RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS
December 5, 2005
Page 4
required. The maximum extent of required habitat preservation for several key
preserve properties in the HMP was established at 75% in the HMP and
additional conservation without acquisition of the entire property was determined
to be economically unreasonable.
ENFORCEMENT MEASURES- Several comments were made suggesting
revisions to the enforcement provisions of the proposed ordinance.
Staff Response- The city intends and is legally required to enforce the provisions
of the HMP and the implementing ordinances. The enforcement measures
section of the ordinance proposed by staff is consistent and was fashioned after
the general enforcement provisions already contained in the Municipal Code
particularly regarding grading violations. Enforcement needs to be addressed on
a case-by case basis depending on the severity of the violation and staff belies
the present language allows the city to do that.
10&
The Coast News
Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court
of San Diego County.
Mail all correspondence regarding public
notice advertising to
The Coast News, P.O. Box 232-550,
Encinitas, CA 92023 (760) 436-9737
Proof of Publication
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss.
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 principal clerk of the printer of The Coast News, a
newspaper printed and published weekly and which news-
paper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation
for the cities of Del Mar, Solana Beach, Encinitas/Cardiff,
Carlsbad, Oceanside, San Marcos/Vista and the County
Judicial District by the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Diego (8/4/94, #677114, B2393,
P396); and that the notice, of which the annexed is a print-
ed copy, has been published in, each regular and entire issue
of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the
following dates, to-wit:
January 13. 2006
I certify under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed at
Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of
California on the 13th day of January 2006.
Clerk of the Printer
Space above for County Clerk's Filing Stamp
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you ttiatjha City Council of
the City of Cartsbad will hold a public heanng at the Council
Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Cartsbad, California,
at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 24, 2006, to consider a the
adoption of a Negative Declaration' and approval of a Zone Code Amendment
and Local Coastal Program Amendment to add a new chapter to the code and
to amend several chapters of the code for purposes of implementing the City's
recently approved Habitat Management Plan (HMP) and more particularly
described as:
Citywide
Those persons wishing to speak on thjs proposal are cordially, invited to attend
the public hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on or after Friday,
January 20, 2006. If you have any questions, please call Mike Grim in the
Planning Department at (760) 602-4623.
If you challenge the approval of the Negative Declaration, Zone Code
Amendment and/or the Local Coastal Program Amendment 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, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad CA
92008 at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: ZCA 05-01/LCPA 05-09
CASE NAME: HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
CN2769, Jan. 13, 2006
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a
public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at
6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 24, 2006, to consider a the adoption of a Negative Declaration
and approval of a Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to add a
new chapter to the code and to amend several chapters of the code for purposes of
implementing the City's recently approved Habitat Management Plan (HMP) and more
particularly described as:
Citywide
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public
hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on or after Friday, January 20, 2006. If you
have any questions, please call Mike Grim in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4623.
If you challenge the approval of the Negative Declaration, Zone Code Amendment and/or the
Local Coastal Program Amendment 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, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive,
Carlsbad CA 92008 at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: ZCA 05-01/LCPA 05-09
CASE NAME: HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
PUBLISH: January 13, 2006
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
sen - Public Hearing notice for ZCA 05-01/LCPA 05-09 Page 1^ .^.jM^sagssa^
From: Bridget Desmarais
To: Isabella Paulsen
Date: Wed, Dec 28, 2005 3:33 PM
Subject: Public Hearing notice for ZCA 05-01/LCPA 05-09
Isabelle
I'm not sure if Val sent this public notice to you already so I'm sending it now.
If you have questions, please let me know.
Thanks
Bridget
Jam and Smudge Free Printing
' Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160®
CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST
6225 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92011
www.avery.com
1-800-GO-AVERY
SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DIST
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
AVERY® 5160®
ENCINITAS SCHOOL DIST
101 RANCHO SANTA FE RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
SAN DIEGUITO SCHOOL DIST
701 ENCINITAS BLVD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
LEUCADIA WASTE WATER DIST
TIM JOCHEN
1960 LA COSTA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OLIVENHAIN WATER DIST
1966OLIVENHAINRD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF ENCINITAS
505 S VULCAN AVE
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
CITY OF VISTA
PO BOX 1988
VISTA CA 92085
VALLECITOS WATER DIST
201 VALLECITOS DE ORO
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
I.P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STE 100
9174 SKY PARK CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STEB
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE
6010 HIDDEN VALLEY RD
CARLSBAD CA 92011
AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST
9150 CHESAPEAKE DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
STE 103
7575 METROPOLITAN DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402
SANDAG
STE 800
401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
ATTN TEDANASIS
SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIRPORT
AUTHORITY
PO BOX 82776
SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776
CITY OF CARLSBAD
RECREATION
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING
DEPT- PROJECT ENGINEER
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
MIKE GRIM
2/23/2005
AH1AV-O9-008-1
aBeinas e 13 aBejjnoauue uoissajduii
Jam and Smudge Free Printing
Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160®
www.avery.com
1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 5160*
CITY OF ENCINIT>er
COMMDEY^CPT
505JprftfCOCAN AVE
BwClNITASCA 92024
TABATA FARMS
PO BOX 1338
CARLSADCA 920181338
FED AVIATION ADMIN WESTERN REG
PO BOX 92007
LOS ANGELES CA
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
2800 COTTAGE WAY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
BUSINESS, TRANS & HSG AGENCY
STE 2450
980 NINTH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
STE 103
7575 MTROPOLITAN DR
SANDIEGOCA 921084402
CANNEL ISLANDS NATL PARK
SUPERINTENDENT'S OFFICE
1901 SPINNAKER DR
SAN GUENA VENTURA CA 93001
DEPT OF DEFENSE
LOS ANGELES DIST ENG
PO BOX 2711
LOS ANGELES CA 90053
DEPT OF ENERGY
STE 400
611 RYANPLZDR
ARLINGTON TX 760114005
DEPT OF ENERGY
STE 350
901 MARKET ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103
DEPT OF FISH & GAME
ENV SERV DIV
PO BOX 944246
SACRAMENTO CA 942442460
DEPT OF FOOD & AGRICULTURE
AGRICULTURAL RESOURSES
RM100
1220 N ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
DEPT OF FORESTRY
ENV COORD
PO BOX 944246
SACRAMENTO CA 942442460
DEPT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEV
REG ADMIN
450 GOLDEN GATE AVE
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102
DEPT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEV
REG ADMIN
450 GOLDEN GATE AVE
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102
DEPT OF JUSTICE
DEPT OF ATTY GEN
RM700
110 WEST AST
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
RM 5504
1120NST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
MARINE RESOURCES REG DR & G
ENV SERVICES SPR
STEJ
4665 LAMPSON AVE
LOS ALAMITOS CA 907205139
OFF OF PLANNING & RESEARCH
OFF OF LOCAL GOV ARRAIRS
PO BOX 3044
SACRAMENTO CA 958123044
SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERV &
DEV COM
STE 2600
50 CALIFORNIA ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 941114704
STATE LANDS COMMISSION
STE 1005
100 HOWE AVE
SACRAMENTO CA 958258202
SANDAG
EXEC DIRECTOR
STE 800
1STINTLPLZ401 B ST
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
US BUREAU OF LAND MGMT
STE RM W
2800 COTTAGE WY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
US BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
MID PACIFIC REG
2800 COTTAGE WY
SACRAMENTO CA 95825
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEER
STE 702
333 MARKET ST
SAN FRANCISCO CA 941052197
USDA RURAL DEVELOPMENT
DEPT 4169
430 G ST
DAVIS CA 95616
WATER RESOURCES CONTROL
BOARD
PO BOX 100
SACRAMENTO CA 95801
LESLIE ESPOSITO
1893AMELFIDR
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CYRIL & MARY GIBSON
12142 ARBYLEDR
LOS ALAMITOS CA 90702
LAKESHORE GARDENS
7201 AVENIDA ENCINAS
CARLSBAD CA 92011
@>AU3AV AU3AV-OD-008-1 ®091S I.ueqe6 a) zasiipn
aoidej aBemas P la aBpjjnnrmim uniccairiini
Jam and Smudge Free Printing
Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160®
www.avery.com
1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 5160®
JOHN LAMB
1446 DEVLIN DR
LOS ANGELES CA 90069
SDGE
8315 CENTURY PARK CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
STATE LANDS COMMISSION
STE100S
100 HOWE AVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
COUNJTY OF SD
SUPERVISOR
RM335
1600 PACIFIC
SAN DIEGO ca 92101
PERRY LAMg
890 MEp*fPT RD
BBfefRSWICKME 04011
SD COUNTY
PLANNING & LAND USE DEPT
STE B-5
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
COASTAL CONSERVANCY
STE 1100
1330 BROADWAY
OAKLAND CA 94612
FLOYD AS
PO
lNITAS CA 920232850
DALE OR DOROTHY SCHREIBER
7163 ARGONAUTA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92009
GEORGE BOI,
6583 B^ACKRAIL RD
CSBADCA 92009
®<ms AH3AV-OD-008-1 ®09tS »u
aoidej aBeioas e la a6ejjnoauue uoissajduii
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers,
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 24, 2006, to consider a the adoption of a Negative
Declaration and approval of a Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to add a new chapter to the code and to
amend several chapters of the code for purposes of implementing the City's recently approved Habitat Management Plan (HMP) and
more particularly described as:
Citywide
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be
available on or after Friday, January 20, 2006. If you have any questions, please call Mike Grim in the Planning Department at (760)
602-4623.
If you challenge the approval of the Negative Declaration, Zone Code Amendment and/or the Local Coastal Program Amendment 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, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad CA 92008 at or prior
to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: ZCA 05-01/LCPA 05-09
CASE NAME: HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
PUBLISH: January 13, 2006
CITY
CITY COUNCIL
EXHIBIT 7
March 6, 2006
TO: CITY COUNCIL
VIA: City Manager
FROM: Senior Plann
MAR 7 2006
CITY OF CARLSBADCITY CLERK'S OFFICE
All Receive-Agenda Item #
For the Information of the
Asst.
RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON HMP IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCE
On January 17, 2006, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the adoption of
additions and amendments to the City's Zoning Ordinance pertaining to implementation of the
Habitat Management Plan. At that hearing, two speakers offered testimony and requested that
the item be postponed until their issues could be resolved.
Two of the speakers, Wayne Callaghan and his attorney Erik Friess, spoke regarding a property
owned by Mr. Callaghan located on the north side of Hemmingway Drive, south of Cannon
Road. Their concerns centered on the site-specific development standards contained in the
HMP. As shown in Attachment A, the HMP calls for preservation of 50 percent of the Callaghan
property Attachment B shows the Coastal Commission Suggested Modifications to that section
of the HMP dealing with the Callaghan property. It is Mr. Callaghan's contention that the
Suggested Modifications were meant to replace the 50 percent preservation requirement. City
staff agrees with this interpretation and sent a letter to the Coastal Commission, US Fish and
Wildlife Service, and Department of Fish and Game stating this contention and offering these
agencies an opportunity to comment (all three of these agencies had approval authority over the
HMP). This letter is attached as Attachment C.
The Wildlife Agencies responded to the City's correspondence in writing (letter attached as
Attachment D). The Coastal Commission responded with a telephone call and will follow up
with a letter. Both the Wildlife Agencies and Coastal Commission disagree with the City's and
Mr Callaghan's interpretation of the Suggested Modifications - they have stated that either a
minor or major amendment to the HMP would be necessary to remove the 50 percent
preservation requirement from the Callaghan property. Staff and representatives for Mr.
Callaghan met with Wildlife Agency staff on February 28, 2006 and are providing them with
additional information to assist in the resolution of the issue however, as stated in the Wildlife
Agency correspondence, this issue will not be resolved before the March 7, 2006 City Council
hearing.
Another speaker was Scott Molloy from the Building Industry Association of San Diego County
(BIA) who had several questions and concerns regarding the implementing ordinance text. On
January 31 2006, the BIA submitted a letter with fewer questions and concerns than those
raised at the public hearing (copy attached as Attachment E). Attachment F contains staff's
responses to those comments. Subsequent to the correspondence, Mr. Molloy met with City
Council members and staff and raised a concern about Section 21.210.13.D - "Additional
conditions." To address Mr. Molloy's concerns, staff is proposing that clarifying language be
added to the beginning of the section, as contained in Attachment G.
On a related
HMP Ordinance
appropriate and they are strongly
Implementing Agreement on the
2006..."
note, the Wildlife Agien^ies state in their corr^b^idence that the linkage of the
ce adoption with the esjbiiition of Mr. Ca$Ighah;S pieservation requirements is not
thip the City to, "...folloiv-thnugh on the obligations of the
IMP^and adopt, the fmpTemer ting Ordinances on March 7,
In summary, staff is recommending that the proposed HMP Implementing Ordinances be
approved as presented at the January 17, 2006 City Council hearing, with the proposed
modification to Section 21.210.13. D attached. Any further proposed changes to the Ordinances
would necessitate review and approval by the Wildlife Agencies prior to adoption by the City
Council. Therefore, should the Council desire to incorporate any additional changes, the item
should be continued to a date uncertain to allow for Wildlife Agency review, comment, and
negotiation.
MICHAEL GRIM
c: Community Development Director
Planning Director
Assistant Planning Director
File Copy
EXHIBIT7 ATTACHMENT A
CARLSBAD BMP
northwest portions of the property. The conserved area shall be revegetated as a mosaic of
grassland and coastal sage scrub in order to facilitate gnatcatcher movement through the regional
linkage with Oceanside. Allow no net-toss of any riparian and other wetland habitats.
Avoid removal of coastal sage scrub or grassland habitats within this area, and restore or enhance
sage scrub habitat, as necessary, to achieve coastal sage scrub contiguity. Restoration of this area is
highly desirable. Allow no net loss of any riparian and other wetland habitats.
The second property is an infill lot located off the southeast corner of El Camino Real and Carlsbad
Village Drive and is known as the Spyglass property. Although this property is not contiguous to any
other habitat and would not provide a link or corridor for habitat connectivity purposes, a majority of
the property contains native grasslands. Any grasslands impacted on this-property shall be required
to do offsite mitigation at a 2:1 ratio.
1. Biological Resource Issues
Most of Zone 8 is comprised of existing or proposed hardline preserve areas. The habitats in Zone 8
comprise much, of Core Area 4, and link to other cores to the northeast (via Linkage Area B),
southeast (via Linkage Area F), and west (Agua Hedibnda Lagoon). This zone supports a variety of
sensitive habitats, including critical salt marsh, freshwater marsh, and riparian scrub habitats as well
as a major stand of coastal sage scrub. A small patch of southern maritime chaparral is located in
and adjacent to agriculture, non-native grassland, southern mixed chaparral, and disturbed land.
Marsh habitats associated with Agua Hedionda Lagoon support critical populations of California least
tern, western snowy plover, Belding's Savannah sparrow, light-footed clapper rail, and potentially salt
marsh skipper. Riparian habitats support breeding least Bell's vireos and potentially southwestern
willow flycatchers. California gnatcatchers inhabit most of the sage scrub in this zone, and Del Mar
manzanita occurs in the southern maritime chaparral.
2. HMP Conservation Goals
Ensure no net loss of wetland habitats and minimize loss of sensitive upland habitats within Core Area
4, especially occupied coastal sage scrub. Conserve major and critical populations of HMP species
and populations of Narrow Endemic species. Maintain contiguity between upland and wetland
habitats within the zone, as well as continuity of sensitive upland habitats across the zone from
southeast to northwest.
3. Planning Standards
There are two properties within this zone that are designated as standards areas; the Kirgis property
and the Callaghan property. Both properties are required to avoid impacts to any identified Narrow
Endemic plant populations. Impacts to coastal sage scrub and southern maritime chaparral habitats
shall also be avoided, with impacts limited to smaller fragments, edges, lower quality areas, and areas
•*, * devoid of sensitive species. The Kirgis property shall be aflowed a maximum of 25% of the parcel for
development purposes. The Callaghan property shall be allowed a maximum of 50% of the parcel for
development purposes. Both properties shall place their development on the least environmentally
sensitive portion of the property.
D-75
DECEMBER, 1999 AS AMENDED
FINAL APPROVAL NOVEMBER, 2004
EXHIBIT 7
ATTACHMENT B
5. The existing Hardline Preserve map for the Kevane property (Figure 25) shall be
removed.
6. Revise Policy 7.13(e) on Page 8 of the Second HMP Addendum as follows:
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. Development within steep slopes and/or native
vegetation shall be limited to passive recreational facilities, such as recreational
trails and picnic areas. Within the proposed development areas, grading of
Ssteep slopes with native vegetation shall be~limited planned for moro pascivo
type uses with grading of such area limited to the minimum amount necessary to
allow such uses.
7. Revise Tables 3, 6, 7 and 8 and Figures 6, 26 and 27 of the 1999 Draft HMP to
reflect the changes to proposed habitat impacts and preserve areas, standards
properties and hardlined properties.
8. Revise Policy 7-9 on Page 5 of the Second HMP Addendum as follows:
h. All mitigations areas, onsite and offsite, shall be secured with a conservation
easement in favor of the wildlife agencies. In addition, a preserve management
plan shall be prepared for the mitigation areas, to the satisfaction of the City, the
wildlife agencies, and the Coastal Commission. Phase I of the preserve
management plan shall be incorporated into the Implementation Program of the
LCP through an LCP amendment within one year of Commission certification of
the HMP as part of the certified LCP. Phase 2 of the preserve management plan
shall be incorporated into the Implementation Program in the same manner within
three years of Commission certification of the HMP as part of the certified LCP.
The preserve management plan shall ensure adequate funding to protect the
preserve as open space and to maintain the biological values of the mitigation
areas in perpetuity. Management provisions and funding for mitigation required
to address habitat impacts shall be in place prior to any- the impacts for which the
mitigation is required 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. Tho preserve management plan ohall bo incorporated
into the Implementation Plan of tho LCP through an LCP amendment within ono
yoar of Commission certification of tho HMP as part of the certified LCP.
9. Add to the Planning Standards for Zone 8 on page D-65 of the HMP regarding
the Callaghan property (Planning Area L of Kelly Ranch) the following wording:
Development of the Callaghan property shall be required to preserve Open
Space as shown on the certified Open Space Mao for Planning Area L approved
by the California Coastal Commission as part of it's action on LCP Amendment
No. 2 - 99D (Kellv Ranch).
JJP-D9-D3 32;5iDif F-- • 767 2384 6-9 76" 23B4
Ot)en Space Recommendation
AreaL
..
Hll/lr' ''
• V,',->•, X4 \>VVV
*22A Area.Recommended as Open Space
Source: Slope Analysis - Area L, 9-24-99
California Coastal Commission
Technical Services Unit
The imaimaric'Ci di
subject to ro'ision.
appToxiniBte. Par1
Revisec
Carlsba
APPLICATION NO.
CAR LCPA
1-03B
Kelly Ranch
Open Space
Recommendation -
Area L
(As approved in
CAR LCPA 2-99D)
:aiifamta Coirai Commission 'D
EXHIBIT?
ATTACHMENT C
January 31, 2006
Sherilyn Saarb
California Coastal Commission
San Diego District
Suite 103
7575 Metropolitan Ave
San Diego CA 92108-4402
SUBJECT: HMP PRESERVATION STANDARDS FOR CALLAGHAN
PROPERTY (APN: 208-184-09)
Dear Sherilyn:
The City received a request from a property owner to explore the incorporation of
your Suggested Modifications for the City's Habitat Management Plan (HMP).
The request came from Mr. Wayne Callaghan and dealt with his property within
Local Facilities Management Zone 8 (please see attached map).
The original HMP, approved by the City Council in November 1999, showed the
Callaghan property (also known as Kelly Ranch Planning Area L) as a
"Standards" area within the preserve. The Zone 8 specific standards indicated
that the Callaghan property was "allowed a maximum of 50% of the parcel for
development purposes" (please see attached excerpt from HMP). After
processing the Local Coastal Program Amendment for the HMP, the Coastal
Commission approved the document with Suggested Modifications. One of the
Suggested Modifications dealt with the Callaghan parcel and stated:
"Development of the Callaghan property shall be required to
preserve Open Space as shown on the certified Open Space Map
for Planning Area L approved by the California Coastal Commission
as part of it's action on LCP Amendment No. 2 - 99D (Kelly
* Ranch)."
After the Carlsbad City Council approval of the Suggested Modifications, the
above quoted Suggested Modification was not included in the final HMP text for
Zone 8. Therefore, the City is attempting to resolve its incorporation into the
HMP.
Based upon a review of the record and representations by Mr. Callaghan of past
conversations with Coastal Commission staff, the City believes that this
EXHIBIT?
HMP PRESERVATION STANDARDS FOR CALLAGHAN PROPERTY
January 31, 2006
Page 2
Suggested Modification was intended to replace the maximum 50% development
standard in the HMP. Given that the Coastal Commission had approval authority
on the HMP, the City is providing the Commission staff notice for your review
and, if needed, comment prior to effectuating this correction to the HMP text. If
no comments are received within 30 days of the date of this correspondence, it
will be interpreted that the property owner and City's reading of this Suggested
Modification is accurate.
Please feel free to contact Michael Grim, Senior Planner, at (760) 602-4623 or
mgrim@ci.carlsbad.ca.us if you have any questions or require additional
information.
Sincerely,
MARCELA ESCOBAR-ECK
Planning Director
Attachments
C: Don Neu
Gary Barberio
Christer Westman
File Copy - CT 00-04
Wayne Callaghan
!to
i o . t i rnn i OJO4 o i 4 <: oo
<VTATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY
uru no $uu uicuast Region | UU l/UVd
ATTACHMENT D
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER. Governor
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL
TO: Marcela Escobar-Eck
City of Carlsbad
Fax (760)602-8559
cc (fax only): Sharilyn Sarfa
California Coastal Commission
Fax (619) 767-2384
Carollyn B. Lob ell
Nossaman, Gunther, Knox & Elliott, LLP
Fax (949) 833-7878
FROM:
DATE:
Libby Lucas
South Coast Region
4949 Viewridge Avenue
San Diego, California 92123
Telephone (858) 467-4230
Fax (858)627-3984
03-01-06 TIME: 1645
# OF PAGES SENT INCLUDING TRANSMITTAL SHEET
COMMENTS:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's and the Department's letter regarding the HMP Preservation
Standards for CaUaghan Property (APN: 208-184-09).
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES INDICATED
PLEASE CALL THE SENDER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
IO.HC rnn I OdOHD I ura nz souTncoasi Region
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
6010 Hidden Valley Road
Carlsbad, California 92011
(760)431-9440
FAX (760) 431-5902+ 9618
California Department of Fish & Game
South Coast Region
4949 Viewridge Avenue
San Diego, California 92123
(858)467-4201
FAX (858) 467-4299
March 1,2006
In Reply Refer To:
FWS/CDFG-SDO- 4790.1
Ms. Marcela Escobar-Eck, Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008-7314
Re: HMP Preservation Standards for Callaghan Property (APN: 208-184-09)
Dear Ms. Escobar-Eck:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the Department of Fish and Game
(Department), collectively the "Wildlife Agencies," have reviewed your letter dated
January 31, 2006, regarding the Habitat Management Plan (HMP) preservation standards
for the Callaghan property in the City of Carlsbad (City), California. We also reviewed
the information provided by Ms. Carollyn B. Lobell with Nossaman, Gunther. Knox &
Elliott, LLP, in a letter dated February 8, 2006, regarding this property. On February 28,
2006, representatives from the Wildlife Agiencies met with Mike Grimm with the City,
Ms. Carollyn Lobell, Ryan Callaghan representing the land owner, and Scott Holbrook
with MBA consulting to gather more infojination regarding the Callaghan property.
It is our understanding that the City believes the following California .Coastal Commission
(CCC) standard replaces the zone specific standard in the HMP for the Callaghan property and
intends to revise the language in the HMP to reflect this change.
The attached Figure 12 - Revised- Kelly Hilman Property shall replace
Figure 12 on Page D-27, and add the following -wording to The Planning
Standards for Zone 8 on Page D-65t "Development of the Callaghan
property shall be required to preserve open space as shown on the
certified Open Space Map for Planning Area L approved by the
California Coastal Commission as part of its action on LCP Amendment..
No. 2-99D (Kelly Ranch)."
The Wildlife Agencies do not concur with such a change. Modifying the language as the City
proposes would result in "hardlining" the Callaghan property without review and/or concurrence
from the Wildlife Agencies. When the Wildlife Agencies analyzed the biological impacts of the
TAKE PRIDE
uru na ouuincoasx Region ig| uuj/uu.'*
Ms. Marcela Escobar-Eck (FWS/CDFG-SDG-4790.1) 2 of 3
HMP to issue 10(a)l(B) and Natural Communities Conservation Program permits to the City for
the HMP, we assumed that the CCC intended for their standard to be applied so that pre-existing
50 percent on-site conservation area would incorporate the hardline agreed to by the CCC, not be
superceded by it. Our assumption was based on the fact that the CCC did not provide strikeout
text as they did in paragraphs before and after this section and the text".. .and add the, following
wording..." Any different interpretation of this language would require the Wildlife Agencies to
conduct a new biological analysis for the site that may affect species coverage and would have to
occur as an amendment to the plan. We have not conducted such a biological analysis and
therefore cannot say with certainty whether such a change would be a minor or major
amendment.
However, the information provided to the Wildlife Agencies on this property to date suggests
that less conservation would result from the City's interpretation and would likely require a
major amendment to the Plan and our permits. A major amendment may require new
documentation under the National Environmental Policy Act and/or California Environmental
Quality Act; it would certainly require publication in the Federal Register for at least a 30-day
public comment period.
We regret that the City and/or the property owner did not convey this interpretation to the
Wildlife Agencies prior to permit issuance on the HMP. However, it is unclear why the property
owner and/or City did not bring such an interpretation forward during any of the three public
review periods and/or the City Council heurings on finalization of the HMP, if the City and/or
landowner believed there was a hardline Agreed to by the Wildlife Agencies on this property.
We are interested and willing to identify a hardline for this property and any other areas
identified as standards in the HMP. However, such a process takes time to gather all the
necessary biological data/information, analyze the data/information, and develop a hardline that
meets development needs and constraints ,and is consistent with the HMP and biological needs of
the area.
It is our understanding from conversations, with Ms. Carollyn B. Lobell and Mike Grimm with the
City that the City is considering not moving forward on adopting the Implementing Ordinances of
the HMP until a hardline for this project is agreed to by the Wildlife Agencies. The Implementing
Ordinances are currently scheduled to be adopted on March 7,2006. While we will work to
resolve the Callaghan property issues as soon as possible, given our heavy workload, it is highly
unlikely that this will occur by March 7,2006. More importantly there is no reason to delay the
adoption of the Implementing Ordinances because there is no link between this project and the
Implementing Ordinances. The Implementing Ordinances do not address any specific site by
name; they merely implement the HMP. Any changes to address the Callaghan property would
need to occur to the HMP and not the Implementing Ordinances. The process for such changes is
clearly described in the HMP for approval of standards areas and for minor and major
amendments to the Plan. The City has an obligation, as stated in the Implementing Agreement, to
adopt the Implementing Ordinances for the HMP within one year of permit issuance. The City
has already delayed adoption of the Implementing Ordinances several times since the City and
,^,,™,0_rnn ,„„_„ ura „ auuxncoasx negxon
)a/pl/2006 14:43 FAX 7604315902 US FISH AND WILDLIFE «,<,„«
Ms. Marcela Escobar-Eclc (FWS/CDPG-SDO-4790.1) 3 of 3
Wildlife Agencies reached agreement cm them so that now they are substantially overdue.
Therefore, we strongly urge the City to follow-through on the obligations of the Implementing
Agreement on the HMP and adopt the Implementing Ordinances on March 7, 2006, as currently
written,
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Lee Ann Carranza (Service) at
(760) 431-9440 ext 292 or David Mayer (Department) ,at (858) 467-4234.
Sincerely,
Therese O'Rourke~^-^_ wGfA Mulligan
Assistant Field Supervisor Deputy Regional Manager
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service CaJirorma'Departrnent of Fish and Game
cc: California Coastal Commission
Ms. Carollyn B. Lobell with Nossaman, Gunther, Knox &. Elliott, LLP
EXHIBIT?ATTACHMENT E
9201 Spectrum Center Blvd., Suite 110
San Diego, CA 92123-1407
P 858.450.1221
F 858.552.1445
www.biasandiego.org
PRESIDENT
Horace Hogan II
Brehm Communities
VICE PRESIDENT
Scott Brusseau
Newport National Corp.
TREASURER / SECRETARY
Paul Barnes
Shea Homes
IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT
Scot Sandstrom
Richmond American Homes of California
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Paul A. Tryon
AFFILIATES
California Building
Industry Association
National Association
of Home Builders
National Association
of Industrial and
Office Properties
January 30,2006
Mr. Michael Grim
City of Carlsbad Planning Department
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: HMP Implementation Ordinance (Zoning Chapter 21.210)
Dear Mr. Grim:
Thank you for this opportunity to provide input on the new HMP
zoning chapter. We appreciate the extension of time we have been
. granted to respond to the changes made to the draft zoning
chapter based on the revisions made to the draft zoning chapter in
response to the comments and requested revisions received by the
wildlife agencies and the environmental community.
The following comments are intended to add clarification to the
draft zoning chapter language addressing definitions, mitigation
requirements, and the HMP Permit requirements. Our proposed
changes reflect key provisions of the MHCP and commonly
applied standards for implementing multiple-habitat, multiple-
species preservation plans. Our proposed changes are shown in
strikeout/underline.
Section 21.210.11: Definitions
Habitat: means the environment or the environmental conditions
of a specific location where species or a population of such species
lives, occurs or occupies. It includes both natural -and -native
habitat-. It typically includes native vegetation communities but
may also include naturalized vegetation such as non-native
grassland when such habitats support protected species.
Ornamental and ruderal vegetation shall not be considered
habitat."
BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY
EXHIBIT 7
Section 21.210.13 C.b.: Habitat Preservation Requirements: Additional Mitigation:
Largo, connected areas of habitat Land that is not impacted by development or brush
management and preserved as HMP open space on-site (within the boundaries of the
property whore the project is located) and/or offsite shall be fully credited toward the
project's habitat mitigation requirements rotioo.
Section 21.210.13 D.2.: Habitat Preservation Requirements: Additional Conditions:
"Grading in occupied habitat for a development project during wildlife breeding
seasons shall be prohibited unless a minor adjustment (minor adjustment to...?) is
specifically approved by the city and the wildlife agencies."
Section 21.210.13 E.: Habitat HMF in-lieu mitigation fee:
"Development projects.,..The fee shall be adjusted as necessary to reflect changes in
land values for lands identified for acquisition as HMP preserve acquire suitable habitat
on a per aero basio comparable to the land being developed."
Section 21.210.16 A.I.: HMP Permit:
"A biological survey...If the biological survey is conducted outside the acceptable time
of year for identifying narrow endemic species, but the biologist identifies that narrow
endemic species could be present on the property, then surveys for narrow endemic
species must be conducted during an acceptable time of year in accordance with the
wildlife agencies^, protocols if such protocols exist. On a case by case basis, the
requirement to conduct narrow endemic and/or focused surveys may be waived by the
Planning Director if the biologist determines that no narrow endemic species could
occur in areas proposed for development and that any areas where narrow endemics
could potentially occur will not be impacted by development, including brush
management."
We look forward to the successful implementation of the HMP. Please feel free to
contact me to discuss our comments further.
truly yours,
ScottC.
Public Policy Advocate
Cc: BIA North County Board of Directors
Carlsbad City Council
EXHIBIT 7 ATTACHMENT F
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM BIA
(AS CONTAINED IN LETTER DATED JANUARY 30, 2006)
Planning Department staff has reviewed the changes to the HMP Implementing
Ordinance proposed by the BIA and provided comments below. Any proposed
changes would require the review and approval of the Wildlife Agencies prior to
City Council action. As stated in the cover memorandum, staff is recommending
that these revisions not be included in the ordinance.
The BIA provided comments on five sections of the HMP Ordinances:
Section 21.210.11: Definitions
The proposed revision would enhance the description of "natural" within the
definition of habitat and change the intent of the ordinance. The inclusion of both
native and natural habitat is important within the implementing ordinance since it
assists in delineating which habitats are subject to mitigation or mitigation in-lieu
fees.
In one case, this clarification is not needed; in the other case, the clarification
would conflict with other provisions in the HMP. Ornamental landscaping is not
considered as "natural". In HMP implementation, ruderal vegetation is
considered as disturbed habitat and falls within the category of "natural", thereby
making it eligible for in-lieu mitigation fee collection.
Section 21.210.12 C.b: Habitat Preservation Requirements
The proposed revision would restrict the City's ability to gauge the quality of the
proposed on-site preservation in terms of preserve benefits by allowing any land
preserved within the development area to count towards mitigation, regardless of
its habitat quality. There are cases when the HMP goals and objectives may
benefit from off-site mitigation directly adjacent to the preserve system rather
than disconnected patches with low habitat value within the proposed
development.
The Cjty still has the ability to consider the type of on-site preservation that the
proposed revisions suggest however the proposed language would remove any
discretion from the City in this decision. The intent of this portion of the
ordinance is to guarantee that areas of obvious benefit to the preserve (i.e. larger
connected areas of habitat) are encouraged to be preserved on-site.
Section 21.210.13 D.2: Habitat Preservation Requirements
The proposed revision would alter the limitations on grading during wildlife
breeding seasons. Typically, grading operations or any other construction
EXHIBIT?
operations are limited during the breeding seasons for both direct and indirect
impacts (such as noise, dust, etc.) These limitations typically extend well beyond
the habitat area that is occupied by the breeding species. The proposed revision
would substantially lessen this protection by restricting the grading limitations to
the clearance of only those habitat areas that are occupied. This is not
consistent with past practices or the State and Federal Endangered Species Act
restrictions on harassment of species.
Section 21.210.13 E: Habitat HMP in-lieu mitigation fee
The proposed changes would limit the adjustment of the fee to only changes in
the land value of HMP preserve acquisition land. Many other factors could affect
the fee including, but not limited to, management costs. The proposed wording
would be too restrictive and would not allow an adjustment in the fee should
costs other than land costs increase or decline due to the market or other factors.
Section 21.210.16 A.1: HMP Permit
The proposed revisions would allow the Planning Director to waive the
requirement for Narrow Endemic species surveys according to existing protocols
if the project biologist believes there are none within the development area.
Narrow Endemic species are extremely important in the HMP context since they
have restricted geographic distribution and substantial loss of their habitat could
jeopardize the continued existence or recovery.
The HMP contains standards for the preservation of Narrow Endemic species
that are based upon the total amount of these species within a particular
property. Without complete surveys of the subject property during the
appropriate season, these standards cannot be applied accurately. In addition,
some of the Narrow Endemic species, such as the Least Bells Vireo, could be
harassed by adjacent development and therefore an accurate survey to
determine their existence outside of the development area is necessary to
maintain compliance with the State and Federal Endangered Species Act
restriction on harassment of species.
ATTACHMENT G
Below is an excerpt from Section 21.210.13.D of the HMP Implementing Ordinance
containing a proposed revision to address concerns raised by the Building Industry
Association and a local developer. The proposed additions are underlined and in italics.
D. Additional conditions. In addition to the requirements, standards and conditions
contained in A, B and C of this Section, the following additional conditions of
coverage shall apply to all development projects. These conditions are intended
to reference existing requirements and conditions contained in the HMP, IA.
MHCP, and NCCP and 10(a)1(B) permit conditions; the conditions listed below
are not intended to add additional requirements or conditions above those
contained in the HMP, I A, MHCP. and NCCP and 10(a)1(B) permit conditions:
1. Impacts to Narrow Endemic Species shall be avoided to the maximum
extent practicable in conformance with the Narrow Endemic Species
Policy contained in the MHCP and incorporated herein by reference,
however where impacts to a Narrow Endemic Species population are
demonstrated to be unavoidable, impacts shall be limited to 5% of the
total Narrow Endemic Species population within the boundaries of the
property where the development project is located. Relocation of the
Narrow Endemic Species cannot be used to meet the 5% numeric
standard.
2. Grading for a development project during wildlife breeding seasons
shall be prohibited, except as provided by the HMP and MHCP.
unless a minor adjustment is specifically approved by the city and the
wildlife agencies.
3. All development projects shall be located and designed to minimize
overall impacts to natural habitat.
4. All fuel modification (brush management) zones required as a result of
the development project, and as required by the Fire Marshal, shall be
located outside the preserve areas, shall be considered impacted and
shall be mitigated according to C of this section.
5. Impacts to wetland and riparian habitats shall be avoided to the
maximum extent possible. All development projects that would affect
these habitats must demonstrate that the impacts: 1) cannot be
avoided by a feasible alternative, 2) have been minimized to the
maximum extent practicable, 3) mitigated at a minimum 3:1 ratio and
4) will be mitigated in ways that assure no net loss of habitat value or
function.
6. Impacts to vernal pools shall be avoided. In the event that no project
alternative is feasible that avoids all impacts on a particular property,
the impacts must be minimized and mitigated to achieve a no net loss
of biological functions and values through strict adherence to the
Wetland Avoidance and Mitigation Criteria (Section 3.6.1 of MHCP
Volume I), Standard Best Management Practices (MHCP Appendix
B), and Revegetation Guidelines (MHCP Appendix C).
7. In the standards areas, 67% of coastal sage scrub and 75% of the
gnatcatchers located in the area shall be preserved. Some areas may
preserve more or less than these percentages due to parcel size,
location, resources, or long term conservation potential as approved
by the City and the Wildlife Agencies.
5AN FRANCISCO
THIRTY-FOURTH FLOOR
50 CALIFORNIA STREET
SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94111-4799
(415) 399-3600
LOS ANGELES
THIRTY.FIRST FLOOR
445 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET
LOS ANGELES. CA 90071-1602
(213) 612-7600
SACRAMENTO
SUtTE 1000
915 L STREET
SACRAMENTO. CA 95814-3705
(916) 442-888B
LAW OFFICES
NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT,
SUITE 1805
18101 VON KARMAN AVENUE
IRVINE. CALIFORNIA 92612-0177
TELEPHONE (949) 833-7800
FACSIMILE (949) 833-7878
_ \oAll Receive
For the Information of the:
CITY COUNCIL
CAROLLYN 8. LOBELL
EMAIL clobell@nossaman.com
March 7, 2006
SUITE soo
2111 WILSON BOULEVARD
ARLINGTON. VA 22201-3052
(703) 351-5010
AUSTIN. TEXAS
SUITE 2000
100 CONGRESS AVENUE
AUSTIN. TEXAS 76701-2745
(512) 370-4977
REFER TO FILE NUMBER
290467-0001
RDiCSEDWLE
MAR 7 2006
CITY OF CARLSBADCITY CLERK'S OFFICE
r^i
z)
To:
VIA FACSIMILE
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City
Council
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Habitat Management Plan Implementation
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:
This firm represents Wayne Callaghan, the landowner and project applicant for
the Villaggio Project, also known as Planning Area L ("Callaghan Property") within the Kelly
Ranch. Tonight the Council will consider the implementing ordinance for the Habitat
Management Plan ("Plan"), an item continued from the February 7, 2006 meeting. We
appreciate the City Council's continuation of the item in February, and we want to thank the staff
for working with us since that time to pursue a correction to the Plan relative to the standard for
the Callaghan Property. We sincerely hope that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS")
and the California Department of Fish and Game ("CDFG") will agree to a minor amendment to
the HMP in accordance with the Plan.
We understand that the USFWS and CDFG, in a March 1, 2006 letter, have urged
the City to adopt the Implementing Ordinance without further delay. Mr. Callaghan wants to
cooperate with the City and the USFWS and CDFG, but we respectfully request that this item be
continued again to allow additional time for the USFWS and CDFG to concur in an amendment
to the Plan. We understand that the implementing ordinance does not call out specific sites.
That does not mean the ordinance does not affect the Callaghan Property. In referring to the
Standards Areas, the ordinance refers to a Figure and standards in the Plan. By doing this, the
ordinance effectively changes the zoning on the Callaghan Property. For these reasons, we
object to the application of the ordinance to the Callaghan Property, until such time as a
correction or amendment is made to the Plan.
260010 2.DOC
NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 7, 2006
Page 2
We want to set the record straight about several items in the March 1, 2006
USFWS and CDFG letter.
Biological Impacts
The letter references the agencies analysis of the biological impacts of the HMP
to issue the permits to the City. Yet the HMP itself does not contain any indication that the 50 %
standard is needed for any biological reason. And the City has proceeded under the assumption
that the site was subject to the coastal commission open space requirement and not to the 50 %
standard, as evidenced by the City comments on Mr. Callaghan's plans. Lastly, the City and
others issued grading permits for the site in the later 1980's, and the site was noted as non-native
grassland in the 1988 EIR for Kelly Ranch. We believe that the scale of the mapping in the
HMP may be a cause of confusion, and we have provided documentation of the site conditions
going back over two decades. Thus, there is no biological basis for requiring the 50 % standard.
Timing of Comment and Request for Plan Amendment
The letter questions why this interpretation did not surface earlier. Mr. Callaghan
repeatedly questioned the City staff about the status of his site, over a period of years. We
strenuously object to any implication that Mr. Callaghan should have notified the USFWS or
CDFG earlier to clarify this situation. Mr. Callaghan submitted project materials to the City in
July 2004 and in May 2005. The City provided comments in response to those submittals. The
50 % standard was never mentioned in any City comments. Furthermore, Mr. Callaghan made
repeated attempts to confirm that the standard for his property was the LCP standard and not the
50 % standard. He was repeatedly told by City staff, and also informed in writing, that the
standard area on the site was the LCP open space.
Link Between Implementing Ordinance and Project
The letter states that there is no link between the Implementing Ordinance and the
project. As stated earlier in the letter, and in our previous correspondence to the City, we
disagree because the Implementing Ordinance effectively changes the zoning on the property.
If the City is not inclined to continue the item, we respectfully request that the
City affirm their previous statements that the City agrees the 50 % standard is a mistake, and
their commitment to providing additional acreage for the Preserve if necessary to meet the HMP
goals. One mechanism for this would be to include additional language in the ordinance or
resolution before you tonight. Attached to this letter is language for this purpose.
In conclusion, Mr. Callaghan has a substantial investment in plans, architecture,
technical analysis, habitat restoration and public infrastructure in reliance on adopted plans. City
staff has repeatedly confirmed Mr. Callaghan's interpretation that the standard for the site is the
LCP open space.
260010 2.DOC
NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 7, 2006
PageS
We thank the City for its assistance in moving toward resolution of this issue. We
hope that the City will either continue this item again, or include additional language in the
resolution that provides a clear record of this issue. If the City determines not to take either of
those approaches, or an alternate approach that accomplishes our goal that the HMP be modified,
then we reiterate for the record our February 7, 2006 comments on the Negative Declaration for
the Habitat Management Plan Implementation. We point out again that, if the City passes this
ordinance without correcting the mistake concerning the Callaghan property, then the City's
limited environmental analysis in connection with this ordinance is inadequate to meet CEQA's
requirements. For the reasons outlined above, we object to the application of the ordinance to
the Callaghan Property, until the HMP is corrected so that the standard reflects the 1.02-acre
LCP open space area as the limit of the required open space.
Very truly yours,
Carollyn B. Lobell
for NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP
cm.
Enclosure
cc: Wayne Callaghan
260010 2.DOC
NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
March 7, 2006
Page 4
Proposed Recital Language
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. NS-783 adds new Chapter 21.210 to the Carlsbad Municipal Code,
and Chapter 21.210.13 (B) provides the habitat preservation requirements for standards areas and
references back to the HMP Figure 26 and incorporates by reference habitat preservation
standards contained in Section D.3(C) of the HMP; and
WHEREAS, with respect to the Kelly Hillman Property on Figure 12 of the HMP, the City has
agreed that earlier California Coastal Commission modifications were meant to replace the 50
percent preservation requirement, and the City is working with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the California Department of Fish and Game to correct this, and the City
acknowledges and assumes, in adopting Ordinance No. NS-783 and new Chapter 21.210 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code, that the habitat preservation requirement for the Kelly Hillman
Property will be corrected and that the City will provide additional acreage to meet the HMP
goals, if necessary in order to correct the HMP relative to the Kelly Hillman Property.
260010 2.DOC
MAR, 7.2006 3:25PM
9201 Spectrum Center Blvd., Suite 110
San Diego, CA 92123-1407
P 858.450.1221
F 858.552.1445
www.biasandiego.org
PRESIDENT
Horace Hogan II
Brehm Communities
VICE PRESIDENT
Scott Brvsseau
Newport National Corp.
TREASURER / SECRETARY
Paul Barnes
Shea Homes
IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT
Scot Sandstrom
Richmond American Homes of California
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Paul A. Tryon
AFFILIATES
California Building
Industry Association
National Association
of Home Builders
National Association
of Industrial and
Office Properties
"NO. 9459 P. 2/2"
AGENDA ITEM #.
« Mayor
City Council
' City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
IO
March 7, 2006
Honorable Claude Lewis
Mayor
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: BIA Support for Staff Recommended Revisions to Habitat
Management Plan Zoning Code Chapter
Dear Mayor Lewis and members of the City Council:
Thank you for this opportunity to respond to the HMP Zoning Chapter
revisions staff is recommending to address the concerns raised regarding
grading during wildlife breeding seasons. We support these revisions to
the HMP Zoning Chapter and believe they will adequately address the
potential for inconsistencies between the HMP Zoning Chapter and Plan
itself The original language was overly restrictive and, together with the
restrictions on grading during the rainy season in the coastal zone, could
preclude grading for virtually the entire year, which would have been a
severe impact on development projects and grading contractors.
In practice grading during the breeding season has been allowed subject
to the monitoring of grading activities by a qualified biologist. The HMP
Biology Guidelines, which we understand will be developed over the next
several months, should address this issue in more detail. Please consider
this letter as a formal request for the BIA to participate in the process of
developing those guidelines.
We greatly appreciate rhe efforts city staff and the city council have made
to address our concerns with the original grading language. We look
forward 10 working cooperatively with the city in the future on other land
use and development issues.
Very truly yours,
/>TT~
Scott C. Media/
Public Policy Advocate
cc: Michael Grim, Planning Department
Marcela Escobar Eck, Planning Director
BIA North County Board of Directors
\MAR 7 2006
CITY OF CARLSBADCITY CLERK'S OFFICE
T<ov,
BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF SAN DIECO COUNTY
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 & 2011C.C.P.)
This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
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
North County Times
Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The
Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by
the Superior Court of the County of San Diego,
State of California, for the City of Oceanside and
the City of Escondido, Court Decree number
171349, for the County of San Diego, that the
notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set
in type not smaller than nonpariel), has been
published in each regular and entire issue of said
newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on
the following dates, to-wit:
thJanuary 13, 2006
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at SAN MARCOS California
This 09th Day of February, 2006
Proof of Publication of
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you that the City Council of the
City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council
Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at
6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 24,2006, to consider a the
adoption of a Negative Declaration and approval of a Zone Code
Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to add a
new chapter to the code and to amend several chapters of the
code for purposes of implementing the City's recently ,
approved Habitat Management Plan (HMP) and more
particularly described as:
Citywide
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially
invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will
be available on or after Friday, January 20,2006. If you have any
questions, please call Mike Grim in the Planning Department at
(760)602-4623.
If you challenge the approval of the Negative Declaration, Zone
Code Amendment and/or the Local Coastal Program Amend"
ment 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, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad
CA 92008 at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: ZCA 05-01/LCPA 05-09
CASE NAME: HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
CITY OF CARLSBAD . .
CITY COUNCIL
Signature
Jane Allshouse
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
Habitat Management Plan Habitat Management Plan ImplementationImplementationZCA 05-01/LCPA 05-09
BackgroundBackgroundzFinal Habitat Management Plan (HMP)and Implementing Agreement (IA) approved by City Council in November 2004.zImplementation of the HMP requires several additional documents and regulations, as stated in the Implementing Agreement.zImplementing ordinances are a critical component to enforcement and implementation of HMP.
Ordinance ComponentsOrdinance ComponentszNew chapter (21.210) with standards and procedures for habitat preservation and management for development projects.zRevisions to Open Space Zone (21.33) to establish permitted uses on HMP preserve lands.zRevisions to Hillside Development Regulations (21.95) and Coastal Resource Protection Overlay (21.203) to allow modifications for HMP compliance.
HMP Preservation and HMP Preservation and Management RegulationsManagement RegulationszPurpose to implement the HMP, IA, North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP), Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) permit, and Section 10(a)1(B) permit.zEstablish a process to allow minor amendments to regulations under limited, specified circumstances.
ApplicabilityApplicabilityzAll development projects andfuel modification activities must comply with the habitat preservation and conservation standards.zNo grading or clearing and grubbing of habitat can occur without processing an HMP Permit.
HMP Ordinance ContentsHMP Ordinance ContentszHabitat Preservation RequirementszHabitat Management RequirementszHMP Permit Requirements and ProcedureszMinor and Major HMP AmendmentszEnforcement Measures
HMP Ordinance ContentsHMP Ordinance ContentszHabitat Preservation Requirements–Contains excerpts from HMP and MHCP regarding preservation in HardlinePreserve areas and Standards areas, as well as additional mitigation and conditions for special habitats (e.g. wetlands, vernal pools, Narrow Endemics)
HMP Ordinance ContentsHMP Ordinance ContentszHabitat Management Requirements–Contains excerpts and elaborations from the HMP and MHCP detailing the mandatory management steps.–Includes management, maintenance, and monitoring standards; funding in perpetuity; conservation easements; preserve management plans; and annual work plans.
HMP Ordinance ContentsHMP Ordinance ContentszHMP Permit Requirements and Procedures–Application submittal requirements–Permit review process–Incidental take permits–Required findings
HMP Ordinance ContentsHMP Ordinance ContentszMinor and Major HMP Amendments–Equivalency findings–Consistency findings–Other minor amendments–Major amendments
HMP Ordinance ContentsHMP Ordinance ContentszEnforcement measures–Spectrum of possible enforcement measures and remedies, ranging from stop work notice to criminal penalties.–Applies to any impacts to habitat not authorized through an HMP permit (excluding approved fuel modification activities consistent with the HMP/MHCP).
Open Space ZoneOpen Space ZonezDistinguishes between open space for habitat preservation and other open space zoning (such as parks, schools, etc.)zLists limited uses allowed within the HMP open space areas, such as trails, passive recreation uses, fencing, and signing.
Modifications to Hillside and Modifications to Hillside and Coastal Zone RegulationsCoastal Zone RegulationszAdds provision to allow modifications to the Hillside Development and Coastal Zone standards if needed to provide the amount of preservation required by the HMP.
Public InputPublic InputzComments received from California Native Plant Society, North County Open Space Coalition, Carlsbad Watershed Network and Wildlife AgencieszComments addressed through combination of ordinance revisions, Open Space Management Plan contents, and future staff guidelines.
RecommendationRecommendationzIntroduce Ordinance No. NS-783 approving ZCA 05-01.zAdopt Resolution No. 2006-016 approving the Negative Declaration and LCPA 05-09.zNote: LCPA also requires approval by the California Coastal Commission.
Habitat Management Plan Habitat Management Plan ImplementationImplementationZCA 05-01/LCPA 05-09
Habitat Management Plan Habitat Management Plan ImplementationImplementationZCA 05-01/LCPA 05-09
BackgroundBackgroundzItem was presented to City Council on January 17, 2006.zBased upon public input from two speakers, item was continued.zStaff has prepared and circulated a memorandum, dated March 6, 2006, with responses to the public input.
Public InputPublic InputzComments received from two speakers:–Scott Molloy, representing the BIA–Wayne Callaghan and legal representativezMolloy comments dealt with potential increase in restriction on development.zCallaghan comments dealt with processing of his project and the definition of his on-site habitat preservation in the adopted HMP.
BIA CommentsBIA CommentszMolloy comments being addressed through discussions about role of ordinance and clarification of HMP and MHCP requirements.zStatements clarifying that the ordinance does not add restrictions above those set by HMP and MHCP are proposed to be inserted into Section 21.210.13.D.
Callaghan PropertyCallaghan PropertyzStaff and property owner assert that the LCPA Suggested Modifications intended to delineate the total amount of on-site preservation.zStaff sent advisory notice to California Coastal Commission, US Fish and Wildlife, and California Department of Fish and Game stating our position.
Callaghan PropertyCallaghan PropertyHEMINGWAY DRCANNON RDDICKINSON DRSTEINBECK CTW H IT M A N W YASHBERRY RDDELANEY CT100010020050FeetAPN 208-184-09Callaghan PropertyPROJECT BOUNDARYOPEN SPACE
Callaghan PropertyCallaghan PropertyzWildlife Agencies and Coastal Commission staff responded to letter:–Do not agree with City’s assertion therefore current HMP requires on-site preservation of a minimum of 50 percent of property.–Any proposed change to this standard would require an amendment to the HMP.–Reevaluation of all conservation goals needed.
Callaghan PropertyCallaghan PropertyzWildlife Agencies stated there was no linkage between the HMP Ordinances and the on-site preservation requirements contained in the approved HMP.zTherefore, agencies are strongly urging City to adopt the HMP Implementing Ordinances.
RecommendationRecommendationzIntroduce Ordinance No. NS-783 approving ZCA 05-01, with the added language proposed in Attachment G of Exhibit 7.zAdopt Resolution No. 2006-016 approving the Negative Declaration and LCPA 05-09.zNote: LCPA also requires approval by the California Coastal Commission.
Habitat Management Plan Habitat Management Plan ImplementationImplementationZCA 05-01/LCPA 05-09