HomeMy WebLinkAboutLCPA 02-10; Habitat Management Plan; Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) (29)MAY-13-2083 TUE 171m 1D:COASTAL COMMISSION TEL I 619767 2384 PI02
1 .-
May 13,2003
Michael 1.Iolzmillcr
Planning Dircctor
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avcnuc Carlsbad, California 92008-73 I4
RE: Carfsbad Habitat Manrrpmcnt Plan (HMP}; LCPA No. 1-03B
Draft Staff Report. 1- Nor City Hoviow and Comment
Dear Mr. Holzmiller:
kinclosed please find a copy of thc draft staff nymt regarding the above-referenced ikms, datd May 13,2003, which wc agreed to provide for preliminary review by City stam. Wc emphasize that the attached report is only a draft, and is subject to rurlher rcvisions by Commission stnff prior to distrihution to the Commission. As you know, lhc stafrrecommmdations contained in the report provided to thc Commission rnuy also bc modified by staff in a later addendum and/or modified by he Commission during the hearing. We do not anticipate that thee will bc significant changes to the suggeestcd modifications, although additional detail will he added to lhc
finding$, AR previously agreed, tho local coa,astal program (LCP) amcndmcnl and rcdcrd consistency review haw bccn placcd an the apmda for the June 2003 Commission meeting in Long Beach. The subgtantial issue rqort for the pendine City Bolf course nppeal will nlso be reviewed by the Commission at that time.
Suggested modifications include updated figures and tables in the IJMP for consistency with the propovcd changcs a~ providcd in Scotion N of tho dratt report. A future CCP amendment to the ceitified ImplementationPlan (P) should be submittd to addrevs consistency with thc: w~ified Mella I, Mello I1 and Agua IIedionda land use plancl, if modified as suggeskd. Intorim stiidards arc ah suggefited regarding the application and authority of the lmd use plans and ll’ if any confliuh should iUiw bclwccn thcni before the lP is amended,
Beginning on page 3 of the draft report, staff is rccommcnding modiflcatlona to several of the
“standnrds arcas” roqulramcnts for specific properties. These recommcndcd moditbtions are
based upon thc: rccenl availability of additional information concming habitat types and
distributions on the subject propcrties, and the corresponding need to updatc the &vdopment
lootprints and wildlife corridor locations in the relevant standards. For pwposcs olaccuracy, we recorninend thal tho oxxisting “hardlines” for Manzanita Partners, Hub ParkfSDGtkbB Properly, which havc alwady rcccivcd an LCP ernendmcnnt and City development approval, respcctivcly, should be ,micndcd to reflcct the approved zoning map conditions and coastal development permit conditions. Wc haw also recommended that certain properlies looatod In “standards
areas” that have been wmnod arid have received City developmont approvals since preparation of the 1999 dmfi HMP should also bc represented as hardlines in thc final HMP. Since the KwRne property was includod in tho ‘‘staiidtwds areas’’ section of the second HMP addendum, and a final developmcntlpreserve footprint has not been alpccd upon between the property owners, thc City, the wildlife epncics, and Cammission stnff, the cxisling hardline map for this property should bo removed from lhcl HMP. For Veterans Memorial Park and Zone 19 park, we have eddcd spocifio
MAY-13-2003 TUE l7:28 1D:COASTAL COMMISSION TEL1619767 2384
Miohael Holzmiller
Msy 13,2003 Page 2
text conditions regarding protection of native habitat and stcep slopes, which wc believe arc comprrtible with the intcndcd recreational use of these sites. All of the above recommendations are included in Part IV of the staff report.
As providad in City Council Rcsolution No. 2003-038, which was included in the LCCP submittal package, City staffhave bcon authorized by the Council to negotiate additional hardlines prior to consideration of thc LCP amendment by the Cmmission. We haw been working with the City and property owners rcbwding scveral potential ncw hardlines, in pcrrticular Auw Circlc and BCS/Emeratd Point, but as of this date we haw not received P revised LCP submittal for any new hardlines. Plcasc notc that if the City wishes lo haw any new hardlines includcd in the current LCP amcndtncnt and considered by lhc Commission in June 2003, wc will need the oppropriatc City resolutions and hardline maps no later than May 21,2003.
In our lcllcr of October 11,2002, wc notcd that thc certified LCP Implementation Plan (IP) will
also require changes for consistmy with the revised lond use plans (LUPs) and the final €W. ?rme updates should bo submitted to the CommiRsion in a separate LCP amendment following tho Commission’s certification of LCP Amendment 1-03B. As provided in our suggested modifications, should any conflicts wiRe between the Me110 I, Mcllo II and Agua IIedionda land
use plans, and thc currently-certified IF, the provisions of lhr: relevant land use plan shall prevail.
As indicated in previous corrmpondcnce, pureunnt to Section 30512(b) of the Coastal hcl and the Commission’s roguldions {l’itle 14 Cal, Code Raga. 5 13544). ifthe Commission votes to approve the LCP ainendment with modifications, the City Council must accept the modifioetionu
and tlic Excculivo niroclor musl repurl the City’s aooeptancc to the Commission bofarr! ihc LCP aniendmcnt becomes effective. Bnscd upon the time frame of tha Commission’s scheduled montlily meetings, the LCP amendment, if aertified subject to suggested modifications, could not become efkctive any sooncr than tlrc first available Commission meeting following the City’s acceptance of the suggested modifications.
In order to pmvide the Cornmission wilh the standard required submittal mntcsials, plcnse providc
us with 40 copies olthc 1999 dtdt HMP and lhc second HMP addendum as soon RS possible, but no later than May 19,2003. Additional color copies of the standards and hardline exhibits in the HMP may he hclptbl to attach to the Commission stsff report. We can discuss what coiild bc made avnilttble now or my be possible to dovelap for distribution at the hearing. hy comments regarding: the draft staff report sliould also be provided ta us no lnter than that date. If you have
any questions or require any additional information, please call me at (619) 767-2370,
Sincercly,
Ke;i L, Akers, AICl’
Coastal Program Analyst
Cc: Dan Rideout, Principol Planner, City of Carlebd
MAY-13-2003 TUE 17128 IDlCOASTAL COMMISSION TEL1619767 2384 Pi84
_-. -
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
YINDltGOAReA
7575 MWPOUr4N DRIVE, SUITE 103
W4 DlWO, CA 92108.4402
(619) 76743'10
DRAFT -FOR DI&CUS$lON PURPOSES ONIdY
May 13,2003
TO: COMMTSSTONRRS AND IlYTERESTED PERSONS
FROM: DEBORAH LEE, SOUTH COAST DEPUTY DIRECTOR
SHERILYN SARB, DISTRICT MANAGER, SAN DIEGO
OFFICE KEN AKERS, COASTAL PROGRAM ANALYST, SAN DIEGO ..... ... , , . 'oFmcE . '; ' . :.:): ' , ', ' ' . , ...... ...... . I.. , I. , .I Ji/,,,, .... : ... 0..
:,
, .. ,. .
,' . ... I I. ..
SUBJ?CT: ST RI~COM~IENDATXQN ON CITY o;~ CA~LSBAD MAJOR
LAN$ USE.~LAN AMFNDMENT~NO. ~-O~B"(ME,LLO I, M~CLLO .. ': 'I 11, AWD AGTJA .. €I&NDIOWA LUP&FGM&NTS), AND j ,:
.SOCl FEDERAL CONSISTJCNCY:'ITEM NO, cc-067-003
:. ,.
*. ,
.................. (For Public IXcorlng and Posdhle Commission Action at the hlcetlng
of June 10-13,2003)
SUMMARY OF AMRNDM RNT REQUEST
Thc amcndmcnt submittal includes the draft Habitat Management Plan (Dcccmbcr 1999),
second addendum to lhe SIMP (Dscenibcr 16,2002), and revisions to the Mal10 I, Mcllo
I1 and Agua Hedionda land usc plans. No changes to the City's certified Implcmontation
Plan (IP) arc proposed at this time. 'The submittal also includes a federal consistency
detcrminatioii addressing the lncidental Takc Permit for listed species that will be Issued
to the City by the U,S,.Fish and Wildlife Service to implcnlcnt the Habitat Managcment Plan (HMP),
The subjcct local coastal program WP) amcndmcnt request was filed by the City of
Culsbd on February 7.2003. The LCP amendment includes revisions and additions to
tlic LCP that paraIlcl thc City's most recently adopted changes to the IIMP, a3 provided
in tho sccond HMP addendum, The purpose of the proposed addilions and ravisions to
thcsc land use plan sogmonts is to providc additional habitat protection requirenionts and consorvation standards for thc rcmaining undeveloped propertice within the Carlsbad
coastal zonc.
MAY-13-2803 TUE 17129 1D:COASTAL COMMISSION TEL1619767 2384
Curlsbad LCPA No. 1 -03B DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY May 13,2003
Pago 2 of31
The land use plan revisions and the revisions to thc 1999 HMP, as providcd in the second
“P addendrun, were madc by the City in response to input from Commission stalT,
Tho City and Commission staff have been working cooperatively since January 2000 to ensure thet the final HMP meets all relovant LCP, Coastal Act and fcdcral Coastal Zonc
Management Act (CZMA) requirements, is coiisistont wit11 the goals of the regional Multiplc Habitat Conservation PInn (MHCP) for San Uiego County, and provides
adquatc pmtccdon for cnvironmcntally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) in the coastal
zone. Although the HMP involves tradcoffs between habitat protection and
development, it will function as part of a regional plan under the state Natural
Communities Consorvation Planning (NCCP) program to manage extensive habitat mas
wtl rnitigtlle impacts, in a manner that will provide greater ovcrall protection of ~CSOWCCS
than continued picccm
dcadlinc for tho Corn&
also be May 8,2003. Howcvcr, tho City agreed to extend the federal consistency review
deadline by one month, to Juno 13,2003,~o that tho LCP amendment 4nd federal
consistency review could be scheduled for the same Commission meeting, and potcntid
inconsistencies could bc avoidcd. Thercforc, the Commission must taka action on lhe
federal consistency rcvicw no later than Juno 13,2003.
SUMMAH Y OF STAFF RECOMMENDATIQN
I
Staff is recommending denid of the proposcd amcndment as submitted and approval if
modi fwd ns suggcstod in this rcport. As submitted by the City of Carlsbd, the IIMP and
addcnda and tho associated LUP revisions provide protective standwds for sensitive
habitat and listed species within the City’s c0;wtal zone, However, based upon morc
comprehensive surveytl of individual propertics through staff field investigation, and
supplemental information rcccived during the rcvicw period, sevml clarifications are
nccessary to the proposed standards in lha Mdlo II segment of thc LCF and thc
associatcd sections of the HMP for Zone 21 propcrties, to address existing onsite habitat
typcs, location of preserve ureas, and tippropriato dcvclopincnt limitations. The chanp
also address development constraints associated with future construction of thc Poinsetlia Lnnc cxtcnsion through Zonc 21 and the habitat corridor.
Since completion of the 1999 draft HMP, soma of the properties included in the standards areas havc dcvcloped hardtines that arc acceptablc to the property owner, the City, and the wildlife clgencics, and have been approved through LCP amcndmcnts and/or coastul
developmcnt permits by the Commission. A property contains a “hardline” if, in
association with a future devclopmcnt plan, a line cm be drawn to establish the habitat
preserve boundary on the property, The suggested modifications require the HMP to bo
TUE 17130 IDiCOASTAL COMMISSION TEL I619767 2384
-..
Pi06 MAY-13-2003
Carlsbcld LCPA No. 1 -03R
May 13,2003
Page 3 of 31
DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSTON PURPOSES ONLY
updated to reflect the changes made to tha hardline maps for thcso properties, These changcs are necessary to cnsure accuracy and maximum effectiveness of both the HMY
and tho amcnded LCP.
Addilionul suggested modifications include updated figurea and tables in thc HMP fbr oonsistoncy with the proposed changes, A futurc LCP amendment to ihe certified
lrnplcmcntation Plan (P) should bc submitted to address consistency with tho ccrlificd
Mello I, Mello 11 and Agua Hedionda land use plans, ifmodifid as suggested. Finally,
interim standards arc suggcsted for application and authority of the land use plans and 1P
if any conflicts should ariso bctwcen them before the Lp is amended.
A redera1 consistency determination is also associated with the HMP, regarding an
Incidontal Take Pmit (I?P) for listed spcsics. Thc ITP must be iwucd to tho City by
Wildlife Service prior‘to any dcvolopmcnt undertaken under the
MP and its rcquiremmts.: The LCP amendment and fedwal consistency
addrtssod in separate rcsdlutions and motions within this stuff report.
that the Commission conditionally concur with the City’s consistency wflificatlon, subjcct to the CEty’s awepitmince af €hc Commission’s suggested
modifications to the LCP amcndmont, The approptlate resolutions and mo tion! forthe LCP amendment bel.resoluliotl and motion for thc federal
wnslstencv ccrtlf ication be- X. The S- * cations bcKin on parre I? s Q Plan
arnendnients bedn on DWZC X, Thc fivdinas for amroval of thc Mcllo I. Mcllo I1
for certificcrtion of the federal consistency determination bcnin on pane X,
Q ‘Ad. bedn on page X. The findinre
LCP BACKGROUND
The City’s certified LCP contains six geographic segments as follows: Agua Hedionda, Mello 1, Mello 11, West Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis Propertics and East Butiquitos
1 .agoon/Nunt PropertieR and Village Redevelopment Area. Ptrrsuant to Sections 30170(1)
and 30171 of the Public Resources Code, the Coastal Commissionprcparod and approvcd two portions of the WF, the Mol10 I and I1 scpcnts in 1980 and 1981, rcspcctivcly,
The Villagc Rcdcvclopment Area LCP WUE certified in 1988; the City has boon issuing
coastal dcvclopmcnt permits there since that timc. The Commission certifiod the Agua
Hedionda Land Use Plan in 1982. Tho West Batiquitos Lagooid Sammis Properties
segment was ccrtificd in 1985. The East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Propcrhs segment was
certidcd in 1988. On October 21, 1997, lhe Cily asmmcd permit jurisdiction and has bcai issuing coastal developnwnt pormits for all of its segments except Agua Hedionda,
Thc Agua Hedionda Lagoon LCP segmcnt remains as a deferred certification arc8 until
an implemenlation plan is certified, The subject amendment requcst affocts tho Mtllo 1,
Mal10 11 aid Agua Hedionda scgmcnts of the LCP.
MAY-13-2003 TU€ 17130 IDlCOASTAL COMMISSION
/-
Carlsbod LCPA No. 1 -03B
May 13,2003
Page 4 of 31
TEL I 619767 2394
DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSW ONLY
Further information on thc submittal may be obtainad from Keri Akers at the San Diego
Area OfXcc ofthe Coastal Commission at 7575 Metropolitan Drive, Suite 103, Son Diogo, CA 92108-4402, ($19) 767-2370,
PI07
MAY-13-2003 TUE 17131 IDiCOASTAL COMMISSION
-
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1 -03R
May 13,2003 Page 5 of 31
TEL1619767 2384
*-
DRAFT -FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PART 1. OVERVIEW -1KP AMENDMENT
A. STAN1)ARDQZE.P EWEW
The standard of rovicw for land use plans, or their amendments, is found in Section
30512 of lhe Coastal Act. This section quires tho Commission to certify nn LWP or
LUP amendmml if it finds that it mccts tho requirements of Chapter 3 of thc Coastttl Act,
Specifically, it statcs:
Scction 3051 2
(c) The Commission shall certify a land use plan, or any amendments thomto,
rqnefifs.'~uf,kna' iS in:,c.onfortpity
wh~ Section 30200J. :Rxccpt as
, a becisiofi to certify $hall require tl
af the Comission. 1.i) :.
I '.
I .: ..
" ,
/. ,
..
,, ,I .. , , ../,,. ....... ,..:
Tho City has hcld both Planning Commission and City Council headngs with regard to
tho siibjoot amendment rcqucst. Each of thcsc local hearings were duly noticcd to the
public. Notice of the subject amendment has been distributed to all known intarosted
parties.
C. ElMP IIISTORYA3ACKCROUND
Pi08
In 1993, the coastal California gnatcatcher was listed as threatened under thc fcdcral Endangered
Species Act (BSA). The coaRtaI California gnatcatcher is found primarily in coastal saga scrub
habilal in southcrn California. Bascd upon scientific estimates, coastal sage scrub habitat in Sm
Dicgo County has been reduced by more than 70% of original coverago. Fcwcr thm 900
gnatcatcher pain likely rcniain in tkc county; however, San Diego County currently supports the
largost gnatcatcher population in California and prescnts the most significant oppoitunity for
largo-scalc preservation of tho spbcics, This listing has had a significant effect on fulure public
and private development in areas containing gnatcuttoher habitat, In order lo prowcd,
dcvclopment in mas with gnatcatchers would have to completely avoid "take" or else receive
federal authorization. Several other spocics have bacn listed under the federal or dale ESA sincc
1993; currently, approximately 25 spocics that are listed, or proposed for listing, occur or are
associated with habitat located in Carlsbad.
Tho Carlsbad HMP and the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) are
intended to meet criteria for the California Department of Fish and Oamc's (CDFC-i) Natural Comniunities Consmation Planning process (NCCP), which was initiated in
southern California in 1991 and of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). In the initial phases of the NCCP coastal sage scrub (CSS) program, guidclinos for procass and
conscrvation of CSS were dtvclopcd, and the USFWS adopted I special rule regarding
MAY-13-2003 TUE 17:31 1D:COASTAL COMMISSION TEL1619767 2384 P:09 - -
1
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1 -03B DRAFT - FOR DISCUS$ION PURPOSES ONLY
May 13,2003
Page 6 of 3 1
the $nulcutchet pursuant to Section 4(5) of thc fderal ESA, This special rulc exempts
takc of gnatcatchom during tho intcrim poriod prior to approval of plans under the NCCP
program, provided the take is consistent with NCCP process and conscrvation guidclints.
In connectioii with the NCCP's program for CSS and the 4(d) rule, through pn informal
regional agreement, interim impacts in the San Dicgo region have been capped at 5% of
the existing habitat within each jurisdiction participating in the NCCP programa
In 1992, thc City signed an NCCP apeerncat with the California Resources Agency to
develop the Habitat Management Plan (IIMP) as part of the City's Oeneral Plan. 'the
1992 ugrcemmt enrolled the City in the NCCP pragram as an "Ongoing Multi-Species
Plan" as dcfincd in thc NCCP procoss guidelines. The agrcemcnt was supplcrncntcd in
d to'tnablc long-term al~~omia"gnatcatche~, 8s well us
oPthc Habitat Consceation Plui
1: habitktby idcntifyinpnd implementing an Interlinked nutoral communities preserve system, Throu&h those
processes, thc rcsourcc agencics arc pursuing a long-range approach to habitat
management and proscrve creation over the more traditional mitigation approach to
habitat impacts. Although HCPs have hem prepared for areas ab small as a single lot, thc MHCP and its subarea plans are intended to :hnction at the citywide or mgional levol,
instead of focusing on impacts to individual properties, Implementation of this largo-
scale upproacch to habitat conscrvation will allow some dcvclopment involving incidental
takc of listed species and/or enviroxlmemtrrlly senuiliye habittit in those urw whtw it is
most appropriate, in order to preserve lhe largest and most valuable amas of contiguous
habitat and lheir associated populations of listcd spccics.
As prcparcd, the draft Carlsbad HMP is iiitmded to satisfy the requirements of B federal
Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), and lo tunction as a subarea plan of tho regional
Multiple Habitat Conservation Program WCP) under thc NCCP. Thc MHCP study area
involves upproximutely 186 square milcs in northwcstcrn San Ditgo County. This area
includes the mustal cities oFCarlsbad, Enchitas, Solana Beach and Oceanside, as wet1 a3 the inland cities or Vista and San Marcos and scvcral independent special districts, The
participating local governmaits and other enlilios will implement their portions of the MHCP through individual subweit plans such as the Carlsbad HMP. Once approved, the MHCP and its subarea plans will replace intcrirn restrictions placed by thc US. Fish and
Wildlife Services (USFWS> mnd the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFO) on
impacts lo coRsta1 sage scrub and gnatcatchers within that geographical arca, and will allow the incidental take of the gnutcutchcr and other oovcred species as specified in the
plm. Although lbc HMP is 8 subarca plan of the MHCP, it will receive its own federal
take permit and is not subjcct to finalization of the MHCP in order to be approvcd.
MAY-13-2803 TUE 17132 IDICOASTAL COMMISSION TEL1619767 2304 PI 10
!
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1-03B DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
May 13,2003
Page 7 of 31
The City doveloped the HMP to meet the requirements of a habitat conservation plan
pursuant to section lO(a)(2)(A) of thc Endangcrcd Spccies Act [16 USC Q 1539(a)(2)(A)]. The draft Cnrlshad %IMP ww initially qpmvcd by the Cartshad Cit.y Council on
September 21, 1999, An addendum waB then prepared based on comments provided by thc U.S. Fish a.nd Wildlifc Scrvicc (VSFWS) and the California Dcpartmcnt of Fish and
Game (CDFG), and the revised document, dated December 1999, was submitted to the
wildlife agencies for approval of an incidental take pmit (ITP) under section lB(a)(l)(B) of the Endangered Species Aot. Issuance of the pmit would have predated approval of the final HMP itself, and was requested in order lo begin development of a City golf coursc which had been includcd as a "hardline" property in the HMP with prc-
agreed limitations on development area and mitigation requirements. Since incidental
take permits are not listed in the California Coastal Management Propni (CCMP) a$
ties lik& to affect.: W&~.'.IMY$ md : :rcsoycos, thc
eived, peipijssion from ,the Office of Obean and Cotlstul M) in August $000 for a:federd consiatcr\t@ review of the consist,ency &iew in thts cask is to d onsistlknt with.iht: Califada Coastal Act. .. , ..
I. . . .. .. , .
,. ,
,. .. .. , # ., , :', ,. , .." ....
I ..'
I' ' ,: " '.
..
.. . . . . . , . I
,. ,. :: :. ' On June 7,2000,'the Carlsbad'Planning Commission certified an cndronmenlal impact
report (Ern) for the pr~posd Catlshudcity golf course, and approved a coastal
developrncnt pcnnit for thc golf cours0 development. The Coastal Commission appeuled
thc City's CDP based on concerns regarding the project's inconsistency with thc habitat
protection policies in lhe certified LCP. Thc policy rovisions proposed in this
amendment, along with rovisions to the golf course design, are designed to allow for a
revised golFcoursc project to bo permitted by the Cornmi$sion on appeal, consistent with
the HMP and LCP, as amended.
PART 11. LOCAT, COASTAh PROGRAM SlfBMlTTAL RRSOLUTIONS
Following a public hearing, stuff recommends that the Commission ridopt the following
rcsolution and findings, The appropriate motion to introduce the resolution and a staff
recommendation are provided just prior to the resolution.
A. JWSOLUTIOU (Rcsolution to rpprove certificatiofi of the Clty of
Carlrbad LCP Mello 1, Mello IT and Agna Hediondn
Land Use Plan Amendment #1-038, as rubmlttd)
OTXON I
I move that the Commission certify the LCP Lmd Use Plan Amen#n~cnl#l-O3B, as eubmittcd.
MAY-13-2083 TUE 17:33 IDICOASTAL COMMISSION TEL I 619?67 2384 PI 11
Ctrrlsbad LCPA NO, 1-038 DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY May 13,2003 Page 8 of 31
Staff Recommendation
Stuff recommends a No vote and adoption of the following resotution aid findings. An afirmativc vote by a majority of the appointed Commissioners is
needed to pass the motion,
The Commission hereby -the ammdmmt request to the LCP Land USC
Plan, as submitted, and adopts lhe findings stated below on the grounds that the
amcndmcnl will not mcct thc rcquircrncnts of and conform with the policies of
Chapter 3 (commcncing with Section 30200) of the California Coastal Act to thc
extcnt necessary to achieve the bwic date goals specified in Section 30061.5 of
the Coastal Act; lhe land use plan, a3r, amcndcd, will be inconsistent with
upplioable decisiong of thc Conilllisrtion that shall guide local govmmont actions
pursuant to Section 30625(c); and certification ofthc land uge plan amendment
will not meet the 'mquirements of Section 2 1080.5(dX2)(i) of the Califotnia
Environmental Quality Act; 88 lhere would bc feasible measures or feasible
alternatives which would substantially lessen significant adverse impacts on thc environment.
B. PESOJtUTlON (Resolu tlon to approve certification of the City of Carlsbad Mello I, Mello I1 and Agus Hedionda LCP Land Use Plan
Amendment 143B, If Modified)
'l move that thc Commission cerlifL the LCP Land Use Plan Amendment #l-O3B,
if modifid.
Staff Kaoommend~
Staff rccommcnds a yEs vote and adoption ofthe following resolution and
findings. An affirmativo vote by LI majority of the appointed Commissionam is
needed to pass thc motion.
Resolution H
'l'he Commission hereby gp_orovos the mendmcnt request lo the LCP Land Use Plan, as modified, and &ts the fi ndiued belo w on the grounds lhal tho
anicndnient will mcct tlic fcqukements of mcl conform with the policies of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200) of the California Cowla1 Act to the
extent ncccssary to uchicvc the bash state goals specified in Section 30001S or lhc Coastal Act; thc land use plan, as amended, will be wnsistenl with applicable
MAY-13-2003 TUE 17133 IDaCOASTAL COMMISSION TEL1619767 2384 PI 12
I
Carlsbad LCPA No, 1 -03B DRAFT - FOR DJSCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
May 13,2003
Page 9 of 31
decisions of the Commission that shall guide local government actions pursuant to
Section 30625(0); and certification of the land use plan amendment will meet the requirements of Section 21 0&0,5(d)(2)(i) of lhe California Envimnmmtal Quality Act; as thcrc would bc no fcasiblc mcasurcs or fbasible alternatives which would
swhstnntiully lessen significant adverse impacts on the environment.
PART 111 - FEDERAL CONSISTENCY
A. An~licant's Consistcncv Certification
,I :,fedtraIl~-.;approvc~'~~~i~~~ia Cousta
'manner cOd6tcnt;kith 6u
The City of Carlsbad certifies that the proposed activity comp1ies.with the
nient Prpjpihi'ai~d ~W%~&.ldU&d in a
I8 .. .I , ..
,.
,. . ,. ..
I. < . . ,.
. . .. .
,., :.:. .. ..
,. . :,
.. . . .I , , .. I. : ::j B.
... , .. . I .. .. .. . .. ,.. ...
. 'Thc. ... gtsffrccomm&s .. th ,. ?Copunission +e Eollowing motio!:,
MOTION: I move that the Commission conditionally concur with the Ch'y of
Carlsbad's consistency certification.
The staff recommends a YES vote on this motion. A majority vote in lhe affirmative will
result in adoption ofthe following resolution:
The Commission bereby conditlonally concurs with the consistency odificution made
by the City of Crrlsbad on tho grounds that tha project would be consiatont with tho
cnforceuble policies ofthc CCMP, provided the City of Curlsbad opes to modit)' tho project consistcnt with tho conditions specified below, as provided for in 15 CFR 4930.4.
Conditions
Thc Commission adopts the suggested modifications to the Local Coastal Program
amendment a conditions to its concurrcnco with thc City's consistency certification.
PART IV, SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS
Staff recommends thc following suggested revisions to the proposed LCP Amendment be
ndoptcd, Tho mdcrlined sectioiis represent language that the Commission suggests be
added, and the &wek-out scctions represent language which tho Commission suggests be
dclctcd from the language as originally submitted.
MAY-13-2003 TUE 17:34 IDlCOASTAL COMMISSION TEL I 619767 2384 PI 13
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1 -03B DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSTON PURPOSES ONLY May 13,2003
Page 10 of 31.
1. Tho following changes should be made to policy 7-14 of the Second
Addendum to the HW, beginning on page 8:
The following standards apply to those parcels in Zones 20 and 21 shown
on Exhibit A to this Addendum which arc? located within the biological core
and linkage ares designuted in thc MHCP. Thoy am in addition to the
ufl~dictthle, general conscrvation standards contained in 7-1 through 7-1 1
and the HMP. The standards arc intended to direct development t9 existing disturbed aroas to the maximum extent feasible, limit impacts to native vcgctation, and establish viable core and linkage areas as designated in the HMP, Tn general, oach property shall be allowed to dcvclop at least 25% of
as spdfledlfi '7-8 thigh ?-I 1 ,. When
for rezohg or dc&loprn+t, dddod
to ddtennhq whether thi propoeal is and the sl&@rds below,, based upon
... ,. . .. . :. . ,
,.
.. .. ,
. ..
sistmt'with the HMP,,subs
actkt typb,,locatioii and condiiibn of ossitc re~ourcts, an .. ,
, ," . ... :. ,..:: 'I . . ., .. :. :approp&te locclt@rq .. ~@jevcIopmentiand ,., p~.dkcrvation , arcas! ,, , '. .
(Only if Aura Circle becomes t\ hardlie)#.. ,*-
&& Assessor's Plvccl No. 212-120-33 (Hieatt) - No impact to vernal
pools. Minimize impact to vcmal pool watmheds.
8.G Assessor's Parcel No, 212-010-3 .(Kirgis) Prcscrvc 75% of
property with dcvclopment clustered imniediatdy adjacent to Kelly
Ranch,
C.€h Asscssor's Parcel No. 215-070-35 (Fcrnandez) - Cluster
dcvclopment on disturbed areas to the maximum extent feasible. Maximum 10% impact on CSS and SMC for access purposes.
- D,& Assefisor's Pael No. 21 5-040-03 (Muroya) - Cluster dcvcloprnent on disturbed arcas to the maximum extent feasible. Maximum 10%
impact on CSS tmd SMC for access purposes,
F. "-- .. 2155
tbvtd--
MAY-13-2883 TUE 17134 IDICOASTAL COMMISSION TEL1619767 2384 PI 14
Carfsbad LCPA No, 1 -03B DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
May 13,2003
Page 11 of 31
&,& Assessor's Parcel No. 212-040-50 (Emerald Point) - Developmen1 liinitcd to disturbed and non-native grassland arcap. No impacts to nativc
habitat allowed,
ccmstntction, and shrill bc ucrcd to mtent fca
corridor linkare oriented rcncrally north-south shall be urovided on the
easlern p OrtlQll of the PWPCrlV 4P d desimed t o connect to neighboring
t’ ’* p~3g9~tics with -fe cvts tQ
native habitat shall reauire oiisite mitigation throudi restoration andor
greation of lab1 ‘t@ within the designaled corn ‘dor linkaae, in addition tQ
any other required miligation,
..
*.
&& Assessor’s Parcel No. 21 5-020-07 (Maldonado) - Development shall be wnccntrutcd along the Poinsettia Cane extension and shall be
L No inipucts to the coast
oak woodltlnd and riparian area except for Poinseltia Lane extension, Consider wildlire crossing through Poinsettia Lane if rcquimd by wildlifc resource agcncics. ?
2:* m castern half of the P~OPC~~Y is rccommondcd for offsitc mitieation for
pther properties in Zone 21: however, at n~~~~~~awlldhfo c- linkaxe oriented xencrdlv north-so- be pro vided on the easm
half of the prouertv and dcsinncd to connect to ncirzhborina mmcrties tial wildlife corridor link-l exiswoten
shall includc sny onsile coat oak woodland area.
limited to the western half of the propertv. -4
.I .. *.
..
&h Assessor’s Pawel No. 215-050-21 (Namikas) - Development shall
bc limitcd to a maxiinutti of 25% of the property, not including Poinsettia
Lane construction, and shall bc clustcrcd on the wcstcrn portion of the
property. No impacts to coast oak woodland, riparian arcas or wetlands
oxccpt for Poinsettia Lane extension, A wildlifc comdor linkage oriented
MAY-13-2003 TUE 171X IDlCOASTAL COMMISSION TEL1613767 2384 PI 15 - -
Ctdsbud LCPA NO. I-03B DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY May 13,2003
Pagc 12 of 31
Penwallv no- bc - 2 0
ea. and be desimd to
. &a1 wildlife
~perty. include the ons jte coast oak woo-. ar connect to nciahborinx pmpcrtics with cx~fipp or bot
comdor I -ve hab itat shall reauire bough mstoration andor creation of habitat within the dcsimatcd
..
*. .
.. I in addition to any other required
1.a Assessor's Parcel No, 2 15-050-22 (Sudduth) - Development shall bc
limited to a maximum of 25% of the property, not including Poinsettia
Xdaw construction, and shall be clustered on the western portion of the
propedy. No impacts to coast oak woodland, riparian areas or wetlands
corridor lim in add ition to *a t' .
LBk Asscssor's Parcel No. 215-050-44, 45. 4G. 47 (Kcvmo) - Dcvelopmait shall be limited to a maximum of 25% of the property, wt 4 and shall bo clustorod on tho
wcstcrn portion of the property. No impacts to coast oak woodland,
ripariun arms or wetlands aholl be al lowed, 'btme
d. A wildlife corridor linkage. orie- - outh&lJ
be provided on the e#s(ern Dortion of the UMU em. includc tho coast oak
woodland, and bo dcsiand to connect to ne-
cxistinz gr potcntial wildlife corridor- linkages. ImDacts to native habitat
uJ.ce. onsite -tion th restoration and/or creation of rod1
habitat within the dedmaled co-. in won to any other requircd
.. .
*.
I) I
Assewor's Pnrccl No. 215-050-12 (Reitm) - Development shall bc limitcd to a maximum of 25% of the property,
und shall be clustered on the western portioii of the
property. No iinpaots to coast oak woodland, riparian areas or wotlands
shall be dlowad 3 . A wildlife corridor
linkme oricntcd nenerallv north-south shall be prStvi&d. gn thc eastcrn
he dcaimcd operlv. portion of the pr - uc thc coast oak woodland. and botentd wildlife
gowidor linkages, Impacts to native habitat shall reauitt onst-
r~storatloii an itat within the dcsimatcd itiration, d/or-cre&n of hab
conidor linkwe, in addhtion to a- m
.. ,* nncct to neghhonnrr uromrties with
..
MAY-13-2003 TUE 17135 IDtCOASTAL COMMISSION TEL1619767 2384 Pt 16
.- -_
Carlsbad LCPA No, 1 -03B DRAFT -FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY May 13,2003
Page 13 of31
- L.k ASSGSSO~S Pard No. 215-050-73 (Levatino) - Maximum 25%
dovclopmcnt clustered on thc southern portion of the proporty, Buffer
neccssflrv to obtttin site aaess.
.. widths may be reduced an d/or additional impacts may be all0 wed rf
2, Section 3 on pagc 10 of tho smond addendum to the HMP should bc
reviscd as follows:
3. Hardline Preserve Boundary maps (attached) for the Summit Property
/FiKure 341, and the ,Manha Property (Fixure 351 shall be
, I.
the norlh purl: of the de, Created slopes shall be revegctatcd with coastal sap scrub, and misting disturbed areas of the project site shall bc used
for onsito mitigation through rcstoratiodrecreation of coastal sage scrub.
Post-Jcvcjoprnent habitat area and open space shall bo placcd into thc
HMP proacrvc.']
4, The following should bo add4 to the second addendum to
the HMP, at the end of page 10:
4. < Hlirctlinaku 36). Carlsbad Promenade f Finure 37l Redeemer by the Sca
be incorporated LFirrure 38), and Thompson-T-e 39)
into the HMP, consistent with the conditions of the Coastd
-on's acw for Cwlsbad LCP A- No. 1 -0OD f-t No. 1-02B. C and D (Carl shad
Ptomenadc. Rcdccrncr bv the Sea Thmm on-Tabba).
S. Revid Hardline Prescrvc maps (ref. Attached Ex. XI for ~cmmnit#, the Hub ParWSDG&E Propertv. and t he Zone 19 park
shall rcplacc the existing Figur--
evelopugat.&& 6 -- 01 167
asbl Devvelopnig& Jlhb Yark/SDCI&E), and the Citv s action for Co PS~&& d CII I- 02 029/Loc a1 ID 1-31 (Zone 19 Park).
'>
NO. 1 -0OE Cwta> and C~a~td D
MAY-13-2803 TUE 17136 1D:COASTAL COMMISSION TEL1619767 2384 PI 17 - -
Cdsbd WPA NO, I -03B DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY May 13,2003
Pago 14 of 31
6. meex istinn Hardlino Prcscrvo rnBp for the Kcvant bropertv (Fimre
19). mnd~tl- .. 7, For Veterans Memo-e 161 & Zone 19 Pwk (Fim
W'
n. Jhvolo- and/or n ative vegetation shall be limited to aassive recreat?ional faciIitiM, & a reocautional trails and Dicnic mas.
b. ma- of steel,
dorm with native vcnctation,.,shdl be minimized to the
atest extent feasible.
5, Inthe 199 HMP, Tabk~s 3,6,7 a& 8, and Fi res $, 26 and 27
to reflect .the changeh to propsed habitat irnpwts
and prosmc arcas, stahdardti-propcrtics and hardlined pro'pertiecr that
will result fmm ad
'rho following change should be made to the Mello I LUP scgmont
revisions in tho LCP umendmmt, on page 17:
suggostod modifications,
6,
j, If any conflkt should arise between these Policies oI the LCP and tho
provisions of the 11M P, the LCP shall take precedence. conflict should arise bctw-the certified Mcllo 1
~enta erti tion Plm. the PolicLPg
QfthC CCrtlfiCd Me110 1 LW shall take tmccden cc.
and
..
7, The following changc should be made to the Mello Il LVl? segment revisions in the UP amendment, on page 42:
i. If any conflict should arise bctwccn thosc Policies of the LCP md
lhe provisions of tho HMP, the LCP shall take precedencc.
pnflict should arise between the policies of thc ce-
of the certified Mello 11 TUP Ml tak e Dreaedeno . . et
a. viously ~ert ified -on Plan. woliw tS
3# 8. Tho following changes should be made to the Mello 11 LUY segment
rovisions in tbc LCP amendmcnt, beginning on page number 5 1 : lccf L%T SA& <**va
->, 'I'
(if Aura Circle becomes a hardline)
"i
.a , I ', ,*~' , , ,,& (pk % P*?J:
MAY-13-2803 TUE 17r36 IDICOASTAL COMMISSION TEL1619767 2384 PI 18
Cdsbad ILPA NO, 1-03B DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSRS ONLY
May 13,2003
Page 15 of 31
25?1MM Assessor’s Parcel No. 212-120-33 (Hieatl) -No impact lo vernal pools. Minimize impact to vernal pool watersheds.
3-8,23-8;3 Assessor’s Parcel No. 21 2-010-3 (Kirgis) - Preserve 75% of
properly with development clustered immedialely ttdjtwmt
to Kelly Ranch.
- 3-8.35.874 Asscssor’s Parcel No. 21 5-070-35 (Femandez) - Cluster
development on disturbed areas to the maximum extcnt
feasible. Maximum 10% impact on CSS and SMC for
access puqoses.
-03 (Muroya) -Cluster ‘
stwbed to the maximy’extent
10% impact on CSS and SMC for
?IC I. I
d&-- ewe&
3 3.7 % 5?,% 597
I - 3-8.5W Asscssor’s Parcel No. 212-040-50 (Emerald Point) -
Development limited to disturbed and non-native gmsslrmd areas, No impacts to native habitat allowed.
&3-&l-€LAsscssor’s Parcel No. 21 5-020-06 (RWSB) - Development shall bc limitcd to a maximum of 25% of the property, not including
Poinsettia Lane construction, and shall be wed to
cxlclll fcutiible alopq l.k&d+ disturbed portions of tha_property
adjacent. to Cwsia Lano and the future Poinsettia Lane extcnsion..
Impacts to SMC habitat shall be mimmrzed. -A oriontcd gcnerdlv north-southall be mdd o ncirbboring
VrOpCfi’ ial wildlife corridor linkaacs. Impacts to
on the castern -the aropertv .and desigucd to wnneot t
ation am ‘cs with cx native habitat shall reauiro wanon thxuduegtor
I. I.
a.
I.
.. l6tlnK Or DOlmt .. ,
MAY-13-2003 TUE 17137 IDiCOASTAL COMMISSION TEL1619767 2384 PI 19 - _-
Carlsbad LCPA No, 1 -03B DRAFT -%OR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
May 13,2003 Page 16 of 31
crcati.on ofhabitat within the dcsienatcd corridor linkage. in addition to
my other reauircd rnltlnatlon, .. .
3-8,7&&44- Assessor’s Parcel No. 215-020-07 (Maldonado) - - n shall bo c-d do- 0‘ i Lane. cxtonsion
and shali Be limited to the wcsteni half of the woDertY. 6lwbr
No impacts
to thc coast oak woodland and riparian area except for Poinbiellia Lilne
extmsion. Consider wildlife crossing through Poinsettia Lane if required
by wildlife resource agencies. L
&-The castqm of the Drouertv is recomdcd for off&
I. .
Dcvcloprnent shall be limited to a maximiirn of 25% of the property, I#
I’ - 3-8.81Asscssor% heel No. 215-050-21 (Namikas) - Dcvclopment shull be limited to a maximum of 25% of the properly, not including
Poinscttia Lane conrstruction, and shall be clustered on the wcstcrn
portion ol’ tho proporty. No impacts to coast oak woodland, riparian areas
or wetlands except for Poinsettia Lane extension. e wildlife corridor
onmled umwallv - norlh-suulh shall b~ ur0viJe.d on the eastern
portion of the propertv, include the onsite coast oak woodland area, and
crties with cxistina or
itat shall be desimed lo connect to nciahborinn prop
ve hab require onsite mit,ii;ation throu- a’ oc a habht potential. wtlae ~ cogidor li-ts to nati
within thc dcsienatcd corridor linkaac. in addition to anv other rcquired
..
&WAsscssor’s Pmccl No. 21 5-050-22 (Sudduth) - Development shall bc limitcd to a maximum of 25% of the property, not including
Poinsettia Lanc construction, and shall bo clustered on the wcstcrn
portion of the property. No impucts to coast oak woodland, riparian ureas
or wetlands except for Poinsettia Lane extension. A wildlifc corridor
linkago oricntcd ev north-south shall be pro vidd on the eastern portion of the ~roumtv include the o&e coast oak woodu area
dcsivncd to conncct to nciuhborinn uro~crtics with cxistiT&! or POtWCid
dor linkages. Impacts t o native babitat 8
mitixation through restoration and/or creation of habitat within the atcd corridor li-e. in &lition Lo tiny other reuu ired mil imlion,
3-8,1034&4 Assessor's Parcel No. 215-050-44, 45, 46, 47 (Kevane) -
MAY-13-2003 TUE 17:39 1D:COASTAL COMMISSION TEL I 619767 2394 P:20
Carlsb~i LCPA No, 1 -03B DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSlON PURPOSES ONLY May 13,2003 Page 17 of 31
2 and shall be clustord on the
western portion of the property. No impacts to coast oak woodland, riparian areas or wetlands shall be allowed
e3wWieR. A w' ddlifc ' c0-s Iin dented Remerally north-south sbll
be urovidcd on tho oastQmportion of wm, include lho mast a& woodland. and be.,& ipned to connect to ' properties with
existing or mtential wildlife conidor linkancs. lmuacts to nativc habit&
1 require onsite mitieation tho& restore tion and/or creation of habitat within thc dcsicnatcd corridor linkage. in addition to any other
required mi tirration, .. *
3-8.1 13-WS Assessor's Pmel No. 215-050-12 (Rcitcr) - Dcvclopmcnt
shall be limited-to a maximym of 25% ofthe property, ixMwh&g
apd shall be cilustered on the westcm
,md bc dcsimcd to conncct to ncihboring am~ertics with cxistina 01
pX!Sirf3 onsite mitigation Wm ration and /or malion of habitat within thadcsianatcd corridor linkaae. in addition to any other rcauircd
Potell tis1 wildlife corridor linkancs,cts to nati vc hab itat
mitiuation,
3-8,12"4 Assessor's Parcel No, 21 5-050-73 (Levatino) - Maximum
25% develapment clustered on the southern portion o€ tho proporty.
Buffcr widths mY bo rcduccd and/or additional iinnacts may bc allowed If necessary to obtain site awes%
9. The following change should be made to the Ayua Hcdionda LUP
segment revisions in the LCP amendment, on page 29:
j. If any conflict ahould arise between these Policies of lhe LCP and the
provisions of the IIMP, the LCP shall take precedence. If any conflict should
' fi ksc botwccn tho policies of the certi ad Mello I rJlg and t-
certified 11nnlementatio.n~ the pohcies of the c-110 I 1 ,UP
take PreCe dcncc.
.. .I)
lMELIJJ 11. AND li .I
PART v: FINDINGS FOR- or t THE CITY OF CAW SBAD MELLO I,
GUA HER 1-N AMENDMI"
I-O3B, AS SUBMITTED
MAY-13-2003 TUE 17138 IDICOASTAL COMMISSION TEL : 619767 2384 - - PI21
Carlsbad LCPA No, 1 -03B DRAFT - FOR DiSCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
May 13,2003
Page 18 of 31
The proposed LCP amendment will incorporate the "P into the LCP, end make
corresponding changes lo the Mello I, Mcllo 11 and Agua Hedionda land use plm sogmonts. Tho changcs to thc land use plan segments arc required in ordor to maintain
consistcncy between these segments and the IW. The land use plan revisions include
the addition of specific references to the MNP, definitions for environmcnta!ly sensitive
hnbitut and ussocialed resowces, miligation for impacts to upland habitat, nnd roqirired buhs and fucl modification zones, The Mcllo II LUP changes also include more
dctailed language for grading and erosion prevention, and provide specific standards for
several undeveloped properties located within this planning area to ensure protection of
osvironmcntcrlly scnsitivc habitat within tho coastal zone. Tbt swond HME, addendum mirrors thew changes to rc that both documents have been appropriatoly integratcd
The drufl
lisled specie4 by contributing to an ilitarlinkcdpgional prcservc systcm. The proposcd prossrvo area for the HMP will be orcatcd from land in4uae different categories:
hardline properties, standards areas, and existing prcscrvc, Certain propcrtics havc been
designated in the HMP with apeci fio developmenUconservtltion footprints, and we known as "hardline" propcrtics. If dcvclopmcnt is proposed on thcsc sites in a mmncr that is
substantially in conformance with the hardline, the development will bc automatically
permitted according to tho HMP. These hardline properties are shown on individual maps in Section D of the HMP, The purposc of this proccss is to ensure that ccrtain arcas of onsito habitat will sot aside for pennanent preservation, and that the property ownm
havc committed to abide by the established development limitation upon approval of thc
1-1MP.
propbses to prO1Gd lhe endangered Cdi&rnia Gnatcatchor'and other
Currently, lhm ure fivo hardline properties ** Aura Circle may bc add4 ** located partially or complotcly within thc Carlsbad coastal zone (City Golf Course, Manzanita
Partners, Vctcrans Memorial Park, Hub Park and SDa&E Property, and Zone 19 Park).
An amcnded hardline design for the Manzanita Partners site was approved by tho
Commission in July 2002 (Carlsbad LCP Amendment No, l-OOE) with conditions for
habilal impact limitations. Thcsc conditions should be reflccled in an updatcd hardlinc map consistcnt with the conditions of the ttmendment, The Hub Park/SDG&E property
was thc subject of Carlsbsld CoastcLI Dcvelopment Permit 6-01-167 in October 2002,
which was conditioned so thd the majority of steep slopes and wetland, riparian, und upland nativc habitat areas would be placed into deed-restricted open space and
proscrvcd. These conditions should be rcflectcd in an updatcd hardline map that is oonsistonl with Exhibit 5 of CDP 6-01-167. as approved,
Veterans Memorial Park and Zone 19 Park arc City-owned lands which do not yct have
dstailcd development plans, and for which thc City has not yet provided in-doplh biological surveys, It may potentially be up to 20 years before these park arm arc
MAY-13-2003 TUE 17139 1D:COASTAL COMMISSION TEL : 619767 2384 P: 22
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1-03B DRAFT -FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
May 13,2003
Page 19 of 31
developed. Hardlines were prepared by the City for these properties tu purt of an ovcrall
conscrvation agreement with thc U.S. Fish and Wildlfi‘e Scrvicc for the City’s contribution to the MHCP preserve system. However, because over such a long poriod
the vegetation types and locations on thosc sites may altcr, p,tior to actual developtncnt
thc City should provide updatod biological information to the wildlife agencies and the
Coastal Commission to ciisure thut lhe ptoposcd uges are conipatiblc with tho natural
rcso\irco8. Shoe the City is also rocpiired by state law to provide minimum levels of
rccrcational facililjes and opcn space for its public, and the Veterans Memorial Park and
Zone 19 park amas arc intended to mccl the majority of the City’s future growth nceds
for that putposc through projected buildout, the size and location of
devoloprnentlprcsmc area arc propascd to meet state rcquircments whilc still protecting
native habitat. As provided in the suggeeted modifications, passive rocrcational uses are
acceptable within areas of stccp slopes
and habitat impacts are rniniqhd.
more generall ‘‘st&d‘BrJs’*-arcas, for which the HMP contains limitcd guidance relative to
Qture habitat preservation an ing of nciv development, Many propertics included in the “slandards” arcas nrc c zoned TJmitcd Conk1 (LC), whioh was ti xoning
designation approved in the 1981 LCP for arcas which were in transition from agriculture
to urban land uses. At lhe time tho LCP wa certified, it was not known what thc
appropriule slandwds applicable to fiturc buildout of these propcrtics would be. However, it was clear at that time that residcntial zoning was not appropriate due to
topography, environnimtal sensitivity, and then existing agdcultural use. The certified
LCP implemenlation plan spccifics, in Section 21,39.010 of the City’s zoning wdc, that
future land use planning for 1x1 ureas should be carried out prior to any rezoning of thcsc
lands for urban dcvcIopmcnt, This planning had not yet been undertaken, and individual
rezoning requests, in the form of LCP amendments, have bm subrnittcd to the Commission on CL piecemeal basis. The pmposed LCP amendment is more
comprehensive in scopc and provides an analysis of the curnulativc effect that
development will have on environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA), and on the
viubility of the open space habitat prcscrvc that will bc established pursuant to the HMP
and LCP, as amendd,
r native hgbifat as
egory of proposed preaehc ares in the HMP kill be established within
--- - ~ -
To ensure consistency and maximum habitat protection for remaining undeveloped
coastal properties, the City has prepared staiidsrds that will be applied to all o€ thosc
undcvoloptd properlies, Thcsc standards address buffers, brush managomotit and fuel
modification, protcction of wetlands, mitigation requirements and ratios, and maxinium
clevelopablc xcas for higllly constrained properties. In general, implementation of the
LCP, as amended, will incrcase the level of planning detail on indiddual coastal
properties containing ESIIA, in order 10 maximize protection of the key wildlife habitat
and movcment ureas in thc coastal zone that arc necessary for thc ovcrall sucoess ofthe HMP and its preeervation goals.
MAY-13-2003 TUE 17839 IDtCOASTAL COMMISSION TEL I 619767 2394 Ptt3
Cwlsbad LCPA NO, 1 -03B DRAFT - FOR DTSCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
May 13,2003 Page 20 of 3 1
The standards areas involvc sovcral key undeveloped areas within the City that arc
located within the proposed habitat linkago corridors. The City's standards arc focuscd gcographically, using the T.ocal Facilities Management Zones identified in the City's
growth management plan, These properties are proposed to have conservution goals and
standards which would allow at least 25% dcvclopmcnt of the sita, but which providc for
minimwm conservation of 67% of coastal sago scrub and 75% of gnatcatchers on each site. Several arcas have signiflcantl y higher standards for greater protection of individual
resouroc areati, Emphasis is placed upon crcation of preservation corridors and linkage to
the largor MHCP habitat mas. Projects proposed within the standards arms also will
require additional consultation with tho City and the wildlife agcncios to dctcrmine
whether tlic project complics with thc rclcvant standards and is consistent with thc HMP, -- Upon receiving approvai of thcir devcloprnent plans, these property owners ., will rcccivc
.. ,.. ... . ,. . ,. .. , .. .'. 3
.I.,: :: , .. ,'. ,.
.. . I..: I:..: , ':take ftuttiorization,: .. :.. .:I , ' .. , ;!.. . , .'*I ,.,. .. !." .., ,. ;. . .,.
'. . .* ., .. .. .. , ., I
'The third c&gor&jntai,na 'existing pr& HMP. ,. Thesv:krcak, which, incltidc both,priv&&and pubqc lad, have alr+kdy haen nscrved..& their; ivildli
. .mi.~~g~ion.'b~nks.~d: ray
associated wetlands arc also included as existing preserve &rea,
:lands that hill be incorporated into thc
lue Mough predeus development actions, buch as
open Space. Tti@:Cjty'.s., three coastal lago&s and
Areas that have been placed into open space preserve will be turned over to an approprirrtc conscrvation agency with responsibility for the overall HMP prercservc system,
.to be managed in perpetuity for consorvation purposes. The City of Carlabad is currcntly
preparing the long-term management and monitoring plan for its portion of the 'MHCP
addrcssccl in thc HMP, Interim management will cover the first throe ycars following
upprovul of the HMP, during which time rnaiilttgenmt wtivities will generally be the
responsibility of the ownerB of the constfvtd lands unless othct mangemenls have been
madc. During tho three-year period, thc long-term management plan will be develop in
cooparation with existing rosorvc managers, private owners of conserved lands, tho
California Department of Fish and Gamc, wid tho U.S. Fish and Wildlife Scrvicc. As
provided in the LCP amendment, the Coastal Commission will also be consulted
regarding management of prcscrvc areas in the coastal zone,
The long-tcrm managcmcnt plan will address habitat restoration and revegetation,
hydrology and flood control, recrtation and public acccs~, species reintroduction,
enforwmenl, udtlptive munagment, tlnd monitoring,. Section F providm a detalld
smmary of the land management processcs and required actions that will take place as
part of long-tom managomcnt. It is anticipated that the conserved lands will he owned and managcd by a numbor of public and private entities until such time as a single
consorvation entity may be designated for overall managcmcnt. Rolcs and rcvponsibilitics for management of canserved hubitat shall be conductod in a manncr
consistent with the implmieniing agrccmcnt that has been entered into between the City
of Carlsbad and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. If regional arrangements for habitat
management are astublished in hturc in connection with the MHCP planning efforls,
.
MAY-13-2003 TUE 17140 IDiCOASTAL MMMISSION TEL I 619767 2384 - -
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1 -03B DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
May 13,2003
Page 21 of31
i
somc or all of the management activities for the Carlsbad HMP preserve system could
ultimately be merged with the regional program.
!
other development on the coast.
Thc proposed anicndmcnts to the Mello J, Mello TI and Agua Hedionda land use plan
scgments will incorporate additional requiremcnts for cstablishmcnt of a prcsmc managemen1 plan, Section 7-1.10 of thc Mello i land use plan and Section 3-1,lO of thc
Mcilo II and Agua lkdionda land use plans provide lhat lmd inside and outsidc thc
cowtal zone which $ewes w mitigation for habitat impacts in the coastal zone sliall be
permanently rctircd from dcveloprnent potential, and secured as part of the HMP prcscrvc managcmtnt plan as a condition of development approval. Habitat mitigation
requirements other than the crefition or substantial restoration component may be acquisition of existing like habitat and/or retirement of
g liko habitat with permanent preacrvdion as part ef the
mcut plan. The prcSZrvc rnanagapemt plan shall Address tho City, the wildlifo agancies and the Coastal preserve as open spaco and
perpetuity. At 8 minimum,
clopmcnt approval after the first
and third yew of habitat miligation cfforts. The preserve itiaiagement plan must be incorporatcd into thc Implcrncntation Plan of tho LCP through an LCP amcndmcnt within one year or ComniissiQii certifioatioii of the HMP as part of the certified LCP.
p, CONFORMANCE WITH SECTION 30001.5 OF THE COAST-
Thc Commission finds, pursuant to Soction 30512.2b of the Coastal Act, that portions of
the Land Usc Plan as sot forth in the preceding resolutions, m not in conformance with the policios and requirements of Chapter 3 oP thc Coastal Act to the extent necessary to
achicvc the basic state goals specified in Scction 30001.5 of the Coaalcll Act which statos:
The legislature fhrtlier finds and declares that the basic goals of the state far the
Coastal Zonc arc to:
a) Protect, maintain and, where feasible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zono environment and its natural and mamnada resources.
b) Assure orderly, balanccd utilization and conservation of ooastal zone
rcsourcts taking into account the social und economic needs of the people of tho state.
a) Maximize public acccss to and along the coast and maximize public
recreational opportunities in the coastal zone consistent with sound resource conscrvation principles and constitutionally protected rights of
b j private property owners.
(d) Assure priority for coastal-dependent and coastal-related developmcnt ovor
PI24
MAY-13-2003 TUE 17141 IDICOASTAL COMMISSION -
Carisbad LCPA No. 1-03B
Muy 13,2003
Page 22 or31
TEL1619767 2384 -
DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
PltS
(e) Encourage statc and local initiatives and cooperation in pfcparin8 procedures
to implement coordinated planning and dcvclopmcnt for miitually beneficial uam,
including 'educational uses, in the coastal zone,
The Commission thoroforo finds, for tho specific rmons detailed below, that the
proposod ammdmaiits to the Mello 1, Mello 1 and Agua Hcdionda land usc plans do not
conform with Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act or the goals of the state for thc coastal zone.
C. CONFORMITY WITH CHAPTER 3 OF THE CoqSTAL A CT
................... I ion of Devclmm 1. -vs . , , , , . cnsitivc . , HatagCgn centrat .......... .... . . , . ., , , .................. ,. .... I, I. , ...... ....... .I. .I .. , , , .I
.,
.I I .. , .. , , .. .. I ..... .,
I. , ,. , ./ .. ,.
.. ....... ,. .. : ..'., , .. . I. I :: ,.. ...
,.
,.
(6) ' En&o~ment;tlly scnai$yc h&itat areas iglh :&imption of %$bitat valqos, and
, ,. .. ,. QIIow$within they ...
protectdigainst any significant
ses dependent on thosq&ources shall be .. ... .. . ,. .... .. .: ' ,
(b) Dcvclopmcnt in areas adjacent to environmcntally sensitive habitat areas and parkg and recreation areas shall be sited turd designed to prevent lmpacts which would
significunliy degrade those arcas and shall be compatible with the contiiiwance of those
habilcll and recreation areas,
Section 30250 of thc Coastal Act requires that new development bc conceiitratod
in areas able to support it without cldversely affecting coastal resources and states,
in part:
(a) Ncw rcsidcntiul, u:ommercial, or industrial development, except as
otherwise provided in this division, shall be located within, contiguous with,
or in close proximity to, existing developed areas ab10 to accommodate it or,
where such arcas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with 8daquatc
public services and where it will not have significant ~VCTSC effects, eithcr
individually or cumulativcly, on coastal resources., . ,
As notod above, Section 30240 of the Coastal Act quires protection of environmentally sensitive habitat arcas (ESIIA), As dcAncd in Section 30107.5 of the Coastal Act, ESkIA is definod as "any weo in which plant or animal life or their habitats arc cithcr me or especially valrlablc bccauusc of their special nature or role in an ecosysW and which
could be casily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments." As
prcviously described in Section LC., the HMP is a segment of the state's larger NCCP
program that is being dtvclopcd in rcsponse to the lisling of the California Gntltcatchor as
an endangered speoiew, The focus of tho NCCP and HMP is to preserve coastal sap
scnib and related upland habitats that providc support for the gnatcatchor but havc
becomo increasingly raro and fragmentcd. However, not all of these habitat areas will bo
MAY-13-2003 TUE 17141 IDICOASTAL COMMISSION -
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1 -03B
May 13,2003
Page 23 of 31
TEL1619767 2384
DRAFT -FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
protwted under the NCCP and HMP program, which attempts to provide a balanced approach between development and habitat protection, The Commission finds that the
potcntid impacts to ESHA that would be allowed under the draft Carlsbad HMP, when
considered individually, at inconsistent with Section 30240 of the Coastal Act.
Pi26
Howcvor, in ordor to successfully implomont a regional wildlife corridor network and
prescrvo largo contiguous arcas of nativc vcgctation in tho coastal zonc, thc Commission
finds that tho land acquisition and open space preservation necessary to assemble a viable
habitat prcscrvc will rcquirc somc limited impacts to mvimnmcntally sensitive habitat
area, to allow rewonable development and preserve the largest and most significant
habitat nrcas. Thc provisions of the I-IMP direct that when inipucls lo nwlive habitttl are
allowed, development will bc limited and, to the maximum extent fcasiblc, will bc
located on those ureas of a site where natiw vogctatioh has $become tkagrnented and/or largely degraded, ad docs not currdntly function as significant habitat far listed spocios.
The Commission finds that such conccihatidn of development in existing arcas that aro
disturbed afdlor ldtatcd proximate to P;vblic scdccs and facilities, is cowistent with
Swtion 30250 of the Coastal Act, w”provided abovo,
Through the IIMP, concent
can only bc achicvccl if ctttairl Iiinitcd impacts to less-valuable native habitat rn allowcd, in order to place other, mom significant habitat arem into permanent open spaco and prcscrvatim,
Currcntly, the certified LCP provides som protection for wetlands and for nativo habitat on steep
slopes; however, the amended LCP will provide additional protective standards for these sensitiva
areas and for bbitnt locatcd in nonsteep areus which must be taken into accaunl prior lo
developmcnt approval.
on rJFdevelopmcrIt and protection of significant cowtsl resources
As pmposcd by the City, new policy language has been provided that defines the nature and scope
of the HMP in relation to the LCP, Rdds definitions related to sensitive habitat and wetlandfi, and
provides detailed requirements for habitat loss mitigation, buffers, and fuel modification
rcstrictionn. Portions of thc cxisting LCP havc been revised to mure consistency in requirements
for wetland buffers, grading and erosion control, and protection of stccp slopes, Individual
proportics have ulso bcctr adclressccl in the sccond IIMP addendum as additional ‘‘stOndards”
properties, The devclopment standards that will bc applied to these specific sites are intondcd to
provide dcvclopment requirements and restrictions that will murc protection of tho most critical
habitat arcas and protect proposed wildlife corridor linkages within the coastal zonc, while
allowing some limited impacts to ESHA.
The following mitigation ratios will be rcquired for habitat impacts on propedies within the coastal zona:
2;l for coastal sage scrub
0 3:l for all otha faro native vogetation accept wetlands
0 3;l for riparian aroa
4: 1 ror vcrnal pools, 0th seasonal wetlands, and salt marsh
I
MAY-13-2003 TUE 17142 IDiCOASTAL COMMISSION TEL1619767 2384 Pi27
I
Carlsbad LCPA'No, 1 +03B DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY May 13,2003 Pap 24 of31
Buflws for coastal habitat would be estabtishcd as follows:
A minimum 100 foot buffcr shall be required fkom dl Wshwater and saltwater wetlands areas.
A minimum SO foot buffer shall be required from riparian areas and cossl oak
woodlands, No developincnt or brush managcmcnt shall take pluce within thc
buffcr arca for these habitat types axcept as otherwise specified herein.
If li riparian area is associated with sleep slopes (>25%), the 50 foot buffer shall
be measured from the top of the slope.
For steep slopcs not associated with a riparian area, and for nonstecp area (<25%
slope) with native vcgetation, u minimum 20 foot buff' shall be required, For stecp slopes, the buffer shall be measurcd from tlip top ofth~ slope, No
dcvclopmont may be located within tho burrer except as otherwisp apcciflpd
mawgement suth$rity.
Zones 1 and 2 for b&sh matlagem located onl the portion afthi property proposed for c~evc~opmcnt and outside of
required buflcrs. Any plantings in Zono 2 must consist of native vegetation
appropriate to tho habitat,
Recreation trails and public access pathways may be permitted in thc rcquired
buffcr area within the 15 feet closest to the adjacent developable urea, provided
that the construclibn of the lrails and/or pathways and thoir proposed uses are
consistent with the prasorvation goals for adjacent habitat, and that appropriate moasures are taken for their physical scparation from sensitivc arcas.
. Bowevor, il brush munna@etnant is requfrcd for fire protcction, Zone 3 (to
mug df 20 foot) may be local within the bu&r area if allowed by tlie fire
fire pntection, where required, shall bc
Trails and passive recreation are an allowable use in ESW, with certain exceptions such
as wetlands. Whcn buffers are 50 feet or more in width, recreational trails shall bo
located in the first 15 feet of thc buffcr closcst to development, to provide maximum
prolcclion for the preserved area. Grading in buffers would not bc pcrmittcd with the
oxcoption of fuel modification us specified, The 1999 drdl MMP did not propose any
buffers for upland habitat, and did not address fuel modificnlion or brush man~pmcnt
restrictions, or thc placcmcnt and buffcring of rccrcational trails. The above crilaia for
buffers, fuel modi fioation restrictions, and the location of recreational trails considcrably strengthens the &all HMP's protection for coastal habitat.
Additionally, the draft HMP, as proposed, contains provisions for mitigation of advcrsc impacts to coastal sage scrub and other native veBctativc communities. Yn review of
coastal development, (he City must evaluate adverse impacts to ESHA in tho coastal zonc
on a site-by-site basis to determine if such adverse impaots are permissible under the
Coastal Act and thc HMP, and iCso, whether thcy are adequately offsot or mitigatcd by
revegetation, habitat restoration, habitat creation, andor other habitat enhancement
measures cithcr on or orfsitc. In thc gccond addendum to the Dcccmbcr 1999 HMP, the
City has proposed revisions to the mitigation program for application in the coastal zonc.
MAY-13-2003 TUE 17143 IDiCOASTAL COMMISSION TEL I 619767 2384 _- -.
Carlsbad LCPA No, 1-0333 DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY May 13,2003 Page 25 of 31
second HMP addendum arc intended to ansiirc that, giv& thc difficulties of establishing
These revisions address, among other things, requirements for creation, restoration and
revegotation when uscd as mitigation for habitat impacts, Creation means that habitat
will be newly established in an area that dots not currently contain that Iunctional hltbilal
type, but where the soils, topography, etc, are appropriate for long-term viability and m3y have supported thc habitat In thc past. Rcstoration mean8 that habitat which is
recoynixable w belonging lo a specific vcgctation community, but which has bccn previously disturbed tinuor contains exotic invasive species so as to reduce its functional value, will cnhanced to return the habital area to ovmll health and typical functional
value. Substantial restoration is applicable to highly-degraded arcas whcrc the of'Ecctivc
hnotion of the habitat type has been lost, but which still contains remnant plants of tho
idmtificd hahitat, Rovcgetation means replanting with appropriate spccics, and is
applicable to both restoration efforts in cxisting habitat, and to creation whcre habitat
docs not currcntly exist.
Mitigation outside the coa&l zone will be considered acceptable if, in addition to meeting the CdlbTih identifibd above, the mitigation clwly c~aures higher levels of
,hahitat protaqtioii and valwo in tho coptcxt of a rogional habitat prcscrvation program,
ervation of cxistjng, 'gnsite nativu vegetation is considered mitigation in the dmit
9 HMP with addkiidum. Howcvqr, the sc;cond HMP addendum specifically addresses
mitigation requirements in the coastul zone, and does not allow onsitc preservation to
count as mitigation. Additionally, the second HMP addendurn provides that in the
coastal zone, there will be no nct loss of coastal mge scrub, maritime succulent scrub, southern maritimc chaparral, southern mixed chap~ml, native grassland or oak
woodland. When impacts arc pennitled lo any of thcsc vegetation types, mitigation shall
include a creation component, as prcviously defined, at a ratio of at least 1 : 1 (one acre of creation For cvcry gnc &crc of habitat impact) in order lo achieve the no net 108s standurd.
Tn certain CISCS, substantial rastortrtion may also bo substituted for creation, Onsite or offsite opon space proservo arcas may be utilized to satisfy requircd mitiEation
for habitat impacts, if lhc preswvc arcas arc disturb& and suitable for restoration or
enhuncernent, or they arc dcvoid of habitat valuc and therefore suitable for the 1 ;1
mitigation compo~cnt requiring creation or substantial restoration of hubitat.
In gcncral, the second HMP addendum proposes mitigation standards within the coastal
zone that provide greatcr protcction than those established in the 1999 drafl HMP to
apply lo thc cntirc City. The 1939 draft HMP required 2: 1 mitigation (including onsitc
preservation) for coastal sage scrub occupied by the California gnatcatcher, aiid 1:1
mitigation for unoccupied coastal sage scrub, mixed coastal sage scrublchaparrd and
chaparral other thm southcrn maritime chaparral. Southern maritime chaparral, southom
coastal bluff Gcrub, maritimo succulent scrub and native grassland land required 3:l
mitigation. Wetlands, vcnirrl pools and ripariun habitat impacts required mitigation to
muol a no net loss stwndard. Within the c;owtal zone, the City's current proposal will
require 2: 1 mitigation for all coastal sage scrub and 3; 1 mitigation for all other mrc nativo upland vegetation, 3: 1 mitigation for riparian areas, and 4: 1 mi tigation for vernal poola,
other seasonal wotlands and salt mmh. The higkcr mihtion ratios included in tho
MAY-13-2003 TUE 17143 IDiCOASTAL COMMISSION TEL I 619767 2384
- -
Carlsbcld LCPA No. 1-03B DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY May 13,2003 Page 26 of3 1
and maintaining lunctionally valuable habitat communities, the long-term goal for no nct
loss of coastal habitat tesowces can be met.
The 1999 drdl HMP proposed that propcrtics within the “standards areas” should bo
dlowcd to dcvclop a minimum of 25% of the site. For those properties containing
uowt.rrl sage scrub and/or gnatcatchers, a minimum of 67% of coastal sage scrub and 75%
of gnuloutchers on each site waa required to be prssmed. The second HMP addendum strcngthcns thcsc habitat pmlcction standards for coastal zono properties, by specifying
that for those propertics which are all or nearly all covered with environmentally sensitive habitat (Le., 80% or morc of thc site), a maximum of 25% site dcvclopmont wilI
bc dlowtd, Tn general, the Coastal Act supports a finding that moas within the coastal
zonc containing coastal atlge scrub, which are oocupied by listed species (c.g.,
gnrrtcatchus) or us$ for foraging by lhoai species, m on’vimnmclitally smsitive habitat
qreas. Other vegetatlvc comunitios, such 8s southerti Djaritime chaparrttl (SMC), muy
also be determine be E$HA based upon their overqll rarity, andor the prcscncc of
efldangercd p1,mt animal species OT their ging habitat, Potential exceptions to tlih
stpdard maybe ma& on thc basis or case-b e scibptific review, and may include
areas of isolated habitat or vcry small habitat areas whkh do not significantly contribute
to the support of a population.
As submitted, the LCP revisions are not in conformance with Chapter 3 policies. Sped fically, thc standards idmtificd for certain properties in the Zone 21 planning area
do not acknowledge all thc onsito rcsourco valucs and development constraints in order to
ensure habitat connectivity and establishment of a viable open space preservo. Some
conwtion& arc nccebtswy to address aclual habitat types and thc alignment of the future
Poinsctlia Lanc cxtonsion through Zona 2 1, The proposed extension of Poinsettia Lane,
which is a circulation element road, was identified as the hast environmentally-damaging
alternative in a prior mmdrncnl to the certified Carlsbad LCP.
Jn tbc 1999 draR HMP, standards wow established for a number of undeveloped
proportics, although in some cases biological information was missing or incomplete at
that time. Staff initially proposed mote detailed standards language to the City, as
included in the current LCPA and second HMP addendum. Howcvcr, b#ad upon lhe
rcccipt of additional information and ftrther field investigation, it has becn detcrmined
that additional revisions to the Zone 21, standards are necessary for accuracy, in order to
adcquately protecl onsite habitat and correctly establish the optimum alignment of the
proposed wildtifc corridor through this area.
Additionally, since the 1999 dralt HMP was prepared, some of the properties included in
tho standards area5 have dcvclopcd hardlines that arc acceptable to the property owner,
the City, irnd thc wildlife agencies, Addilionally, tho revised hardtines have been
approved by the Commission through LCP amencimenlfi or coastal dsvslopment permits. These propertics should bc removed from thc “standards area” category, and have
pcrmanent hardline mups includcd in the final HMP. (*potentially, Aura Circle ~5 new hardlinc; City has delegated authority to City staff to incorporate new hardlines into HMP
Pi29
MAY-13-2003 TUE 17144 IDICOASTAL COMMISSION TEL1619767 2384 - - PI30
Carlsbad LCPA No. I-03B DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSTON PURPOSES ONLY ‘May 13,2003
Page 27 of 31
through revised submittal.) Finally, the figures and tables in the HMP that refer to habitat impacts, preserve areas, standard areas and proposed hardlines arcas are not consistcnt
with revisiam made by thc City in the 2”d addendim and should be revised.
PART VI. WS FOR APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF CA- D MFIJAJ 1. -0 II AMENDMENT #1903B - IF MODlFlED IONDA JdAND USk: PLAN
As provided in Part V.C., Section 30250 of tho Coastal Act is gonerally inteqreted a8
promoting concentration of development in or adjacent to existing dcvclopod arcas in order to roducc spmwl and its atlendant impacts to coastal zone resources. The HMP
proposcs to prescrvc large, contiguous blwks of habi d species, and b geiwrally lo the highest natural resource
lopmcnt away from thcsc c bonefits dcrivcd from a sham of thc,incidmtal take aiilhorixed
WhiGh will result in some irqpaots to g$atcatahars and associated adverse
rs must agee to placc a majority of sensitive habitals on their
that will then becoin9 part of $0 permanent MHCP prcserve. ........ ...... ... ,. . : , ,. , , . , . . , , , . ........... .(.. ,.( .’ .:) . ....... .I ..I I ......... ..... Within thc City of Carlsbad, approximatcly 8,800 acres of naturally-vcgctatcd arcus
remain, or 36% of the City’s totd area, including approximately 3j15 acres of coastal
sage scrub. In Planiiing Zones 19,20 and 21, where the majority of undeveloped land in
the coastal zone is located, approximately 60 wres of CSS remain, The populations of
gnatcatchen within the City are important ta the overall viability of lhe regionul
gnaltctltcher population that will be ddressed in the MHCP. As the municipality with the ltttgest amount of gnalcatchcr hbitat within the MHCP, the populations represent a
critical link in the distribution of thc species throughwut north Sm Piego Coualy,
particularly in the Cwlsbad-Ooeunside corridor, which connects gnatcatcher populations
in Orange and Riverside coantics with populations to the north and cast of Carlsbd, Tho HMP would proscrvc approximately 6,400 acres of native habitat, as existing prcscwo, proposcd hardline preserve areas, and through implemontation of “standards areas” in
ccrtain areas without existing Jcvebpment proposals.
Within the coastal zone, tho second HMP addcndum and LCP mmdnimt proposes no
net loss of mosl native vogotation types, with mitigation ratios ranging hrn 1 : 1 to 4: 1 to
mwe that, on balance, there will be no negative impacts to the total quantity tzndor
quality of ESkIA within the coaslal zone. Jntcnm preserve management rcquircments, as
included in the HMP, will cover the first three years €allowing approval af the WMP, during which time a plan for permuncnt management will be developed by the City in
cooperation with exigling roscrvc managers, privalc owncrs, and thc wildlife aMencies.
The Cominission must considcr impacts of residenlial buildout as a means to analyzc the
cffcct of thc proposed LCP aniendment and make revisions, as necessary, lo establish tho slandard of review conRialcnt with tho Coastal Act, Tn order to protect corridors of
viable, connected habitat ma which take inlo account the mobility and foraging
MAY-13-2003 TUE 17144 1D:COASTAL COMMISSION TEL I 619767 2384 Pi31
I
I
Cwlsbad LCPA NO. 1 -03B DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY May 13,2003
Page 28 of 31
requirements of listed and covored species, the Commission finds thut it is most
appropriate lo take a regional approach to the prcstrvation of ESHAs, Instead of
pmscming all ESHAs in plircc whcrc they are found, which could result in excessive fkapcntation, reduced habitat values and difficulties in monitoring and managcmcnt, it
niay be more protective of ESHA rcsourccs to focus on regional conservation approaches
thal concentrate dcvclopmont away from the hubitat of greatest overall valuc. Such an
approach could ensure the hcalth and viability of larger, connected sensitive vcgctativc
communitics that support listed and covered spccics within the City's jurisdiction. The
regional nature of tho habitat preservation effort sets the MHCP and HMP apart from
other local jurisdiction plans affccting ESHA, where the noncomprehensivc naturc of tho
plans and lack of regional resource protection standards ruquire mure blringent limitations
to coastal BSHA impacts for individual sites. The clustering and conccntration of
development away from sensitive lireus [hat will result &rm thelpraposcd standards will
provide a larger, morc contiguous preserve area than ifdevelopttlent on the same
properties wcfc to 'ba approtrcd on a lot-by-lot basis, The XJMP also proposes lo provide
thc ccrtificd
itul on sttcp slop^ greater than 25% (dual-criteria
of protaction for cohtal BSHA than currently provided
Most of the properties in the standards areas and hardlines are zoned for low- density single-family developrncnt. Although it is anticipated that clustdng and densily transfer
within areas outside of the proposcd prescrvc locations could allow for thc samc number
and intensity of residential units to be developed as designated in the General Plan, the ultims(e effect would be to locate devclqmenl on mslltr lots and/or a smaller ovmll
developrncnt footprint, located brlber from sensitive resources and proposed wildli Fe movcmcnt corridors. Potential impacts to thcse arcas located in the HMP prescrvc would
therefore be rcduccd, and additional benefits to the City resulting fiom compact urban
growth, prevmtion of sprawl and efficient uRe of underlying infiasttuctuw, public
strvices and facilities would likely result. The Commission thcrcforc finds that approval
of the HMP and thc LCP amcndmant, if modified as suggested, would result in increased clustcring of development and reduction of urban sprawl into sensitive habitat was.
Although implenientation ofthe HMP and MHCP will result in some loss of native
hubiht und listcd spccics throughout the region, in association with loss due to inoidontal
takc outside the prcscrvc moa, without the HMP and MHCP the potential lossos lo thc
would be considerably higher, particularly outside the coastal zone where fewer
devcloymmt restrictions on native habitat would apply. Within thc coastal zone, thc
existing LCP docs not protcct native habitat on slopes less than 25% gtadc and thcrcforc
tho proposcd LCP revisions rcprtsmt a signilkant hnprovemcnt over current
requiremcnls, Through application of proposed mitigation requirements, there will bc no ne1 loss of ESHA within the coastal zone Nnd the regional hnction of the MHCP preserve will continue to be protected,
If tho suggested modificalions are incorporated into the LCP amendment and the HMP,
the amendment will meet thc following stated policies of the City's ccrtificd LCP, as
provided in the sccond 1dMP addendum:
MAY-13-2803 TUE 17146 IDICOASTAL COMMISSION TEL : 619767 2384 -
Curlsbad LCPA No, 1 -03B DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSlON PURPOSES ONLY May 13,2003
Page 39 ~f 3 I
0
0
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
0
e
0
Develop and rotain open rrpace in all categories of land use;
Parlicipatc in programs that restore and enhance the City's debnded mtiual
resources;
Implement, to thc grcatcst cxtcnt fasihlc, the natural resource protcction policies of the LCP;
Prcscrvc open space areas in as natural a state as possible;
Participate in the statewidc and rcgional plms for Natural Community Conscrvation Pluming (NCCP) and the Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan to
conserve sensitivu onvironrnentd rerrourwri;
Encourage and participate In regional planning efforts to protect environmcntall y
sensitive species &om extinction;
Require adequate buffers between new development and environmentally
sensilive habitals;
Require privale development that impacts sensitive resources to provide
appropriate mitigation measures, so that the existing biodivmity within the City
is maintaincd;
Require lhat at the lime of any discrotionary approval, any land dcdicatd to tho
City for its habitat or scenic value have an appropriate easement and/or zoning
plrrccd on it for rcsourcc protection; und
Rccognize and implement the policiea of the Catifornia Coastal Act and the
Carlsbad T,CP when reviewing potential development in the coastal zone.
In summary, the Commission finds that with the suggested modifications, the LCP
amcndmcnl md HMP (with sccond addendum) will have adequate hardllne revisions,
expansion of standards arcas rcquircments, comprehensive mitigation and buffcring
stmdards, and protection of ESklA to meel Chapter 3 requirements. The implementation
of thc HMP and the LCP amendmcnl, if modificd as suggested, will ultimately reducc
cumulative development-rolatcd impacts to regional BSHAs, encourago compact, eficient urban growth, and will preserve the maximum amount of sensitive naluri
rcsources ncccsstlry for the prcscrvation of the coastal California gnatcatcher and other
listed spwciea in San Diego County.
PI32
MAY-13-2003 I TUE 17146 IDiCOASTAL COMMISSION TEL1619767 2364
Cflrl~bad LCPA NO, 1-038 DRAFT -FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY May 13,2003
Page 30 of 3 1
N OF JWDERAL CONSISTENCY, PART V11: FINDINGS FOR mlIFJcAT10 71
PRTRRMINAT TON
..
pcticc.
In addition to amending its LCP, the City of Carlsbad has submitted a consistency
certification, pursuant to thc rcqiiircrncnts of the fcderal Cuwlal Zone Mmagcmcnt Act
(CZMA), for tlic HMP. The City developed the HMP lo meet the rcquircmcnts of a habitat conservation plan pursuant to section 1 O(a)(2)(A) of the Endangered Species Act
[16 USC $1539(a)(2)(A)]. The plan ia necessary for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Saviw
to issue an incidental take permit to the City pursuant to 16 USC 01 539(a)( l), in ordcr to
allow urban devclopmcnt within thc City of Carlsbad consistcnt with the HMP. Since
this permit is not listed in the California C0#6lal Mmgcment Program (CCMP) LLS onc of’
a1 USES and regourcCs, thc Commission
ffice of Oceh and Coastal Rcsourcc
stency review df the HMP,
ine whethm issuancc of the
would bc consi$tcnt with the Californiq,C&stal Act, and approval of thc ITP has
been prccluded until the Commission certifies the City’s federal consi~lency
detcnnination. As pati of thc overall submittal which is currently under Commission
review, the City included a deterriiinalion that the MMP and LCP amendment comply
with thc cnforctable policies of the state’s ctoaslal management progrum, and will be
conducted in a manncr consistcnt with such program. The City has requested lhe
Commission’s ccrtification of this detcrmination of consistency,
I
Based upon review of the 1999 drafi HMY and supporting documents, Commission staff
dctoriiiiiied that the fcderal consistency rcvicw should be accompanied and supported by
revisions to the HMP and a corresponding amendment to the Carlsbad LCP. The City
has delayed submittal o€ its consistency ccrtification until the LCP amendment WUE also
submitted Lo Ihc Commission so thnl thc Commission could review the certification
concwrent with the LCP amcndrneiit and rely upon the proposed changes to issue tl
conditional concurrcncc. The City’s application for an incidental take permit (ITP)
pursuant to Section 10 of the Endangcrcd Species Act (ESA) requites that the City submit
a federal consistency certification to the Commission. The Commission will review tho ITP application, federal consistciicy ccrtiiication, and other supporting information to
ensure that the IIMP is consistent with California’s federally approved comtal
management program (h., the Coastal Act). Additionally, because the Commission will be askcd to rely on thc HMP as providing the ways and means to cnsuro that Coastal Act
rcquirements are met in circumstances where the loss of sensitive coastal resourccs in the
coastal ’zone will be compcnsated and mitigated in areas outside lhe coastal zone, lhc
adcquacy of lhc HMP will be evaluated relative to Coastal Act policies and Commission
i
MAY-13-2083 TUE 17846 IDlCOASTAL COMMISSION EL1619767 2384 - -
Carlsbad ZCPA No. 1-038 DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY May 13,2003 Page 31 of 31
VIT, CONSISTENCY WTH THE CATdIFOW EN VIRWTAI -
Section 21080.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) oxcmpts local government from the requirement of preparing an cnvironnicntal impact report (EIR) in
conncction with its local coastal program. Jnstead, the CEQA responsibilities are
assigned to the Coastal Commission and tho Commission's LCP review and approval
program has been found by the Rcsourccs Agency to bo functionally cquivalcnt to thc EN process. Thus, under CEQA Section 2 1080.5. the Commission is relieved of the
responsibility to prepare an BIR for each LCP.
Ncvcrthclass, the Commission is required in an LCP submittal or, as in this case, w LCF
amchdmcnt submittd, to,fW that the LCP; or LCP, as amclided, does codom to CEQA
ptavisions. The City of C Dcclaration for thc HMP
impacts asswiated withthe proposed LCP pLmcndmcnr main and htls phposed
t and the Oarlsbad LCP, As ;&result of thesc wdifications, the
Commission finds that the proposed aniendment does conform to CEQA provisions. .
The changes will not result in an intensity of land use incompatible with thc siimimding area or have adverse impacts on coastal resources tis modified, Therefore, the
Commission finds that approval of the LCP amendment, if modified. will not resull in
any significant unmitigated adverse onvironmcntal impacts.
d has prepared and certified an Mitigated Negative
s tb make die amendnxmt requast consistent with Chapter 3
cr, the Comniissiou has found that scvaral~signiflctmt
Pi34
!