HomeMy WebLinkAboutLCPA 02-10; Habitat Management Plan; Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) (31)SAN DIEGO AREA
7575 METROPOLITAN DRIVE, SUITE 103
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-4402
(619) 767-2370
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
May 22,2003
COMMISSIONERS AND INTERESTED PERSONS
DEBORAH LEE, SOUTH COAST DEPUTY DIRECTOR
SHERILYN SARB, DISTRICT MANAGER, SAN DIEGO OFFICE
KERI AKERS, COASTAL PROGRAM ANALYST, SAN DIEGO
OFFICE
STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON CITY OF CARLSBAD MAJOR
MELLO I, MELLO 11, AND AGUA HENDIONDA LAND USE PLAN
SEGMENTS, AND ASSOCIATED FEDERAL CONSISTENCY ITEM
NO. CC-007-003 (For Public Hearing and Possible Commission Action
at the Meeting of June 11-13,2003)
AMENDMENT NO. 1-03B (HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN) TO
SYNOPSIS
SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT REOUEST
The amendment submittal includes the draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP), dated
December 1999, second addendum to the HMP (December 16,2002), and revisions to
the Mello I, Mello I1 and Agua Hedionda land use plans. No changes to the City’s
certified Implementation Plan (E’) are proposed at this time. The submittal also includes
a federal consistency determination addressing the Incidental Take Permit for listed
species that will be issued to the City by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to implement
the HMP.
The subject local coastal program (LCP) amendment request was filed by the City of
Carlsbad on February 7,2003. The LCP amendment includes revisions and additions to
the LCP that parallel the City’s most recently adopted changes to the HMP, as provided
in the second HMP addendum. The purpose of the proposed additions and revisions to
these land use plan segments is to provide additional habitat protection requirements and
conservation standards for the remaining undeveloped properties within the Carlsbad
coastal zone, concentrate future development adjacent to already-developed areas, and to
reconcile differences between the certified LCP’s provisions regarding encroachment and
preservation of dual-criteria slopes and the provisions of the proposed HMP.
Carlsbad LCPA Nq',.l43B
May 22,2003
Page 2 of 48 ,t
The land use pl
HMP addendum,
The City and Commission staff have been working cooperatively since January 2000 to
ensure that the final HMP meets all relevant LCP, Coastal Act and federal Coastal Zone
Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 9 145 1, et seq., (CZMA) requirements, is consistent with
the goals of the regional Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP) for San Diego
County, and provides adequate protection for environmentally sensitive habitat areas
(ESHA) in the coastal zone. Although the HMP involves tradeoffs between habitat
protection and development, it will function as part of a regional plan under the state
Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) program, Fish & Game Code 0
2800 et seq., to manage extensive habitat areas and mitigate impacts, in a manner that
will provide greater overall protection of resources than continued piecemeal review of
development on a site-by-site basis.
The objectives of the southern California NCCP program include identification and
protection of habitat in sufficient amounts and distributions to enable long-term
conservation of the coastal sage community and the California gnatcatcher, as well as
other sensitive habitat types. Generally, the purpose of the HCP and NCCP processes is
to preserve natural habitat by identifying and implementing an interlinked natural
communities preserve system. Through these processes, the resource agencies are
pursuing a long-range approach to habitat management and preserve creation over the
more traditional mitigation approach to habitat impacts. Although HCPs have been
prepared for areas as small as a single lot, the MHCP and its subarea plans are intended to
function at the citywide or regional level, instead of focusing on impacts to individual
properties.
ions to the 1999 HMP, as provided in the second
in response to input from Commission staff.
Implementation of this large-scale approach to habitat conservation will allow some
development involving incidental take of listed species and/or environmentally sensitive
habitat in those areas where it is most appropriate, in order to preserve the largest and
most valuable areas of contiguous habitat and their associated populations of listed
species. Although the goals of the HCP and NCCP processes include maintenance of
species viability and potential long-term recovery, impacts to habitat occupied by listed
species are still allowed. This approach differs from Coastal Act policies regarding
ESHA, which provides that when a habitat must be considered environmentally sensitive
(e.g., because it has become especially rare andor provides crucial habitat for listed
species), impacts to the habitat should not be allowed except for uses that are dependent
on that resource.
The 90-day deadline for the Commission to act upon the LCP amendment, pursuant to
Section 305 12 of the Coastal Act, would have been May 8,2003; however, on April 9,
2003, the Commission approved a one-year time extension for Carlsbad LCP amendment
#1-03 A&B (Smith and HMP) to allow for a southern California hearing. The subject
amendment also includes a federal consistency certification. The 90-day deadline for the
Commission to act upon the federal consistency certification would also have been May
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1 -03B
May 22,2003
Page 3 of 48
8,2003. However, the City agreed to extend the federal consistency review deadline by
one month, to June 13,2003, so that the LCP amendment and federal consistency review
could be scheduled for the same Commission meeting, and potential inconsistencies
could be avoided. Therefore, the Commission must take action on the federal
consistency review no later than June 13,2003.
SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending denial of the proposed amendment as submitted and approval if
modified as suggested in this report. As submitted by the City of Carlsbad, the HMP and
addenda and the associated LUP revisions provide protective standards for sensitive
habitat and listed species within the City’s coastal zone. However, based upon more
comprehensive surveys of individual properties through staff field investigation, and
supplemental information received during the review period, several clarifications are
necessary to the proposed standards in the Mello I1 segment of the LCP and the
associated sections of the HMP for Zone 21 properties, to address existing onsite habitat
types, location of preserve areas, and appropriate development limitations. The changes
also address development constraints associated with future construction of the Poinsettia
Lane extension through Zone 2 1 and the habitat corridor.
Since completion of the 1999 draft HMP, some of the properties included in the standards
areas have developed hardlines that are acceptable to the property owner, the City, and
the wildlife agencies, and have been approved through LCP amendments and/or coastal
development permits by the Commission. A property contains a “hardline” if, in
association with a future development plan, a line can be drawn to establish the habitat
preserve boundary on the property. The suggested modifications require the HMP to be
updated to reflect the changes made to the hardline maps for these properties. These
changes are necessary to ensure accuracy and maximum effectiveness of both the HMP
and the amended LCP.
Additional suggested modifications include updated figures and tables in the HMP for
consistency with the proposed changes. A future LCP amendment to the certified
Implementation Plan (IP) should be submitted to address consistency with the certified
Mello I, Mello I1 and Agua Hedionda land use plans, if modified as suggested. Finally,
interim standards are suggested for application and authority of the land use plans and IP
if any conflicts should arise between them before the IP is amended.
A federal consistency certification is also associated with the HMP, regarding an
Incidental Take Permit (ITP) for listed species. The ITP must be issued to the City by the US. Fish and Wildlife Service prior to any development undertaken under the umbrella
of the HMP and its requirements. The LCP amendment and federal consistency
certification are addressed in separate resolutions and motions within this staff report.
Staff recommends that the Commission conditionally concur with the City’s consistency
certification, subject to the City’s acceptance of the Commission’s suggested
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1 -03b
May 22,2003
Page 4 of 48
modifications to the LCP amendment. The appropriate resolutions and motions for the
LCP amendment begin on Page 7. The amropriate resolution and motion for the federal
consistency certification begins on Page 9. The Suggested Modifications begin on Page
9. Findings for denial of the Mello I, Mello I1 and Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan
amendments begin on Page 17. The findings for approval of the Mello I, Mello I1 and
Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan amendments, if modified, begin on Page 35. The findings
for certification of the federal consistency determination begin on Page 47.
LCP BACKGROUND
The City's certified LCP contains six geographic segments as follows: Agua Hedionda,
Mello I, Mello 11, West Batiquitos LagoodSammis Properties and East Batiquitos
LagoodHunt Properties and Village Redevelopment Area. Pursuant to Sections 30 170(f)
and 301 71 of the Public Resources Code, the Coastal Commission prepared and approved
two portions of the LCP, the Mello I and IT segments in 1980 and 1981, respectively.
The Village Redevelopment Area LCP was certified in 1988; the City has been issuing
coastal development permits there since that time. The Commission certified the Agua
Hedionda Land Use Plan in 1982. The West Batiquitos Lagoon/ Sammis Properties
segment was certified in 1985. The East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties segment was
certified in 1988. On October 2 1, 1997, the City assumed permit jurisdiction and has
been issuing coastal development permits for all of its segments except Agua Hedionda.
The Agua Hedionda Lagoon LCP segment remains as a deferred certification area until
an implementation plan is certified. The subject amendment request affects the Mello I,
Mello I1 and Agua Hedionda segments of the LCP.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Further information on the submittal may be obtained from Keri Akers at the San Diego
Area Office of the Coastal Commission at 7575 Metropolitan Drive, Suite 103,
San Diego, CA 92108-4402, (619) 767-2370.
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1-03B
May 22,2003
Page 5 of 48
PART I. OVERVIEW - LCP AMENDMENT
A. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The standard of review for land use plans, or their amendments, is found in Section
305 12 of the Coastal Act. This section requires the Commission to certify an LUP or
LUP amendment if it finds that it meets the requirements of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.
Specifically, it states:
Section 30512
(c) The Commission shall certify a land use plan, or any amendments thereto,
if it finds that a land use plan meets the requirements of, and is in conformity
with, the policies of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200). Except as
provided in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), a decision to certify shall require a
majority vote of the appointed membership of the Commission.
B. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The City has held both Planning Commission and City Council hearings with regard to
the subject amendment request. Each of these local hearings were duly noticed to the
public. Notice of the subject amendment has been distributed to all known interested
parties.
C. HMP HISTORYBACKGROUND
In 1993, the coastal California gnatcatcher was listed as threatened under the federal Endangered
Species Act (ESA) ), 16 U.S.C. 0 1531 et seq. The coastal California gnatcatcher is found
primarily in coastal sage scrub habitat in southern California. Based upon scientific estimates,
coastal sage scrub habitat in San Diego County has been reduced by more than 70% of its original
coverage. Fewer than 900 gnatcatcher pairs likely remain in the county; however, San Diego
County currently supports the largest gnatcatcher population in California and presents the most
significant opportunity for large-scale preservation of the species. This listing has had a
significant effect on future public and private development in areas containing gnatcatcher habitat.
In order to proceed, development in areas with gnatcatchers would have to completely avoid
“take” or else receive federal authorization. Several other species have been listed under the
federal or state ESA since 1993; currently, approximately 25 species that are listed, or proposed
for listing, occur in or are associated with habitat located in Carlsbad.
The Carlsbad HMP and the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) are
intended to meet criteria for the California Department of Fish and Game’s (CDFG)
Natural Communities Conservation 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, guidelines for process and
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1 -03b
May 22,2003
Page 6 of 48
conservation of CSS were developed, and the USFWS adopted a special rule regarding
the gnatcatcher pursuant to Section 4(d) of the federal ESA, 16 U.S.C. 8 1533(d). See 50
C.F.R. 8 17.41(b), 58 Fed. Reg. 65088 (Dec. 10, 1993). This special rule exempts take of
gnatcatchers during the interim period prior to approval of plans under the NCCP
program, provided the take is consistent with NCCP process and conservation guidelines.
In connection with the NCCP’s program for CSS and the 4(d) rule, through an informal
regional agreement, interim impacts in the San Diego region have been capped at 5% of
the existing habitat within each jurisdiction participating in the NCCP program.
In 1992, the City signed an NCCP agreement with the California Resources Agency to
develop the Habitat Management Plan (HMP) as part of the City’s General Plan. The
1992 agreement enrolled the City in the NCCP program as an “Ongoing Multi-Species
Plan” as defined in the NCCP process guidelines. The agreement was supplemented in
1993 to clarify that the HMP is a subarea plan of the San Diego County MHCP.
As prepared, the draft Carlsbad HMP is intended to satisfy the requirements of a federal
HCP, and to function as a subarea plan of the regional MHCP under the NCCP. The
MHCP study area involves approximately 186 square miles in northwestern San Diego
County. This area includes the coastal cities of Carlsbad, Encinitas, Solana Beach and
Oceanside, as well as the inland cities of Vista and San Marcos and several independent
special districts. The participating local governments and other entities will implement
their portions of the MHCP through individual subarea plans such as the Carlsbad HMP.
Once approved, the MHCP and its subarea plans will replace interim restrictions placed
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish
and Game (CDFG) on impacts to coastal sage scrub and gnatcatchers within that
geographical area, and will allow the incidental take of the gnatcatcher and other covered
species as specified in the plan. Although the HMP is a subarea plan of the MHCP, it
will receive its own federal take permit and is not subject to finalization of the MHCP in
order to be approved.
The City developed the HMP to meet the requirements of a habitat conservation plan
pursuant to section lO(a)(2)(A) of the Endangered Species Act [16 USC $1539(a)(2)(A)].
The draft Carlsbad HMP was initially approved by the Carlsbad City Council on
September 2 1, 1999. An addendum was then prepared based on comments provided by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and
Game (CDFG), and the revised document, dated December 1999, was submitted to the
wildlife agencies for approval of an incidental take permit (ITP) under section 9(a)(l)(B)
[ 16 USC 8 1538(a)(l)(B)] of the Endangered Species Act. Issuance of the permit would
have predated approval of the final HMP itself, and was requested in order to begin
development of a City golf course which had been included as a “hardline” property in
the HMP with pre-agreed limitations on development area and mitigation requirements.
Since incidental take permits are not listed in the CCMP as one of the permits for
activities likely to affect coastal uses and resources, the Commission requested, and
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1 -03B
May 22,2003
Page 7 of 48
received, permission from the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
(OCRM) in August 2000 for a federal consistency review of the HMP. The purpose of
the consistency review in this case is to determine whether issuance of the ITP would be
consistent with the California Coastal Act and the CCMP.
On June 7,2000, the Carlsbad Planning Commission certified an environmental impact
report (EIR) for the proposed Carlsbad city golf course, and approved a coastal
development permit for the golf course development. The Coastal Commission appealed
the City’s CDP based on concerns regarding the project’s inconsistency with the habitat
protection policies in the certified LCP. The policy revisions proposed in this
amendment, along with revisions to the golf course proposal, are designed to allow for a
revised golf course project to be permitted by the Commission on appeal, consistent with
the HMP and LCP, as amended.
PART 11. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM SUBMITTAL - RESOLUTIONS
Following a public hearing, staff recommends that the Commission adopt the following
resolution and findings. The appropriate motion to introduce the resolution and a staff
recommendation are provided just prior to the resolution.
A. RESOLUTION I (Resolution to approve certification of the City of
Carlsbad LCP Mello I, Mello I1 and Agua Hedionda
Land Use Plan Amendment #1-03B, as submitted)
MOTION I
I move that the Commission certify the LCP Land Use Plan Amendment #1-03B,
as submitted.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends a No vote and adoption of the following resolution and
findings. An affirmative vote by a majority of the appointed Commissioners is
needed to pass the motion.
Resolution I
The Commission hereby denies the amendment request to the LCP Land Use
Plan, as submitted, and adopts the findings stated below on the grounds that the
amendment will not meet the requirements of and conform with the policies of
Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200) of the California Coastal Act to the
extent necessary to achieve the basic state goals specified in Section 30001.5 of
the Coastal Act; the land use plan, as amended, will be inconsistent with
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1-03b
May 22,2003
Page 8 of 48
applicable decisions of the Commission that shall guide local government actions
pursuant to Section 30625(c); and certification of the land use plan amendment
will not meet the requirements of Section 21080S(d)(2)(i) of the California
Environmental Quality Act; as there would be feasible measures or feasible
alternatives which would substantially lessen significant adverse impacts on the
environment.
B. RESOLUTION I1 (Resolution to approve certification of the City of Carlsbad
Mello I, Mello I1 and Agua Hedionda LCP Land Use Plan
Amendment 1-03B, if Modified)
MOTION I1
I move that the Commission certify the LCP Land Use Plan Amendment #1-03B,
if modified.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends a YES vote and adoption of the following resolution and
findings. An affirmative vote by a majority of the appointed Commissioners is
needed to pass the motion.
Resolution I1
The Commission hereby approves the amendment request to the LCP Land Use
Plan, as modified, and adopts the findings stated below on the grounds that the
amendment will meet the requirements of and conform with the policies of
Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200) of the California Coastal Act to the
extent necessary to achieve the basic state goals specified in Section 30001.5 of
the Coastal Act; the land use plan, as amended, will be consistent with applicable
decisions of the Commission that shall guide local government actions pursuant to
Section 30625(c); and certification of the land use plan amendment will meet the
requirements of Section 2 1080.5(d)(2)(i) of the California Environmental Quality
Act; as there would be no feasible measures or feasible alternatives which would
substantially lessen significant adverse impacts on the environment.
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1 -03B
May 22,2003
Page 9 of 48
PART I11 - FEDERAL CONSISTENCY
A. Applicant’s Consistency Certification
The City of Carlsbad certifies that the proposed activity complies with the
federally-approved California Coastal Management Program and will be conducted in a
manner consistent with such program.
B. Staff Recommendation
The staff recommends that the Commission adopt the following motion:
MOTION: I move that the Commission conditionally concur with the City of
Carlsbad’s consistency certification.
The staff recommends a YES vote on this motion. A majority vote in the affirmative will
result in adoption of the following resolution:
Conditional Concurrence
The Commission hereby conditionally concurs with the consistency certification made
by the City of Carlsbad on the grounds that the project would be consistent with the
enforceable policies of the CCMP, provided the City of Carlsbad agrees to modify the
project consistent with the conditions specified below, as provided for in 15 CFR $930.4.
Conditions
The Commission adopts the suggested modifications to the Local Coastal Program
amendment as conditions to its concurrence with the City’s consistency certification.
PART IV. SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS
Staff recommends the following suggested revisions to the proposed LCP Amendment be
adopted. The underlined sections represent language that the Commission suggests be
added, and the stiwket sections represent language which the Commission suggests be
deleted from the language as originally submitted.
1. The following changes should be made to policy 7-14 of the Second
Addendum to the HMP, beginning on page 8:
The following standards apply to those parcels in Zones 20 and 21 shown
on Exhibit A to this Addendum which are located within the biological core
and linkage areas designated in the MHCP. They are in addition to the
_-
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1 -03b
May 22,2003
Page 10 of 48
applicable, general conservation standards contained in 7-1 through 7-1 1
and the HMP. The standards are intended to direct development to existing
disturbed areas to the maximum extent feasible, limit impacts to native
vegetation, and establish viable core and linkage areas as designated in the
HMP. In general, each property shall be allowed to develop at least 25% of
the site with appropriate mitigation as specified in 7-8 through 7-1 1. When
individual properties are proposed for rezoning or development, detailed
biological information will be required to determine whether the proposal is
consistent with the HMP, subsection 7 and the standards below, based upon
the actual type, location and condition of onsite resources, and the
appropriate locations of development and preservation areas. One or more
wildlife crossings under Poinsettia Lane shall be provided if recommended
by the wildlife resource agencies.
- A.& Assessor’s Parcel No. 212-120-33 (Hieatt) - No impact to vernal
pools. Minimize impact to vernal pool watersheds.
- B.G Assessor’s Parcel No. 212-010-3 (Kirgis) - Preserve 75% of
property with development clustered immediately adjacent to Kelly
Ranch.
- C.G Assessor’s Parcel No. 215-070-35 (Fernandez) - Cluster
development on disturbed areas to the maximum extent feasible.
Maximum 10% impact on CSS and SMC for access purposes.
- D.% Assessor’s Parcel No. 21 5-040-03 (Muroya) - Cluster development
on disturbed areas to the maximum extent feasible. Maximum 10%
impact on CSS and SMC for access purposes.
c. 214 !W, 214 1-70 3e;;-4e, 54, 58, 53,72,
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1-03B
May 22,2003
Page 11 of 48
- E.& Assessor’s Parcel No. 2 12-040-50 (Emerald Point) - Development
limited to disturbed and non-native grassland areas. No impacts to native
habitat allowed.
- F.J; Assessor’s Parcel No. 215-020-06 (RWSB) - Development shall be
limited to a maximum of 25% of the property, not including Poinsettia
Lane construction, and shall be clustered to the maximum extent feasible
along l+m&e&e disturbed portions of -property adjacent to Cassia
Lane and the future Poinsettia Lane extension.
ino- 1” uucess; A wildlife
corridor linkage oriented generally north-south shall be provided on the
eastern portion of the property and designed to connect to neighboring
properties with existing or potential wildlife corridor linkages. Impacts to
native habitat shall require onsite mitigation through restoration and/or
creation of habitat within the designated corridor linkape, in addition to
any other required mitigation.
..
- G.& Assessor’s Parcel No. 21 5-020-07 (Maldonado) - Development
shall be concentrated along the Poinsettia Lane extension and shall be
limited to the western half of the property.
t No impacts to the coast
oak woodland and riparian area except for Poinsettia Lane extension.
v+The eastern half of the
property is recommended for offsite mitigation for other properties in
Zone 21: however, at minimum, a wildlife corridor linkage oriented
generally north-south shall be provided on the eastern half of the property
and designed to connect to neighboring properties with existing or
potential wildlife corridor linkages. The corridor linkage shall include
any onsite coast oak woodland area.
c *.nn u IVV .. . ..
&L Assessor’s Parcel No. 215-050-21 (Namikas) - Development shall
be limited to a maximum of 25% of the property, not including Poinsettia -- Lane construction, and shall be clustered on the western poiion ,of the
property. No impacts to coast oak woodland, riparian areas or wetlands
except for Poinsettia Lane extension. A wildlife corridor linkage oriented
generally north-south shall be provided on the eastern portion of the
property, include the onsite coast oak woodland area, and be designed to
connect to neighboring properties with existing or potential wildlife
corridor linkages. Impacts to native habitat shall require onsite mitigation
1
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1 -03B
May 22,2003
Page 12 of 48
through restoration and/or creation of habitat within the designated
corridor linkage, in addition to any other required mitigation.
1.M Assessor’s Parcel No. 215-050-22 (Sudduth) - Development shall be
limited to a maximum of 25% of the property, not including Poinsettia
Lane construction, and shall be clustered on the western portion of the
property. No impacts to coast oak woodland, riparian areas or wetlands
except for Poinsettia Lane extension. A wildlife corridor linkage oriented
generally north-south shall be provided on the eastern portion of the
property include the onsite coast oak woodland area and be designed to
connect to neighboring properties with existing or potential wildlife
corridor linkages. Impacts to native habitat shall require onsite mitigation
through restoration and/or creation of habitat within the designated
corridor linkage, in addition to any other required mitigation.
- J.N Assessor’s Parcel No. 215-050-44, 45, 46, 47 (Kevane) -
Development shall be limited to a maximum of 25% of the property, I&
u and shall be clustered on the
western portion of the property. No impacts to coast oak woodland,
riparian areas or wetlands shall be allowed. -ia Lane
t%ee&m. A wildlife corridor linkage oriented generally north-south shall
be provided on the eastern portion of the property, include the coast oak
woodland, and be designed to connect to neighboring properties with
existing or potential wildlife conidor linkages. Impacts to native habitat
shall require onsite mitigation through restoration and/or creation of
habitat within the designated corridor linkage, in addition to any other
required mitination.
“1
- K.8; Assessor’s Parcel No. 215-050-12 (Reiter) - Development shall be
limited to a maximum of 25% of the property,
and shall be clustered on the western portion of the
property. No impacts to coast oak woodland, riparian areas or wetlands
shall be allowed ‘ . A wildlife corridor
linkage oriented generally north-south shall be provided on the eastern
portion of the property, include the coast oak woodland, and be designed
to connect to neighboring - - properties with existing - or potential wildlife
corridor linkages. Impacts to native habitat shall require onsite mitigation
through restoration and/or creation of habitat within the designated
corridor linkage, in addition to any other required mitigation.
- L.& Assessor’s Parcel No. 215-050-73 (Levatino) - Maximum 25%
development clustered on the southern portion of the property. Buffer
widths may be reduced and/or additional impacts may be allowed if
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1 -03B
May 22,2003
Page 13 of 48
necessary to obtain site access, andor to accommodate Circulation Road
improvements.
2. A hardline map for Aura Circle, as submitted by the City to the
Commission on May 16, 2003, and consistent with Exhibit 8 of this staff
report, should be added to the HMP as Figure 36.
3. Text conditions for the Aura Circle hardline should be added to the second
HMP addendum at the end of page 10:
For Aura Circle (Figure 36). development shall be clustered on the
south portion of the property. Grading shall be kept entirely off the
largest area of CSS in the north part of the site. Created slopes
shall be revegetated with coastal sage scrub, and existing disturbed
areas of the project site that are not identified for development on
the hardline map shall be used for onsite mitigation through
restoratiodrecreation of coastal sage scrub. Post-development
habitat area and open space shall be placed into the HMP preserve.
4. New Hardline Preserve maps shall be developed according to the attached
Exhibits 9- 12 for the Roesch Property, Carlsbad Promenade, Redeemer by
the Sea, and Thompson-Tabata, and incorporated into the HMP as Figures
37-40, consistent with the conditions of the Coastal Commission’s actions
for Carlsbad LCP Amendment No. 1-00D (Roesch) and LCP Amendment
No. 1 -02B, C and D (Carlsbad Promenade, Redeemer by the Sea and
Thompson-Tabata).
5. Revised Hardline Preserve maps for the Hub Park/SDG&E Property, the
Zone 19 Park and Kelly Ranch (Exhibits 13-15) shall replace the existing
Figures 17, 19 and 12 in the HMP, consistent with the conditions of the
Coastal Commission’s action for Coastal Development Permit 6-0 1 - 167
(Hub Park/SDG&E), the City’s action for Coastal Development Permit 6-
CII-02-029/Local ID 1-3 1 (Zone 19 Park), and the Kelly Ranch Open
Space Map approved in the Commission’s action on LCP Amendment No.
2-99D (Kelly Ranch). The open space as shown on the Kelly Ranch Open
Space Map for Planning Area L (Gallahan) should be added as a new
standard in the HMP and Mello II land use plan instead of a hardline.
6. The existing Hardline Preserve map for the Kevane property (Figure 25)
shall be removed.
7. On Page 8 of the Second HMP addendum, revise policy 7.13 (e), and
on Page 52 of the Mello I1 LUP revisions, revise policy 3-7 (e) as
follows:
h
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1 -03B
May 22,2003
Page 14 of 48
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 plamd4x
minimum amount necessary to allow such uses.
.. to the
8. In the 1999 draft HMP, Tables 3,6,7 and .8, and Figures 6,26 and 27
should be updated to reflect the changes to proposed habitat impacts
and preserve areas, standards properties and hardlined properties that
will result from adoption of these suggested modifications. ,
9. The following change should be made to the Mello I LUP segment
revisions in the LCP amendment, on page 17:
j. If any conflict should arise between these Policies of the LCP and the
provisions of the HMP, the LCP shall take precedence. If any
conflict should arise between the policies of the certified Mello I
LUP and the certified Implementation Plan, the policies of the
certified Mello I LUP shall take urecedence.
10. The following change should be made to the Mello I1 LUP segment
revisions in the LCP amendment, on page 42:
i. If any conflict should arise between these Policies of the LCP and
the provisions of the HMP, the LCP shall take precedence. If any
conflict should arise between the policies of the certified Mello I1
LUP and the certified Implementation Plan, the uolicies of the
certified Mello I1 LUP shall take urecedence.
1 1. The following changes should be made to the Mello I1 LUP segment
revisions in the LCP amendment, beginning on page number 5 1 :
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1 -03B
May 22,2003
Page 15 of 48
3.8.1342
3-8.2-
3-8.3-
3-8.4-
Assessor's Parcel No. 212-120-33 (Hieatt) -No impact to
vernal pools. Minimize impact to vernal pool watersheds.
Assessor's Parcel No. 212-010-3 (Kirgis) - Preserve 75% of
property with development clustered immediately adjacent
to Kelly Ranch.
Assessor's Parcel No. 21 5-070-35 (Fernandez) - Cluster
development on disturbed areas to the maximum extent
feasible. Maximum 10% impact on CSS and SMC for
access purposes.
Assessor's Parcel No. 21 5-040-03 (Muroya) - Cluster
development on disturbed areas to the maximum extent
feasible. Maximum 10% impact on CSS and SMC for
access purposes.
3-8.53-8;9 Assessor's Parcel No. 212-040-50 (Emerald Point) -
Development limited to disturbed and non-native grassland areas. No
impacts to native habitat allowed.
3-8.63-&l-&Assessor's Parcel No. 21 5-020-06 (RWSB) - Development
shall be limited to a maximum of 25% of the property, not including
Poinsettia Lane construction, and shall be clustered to the maximum
extent feasible along l-m&e&e disturbed portions of wroperty
adjacent to Cassia Lane and the future Poinsettia Lane extension..
.A
Impacts to SMC habitat shall be minimized.
f ..
wildlife corridor linkage oriented generally north-south shall be provided
on the eastern half of the property and designed to connect to neighboring
properties with existing or potential wildlife corridor linkages. Impacts to
native habitat shall require onsite mitigation through - restoration andor
..
..
-
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1-03B
May 22,2003
Page 16 of 48
creation of habitat within the designated corridor linkage, in addition to
any other required mitigation.
- 3-8.73-844 Assessor’s Parcel No. 21 5-020-07 (Maldonado) -
Development shall be concentrated along the Poinsettia Lane extension
and shall be limited to the western half of the property. €l+&e~ No impacts
to the coast oak woodland and riparian area except for Poinsettia Lane
extension. fi ..
*The eastern half of the property is recommended for offsite
mitigation for other properties in Zone 21; however, at minimum a
wildlife corridor linkage oriented generally north-south shall be provided
on the eastern half of the property and designed to connect to neiphboring
properties with existing or potential wildlife corridor linkages. The
corridor linkage shall include any onsite coast oak woodland area.
3-8.83-8&LAssessor’s Parcel No. 2 15-050-21 (Namikas) - Development
shall be limited to a maximum of 25% of the property, not including
Poinsettia Lane construction, and shall be clustered on the western
portion of the property. No impacts to coast oak woodland, riparian areas
or wetlands except for Poinsettia Lane extension. A wildlife corridor
linkage oriented generally north-south shall be provided on the eastern
portion of the property, include the onsite coast oak woodland area, and
be designed to connect to neighboring properties with existing or
potential wildlife corridor linkages. Impacts to native habitat shall
require onsite mitigation through restoration and/or creation of habitat
within the designated corridor linkage, in addition to any other required
mitigation.
3-8.93434--Assessor’s Parcel No. 21 5-050-22 (Sudduth) - Development
shall be limited to a maximum of 25% of the property, not including
Poinsettia Lane construction, and shall be clustered on the western
portion of the property. No impacts to coast oak woodland, riparian areas
or wetlands except for Poinsettia Lane extension. A wildlife corridor
linkage oriented generally north-south shall be provided on the eastern
portion of the property include the onsite coast oak woodland area and be
designed to connect to neiqhboring properties with existing or potential
wildlife corridor linkages. Impacts to native habitat shall require onsite
mitigation through restoration and/or creation of habitat within the
, designated corridor linkage, in addition to any other rewired mitigation.
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1 -03B
May 22,2003
Page 17 of 48
3-8.103444 Assessor’s Parcel No. 215-050-44, 45, 46, 47 (Kevane) -
Development shall be limited to a maximum of 25% of the property,
and shall be clustered on the western portion of the property. No impacts to coast oak woodland,
riparian areas or wetlands shall be allowed
e&emkm. A wildlife corridor linkage oriented generally north-south shall
be provided on the eastern portion of the property, include the coast oak
woodland. and be desimed to connect to neighboring properties with
existing or potential wildlife corridor linkages. ImDacts to native habitat
shall require onsite mitipation through restoration and/or creation of
habitat within the designated conidor linkage. in addition to any other
required mitigation.
3-8.1 1W Assessor’s Parcel No. 215-050-12 (Reiter) - Development
shall be limited to a maximum of 25% of the property,
portion of the property. No impacts to coast oak woodland, riparian areas or wetlands shall be allowed ’ .A
wildlife corridor linkage oriezroLided
on the eastern portion of the propertv, include the coast oak woodland,
and be designed to connect to neiphboring properties with existing or
potential wildlife conidor linkages. Impacts to native habitat shall
require onsite mitigation through restoration and/or creation of habitat
within the designated corridor linkage, - in addition to any other required
mitigation.
and shall be clustered on the western
3-8.123-W-6 Assessor’s Parcel No. 215-050-73 (Levatino) - Maximum
25% development clustered on the southern portion of the property.
Buffer widths may be reduced and/or additional impacts may be allowed
if necessary to obtain site access.
PART V: FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD MELLO I,
MELLO 11, AND AGUA HEDIONDA LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT
1-03B, AS SUBMITTED AND FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL, IF MODIFIED
1. AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION
The proposed LCP amendment will incorporate the HMP into the LCP, and make
corresponding changes to the Mello I, Mello I1 and Agua Hedionda land use plan
segments. The changes to the land use plan segments are required in order to maintain
consistency between these segments and the HMP. The land use plan revisions include
the addition of specific references to the HMP, definitions for environmentally sensitive
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1-03B
May 22,2003
Page 18 of 48
habitat and associated resources, inclusion of Coastal Act Section 30233 in the LCP,
mitigation for impacts to upland habitat, and required buffers and fuel modification
zones. The Mello I1 LUP changes provide specific standards for several undeveloped
properties located within individual planning areas to ensure protection of
environmentally sensitive habitat within the coastal zone. The second HMP addendum
mirrors these changes to ensure that both documents have been appropriately integrated
and will consistently work together.
Components of Preserve System
The draft HMP proposes to protect the endangered California Gnatcatcher and other listed species
by contributing to an interlinked regional preserve system. The proposed preserve area for the
HMP will be created from land in three different categories: hardline properties, standards areas,
and existing preserve. - Hardlines
Certain properties have been designated in the HMP with specific development/
conservation footprints, and are known as “hardline” properties. If development is
proposed on these sites in a manner that is substantially in conformance with the hardline,
the development will be authorized consistent with all other regulatory standards and
procedures. These hardline properties are shown on individual maps in Section D of the
HMP. The purpose of this process is to ensure that certain areas of onsite habitat will be
set aside for permanent preservation, and that the property owners have committed to
abide by the established development limitation upon approval of the HMP.
- Standards Areas
The second category of proposed preserve area in the HMP contains the “standards”
areas, for which the HMP contains guidance relative to future habitat preservation and the
siting of new development. The standards areas involve specific undeveloped properties
within the City that are located in the biological core and linkage areas identified in the
County MHCP. The City’s standards are focused geographically, using the Local
Facilities Management Zones identified in the City’s growth management plan. These
properties are proposed to have conservation goals and standards which would allow at
least 25% development of the site, but which provide for minimum conservation of 67%
of coastal sage scrub and 75% of gnatcatchers on each site. Several areas have
significantly higher standards for greater protection of individual resource areas.
Emphasis is placed upon creation of preservation comdors and linkage to the larger
MHCP habitat areas. Projects proposed within the standards areas will also require
additional consultation with the City and the wildlife agencies to determine whether the
project complies with the relevant standards and is consistent with the HMP. Upon
receiving approval of their development plans, these property owners will receive take
authorization.
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1 -03B
May 22,2003
Page 19 of 48
- Existing Preserve Areas
The third category contains existing preserve lands, such as the City’s three coastal
lagoons and associated wetlands, the Dawson Los Monos Reserve, the Carlsbad
Highlands Mitigation Bank, and other preserves located within previously-approved
development. Approximately 4,450 acres of existing preserve land will be incorporated
into the HMP. These areas, which include both private and public land, have already
been conserved for their wildlife value through previous development actions, such as
mitigation banks and required open space.
Preserve ManaPement
The HMP as submitted provides that areas that have been placed into open space preserve
will be turned over to an appropriate conservation agency with responsibility for the
overall HMP preserve system, to be managed in perpetuity for conservation purposes.
The City of Carlsbad is currently preparing the long-term management and monitoring
plan for its portion of the MHCP addressed in the HMP. Interim management will cover
the first three years following approval of the HMP, during which time management
activities will generally be the responsibility of the owners of the conserved lands unless
other arrangements have been made. During the three-year period, the long-term
management plan will be developed in cooperation with existing reserve managers,
private owners of conserved lands, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The long-term management plan will address habitat restoration and revegetation,
hydrology and flood control, recreation and public access, species reintroduction,
enforcement, adaptive management, and monitoring. Section F of the HMP provides a
detailed summary of the land management processes and required actions that will take
place as part of long-term management. It is anticipated that the conserved lands will be
owned and managed by a number of public and private entities until such time as a single
conservation entity may be designated for overall management. Roles and
responsibilities for management of conserved habitat shall be conducted in a manner
consistent with the implementing agreement 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 established in the future in connection with the MHCP planning efforts,
some or all of the management activities for the Carlsbad HMP preserve system could
ultimately be merged with the regional program.
The proposed amendments to the Mello I, Mello I1 and Agua Hedionda land use plan
segments will incorporate additional requirements for establishment of a preserve
management plan. Section 7-1.10 of the Mello I land use plan and Section 3-1.10 of the
Mello I1 and Agua Hedionda land use plans provide that land inside and outside the
coastal zone which serves as mitigation for habitat impacts in the coastal zone shall be
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1 -03B
May 22,2003
Page 20 of 48
permanently retired from development potential, and secured as part of the HMP preserve
management plan as a condition of development approval.
As discussed in greater detail below, the second HMP addendum provides that in the
coastal zone, there will be no net loss of coastal sage scrub, maritime succulent scrub,
southern maritime chaparral, southern mixed chaparral, native grassland or oak
woodland. For impacts that are allowed to coastal zone sites with these habitat types,
mitigation shall include a creation component, which requires establishment of new
habitat area at a ratio of at least 1 :1 (one acre of creation for every one acre of habitat
impact) in order to achieve the no net loss standard. In certain appropriate cases,
substantial restoration may also be substituted for creation. Restoration and enhancement
will also be acceptable for mitigation beyond the 1 : 1 creation requirement. Onsite or
offsite open space preserve areas may be utilized to satisfy required mitigation for habitat
impacts, if the preserve areas are disturbed and suitable for restoration or enhancement,
or they are devoid of habitat value and therefore suitable for the 1:l mitigation
component requiring creation or substantial restoration of habitat. Habitat mitigation
requirements other than the creation or substantial restoration component may be
partially or wholly fulfilled by acquisition of existing like habitat and/or retirement of
development credits on existing like habitat with permanent preservation as part of the
HMP preserve management plan.
The preserve management plan shall address the mitigation areas to the satisfaction of the
City, the wildlife agencies and the Coastal Commission, and ensure adequate funding to
protect the preserve as open space and maintain the biological values of the mitigation
areas in perpetuity. At a minimum, monitoring reports shall be required as a condition of
development approval after the first and third year of habitat mitigation efforts. No
impacts to habitat may occur until management provisions and funding are in place. As
submitted, the LCP amendment provides that the preserve management plan must be
incorporated into the Implementation Plan of the LCP through an LCP amendment within
one year of Commission certification of the HMP as part of the certified LCP.
Development Standards
As proposed by the City, new policy language has been provided that defines the nature and scope
of the HMP in relation to the LCP, establishes revised resource protection provisions that reflect
the goals of both Chapter 3 and the HMP, adds definitions related to sensitive habitat and
wetlands, and provides detailed requirements for habitat loss mitigation, buffers, and fuel
modification restrictions. Portions of the existing LCP have been revised to ensure consistency in
requirements for wetland buffers, grading and erosion control, and protection of steep slopes.
Individual properties have also been addressed in the second HMP addendum as additional
“standards” properties. The development standards that will be applied to these specific sites are
intended to provide development requirements and restrictions that will ensure protection of the
most critical habitat areas and protect proposed wildlife corridor linkages within the coastal zone,
while allowing some limited impacts to ESHA.
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1-03B
May 22,2003
Page 21 of 48
The following mitigation ratios will be required for authorized habitat impacts on
properties within the coastal zone:
0
0
0
2: 1 for coastal sage scrub
3: 1 for all other rare native vegetation except wetlands
3: 1 for riparian areas
4: 1 for vernal pools, other seasonal wetlands, and salt marsh
Additionally, the 1999 draft HMP with addenda, as proposed, contains provisions for
mitigation of adverse impacts to coastal sage scrub and other native vegetative
communities. In review of coastal development, the City must evaluate adverse impacts
to ESHA in the coastal zone on a site-by-site basis to determine if such adverse impacts
are permissible under the Coastal Act and the HMP, and if so, whether they are
adequately offset or mitigated by revegetation, habitat restoration, habitat creation, andor
other habitat enhancement measures either on or offsite. In the second addendum to the
December 1999 HMP, the City has proposed revisions to the mitigation program for
application in the coastal zone.
These revisions address, among other things, requirements for creation, restoration,
substantial restoration and revegetation when used as mitigation for habitat impacts.
“Creation” means that habitat will be newly established in an area that does not currently
contain that functional habitat type, but where the soils, topography, etc. are appropriate
for long-term viabililty and may have supported the habitat in the past. “Restoration”
means that habitat which is recognizable as belonging to a specific vegetation
community, but which has been previously disturbed and/or contains exotic invasive
species so as to reduce its functional value, will be enhanced to return the habitat area to
overall health and typical functional value. “Substantial restoration” is applicable to
highly-degraded areas where the effective function of the habitat type has been lost, but
which still contains remnant plants of the identified habitat. “Revegetation” means
replanting with appropriate species, and is applicable to both restoration efforts in
existing habitat, and to creation where habitat does not currently exist.
Mitigation outside the coastal zone will be considered acceptable if, in addition to
meeting the criteria identified above, the mitigation clearly ensures higher levels of
habitat protection and value in the context of a regional habitat preservation program than
would be provided by providing all mitigation within the coastal zone, and furthers the
goal of concentrating development within the coastal zone. Preservation of existing,
onsite native vegetation is considered mitigation in the draft 1999 HMP with addendum.
However, the second HMP addendum specifically addresses mitigation requirements in
the coastal zone, and does not allow onsite preservation to count as mitigation.
Additionally, the second HMP addendum provides that in the coastal zone, there will be
no net loss of coastal sage scrub, maritime succulent scrub, southern maritime chaparral,
southern mixed chaparral, native grassland or oak woodland.
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1 -03b
May 22,2003
Page 22 of 48
When impacts are permitted to any of these vegetation types, mitigation shall include a
“creation” component, as previously defined, at a ratio of at least 1 : 1 (one acre of
creation for every one acre of habitat impact) in order to achieve the no net, loss standard.
In certain appropriate cases, “substantial restoration” may also be substituted for creation.
Onsite or offsite open space preserve areas may be utilized to satisfy required mitigation
for habitat impacts, if the preserve areas are disturbed and suitable for restoration or
enhancement, or they are devoid of habitat value and therefore suitable for the 1 : 1
mitigation component requiring creation or substantial restoration of habitat. It is
important to note that mitigation credit through acquisition, restoration and/or
enhancement cannot be allowed on sites which have already been preserved or required
as mitigation areas for some other impact or entitlement.
Buffers for coastal habitat would be established as follows:
0
0
A minimum 100 foot buffer shall be required from all freshwater and saltwater
wetlands areas.
A minimum 50 foot buffer shall be required from riparian areas and coast oak
woodlands. No development or brush management shall take place within the
buffer area for these habitat types except as otherwise specified herein.
If a riparian area is associated with steep slopes (>25%), the 50 foot buffer shall
be measured from the top of the slope.
For steep slopes not associated with a riparian area, and for nonsteep areas (<25%
slope) with native vegetation, a minimum 20 foot buffer shall be required. For
steep slopes, the buffer shall be measured from the top of the slope. No
development may be located within the buffer except as otherwise specified
herein. However, if brush management is required for fire protection, Zone 3 (to
a maximum of 20 feet) may be located within the buffer area if allowed by the fire
management authority.
Zones 1 and 2 for brush management and fire protection, where required, shall be
located on the portion of the property proposed for development and outside of
required buffers. Any plantings in Zone 2 must consist of native vegetation
appropriate to the habitat.
Recreation trails and public access pathways may be permitted in the required
buffer area within the 15 feet closest to the adjacent developable area, provided
that the construction of the trails and/or pathways and their proposed uses are
consistent with the preservation goals for adjacent habitat, and that appropriate
measures are taken for their physical separation from sensitive areas.
0
Trails and passive recreation are an allowable use in ESHA, with certain exceptions such
as wetlands. When buffers are 50 feet or more in width, recreational trails shall be
located in the first 15 feet of the buffer closest to development, to provide maximum
protection for the preserved area. Grading in buffers would not be permitted with the
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1-03B
May 22,2003
Page 23 of 48
exception of fuel modification as specified. The 1999 draft HMP did not propose any
buffers for upland habitat, and did not address fuel modification or brush management
restrictions, or the placement and buffering of recreational trails. The above criteria for
buffers, fuel modification restrictions, and the location of recreational trails considerably
strengthens the draft HMP’s protection for coastal habitat.
Hiphlv-Constrained Properties
There are a number of properties in the coastal zone that are entirely or almost entirely
constrained by ESHA. The second HMP addendum provides that for those coastal zone
properties which have more than 80% of their area in ESHA, at least 75% of the property
shall be conserved. Alternatively, if the City, with the concurrence of the wildlife
agencies and the Coastal Commission agree upon a hardline preserve boundary for any of
these properties, then a new hardline map may be created in the HMP through an LCP
amendment and the amount of onsite preservation as identified in the hardline boundary
shall apply. A majority of the remaining undeveloped parcels in the coastal zone with
large areas of ESHA are located in the Zone 20 and 21 planning areas. These are
individually addressed in the second HMP addendum, beginning on Page 8.
2. CONFORMANCE WITH SECTION 30001.5 OF THE COASTAL ACT
The Commission finds, pursuant to Section 305 12.2b of the Coastal Act, that portions of
the Land Use Plan as set forth in the preceding resolutions, are not in conformance with
the policies and requirements of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act to the extent necessary to
achieve the basic state goals specified in Section 30001.5 of the Coastal Act which states:
The legislature further finds and declares that the basic goals of the state for the
Coastal Zone are to:
a) Protect, maintain and, where feasible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and manmade resources.
b) Assure orderly, balanced utilization and conservation of coastal zone
resources taking into account the social and economic needs of the people of
the state.
c) Maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public recreational opportunities in the coastal zone consistent with sound resource
conservation principles and constitutionally protected rights of
private property owners.
d) Assure priority for coastal-dependent and coastal-related development over
other development on the coast.
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1 -03B
May 22,2003
Page 24 of 48
e) Encourage state and local initiatives and cooperation in preparing procedures
to implement coordinated planning and development for mutually beneficial
uses, including educational uses, in the coastal zone.
The Commission therefore finds, for the specific reasons detailed below, that the
proposed amendments to the Mello I, Mello I1 and Agua Hedionda land use plans do not
conform with Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act or the goals of the state for the coastal zone.
3. FINDINGS FOR DENIALAYONCONFORMITY WITH CHAPTER 3 OF
THE COASTAL ACT, AS SUBMITTED.
A. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area
Section 30240 states:
(a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant
disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be
allowed within those areas.
(b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks
and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would
significantly degrade those areas and shall be compatible with the continuance of those
habitat and recreation areas.
Section 30250 of the Coastal Act requires that new development be concentrated
in areas able to support it without adversely affecting coastal resources and states,
in part:
(a) New residential, commercial, or industrial development, except as otherwise
provided in this division, shall be located within, contiguous with, or in close
proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such
areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services
and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individually or
cumulatively, on coastal resources.. . .
As noted above, Section 30240 of the Coastal Act requires protection of environmentally
sensitive habitat areas (ESHA). As defined in Section 30107.5 of the Coastal Act, ESHA
is defined as “any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or
especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which
could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments.” As
previously described in Section I.C., the HMP is a segment of the state’s larger NCCP
program that is being developed in response to the listing of the California Gnatcatcher as
an endangered species. The focus of the NCCP and HMP is to preserve coastal sage
scrub and related upland habitats that provide support for the gnatcatcher but have
become increasingly rare and fragmented. However, not all of these habitat areas will be
-.
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1 -03B
May 22,2003
Page 25 of 48
protected under the NCCP and HMP program, which attempts to provide a balanced
approach between development and habitat protection. The Commission finds that the
potential impacts to ESHA that would be allowed under the 1999 draft Carlsbad HMP
with addenda, when considered individually, are inconsistent with Section 30240 of the
Coastal Act.
Currently, the certified LCP only protects native habitat located on slopes greater than
25% grade, known as “dual criteria slopes.” This approach was established in LCPs that
were originally developed during the 1980s, prior to the listing of the California
gnatcatcher and other rare species. The Carlsbad LCP has not been updated to respond to
these new listings and the inception of the NCCP process. The Commission has
acknowledged the need for such updates to the LCP for several years, beginning with the
review of the proposed Cannon Road extension in 1994. The Commission supports the
submittal of the HMP as part of the LCP to ensure that both plans work together to
protect ESHA in the coastal zone. All of the sensitive resources protected through the
NCCP process are also protected by the Coastal Act.
Revisions in Second Addendum to the HMP
The proposed LCP amendment contains several significant changes to the currently certified LCP
and to the 1999 draft HMP which will be applicable to development within the coastal zone.
In general, the second HMP addendum proposes mitigation standards within the coastal
zone that provide greater protection than those established in the 1999 draft HMP. These
enhanced mitigation ratios will apply to the entire City. The 1999 draft HMP required
2: 1 mitigation (including onsite preservation) for coastal sage scrub occupied by the
California gnatcatcher, and 1 : 1 mitigation for unoccupied coastal sage scrub, mixed
coastal sage scrubkhaparral and chaparral other than southern maritime chaparral.
Southern maritime chaparral, southern coastal bluff scrub, maritime succulent scrub and
native grassland land required 3: 1 mitigation. Wetlands, vernal pools and riparian habitat
impacts required mitigation to meet a no net loss standard. Within the coastal zone, the
City’s current proposal will require 2: 1 mitigation for all coastal sage scrub and 3: 1
mitigation for all other rare native upland vegetation, 3: 1 mitigation for riparian areas,
and 4: 1 mitigation for vernal pools, other seasonal wetlands and salt marsh. The higher
mitigation ratios included in the second HMP addendum are intended to ensure that,
given the difficulties of establishing and maintaining functionally valuable habitat
communities, the long-tenn goal for no net loss of coastal habitat resources can be met.
Revisions to Hardlines
Since the 1999 draft HMP was prepared, some of the properties included in the standards
areas have developed hardlines that are acceptable to the City, the wildlife agencies, and
the Commission, and have been approved through LCP amendments. These properties
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1-03B
May 22,2003
Page 26 of 48
should be removed from the “standards area” category, and have permanent hardline
maps included in the final HMP. Additionally, one new hardline in the coastal zone
(Aura Circle) has been developed by City staff since the LCP amendment was submitted
to the Commission for review. In accordance with Resolution 2003-038 passed by the
Carlsbad City Council on February 4,2003, the Council delegated authority to City staff
to incorporate new hardlines into HMP prior to the Commission’s consideration of the
LCP amendment.
1999 Draft HMP Hardlines - Currently, there are six hardline properties in the 1999 draft
HMP that are located partially or completely within the Carlsbad coastal zone (City Golf
Course, Manzanita Partners, Veterans Memorial Park, Hub Park and SDG&E Property,
Zone 19 Park, and Kelly Ranch). During review by the Commission and/or Commission
staff, these hardlines have been addressed as follows:
1. City Golf Course - Over a one-year period, City staff and Commission staff
worked to develop a revised golf course site layout that eliminates impacts to
wetlands and southern maritime chaparral in the coastal zone, and allows all
required coastal sage scrub mitigation (2: 1 ratio) to be provided onsite to restore
and improve wildlife corridor connections. The revised golf course layout and
hardline has been submitted to the Commission as part of the second HMP
addendum.
2. Manzanita Partners - An amended hardline design for the Manzanita Partners site
was approved by the Commission in July 2002 (Carlsbad LCP Amendment No. 1-
OOE) with conditions for impact limitations to protect onsite southern maritime
chaparral. These modifications should be reflected in an updated hardline map
consistent with the Commission’s approval of the LCP amendment authorizing a
rezone of the Manzanita property.
3. Hub ParWSDG&E Property- This site was the subject of Carlsbad Coastal
Development Permit #6-01- 167, approved by the Commission in October 2002,
which was conditioned so that the majority of steep slopes and wetland, riparian,
and upland native habitat areas would be placed into deed-restricted open space
and preserved. These conditions should be reflected in an updated hardline map
that is consistent with Exhibit 5 of CDP #6-01-167, as approved by the
Commission, and as shown in concept on attached Exhibit 13.
4. Kelly Ranch Master Plan - This LCP amendment No. 2-99D was approved by
the Commission for the 433 acre Kelly Ranch which includes a 195 acre
wetland preserve comprised of the wetlands and uplands of the eastern end of
Agua Hedionda Lagoon in Carlsbad. The LCP amendment rescinded the
previously certified Kelly Ranch Master Plan and replaced it with land use
designations and zoning due partially to the enactment of the NCCP. The City
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1 -03B
May 22,2003
Page 27 of 48
of Carlsbad and the wildlife agencies had worked together to implement the
NCCP planning process and establish the habitat corridors on the Kelly Ranch
property necessary to connect critical areas used by multiple species, such as
the gnatcatcher. These critical areas are to be preserved as open space as part
of the City of Carlsbad’s draft HMP. The proposed upland open space system
contains steep and non-steep areas containing primarily coastal sage scrub and
southern maritime chaparral vegetation in two core habitat corridors oriented
in a northhouth and an east/west direction which provide connectivity
between Macario Canyon, preserve areas to the south of Kelly Ranch and
Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Through the Commission’s review of the
comprehensive LCP amendment for the entire 433 acres, additional area was
placed into the open space system for its scenic quality as a natural landform,
in addition to its habitat value, specifically on Planning Areas D, J and L.
Steep slope areas outside the open space preserve were allowed to be
developed in order to concentrate development and maximize the preservation
of a contiguous, high quality habitat preserve system. The additional open
space on Planning Area L was not identified as a hardline at time of
Commission review of the Kelly Ranch LCP amendment and should, thus, be
added as a standard applicable to the Callahan parcel as part of the HMP and
proposed LUP amendment.
Veterans Memorial Park and Zone 19 Park - These park sites are City-owned lands for
which the City prepared hardlines as part of an overall conservation agreement with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the City’s contribution to the MHCP preserve system. A
revised hardline was prepared for the Zone 19 Park site through the City’s action for
Coastal Development Permit 6-CII-02-029/Local ID 1-3 1. The Commission’s suggested
modifications for Veteran’s Memorial Park would require development within areas of
steep slopes and/or native vegetation to be limited to passive recreational facilities, such as
recreational trails and picnic areas. Within the proposed development areas, grading of
steep slopes with native vegetation shall be limited to the minimum amount necessary to
allow such uses.
Through the proposed hardline and policy language addressing these park sites, most
of the significant areas of ESHA on these sites will be maintained, including the
eastern portion of Veterans Memorial Park and on the north and west sides of the Zone
19 Park. The preserve areas on Veterans Memorial Park will provide a continued
linkage between Linkage F and Core 4, which connects to Agua Hedionda Lagoon and
existing preserve area on the Kelly Ranch property. However, as proposed, some
steep slopes and habitat would be impacted by park development. The proposed
policy language in the revised Mello I1 LUP and Section 7.13 of the second HMP
addendum indicates that steep slope areas shall be planned for more passive type uses
with grading of such areas limited to the amount necessary to allow such uses.
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1 -03B
May 22,2003
Page 28 of 48
The Commission’s concern is with regard to the areas shown for development that are
outside the preserve open space corridor. Detailed biological surveys and slope
mapping have not been made available for Veterans Memorial Park; however, the
HMP hardline map indicates there are three non-contiguous areas of coastal sage scrub
and one small area of riparian scrub within the area shown for development, some of
which have been previously disturbed by construction of Faraday Road and adjacent
development. The proposed standards would provide some protection for these areas
while allowing compatible park uses, by specifying that only passive recreation should
be allowed, and that grading should be limited. However, the Commission finds these
standards for the park development are not specific enough given the uncertainty of the
actual park development plan and the fact that the site may not be developed for 20
years or more. The revised language should indicate that development in steep slopes
and native vegetation shall be limited to passive recreational facilities, such as trails
and picnic areas. Within the proposed development areas, grading of steep slopes with
native vegetation shall be limited to the minimum amount necessary to allow those
passive recreational uses. In addition to these standards, all the mitigation and buffer
requirements of the LCP shall apply. Such revisions to the standards applicable to
future development of the site should be incorporated into the HMP and the Mello I1
LUP to accompany the hardline maps and assure consistency with Coastal Act
requirements.
Aura Circle Proposed Hardline - The Aura Circle proposed hardline map was
submitted by the City on May 16,2003, as an addition to the LCP amendment package
and HMP second addendum. The Aura Circle property, which totals 15 acres,
contains approximately 5.45 acres of coastal sage scrub and native grassland, which
would be considered ESHA. These native vegetation areas comprise approximately
40% of the total site area. Negotiations between Commission staff and the property
owner focused on the dispersed locations of existing disturbed, developable areas, the
difficulties of accessing those areas without habitat impacts, and the desirability of
creating a single large habitat area on the site. The resulting hardline map allows a
reasonable development footprint, while requiring onsite restoration of graded slopes,
restoration of onsite disturbed habitat, and preservation of a large contiguous area of
open space (approximately 60% of the site). To allow concentration of development
while maximizing protection of ESHA, the following conditions should be required for
the Aura Circle hardline:
Development shall be clustered on the south portion of the property. Grading
shall be kept entirely off the largest area of CSS in the north part of the site.
Created slopes shall be revegetated with coastal sage scrub, and existing
disturbed areas of the project site that are not identified for development on the
hardline map shall be used for onsite mitigation through restoratiordrecreation
of coastal sage scrub. Post-development habitat area and open space shall be
placed into the HMP preserve.
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1-03B
May 22,2003
Page 29 of 48
Potential Hardlines for Standards Properties with Development Approvals - Since the
1999 draft HMP was submitted to the Commission, several properties that were
included in the draft “standards areas” have come before the Commission as rezones
that separated the subject sites into developable area and preserve area, with zoning
map conditions attached to protect onsite habitat. These properties should be removed
from the “standards areas” designation and have the approved development/
preservation areas appropriately delineated on hardlinemaps to be incorporated into
the final HMP. The subject properties are:
1. Roesch Property - In June 2001, the Commission approved the rezone
of this site (CAR LCPA 1-OOD) from Limited Control (LC) to One-
Family Residential (R-1-7,500-Q) and Open Space (0-s). In its action,
the Commission approved the proposed amendment with suggested
modifications that addressed restrictions on use of the 2 1.87-acre
designated open space area, revegetation and restoration to mitigate
impacts to native vegetation, and maintenance and monitoring
requirements for mitigation areas. The development area and open
space preserve area should be shown on a hardline map that is
consistent with the Commission’s action as described above.
’
2. Carlsbad Promenademedeemer by the Sea - In June 2002, the
Commission approved the rezone of these sites from LC to One-Family
Residential (CAR LCPA 1 -02B&C). Areas containing native habitat were
required to be preserved under an open space conservation easement. In
its action, the Commission approved the proposed amendments with
suggested modifications that addressed protection of native habitat and
wetlands, restricted use of open space areas to habitat conservation,
restoration and enhancement, and required buffers between structures and
native habitat. The development areas and open space preserve areas
should be shown on a hardline map that is consistent with the
Commission’s actions as described above.
3. Thompson-Tabata - In August 2002, the Commission approved the rezone
of this site from LC to One Family Residential and Residential Density
Multiple (RD/M). In its approval, the Commission approved the proposed
amendment with suggested modifications that addressed preservation of
onsite habitat through an open space conservation easement, restricted
uses in the open space to habitat conservation, restoration and
enhancement, and operation and maintenance of existing storm water
facilities in the riparian area as necessary to serve existing and future
development, and provided buffer and development separation
requirements for upland and wetland habitat. The development areas and
open space preserve areas should be shown on a hardline map that is
consistent with the Commission’s actions as described above.
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1 -03B
May 22,2003
Page 30 of 48
As submitted, the representation of the above described properties in the proposed
1999 draft HMP with addenda do not reflect subsequent City and Commission actions
on several of the properties and/or negotiations between Commission and City staff
which have occurred since the 1999 draft was circulated for public review. Revision
of the maps and associated policies are necessary, in some cases, to conform to Coastal
Act requirements. Additionally, there are several figures in the HMP that indicate
proposed standard areas, proposed hardlines and acreages of habitat conserved and/or
impacted in the different planning areas as a result of the approved hardlines. These
maps and figures should be revised to reflect the approved changes mentioned above.
If the above-described changes are made, the hardlines will be consistent with the LCP
and the Coastal Act.
B. Revisions to “Standards” AreasProperties
To ensure consistency and maximum habitat protection for remaining undeveloped
coastal properties, the City has prepared standards that will be applied to all of those
undeveloped properties. These standards address buffers, brush management and fuel
modification, protection of wetlands, mitigation requirements and ratios, and specify
maximum developable areas for highly constrained properties. In general,
implementation of the LCP, as amended, will increase the level of planning detail on
individual coastal properties containing ESHA, in order to maximize protection of the
key habitat and wildlife movement areas in the coastal zone that are necessary for the
overall success of the HMP and its preservation goals.
Many properties included in the “standards” areas are currently zoned Limited Control
(LC), which was a zoning designation approved in the 1981 LCP for areas which were in
transition from agriculture to urban land uses. At the time the LCP was certified, it was
not known what the appropriate standards applicable to future buildout of these properties
would be. However, at that particular time, it was clear that application of residential
zoning to these sites was premature based on concerns about topography, environmental
sensitivity, and then-existing agricultural use, and how these issues would be addressed in
the urbanization process. The certified LCP implementation plan specifies, in Section
21.39.010 of the City’s zoning code, that future land use planning for LC areas should be
carried out prior to any rezoning of these lands for urban development. This planning
had not yet been undertaken, and individual rezoning requests, in the form of LCP
amendments, have been submitted to the Commission on a piecemeal basis.
The 1999 draft HMP proposed that properties within the “standards areas” should be
allowed to develop at least 25% of the site. For those properties containing coastal sage
scrub and/or gnatcatchers, a minimum of 67% of coastal sage scrub and 75% of
gnatcatchers on each site was required to be preserved. The second HMP addendum
strengthens these habitat protection standards for coastal zone properties, by specifying
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1-03B
May 22,2003
Page 31 of 48
that for those properties which are all or nearly all covered with environmentally
sensitive habitat (i.e., 80% or more of the site), a maximum of 25% site development will
be allowed. In general, the Coastal Act supports a finding that areas within the coastal
zone containing significant stands of coastal sage scrub, especially those that are
occupied by listed species (e.g., gnatcatchers) or used for foraging by those species, are
environmentally sensitive habitat areas. Other vegetative communities, such as southern
maritime chaparral (SMC), may also be determined to be ESHA based upon their overall
rarity, andor the presence of sensitive plant and animal species or its foraging use and
habitat values. Potential exceptions to this standard may be made on the basis of case-by-
case scientific review, and may include areas of very degraded, highly fragmented, or
isolated habitat.
As submitted, the LCP revisions are not in conformance with Chapter 3 policies.
Specifically, the standards identified for certain properties in the Zone 21 planning area
do not acknowledge all the onsite resource values and development constraints in order to
ensure habitat connectivity and establishment of a viable open space preserve. Some
corrections are necessary to address actual habitat types and the alignment of the future
Poinsettia Lane extension through Zone 2 1. The proposed extension of Poinsettia Lane,
which is a Circulation Element road, was identified as the least environmentally-
damaging alternative in a prior amendment to the certified Carlsbad LCP.
Zone 21 contains a majority of the remaining undeveloped habitat in the City’s coastal
zone. Within Zone 2 1, the largest area of contiguous habitat is located on several
adjoining properties between Ambrosia Lane and El Camino Real. Most of these
properties consist largely of southern maritime chaparral, along with an oak
woodlandriparian corridor running roughly north-south through the area, and transitional
areas of coastal sage scrub. The extension for Poinsettia Lane is proposed to run from
northwest to southeast through the middle of this corridor, which will have unavoidable
impacts to the oak woodland area on the Namikas property.
The relatively large amount of intact habitat, the connections to other existing open space
preserve areas, and the general rarity of southern maritime chaparral and associated
narrow endemic species, establish this as an environmentally sensitive habitat area
requiring priority protection. Zone 21 contains most of the habitats comprising the
western half of Core Area 6 as provided in the 1999 draft HMP, which is the primary link
between the eastern and western halves of the City. The 1999 draft HMP requires that
the majority of remaining natural habitat be conserved, and that there should be a net loss
of no more than 10% of coastal sage scrub and southern maritime chaparral in this area.
Additionally, the draft HMP requires that habitat should be conserved in a continuous
configuration across the zone to allow for continued east-west connectivity and animal
movement between El Camino Real (Zone 10) and Linkage Area F (Zones 19 and 20).
The planning standards specify that removal of southern maritime chaparral, maritime
succulent scrub and narrow endemic plant populations should be minimized. Habitat
connectivity and wildlife movement should be maximized with a habitat corridor
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1-03B
May 22,2003
Page 32 of 48
between 500-1000 feet, with a minimum width of 500 feet. In order to establish a viable
wildlife corridor in this area, and preserve the maximum amount of environmentally
sensitive habitat in accordance with these standards, it is appropriate to require a 25%
development limitation for those properties with 80% or more of their area in ESHA.
This limitation is consistent with the standards proposed in the second HMP addendum,
as previously described.
For these properties in Zone 21 , it is important to cluster development to the maximum
extent feasible, in order to reduce direct habitat impacts, provide maximum buffer areas,
and establish the widest feasible wildlife corridor that provides the most benefit for
wildlife movement. The proposed corridor alignment will connect to existing open space
on the Lohf subdivision to the east, and the Manzanita property to the northeast. Direct
habitat impacts should be reduced by clustering development on these sites along the east
side of Ambrosia Lane, on the west side of the proposed Poinsettia Lane extension, and
along existing disturbed habitat south of Cassia Drive (the northern boundary of the
corridor).
Within this corridor area, specific standards have been developed for the following
properties: RWSB, Maldonado, Sudduth, Namikas, Kevane and Reiter. These properties
have been addressed as follows:
RWSB - This property is located at the northernmost point of the corridor, near the
proposed intersection of the Poinsettia Lane extension and Cassia Lane, and is zoned
LC (Limited Control). The property contains southern maritime chaparral, with
disturbed areas present along the north and west sides of the property. As proposed in
the second HMP addendum, development would be limited to the disturbed portion of
the property adjacent to Cassia Lane, and impacts to southern maritime chaparral
would be limited to the construction of Poinsettia Lane and an additional 10%
encroachment for access purposes. Based upon additional information which has been
received concerning the amount of area that will likely be impacted by the grading
impacts from construction of the future Poinsettia Lane extension, this standard has
been revised to ensure that a reasonable development area can still be provided, given
these limitations. In accordance with the proposed standards for highly-constrained
properties, suggested modifications are necessary for the RWSB property that would
limit development to a maximum of 25% of the property, not including Poinsettia
Lane construction, and clustered along Cassia Lane and Poinsettia Lane. A wildlife
corridor connection should be provided on the east side of the property to the
Manzanita open space to the east.
Maldonado - The Maldonado property is located south of RWSB and is currently in
agricultural use, with a zone classification of LC. There is no significant native habitat
currently on the site. The proposed Poinsettia Lane extension will bisect the property
east-west. As proposed in the second HMP addendum, development would be limited
to the area southwest of the proposed Poinsettia Lane extension. Based upon
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1 -03B
May 22,2003
Page 33 of 48
additional information which has been received concerning the amount of area that
will likely be impacted by the roadway construction and grading impacts of the future
Poinsettia Lane extension, this standard should be revised to ensure that a reasonable
development area can still be provided, given these limitations and the lack of habitat
on the property. In order to provide for a wildlife corridor connection on the east side
that will connect to the RWSB and Manzanita properties, the suggested modifications
should require that development shall be concentrated along the Poinsettia Lane
extension and limited to the western half of the property. The eastern half of the
property provides an excellent opportunity for other properties to do offsite mitigation
for impacts to southern maritime chaparral.
Namikas - The Namikas property is located south of Maldonado and is 90-95%
comprised of southern maritime chaparral and coast oak woodlandriparian area. The
property is currently zoned LC. The proposed Poinsettia Lane extension will be
constructed on the east side of the property. Consistent with the proposed standards
for highly constrained properties containing all or nearly all ESHA, development is
proposed to be limited to a maximum of 25% of the property, not including Poinsettia
Lane construction, and shall be clustered on the western portion of the property. No
impacts to coast oak woodland, riparian areas or wetlands except for Poinsettia Lane
extension will be allowed. To provide greater specificity for corridor planning, the
suggested modifications require that a wildlife corridor linkage should be provided on
the eastern portion of the property, including the onsite coast oak woodland area, and
be designed to connect to open space on the neighboring Maldonado, Manzanita and
Lohf properties.
Sudduth - The Sudduth property is located south of Maldonado and is approximately
90% comprised of southern maritime chaparral and coast oak woodlandriparian area.
The property is currently zoned LC. The proposed Poinsettia Lane extension will
affect the northeast comer of the property. Consistent with the proposed standards for
highly constrained properties containing all or nearly all ESHA, development is
proposed to be limited to a maximum of 25% of the property, not including Poinsettia
Lane construction, and shall be clustered on the western portion of the property. No
impacts to coast oak woodland, riparian areas or wetlands except for Poinsettia Lane
extension will be allowed. To provide greater specificity for corridor planning, the
suggested modifications should require that a wildlife corridor linkage shall be
provided on the eastern portion of the property, including the onsite coast oak
woodland area, and be designed to connect to open space on the neighboring Namikas
and Lohf properties.
Kevane - The Kevane property is located south of Sudduth, and has been identified as
containing southern maritime chaparral and coast oak woodlandhiparian area (see
attached memorandum, Exhibit 19). The Kevane property is comprised of four 5-acre
parcels zoned R-1 (Residential One Family). The property was included as a hardline
in the 1999 draft HMP with addendum, but has been changed to a standards area in the
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1-03B
May 22,2003
Page 34 of 48
proposed second HMP addendum and the Mello I1 LUP revisions. Consistent with the
proposed standards for highly constrained properties containing all or nearly all ESHA,
development is proposed to be limited to a maximum of 25% of the property, to be
clustered on the western portion of the site adjacent to Ambrosia Lane. Development
on the eastern portion of the property would represent significant encroachment into
the logical habitat corridor and linkage which will be established on adjacent
properties, and would bisect the connection between the open space already
established as part of the residential development directly adjacent to the east (Lohf),
and the preserve area to be established on this property. No impacts to coast oak
woodland, riparian areas or wetlands will be allowed. To provide greater specificity
for corridor planning, the suggested modifications should require that a wildlife
corridor linkage shall be provided on the eastern portion of the property, including the
onsite coast oak woodland area, and be designed to connect to open space on the
neighboring Sudduth, Lohf and Reiter properties. The suggested modifications also
remove an incorrect reference to the Poinsettia Lane extension, which will not be
constructed through this property.
Reiter - This property is located south of Kevane, and is zoned LC. The majority of
the site contains southern maritime chaparral. Consistent with the proposed standards
for highly constrained properties containing all or nearly all ESHA, development is
proposed to be limited to a maximum of 25% of the property, not including Poinsettia
Lane construction, and shall be clustered on the western portion of the property. No
impacts to coast oak woodland, riparian areas or wetlands will be allowed. To provide
greater specificity for corridor planning, the suggested modifications should require
that a wildlife corridor linkage shall be provided on the eastern portion of the property,
and be designed to connect to open space on the Kevane and Lohf properties to the
north and east. The suggested modifications also remove an incorrect reference to the
Poinsettia Lane extension, which will not be constructed through this property.
The standards proposed in the second HMP addendum require the wildlife corridor
located on the above-described properties to average 500 feet to 1000 feet in width, with
a minimum width of 500 feet (where narrower constrictions from existing development
or other constraints don’t already exist). Development must be located at least 50 feet
from the drip line of the oak woodland, and 20 feet from upland native habitat such as
southern maritime chaparral. One property that is located in the middle of this area,
Maldonado, is currently in agricultural use and does not contain any native habitat.
However, its location makes it essential for continuation of the corridor, and provides an
ideal opportunity for other properties to undertake offsite mitigation in the form of habitat
creation, thus enhancing the corridor’s overall habitat value. For this property, a 50% site
development limit is appropriate in order to maintain corridor width and integrity.
As submitted in the second HMP addendum, the standards for Zone 2 1 direct potential
development to the western portion of the above-described properties and protect oak woodland
and riparian areas. However, sufficient detail is not provided to acknowledge the environmental
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1 -03B
May 22,2003
Page 35 of 48
sensitivity of southern maritime chaparral, establish the location and appropriate standards for a
viable habitat corridor, and direct restoration of onsite disturbed areas within the preserve
boundaries. Revisions to the standards are necessary to establish more specific development
limits, especially since, with the exception of one property (Maldonado), the properties in this
corridor are all or nearly all ESHA. ,
4. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL, IF MODIFIED
A comparison of the above requirements, if modified, with current LCP standards for habitat
protection, indicates that based on available information, approximately 40% greater conservation
of environmentally sensitive habitat will result in the Zone 21 planning area. As previously noted,
the certified LCP only protects native upland habitat on steep slopes, does not provide buffers for
upland habitat, and does not place overall development restrictions on properties that are all or
nearly all in environmentally sensitive habitat. The proposed standards in the second HMP
addendum, if modified, will meet Chapter 3 requirements by maximizing habitat conservation
while allowing a reasonable development area, establishing an open space preserve corridor that
will protect the most sensitive areas and allow wildlife movement, and clustering future
development adjacent to existing disturbed areas and urban development.
A. Conflict Resolution/ESHA and Concentration of Development
The Commission can approve an LUP amendment that is inconsistent with Chapter 3
policies only if it finds that the approval of the development raises conflicts between
Coastal Act policies and that, on balance, the project as approved is most protective of
significant coastal resources. The policy conflicts which arise in this LCP amendment
request result from the fact that all areas determined to be ESHA would not be preserved,
and concentration of development would not be achieved. In other words, to
appropriately concentrate development and create a habitat preserve that addresses the
long-term viability and conservation of identified sensitive species, some impacts to
ESHA in the coastal zone must be accepted.
Section 30007.5 of the Coastal Act provides the Commission with the ability to resolve
conflicts between Coastal Act policies. The Commission finds that Sections 30240 and
30250 of the Coastal Act must be considered when reviewing the proposed habitat
impacts, and the development patterns that would result fiom implementation of the draft
HMP.
Section 30240 states:
(a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant
disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be
allowed within those areas.
(b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1 -03B
May 22,2003
Page 36 of 48
and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would
significantly degrade those areas and shall be compatible with the continuance of those
habitat and recreation areas.
Section 30250 of the Coastal Act requires that new development be concentrated
in areas able to support it without adversely affecting coastal resources and states,
in part:
(a) New residential, commercial, or industrial development, except as otherwise
provided in this division, shall be located within, contiguous with, or in close
proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such
areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services
and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individually or
cumulatively, on coastal resources.. . .
The Commission finds that the draft HMP would allow impacts to individual areas of
ESHA for uses that are not dependent on the ESHA, which is inconsistent with Sections
30240 of the Coastal Act. However, the Commission finds that the coastal resources of
the LCP area will be, on balance, best protected by concentrating allowable development
adjacent to existing urban services and other developed areas. Additionally, greater
benefit will be obtained from preserving large contiguous areas of the most
environmentally sensitive vegetation and wildlife areas rather than preserving all
fragmented pieces of habitat in place.
In order for the Commission to utilize the conflict resolution provision of Section
30007.5, the Commission must first establish that a substantial conflict exists between
two statutory directives contained in the Coastal Act. In this case, as described above, the
draft HMP is inconsistent with Coastal Act policies that protect environmentally sensitive
habitat area. Although the City has proposed changes to the HMP and associated policies
of the certified land use plan that would delete potential impacts to wetlands in the
coastal zone, impacts to environmentally sensitive habitat would still result. However, to
deny the LCP amendment based on this inconsistency with the referenced Coastal Act
requirements would reduce the City’s ability to concentrate proposed development
contiguous with existing urban development, and away from the most sensitive habitat
areas, as required by Section 30250. If the LCP amendment is not approved, dispersed
patterns of development will occur that are inconsistent with Section 30250. Denial of
the LCP amendment would also prevent the resource protection policies of the LCP from
being upgraded to clearly protect ESHA that is not located on steep slopes.
The Commission notes that the HMP proposes mitigation for habitat impacts at ratios
ranging from 1 : 1 to 4: 1, depending on the habitat type. At minimum, 1 : 1 mitigation in
the form of new creation is required for any impacts; additional mitigation may be in the
form of substantial restoration, revegetation and/or acquisition. Since some of the
existing habitat that potentially could be impacted is currently of low quality (e.g.,
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1 -03B
May 22,2003
Page 37 of 48
fragmented, disturbed and/or invaded by non-native species), it should be noted that the
replacement of such habitat in areas that are suitable and will be permanently monitored
and managed may provide an environmental benefit that is superior to retaining all
existing areas of native habitat in place.
After establishing a conflict among Coastal Act policies, Section 30007.5 requires the
Commission to resolve the conflict in a manner that is most protective of coastal
resources. In this case, the draft HMP would allow certain impacts to ESHA, including
dual-criteria slopes. If modified as suggested, overall impacts to native habitat in the
coastal zone would be reduced, because categories of habitat that are not currently
protected would be protected, but impacts to ESHA would still occur. However, if
mitigated as proposed, the replaced and protected ESHA will be located in areas that
provide larger contiguous contributions to the proposed HMP preserve area, and will
ensure that the critical wildlife movement corridors and largest populations of
gnatcatchers within the coastal zone have sufficient areas of high-quality habitat for
species survival.
In resolving the identified Coastal Act conflicts, the Commission finds that the
concentration of development adjacent to existing urban development and infrastructure,
and away from sensitive natural resources is, on balance, more protective of the land
resources than to require that isolated areas of habitat be retained in an area adjacent to
residential development. Therefore, the Commission finds that approval of the draft
HMP, if modified as suggested, is on balance the most protective option for the relevant
coastal resources, for the following reasons.
The HMP proposes to preserve large, contiguous blocks of habitat with the highest
natural resource value relative to covered species, and to generally locate development
away from these areas. In exchange for the benefits derived from a share of the
incidental take authorized under the HCP, which will result in some impacts to
gnatcatchers and associated adverse impacts to CSS, landowners must agree to place a
majority of sensitive habitats on their properties into open space that will then become
part of the permanent MHCP preserve.
Within the City of Carlsbad, approximately 8,800 acres of naturally-vegetated areas
remain, or 36% of the City’s total area, including approximately 3,3 15 acres of coastal
sage scrub. In Planning Zones 19,20 and 21, where the majority of undeveloped land in
the coastal zone is located, approximately 60 acres of CSS remain. The populations of
gnatcatchers within the City are important to the overall viability of the regional
gnatcatcher population that will be addressed in the MHCP. As the municipality with the
largest amount of gnatcatcher habitat within the MHCP, the populations represent a
critical link in the distribution of the species throughout north San Diego County,
particularly in the Carlsbad-Oceanside corridor, which connects gnatcatcher populations
in Orange and Riverside counties with populations to the north and east of Carlsbad. The
HMP would preserve approximately 6,400 acres of native habitat, as existing preserve,
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1 -03B
May 22,2003
Page 38 of 48
proposed hardline preserve areas, and through implementation of “standards areas” in
certain areas without existing development proposals.
Within the coastal zone, the second HMP addendum and LCP amendment proposes no
net loss of most native vegetation types, with mitigation ratios ranging from 1 : 1 to 4: 1 to
ensure that, on balance, there will be no negative impacts to the total quantity and/or
quality of ESHA within the coastal zone. Interim preserve management requirements, as
included in the HMP, will cover the first three years following approval of the HMP,
during which time a plan for permanent management will be developed by the City in
cooperation with existing reserve managers, private owners, and the wildlife agencies.
The Commission must consider impacts of residential buildout as a means to analyze the
effect of the proposed LCP amendment and make revisions, as necessary, to establish the
standard of review consistent with the Coastal Act. In order to protect corridors of
viable, connected habitat area which take into account the mobility and foraging
requirements of listed and covered species, the Commission finds that it is appropriate to
take a regional approach to the preservation of ESHAs. Instead of preserving all ESHAs
in place where they are found, which could result in excessive fragmentation, reduced
habitat values and difficulties in monitoring and management, it may be more protective
of ESHA resources to focus on regional conservation approaches that concentrate
development away from the habitat of greatest overall value. Such an approach could
ensure the health and viability of larger, connected sensitive vegetative communities that
support listed and covered species within the City’s jurisdiction.
The regional nature of the habitat preservation effort sets the MHCP and HMP apart from
other local jurisdiction plans affecting ESHA, where the noncomprehensive nature of the
plans and lack of regional resource protection standards require more stringent limitations
to coastal ESHA impacts for individual sites. The clustering and concentration of
development away from sensitive areas that will result from the proposed standards will
provide a larger, more contiguous preserve area than if development on the same
properties were to be approved on a lot-by-lot basis. The HMP also proposes to provide
a higher standard of protection for coastal ESHA than currently provided by the certified
LCP, which addresses only native habitat on steep slopes greater than 25% (dual-criteria
slopes).
Most of the properties in the standards areas and hardlines are zoned for low- density
single-family development. Although it is anticipated that clustering and density transfer
within areas outside of the proposed preserve locations could allow for the same number
and intensity of residential units to be developed on most properties as currently
designated in the General Plan, the ultimate effect would be to locate development on
smaller lots and/or a smaller overall development footprint, located further from sensitive
resources and proposed wildlife movement corridors. Although current zoning and land
use designations limit development in most of the standards areas and hardline properties
to low-density single-family development, higher density development than is currently
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1 -03B
May 22,2003
Page 39 of 48
allowed could appropriately occur in most of the areas identified for development in the
LCP amendment. Potential impacts to these areas located in the HMP preserve would
therefore be reduced, and additional benefits to the City resulting from compact urban
growth, prevention of sprawl and efficient use of underlying infrastructure, public
services and facilities would likely result. The Commission therefore finds that approval
of the HMP and the LCP amendment, if modified as suggested, would result in increased
clustering of development and reduction of urban sprawl into sensitive habitat areas.
Although implementation of the HMP and MHCP will result in some loss of native
habitat and listed species throughout the region, in association with loss due to incidental
take outside the preserve area, the potential losses to the habitat would be considerably
higher without the HMP and MHCP, particularly outside the coastal zone where fewer
development restrictions on native habitat would apply. Within the coastal zone, the
existing LCP does not protect native habitat on slopes less than 25% grade and therefore
the proposed LCP revisions represent a significant improvement over current
requirements. Through application of proposed mitigation requirements, there will be no
net loss of ESHA within the coastal zone and the regional function of the MHCP preserve
will continue to be protected.
This finding that approval of the HMP is the most protective option for coastal resources
is based on the assumption that the habitat mitigation will be implemented as proposed,
and properly maintained in perpetuity. Should the mitigation not be managed and
maintained as designed, or if the required mitigation sites are not provided as proposed,
the long-term benefits of the HMP for coastal resources would not be realized. To
address these concerns, the City has included revisions to the HMP and associated LUP
policies which address establishment of the preserve area, funding, monitoring and
management. Interim preserve management requirements, as provided in the draft HMP,
will cover the first three years following approval of the HMP, during which time a plan
for permanent management will be developed by the City in cooperation with existing
reserve managers, private owners, and the wildlife agencies. The preserve management
plan must be approved by the City, the wildlife agencies and the Commission, and shall
ensure adequate funding to protect the preserve as open space and maintain the biological
values of the mitigation areas in perpetuity. Additionally, the preserve management plan
is required to be incorporated into the Implementation Plan of the LCP through an LCP
amendment within one year of Commission certification of the HMP as part of the
certified LCP.
B. Wetlands
Section 30233 is applicable to coastal development and states:
(a) The diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries,
and lakes shall be permitted in accordance with other applicable provisions of this
division, where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative,
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1 -03B
May 22,2003
Page 40 of 48
and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse
environmental effects, and shall be limited to the following:
(1) New or expanded port, energy, and coastal-dependent industrial facilities,
including commercial fishing facilities.
(2) Maintaining existing, or restoring previously dredged, depths in existing
navigational channels, turning basins, vessel berthing and mooring areas, and boat
launching ramps.
(3) In wetland areas only, entrance channels for new or expanded boating
facilities; and in a degraded wetland, identified by the Department of Fish and
Game pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 3041 1, for boating facilities if, in
conjunction with such boating facilities, a substantial portion of the degraded
wetland is restored and maintained as a biologically productive wetland. The size
of the wetland area used for boating facilities, including berthing space, turning
basins, necessary navigation channels, and any necessary support service
facilities, shall not exceed 25 percent of the degraded wetland.
(4) In open coastal waters, other than wetlands, including streams, estuaries, and
lakes, new or expanded boating facilities and the placement of structural pilings
for public recreational piers that provide public access and recreational
opportunities.
(5) Incidental public service purposes, including but not limited to, burying cables
and pipes or inspection of piers and maintenance of existing intake and outfall
lines.
(6) Mineral extraction, including sand for restoring beaches, except in
environmentally sensitive areas.
(7) Restoration purposes.
(8) Nature study, aquaculture, or similar resource dependent activities.
(b) Dredging and spoils disposal shall be planned and carried out to avoid
significant disruption to marine and wildlife habitats and water circulation.
Dredge spoils suitable for beach replenishment should be transported for such
purposes to appropriate beaches or into suitable long shore current systems.
(c) In addition to the other provisions of this section, diking, filling, or dredging in
existing estuaries and wetlands shall maintain or enhance the functional capacity
of the wetland or estuary. Any lagoon alterations shall be limited to very minor
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1 -03B
May 22,2003
Page 41 of 48
incidental public facilities, restorative measures, and nature study, if otherwise in
accordance with this division.
The proposed LCP amendment incorporates comprehensive language for wetlands
definition and delineation into the Mello I, Mello I1 and Agua Hedionda land use plans,
as provided in Section 30121 of the California Public Resources Code, and Title 14,
California Code of Regulations Section 13577(b). The full requirements for the
protection of wetlands as provided in California Public Resources Code 30233 have also
been incorporated. The revised LUPs specify overall wetland mitigation standards for
allowable impacts within wetlands. The HMP will promote the continuing conservation
of existing wetland areas and protect their biological functions through concentration of
development away from existing wetland resources and establishment of appropriate
buffer areas. No negative impact to wetlands is anticipated as a result of the proposed
amendments to the Mello I, Mello I1 or Agua Hedionda land use plans. If permitted
impacts to a wetland are allowed consistent with Section 30233 requirements, mitigation
shall be provided at a ratio of 3: 1 for riparian impacts and 4: 1 for saltwater or freshwater
wetland or marsh impacts. Therefore, if modified as proposed, the land use plans can be
found consistent with the wetland protection policies of the Coastal Act.
C. Water Quality
Section 3023 1 is applicable to development permitted pursuant to the HMP and the
proposed LCP amendment, and states:
Section 3023 1.
The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands,
estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine
organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and, where
feasible, restored through, among other means, minimizing adverse effects of waste
water discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff, preventing depletion of ground
water supplies and substantial interference with surface water flow, encouraging
waste water reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect
riparian habitats, and minimizing alteration of natural streams.
The 1999 draft HMP with addendum, the second HMP addendum, and the LUP
amendments will promote the long-term retention of large areas of native vegetation,
wetlands and riparian areas in order to provide adequate habitat for listed species. Future
development will be clustered on the least-sensitive areas, near existing urban
development and services, and buffered from sensitive natural resources. Area not
suitable for development will be preserved as open space, as part of the HMP preserve
area. As a result, the HMP will promote the continuance of existing biological functions
of wetland and riparian areas for water detention and groundwater recharge, reduce the
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1-03B
May 22,2003
Page 42 of 48
potential development of impervious surfaces, maintain natural vegetation buffer areas
that protect riparian habitats and minimize alteration of natural streams.
The LCP, as certified, contains policies which protect steep hillsides in excess of 25%
grade to prevent slope erosion and downstream sedimentation. The LCP also contains
provisions which control the quality and quantity of runoff through Best Management
Practices. The City is currently working on a comprehensive LCP amendment that will
address water quality in both the land use plans and implementing ordinances to
correspond to the requirements of the most recent Regional Water Quality Control Board
Order No. 2001-01. No negative impacts to water quality are anticipated as a result of
the proposed amendments to the Mello I, Mello I1 or Agua Hedionda land use plans and
incorporation of the HMP. Therefore, if modified as proposed, the proposed LCP
amendment can be found consistent with the water quality provisions of the Coastal Act.
D. Steep SlopesNisual Quality.
Section 3025 1 of the Coastal Act provides in part:
The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a
resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to
protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the
alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of
surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in
visually degraded areas.
In its review of LCPs in San Diego County, the Commission has long-held that
development of steep slopes in excess of 25% grade should be avoided to the extent
possible, and unavoidable encroachments into steep slopes areas should be limited. This
policy is supported by several Coastal Act provisions which address scenic quality,
minimizing alteration of natural landforms, erosion and sedimentation control and
protection of environmentally sensitive habitat areas.
The City is proposing to revise the current Mello I1 land use plan policy that preserves in
their natural state steep slopes possessing endangered planthima1 species and /or coastal
sage scrub and chaparral plant communities, known as “dual criteria” slopes, and limits
encroachment to no more than 10% of the steep slope area. The proposed revisions
acknowledge that Policies 3-1 and 3-8 apply to development of such areas. These
policies are proposed with this amendment to address protection of ESHA, mitigation
requirements, buffer areas and highly-constrained properties. In addition, the proposed
language allows for the percentage of steep slope encroachment to be modified only for
development consistent with the approved HMP and the resource habitat protection
policies in this LCP amendment, and if approved as part of the City’s Incidental Take
Permit pursuant to the adopted HMP.
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1 -03B
May 22,2003
Page 43 of 48
This approach is consistent with the Commission’s action on the LCP amendment
addressing the Kelly Ranch Master Plan which required open space protection for steep
hillsides for their scenic quality and value as natural landforms in addition to their habitat
value. The LCP policies addressing the Kelly Ranch property were revised to
acknowledge when steep slope encroachment may be permitted to concentrate
development and preserve the largest amount of high-quality, contiguous habitat for a
viable preserve system.
Preservation of ridgelines and siting of development a sufficient distance back from
ridgelines to avoid clearance of vegetation required for fuel management is critical to
preserving the scenic value of the natural landforms integral to the lagoons and their
environs. In most cases, the adjacent canyons and slope areas are clearly protected under
the current LCP language, contain environmentally sensitive habitat protected by Section
30240 and are within or adjacent to habitat core and linkage areas identified in the
MHCP. Additionally, when these areas are visible from major coastal access routes,
such as 1-5, Cannon Road, La Costa Ave. and Poinsettia Lane, and public recreational
areas surrounding lagoons and within public parkland, they must be protected to meet the
requirements of Section 3025 1 and 30253 of the Coastal Act.
As proposed, the LCP policies assure that landform alteration and scenic quality will
continue to be considered, in addition to the standards contained in the HMP, in review of
future development proposals involving steep hillsides. The language allows for
encroachment into such hillsides only when it is clearly necessary in order to concentrate
development consistent with the standards and goals of the HMP. Review of any new
proposed hardlines for development would require an LCP amendment which will take
into consideration all of the policies of the LCP and Coastal Act when determining the
appropriate location of development in relation to open space. Therefore, if modified as
proposed, the land use plans will provide adequate protection of steep slopes consistent
with applicable Chapter 3 policies.
E. Public Access
The following Coastal Act policies apply to the proposed amendment:
Section 30210
In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution,
maximum access, which shall be conspicuously posted, and recreational opportunities
shall be provided for all the people consistent with public safety needs and the need to
protect public rights, rights of private property owners, and natural resource areas from
overuse.
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1 -03B
May 22,2003
Page 44 of 48
Section 3021 1
Development shall not interfere with the public's right of access to the sea where
acquired through use or legislative authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of
dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation.
Section 302 12 (in part).
(a) Public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the
coast shall be provided in new development projects except where:
(1) it is inconsistent with public safety, military security needs, or the protection of
fragile coastal resources,
(2) adequate access exists nearby, or,
(3) agriculture would be adversely affected. Dedicated accessway shall not be
required to be opened to public use until a public agency or private association agrees to
accept responsibility for maintenance and liability of the accessway.
Section 30212.5
Wherever appropriate and feasible, public facilities, including parking areas or
facilities, shall be distributed throughout an area so as to mitigate against the impacts,
social and otherwise, of overcrowding or overuse by the public of any single area. [. . .]
Section 30213
Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and,
where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are
preferred.
Section 30223
Upland areas necessary to support coastal recreational uses shall be reserved for such
uses, where feasible.
The City of Carlsbad has in place a Citywide Trail System which contains public
shoreline and inland trails as well as viewpoints and other passive recreational facilities.
In addition, there are interpretive facilities planned or developed at Agua Hedionda,
Buena Vista and Batiquitos Lagoons. Further, the certified LCP calls for development of
public trails along the shorelines of these scenic and environmentally sensitive water
bodies. Agua Hedionda Lagoon is also utilized for water-oriented public recreational
activities.
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1 -03B
May 22,2003
Page 45 of 48
As part of the HMP, the Veteran’s Memorial Park and Zone 19 park sites are preserved
for the habitat value as well as their ability to accommodate the public recreational needs
of the City of Carlsbad. The golf course will also provide a new public recreational
opportunity within the coastal zone.
As proposed, the HMP and LUP amendments allow for public recreational trails within
the buffers required between development and the preserve habitat areas; however, such
trails are limited to the 15 feet of the buffer closest to development. In addition, passive
public recreational uses are allowed within the steep slopes and native vegetation on the
Veteran’s Memorial Park site, with only minimal grading permitted. The Commission
has found passive recreation a permitted use in ESHA when sited and designed to prevent
impacts which would degrade such areas and Section 30240 is contained in the proposed
LUP as a standard which would be applicable to such development within the City. As
modified, the Commission finds the proposed LCP amendment provides the proper
balance between protection of habitat value and provision of public access and
recreational opportunities, all of which are important resources pursuant to the Coastal
Act.
F. Relationship to Other LCP SePments
The subject LCP amendment, as submitted by the City, includes the 1999 draft HMP with
two addenda and text revisions to the policies contained in the certified Mello I, Mello I1
and Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan segments. The submittal does not include any
revisions to the East Batiquitos, West Batiquitos or Village Redevelopment segments of
the City’s certified LCP. Additionally, no changes to the certified LCP Implementation
Plan are proposed at this time.
Although the provisions of the HMP will apply to the entire City, no changes to the other
segments of the LCP are necessary because there are no new standards or hardlines
proposed in those areas that may represent conflicts with existing policies of the LCP.
This was not the case in the Mello I, Mello I1 and Agua Hedionda segments.
Additionally, the City will submit revisions to the Implementation Plan as a future LCP
amendment once the subject proposed revisions have become effectively certified, to use
as the standard of review. The City has indicated their intent to revise the
Implementation Plan to conform to the HMP and LUP requirements as soon as possible
following effective certification of the subject LCP amendment.
In the interim, the Commission has included a suggested modification to acknowledge, if
any conflicts should arise between the policies of the certified Mello I, Mello I1 or Agua
Hedionda Land Use Plan provisions and the certified Implementation Plan, the LUP
policies shall take precedence. With this change, the standard of review for future
development will be clear, in the interim period until an Implementation Plan amendment
is processed and approved
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1 -03B
May 22,2003
Page 46 of 48
If the suggested modifications are incorporated into the LCP amendment and the HMP,
the amendment will meet the following stated policies of the City’s certified LCP, as
provided in the second HMP addendum:
a
a
a
0
a
0
a
a
a
0
a
Develop and retain open space in all categories of land use;
Participate in programs that restore and enhance the City’s degraded natural
resources;
Implement, to the greatest extent feasible, the natural resource protection policies
of the LCP;
Preserve open space areas in as natural a state as possible;
Participate in the statewide and regional plans for Natural Community
Conservation Planning (NCCP) and the Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan to
conserve sensitive environmental resources;
Coordinate planning and development of a citywide open space system with
habitat planning efforts;
Minimize the encroachment of development into wetland and riparian areas;
Coordinate the protection of wetlands, woodlands, riparian areas, and other
sensitive habitat areas with appropriate state and federal protection agencies;
Encourage and participate in regional planning efforts to protect environmentally
sensitive species from extinction;
Require adequate buffers between new development and environmentally
sensitive habitats;
Require private development that impacts sensitive resources to provide
appropriate mitigation measures, so that the existing biodiversity within the City
is maintained;
Require that at the time of any discretionary approval, any land dedicated to the
City for its habitat or scenic value have an appropriate easement and/or zoning
placed on it for resource protection; and
Recognize and implement the policies of the California Coastal Act and the
Carlsbad LCP when reviewing potential development in the coastal zone.
In summary, the Commission finds that, with the suggested modifications, the LCP
amendment and HMP (with second addendum) will have adequate hardline revisions,
expansion of standards areas requirements, comprehensive mitigation and buffering
standards, and protection of ESHA to meet Chapter 3 requirements. The implementation
of the HMP and the LCP amendment, if modified as suggested, will ultimately reduce
cumulative development-related impacts to regional ESHAs (e.g., the coastal sage scrub
community in San Diego County that provides crucial habitat for the California
gnatcatcher), encourage compact, efficient urban growth, and will preserve the maximum
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1 -03B
May 22,2003
Page 47 of 48
amount of sensitive natural resources necessary for the preservation of the coastal
California gnatcatcher and other listed species in San Diego County.
PART VI: FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION OF FEDERAL CONSISTENCY
CERTIFICATION
In addition to amending its LCP, the City of Carlsbad has submitted a consistency
certification, pursuant to the requirements of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZM,A), for the HMP. The City developed the HMP to meet the requirements 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 is necessary for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
to issue an incidental take permit to the City pursuant to 16 USC §1539(a)(l), in order to
allow urban development within the City of Carlsbad consistent with the HMP. Since
this permit is not listed in the California Coastal Management Program (CCMP) as one of
the permits for activities likely to affect coastal uses and resources, the Commission
requested, and received, permission from the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management (OCRM) in August 2000 for a federal consistency review of the HMP.
The purpose of the consistency review in this case is to determine whether issuance of the
ITP would be consistent with the California Coastal Act, and approval of the ITP has
been precluded until the Commission certifies the City’s federal consistency certification.
As part of the overall submittal which is currently under Commission review, the City
included a certification that the HMP and LCP amendment comply with the enforceable
policies of the state’s coastal management program, and will be conducted in a manner
consistent with such program. The City has requested the Commission’s concurrence
with certification of consistency.
Based upon review of the 1999 draft HMP and supporting documents, Commission staff
determined that the federal consistency review should be accompanied and supported by
revisions to the HMP and a corresponding amendment to the Carlsbad LCP. The City
has delayed submittal of its consistency certification until the LCP amendment was also
submitted to the Commission so that the Commission could review the certification
concurrent with the LCP amendment and rely upon the proposed changes to issue a
conditional concurrence. The City’s application for an incidental take permit (ITP)
pursuant to Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that the City submit
a federal consistency certification to the Commission. The Commission will review the
ITP application, federal consistency certification, and other supporting information to
ensure that the HMP is consistent with California’s federally approved coastal
management program (i.e., the Coastal Act). Additionally, because the Commission will
be asked to rely on the HMP as providing the ways and means to ensure that Coastal Act
requirements are met in circumstances where the loss of sensitive coastal resources in the
coastal zone will be compensated and mitigated in areas outside the coastal zone, the
Carlsbad LCPA No. 1-03B
May 22,2003
Page 48 of 48
adequacy of the HMP will be evaluated relative to Coastal Act policies and Commission
practice.
PART VII. CONSISTENCY WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
Section 21080.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exempts local
government from the requirement of preparing an environmental impact report (EIR) in
connection with its local coastal program. Instead, the CEQA responsibilities are
assigned to the Coastal Commission and the Commission's LCP review and approval
program has been found by the Resources Agency to be functionally equivalent to the
EIR process. Thus, under CEQA Section 21080.5, the Commission is relieved of the
responsibility to prepare an EIR for each LCP.
Nevertheless, the Commission is required in an LCP submittal or, as in this case, an LCP
amendment submittal, to find that the LCP, or LCP, as amended, does conform to CEQA
provisions. The City of Carlsbad has prepared and certified an Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the HMP. The Commission has found that suggested modifications are
necessary to make the amendment request consistent with Chapter 3 policies of the
Coastal Act and the Carlsbad LCP.' These modifications clarify requirements regarding
the establishment of wildlife corridors, clarify resource protection standards regarding
some of the properties subject to the LCP amendment, and update various references in
the LCP amendment, including the HMP, in order to reflect recent actions by the City
and the Commission. The LCP amendment will allow the development of some
environmentally sensitive areas, but, on balance, the LCP amendment, if modified as
suggested, provides the greatest feasible protection for significant coastal resources by
concentrating development and by establishing a comprehensive, regional program for
habitat mitigation and preservation. As a result of these modifications, the Commission
finds that the proposed amendment does conform to CEQA provisions. The changes will
not result in an intensity of land use incompatible with the surrounding area or have
adverse impacts on coastal resources as modified. Therefore, the Commission finds that
approval of the LCP amendment, if modified, will not result in any significant
unmitigated adverse environmental impacts.
G:\San Diego\Reports\LCP's\Carlsbad\CAR LCPA 1 -03B.HMP.staff reportdoc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1€
17
18
15
2c
21
2:
2:
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-Crd8 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR A LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
AMENDMENT AND AN ADDENDUM TO THE HABITAT
MANAGEMENT PLAN AND APPROVING SAID LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT AND ADDENDUM TO THE
HABITAT MANAGEMENT PIAN TO ADD HABITAT
DEVELOPED PROPERTIES IN THE COASTAL ZONE.
CASE NAME: HABITAT MANAGEMENT PIAN
CONSERVATION STANDARDS TO REMAiNING UN-
CASE NO.: LCPA 02-10/DI 02-01 (HMP ADDENDUM #2)
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning
Commission did, on January 22, 2003, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by Ian
to consider a Negative Declaration, Local Coastal Program Amendment, and Addendum to the
Habitat Management Plan and recommended their approval; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the 4th day 01
February, 2003, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said Negative Declaration, Local
Coastal Program Amendment, and Addendum to the Habitat Management Plan and at that time
received recommendations, objections, protests, and comments from all persons interested in
or opposed to LCPA 02-10 and DI 02-01 (Addendum #2 to Habitat Management Plan).
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does
hereby resolve as follows:
1, . That the above recitations are true and correct.
’ 2. That the findings of the Planning Commission as contained in Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 5360, 5361 and 5362 are incorporated herein by reference and
are the findings of the City Council.
3. That the Negative Declaration is adopted as shown in Planning Commission
Resolution No. 5360, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference.
4. That the amendment to the Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA 02-10) is
approved as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5361, on file with the City Clerk and
incorporated herein by reference, except as amended to remove references to the Tabata
Property (APNs 214-170-54 and 72) shown in Policy 3-8.7. In addition, staff is authorized to
include any hardline boundaries negotiated prior to consideration of the Amendment by the
California Coastal Commission.
5. That the Addendum to the Habitat Management Plan (DI 02-01 Addendum #2) is
approved as shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5362, on file with the City Clerk and
CAR LCPA
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
incorporated herein by reference, except as amended to remove references to the Tabata
Property (APNs 214-170-54 and 72) shown in Section D 7-14 G.
6. That the approval of LCPA 02-10 shall not become effective until it is approved
by the California Coastal Commission and the Habitat Management Plan is given final approval
by an Incidental Take Permit issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 4th day of February, 2003, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
Council Members Lewis, Finnila, Kulchin, Hall and Packard.
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2a
21
22
23
24
25
2f
27
2E
2003-039 RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, FINDING AND CERTIFYING THAT
THE CARLSBAD HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN COMPLIES
WITH THE ENFORCEABLE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA
COASTAL ACT AND CALIFORNIA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM AND THAT IT WILL BE CONDUCTED IN A MANNER
CONSISTENT WITH SUCH PROGRAM.
CASE NAME: HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
CASE NO.: LCPA 02-1 0
WHEREAS, the Code of Federal Regulations 15 CFR Part 930, Subpart D,
requires that any activity affecting any coastal use or resource be conducted in a manner
consistent with approved coastal management programs; and
WHEREAS, for the State of California Coastal Act of 1976 as amended serves
as the approved management program; and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is considering issuance of a
Section lO(a) Incidental Take Permit to the City of Carlsbad based on the Habitat Management
Plan, thereby triggering the requirement for review and certification of consistency with the
Coastal Act; and
WHEREAS, the California Coastal Commission initially challenged the
consistency of the City’s proposed Habitat Management Plan with the Coastal Act; and
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad thereafter resolved the consistency issues
raised by the California Coastal Commission by revising the proposed Habitat Management
Plan for coastal zone properties in Addendum #2 and by revising its Local Coastal Program to
incorporate habitat conservation requirements requested by California Coastal Commission
staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all facts and information provided to
it, including the Second Addendum to the Habitat Management Plan, attached to Planning
Commission Resolution 5362 and incorporated herein by reference, the Local Coastal Program
,-
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
Amendment, and other pertinent information, as required by the California Coastal
Commission’s staff; and
day of
, 2003, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the consistency of
the Habitat Management Plan with the Coastal Act and at that time received and considered all
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 4th
FEBRUARY
written correspondence, testimony, recommendations, and comments from all interested
persons.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does
hereby find and resolve as follows:
1 That the above recitations are true and correct.
2 That substantial evidence has been provided demonstrating the manner in which
the Habitat Management Plan is consistent with the California Coastal Act.
3 That the City of Carlsbad has consulted with the affected federal agency, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the California Coastal Commission regarding reasonably
foreseeable coastal effects and consistency, and has considered the views, guidance,
recommendations and comments of those agencies. The City of Carlsbad has furnished those
agencies with copies of all documents pertinent to the consistency certification.
Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan dated December 1999, with Two Addenda complies with
4 That based on all of the facts, information, documents and testimony, the
....
....
....
....
. . ..
....
....
....
Page 2 of 3 of Resolution No. 2003-039
-2- h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the enforceable policies of the California Coastal Act and California Coastal Management
Program and that it will be conducted in a manner consistent with such program,
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of FEBRUARY
2003, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Finnila, Kulchin, Hall, Packard
NOES: None
ATTEST:
Page 3 of 3 of Resolution No. 2003..039
-3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-040
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING STAFF TO MAKE
NECESSARY REVISIONS TO THE MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE
DESIGN AND SUBMIT THE REVISIONS TO THE COASTAL
COMMISSION IN ORDER TO RESOLVE THE PENDING
APPEAL BY THE COASTAL COMMISSION.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE
CASE NO.: CDP 97-25
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2000, the California Coastal Commission appealed the
Coastal Development Permit for the City’s Municipal Golf Course Project; and
WHEREAS, City and Coastal Cornmission staff have discussed revisions to the
Golf Course plans to address the issues raised by the Coastal Commission appeal; and
WHEREAS, Coastal Commission staff has indicated that if certain revisions to
the layout of the Golf Course are made to eliminate any impacts to wetlands and reduce
impacts to other habitat types that the appeal can be resolved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did on 4th day Of FEBRUARY t
2003, review and consider the revisions to the Golf Course Plans; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on January 22, 2003, adopted an
Addendum to the previously certified Environmental Impact Report for the Golf Course (EIR 97-
01 ), attached to Planning Commission Resolution 5363 and incorporated herein by reference,
to address the revisions.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, does hereby
resolve as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the City Council directs staff to submit the necessary revisions to the
Municipal Golf Course plans to the California Coastal Commission in order to resolve the
Commission’s pending appeal of the Coastal Development Permit (CDP 97-25) for the Golf
Course,
....
....
....
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
22
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Carlsb d
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
the 4th day of FEBRUARY 2003, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Finnila, Kulchin, Hall, Packard
NOES: None
ATTEST:
Page 2 o 2 of Resolution No. -2- -Try- _- ,n 8
EXHIBIT “X”
SECOND ADDENDUM TO THE
CARLSBAD HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
BASED ON COMMENTS FROM
THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
AND INCLUDING MISCELLANEOUS
REVISIONS
December 16,2002
EXHIBITNO. 2
APPLICATION NO.
CAR LCPA
I -03B
Second Addendum
to the 1999 HMP
Second Addendum to HMP - Page ## 1
A. BACKGROUND TO SECOND ADDENDUM
The Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad (HMP)
was approved by the Carlsbad City Council on September 21, 1999. Subsequently, the
first addendum was prepared based on comments by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and California Department of Fish and Game. The completed document dated
December 1999 with Addendum was submitted to the wildlife agencies for approval of
an Incidental Take Permit under section lO(a)(l)(B) of the Endangered Species Act.
In August 2000 the federal Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management granted
the California Coastal Commission’s request for a Consistency Review of. the HMP.
This action precluded approval of the Incidental Take Permit until the Coastal
Commission has approved the Consistency Review. The purpose of the Consistency
Review in this case is to determine whether issuance of the Incidental Take Permit to
Carlsbad would be consistent with the California Coastal Act.
As a result of discussions between the City of Carlsbad and the Coastal Commission, it
was determined that the Consistency Review should be accompanied by revisions to
the HMP and to the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program. This Second Addendum
comprises the revisions to the HMP as recommended by the Coastal Commission.
B. REV1 S 10 N S
1. Revise Section D. Conservation Strategy by the addition of a new Subsection
beginning on Page D-96 as follows:
7. Additional Conservation Standards To Be Applied To Properties in the
Coastal Zone.
7-1 Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA)
Pursuant to Section 30240 of the California Coastal Act, environmentally
sensitive habitat areas, as defined in Section 301 07.5 of the Coastal Act,
shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and
only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those
areas.
7-2 Coastal Sage Scrub
Coastal Sage Scrub is a resource of particular importance to the ecosystems of the Coastal Zone, due in part to the presence of the
Coastal California gnatcatcher (Federal Threatened) and other species.
Properties containing Coastal Sage Scrub located in the Coastal Zone
shall conserve a minimum 67% of the Coastal Sage Scrub and 75% Of the gnatcatchers onsite. Conservation of gnatcatchers shall be
determined in consultation with the wildlife agencies.
Second Addendum to HMP - Page ## 2
7-3 Oak Woodland
An oak woodland is a closed to relatively open stand of trees within
which a dominant tree species is a species of oak. In coastal southern California, that species is generally Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia),
which is commonly found on slopes and riparian situations. Shrubs vary from occasional to common, and the herb layer is often continuous and dominated by a variety of annual grasses.
7-4 Streams
A stream is a topographical feature with a clear bed and bank that
periodically conveys water.
7-5 Ephemeral Drainages and Ephemeral Streams
Ephemeral drainages and ephemeral streams are topographic features
that convey water, but only during and shortly after rainfall events in a
typical year.
7-6 Wetlands
Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 30121 and Title
14, California Code of Regulations Section 13577(b), 'wetland' means lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or
permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes,
freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps,
mudflats, and fens. Wetland shall include land where the water table is
at, near, or above the land surface long enough to promote the formation
of hydric soils or to support the growth of hydrophytes, and shall also
include those types of wetlands where vegetation is lacking and soil is
poorly developed or absent as a result of frequent and drastic
fluctuations of surface water levels, wave action, water flow, turbidity or
high concentrations of salts or other substances in the substrate. A
preponderance of hydric soils or a preponderance of wetland indicator
species shall be considered presumptive evidence of wetland conditions.
Wetlands in the Coastal Zone shall be delineated following the definitions
and boundary descriptions in Section 1.3577 of the California Code of
Regulations.
Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 30233, no impacts
to wetlands shall be allowed in the Coastal Zone except as provided in that Section.
7-7 Wetland Mitigation Requirements
If impacts to a wetland are allowed consistent with Policy 7-6 above,
mitigation shall be provided at a ratio of 3:l for riparian impacts and 4:l
for saltwater or freshwater wetland or marsh impacts.
7-8 ' No Net Loss of Habitat
There shall be no net loss of Coastal Sage Scrub, Maritime Succulent
Scrub, Southern Maritime Chaparral, Southern Mixed Chaparral, Native
Grassland, and Oak Woodland within the Coastal Zone of Carlsbad.
Mitigation for impacts to any of these habitat types, when permitted, shall
Second Addendum to HMP - Page # 3
include a creation component that achieves the no net loss standard.
Substantial restoration of highly degraded areas (where effective
functions of the habitat type have been lost) may be substituted for
creation subject to the consultation and concurrence of the US. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game (wildlife
agencies). The Coastal Commission shall be notified and provided an
opportunity to comment upon proposed substitutions of substantial
restoration for the required creation component. Development shall be consistent with Policy 7-1 of this subsection, unless proposed impacts
are specifically identified in the HMP; these impacts shall be located to
minimize impacts to Coastal Sage Scrub and maximize protection of the
Coastal California gnatcatcher and its habitat.
7-9 Upland Habitat Mitigation Requirements
Where impacts to the habitats stated in 7-1 are allowed, mitigation shall
be provided as follows:
a. The no net loss standard shall be satisfied as stated in 7-8. Typically
this will consist of creation of the habitat type being impacted (or
substantial restoration where allowed) at a ratio of at least 1:l as
provided in the HMP.
b. Onsite preservation is not eligible for mitigation credit in the coastal
zone. Onsite or off-site open space preserve areas may be utilized to
satisfy required mitigation for habitat impacts associated with development if the preserve areas are disturbed and suitable for
restoration or enhancement, or they are devoid of habitat value and
therefore suitable for the 1 :1 mitigation component requiring creation
or substantial restoration of new habitat. Substantial restoration is
restoration that has the effect of qualitatively changing habitat type
and may meet the creation requirement if it restores habitat type that
was historically present, but has suffered habitat conversion or such
extreme degradation that most of the present dominant species are
not part of the original vegetation. Substantial restoration contrasts
with enhancement activities which include weeding or planting within vegetation that retains its historical character, and restoration of
disturbed areas to increase the value of existing habitat which may meet other mitigation requirements pursuant to the HMP.
c. Impacts to Coastal Sage Scrub shall be mitigated at an overall ratio of
2:1, with the creation component satisfying half of the total obligation. The remainder of the mitigation obligation shall be satisfied pursuant
to the provisions of the HMP.
d. Impacts to Southern Maritime Chaparral or Maritime Succulent Scrub
shall be mitigated at an overall ratio of 3:1, with the creation
component satisfying one-third of the total obligation. The remainder
of the mitigation obligation shall be satisfied pursuant to the
provisions of the HMP.
e. Impacts to Southern Mixed Chaparral, Native Grassland, and Oak
Woodland shall be mitigated respectively at ratios of 1:1, 3:1, and 3:1, with the creation component satisfying the obligation or one-third of the total obligation. The remainder of the mitigation obligation
shall be satisfied pursuant to the provisions of the HMP.
Second Addendum to HMP - Page # 4
f. Mitigation for impacts within the coastal zone should be provided within the coastal zone if possible, particularly the 1:l creation
component, in order to have no net loss of habitat within the coastal
zone. Mitigation measures on land outside the Coastal Zone may be
acceptable if such mitigation would clearly result in higher levels of
habitat protection and value and/or would provide significantly
greater mitigation ratios, and the mitigation area is part of the HMP.
Land area inside and outside the coastal zone which serves as
mitigation for habitat impacts in the coastal zone shall be
permanently retired from development potential and secured as part
of the HMP preserve management plan as a condition of
development approval.
g. Habitat mitigation requirements other than the creation or substantial restoration component may be partially or wholly fulfilled by acquisition of existing like habitat and/or retirement of development
credits on existing like habitat with permanent preservation as part of
the HMP preserve management plan.
h. All mitigation areas, onsite and offsite, shall be secured with a
conservation easement in favor of the 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. 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 shall be in place prior to any
impacts to habitat. At a minimum, monitoring reports shall be required as a condition of development approval after the first and
third year of habitat mitigation efforts. The preserve management
plan shall be incorporated into the Implementation Plan of the LCP
through an LCP amendment within one year of Commission certification of the HMP as part of the certified LCP.
i If any conflict should 'arise between the provisions of the HMP and the policies of the LCP, the LCP shall take precedence.
7-1 0 Highly Constrained Properties
There are properties in the Coastal Zone that are entirely or almost entirely constrained by environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA). In
these cases, one of the following additional standards shall apply:
a. If more than 80% of the property by area is covered with ESHA at
least 75% of the property shall be conserved, OR
b. If the City, with the concurrences of the wildlife agencies and the
Coastal Commission through an LCP amendment, approves a
Hardline preserve boundary for any of these properties as part of the HMP, then the amount of onsite preservation as identified in the
Hardline boundary shall apply.
7-1 1 Buffers and Fuel Modification Zones
Buffers shall be provided between all preserved habitat areas and
development. Minimum buffer widths shall be provided as follows: a. 100 ft. for wetlands
b. 50 ft. for riparian areas
Second Addendum to HMP - Page ## 5
c. 20 ft. for all other native habitats (coastal sage scrub, southern
maritime chaparral, maritime succulent scrub, southern mixed
chaparral, native grassland, oak woodland).
Buffer widths shall be measured from the edge of preserved habitat
nearest the development to the closest point of development. For
wetlands and riparian areas possessing an unvegetated bank or steep
slope (greater than 25%), the buffer shall be measured from the top of
the bank or steep slope-rather than the edge of habitat, unless there is at least 50 ft. between the riparian or wetland area and the toe of the slope.
If the toe of the slope is less than 50 feet from the wetland or riparian
area, the buffer shall be measured from the top of the slope.
Any proposed reductions in buffer widths for a specific site shall require
sufficient information to determine that a buffer of lesser width will protect the identified resources. Such information shall include, but is not limited
to, the size and type of the development and/or proposed mitigation
(such as planting of vegetation or the construction of fencing) that will
also achieve the purposes of the buffer. The California Department of
Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Coastal
Commission staff shall be consulted in such buffer determinations.
No development, grading, or alterations, including clearing of vegetation,
shall occur in the buffer area, except for:
a. Fuel modification Zone 3 to a maximum of 20 ft. for upland and non- riparian habitat. No fuel modification shall take place within 50 ft. of
riparian areas, wetlands, or oak woodland.
b. Recreation trails and public pathways within the first 15 feet of the
buffer closest to the development, provided that construction of the
trail or pathway and its proposed use is consistent with the
preservation goals for the adjacent habitat, and that appropriate
measures are taken for physical separation'from sensitive areas.
Buffer areas that do not contain native habitat shall be landscaped using
native plants. Signage and physical barriers such as walls or fences
shall be required to minimize edge effects of development.
7.12 Grading and Landscaping Requirements
In addition to the requirements of the model grading ordinance in the
Carlsbad Master Drainage Plan, permitted new development shall also
comply with the following requirements:
a. Grading activity shall be prohibited during the rainy season: from
October 1st to April 1st of each year.
b. All graded areas shall be landscaped prior to October 1st of each
year with either temporary or permanent landscaping materials, to
reduce erosion potential. Such landscaping shall be maintained and
replanted if not well-established by December 1st following the initial
planting.
Second Addendum to HMP - Page # 6
c. The October 1st grading season deadline may be extended with the
approval of the City Engineer subject to implementation by October
1st of special erosion control measures designed to prohibit
discharge of sediments off-site during and after the grading operation. Extensions beyond November 15th may be allowed in
areas of very low risk of impact to sensitive coastal resources and
may be approved either as part of the original coastal development
permit or as an amendment to an existing coastal development
permit.
d. If any of the responsible resource agencies prohibit grading operations during the summer grading period in order to protect
endangered or rare species or sensitive environmental resources,
then grading activities may be allowed during the winter by a coastal
development permit or permit amendment, provided that appropriate best management practices (BMPs) are incorporated to limit potential
adverse impacts from winter grading activities.
7.13 City Owner Lands Adjacent To Macario Canyon and Veterans Memorial
Park
~
The City of Carlsbad owns approximately 521 acres in and adjacent to
Macario Canyon, a portion of which is located in the Coastal Zone. A
municipal golf course has been proposed for a portion of the property,
and a public park is planned for another portion. Development of the property shall be subject to the following policies regarding protection of
habitat:
a. The impact and conservation areas for the municipal golf course are
shown as a Hardline design in the HMP (Figure B Revised) and,
which shall serve as the standard of review for determining areas in
which development may occur in the future. Areas shown for
conservation shall not be impacted or disturbed except for revegetation, restoration, and other similar activities related to
mitigation. Areas shown for impact may be fully developed with
appropriate mitigation.
b. Any impacts to Coastal Sage Scrub shall be mitigated by on-site
creation at a ratio of 2:l in compliance with the no net loss standard
stated in 7-1. Onsite revegetation or restoration may be done on
agricultural, disturbed or non-native grassland areas. For impacts to
the Coastal California gnatcatcher, additional mitigation shall be provided by acquisition and preservation at a 1:l ratio of land
supporting gnatcatchers. Impacts to dual criteria slopes shall not
exceed 10%.
c. In order to provide a viable north-south wildlife corridor across Macario Canyon, the area shown on the HMP Hardline map as
"Veterans Memorial Park Wildlife Corridor" shall be conserved concurrent with any impacts to the Macario Canyon property. No
development shall occur within the Wildlife Corridor except a
designated trail and rest areas along the trail.
d. Protection and management of all mitigation areas shall be consistent with 7-9(f) and (h).
Second Addendum to HMP - Page # 7
e. The area shown as “Veterans Memorial Park Development Area” is
designated for public recreational use. It is the intent of this policy
that the public park area be developed so as to maximize public
access and provide a variety of recreational opportunities. Steep slope areas shall be planned for more passive type uses with grading
of such areas limited to the amount necessary to allow such uses.
f. Segments of the Citywide Trail System viewpoints, and other opportunities for public access shall be incorporated into the
development areas.
g. In the riparian area of Macario Canyon Creek, two crossings shall be allowed, as shown in the HMP Hardline exhibit. Crossing #1 shall
utilize the existing farm road. Crossing #2 shall utilize a bridge span
structure. No riparian impacts shall occur for either crossing.
h. The design of riparian buffers shall be as shown in the HMP. Buffers shall be landscaped with appropriate native, non-invasive plants to
provide a natural transition between recreational areas and riparian habitat, as well as to discourage human intrusion into the riparian
area. Appropriate signing and fencing will also be utilized.
7-14 Other Parcels - Specific Habitat Protection Standards
The following standards apply to those parcels in Zones 20 and 21
shown on Exhibit A to this Addendum which are located within the biological core and linkage areas designated in the MHCP. They are
in addition to the applicable, general conservation standards
contained in 7-1 through 7-11 and the HMP. The standards are
intended to direct development to existing disturbed areas to the maximum extent feasible, limit impacts to native vegetation, and
establish viable core and linkage areas as delineated in the HMP. In
general, each property shall be allowed to develop at least 25% of
the site with ‘appropriate mitigation as specified in 7-8 through 7-1 1.
When individual properties are proposed for rezoning or
development, detailed biological information will be required to determine whether the proposal is consistent with the HMP,
subsection 7 and the standards below, based upon the actual type,
location and condition of onsite resources, and the appropriate locations of development and preservation areas.
A. Assessor’s Parcel No. 207-100-48 (Aura Circle) - Avoid removal of
maritime succulent scrub. Preserve at least 75% of coastal sage scrub. Mitigate habitat impacts by creation or enhancement of like
habitat adjacent to Agua Hedionda Lagoon if possible, as part of
overall mitigation requirements.
B. Assessor’s Parcel No. 212-120-33 (Hieatt) - No impact to vernal
pools. Minimize impact to vernal pool watersheds.
C. Assessor’s Parcel No. 212-010-3 (Kirgis) - Presewe 75% of property with development clustered immediately adjacent to Kelly Ranch.
D. Assessor‘s Parcel No. 215-070-38 (Fernandez) - Cluster
development on disturbed areas to the maximum extent feasible. Maximum 10% impact on CSS and SMC for access purposes.
Second Addendum to HMP - Page # 8
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
0.
Assessor’s Parcel No. 21 5-040-03 (Muroya) - Cluster development
on disturbed areas to the maximum extent feasible. Maximum 10% impact on CSS and SMC for access purposes.
Assessor’s Parcel No. 215-070-13 and 36 (Promenade) - Cluster
development on disturbed areas. No impacts to native habitat
allowed.
Assessor’s Parcel No. 214-170-58, 59, 74, 75, 79, 80, 81, 84 and 85 (ThompsonTTabata) - Cluster development on disturbed areas. No
impacts to native habitat allowed.
Assessor’s Parcel No. 215-80-04 and 22 (Redeemer by the Sea) -
Cluster development on disturbed areas. No impacts to native
habitat allowed.
Assessor’s Parcel No. 21 2-040-50 (Emerald Point) - Development
limited to disturbed and non-native grassland areas. No impacts to
native habitat allowed.
Assessor’s Parcel No. 21 5-020-06 (RWSB) - Development limited to
disturbed portion of property adjacent to Cassia Lane. Impacts to
SMC habitat limited to construction of Poinsettia Lane and additional
10% encroachment for onsite access.
Assessor’s Parcel No. 21 5-020-07 (Maldonado) - Cluster
development southwest of future Poinsettia Lane extension. No
impacts to the coast oak woodland and riparian area except for
Poinsettia Lane extension. Consider wildlife crossing through
Poinsettia Lane if required by wildlife resource agencies. The
disturbed area northeast of Poinsettia Lane is recommended for
offsite mitigation for other properties in Zone 21.
Assessor’s Parcel No. 21 5-050-21 (Namikas) - Dwelopment shall be
limited to a maximum of 25% of the property, not including Poinsettia
Lane construction, and shall be clustered on the western portion of
the property. No impacts to coast oak woodland, riparian areas or
wetlands except for Poinsettia Lane extension.
Assessor’s Parcel No. 21 5-050-22 (Sudduth) - Development shall be
limited to a maximum of 25% of the property, not including Poinsettia
Lane construction, and shall be clustered on the western portion of
the property. No impacts to coast oak woodland, riparian areas or
wetlands except for Poinsettia Lane extension.
Assessor’s Parcel No. 215-050-44, 45, 46, 47 (Kevane) -
Development shall be limited. to a maximum of 25% of the property,
not including Poinsettia Lane construction, and shall be clustered on
the western portion of the property. No impacts to coast oak
woodland, riparian areas or wetlands except for Poinsettia Lane
extension .
Assessor’s Parcel No. 21 5-050-12 (Reiter) - Development shall be
limited to a maximum of 25% of the property, not including Poinsettia
Lane construction, and shall be clustered on the western portion of
the property. No impacts to coast oak woodland, riparian areas or
wetlands except for Poinsettia Lane extension.
Second Addendum to HMP - Page ## 9
I __3 I
2. The attached
P. Assessor’s Parcel No. 215-050-73 (Levatino) - Maximum 25%
development clustered on the southern portion of the property.
The parcel specific standards listed above are adopted because hardline
preserve boundary lines were not established at the time of preparation of the HMP. The purpose of the standards is to ensure that future development is sited to preserve the maximum amount of ESHA within
the coastal zone, and to establish a viable habitat corridor and preserve
area in Zones 20 and 21. If the City, with the concurrence of the wildlife
agencies and the Coastal Commission through an LCP amendment,
subsequently approves a Hardline preserve boundary for any of the above-described properties as part of the HMP, then the onsite
preservation included in the Hardline preserve boundary shall apply.
Figure 8 - Revised - City Golf Course shall replace the existing
Figure 8 on Page D-19.
3. Hardline Preserve Boundary maps (attached) for the Summit Property and the
Mandana Property shall be incorporated into the HMP and identified as Figures
34 and 35.
Second Addendum to HMP - Page ## 10
Tgure 8 - Revised
City Golf Course
I
850 425 0 a50 S
Pnnted 15 January 2003 lcargisVproductslplannin~r361 02lGalfCourse rnxd
Tgure 34
Summit at Carlsbad Property +E
S
0 100 200 400 Pnnled 02 January 2M)3
/carqis2/products/planningr368 02/surnrnilplol mxd 7 Feel
=igure 35
Mandana Property
I
W+E
S
0 255 510 1.020
Printed 17 December 2002 lcargis~productslplann1n@361 02Rvlandana mrd
City of Carlsbad
February 7,2003
James Raives
Consistency Determinations
California Coastal Commission
45 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 941 05
RE: LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT FOR HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
Dear Mr. Raives:
As we recently discussed, the City of Carlsbad is requesting a consistency certification for the
amended Habitat Management Plan (HMP). The HMP is accompanied by a Local Coastal Program
Amendment which incorporates the HMP and provides special conservation standards for coastal
zone properties in Carlsbad, as recommended by Coastal Commission staff. To assist you in your
review, we have enclosed:
1. The draft Habitat Management Plan including the second addendum.
2. The Local Coastal Program Amendment as approved by the Carlsbad City Council.
3. Copies of the Planning Commission staff report, resolutions of approval, and minutes.
4. Copies of the City Council agenda bill and resolutions of approval. Minutes will be forwarded
as soon as they are available.
5. Copies of all comment letters received
These documents are incorporated by reference into this consistency certification and provide the
analytical basis for this consistency certification. As required by 15 CFR 930.75(b), we have
concluded that the proposed Habitat Management Plan and Local Coastal Program Amendment
comply with the enforceable policies of California's approved management program and will be
conducted in a manner consistent with such program. We ask that the California Coastal
Commission concur with our certification of consistency.
The City of Carlsbad has worked closely with the Coastal Commission over the past 2% years to
arrive at the documents being submitted to you now, which reflects their input to a very large degree.
Thank you for your assistance in helping us understand and comply with the consistency certification
process. We look forward to working with you as you complete this review. If you need additional
information, please contact Don Rideout at (760) 6024602.
Sincerely;
Planning Director I CARLCPA I MJH:DR:mh
C: Ken Akers
City Manager (without attachments)
City Attorney (without attachments)
Community Development Director (without attachments)
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 69 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.cr.carlsbad.ca.us
h
Figure 5
Existing I Hardline Conservation
Areas
0 0.5 1 .o 1.5 2.0
MILES
CAR LCPA
Conservation Areas
9 1997 City of Carlsbad GIS /cargio2/producte/hmp/r61.97/figurasdlr/nawf~a~.aml 11/24/99
Figure 6
Proposed Hardline Conservation
Areas APPLICATION NO.
tri CAR LCPA 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
MILES
a 1-03B
Proposed Hardline
Conservation Areas 9 1697 City of Carlibad GIS /caqii2/producte/hrnp/~l 97/~lgurasdir/nswfi~6,arnl 11/24/99
Fig. 26
Proposed Standards Areas
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
MILES
@ 1997 Clty of Carlibad GIS /ea~le2/p~ducta/hmp/rRl.97/fl~ursndlr/pmp~a.aml 12/03/99
EXHIBITNO. 6 1
APPLICATION NO.
1-038
Areas
CAR LCPA
1. . -. .~ - I
Figure 27
I EXHIBIT NO. Conservation Components Map 77
0 0.8 1.0 1.5 2.0
i 1 P 4
MILES
+
a
APPLICATION NO. ICARLCPA( w Conservation
@ 1999 ckty of Cadshad GIS /cargi~2/products/hmp/r61.97/flgurasdir/con8compam~ 11/24/99
copyrighted by SanGIS. All Rights-Resehed.
Pnnted 15 May 2003
/carqis2/oroducts/ouWri 57.03/auraolol.rnxd
0 WEa Coastat Commissior -.
,,,,.*I I
EXHIBIT NO. 10
APPLICATION NO.
CAR LCPA
1-038
Carlsbad Promenad1
Conceptual Hardlinr
I I mo
EXHIBIT NO. 11
APPLICATION NO.
CAR LCPA
1 -03B
Redeemer by the
Sea
Conceptual Hardline
1 Aalifornia Coastal Commission
wj I :A * ..m
-
t
I 1 !
I
I
I
I I
~
EXHIBIT NO. 12
APPLICATION NO.
CAR LCPA
I -03B
Thompson-Tabata
Concept u a I H a rd I in e
\
P) S
n 0 t
n W I- v, W c3 c3 3 v,
a Q
a,
t
W 0 Q a, v,
7 W a, 0
L
a
n W v, > w 111
-
3Nll Ald3dOdd H3NVd All11
EXHIBIT NO. 15
APPLICATION NO.
CAR LCPA
1 -03B
Kelly Ranch Property
Proposed Revised
Hard line
California Coastal Commission
EXHIBIT NO. 17
APPLICATION NO.
CAR LCPA
1 -03B
Undeveloped
Properties - Zone 21
[)alifornia Coastal commission j
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, GOVERNOR
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
45 FREMONT, SUITE 2000 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105- 2219 VOICE AND TDD (415) 904-5200
FAX ( 415) 904- 5400
MEMORANDUM
TO: KeriAkers
FROM: Caitlin Bean
RE: Kevane Parcel Vegetation Types, Carlsbad DATE: May 15,2003
The purpose of this memo is to identify and describe the vegetation communities that occur on
the 20-acre Kevane Parcel in Carlsbad. Following two site visits (January 13 and April 28,
2003), a literature review, and consultation with the Wildlife Agencies and other southern
maritime chaparral experts, we have identified the chaparral-type community that occurs on both
the western and eastern sides of the oak woodland on the site, as southern maritime chaparral.
This plant community is restricted to coastal southern California along the immediate coast of
San Diego and Orange Counties and northwestern Baja California, Mexico and has experienced
an 82 to 93 percent decline in extent due to agricultural conversion and urbanization (Federal
Register 1996).
Three special status plant species occur on the Kevane parcel including the federally endangered
Del Mar manzanita (Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp crassifolia), and California Native Plant
Society (CNPS) List 1B species, Nutall’s scrub oak (Quercus dumosa) and summer holly
(Comarostaphylis diuersifolia ssp. diuersifolia). CNPS List 1B consists of species that are
eligible for state listing (Skinner and Pavlik 1994). All three of these species are considered
indicators of southern maritime chaparral (Keeler-Wolf, personal communication)
Based on existing site-specific conditions, the rarity of this vegetation community, and the fact
that it provides habitat for special-status plant species, we consider southern maritime chaparral
on the Kevane site to meet the definition of environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) as
defined in Section 30107.5 of the California Coastal Act of 1976.
The Kevane property is located 2.5 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean in the City of Carlsbad
(Robertson and Slobodnick 2002). The elevations onsite range from 270 to 150 feet above mean
sea level (Robertson and Slobodnick 2002). The rectangular site is bisected by an intermittent
drainage that supports oak woodland. On either side of the oak woodland the slopes support
southern maritime chaparral. Soils present onsite consist of loamy alluvial land in the
Huerohuero complex and Corralitos loamy sand (USDA 1973).
The southern portion of the eastern half of the site is predominantly dense chamise (Adenosten
CAR LCPA
I -03B
fasciculatum) of 5 to 6 feet in height. The canopy is mostly closed with a bare understory.
Among the chamise there is scattered black sage (Salvia rnelifera), sticky monkey flower
Caitlin Bean re
Kevane Property Habitat
(Mimulus aurantiacus), and mission manzanita (Xylococcus bicolor). Coast buckwheat
(Eriogonumfasciculatum) occurs in openings, and along the northern edge of the property
scattered Nuttall’s scrub oaks (Quercus dumosa) occur.
The western portion of the site is more diverse in general and includes chamise, coyote bush
(Baccharis pilularis), deerweed (Lotus scoparius), black sage, lemonadeberry (Rhus
integrifolia), California sage (Artemisia californica), mission manzanita, coast buckwheat,
monkey flower, Mojave yucca (Yucca schidigera), poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum)
and laurel sumac (Malosma laurina). A large stand of unidentified manzanita occurs in the
center of the slope. Whde it is possible that this is a stand of Eastwood’s manzanita
(Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. zacaensis), this subspecies may be difficult to distinguish fiom
the federally endangered Del mar manzanita (Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp crassifolia) and
additional investigation is warranted. An unidentified dudleya and chorizanthe were observed
along the southern property boundary. Nutall’s scrub oak was observed growing along the San
Diego Gas and Electric easement.
Based on an aerial photo provided by the applicant, a portion of the site, west-of the SDGE
easement, was scraped approximately 20 years ago. Pampas grass was observed within this area
indicating some degree of disturbance. However, the area had relatively high native species
diversity and appears to be restoring to southem maritime chaparral.
Southern maritime chaparral is defined by plant species composition, proximity to the ocean and
the maritime influences of fog and the marine layer, and is generally restricted to porous coastal
marine sediments (Hogan et al. 1996). Data collected fiom 48 transects and analyzed by Hogan
et al. (1996) indicated that south or west facing slopes within 2.5 miles of the ocean are
dominated by chamise with scattered black sage and manzanita. East or north facing slopes
within 2.5 miles of the coast are dominated by chamise with a diverse mixture of other shrub
species such as black sage, buckwheat, yucca, manzanita (Arctostaphylos sp.), Nutall’s scrub
oak, coast spice bush (Cneoridium dumosum), ceanothus (Ceanothus sp.), poison oak, toyon
(Heteromeles arbutifolia) and other species that serve as indicators (Hogan personal
communication). These two associations were combined and both are considered southern
maritime chaparral.
Both of these associations are considered members of the chamise-black sage series as described
by Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf (1995) (Hogan et al. 1996). While the Manual of California
Vegetation (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995) does not identify the chamise-black sage series as
including southern maritime chaparral, this is an error and the next edition of this reference will
be edited to reflect this fact (Keeler-Wolf, personal communication). The descriptions of these
two associations accurately reflect our field observations of plant species composition on the
Kevane property.
Based on proximity to the ocean, sandy soils, and plant species composition, Dr. Todd Keeler-
Wolf, vegetation ecologist with the Department of Fish and Game, was confident that the
chaparral type of habitat that occurs on the Kevane parcel is accurately identified as southern
maritime chaparral (Keeler-Wolf, personal communication). In addition, John Martin of the
Carlsbad office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also feels strongly that the HMP map for
Zone 21 is accurate and that the chaparral on the Kevane parcel is accurately described as
southern maritime chaparral (personal communication).
Holland (1 986) described southern maritime chaparral as, “open chaparral dominated by wart-
stemmed ceanothus (Ceanothus verrucosus) and thick leaved Eastwood’s manzanita.” Both
Hogan et al. (1996) and Dr. Keeler-Wolf confirmed that the southern maritime chaparral
description provided by Holland (1986) was inadequate. Holland did not attempt to quantify the
vegetation types that he described. No wart-stemmed ceanothus were observed on the Kevane
parcel, however, this species is an obligate seed sprouter and it is likely that the species still
occurs in the seed bank. This species generally sprouts following fire and may not be extant in
stands that have not burned in some time. As mentioned above, Hogan et al. (1996) found that
chamise is the dominate plant species in this community and that other species such as black
sage, mission manzanita, Del Mar manzanita, Nutall’s scrub oak, summer holly, Mojave yucca
serve as indicators.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, GOVERNOR
. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
45 FREMONT, SUITE 2000
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105- 2219
VOICE AND TDD (415) 904-5200
FAX (415) 904-5400
MEMORANDUM
TO: KeriAkers
FROM: Caitlin Bean
RE: Kevane Parcel, Carlsbad DATE: May 19,2003
The purpose of this memo is to document the course of events leading to the identification of the
vegetation communities that occur on the 20-acre Kevane Parcel in Carlsbad.
BACKGROUND:
On January 13,2003 I conducted a site visit to the Kevane parcel. The purpose of the visit was
to: 1) review the vegetation community map provided in the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan
(HMP) and 2) review the vegetation community map prepared for Robert Kevane by REC
Consultants. The applicant’s Biological Report and map had been requested by Coastal
Commission staff prior to the meeting, however, neither were provided in time for the field
meeting. Therefore, the site review was conducted without an opportunity to check the accuracy
of the consultants work. The habitat map in the HMPidentified the entire site as southern
maritime chaparral.
I received a copy of Mr. Kevane’s’Biological Report on January 15,2003. The report provided
an analysis of vegetation types on the site including a map. Based on my observations, field
notes, and a review of the Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of
California (Holland 1986), I believed that the Biological Report accurately depicted biological
resources that occur on the project site and on February 25, 2003, I prepared an internal memo to
this effect. The western portion of the site was described as being dominated by disturbed
coastal sage scrubkhaparral mix and the east side of the site was described as chamise chaparral.
The site is bisected by an oak-woodland that grows along an intermittent drainage and directly to
the west of the woodland, the consultant mapped southern mixed chaparral.
I requested that a map be provided showing the locations of the three special status plant species
that have been identified on the site: CNPS List 1B species Summer holly (Comarostaphylis
diversifolia ssp. diversifolia), CNPS List 1B species Nuttall’s scrub oak (Quercus dumosa), and
federally endangered Del Mar manzanita (Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crassifolia). As of yet,
no map of the special status species has been provided. However, a map of special status species
locations would not change our characterization of the site as ESHA
On March 1 1,2003, REC Consultants submitted a letter stating that they had collected data from
a single transect located on the western portion of the Kevane parcel and they concluded that this
habitat type would be more accurately classified as being “successional to chaparral.” I called
the letter’s author, Ms. Elyssa Robertson, immediately upon receipt of the letter and requested
that the data generated from this additional field-work be provided to the Coastal Commission
for review. Coastal Commission staff obtained the transect data on April 10,2003. The data
was submitted with a revised letter from REC dated March 28,2003 that described that
vegetation data from the western portion of the site had been collected fi-om two additional
transects. No map of the transect locations was provided. Dr. John Dixon and I reviewed this
data on April 11,2003. A map of the transect locations was provided on April 17,2003.
On April 2,2003, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff, Mr. John Martin, contacted Coastal
Commission staff and raised concerns about the identification of the vegetation types on site. He
stated that the vegetation on the Kevane property was accurately identified on the HMP maps as
southern maritime chaparral. During this phone call Mr. Martin agreed to conduct a site visit to
collect the information necessary to justify his position, however, he was never able to schedule
a site visit.
On April 28,2003, Dr. Dixon and I conducted a site visit to review the applicant’s Biological
Report in the field and to assess the configuration of the preserve for the entire Zone 2 1 area.
Mr. Victor Novik, biologist with REC Consultants, joined us in the field, however, he had never
been to the Kevane site before and was unable to provide us with the information regarding the
location of special status plant species, nor was he able to identify many of the plant species on
located on the property.
On April 29,2003, I received a phone call fiom Mr. David Hogan with the Center for Biological
Diversity. Mr. Hogan was concerned that Coastal Commission staff were making decisions
about the Kevane parcel vegetation communities without considering the findings he made in a
paper published in 1996 in the journal Fremontia. I asked Mr. Hogan to summarize his concerns
in e-mail and to send the publication as soon as possible.
As a result of the information that was submitted by Mr. Hogan, I contacted vegetation
community expert, Mr. Todd Keeler-Wolf (Department of Fish and Game) to describe the site
conditions and discuss the potential classification of the site as southern maritime chaparral. Mr.
Keeler-Wolf confirmed that the site would be most accurately characterized as southern maritime
chaparral based on indicator species, proximity to the coast, and the soil type present on the site
(pers. comm.).
Last, I reviewed the final rule for the listing of the Del Mar manzanita and found that Del Mar
manzanita is restricted almost exclusively to southern maritime chaparral and is considered and
indictor of this community (Federal Register 1996). This species is known to occur on the
Kevane property.
b; n L
W 0 a Y z
EXHIBIT NO. 20
APPLICATION NO.
CARLCPA
I-03B
Tables
to be revised per
Suggested
Modification 6
California Coastal Commission
n z m4
I
I
I
>ON
300
000
Nan NInQ
amc
YYY
-1-I- .s .s .s
-
00
--
DO U
--
no
--
30
--
ma
-i
--
mu bcT
--
nu
YY
-I- .E .s -
I5 c -u != =I
0
aJ =I U
v) a,
m
t a,
.-
2
c.
Ei
c.
c. P
6
a,
a JZ
n
4
E
2
0 v)
m > > m
v)
3 m ;F a, m m
E
2
P a .. a
0 z c.
h v) Q L
Y 9
5
v) m
C
L
-0 Q v) 0 P
R E
1 c
U a, -5 Y
v) .- a