Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLCPA 92-01; Aviara Phase III; Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) (2)STAE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON. Gowmor ORTH, SUITE 200 (619) 521-8036 TO: COMMISSIONERS AND INTERESTED PERSONS FROM: CHARLES DAMM, SOUTH COAST DISTRICT DIRECTOR DEBORAH N. LEE, ASSISTANT DISTRICT DIRECTOR, SAN DIE BILL PONDER, COASTAL PLANNER, SAN DIEGO AREA OFFICE SUBJECT: REVISED FINDINGS ON MAJOR AMENDMENT NO. 1-94(B) TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD'S LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM: Adoption at the Meeting of November 15-18, 1994) (For Public Hearing and Possible SYNOPSIS SUMM ARY OF COMMISSION ACT I ON At the Commission meeting of August 11, 1994, the Commission reviewed and approved a major amendment to the certified City of Carlsbad's Mello I and Mello I1 Local Coastal Programs. In its action, the Commission approved the amendment subject to a number of suggested modifications. the Commission found that all new development within Phase I11 of the Aviara Master Plan must be designed to be consistent with the multi-species and mu1 ti-habi tat goal s and requirements of the statewide Natural Communi ties Conservation Planning (NCCP) Program. To that end, a number of suggested modifications were approved which modified the subdivision design of Phase I11 lands to include wildlife corridors and undercrossings, and revegetation of degraded biological ly sensitive areas. clarified that a minimum 20 foot structural setback shall be required for fire suppression efforts adjacent to sensitive vegetation, that any rev! sion to approved trail alignments within Phase I11 be reviewed by the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and that permitted land uses within the Pacific Rim Community Park include natural open space and passive recreational uses so as to not preclude long range NCCP planning efforts to preserve wildlife connectivity on a regional scale. Most significantly, Other suggested modifications COMMI SS IO N VOTES Carlsbad Land Use Plan Amendment 1-94(8), approve as submitted: Commissioners Voting "Yesi1: None Commissioners Voting "No": Calcagno, Cervantes, Doo, Giacomini Rick, Carlsbad Land Use Plan Amendment 1-94(B), approve with modifications: Wi 11 i ams , Wright and Chai rman Gwyn Commissioners Voting "Yes": Calcagno, Cervantes, Doo, Giacomini , Rick, Hi 11 i ams, Wright and Chai rman Gwyn I Commissioners Voting "NO": None - Carl sbad LCPA 1-94(B) Revi sed Fi ndi ngs _- ' k. Page 2 mentation Amendment 1-94(B), reject as submitted: Voting "Yes": Cal cagno, Cervantes, Doo, Gi acomi ni , Ri ck, Voti ng "NO" : None Wi 11 i ams, Wright and Chai rman Gwyn ur C&s.trad Implementation Amendment 1-94(B), accept with modifications: Commissioners Voting "Yes": Calcagno, Cervantes, Doo, Giacomini , Rick, Commissioners Voting "No": None SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT RFOUES T/BACKGROU ND Wi 1 1 i ams , Wright and Chai rman Gwyn At the Commission's April 1994 hearing, pursuant to Coastal Act Section 30517, the Commission waived the applicable time limits upon which to act on LCPA 1-94 for a period not to exceed one year. The City had individually submitted three different amendment requests; and, then it requested all three elements be reviewed at the next meeting in May as one amendment package. However, the portion of LCPA 1-94 which would allow residential density bonuses to enable the development of lower income affordable housing has been continued by staff pending consultation wi th the State Department of Housi ng and Communi ty Development. respect to this amendment. This is necessary to clarify the Department's position with The second amendment item involved the West Batiquitos Lagoon segment. The Commission approved, with suggested modifications, an amendment to the LCP 1 and use plan component and rep1 aced the formerly approved Bati qui tos Lagoon Education Park (BLEP) Master Plan with the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan as the implementing ordinance at its May, 1994 hearing. The third amendment, and the subject of this report, involves the Mello I and Mello I1 segments and it would revise the previously certified Aviara Master Plan, which controls development of 1,402 acres on the north shore of Batiquitos Lagoon, east of 1-5 and west of El Camino Real. i ncl ude modi fi cation of pl anni ng area and open space boundari es , real i gnment of streets, addition of 37 units to the previously approved plan in Phase I11 of the master plan, alteration of residential product mix and revisions to the plan's development and design standards. These changes ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Further information on the City of Carlsbad LCP amendment may be obtained from Bill Ponder, at (619) 521-8036. Carlsbad LCPA 1-94(8) Revi sed Findings Page 3 .. PART I. OVERVIEW A. Coca 1 Coasta 1 Proaram Hi storv-All Sea mentg. The City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program (LCP) consists of six geographic segments: 1,100 acres; the Carlsbad Mello I LCP segment with 2,000 acres; the Carlsbad Mello I1 LCP segment which includes approximately 5,300 acres; the West Bati qui tos Lagoon/Sammi s Properti es LCP segment with 200 acres; the East Bati qui tos LagoonIHunt Properties LCP segment with 1,000 acres and the Vi 1 lage Area Redevelopment segment with approximately 100 acres. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 30170(f) and 30171, the Coastal Commission was required to prepare and approve an LCP for identified portions of the City. to as the Mello I and Mello I1 segments. The Mello I and Mello I1 LCP segments were approved by the Coastal Commission in September 1980 and June 1981, respectively. the City and approved by the Coastal Commission on July 1, 1982. the Agua Hedionda Lagoon LCP segment compri sed of approximately This resulted in the two Carlsbad LCP segments commonly referred The Agua Hedionda segment Land Use Plan was prepared by The Mello I, Mello I1 and Agua Hedionda segments of the Carlsbad LCP cover the majority of the City's coastal zone. They are also the segments of the LCP which involve the greatest number of coastal resource issues and have been the subject of the most controversy over the past years. involved in the review of the land use plans of these segments were preservation of agricultural lands, protection of steep-sloping hi 11 sides and wet1 and habitats and the provi sion of adequate vi si tor-servi ng faci 1 i ti es. Preservation of the scenic resources of the area was another issue raised in the review of these land use plans. As mentioned, the City had found the policies of the certified Mello I and I1 segments regarding preservation of agriculture and steep-sloping hillsides to be unacceptable. therefore did not apply these provisions in the review of local projects. Among those issues The City In the summer of 1985, the City submitted two amendment requests to the Commission and, in October of 1985, the Commission certified amendments 1-85 and 2-85 to the Mello I and Mello I1 segments, respectively. These (major) amendments to the LCP involved changes to the agricultural preservation, steep slope protection and housing policies of the Mello I and I1 segments of the LCP. After certification of these amendments, the City adopted the Mello I and I1 LCP segments. The West Bati qui tos Lagoon/Sammi s Properti es segment was certified in 1985 along with a coastal development permit for a project comprising the majority of the uplands within that plan segment (Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park-Sammis). At its May 1994 hearing, the Commission approved with suggested modifications an amendment to the LCP land use plan component and replaced the formerly approved Batiqui tos Lagoon Education Park Master Plan with the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan as the implementing ordinance. The plan area of the Village Area Redevelopment segment was formerly part of the Mello I1 segment of the LCP. In August of 1984, the Commission approved Carisbad LCPA 1-94(8) Revi sed Findings Page 4 .. the segmentation of this 100-acre area from the remainder of the Mello I1 LCP segment and, at the same time, approved the submitted land use plan for the area. In March of 1988, the Commission approved the Implementation Program for the Village Area Redevelopment segment of the LCP. post-certification maps occurred in December and the City assumed permit authority for this LCP segment on December 14, 1988. In addition to the review process for the six LCP segments mentioned, the City has also submitted at various times, packages of land use plan amendments to the certified LUP segments, including these segments, in an effort to resolve exi sting i nconsi stenci es between the City' s General P1 an, Zoning Maps and the Local Coastal Program. After a1 1 such inconsistencies are resolved, the City plans to submit, for the Commission's review, the various ordinances and post-certification maps for implementation of the LCP. At that time, or perhaps earlier, the City may prepare and submit a single LCP document that incorporates all of the LCP segments as certified by the Commission and any subsequent LCP amendments. After review and approval of these documents by the Commission, the City would assume permit authority for all LCP segments. A review of the e!? u- b" B. STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review for land use plans, or their amendments, is found in Section 30512 of the Coastal Act. certify an LUP or LUP amendment if it finds that it meets the requirements of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Specifically, it states: This section requires the Commission to ction 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. Pursuant to Section 30513 of the Coastal Act, the Commission may only reject zoni ng ordi nances or other imp1 ementi ng actions , as we1 1 as thei r amendments , on the grounds that they do not conform with, or are inadequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified land use plan. action by a majority vote of the Commissioners present. The Commission shall take C. PUBLIC PARTICIP ATIOq The City has held Planning Commission and City Council meetings with regard to the components of the subject amendment request. All of those local hearings were duly noticed to the public. di stri buted to a1 1 known interested parties. Notice of the subject amendment has been ___. . . Carlsoad LCPA 1-94(8) Revi sed Fi ndi ngs Page 5 PART 11. LOCAL CO ASTAL PROGRAM SUBMITTAL - RESOLU TIONS A. RESOLUTION I. (Resolution to deny certification of the Mello I and Mello I1 Land Use Plan Amendment 1-94(8), as submitted) .Resolution The Commission hereby denies certification of the amendment request to the City of Carlsbad LCP on the grounds that the amendment does not meet the requirements of and is not in conformity 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 not 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 does not meet the requirements of Section 21080.5(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 11. (Resolution to approve certification of the Mello I and Mello I1 Land Use Plan Amendment 1-94(B), if modified) Resolution 11 The Commi ssion hereby cert ifies. the amendment request to the City of Carlsbad LCP on the grounds that the amendment, as approved with the suggested modifications, 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 contain a specific access component as required by Section 30500 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 does meet the requirements of Section 21080.5(d)(2)(1) 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. C. RESOLU TION 111 . (Resolution to deny certification of the Mello I and Me1 lo I1 Imp1 ementation P1 an Amendment 1-94(8), as submitted) Resolution I11 The Commission hereby denies certification of the amendment to the City of Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program on the grounds that the amendment does not conform with, and is not adequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified land use plan. There are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any - Cartsbad LCPA 1-94(B) Revi sed Findings Page 6 significant adverse impacts which the approval would have on the envi ronment . D. RESOLU TION IV . (Resolution to approve certification of a portion of the City of Carl sbad Imp1 ementation P1 an Amendment 1-94(B), if modified) Resol ut ion IV The Commission hereby gDproves ce rtification of the amendment, as approved with suggested modifications, to the City of Carl sbad' s Local Coastal Program on the grounds that the amendment does conform with, and is adequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified land use plan. There are no feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts which the approval would have on the environment. PART 111. SUGGESTE D MODIFICA TIONS The following are the suggested revisions for this amendment request. Aviara Master Plan serves as the Land Use Plan (LUP) and Implementation Plan (IP) for those segments of the City of Carlsbad LCP that lie within its geographic limits. The proposed amendment applies to Phase I11 of the Aviara Master Plan lands that lie within the Mello I and Mello I1 segments. Phases I and I1 of the Aviara Master Plan includes lands that are part of the East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties local coastal program segment. Language to be added is underlined; language to be deleted is ttdfd&l/ddf. The Mello I a nd Mello I1 Sea ments Land Use P1 an 1. On page 17 within the "Local Coastal Program" section, new language shall be added in Section 2 as follows: Gradina and Resou rce Preservation All development upon the subject property shall comply with the grading and resource preservation pol i ci es of the underlying Mello I, Mello I1 and Batiquitos Lagoon/HPI Local Coastal Program pol i ci es. For a1 1 tentative maps and/or site development plans/planned unit development processed for any portion of this Master Plan, site specific slope and biological constraint maps must be submitted for review. These maps shall specify: 1) all 25% or greater slope areas containing Chaparral and Coastal Sage Scrub habitats, and 2) a1 1 other 25% or greater slope areas. All new deVe1oD ment shal 1 be des ianed to be cons i stent with mu1 ti-sDec ies a nd multi-habitat aoals a nd reauirements as estab lished in the state wide Natu ral Communities Co nservation P1 anni ng ( NCCP) Proaram. Bot h the tentative tract maw a nd the final maps s ha1 1 mD1 i ance wi th NCCP aui del i nes . guidelines sha 11 be de vel ODed in consultation w ith the United States F ish demonstrate co and w ildlife Service a nd the Ca 1 i forni a DeDart ment of Fi sh and Game. On page 138 under Planning Area 17 ".Landsca~e 'I, the fifth section should ComDl i ance with the 2. Carl'sbad LCPA 1-94(8) Revi sed Findings Page 7 be revised as follows: A fire suppression zone subject to the approval of the Planning Director and Fire Marshal 1 shall be established between nativelnatural ized areas and structures. The fire suppression plan should incorporate a minimum twentv (20) foot structural setbackd from native areas in combination with a program of selective thinning of native vegetation subject to the approval of the P1 anni ng Di rector. 3. On page 138 under Planning Area 17 "Qpen Space 'I, the language shall be revised as follows: The manufactured slope areas shall be maintained as open space. Additional areas along the western boundary of the planning area shall be mai ntai ned as natural open space including eucalyptus groves located at the northwest and southwest corners of the planning area which may be thinned. for approval. The above open space areas shall be maintained by the community open space maintenance district. SDace wi Id1 ife corridor shall be maintained at t he north end of this plannina area in co n f orman ce with the reauirements of the Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to meet the aoa 1s and reaui rements of the Natural Communi ties Co nservation P1 anni na (NCCP) Proaram. This co rridor shall also include a wildlife unde rcrossi nq beneath Ambrosia Lane to con nect to Plannina Area 18 oDen st>ace. A tree thinning plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director A north-east trend ing ope n 4. On page 153 under Planning Area 21 "CandscaDe 'I, the fifth section should be revised as follows: A fire suppression zone subject to the approval of the Planning Director and Fire Marshall shall be established between native/naturalized areas and structures. The fire suppression plan should incorporate a minimum twentv (20) foot structural setbackd from native areas in conbiniation with a program of selective thinning of native vegetation subject to the approval of the Planning Di rector. 5. On page 154 under Planning Area 21 "Trails", the language should not be deleted as proposed and should be revised as follows: Trai 1 s A portion of the major community trail which extends southward from Poinsettia Lane is located within this planning area. The trail segment runs along the westerly edge of the major eucalyptus grove within the planning area and the segment within the public utility corridor which extends southward to the golf course shall be constructed as a condition of development for this planning area. Revision to t he tra il alianment within this sea ment mav occu r in consultation with the Dept. of Fish and Game and U .S Fish and Wildlife Service. a nd shall conform to t he western edae of the residential sub division and extend south to t he aolf course. 6. On page 157 under Planning Area 22 "Landscape", the sixth section should h Carisbad LCPA 1-94(B) Rev1 sed Findings Page 8 .. be revised as follows: A fire suppression zone subject to the approval of the Planning Director and Fire Marshal 1 shall be establ ished between nativelnatural ized areas and structures. The fire suppression plan should incorporate 9 minimum twentv (70) foot structural setbackd from native areas in combination with a program of selective thinning of native vegetation subject to the approval of the P1 ann1 ng Di rector. 7. On page 158 under Planning Area 22 "Qpen Spa= It, the language shall be revised as follows: The manufactured slope areas shall be maintained as open space. undeveloped areas, especially the slopes in the ddtfHW!f central, east and southeast portions of the planning area, shall be maintained as natural open space in conformance with the requ i reme nts of jhe DeDa rtment of Fish and Game a nd the U .S. Fish and Wildlife Service to meet t he aoa 1s and reauirements of the Natural Commu nities Conse rvati on Plannina (NCCP) Proaram. The above noted open space areas shall be mai ntai ned by the community open space maintenance di stri ct. unde rcrossina sha 11 be co nstructed be neath t he Plannina Area 22 a- road at t he north end of the ope n sDace wi Id1 ife corridor. The large A wi 1 dl i fe 8. On page 158 under Planning Area 22 "Trails", the language should not be deleted and should be revised as follows: Trai 1 s The portion of the major community trai 1 which connects Poinsettia Lane and Alga Road is located within the planning area and shall be constructed as a condition of development for this planning area. trail alignment within this sea ment may occu r. in consultation with t he DeDt. of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish a nd Wildlife Service. to e xtend sout h * V * nvir n i' babi tat areas. Revision to t he 9. On page 158 under Planning Area 22, the following language should be added as follows: Native Reveaetat i on Bi 01 om ca 1 v dearaded within the Pla nnina Area 22 wi Id1 ife corridor shall be reveaetated in coasta 1 saae SC rub and/o r southe rn I' areas 1 I1 maritime chapa rral as dete rmined throuah a D lan aDDrOVed bv t he DeDa rtment gf Fish and Game and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service D rior to recordation o f the final map fo r the residential subd ivision of the pl anni na area. 10. On page 162 under Planning Area 23 "LandscaDe 'I, the sixth section should be revised as follows: A fire suppression zone subject to the approval of the Planning Director Carl sDad LCPA 1-94(B) Revised Fi ndi ngs Page 9 and Fire Marshal 1 shall be established between nativelnatural ized areas and structures. The fire suppression plan should incorporate a minimum twentv (20) foot structural setbackf from native areas in combination with a program of selective thinning of native vegetation subject to the approval of the P1 anni ng Di rector. - 11. On page 162 under Planning Area 23 "Trails", the language should not be deleted and should be revised to read as follows: lhiki A portion of the community trail linking Alga Road and Poinsettia Lane is located along the easterly edge of the site. Construction of this trail shall be a condition of development for this planning area. Revision to the tra il alianment in this seame nt mav occu r. in consultation with the Dept. of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. to e xtend sout h to a co nnection with Alaa Road a nd avoid environmental 1 Y se nsi tive habitat areas. 12. On page 193 under Planning Area 32 "Permitted Uses 'I, the language shall be revised as follows: The following uses are allowed within the Pacific Rim Park (Areas 32 and 32a on Exhibit V-33); natura 1 ope n space. Dass ive recreational uses. fami ly-ori ented pi cni c areas, group pi cni c areas, turfed open space areas for free play, multi-purpose lighted playfields, tot areas, a structure for meeting or lectures, tennis courts, swimming pool, onsi te parking and similar uses commonly located in a public park. are allowed with Area 32b subject to approval of a conditional use permi t. Church and daycare uses 13. On page 193a under Planning Area 32 "Open Soace " * the fol 1 owi ng 1 anguage shall be added as follows: An ope n mace co rridor shall be maintained at t he north end of this glannina area in conformance with the reauirements of the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( FWS) to meet 1s and reauirements of the Natu ral Communities Co nservat i on PI Proaram. The corridor shall be estab lished in the aoa P1 anni na (NCC consul tat ion wi th DFG/USFWS. 14. The schematic drawings associated with Planning Areas 17, 22 and 32 should be revised as follows: a. open space corridor as shown in concept on Exhibit A attached. b. open space corridor as shown in concept on Exhibit B attached. Revise PA 17 schematic to include revised approved tentative map and Revise PA 22 schematic to include revlsed approved tentative map and c. Revise PA 32 schematic to eliminate any proposed development .pattern. Cartsbad LCPA 1-94(B) Revi sed Findings Page 10 PART IV. FINDINGS FO R DENIAI. 0 F THE MFLLO I AND MELLO II LA ND USE PLAN DMENT 1-94. AS SUBMITTED A. AMENDMENT DESCRI PTION The proposed amendment to the Aviara Master Plan, which serves, in part, as both the Land Use Plan (LUP) and Implementation Plan (IP) for those portions of the Mello I and Mello I1 segments that lie within its geographic limits, includes a number of changes. area and open space boundaries, realignment of streets, addition of 37 units to the previously approved plan in Phase I11 of the master plan, alteration of residential product mix and revisions to development and design standards. These changes include modification of planning The Aviara Master Plan, previously known as the Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort Master Plan, was originally approved by the Coastal Commission in April 1988. Currently, the Phase I area has been subdivided, graded and partially developed, with the Aviara Golf Course and clubhouse in full operation and almost 100 occupied single family dwellings. Phase 11, in the western portion of the master plan, has also been subdivided and graded. The area comprising Phase 111, the final phase of the master plan and covering its northern portion, is undeveloped and is characterized by a north-south trending ridge and valley. Although much of the site has been disturbed by past agricultural production and contains trails and migrant worker settlements, portions of the site are populated by mature stands of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub vegetation, and a mature grove of eucalyptus trees. along the southwestern portion of Phase I11 and is part of a larger wildlife corridor trending north to south. encroachment into this corridor. The largest undisturbed area lies The proposed master plan allows substantial In 1988, within the area comprising Phase 111, the Commission approved 490 multifamily units, 62 single family dwellings, a 13.5 acre neighborhood commercial center, a 24.25 acre community park, and a 4.5 acre church/day care site. The current proposal is for 449 multifamily units, 140 single family dwellings, a 13.5 acre neighborhood commercial center, a slightly reconfigured 24.25 acre community park, and a 4.5 acre churchjday care site. Several design changes since the approval of the original master plan in 1988 have created the need for the proposed revisions to the local coastal plan. The alignment for Poinsettia Lane, a major arterial which traverses the northern portion of Phase 111, has moved slightly southward, resulting in a re1 ocation and reconf i gurati on of some pl anni ng areas i ncl udi ng the community park site (Planning Area 32). Planning Area 328 to the south of Poinsettia Lane and Planning Area 20 to the east of Ambrosia Lane. Other map changes involve the relocation of The proposed amendment would convert Planning Areas 17, 21 and 22 from mu1 ti-fami ly development to single family neighborhoods with a corresponding change in zoning to conform to the standards of the R-1-7500 zone. requires a minimum of 15 percent of the homes to be single story with a This zone Carl'sDad LCPA 1-94(B) Revi sed Findings Page 11 maximum height of 22 feet to the peak of the roof. The remaining multifamily neighborhoods (Planning Areas 18, 19 and 20) would be increased by 37 units over what the Commission originally approved for Phase I11 of the master plan. However, at a maximum of 2,002 units for the entire master plan, the master plan is still below the 2,800+ units originally approved. According to the City, unit reductions in Phases I and I1 and the redistribution of product mi xes has created the need for higher density resi denti a1 near Poinsettia Lane and the community park churchlday care site. While the densities of Planning Areas 18, 19 and 20 would be increased to an average of 13.5 du/ac, the City notes that these areas are located near a major arteri a1 (Poi nsetti a Lane) wi th community servi ces , the overall density of the master plan was below that of the original approval , and the increase of 37 units over the approximately 118 acres of Phase I11 would not represent a substantial a1 teration of density. The Aviara Master Plan is covered by a combination district of RLM/RM/OS/RC/N (Residential Low Medium and Medium density, Open Space, Recreational Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial). Densities of the planning areas are based upon the total acreage of the planning area, including open space areas, resulting in densities in the RLM to RM range of up to 8 units per acre. The planning areas in Phases I and I1 include both the pad areas and the surrounding natural open space. If the densities were calculated using only the pad areas, the resulting residential densities would exceed the RM range. The Phase I11 proposal includes three planning areas (18, 19 and 20) that do not contain any open space and consist mainly of pad areas. space can be included in the density calculations, as with the planning areas in Phases I and 11, the resulting densities are beyond the range allowed by the existing combination district. amendment request , higher density des1 gnations (Resi denti a1 Medi um High and Residential High) to the existing combination district, which allow up to 19 du/ac. a result of the new designations because the master plan dictates how many units each neighborhood could contain. From the City's perspective, the LCP amendment only serves as a consistency update, rather than an increase in a1 lowed density. Since no open The City proposes to add, with this The City found that no increase in dwelling unit count would occur as The amendment also proposes changes to the boundaries of the open space program the Commission previously approved in the original LCP and CDP #6-87-680. a negative 6.94 acre balance. program for Aviara is provided in a subsequent section of this report. The proposed open space adjustments for Phase I11 would result in A discussion of the Commission's open space B. CO NFORMANCE WITH SECTION 3000 1.5 OF THE COAS TAL ACT The Commission finds, pursuant to Section 30512.2b of the Coastal Act, that the land use plan amendment, as set forth in the resolution for certification as submitted, is not consistent 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 Carisbad LCPA 1-94(B) Revi sed Findings Page 12 .. e- 1 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. zone resources taking into account the social and economic needs of the people of the state. b) Assure orderly, balanced utilization and conservation of coastal 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 constitutional ly protected rights of private property owners. d) Assure priority for coastal-dependent and coastal-related development over other developments on the coast. 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. C. CHAPTER 3 CONSISTENC Y Sens itive Coasta 1 Resources Section 30231 of the Act states: The bi ol ogi cal producti vi ty and the qual i ty 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, control 1 i ng runoff , [:. . .I, encouraging waste water reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats.. . . Section 30240 of the Act states: (a) Environmental ly sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be a1 lowed 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 such areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of such habitat areas. Section 30107.5 of the Coastal Act states: "Environmentally sensitive area" means any area in which plant or Carl sbad LCPA 1-94(B) Revi sed Findings Page 13 ti animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and development. Section 30250(a) of the Coastal Act states: (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 a significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources.... Finally, Section 30251 of the Act states, in part: The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. 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, Candl to be vi sua1 ly compatible with the character of surrounding areas.. . . Permitted development As stated above, the Master Plan serves, in part, as the land use plan and given its nature like a specific plan, it also serves like a specific development proposal. coastal development permit application (#6-94-25) wi 11 be discussed similarly. Therefore, the subject LCP amendment and its companion The LCP amendment would endorse the removal of almost 9 acres of coastal sage scrub, a vegetation type that includes a number of plant species including Coastal sagebrush, California buckwheat, Black Sage and other woody shrubs. This vegetation is widely recognized as habitat for the threatened California Gnatcatcher but also provides habitat for a number of other plants and animals indigenous to Southern Cal i forni a. Within Southern Cal i forni a, more than 50% of coastal sage scrub’s historical watershed coverage has been removed to accommodate development proposals. Because of its rapid decline and conti nui ng development pressure whi ch further threatens the remaining significant stands of coastal sage scrub, programs at all levels of government have been put in place for its protection. Thus, coastal sage scrub areas represent potenti a1 envi ronmental ly sensi ti ve habitat as defined under the above Coastal Act section. As such, the Coastal Act provides that it must be considered as an environmental constraint and should be protected. One of the measures that is currently in place to protect coastal sage scrub is the Natural Communities Conservation Planning program (NCCP). The program was established by state law, the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act of 1991. The Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub NCCP Program is the first such program developed under the law. Game is the principal state agency implementing the NCCP program. The Regional Coastal Sage Scrub Planning Area is roughly 6,000 square miles The California Department of Fish and Carlsbad LCPA 1-94(8) Revi sed Fi ndi ngs Page 14 and includes parts of five counties: San Diego, Orange, Riverside, Los Angeles and San Bernadino. Numerous local jurisdictions and public and private landowners are affected. Coastal sage scrub is an ecological community that supports a diverse assemblage of native California plants and animals. coastal sage scrub to the point where conservation action is critical to prevent endangerment of many species. Human activity in this five-county area has reduced the extent of e? - The goals of the NCCP, Coastal Act, and the certified Mello I and Mello I1 LCP segments (Phase I11 has lands in both segments, the majority in Mello I) are mutually compatible, which include protection of environmentally sensitive habi tat areas. A1 though di rected to preserving habitat for the gnatcatcher, the more important function of the NCCP planning process is to preserve habitat used by many species, i.e multispecies habitat planning, and a range of dim1 ni shing habitat communi ties. Phase I11 lands also include southern maritime chaparral that would be impacted by the project. Department of Fish and Game (DFG), southern maritime chaparral is more threatened as a habitat from development than coastal sage scrub and may soon be listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Similar to coastal sage scrub, it provides habitat for a number of species including, in this case, Del Mar Manzanita and Summer Holly, the former another plant that is being considered for listing under the ESA. not specifically protected under the Federal 4d rule or the City's Habitat Management Plan (to be described in detail later) but its importance as a multispecies habitat is being addressed as part of the evolving NCCP planning process, which is focusing more on mu1 ti speci es habitat protection than protection of solely coastal sage scrub and the gnatcatcher. Given these findings by the resource agencies, all of these habitats and plant communities thus represent potential environmental ly sensitive habitat area (ESHA) afforded protection under the Coastal Act and the California Environmental Quality Act. According to a representative from the California Southern maritime chaparral is In addition, two other projects (Coastal Development Permit Nos. 6-94-52, Bramalea and 6-94-57, Poinsettia Hills) in the same NCCP and City of Carlsbad HMP planning area, Preserve P1 anni ng Area 4, would affect sensitive habitats, the former as a result of off-site improvements, and the latter from both on-and off-si te impacts. When taken together, they result in cumulative and significant impacts to the resources of the planning area and should be reviewed for consistency with the NCCP's long range planning goals or some other comprehensive effort, rather than prejudicing the mu1 tispecies habitat planning effort that is underway. Section 30240(a) of the Coastal Act requires that sensitive habitats be protected against any si gni fi cant di sruption of habitat values and a1 lows only uses dependent on the resource within them. Because coastal sage scrub has been identified as habitat for the endangered gnatcatcher, all coastal sage scrub must be considered potential environmentally sensitive habitat as defined under the above Coastal Act section. In practice, however, all coastal sage scrub habitat is not considered as an ESHA. To be equitable in Carlstjad LCPA 1-94(8) Revi sed Findings Page 15 the balancing of environmental and economic interests, regional planning efforts have targeted only large, mature contiguous stands of coastal sage scrub or southern maritime chaparral as critical for protection as habitat preserves for endangered species or areas necessary as wi 1 dl i fe corridors whi ch promote the 1 ong term sustai nabi 1 i ty of mu1 ti pl e speci es over 1 arge areas. In this case,the plant communities that are identified as being within preserve planning areas and wi 1 dl i fe corridors associated with the state's NCCP program and the City's HMP program must be considered as ESHA under Section 30240(a) of the Coastal Act. As noted above, the subject amendment and other projects within the project area are proposing impacts to coastal sage scrub and chaparral communities that are identified as being important to long range planning goal s regarding mu1 ti species habitat protection. case of the subject amendment, impacts are proposed on the western side of Phase I11 in lands associated with NCCP and HMP Preserve Planning Area 4. As noted above, these impacts are not allowable within ESHAs; therefore, the proposed amendment must be denied. In the In addition to being inconsistent with the Coastal Act, the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the existing resource protection policies of the Mello I and Mello I1 segments. Subsection 4 of Mello I LUP Policy #1, which pertains directly to Phase I11 lands, provides: 4. All land uses and intensity of use shall be compatible with the protection of sensitive coastal resources. Therefore, a1 1 sensitive lands identified within preserve planning areas are protected either through the LCP or by other resource protection programs. While stands of coastal sage scrub and maritime chaparral located outside of i denti fi ed preserve pl anni ng areas a1 so have habitat value, because they have also been identified as more disturbed or fragmented, they have been determi ned to be 1 ess cri ti cal to maintain connecti vi ty or preserve biologi cal values as part of a larger wildlife corridor or preserve. However, these more fragmented and disturbed habitats outside of preserve areas remain worthy of protection under Sections 30240(b) and 30250(a) of the Coastal Act. Section 30240(b) requires development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas to be sited and designed to prevent adverse impacts to adjacent envi ronmental ly sensitive habitat areas and not threaten their continued existence. In addition, Section 30250 of the Coastal Act requires new development to not have significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources. The Coastal Act recognizes that these outlying, often times disturbed or fragmented habitats sti 11 retain significant habitat values for plants and animals, and also provide a buffer or setback between new development and resource areas which is essential for the continued existence of such areas. The Process and Conservation guidelines of the NCCP were developed by the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) and the California Resources Agency in coordination with U.S. Fish and W ldlife Service (Service) in November 1993. I Car I sbad LCPA 1 -94(B) Revi sed Findings Page 16 They were subsequently referenced as a basis for Section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), a special rule which was published in December 1993, from the listing of the California Gnatcatcher as a "threatened" species under the ESA on March 23, 1993 and specifying conditions under which a "take" of gnatcatchers would not be violation of ESA. conditions under which coastal sage scrub communi ties would be protected. These conditions involve long-term conservation plans which would be developed by local governments under guidelines provided through the State's Natural Community Conservation Program (NCCP), and subject to approval of DFG and the Service. These guidelines identify the E, Various local governmental agencies have enrolled in the NCCP process, including the Multiple Species and Multiple Habitat Conservation Programs of San Diego County, the Mu1 ti species Habitat Conservation Planning effort of Riverside County, and Carlsbad's Habitat Management Program (HMP). Carlsbad's HMP has completed an inventory of existing resources and designated preservation areas , and i s working towards establ i shi ng a funding mechani sm. However, at this time, the City will likely not be submitting its HMP in the near future. The 4(d) process allows for a 5% interim loss of coastal sage scrub within the City of Carlsbad or any other jurisdiction while long-term preserve plans are being developed, provided that this interim loss does not preclude long-term planning options. In this case, there would be a direct loss of almost 9 acres of coastal sage scrub to accrue to the 5% allowable interim loss. Pursuant to the 4(d) process, the proposed buildout of Phase I11 may qualify for an interim "take" under Section 4(d) only if it maintains consistency with the NCCP Conservation and Process guidelines, as determined by the City with concurrence by the Service and DFG. The NCCP guidelines emphasize directing impacts to lower value habitats and mitigating those impacts that are authorized. In completing California Envi ronmental Qual i ty Act (CEQA) project reviews , 1 ead agencies are di rected to identify mitigation sufficient to reduce impacts to levels of insignificance. The mitigation should result in no net loss of coastal sage scrub habitat value. No net loss of habitat value means no net reduction in the ability of the subregion to maintain viable populations of target species over the long term. allowed under the 4(d) rule, such as the mitigation program adopted with this LCP amendment, are expected to be directed toward areas that have lower long-term conservation value. Such habitat areas are those smaller in size, supporting poorer qual i ty coastal sage scrub, more i solated, supporting smaller populations of target species and which do not involve linkages or corridors. Effective mitigation areas should be of sufficient size, configuration and condition to accommodate the specified mitigation activities. Section 4.3 of the Process Guidelines lists a number of potenti a1 ly acceptable options for mi ti gati ng impacts. mitigation include the following: Under the NCCP guidelines, interim mitigation projects Examples of acceptable -.i ? 1. Acquisition of habitat lands or other actions that maximize the potential for enhancing connectivity to natural habitat lands and -. Carl sbad LCPA 1-94(8) Rev! sed Findings Page 17 minimize the isolation of high and intermediate value lands. 2. Habitat enhancement, creation, and/or transplantation of CSS species may be considered as mitigation. 3. Land acquired for mitigation obtained at a ratio of not less than 1:l (one acre acquired for each acre of habitat removed by the project). Projects that are proposed in high and intermediate value habitats will be mitigated at higher ratios. To the maximum extent possible, habitat acquisitions should be directed to core areas or corridors anticipated to be retained in the final NCCP reserve system. Conservation Guidelines acknowledge that full mitigation may not be practical during the interim period because reserve acquisition programs and enhancement techniques have not been established. If appropriate mi ti gation 1 ands cannot be i denti fi ed, acqui red, or otherwise protected, until after the NCCP is completed, security must be provided in an amount sufficient to ensure that the appropriate habitat can be obtained and the mi t'l gati on accompl i shed. The 4. Projects that contain low CSS habitat value as defined in the Conservation Guidelines, and are less than 10 acres, may be mitigated for by payment of a fee. The jurisdiction shall obtain mitigation funds within one year of project approval, resulting in equivalent habitat value to that which is lost. The local jurisdiction would be responsible for prioritizing the acquisition areas within their subregion/subarea preserve pl anni ng area. Guidance from the Service and DFG wi 11 be avai lable. 5. Protection of the mitigation area from adverse impacts caused by an appl i cant I s pl anned adjacent 1 and development and anci 11 ary activities (such as fuel clearance, trash dumping, grading, and excessive recreational use), any natural habitat buffer zone will be established within the project's development boundary not in the mi tigation area. The California gnatcatcher is listed as a "threatened" avian species under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Adopted to preserve and protect endangered plants and animals, the ESA is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wi 1 dl i fe Servi ce (the "Servi cell). Section 9 of the ESA speci fi cal ly prohibits "take" of listed species. intentional , negl lgent and omitted acts which di srupt normal behavioral patterns. the case of the gnatcatcher is coastal sage scrub. 1 i sted as endangered is enti rely prohibited. remai ns 1 i s ted as threatened, 'Ii nci dental take" i s a1 lowed under certai n circumstances . A "take" is broadly interpreted to include "Take" restrictions apply to the species and its habitat, which in Any "take" of species However, if the gnatcatcher Sections 7 and 10 of the ESA specifically identify those instances in which a "take" of endangered and threatened speci es may be permitted. include federal , sci entifi c and other activities that sat! sfy requirements specified in pertinent sections of the ESA and its implementing regulations. These instances - Carisbad LCPA 1-94(B) Revi sed Findings Page 18 Section 10 of the ESA allows the Service to permit, under certain ci rcums tances , "taki ngll of a 1 i s ted spec! es that would otherwi se be prohi bi ted by Section 9. The NCCP process does not supplant the endangered species protection of existing state or federal law. or if an already listed species is found in the NCCP area, the affected jurisdictions may still need applicable federal and state permits if they propose activities that would result in a "take" of a listed species. The area comprising Phase I11 is undeveloped and is characterized by a north-south trending ridge and valley. mature stands of coastal sage scrub vegetation. lies along the southwestern portion of Phase I11 and is part of a larger wildlife corridor trending north to south. encroachment into this corridor. in the southwesterly portion of Phase 111, although the presence of gnatcatchers has not been confirmed by subsequent surveys, one as late as 1992. Because of the abundance of coastal sage scrub in the area, which is the recognized habitat of the gnatcatcher, and the fact that almost 9 acres of coastal sage scrub would be removed to accommodate Phase 111, approval of the LCP amendment and project would result in a potential "take" of gnatcatchers and thei r habitat. If other species become listed, e?F c- Portions of the site are populated by The largest undisturbed area The project proposes substantial In addition, a gnatcatcher was sited in 1986 In its approval of Phase 111, the City relied upon the property owner's proposed coastal sage scrub habitat mitigation and enhancement program with respect to minimizing adverse impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat and sensitive species, Del Mar Manzanita and Summer Holly. The total area of the coastal sage scrub enhancement is 15.5 acres, which is a mitigation ratio of 1.75: 1. General ly, the sage scrub revegetation areas constitute an expansion of an existing natural corridor or enhancement of ruderal (weedy) open spaces but also include manufactured slopes associated with the Phase I11 road system. As a component of the enhancement plan, three sensitive plant species (wart-stemmed ceanothus, Summer Holly and Del Mar Manzanita) within the western areas proposed for preservation will also be preserved. As noted, Del Mar Manzanita is a species also proposed for federal listing. There are also a number of Del Mar Manzanita and Summer Holly individuals along the eastern edge of Phase 111, within the area designated for residential development and construction of Ambrosia Lane in Planning Area 17. The plants are in three small groups. As mitigation for their removal and to maintain the diversity of plant species within the Phase I11 area, both species will be repopulated at a ratio of 1O:l for the Del Mar Manzanita and 3:l for the Summer Holly. Subsequent to the City's approval and in response to Commission staff comments regarding the gnatcatcher, the coastal sage scrub mi tigation program has been revised to include provisions designed to mitigate project impacts to gnatcatchers should they be found prior to grading the site. These provisions include conducting a survey of the site to identify any nests of birds prior to the nesting season (March 1 to June 1 of each year). If birds are found, a minimum 100 foot buffer zone must be created around nesting sites. These provisions were approved by the Commission in its approval of another site in Carlsbad that proposed removal of coastal sage scrub to accommodate new development (CDP #6-92-183, Altamira Park). Carl soad LCPA 1-94(B) Revi sed Fi ndi ngs Page 19 According to the resource agencies and biologists, a mitigation project should connect adjacent undisturbed habitat, include a mix and variety of native plants and animals that might have been found before the area was disturbed, and create a habitat that, once established (which may take as long as 10 years), will be stable and resistant to invasion by introduced plants and people. Based upon the above mitigation criteria, the proposed coastal sage scrub mitigation plan may.be found at least partially acceptable by DFG and the Service in its review of Phase I11 coastal sage scrub impacts because, under the Process and Conservation guidelines, habitat enhancement, creation, and/or transplantation of CSS species may be considered as mitigation. However, whi 1 e the mi ti gat ion plan contains maintenance and monitoring provisions to assure presribed performance standards, it will be at least 5 years and most likely closer to 10 years before mature vegetation would be realized. Additionally, mi tigation programs rarely, if ever, approach what was once on the ground. Thus, only under the most optimistic scenario, and only then after 5 to 10 years, would the mitigation plan potentially meet the NCCP guidelines test requiring no net loss of coastal sage scrub habitat value. In the interim, it could not meet the no net loss of habitat value test. That is, even if the mitigation program eventually created habitat that was identical to what pre-existed, some habitat value affecting the ability of the subregion to maintain viable populations of target species over the long term would inevitably be lost in the growout period before maturity of the revegetation effort. The City of Carlsbad has indicated that the proposed Phase I11 open space system was designed to be consistent with the HMP and notes that because the subject area lies within a HMP preserve planning area, concerns such as open space connectivity and sensi ti ve species preservation/enhancement were addressed during project review. As noted, the HMP is the City's attempt to be consistent with the state NCCP process. The City states the Phase 111 amendment includes an open space corridor, which extends from the preserve planning area to the Aviara Golf Course and eventually to Batiquitos Lagoon. Also as a result of cooperation with the HMP efforts, smaller open space areas that are not part of the connected open space system will be enhanced with sensitive species, such as Del Mar Manzanita and Summer Holly. The City notes that with the help of multi-species planning efforts, the Aviara Phase I11 area was redesigned to be much more environmentally sensitive than the previously approved development. Based on this redesign, the environmental review documents for the Phase I11 proposal concluded that the proposed development was consistent with the HMP. Despite the above statements by the City, the incomplete status of Carlsbad's Habitat Management Program and the lack of progress in implementing the NCCP process makes it difficult for the Commission to approve the proposed LCP amendment at this time. Despite the City's contentions regarding the subject site's conformance with the HMP and its regional placement as far as connectivity and relative value, the Commission is not assured that approving the master plan revisions would not be precluding future planning options. Habitat evaluation maps prepared by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) as part of the NCCP process place the majority of Phase I11 lands in - Car I sbad LCPA 1-94(B) Revi sed Fi ndi ngs Page 20 the highest habitat category, Very High", which evaluates habitat for the gnatcatcher , target and habitat value index model s and potenti a1 wi 1 dl i fe corri dors . In addi ti on, SANDAG' s Bi ologi cal Core and Li nkage Area Resources Map also identifies Phase I11 lands as areas of "biological importance". The City's approval relied on the applicant's mitigation plan and a deferred review of the project by the resource agencies. consul tation and a1 ternatives analysi s precludes the Commi ssion' s abi 1 i ty to find that there are no 1 ess envi ronmental ly-damagi ng a1 ternati ves and that the revisions conform with the cited Chapter 3 policies. Commission's original approval of the Pacific Rim Master Plan authorized a greater impact to coastal sage scrub communities by acceptance of the submitted open space program, it did so finding that the circumstances associated with the habitat proposed for development at t hat time allowed a trade-off , which resulted in encroachment onto dual criteria slopes. This was done fully acknowledging and accepting the apparent conflict with the dual criteria slope policies contained in the Mello I, Mello I1 and East Batiquitos Lagoon LCP segments. However, this lack of Although the Additionally, the subject revisions to Phase I11 of the Aviara Master Plan result in a substantially different project than what was reviewed by the Commission in 1988. The considerations and trade-offs which were part of Commission acceptance of the submitted open space program related to the entire Master Plan area, i.e. Phases I, I1 and 111. To consider substantial revisions to Phase I11 only, in the same context, is not possible; therefore, the project as proposed can not be found to be in conformance with Sections 30107.5 and 30240 of the Coastal Act. Additionally, the City did not take into account the requirements of the NCCP process and conservation gui del i nes . Given today's ci rcumstances , revi ew under the gui del i nes would offer a feasi bl e 1 ess envi ronmental ly-damagi ng alternative to the present proposal, which must be considered before it can be found consistent with the Coastal Act. able to find that adverse impacts to existing native coastal sage scrub and southern maritime chaparral areas have been adequately mitigated or that no net loss of habitat value would occur. Specifically, the Commission must be The same circumstances do not apply today with regard to the long-range mu1 ti-speci es planning efforts and Federal 1 i sting of threatened and endangered species under the ESA. sage scrub within Phase I11 lands has been determined to be potential environmentally sensitive habitat as defined under Sections 30107.5 and 30240 of the Coastal Act. This determination is based on the fact that Phase I11 lands, particularly those in Planning Area 22, are part of a proposed preserve system that i s being designed to promote mu1 ti species habitat protection. The resource agencies have determined that coastal sage scrub habitat that is affected by this proposal is environmentally sensitive habitat in that it is required to construct a viable preserve that would assure mu1 ti species habitat protection. The Commission concurs; and, thus, the proposed removal of this habitat is inconsistent with the above Coastal Act sections which require that environmentally sensitive habitats be preserved and protected against any As noted in these findings, the coastal Carlsoad LCPA 1-94(8) Revi sed Fi ndi ngs Page 21 significant disruption of habitat values. Therefore, the Commission finds the proposed revisions do not meet the requirements of the Coastal Act with regards to resource protection and must be denied. PART V. FINDINGS FOR A PPR 0 V AL 0 F THE CITY OF CARLSBA D WO I AND MU LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT 1-94. IF MODIFIED A. SUM MARY FINDING/CONFORMANCE WITH SECTION 3000 1.5 OF THE COASTAL AC T As suggested for modification, the amended land use plan will assure adequate resource protection will be provided to meet current and long range planning goals of the NCCP and HMP programs, as well as Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. The Commission finds, pursuant to Section 30512.2b of the Coastal Act, that the City of Carlsbad Land Use Plan amendment, as set forth in the resolution for certification with suggested modifications, is consistent 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. This section wi 11 be devoted to only those elements which require a suggested modification. However, it is still recommended to refer back to the previous findings for denial for a full discussion and applicable background information which is also incorporated herein by reference. 8. CHAPTER 3 CO NSISTENCY 1. Sens itive Coasta 1 Resources. The proposed amendment to the Aviara Master Plan, which serves as the Land Use Plan (LUP) and Implementation Plan (IP) for those portions of the Mello I, Mello I1 and East Batiquitos LagoonIHunt Properti es segments that 1 i e within its geographi c 1 i mi ts, includes a number of changes. These changes apply specifically to Phase I11 lands that lie within the Mello I and Mello I1 segments. i ncl ude modi fi cation of pl anni ng area and open space boundari es , real ignment of streets, addition of 37 units to the previously approved plan in Phase I11 of the master plan, alteration of residential product mix and revisions to development and design standards. These changes In its findings for denial, the Commission found the City did not take into account that removal of coastal sage scrub and southern maritime chaparral identified as critical to long range planning efforts associated with the mu1 ti-speci es habitat protection constituted removal of potenti a1 ly envi ronmental ly sensitive habitat as defined under the Coastal Act. of environmental ly sensitive habitat is not permitted under the resource protection provisions of the Coastal Act. In addition, the City in its approval of the Phase I11 changes, failed to consider feasible less environmentally-damaging alternatives to the present proposal. was unable to find that adverse impacts to existing native coastal sage scrub and southern maritime chaparral were adequately mitigated or that no net loss of habitat value would occur, inconsistent with Sections 30107.5 and 30240 of the Coastal Act. Removal The Commission Carl bead LCPA 1-94(8) Revi sed Fi ndi ngs Page 22 Subsequent to the City of Carl sbad approval, and resulting from concerns expressed by the resource agencies and Commission staff, as to the functional adequacy of the proposed wildlife corridor widths allowing east-west migration of animal wildlife, the project has been redesigned to widen these natural areas to i ncrease thei r vi abi 15 ty as habi tat corri dors. The redesi gn i nvol ves reduction of the proposed development pads within Planning Areas 17 and 22. More specifically, these changes are as follows: I- F 1. The open space corridor north of PA 17 has been widened to approximately 300 feet, fol lowing a natural contour 1 i ne that minimizes cut or fill slopes. 2. A wildlife undercrossing will be provided under Ambrosia Street where the wildlife corridor intersects the street to connect the corridor with offsite open spaces to the east. or minimize street lighting on Ambrosia Street in the vicinity of the wildlife undercrossing). (The developer will eliminate 3. The north/south open space corridor immediately east of Planning Area 22 will be widened by developing lot pads off a single-loaded drive adjacent to the westerly property line, and by a redesign of the westerly lots. 4. A wildlife undercrossing will be placed under "G" Street to faci 1 i tate wi 1 dl i fe crossing within the above described northlsouth corridor. The design of these undercrossings will be in consultation with the DFG and USFWS. 5. A revegetation plan will be developed for the area where the easternmost Planning Area 22 lots were originally planned and this revegetation plan wi 11 concentrate on southern maritime chaparral restoration. 6. The northern portion of the Aviara park site will be preserved in its natural state to maintain east/west connectivity through adjacent wi 1 dl i fe corri dors . The Commission finds that, with incorporation of the above provisions as suggested modifications to the proposed amendment, feasible a1 ternatives have been identified which would lessen the project's impacts on potential environmental ly sensitive habitat areas and which are consistent with the long-term planning goals of the City's draft Habitat Management Program and the statewide Natural Communi ties Conservation P1 anni ng (NCCP) Program gui del i nes. . -. In addition to the above, the Commission finds a suggested modification relating to a number of Phase 111 planning areas is necessary to assure adequate resource protection. the approved Fire Suppression Plan of the Aviara Master Plan provides that structural setbacks from native areas shall be required to minimize the removal of sensitive vegetation. However, the fire suppression guidelines do For selected planning areas within Phase 111, Carl sbad LCPA 1-94(8) Revi sed Findings Page 23 not include a specific setback standard. regarding Planning Areas 17, 21, 22 and 23 to clarify that a minimum 20 foot structural setback shall be required from native areas to ensure no clearcutting of vegetation will occur in sensitive areas. provisions that have been incorporated as suggested modifications to the subject amendment, the Commission finds the proposed amendment can be found consistent with Chapter 3 habitat preservation policies. Suggested modifications are attached Based on the above 2. Public Access a nd Recreatio n. Numerous Coastal Act policies address the issues of maximizing public access to the shoreline and mandating the provi si on, mai ntenance and enhancement of vi si tor-servi ng faci 1 i ti es. Sections 30211, 30212, 30220 and 30222 are most applicable to the Aviara Master Plan. They give a high priority to visitor-serving commercial facilities and require access from the first coastal roadway to and along the coast or coastal lagoons. The Phase I11 subdivision design includes two major community trails, available to the general public, as well as those residents of the Aviara community, that provide a segment of north/south pedestrian access from the community park and Poinsettia Lane located at the north end of Phase I11 lands to Alga Road. Ultimately, the north shore trail of Batiquitos Lagoon can be accessed by the remaining existing and proposed community trails associated with the master plan. visitor destination point for hikers, bicyclists and bird-watchers. The Commission has not only found this trail system is a necessary visitor-serving component of the Aviara Master Plan but is required to comply with the public access and recreation requirements of the above Coastal Act sections. The north shore trail is an important The community trail proposed to traverse Planning Area #22 has been proposed for deletion because its construction could adversely impact environmentally sensitive areas within this planning area. notes that a similar trail in Planning Area 17 would accomplish the same general goal of providing access from the community park and Poinsettia Lane to Alga Road (from Alga Road other community trails would route hikers to the north shore trail). The Commission finds, however, that deletion of any important community trail segment is premature at this time, and that determi ni ng a 1 ess envi ronmental ly-damagi ng a1 i gnment i s preferable to eliminating the trail altogether. The suggested modifications provide that any revisions to trail alignments in Phase I11 lands must occur in consultation with the resource agencies so that the least envi ronmental ly-damagi ng a1 i gnment can be determined. Based on the preceding, the Commission finds that the proposed amendment request can be found consistent with the recreation and visitor-serving policies of Sections 30211, 30212, 30220 and 30222 of the Coastal Act. The initiator of the amendment PART IV. FINDINGS FOR REJEC TION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD MELLO I AND MELLO I€ IMP L EME NTATION PLAN AMENDMENT 1-94. AS SUBMITTED A. AM ENDMENT DESCRIPTION The proposed amendment to the Aviara Master Plan, which serves as the Land Use Plan (LUP) and Implementation Plan (IP) for those portions of the Mello I, Mello I1 and East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties segments that lie within Carlsbad LCPA 1-94(B) Revi sed Findings Page 24 its geographic limits, includes a number of changes. specifically to Phase I11 lands that lie within the Mello I and Mello I1 segments. boundaries, realignment of streets, addition of 37 units to the previously approved plan in Phase I11 of the master plan, alteration of residential product mix and revisions to development and design standards. The topography of the Phase I11 area subject to the proposed amendment is characterized by a series of north-south trending hills and valleys. The valley areas have served as drainage courses carrying runoff from the northern portion of the watershed to the downstream lagoon. composed of slopes of 25% grade and greater and are covered with native vegetation, primarily coastal sage scrub and chaparral plant communi ties. A number of eucalyptus groves are scattered over the property. These changes apply These changes include modification of planning area and open space Some of the hillsides are B. CON FORMITY WITH CERTIFIED LAND USE PLAN Re1 evant pol i ci es which address protection of environmental ly sensitive habitat areas include Policy 3-1 of the certified Mello I1 LCP, "Slopes and Preservation of Vegetation", which addresses environmental ly sensitive habitat areas. It states: Certain areas of the Carlsbad coastal zone have very high habitat value. These areas are not suitable for farming. number and diversity of both plant and animal species, several of which are threatened because of extensive conversion of mixed chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitats to urban or agricultural uses. Also, we1 1-established and we1 1-maintained vegetation is a major deterrent to soil erosion and attendant difficulties. These areas exhibit a large Unless specifically addressed in other policies of this Land Use Plan, the vegetation on steep slopes shall be maintained so that natural habitats are preserved and soil erosion is minimized. In addition, to more specifically address development of steeply sloping hi 11 si des with native vegetation, the certi fi ed LCP contains the fol lowi ng provi si on : Grading and Erosion Control a) For those slopes mapped as possessing endangered plantlanimal species and/or coastal sage scrub and chaparral plant communi ties , the fol lowing shall apply: 1) Slopes of 25% grade and over shall be preserved in their natural state, unless the application of this policy would preclude any reasonable use of the property, in which case an encroachment not to exceed 10% of the steep slope area over 25% grade may be permitted. For existing legal parcels, with 25% grade, encroachment shall be permitted, however, any such encroachment shall be limited so that at no time is more than 20% of the entire parcel (including areas under .h Carl sbad LCPA 1-94(8) Revi sed Findings Page 25 25% slope) permitted to be disturbed from its natural state. policy shall not apply to the construction of roads of the City's Circulation Element or the development of utility systems. slopes over 25% may be made in order to provide access to flatter areas i f there i s no 1 ess environmental ly damaging a1 ternati ve avai 1 ab1 e. This Uses of Lastly, Subsection 4 of Mello I LUP Policy #1, which pertains directly to Phase I11 lands, provides: 4. All land uses and intensity of use shall be compatible with the protection of sensitive coastal resources. Of the roughly 310 acres of slopes of 25% grade or greater contained within the entire Master Plan area, about 160 acres or one-half of those on site meet the dual criteria of 25% grade and coastal sage and chaparral plant communities. Of the 160 acres which meet the dual criteria, the Master Plan as approved by the Commission allowed encroachment onto about 50 acres. of this encroachment involves small and isolated pockets of slopes meeting the dual criteria. included some of the major continuous steep slope landforms. Some However, the topography of the site is such that it also In its findings for the approval of the original Master Plan, the Commission found that a system of weighted values could be applied to the site. weighted values were assigned to the various steep slope areas which met the dual criteria and were protected under the LCP policies. critical slopes, based on local review after application of the weighting system, were designated for permanent open space while other steep slope areas meeting the dual criteria were determined to be less important as viable species habitats. These Only the most Another major factor in allowing encroachment into the dual criteria areas was that the Master Plan called for other habitat areas and sensitive vegetation on more gentle terrain of the site, not ordinarily subject to the development prohibitions contained in the the LCP, to be retained as natural open space. These other open space areas, exclusive of the wetlands of Batiquitos Lagoon or the golf course, include 132 acres. The determination to retain this additional acreage in natural open space was due to a variety of factors. In some cases, the areas in question included flora or fauna, such as the California gnatcatcher, which through the CEQA review process was determined to be appropriate for protection. In other cases, the additional areas to be retained in natural open space involved other development constraints, such as major overhead electrical transmission lines. Other areas were constrained pursuant to project requirements applied at the local level. reasons, that large stands of mature eucalyptus groves be preserved, even though the LCP, either as previously certified or as now amended, would not have speci fi cal ly required their retention. The importance of these groves has been recognized for their ability to screen portions of the development from views from 1-5, a major coastal access route, and in recognition of their For instance, the City required, primarily for visual Carl sbad LCPA 1-94(B) Rev! sed Fi ndi ngs Page 26 historic character as a visual resource. The Commission found that adding non-dual criteria areas to the open space system of the Master Plan committed substantial acreage to permanent open space, retained sensitive habitats and preserved natural landforms consistent with the applicable Coastal Act sections. The Commission further found the proposal mi tigated the proposed encroachment into sensitive steep slope areas. However, the same circumstances do not apply today, recognizing the long-range mu1 ti-species planning efforts and Federal listing of threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. certain tradeoffs may have been supported to adopt the master plan at that time, there were no revisions made to the applicable policies. When one applies the certified land use plan provisions to the proposed Phase I11 proposal and considers the current resource issues being raised in this proposal and throughout the County, the subject amendment cannot be found consi stent. In addition, while As identified, coastal sage scrub habitat within Phase I11 lands qualifies as potential environmental ly sensitive habitat. Therefore, the proposed master plan revisions cannot be considered compatible with the protection of said resources. In its review of imp1 ementation plan changes, the Commi ssion must find that such changes are in concert with the policies of the certified LUP. Clearly in this case, such a finding cannot be made. In addition, the Aviara Master Plan provides in its "Open Space" section (p. 26 of the Master Plan) that one of the four open space categories which are included within the Master Plan LUP under "Open Space For the Preservation of Natural Resources" is "Natural Slopes''. It does not define whether these slopes are steep or non-steep but states there are approximately 240 acres of them. when that protection is vital for the preservation of natural resources and is invoked only when such preservation is critical. Commission's position that such a finding can be made. As noted in the preceding LUP findings denying the Phase I11 revisions, the Commission found that the proposed Master Plan changes would result in adverse impacts to potential environmentally sensitive habitat, namely the almost 9 acres of coastal sage scrub that is proposed to be removed in the amendment request. As discussed, this habitat meets the Coastal Act definition of environmentally sensitive habitat based on Section 30107.2 which defines "environmentally sensitive area" as any area in which plant or animal life or their habi tats are either rare or especi a1 ly Val uabl e because of their special role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and development." In addition to meeting the Coastal Act definition, protection of coastal sage scrub is the focus of planning efforts at all levels of government; most notably under the statewide NCCP process. Clearly the intent to protect limited non-steep areas is only desired In this case, it is the In its findings for LUP denial, the Commission found the City did not take into account the requirements of the NCCP process and conservation guide1 ines when approving the master plan changes. was missed which would offer a feasible less environmentally-damaging By failing to do so, an opportunity Carl sbad LCPA 1-94(8) Revi sed Findings Page 27 a1 ternative to the present proposal. to find that adverse impacts to existing native coastal sage scrub and southern maritime chaparral were adequately mitigated or that no net loss of habitat value would occur. Similarly, the Commission finds approval of the implementation plan amendment at this time, as approved by the City, is premature. The Commission finds the proposed revision to Phase I11 does not meet the requirements of the land use provisions of the Aviara Master Plan with regards to resource protection. existing native coastal sage scrub and southern maritime chaparral will be adequately mi ti gated , consistent with the mandates of the certified land use plans, the Commission cannot find the Phase I11 revisions are consistent with or adequate to carry out the habitat policies of the LUP and therefore must be denied. Specifically, the Commission was unable Without demonstration that impacts to PART IV. !ELL0 I1 The Commission finds that, if the City of Carlsbad incorporates the above- stated suggested modifications into the Aviara Master Plan, it would be in a certifiable form. The suggested modifications are intended to provide guidance to the City in resubmitting the ordinance to the Coastal Commission and they are not binding upon the City. that the suggested modifications would result in the ordinance being in conformance with, and adequate to carry out, the City's certified measures contained in the land use plan. The basis for this overall finding is The suggested modifications require that the City must provide an open space corridor north of PA 17 which has been widened to approximately 300 feet, provide a wi 1 dl i fe undercrossi ng under Ambrosia Street to connect the corridor with offsite open spaces to the east, widen the northlsouth open space corridor immediately east of Planning Area 22 by a redesign of the lots, provi de a wi 1 dl i fe undercrossi ng under "G" Street to faci 1 i tate wi 1 dl i fe crossing within the above described north/south corridor, provide a revegetation plan to be developed for the area where the easternmost Planning Area 22 lots were originally planned and preserve the northern portion of the Aviara park site in its natural state to maintain the eastlwest connectivity and wildlife corridor. Additionally, the suggested modifications clarify that a minimum 20 foot structural setback shall be required from native areas to ensure vegetation removal will be the minimum necessary, and provide that any revisions to trail alignments in Phase I11 lands must occur in consultation wi th the resource agenci es so that the 1 east environmental ly-damagi ng alignment can be determined. The Aviara Master Plan also contains schematic drawings for each planning area for i 11 ustrati ve purposes. number of changes have resulted to the design of Phase I11 lands which require corresponding modifications to the schematics. addresses three of these changes. with Planning Areas 17 and 22 include a revised tentative map and open space corridor as identified in these findings. Based on the preceding suggested modi fi cations , a Suggested Modification #14 It provides that the schematics associated The Planning Area 32 schematic must Carl sbad LCPA 1-94(8) Rev1 sed Findings Page 28 also be revised, the Community Park site, to eliminate any proposed development pattern that may affect the future need for an expanded wildlife corridor on the northern portion of the park site. Therefore, as modified and presented above, the Commission finds the Aviara Master Plan revisions conform with and are adequate to implement the certified land use plan. PART V. CONSIS TFNCY WITH THE CALI FORNIA EN VI RONMFN TAI OUA LI TY ACT (CFOA) 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 . Section 21080.5 (d)(2)(i) of the Public Resources Code requires that the Commission not approve an LCP or LCP amendment if there are feasible a1 ternatives or mi tigation measures which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impact which the activity may have on the environment. In the case of the subject LCP amendment request, the Commission finds that approval of the amendment to the Mello I and Mello I1 segments would result in potentially significant environmental impacts under the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act. Potenti a1 environmental impacts resulting from the removal of coastal sage scrub resulting from Phase I11 implementation have been addressed through a redesign of the subdivision to be consistent with local and regional habitat conservation plans. Therefore, feasible a1 ternatives and mi tigation measures which would substantially lessen significant adverse impacts the amendment would have on the environment have been made part of the amendment. Similarly, concerns regarding fuel modification practices and public access trai 1 a1 ignments have been addressed through the attached suggested modifications. Given these suggested modifications, the Commission finds that the approval of the master plan revisions will not result in any significant adverse impacts to coastal resources. Therefore, the Commission finds that the proposed changes can be made. Individual planning areas within Phase I11 lands to which the above modifications would apply wi 11 require coastal development permits. Thus, individual developments wi 11 sti 11 be reviewed on a case-by-case basi s before any coastal development permits are approved. The specific impacts associated wi th i ndi vi dual development projects would be assessed through the envi ronmental revi ew process ; and, the i ndi vi dual project' s compl i ance wi th CEQA would be assured. Therefore, the Commission finds that no significant, unmi ti gab1 e envi ronmental impacts under the meaning of CEQA wi 11 result from the approval of the proposed amendment. (9780A)