Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-03-14; City Council; Resolution 2017-043RESOLUTION NO. 2017-043 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFIYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR 15-0~ AND ERRATA, ADOPTING THE CANDIDATE FINDINGS OF FACT AND THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA 14-06 TO AMEND THE LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT AND OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN FROM R-4 RESIDENTIAL AND OPEN SPACE TO R-8 RESIDENTIAL AND OPEN SPACE AND TO ADJUST BOUNDARIES OF OPEN SPACE, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT 14-06, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14-10, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 14-12, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 14-15, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 14-34, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 14-07, AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN PERMIT 14-04 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 50.8 ACRE SITE FOR A 123-UNIT SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE LAST REMAINING SECTION OF POINSETIIA LANE ("REACH E"), ALL LOCATED SOUTH OF CASSIA ROAD, BETWEEN THE EXISTING WESTERN AND EASTERN SEGMENTS OF POINSETIIA LANE, AND EAST OF AMBROSIA LANE WITHIN THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 21. CASE NAME: CASE NO.: POINSETIIA 61 EIR 15-03/GPA 14-06/LCPA 14-06/CT 14-10/PUD 14-12/ SDP 14-15/CDP 14-34/HDP 14-07/HMP 14-04 WHEREAS, Lennar Homes of California, Inc., ("Applicant"), has applied for approval of the Poinsettia 61 project ("Project") on approximately 50.8 acres located south of Cassia Road, between the existing western and eastern segments of Poinsettia Lane, and east of Ambrosia Lane within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and located within the southwest quadrant of the city within Local Facilities Management Zone 21; and WHEREAS, the Project includes, among other things, a request for approval of General Plan Amendment GPA 14-06 and Local Coastal Program Amendment 14-06; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq., and its implementing regulations, 14 California Code of Regulations I Section 15000, et seq. ("CEQA Guidelines"), the City of Carlsbad ("City") as lead agency prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") for the Project and circulated the Draft EIR for public review and comment as required by law; and WHEREAS, the City received and responded to public comments on the Draft EIR and determined that the comments did not raise any significant environmental issues not already addressed in the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR"), which includes the Draft EIR, technical appendices, public comments and the responses to public comments on the Draft EIR, and all other information required by CEQA Guidelines section 15132, which has been filed with the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, the City has prepared a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which has been filed with the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission did, on February 1, 2017, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Environmental Impact Report EIR 15-03, General Plan Amendment 14-06, Local Coastal Program Amendment 14-06, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14-10, Planned Development Permit 14-12, Site Development Plan 14-15, Coastal Development Permit 14-34, Hillside Development Permit 14-07, and Habitat Management Plan Permit 14-04, and adopting Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 7224, 7225 and 7226 recommending to the City Council to certify the EIR 15-03 and approve GPA 14-06, LCPA 14-06, CT 14-10, PUD 14-12, SDP 14-15, CDP 14-34, HDP 14-07 and HMP 14-04; and WHEREAS, the City made minor revisions to EIR 15-03 to address HMP Consistency Finding comments from the Wildlife Agencies, determined that the revisions did not raise any significant environmental issues not already addressed in the EIR, and prepared an Errata to EIR 15-03, attached hereto as Exhibit "EIR 15-03 Errata"; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the City Council did, on February 28 and March 14, 2017, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider the Environmental Impact Report EIR 15-03 and Errata, General Plan Amendment 14-06, Local Coastal Program Amendment 14-06, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14-10, Planned Development Permit 14-12, Site Development Plan 14-15, Coastal Development Permit 14-34, Hillside Development Permit 14-07, and Habitat Management Plan Permit 14-04; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, all materials with regard to the Project were made available to the City Council for its review and consideration and the City Council heard and considered the testimony and materials presented by all persons desiring to be heard, and considered all factors relating to the Environmental Impact Report and Errata, General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development Permit, Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit, Hillside Development Permit, and Habitat Management Plan Permit; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the City Council considered all factors relating to the Environmental Impact Report and Errata, General Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment, Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development Permit, Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit, Hillside Development Permit, and Habitat Management Plan Permit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. The City Council finds and determines that the applicable provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines have been duly observed in conjunction with the Project and said hearings and the consideration of this matter and all of the previous proceedings related thereto. 3. The City Council finds and determines that (a) the Final Environmental Impact Report 15-03 and Errata is complete and adequate in scope and has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines for implementation thereof, (b) the Final Environmental Impact Report 15-03 and Errata was presented to the City Council and the City Council has fully reviewed and considered the information in Final Environmental Impact Report 15-03 and Errata prior to approving the Project, (c) the Final Environmental Impact Report 15-03 and Errata reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis, and, therefore, Final Environmental Impact Report 15-03 and Errata is hereby declared to be certified in relation to the subject of this Resolution. 4. The City Council finds and determines that the Project is approved despite the existence of certain significant environmental effects identified in Final Environmental Impact Report 15-03 and Errata and, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which would mitigate, avoid, or substantially lessen to below a level of significance the potential significant effects identified in the EIR and Errata, the City Council hereby makes and adopts the findings with respect to each significant environmental effect as set forth in the Findings of Fact, which is contained within Planning Commission Resolution No. 7224 and is made a part hereof by this reference, as modified by the Errata, and declares that it considered the evidence described in connection with each such finding. 5. With respect to the significant environmental effects identified in Final Environmental Impact Report 15-03 and Errata and pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(d), the City Council hereby adopts and approves the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which is contained within Planning Commission Resolution No. 7224 and is made a part hereof by this reference, as modified by the Errata, and hereby makes and adopts the provisions of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as conditions of approval for the Project. 6. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15094, the City Clerk shall cause a Notice of Determination to be filed with the Clerk of the County of San Diego. Unless the Project is declared exempt herein and a Certificate of Filing Fee Exemption is on file, the Project is not operative, vested or final until the filing fees required pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 are paid to the Clerk of the County of San Diego. 7. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(e), the location and custodian ofthe documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution is based is the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California. 8. The City Council finds and determines that the recommendations of the Planning Commission for the approval of the General Plan Amendment 14-06, Local Coastal Program Amendment 14-06, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14-10, Planned Development Permit 14-12, Site Development Plan 14-15, Coastal Development Permit 14-34, Hillside Development Permit 14-07, and Habitat Management Plan Permit 14-04, are approved and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission contained in Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 7225 and 7226, on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council. 9. This action regarding EIR 15-03 and Errata, GPA 14-06, LCPA 14-06, CT 14-10, PUD 14- 12, SDP 14-15, CDP 14-34, HDP 14-07 and HMP 14-04 is final on the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council. 10. The Provisions of Chapter 1.16 ofthe Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Time Limits for Judicial Review" shall apply. The parties are hereby informed that the time within which judicial review of this resolution must be sought is governed by Section 21167 of the Public Resources Code with respect to certification of Final Environmental Impact Report 15-03 and Errata and by Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure with respect to General Plan Amendment 14-06, Local Coastal Program Amendment 14-06, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14-10, Planned Development Permit 14-12, Site Development Plan 14-15, Coastal Development Permit 14-34, Hillside Development Permit 14-07, and Habitat Management Plan Permit 14-04. 11. That the approval of GPA 14-06 as shown on Exhibit "GPA 14-06-Poinsettia 61" dated February 1, 2017, attached hereto and made a part hereof, shall not be effective until LCPA 14-06 is approved by the California Coastal Commission and the California Coastal Commission's approval becomes effective. 12. That the approval of LCPA 14-06 as shown on Exhibit "LCPA 14-06-Poinsettia 61" dated February 1, 2017, attached hereto and made a part hereof, shall not become effective until it is approved by the California Coastal Commission and the California Coastal Commission's approval becomes effective. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 14th day of March, 2017, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: M. Hall, M. Schumacher, C. Schumacher, M. Packard. NOES: None. ABSENT: K. Blackburn. MA~ {SEAL) I. Introduction "EIR 15-03 Errata" Poinsettia 61 Project EIR SCH#: 2016031006 The following are revisions to the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Poinsettia 61 (Poinsettia). Revisions are shown in strikeout and underline text. The revisions clarify the biological mitigation measure BR-6 and update the HMP Consistency Findings as proposed in the FEIR. The modifications to the FEIR do not change the significance of any of the environmental issue conclusions within the FEIR nor result in substantial increase in the severity of any of the impacts identified in the Final EIR. II. EIR Revisions The text on EIR pages 5.4-53 through 5.4-66 has been modified as follows: BR-6 Pursuant to the HMP, a mitigation ratio of 3:1 shall be applied to permanent impacts to 6.3 acres of southern maritime chaparral. Mitigation is required in the form of habitat restoration as well as preservation. Habitat restoration must achieve no-net- loss per special-status vegetation community/habitat type (at least 1:1 restoration to impact ratio regardless of the total mitigation ratio). Habitat restoration (i.e., creation and substantial restoration) totaling 6.3 acres and habitat preservation totaling 12.6 acres (or equivalent) shall be evaluated and designed through preparation of a Restoration Plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Planner, in consultation with the USFWS, CDFW, and the CCC. The Restoration Plan shall also demonstrate a minimum 5.1 -acre addition in the HMP Preserve area (which may co-occur with habitat restoration areas). Additions of greater than 5.1 acres of HMP Preserve may be credited towards the habitat preservation requirement. The project applicant will submit final habitat restoration plans to the City and/or Agencies for review at least 30 days prior to initiating project impacts. The Restoration Plan shall be prepared and implemented consistent with MHCP Volume II, Appendix C (Revegetation Guidelines, pages C-1 to C-2), and Volume Ill; HMP pp. F-8 to F-11; and Open Space Management Plan Section 3.1.5. The Restoration Plan shall, at a minimum, include an evaluation of restoration suitability specific to proposed habitat types, soil and plant material salvage/translocation, planting and seeding lists, discussion of irrigation, maintenance and monitoring program, and success criteria. All areas shall be monitored for a minimum of 5 years to ensure establishment of intended plant communities. Due to the fact that the availability and acceptability of mitigation, including the type and amount of credit, may change between preparation of this EIR and final permit issuance for the proposed project (including review and approval by resource 1 Poinsettia 61 EIR Errata 3-1-2017 agencies), a number of mitigation options (presented in Table 5.4-12) have been identified. Any combination of these mitigation options may ultimately be used to meet the mitigation requirements set forth in the Carlsbad HMP. Table 5.4-12. Proposed Mitigation Options for Vegetation Community Impacts Potential HMP Potential SMC Preserve Potential SMC Creation/ Preservation (No-Net-Loss) Mitigation Site1 Substantial Restoration Credit Credit Credit On site • 2-:+ U acres creation • ~ d.8 asres (Ret • None • 1.0 acre substantial restoration (existing resegRized by disturbance) GGG) • 0.7 acre substantial restoration (historical disturbance) • 3.1 acres TOTAL Off-site Kevane • 0.6 acres creation • YfHG5.4 • 2.5 acres • 1.2 acres substantial restoration (existing acres (not disturbance) recognized by • 0.4 acre substantial restoration (historical CCC) disturbance) • 2.2 acres TOTAL Veterans Park • d.~ asFes GSS SFeatieR (may Ret be • WeAe3.1 acres • 3.1 acres .{nQ! msegRized by USF\t\18/GDFVV) css recognized by • d.~ asFes GSS sblbstaRtial FesteFatieR iR restoration USFWS/CDF e*istiRg ~MP PFeseP.<e (may Ret be and/or '!fJ. FesegRized by u·SFlJI,IS/GDFl.llJ) Qre5ervation .{nQ! recognized by USFWS/CDF '!fJ. Aviara Park • 2.0 acres substantial restoration • 3.5 acres • 5.5 acres • ;u asFes ef resteFatieR ebltside ~MP preservation Pr-eseFVe (emameRtal sle~e) (may Ret be FesegRize9 by USF'NStGDFl.ll,l) Rieter Parcel • 1. 5 acres creation/substantial restoration • 8.7 acres • 2.5 acres preservation Viadana/ • 2.0 acres creation/substantial restoration • 9.4 acres • None Pavoreal HOA preservation Carlsbad Oaks • None • 24 acres • None Conservation Bank preservation Other Restoration in City-• Unknown • Unknown • None Owned HMP Preserve Other Private Property • Unknown • Unknown • Unknown Acquisition Source: Dudek 2017 (Appendix C of this EIR, Table 11) Note: Potential mitigation sites are shown in Figure 5.4-7. On-site Mitigation A Conceptual Restoration Plan (Dudek 2016, Appendix D of Biological Technical Report) describes the following three categories of restoration/mitigation (see Figure 5.4-8): • Habitat establishment (i.e., creation) within existing disturbed lands. These areas are locations within the open space area that are currently composed of either disturbed habitat, agriculture land, ornamental areas, eucalyptus woodland, or ruderal land, which can be converted to native habitat through minor grading and the specified restoration efforts. 2 Poinsettia 61 EIR Errata 3-1-2017 • Habitat restoration within existing habitat areas, that have tow native cover either from previous disturbances, or insufficient natural re- establishment after the 2014 Poinsettia Fire. These areas are located within the open space area, not including areas within existing utility or road easements, where there was severe damage from the 2014 Poinsettia Fire and where minimal native vegetation re-establishment is occurring, and/or where previous site disturbances have reduced native cover, or has opened up the areas to non-native weed and exotic species invasion. Within these areas, restoration is possible through the removal of trash and debris, eradication of weeds and non-native/exotic species and through supplemental planting of native shrub and understory plants, coupled with seeding with appropriate native species to help restore these areas to sustainable native habitat. • Substantial restoration within previously disturbed habitat areas, homeless encampments, trash and debris areas, and previous trails to be abandoned. These areas are located within the open space area, not including areas within existing utility or road easements, where previous disturbance from homeless encampments and damage from significant trash and debris piles is expected to limit the re-establishment of native vegetation following the 2014 Poinsettia Fire. Current assessments are inconclusive regarding the degree to which these areas will passively re-establish with native habitat. • Within these areas, substantial restoration is possible through the conversion of these areas to more pristine native habitat through the planting of native trees, shrub and understory plants, coupled with seeding with appropriate native species to help restore these areas to sustainable native habitat. For purposes of Table 5.4-12 and as documented in the Conceptual Restoration Plan (Dudek 2016, Appendix D of Biological Technical Report), it is assumed the 100 percent creation credit is recognized for habitat establishment within existing disturbed lands; the percent creation/substantial restoration credit for habitat restoration within areas of low native cover is based on the actual area of bare ground/invasive species; and an additional 25 percent of the historically disturbed lands would qualify for creation/substantial restoration credit. The second and third categories may alternatively be recognized as preservation credit. Also, as documented in the Conceptual Restoration Plan, a portion of the onsite restoration plan includes southern maritime chaparral live oak woodland and southern maritime chaparral wetland transition areas, as appropriate areas on site. It is assumed that these areas be credited to the southern maritime chaparral 1: 1 no net loss restoration requirement on the basis that these communities integrate 'Nith southern maritime chaparral on site and contribute to the overall ecological function of southern maritime chaparral. Off-site Kevane Parcels The Conceptual Restoration Plan (Dudek 2016, Appendix D of Biological Technical Report) also includes proposed restoration of two off-site Kevane parcels (APNs 215-050-45 and -46) (see Figure 5.4-9), using the same restoration treatments and mitigation credits as discussed above for on-site open space. These two off-site 3 Poinsettia 61 EIR Errata 3-1-2017 parcels support 2.2 acres of southern maritime chaparral creation and substantial restoration potential. An additional 2.5 acres of southern maritime chaparral would be available as HMP Preserve credit, recognized by all agencies including the CCC on the basis of the parcel having 2.5 acres of development potential that would be retired through preservation of the property. The remaining 5.4 acres may support additional preservation credit recognized by the City, USFWS, and CDFW; this area consists of 1.3 acres within an SDG&E easement (consisting of 0.7 acre coast live oak woodland, 0.3 acre southern maritime chaparral, and 0.3 acre disturbed land), 0.2 acre of coyote brush scrub, 2.0 acres of coast live oak woodland, and 1.9 acres of southern maritime chaparral. The property would be incorporated into the on-site restoration program and conserved in a manner consistent with the on-site open space including the requirements stated above regarding an approved Restoration Plan. Veterans Park A total 3.1 acres of land may be added to the HMP Preserve at Veterans Park (see Figure 5.4-10). The exact location has not been identified at this time because the City is currently evaluating the site for park development. The site mostly supports coastal sage scrub and annually maintained nonnative grassland; disturbed areas within the final mitigation area would be restored with coastal sage scrub. There is some southern maritime chaparral in the vicinity but all of the open space directly adjacent to the mitigation area is occupied by coastal sage scrub. Given the coastal location of this habitat and the use of similar species that use southern maritime chaparral, this would be considered as mitigation for southern maritime chaparral impacts. For purposes of Table 5.4-12, it is assumed that some or all of the 3.1 acres are currently disturbed and would be restored to coastal sage scrub and therefore recognized as creation/substantial restoration and/or preservation mitigation credit. This area would add 3.1 acres of the HMP Preserve, therefore counting towards the HMP Preserve (no-net-loss) requirement. An additional 3.1 acres of land at Veterans Park, within the existing HMP Preserve, is also suitable for habitat creation/substantial restoration. The majority of the area is currently annual grassland and suitable for coastal sage scrub creation along the western edge of the HMP Preserve. Additional pockets of disturbed land occur in the central and eastern portion of the HMP Preserve between areas of existing coastal sage scrub and southern maritime chaparral. These areas may be restored and credited towards the habitat creation or preservation requirements of the project. It should be noted that USFWS and CDFW may will not accept these areas as mitigation for southern maritime chaparral impacts due to coastal sage scrub being a lower tier habitat. Aviara Community Park Aviara Community Park is located less than one mile northwest of the project and currently supports north-facing slopes and hillsides with southern maritime chaparral that is not within the HMP Preserve. As shown in Figure 5.4-11, a 5.5-acre area has been identified to be added to the HMP Preserve (thus contributing to the HMP 4 Poinsettia 61 EIR Errata 3-1-2017 Preserve [no-net-loss] requirement). This area consists of 2.0 acres of highly disturbed southern maritime chaparral (less than 20% native cover) and 3.5 acres of existing southern maritime chaparral that is either undisturbed or has limited areas of disturbance (greater than 80% native cover). An additional 2.1 aores of manufaotured slope with existing ornamental vegetation is suitable for restoration with ooastal sage sorub speoies, would provide an enhanoed buffer between the park and HMP Preserve, and therefore oould be oredited to•~t~ards the preservation oredit. This area would not be added to the HMP Preserve, as manufaotured slopes are · generally not inoluded in the Preserve. It should be noted that USfVVS and CDfVV may not aooept these areas as mitigation due to the fast that they would not be added to the HMP Preserve. Reiter Parcel A 1 0.2-acre parcel south of the Poinsettia project is currently undeveloped and mapped as a Standards Area. If conserved and restored in a manner consistent with the on-site open space, this parcel is estimated to provide 1.5 acres of creation/substantial restoration credit, with the remaining 8.7 acres of land credited as preservation (see Figure 5.4-12). Conservation of this entire parcel and retirement of development potential would expand the HMP Preserve by 2.5 acres. CCC may only credit the portion of the Reiter parcel that is not already required to be preserved per the HMP. Viadana/Pavoreal HOA These two Homeowner's Association-owned HMP Preserve open space areas total 20.7 acres (see Figure 5.4-12) but are not under formal HMP Preserve management because their dedication pre-dates the HMP and no long-term management funding has been established. The property may be eligible for mitigation credit if the Applicant establishes an adequate Preserve Management Plan, including a conservation easement and non-wasting endowment, and restores disturbed areas within the 20.7-acre property. It is estimated that the properties support approximately 2.0 acres of disturbed areas that could be credited towards the habitat creation/substantial restoration requirement, with the remainder of the parcel being credited towards the habitat preservation requirement at a 0.5:1 ratio (i.e., 50% credit). Carlsbad Oaks Conservation Bank Approximately 24 acres of credit remain unallocated at the Carlsbad Oaks Conservation Bank. The bank is located north of Palomar Airport Road and east of El Camino Real and thus outside of the coastal zone, but does support a variety of habitat including southern maritime chaparral, southern mixed chaparral, coastal sage scrub, and oak woodlands. Credits may be used to satisfy the habitat preservation requirements, subject to agency approval. Other Restoration in City-Owned HMP Preserve Similar to habitat restoration proposed within the existing HMP Preserve at Veterans Park, additional City-owned HMP Preserve lands may be identified to provide additional mitigation credits towards the habitat creation/substantial restoration 5 Poinsettia 61 EIR Errata 3-1-2017 and/or habitat preservation requirements. Such restoration would be subject to the requirements of BR-6. Other Private Property Acquisition Similar to purchase and conservation of the Reiter Parcel, additional private property(ies) may be purchased and conserved consistent with the requirements of BR-6 and provide additional mitigation credits towards the habitat creation/ substantial restoration, habitat preservation, and/or HMP Preserve requirements. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or clearing of any habitat, the project applicant shall take the following actions to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, CDFW. and USFWS in relation to the open space lot which is being conserved for natural habitat in conformance with the City's HMP: a. Prior to recordation of the approved final tract map, the applicant shall record a Conservation Easement, as defined by California Civil Code Section 815.1 or other protective measure over all on-site and off-site mitigation land. b. Provide proof that appropriate type and acreage of land or mitigation credits have been purchased at an approved mitigation bank or other site for off-site mitigation. c. Select a qualified conservation entity to manage the conserved land. d. Prepare a Property Analysis Record (PAR) to estimate costs of in perpetuity management and monitoring. e. Provide a non-wasting endowment based on the PAR to sufficiently cover the costs of in-perpetuity management and monitoring. f. Prepare a Preserve Management Plan, pursuant to the guidelines set forth in Section F(2) and Section F(3) of the Carlsbad HMP (November 2004) and the Guidelines for Preserve Management (July 2009). In addition, given the recent fire on the property, a Post-Fire Habitat Recovery Stewardship Plan shall be prepared and implemented to ensure the recovery of pre-existing native vegetation communities to the extent feasible. g. Finalize the restoration plans and specifications for the on-site and off-site mitigation areas. Ill. Biological Technical Report Revisions The Biological Technical Report (FEIR Appendix C) has been modified to update Figure 7, Open Space/Development Edge Condition, to remove encroachments other than the plantable wall within the 20' upland habitat buffer consistent with Section 7-11 of the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan. (To the extent that the project plans show encroachments in the buffer, the project conditions of approval require a final site plan to be submitted to the city that is consistent with the project approval including the FEIR, which will address these modifications.) Appendix D of the Biological Technical Report, Final Conceptual Restoration Plan, has been modified to revise Figure 6, Restoration Treatment Map with Proposed Impacts, to reflect the revised text in Section II above to replace the proposed southern maritime chaparral-live oak 6 Poinsettia 61 EIR Errata 3-1-2017 woodland and southern maritime chaparral-wetland transition areas with restoration of coast live oak woodland and southern willow scrub (Attachment A). IV. HMP Consistency Findings Revisions Appendix E of the Biological Technical Report, Draft HMP Consistency Findings, has been modified to replace the Draft HMP Consistency Findings with the letter containing the Habitat Management Plan Consistency Findings for the Poinsettia 61 Project, City of Carlsbad, California, from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("Wildlife Agencies"), dated February 24, 2017, and the City of Carlsbad's letter to the Wildlife Agencies dated January 12, 2017 (Attachments Band C). 7 Poinsettia 61 EIR Errata 3-1-2017 C Project Boundary 0 Ottsite Kevane Parcels Restor;atfon Type ~Establishment/Creation (100%) QHistorically Disturbed/Restoration (25%) EJ Substantial Restoration (30%-70%) 100 200 '"' · 0 Trash and Debris PUes Easements Restor;atlon Habitat Treatments g Proposed Storm Drain -SMC 8 SDG&E -SMC-LOWTransition -SMC-We11and Transition g ~ter Une Easement (To Be Abandoned and Restored) SOURCE: Hunsaker2015; SANDAG, 2012; Oday 2015 DUDEK CONCEPTUAL RESTORATION PLAN Vegetation Communities CJAGR.Agricu1ture CJCBS. Coyote Brush Sa\lb D DH, Disturbed Habitat CJ EUC, Eucalyptus Woodland CJ POS. Poison Oak Saub c::JRUD, Ruderal ATIACHMENTA CJ SMC, Southern Maritime Chaparral CJ SWS, Southern Willow Scrub CJ LOW, Coast live Oak Woodland CJ ~~~~~~~~::~uthern CJORN, Ornamental FIGURE 5 Restoration Treatment Map with Proposed Impacts Poinsettia U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 2177 Salk Avenue, Suite 250 Carlsbad, California 92008 760-431-9440 FAX 760-431-9624 In Reply Refer To: FWS/CDFW-SDG-15B0268-17CPA0096 Mr.DonNeu Planning Director City of Carlsbad Community & Economic Development 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008-7314 Attention: Teri Delcamp, Senior Planner ATIACHMENT B California Department ofFish and Wildlife South Coast Region 3883 Ruffin Road San Diego, California 92123 858-467-4201 FAX 858-467-4299 February 24, 2017 Sent by Email Subject: Habitat Management Plan Consistency Findings for the Poinsettia 61 Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Neu: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the California Department ofFish and Wildlife (Department), hereafter collectively referred to as the Wildlife Agencies, have reviewed your January 12, 2017, letter, and February 9, 2017, email, requesting concurrence that the Poinsettia 61 Project (Project) in the City of Carlsbad (City) is consistent with the requirements and conservation standards of the City's Habitat Management Plan (HMP). Our review of the project is based upon: 1) the information provided in your letter and email; 2) the draft and final Environmental Impact Reports (EIR), dated October 2016 and January 2017, respectively; 3) a meeting with the Lennar Homes of California's (Applicant) consultant on April15, 2015; 4) a site visit with the Applicant's consultant on April28, 2015; 5) our knowledge of sensitive and declining vegetation communities throughout San Diego County; and 6) our participation in regional conservation planning efforts including the City's HMP. The primary concern and mandate of the Service is the protection of public fish and wildlife resources and their habitats. The Service has legal responsibility for the welfare of migratory birds, anadromous fish, and endangered animals and plants occurring in the United States. The Service is also responsible for administering the Federal Endangered Species Act of1973 (Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including habitat conservation plans (HCP) developed under section 10(a)(l) ofthe Act. The Department is a Trustee Agency and a responsible Agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Sections 15386 and 15381, respectively. The Department is responsible for the conservation, protection, and management of the State's biological resources, including rare, threatened, and endangered plant and animal species, pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and apministers the Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) program. The City is participating in the Department's NCCP and the Service's HCP programs through the implementation of its HMP. Mr. Don Neu (FWS/CDFW-SDG-15B0268-17CPA0096) 2 The project site is located south of Cassia Road, between the existing western and eastern segments of Poinsettia Lane, within the Coastal Zone, a Standards Area in Local Facilities Management Zone (LFMZ) 21, and the Core 6 Focused Planning Area. The Project is the construction of 123 single- family residential units, completion of Poinsettia Lane Reach E (bridge), and associated mitigation. The Project site supports native habitats including coyote brush scrub, coast live oak woodland, southern maritime chaparral, poison oak scrub, and southern willow scrub, as well as agricultural, disturbed, eucalyptus wo'odland, ornamental, and ruderal vegetation communities. The entire Project site burned during the May 2014 Poinsettia wildfire. Prior to the fire, special-status plant species observed on site included summer-holly (Comarostaphylis diversifolia), Nuttall's scrub oak (Quercus dumosa), and Torrey pine (Pinus torreyana). In addition, the federally listed endangered and HMP- narrow endemic Del Mar manzanita (Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crassifolia) occurred on site as well as the federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica; gnatcatcher). Post-fire surveys documented the summer-holly, Nuttall's scrub oak, and Del Mar manzanita as still occurring on site but not Torrey pine. Although protocol surveys were not conducted for gnatcatcher post-fire, the fmal Biological Technical Report (Dudek 2017) states that the species is likely utilizing the site. Lastly, a wildlife corridor runs along the eastern portion of the Project site. The following vegetation communities will be pennanently impacted by the Project: southern maritime chaparral [6.3 acres (ac)], agricultural (14.7 ac), and disturbed (4.6 ac). Due to the Project site being located in the Coastal Zone, a Standards Area, a Core area, and Zone 21, there are numerous conservation goals and HMP requirements that the Project has had to meet, including parcel-specific requirements as identified on page D-119 ofthe HMP. These requirements have been summarized in the draft EIR, the final Biological Technical Report (Dudek 2017) and the City's January 12, 2017 letter, and are hereby incorporated by reference. Due to the complexity of the HMP requirements, the Wildlife Agencies coordinated closely with the Applicant's consultant, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) staff, and City staff to ensure the Project was consistent with the HMP. As summarized in the draft EIR, the Project combines the allowable development on Maldonado (APN 215-020-07), Namikas (APN 215-050-21), Sudduth (APN 215-050-22), and on- site Kevane (APNs 215-050-44 and 215-050-47). These parcels are specifically identified in Section 7-14 of the HMP as having parcel-specific habitat protection standards (p. D-118). The Project is in compliance with all HMP standards with the exception that residential development is not restricted to the "western half' of the Maldonado parcel. Because the Maldonado parcel is mostly comprised of agricultural land, the Wildlife Agencies support clustering development on this parcel in order to preserve more southern maritime chaparral on the Namikas, Sudduth, and the on-site Kevane parcels (i.e., the proposed Project is biologically superior to what was originally required under the HMP for these five parcels). By clustering development on Maldonado, the Applicant is able to preserve all 10.1 acres ofthe on-site Kevane parcels. In addition, the Applicant is purchasing the 10.1-acre off- site Kevane parcels (APNs 215-050-45 and 215-050-46) to satisfy HMP mitigation requirements. The Applicant will implement the following measures to ensure the proposed Project is consistent with the HMP: 1. Mitigate impacts to southern maritime chaparral at a 3: 1 ratio, including 1: 1 creation/substantial restoration to ensure no net loss of this sensitive habitat, by restoring 6.3 acres and preserving 12.6 acres of southern maritime chaparral habitat on-site and off-site at the City's Aviara Park, as well as preserving the 1 0.1-acre off-site Kevane parcel (Table 1 ); Mr. Don Neu (FWS/CDFW-SDG-15B0268-17CPA0096) 3 2. Substantially restore/preserve an additional 5.1 acres of southern maritime chaparral habitat at A viara Park (Table 1 ); 3. Preserve and manage 246 Del Mar manzanita individuals on-site; 4. Preserve an on-site wildlife movement corridor in a north/south direction that follows the natural topography of the canyon and is approximately 272-1,000 feet wide across the entire site and construct a minimum 272-foot long bridge to span the canyon versus a culvert/fill design; and 5. Establish a minimum 50-foot riparian buffer and a 20-foot upland buffer between development and the on-site preserve that is consistent with Section 7-11 of the HMP, with the exception of a plantable wall in the southeastern portion ofthe development north of Poinsettia Lane and 3 storm drain outlets. In addition, the Applicant has agreed to restore, preserve, and manage an additional3.1 acres of habitat at the City's Veteran's Park to satisfy Coastal Zone requirements. This will be done in close coordination with the CCC. Table 1. On-and off-site mitigation requirements for the Poinsettia 61 Project. SMC SMC Preservation HMP Preserve Mitigation Location Creation/Substantial Credit Credit Restoration On-site 3.1 1 Off-site Kevane 2.2 7.92 Aviara 2.03 3.5 5.5 Total 7.3 11.4 5.5 Required 6.3 12.6 5.1 Difference 1.04 -1.2 0.44 .. An additional 1.1 acres will be planted with appropnate native habitat, which may mclude SMC. If SMC successfully establishes, it may serve as mitigation credit as approved by the Wildlife Agencies. 2 Hl\1P Preserve Requirement met at A viara. SMC Preservation credits needed; therefore, Hl\1P Preserve credit counted as SMC Preservation. 3 Creation/substantial restoration must meet success criteria in order for excess to count toward SMC Preservation. 4 Excess will fulfill remaining SMC Preservation credits. The on-and off-site mitigation areas will be conserved with a conservation easement and managed in perpetuity by an entity approved by the City and the Wildlife Agencies. The City and the Wildlife Agencies will also approve the final creation/substantial restoration and long-term management plans. Approval of the final creation/substantial restoration plan will be coordinated with a site visit to determine where substantial restoration, as described in the fmal Conceptual Restoration Plan (Dudek 2016), included as Appendix Din the fmal Biological Technical Report (Dudek 2017), could occur on-site. In addition, a non-wasting endowment will be established for the long-term management of both the on-and off-site mitigation areas. Mr. Don Neu (FWS/CDFW-SDG-15B0268-17CPA0096) Based on the above, the Wildlife Agencies concur that the project is consistent with the HMP. We appreciate the City's efforts to ensure consistency with the HMP. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Janet Stuckrath (Service) at 760-431-9440, extension 270 or Christine Beck (Department) at 858-637-7188. for Karen A. Goebel Digitally signed by DAVID ZOUTENDYK Date: 2017.02.24 12:39:34 -08'00' Assistant Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sincerely, Gail K. Sevrens Environmental Program Manager California Department ofFish and Wildlife LITERATURE CITED Dudek. 2016. Final Conceptual Restoration Plan for the Poinsettia Project. Prepared for Lennar. Published report included as an appendix in the Final Biological Technical Report for the Poinsettia Project. December 2016. 74 pp +appendices. Dudek. 2017. Final Biological Technical Report Poinsettia, Carlsbad, California. Prepared for Lennar. Published report included in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Poinsettia 61 Project. January 2017. 112 pp +appendices. 4 January 12, 2017 Christine Beck California Department of Fish and Wildlife 3883 Ruffin Road San Diego, CA 92123 Janet Stuckrath U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Suite 250 2177 Salk Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 ATIACHMENTC CCityof Carlsbad RE: EIR 15-03-POINSETTIA 61-REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF EQUIVALENCY (FWS/CDFG-SDG-1580268-16CPA0271) Dear Ms. Beck and Ms. Stuckrath: As you are aware, the applicant for development of the Poinsettia 61 Project (Project) (Lennar Homes of California) is requesting a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) Minor Amendment-Consistency Findings for the proposed project. The 50.80-acre project area occurs within a HMP Standards Area (Figures 1 and 2) . . The proposed Project would convert the site to a Hardline Area. The City of Carlsbad sent a Request for Determination of Equivalency (Request) to you on November 22, 2016. The City then received a combined comment letter from your agencies (Wildlife Agencies) and other interested parties on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR 15-03) that had been circulated for the project. We received a further combined letter from the Wildlife Agencies iri response to the Request on December 22, 2016, requesting a time extension of 30 days from the date of receipt of a revised Biological Technical Report (BTR). The City and its EIR/biological consultants have worked to address the Wildlife Agencies' and other interested parties' comments on the DEIR. The City is transmitting in, and enclosed with, this letter revised HMP Consistency Findings and a revised BTR. The BTR has been provided in both a Microsoft Word version that compares the final BIR (January 2017) with the October 2016 version that was circulated as part of the DEIR, as well as a clean PDF version of the final BTR. The Consistency Findings contained in this letter are also found in Appendix E of the BTR. Community & Economic Development Planning Division 11635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-73141760-602-4600 1760-602-8560 f I www.carlsbadca.gov EIR 15-03-POINSETTIA 61-REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF EQUIVALENCY January 12, 2017 Pa e 2 This request is intended to provide consistency and protection of all applicable habitat areas, and is allowed pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.210.080(A) (2), as follows: 21;210.080 Habitat management plan amendment Certain HMP implementation actions will require an amendment to the HMP as follows: 1. Minor Amendments. a. Consistency Findings. The conversion of standards areas to hardline preserve areas and the processing of certain city projects not shown as hardline preserve areas in the HMP are considered minor amendments to the HMP and can be approved by the city with consistency findings as follows: If the city planner determines that the new hardline preserve area boundary conforms to the standards contained in Section D.3{C} of the HMP, the planner shall consult with the wildlife agencies as part of the environmental review process for the development project. If objections to the new preserve area boundaries are not received during the public review period for the environmental review process from the wildlife agencies, consistency findings shall be prepared and adopted as part of the normal development permitting process for the project. 1 DISCUSSION The City of Carlsbad HMP {City of Carlsbad 2004) is a comprehensive, citywide conservation program whose purpose is to identify and preserve sensitive biological resources within the City while allowing for additional development consistent with the City's General Plan and Growth Management Plan.· Specific biological objectives of the HMP are to conserve the full range of vegetation types remaining in the City, with a focus on protecting rare and special-status habitats and species. The HMP acts as a Subarea Plan to the overall MHCP that was approved and finalized in 2003 (SANDAG 2003). These Consistency Findings consist of references to four (4) separate sections of standardsfrom the HMP that are applicable to the project based on its geographic location. The following sections provide an analysis of consistency for each standard. In many cases the analysis refers to the Biological Resource Technical Report (BTR) (Dudek 2016) for more details and figures. · 2 CORE 6 DESCRIPTION The HMP describe the Core 6 Focused Planning Area (FPA) as follows (City of Carlsbad 2004}: The Core 6 FPA, (approximately 1,134 acres), contains a critical stand of southern maritime chaparral and a major stand of grassland. It also has several vernal pools. The coastal sage scrub in this area supports approximately 12 gnatcatcher pairs. Additional habitats include chaparral, open water, disturbed wetland, oak woodland, eucalyptus woodland, and riparian forest. A critical population of Del Mar manzanita and a major population of . summer holly are associated with the southern maritime chaparral in this Core. Core 6 has linkages to Core 4 (Linkage Area F, see above), Core 5 (Linkage Area D, see above), Core 7 (Linkage Area E), and Core 8 (Linkage Area F). EIR 15-03-POINSETTIA 61-REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF EQUIVALENCY January 12, 2017 Pa e 3 This section is presented for context. There are no development standards expressed in this section and therefore no consistency findings to be made. 3 ZONE 21 CONSERVATION GOALS The HMP conservation goals for Zone 21 are presented in Section D.3(C) of the HMP (City of Carlsbad 2004). An analysis of consistency with these goals is provided for each bullet in Table 1. TABLE 1-ZONE 21 HMP CONSERVATION GOALS AND CON.SISTENCY FINDINGS Zone 21 HMP Conservation Goal Consistency Finding Conserve "the majority of remaining natural The proposed project will be required to provide habitats and ensure a net loss of no more than no-net-loss of these habitat types through 10% of coastal sage scrub and southern implementation of mitigation that include maritime chaparral." creation/substantial restoration at a minimum 1:1 ratio. Ensure no net loss of wetland habitats, vernal No wetland, vernal pool, or oak woodland habitats pools, and oak woodlands. are impacted by the proposed project (Figure 3). Conserve habitats in a continuous configuration The proposed project includes habitat across the zone to allow for continued east-west conservation in an east-west configuration across connectivity and animal movement between El the site consistent with the requirements of the Camino Real (Zone 10) and Linkage Area F HMP (Figure 4; BTR Section 4.1.5). (Zones 19 and 20)'. Conserve Narrow Endemic plant populations. Direct impacts from the proposed project on sensitive plant species maintain compliance with the HMP (BTR Section 4.4.4). Direct permanent impacts to Del Mar manzanita are below the 20% maximum impact threshold established by the HMP. Conduct additional field surveys at the Numerous focused field surveys for sensitive appropriate time of year to determine the species were conducted at the appropriate time of extent and location of sensitive species. year between 2004 and 2006, with updates performed in 2009, and 2014-2016. Restrict major areas for development to Approximately 80% of the residential agricultural areas and disturbed habitat. development would occur in existing agricultural and disturbed areas. Avoid removing maritime succulent scrub, The proposed project provides no-net-loss of southern maritime chaparral, and any Narrow these habitat types through mitigation; including Endemic plant populations identified during creation/substantial restoration at a minimum 1:1 planning. ratio. Direct permanent impacts to Del Mar manzanita are below the 20% maximum impact threshold established by the HMP. Minimize removal of,coastal sage scrub and See above. southern maritime chaparral. EIR 15-03-POINSETIIA 61-REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF EQUIVALENCY January 12, 2017 Pa e4 TABLE 1-ZONE 21 HMP CONSERVATION GOALS AND CONSISTENCY FINDINGS Zone 21 HMP Conservation Goal Consistency Finding Avoid impacts within the watersheds of vernal No such impacts are proposed. pools and to oak riparian forest. Ensure continuous habitat connectivity and A minimum 500-foot-wide east-west corridor is wildlife movement east-west across the zone proposed within the project open space, south of with an average habitat width of 500 feet to Poinsettia Lane {Figure 4}. The Poinsettia Lane 1,000 feet and a minimum constriction of 500 bridge span is sufficient in length to allow for feet (where narrower constrictions don't movement of all wildlife species that occur in the already exist}; however, in no case shall this area. The 272-foot constriction north of Poinsettia standard deny a property owner some Lane is allowable because it preserves the natural reasonable use of their property. topography of the canyon and is sufficient to connect habitats through this region. If impacts to natural habitats cannot be avoided, Development is clustered within the agricultural they must be limited to disturbed, low quality areas and other areas adjacent to existing portions of the site. development. High-quafity oak woodland habitats are avoided. Areas of highly disturbed, low quality southern All disturbed southern maritime chaparral within maritime chaparral and coastal sage scrub may on-site and potential off-site mitigation areas are be mitigated by a combination of on-site proposed for restoration. enhancement and off-site mitigation in locations of higher quality habitat. Mitigation for any allowed impacts shall be as Table 11 requires various mitigation ratios for stated in Table 11 on Page D-113 of the HMP impacts to Habitat Groups A-F. The project {City of Carlsbad 2004}. results in impacts to Group B (southern maritime chaparral) and Group F (disturbed and agricultural lands}. Mitigation for Group B impacts are proposed at a minimum 3:1 ratio, in accordance with Table 11. Mitigation for Group F.impacts would be provided through payment of a Mitigation Fee, in accordance with Table 11 (see Section 3.1 below for more details). A number of potential mitigation options are described in BTR Section 5.1 for Group B impacts. ' These options were reviewed and comments were received from the Resource Agencies (USFWS, CDFW, and CCC}. Based on their comments and differences in the types of mitigation allowed by each agency, proposed mitigation credits are presented in two separate tables: Tables 2a and 2b. EIR 15-03-POINSETTIA 61-REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF EQUIVALENCY January 12, 2017 Pa e 5 TABLE 2A-POTENTIAL MITIGATION AREAS AND CREDITS-CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SMC SMC Preservation or Creation/Substantia I Equivalent HMP Preserve Restoration Restoration/Preservation (5.1 acre (6.3 acre requirement) (12.6 acre requirement) requirement) Mitigation Site (acres) (acres) (acres) On site 2.7 SMC creation1 -- 1.7 substantial SMC restoration1 Off-site Kevane 0.6 SMC creation1 -2.5 1.6 substantial SMC restoration1 Veteran's Park2 1.3 substantial CSS 3.1 restoration 1.8 CSS preservation Aviara Park 0.9 substantial SMC 3.5 SMC preservation 4.4 restoration 7.5 acres 6.6 acres 10.0 acres Total Total Compared +1.2 acres -6.0 acres +4.9 acres to Requirement TOTAL 6.0 acres of SMC Preservation deficit is offset by 1.2 acre·s of excess creation/substantial restoration and 4.9 acres of excess HMP Preserve credit. 1 The acreages of onsite and off-site Kevane creation and substantial restoration are taken from the Conceptual Restoration Plan {Dudek 2016) which presents these acreages as combined for the two area (onsite and off-site Kevane). 2 Precise location of total 3.1-acre addition to the HMP Preserve at Veteran's Park is not known. The portion of restoration versus preservation is an estimate. TABLE 28-POTENTIAL MITIGATION AREAS AND CREDITS-USFWS/CDFW SMC Creation/Substantial Restoration SMC Preservation HMP Preserve (6.3 acre requirement) (12.6 acre requirement) (5.1 acre requirement) Mitigation Site (acres) (acres) (acres) On site . 2.7 SMC creation1 13.8 SMC Preservation - 1.7 substantial SMC restoration1 Off-site Kevane 0.6 SMC creation1 3.9 SMC and LOW 2.5 1.6 substantial SMC Preservation restoration1 Veteran's Park No credit for CSS 3.1 restoration or preservation EIR 15-03-POINSETIIA 61-REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF EQUIVALENCY January 12, 2017 Pa e 6 TABLE 2B-POTENTIAL MITIGATION AREAS AND CREDITS-USFWS/CDFW SMC Creation/Substantial Restoration SMC Preservation HMP Preserve (6.3 acre requirement) (12.6 acre requirement) (5.1 acre requirement) Mitigation Site (acres) (acres) (acres) Aviara Park 0.9 substantial SMC 3.5 SMC preservation 4.4 restoration 7.5 acres 21.1 acres 10.0 acres Total Total Compared +1.2 acres +8.6 acres +4.9 acres to Requirement TOTAL All mitigation requirements exceeded 1 The acreages of onsite and off-site Kevane creation and substantial restoration are taken from the Conceptual Restoration Plan (Dudek 2016) which presents these acreages as combined for the two area (onsite and off-site Kevane). · HMP In-Lieu Mitigation Fee The HMP established an In-Lieu Mitigation Fee that is assessed on development projects based on the following criteria: · 1. The fee will be required in addition to any mitigation required of a project by the HMP or CEQA. 2. The fee will be calculated on a per acre basis according to the mitigation ratios contained in Table 11, (page D-95) for habitat impacted and not conserved on site (City of Carlsbad 2004). Only Habitat Groups D, E and F as shown in Table 11 shall be eligible to pay the fee for impacted habitat. 3. Although it will be necessary to conduct the fee study required by AB 1600, based on staffs initial analysis, staff anticipates the fee for impacting disturbed habitat/agriculture land should be set at no more than $500 per acre. 4. The fee will not be assessed against any parcel that has been graded pursuant to a valid grading permit within the past five (5) years. 5. The fee will not be required where at least 67% of the habitat on a property or project is being conserved. 6. The fee will be calculated and collected at issuance of Grading Permit. The residential portion of the proposed project, based on HMP requirements, requires the purchase of 15.71 acres of in-lieu fee mitigation credits for impacts to non-special-status communities and land cover types. This acreage is based on a impacts to land identified as Agriculture on the Constraints Map approved by the City of Carlsbad, minus 2.7 acres already paid for pursuant to HMP Permit 10-02 (Poinsettia Place). The current fee for in-lieu mitigation credits is $3,063.00 per acre. 4 ADDITIONAL COASTAL ZONE CONSERVATION STANDARDS The HMP was approved by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) after insertion of an Addendum that outlined certain additional conservation measures for properties within the coastal zone. These measures were incorporated into the Local Coastal Program (LCP) as Section 3-1 (City of Carlsbad 2014). At the time EIR 15-03-POINSETTIA 61-REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF EQUIVALENCY January 12, 2017 Pa e7 of adoption of the Carlsbad HMP in November 2004, the Poinsettia Project area was comprised of seven parcels, referred to as 215-020-07 (Maldonado), 215-050-21 (Namikas), 215-050-22 (Sudduth), and 215- 050-44 and 215-050-47 (Kevane) (Figure 2). However, all parcels are now currently under ownership of one entity. For clarity in interpreting the compliance of the proposed project with the Carlsbad HMP, parcel names will be included in parentheses next to their associated assessor parcel numbers. The general standards for the entire coastal zone are presented in Table 3 as taken from Section D.7 of the HMP. The required consistency finding with each standard for compliance of the proposed project with the HMP and LCP is included adjacent to said standard (Table 3). TABLE 3-COASTAL ZONE CONSERVATION STANDARDS Coastal Zone Conservation Standard Consistency Finding · 7-1 Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) (3-1.2 of LCP) Onsite ESHA is defined as all Pursuant to Section 30240 of the California Coastal Act, native habitat areas, which environmentally sensitive habitat areas, as defined in Section primarily consist of southern 30107.5 of the Coastal Act, shall be protected against any significant maritime chaparral and oak disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those woodland communities. The resources shall be allowed within those areas. project will disrupt 6.3 acres of ESHA onsite. With mitigation including 6.3 acres of creation or substantial restoration within the HMP Preserve, no-net-loss of ESHA will occur. 7-2 Coastal Sage Scrub (3-1.3 of LCP) No coastal sage scrub occurs Properties containing Coastal Sage Scrub located in the' Coastal Zone on site. shall conserve a minimum 67% of the Coastal Sage Scrub and 75% of the gnatcatchers on site. Conservation of gnatcatchers shall be determined in consultation with the wildlife agencies. 7-3 Oak Woodland (3-1.4 of LCP) Definition, no specific [Oak woodland is defined and referenced later in the parcel-specific compliance required. standards.] 7-4 Streams (3-1.5 of LCP) Definition, no specific [Streams are defined and referenced later in the parcel-specific compliance required. standards.] 7-5 Ephemeral Drainages and Ephemeral Streams (3-1.6 of LCP) Definition, no specific [These are defined and referenced later in the parcel-specific compliance required. standards.] 7-6 Wetlands (3-1.7 of LCP) No permanent or temporary [Wetlands are defined.] Pursuant to California Public Resources Code impacts to southern willow Section 30233, no impacts to wetlands shall be allowed in the scrub (CCC-jurisdictional Coastal Zone except as provided in that Section. [CPRC Section riparian habitat) would occur 30233 allows for impacts to wetlands] "where there is no feasible as a resultofthe project. less environmentally damaging alternative, and where feasible EIR 15-03-POINSETTIA 61-REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF EQUIVALENCY January 12, 2017 Pa e 8 TABLE 3-COASTAL ZONE CONSERVATION STANDARDS Coastal Zone Conservation Standard mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects." Types of activities that may be allowed to impact wetlands are listed; the proposed project does not fall into any ofthese allowable use categories. 7-7 Wetland Mitigation Requirements (3-1.8 of LCP) If impacts to a wetland are allowed consistent with Policy 7-6 above, mitigation shall be provided at a ratio of 3:1 for riparian impacts and 4:1 for saltwater or freshwater wetland or marsh impacts. 7-8 No Net Loss of Habitat (3-1.9 of LCP) 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 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 U.S. 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. Consistency Finding Not applicable as no permanent impacts to wetlands are proposed. The project mitigation would provide for no-net-loss of southern maritime chaparral. EIR 15-03-POINSETIIA 61-REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF EQUIVALENCY January 12, 2017 Pa e 9 7-9 Upland Habitat Mitigation Requirements {3-1.10 of LCP) 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 1:1 as provided in the HMP. b) On-site preservation is not eligible for mitigation credit in the coastal zone. On-site 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 crea'tion 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 ofthe 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 ofthe total obligation. The remainder of the mitigation obligation shall be satisfied pursuant to the provisions of the HMP. 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. Mitigation for impacts within the coastal zone should be provided within the coastal zone if possible, particularly the 1:1 creation component, in order to have no riet loss of habitat within the coastal zone. Mitigation measures on land outside the Coastal Zone may be acceptable a) The project mitigation would provide for no-net- loss of southern maritime chaparral. b) On-site preservation is not proposed for mitigation, under Coastal Commission standards. A Conceptual Restoration Plan is included as an appendix to the BTR and outlines the specific types of habitat restoration proposed within onsite and offsite open space, and how these restoration areas meet the creation or _ substantial restoration definitions. c) No impacts to coastal sage scrub are proposed. d) As stated above, impacts to southern maritime chaparral are proposed at the required 3:1 ratio with a 1:1 component consisting of creation or substantial restoration. Most of the mitigation options presented in the BTR occur within the coastal zone. The exception is the Carlsbad Oaks Conservation Bank; if proposed, an analysis of the level of habitat protection and value would be provided. e) All mitigation would be secured with a conservation easement and implementation of a preserve management plan in accordance with mitigation measure BR-6 as stated in the Draft EIR 15-03-POINSETIIA 61-REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF EQUIVALENCY January 12, 2017 Pa e 10 TABLE 3-COASTAL ZONE CONSERVATION STANDARDS Coastal Zone Conservation Standard Consistency Finding if such mitigation would clearly result in higher levels of Environmental Impact habitat protection and value and/or would provide Report (DEIR) for the significantly greater mitigation ratios, and the mitigation area project (City of Carlsbad is part ofthe HMP. Land area inside and outside the coastal 2016). zone which serves as mitigation for habitat impacts in the f) See (e) above. coastal zone shall be permanently retired from development g) Noted. potential and secured as part of the HMP preserve management plan as a condition of development approval. e) Habitat mitigation requirements other than the creation or substantial restoration compohent may be partially or wholly f1.1lfilled by acquisition of existing like habitat and/or retirement of development credits on existing like habitat with permanent preservation as part ofthe HMP preserve management plan, f) All mitigation areas, on-site and off-site, shall be secured with a conservation easement in favor of the wildlife agencies. In addition, a preserve management plan shall be prepared for the mitigation areas, to the satisfaction of the City, the wildlife agencies, and the Coastal Commission. Phase 1 of the preserve management plan shall be incorporated into the Implementation Program ofthe LCP through an LCP amendment within one year of Commission certification of the HMP as part ofthe certified LCP. Phase 2 of the preserve management plan shall be incorporated into the Implementation Program in the same manner within three years of Commission certification of the HMP as part of the certified LCP. The preserve management plan shall ensure adequate funding to protect the preserve as open spac;:e and to maintain the biological values of the mitigation areas in perpetuity. Management provisions and fundingfor mitigation required to address habitat impacts shall be in place prior to the impacts for which the mitigation is required. At a minimum, monitoring reports shall be required as a condition of development approval after the first and third year of habitat mitigation efforts. g) If any conflict should arise between the provisions of the HMP and the policies of the LCP, the LCP shall take precedence. 7-10 Highly Constrained Properties (3-1.11 of LCP) The project area is not There are properties in the Coastal Zone that are entirely or almost considered a "highly entirely constrained by environmentally sensitive habitat area constrained property" {ESHA). In these cases, one of the following additional standards because only 55% of the shall apply: property supports ESHA. EIR 15-03-POINSEITIA 61-REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF EQUIVALENCY January 12, 2017 Pa e 11 TABLE 3-COASTAL ZONE CONSERVATION STANDARDS Coastal Zone Conservation Standard Consistency Finding 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 Hard line preserve boundary for any ofthese properties as part of the HMP, then the amount of on-site preservation as identified in the Hardline boundary shall apply. 7-11 Buffers and Fuel Modification Zones (3-1.12 of LCP) The City of Carlsbad Buffers shall be provided between all preserved habitat areas and Guidelines for Riparian and development. Minimum buffer width~ shall be provided as follows: Wetland Buffers (2010) provides a definition of c) 100ft. for wetlands riparian and wetland habitats; d) 50 ft. for riparian areas southern willow scrub is listed e) 20ft. for all other native habitats (coastal sage scrub, as an example of a riparian southern maritime chaparral, maritime succulent scrub, habitat. Therefore the southern mixed chaparral, native grassland, oak woodland). riparian buffer guidelines are Buffer widths shall be measured from the edge of preserved applied to the project. A habitat nearest the development to the closest point of minimum 50-foot riparian development. For wetlands and riparian areas possessing an buffer (i.e., protection zone) is unvegetated bank or steep slope (greater than 25%), the buffer provided in addition to shall be measured from the top of the bank or steep slope additional separation and rather than the edge of habitat, unless there is at least 50 ft. transition zones (Figure 7). between the riparian or wetland area and the toe of the slope. Development within the If the toe of the slope is less than 50 feet from the wetland or protection zone is limited to riparian area, the buffer shall be measured from the top of the essential storm outfall devices slope. Any proposed reductions in buffer widths for a specific (with force dissipators) which site shall require sufficient information to determine that a are explicitly allowed under buffer of lesser width will protect the identified resources. the City's Guidelines (2010) Such information shall include, but is not limited to, the size and most effectively protect and type of the development and/or proposed mitigation (such downstream riparian as planting of vegetation or the construction offencing) that resources from potential will also achieve the purposes of the buffer. The California erosion an·d other adverse effects. Fuel modification is Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife located in the transition zone Service, and the Coastal Commission staff shall be consulted in only and is at least 50 feet such buffer determinations. No development, grading, or alterations, including clearing of from the riparian area. No trails are proposed within the vegetation, shall occur in the buffer area, except for: riparian buffer area. Native f) Fuel modification Zone 3 to a maximum of 20ft. for upland habitat plantings are and non-riparian habitat. No fuel modification shall take proposed for the riparian place within 50 ft. of riparian areas, wetlands, or oak buffer along with signage and woodland. a barrier wall (Figure 7). g) Recreation trails and public pathways within the first 15 feet of the buffer closest to the development, provided that EIR 15-03-POINSETIIA 61..,. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF EQUIVALENCY January 12, 2017 Pa e 12 TABLE 3-COASTAL ZONE CONSERVATION STANDARDS Coastal Zone Conservation Standard Consist~ncy Finding construction ofthe trail or pathway and its proposed use is No Zone 1 or 2 fuel · consistent with the preservation goals for the adjacent modification areas occur habitat, and that appropriate measures are taken for physical within the 20-foot upland separation from sensitive areas. Buffer areas that do not buffer. Grading and walls are contain native habitat shall be landscaped using native plants. proposed within the upland Signage and physical barriers such as walls or fences shall be buffer along the northern and required to minimize edge effects of development. eastern edges of development. It should be noted that these areas of impact currently do not support habitat. Fences, walls, and native landscaping have been incorporated into the project design to minimize edge effects and adequately protect adjacent upland habitat (Figure 7). 7-12 Grading and Landscaping Requirements (Policy 3-4 of LCP) It is assumed that language in In addition to the requirements of the model grading ordinance in LCP Policy 3-4 take the Carlsbad Master Drainage Plan, permitted new development precedence over the HMP 7- shall also comply with the following requirements: 12 language, as the LCP has been more recently updated. h) Grading activity shall be prohibited during the rainy season: Related conditions are stated from October 1st to April 1st of each year. for the project in Section 5.6.5 i) All graded areas shall be landscaped prior to October 1st of of the DEIR under the each year with either temporary or permanent landscaping Geology/Soils section. materials, to reduce erosion potential. Such landscaping shall be maintained and replanted if not well-established by December 1st following the initial planting. j) 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. k) 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 EIR 15-03-POINSETTIA 61-REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF EQUIVALENCY January 12, 2017 Pa e 13 TABLE 3-COASTAL ZONE CONSERVATION STANDARDS Coastal Zone Conservation Standard Consistency Finding amendment, provided that appropriate best management practices are adopted. Invasive Plants (3-1.13 of LCP) No plants listed in Table 12 of The use of invasive plant species in the landscaping for the HMP or other species developments such as those identified in Table 12 of the HMP shall considered to be invasive are be prohibited. proposed to be used on site. 5 PARCEL-SPECIFIC HABITAT PROTECTION STANDARDS Parcel specific standards are stated as conservation standard 7-14 of the HMP. The following are the standards that apply to the project. • 215-020-07 (Maldonado) -Development shall be concentrated along the Poinsettia Lane extension and shall be limited to the western half of the property. No impacts to the coast oak woodland and riparian area except for Poinsettia Lane extension. The eastern half of the property is recommended for off-site mitigation for other properties in Zone 21; however, at a 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 corridorlinkages. The corridor linkage shall include any on-site coast oak woodland area. • 215-050-21 (Namikas)/215-050-22 (Sudduthj-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, including the on-site coast oak woodland area, and be designed to connect to neigl:lboring properties with existing or potential wildlife corridor linkages. Impacts to native habitat shall require on-site mitigation through restoration and/or creation of habitat within the designated corridor linkage, in addition to any other required mitigation. • 215-050-44, 215-050-47 (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. A wildlife corridor linkage oriented generally north-south shall be provided on the eastern portion of the property, including 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 on-site mitigation through restoration and/or creation of habitat within the designated corridor linkage, in addition to any other required mitigation. These parcel-specific habitat protection standards are discussed holistically for the entire project below with separate sections to address each resource conservation component ofthe standards. EIR 15-03-POINSETTIA 61-REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF EQUIVALENCY January 12, 2017 Pa e 14 5.1 ·Allowable Development and Wildlife Corridor Linkage Table 4 provides the percentage of each parcel that would be developed. A strict interpretation of the parcel-specific habitat protection standards is illustrated on Figure 6. TABLE 4-COMPARISON OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND HMP DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS Parcel Total Poinsettia Percent Allowable Proposed Percent of Site Difference Acreage Lane Allowable Residential Residential used for between Development Development Development Proposed Proposed (acres) (acres) Residential and Development Allowed (acres) 215-020-07 20.4 2.8 50% 7.4 16.3 94% 8.9 (Maldonado) (including (including (Proposed Poinsettia Poinsettia in Excess of Lane)1 Lane) Allowed) 215-050-21 11.0 2.5 25% 2.8 3.8 34% 1.0 (Namikas) (not including (not including (Proposed Poinsettia Poinsettia in Excess of Lane) Lane) Allowed) 215-050-22 9.3 0.4 25% 2.3 0.0 0% -2.3 (Sudduth) (not including (not including (Proposed Poinsettia Poinsettia Less Than Lane) Lane) Allowed) 215-050-44, 10.1 0.0 25% 2.5 0.0 0% -2.5 215-050-47 (not including (not including (Proposed (Kevane) Poirysettia Poinsettia Less Than Lane) Lane) Allowed) Tot al2 50.8 6.1 -15.0 20.1 -5.1 (Proposed in Excess of Allowed) Notes: 1 Actual LCP and HMP language for the Maldonado parcel refers to development being restricted to the "western half' of the parcel. A numeric restriction is not stated, but is assumed. 2 Numbers may not total due to rounding. The proposed project combines the allowable development on 215-050-21 (Namikas), 215-050-22 (Sudduth), and 215-050-44 and 215-050-47 (Kevane). Each parcel has an allowable development percentage of 25% for a total allowable development of 10.0 acres. The proposed project would consolidate development on the Namikas parcel and result in 4.3 acres less development on the other parcels. Although the proposed development would not be strictly limited to 25% on the Namikas parcel, the intention of the HMP and CCC development restrictions and guidelines is maintained and the overall EIR 15-03-POINSETTIA 61-REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF EQUIVALENCY January 12, 2017 Pa e 15 function of the preserved habitat in the region is enhanced by the proposed clustered development layout. In particular, the requirement for a 500-foot east-west corridor through the zone can only be achieved through the proposed development clustering. The strict interpretation of the.standards would place development along the entire western boundary of the project, eliminating an east-west habitat linkage. The parcel-specific standards for parcel 215-020-07 (Maldonado) require that development be clustered on the "western half" of the property. This is interpreted on Figure 6 and Table 4 to limit development (including. Poinsettia Lane) to 50% of the parcel. The proposed project exceeds this allowable development by 8.9 acres. However, this additional development allows for less development on the Namikas, Sudduth, and Kevane parcels as well as the construction of Poinsettia Lane to include a span bridge which enhances the habitat connectivity of the surrounding open space compared with a culvert (Figure 6}. Under the strict HMP-compliant alternative, where a culvert would be utilized, impacts to native habitat are increased compared with the proposed project (6.3 acres under the proposed project and 11.8 acres under the HMP-compliant alternative, including 2.9 acre more impact to southern maritime chaparral) (Table 5}. Also, under the HMP-compliant alternative, the development would have more edge adjacent to open space. The portion of open space that would be within 300 feet of development (and therefore subject to adverse edge effect) is substantially greater under the HMP-compliant alternative. For these reasons, the proposed project preserves the main canyon and wildlife movement through the Maldonado parcel and is a substantial net-benefit compared with strict HMP compliance. TABLE 5-COMPARISON OF PROPOSED PROJECT AND HMP COMPLIANT ALTERNATIVE Vegetation/Land Cover Type Proposed Project HMP-Compliant Alternative Total Open Space Total Open Space Coyote Brush Scrub -2.1 0.5 \ 1.6 Coast Live Oak Woodland -1.5 -1.5 Southern Maritime Chaparral 6.0 17.3 8.3 15.0 Disturbed Southern Maritime Chaparral 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.5 Southern Willow Scrub -0.2 0.1 0.1 Disturbed Southern Willow Scrub -0.1 -0.1 Agricultural 14.6 1.1 5.9 9.8 Disturbed Habitat 4.6 1.3 5.3 0.6 Eucalyptus Woodland -0.2 -0.2 Poison Oak Scrub -0.2 0.1 0.1 Ornamental Land 0.1 0.5 0.6 - Ruderal 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 Total* 25.7 25.2 21.1 29.7 Summary Total Residenti.al Development 20.1 15.3 Total Poinsettia lane 5.6 5.8 Total Impact 25.7 21.1 Open Space within 300 feet of 13.2 17.5 Development EIR 15-03-POINSETTIA 61-REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF EQUIVALENCY January 12, 2017 Pa e 16 Dudek prepared a detailed alternatives analysis· memo to compare the proposed project with an alternative that follows a strict interpretation of the HMP/LCP (Dudek 2015). The currently proposed project (identified as Alternative 3 in Dudek's alternatives analysis memo) has substantial benefits to habitat conservation compared with the strict interpretation of the HMP/LCP (identified as Alternative 1 in Dudek's alternatives analysis memo). This is due to the fact that the proposed project would conserve more existing habitat and that restoring habitat within the existing agricultural areas that would be preserved under the HMP/LCP standards may not be feasible. The proposed project is sufficient to finance an open-space bridge, results in less impact to habitat, and meets the objectives of the HMP and LCP in terms of avoiding impacts to native habitat, preserving habitat linkages/wildlife corridors, and providing for no-net-loss of native habitat. The proposed project would result in a deficit of 5.1 acres of HMP Preserve when compared with the allowed developed under the HMP/LCP. Project mitigation is required to offset this deficit by adding at least 5.1 acres of land to the HMP Preserve. In certain cases, this land (s) may also be used to address habitat mitigation requirements. A number of potential mitigation options are described in BTR Section S.1 including proposed HMP Preserve and habitat mitigation credits. A scenario of potential mitigation credits is outlined in Table 2 of this document which would provide a net gain of 4.6 acres of HMP Preserve. 5.2 Buffers The proposed project includes a SO-foot no-impact buffer between existing riparian habitat (southern willow scrub) and the edge of fuel management zones, limits of grading, and all development facilities. Actual residential use areas are separated by an additional SO feet {100 feet total) from the riparian habitat, with land uses within this second separation/transition zone limited to drainage facilities and fuel management areas (Figures 5). Manufactured slopes and plantable walls will create a further separation and protection of the on-site open space, in conformance with the Carlsbad HMP and the City's Guidelines for Biological Studies. Figure 7 shows a cross-section of the open space immediately north of Poinsettia Lane and demonstrates the vertical separation of the proposed development from the open space. The plantable wall will create a further screen between the development and the open space, improving the potential for wildlife movement. In summary, the proposed project is in compliance with all HMP and LCP standards with the exception that residential development is not restricted to the "western half' of the Maldonado parcel. This single exception has been discussed with the resource agencies and a number of alternatives have been developed and analyzed at their request. The results of this analysis indicate that, as summarized above, the proposed project meets all of the objectives of the HMP and LCP and that a further reduction in the amount of residential development would not provide meaningful biological benefits and would r10t be economically feasible. EIR 15-03-POINSETIIA 61-REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF EQUIVALENCY January 12, 2017 Pa e 17 5.3 Narrow Endemic and Oak Woodland/Riparian Protection One narrow endemic plant species would be impacted by the project, Del Mar manzanita. The residential portion of the project would result in the permanent loss of 2.7% of the on-site population. The road would result in permanent impacts to an additional10% ofthe population. This meets the HMP limit of 20% impacts to the on-site population. Standards for avoidance of oak woodland and riparian impacts (no impacts resulting from residential development) are maintained with the current project design. 6 CONSISTENCY FINDINGS The proposed project would convert the properties from a Standards Area to a Hard line Area; this change requires that Consistency Findings (pursuant to Section E-3B of the HMP) be made (City of Carlsbad 2004). Findings are required in 5 areas: 1: The project's location in relationship to existing conserved habitat within the City; 2. The habitat types and any known occurrence of HMP Species and other species of concern in and adjacent to the project area; 3. The expected location, type, and intensity of habitat impacts in the project area; 4. Any open space requirement identified for the area under the General Plan; and 5. Specific conservation measures to ensure compliance with zone-level and species specific standards. While the proposed project would convert land from Standards Area and Hardline Area, the project also requires mitigation that would convert land currently outside of the HMP Preserve to Hardline Areas. These boundary changes may require Equivalency Findings, pursuant to Section E-3A of the HMP. The proposed project, including mitigation, would 11not reduce the acreage or quality of the habitat" and therefore would be 11treated as automatic amendments under an Equivalency Finding." For example, the mitigation scenario presented in Table 2 would require conversion of 3.1 acres of Veteran's Park and 4.1 acres of Aviara Community Park to HMP Hard line Areas. Under this scenario, the HMP Preserve boundary and habitat conditions would not be reduced and the HMP would be amended via an Equivalency Finding for this component of the project. 6.1 Project Location in Relationship to Existing Conserved Habitat within the City The project is located in Zone 21. Adjacent properties to the north, northeast, and southeast have Hard line Preserves (Figure 4). Additional Hard line Preserve habitat occurs southwest of the project but is not contiguous with the project site. As discussed above, the project proposes additional Hard line Preserve area in the southern portion of the project site with an approximately 300-foot-wide corridor also preserved north of the Poinsettia Lane extension, in order to connect onsite HMP Preserve with existing conserved habitat northeast of the site. EIR 15-03-POINSETIIA 61-REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF EQUIVALENCY January 12, 2017 Pa e 18 6.2 Habitat Types and Known Occurrence of HMP Species and other Species of Concern The native habitat types onsite include southern maritime chaparral, coast live oak woodland, coyote brush scrub, and southern willow scrub. In addition, the site supports various disturbed lands including agricultural land, eucalyptus woodland, and ornamental plantings. HMP-covered plant species identified onsite include Del Mar manzanita, summer holly, and Nuttall's scrub oak. No HMP-covered wildlife species were identified onsite, but the site is assumed to support California gnatcatcher and numerous other wildlife species (see BTR Section 3.4.2). 6.3 Location, Type, and Intensity of Habitat Impacts Project impacts are concentrated in the northern portion of the site; approximately 75% of the impacts are to disturbed, non-native habitat lands. Native habitat impacts are limited to 6.3 acres of permanent impacts to southern maritime chaparral. These permanent impacts are due to mass grading of the site for development pads and fill slopes and bridge abutments associated with Poinsettia Lane. Additional temporary impacts may occur during construction and result in the temporary loss of 0.2 acre of coyote brush scrub and 0.6 acre of southern maritime chaparral. 6.4 General Plan Open Space Requirements The following is excerpted from Section 5.10.3 of the DEIR for the project {City of Carlsbad 2016): As shown in Figure 5.10-1, the project site is designated by the General Plan as OS and R-4. The project applicant is requesting an amendment to the City's General Plan to change the R-41and use designation to Residential (R- 8) for the portion of the project site proposed for development. The remainder of the project site would be designated Open OS. Additionally, adjacent parcels (APNs 215-0S0-45 and -46) for mitigation purposes would be included in the General Plan amendment and would be designated as OS. Figure 5.10-4 depicts the proposed General Plan Land Use designations on the project site. As proposed, the northern portion of the project site would be developed with 123 detached single-family residential units, at a density of approximately 6.1 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the proposed R-8General Plan Land use designation. The remainder of the project site, comprising approximately 25.1 acres, will be recorded as an open space lot and conserved as permanent open space. The proposed General Plan amendment associated with the project does not, in and of itself, represent an environmental impact. No significant land use impact associated with the proposed General Plan amendment is anticipated. The proposed project would be generally consistent with applicable goals and policies of the General Plan, would further achievement of certain goals and policies of the General Plan, and would not obstruct implementation of any General Plan goal or policy, including those relating to affordable housing. Table 5.10-2 provides a summary of the General Plan {2015) goals/policies per element and provides a project consistency discussion for each applicable goal/policy. The following are open space-related General Plan goals/policies from Table 5.10.2 of the DEIR (City of Carlsbad 2016). EIR 15-03-POINSETIIA 61-REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF EQUIVALENCY January 12, 2017 Pa e 19 TABLE 6-OPEN SPACE-RELATED GENERAL PLAN GOALS/POLICIES General Plan Goal/Policy Consistency Determination Goal 2-G.16: Enhance Carlsbad's character and Consistent. The proposed project would provide image as a desirable residential, beach and residential uses that would complement existing open-space oriented community. residential development located to the north, west, and southeast. Approximately 25.1 acres of the project site will be recorded as an open space lot and conserved as permanent open space. Additionally, the City is proposing a 15-foot wide pedestrian trail within the existing SDG&E easement. Goai2-G.17: Ensure t hat the scale and Consistent. The proposed residential development character of new developmentis appropriate would be developed in conformance with the to the setting and intended use. Promote development standards applicable to the RD-M development that is scaled and sited to respect zone. the natural terrain, where hills, public realm, parks, open space, trees, and distant vistas, rather than buildings, dominate the overall landscape, while developing the Village, Barrio, and commercial and industrial areas as concentrated urban-scaled nodes. Policy 2-P.2: Update the city's Local Coastal Consistent. The project applicant is requesting the Program to be consistent with the General following: 1) an amendment to the City's General Plan. Work with the California Coastal Plan to change the R-4 land use designation to R-8 Commission to gain permitting authority for all for the portion of the project site proposed for areas of the city in the Coastal Zone. development and to designate the remainder of the project site to OS; and 2) zone change from R-1 to RD-M for the portion of the project site proposed for development and OS for the conserved portions of the project site Accordingly, the project is proposing to amend the LCP Land Use and Zoning maps to be consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Maps to address the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change on the project site. I EIR 15-03-POINSETIIA 61-REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF EQUIVALENCY January 12, 2017 Pa e 20 TABLE 6-OPEN SPACE-RELATED GENERAL PLAN GOALS/POLICIES General Plan Goal/Policy Consistency Determination Policy 2-P.lO: Development on slopes, when Consistent. Grading ofthe proposed project is permitted, shall be designed to minimize subject to the City's Hillside Development grading and comply with the hillside Ordinance as project areas contain hillside development provisions of the Zoning conditions that are defined as slopes greater than Ordinance and the Carlsbad Local Coastal 15 feet in height and 15 percent in slope. All Program. development within the project site must comply with the standards contained within the City's Hillside Development Regulations {Chapter 21.95 in the City's Municipal Code), unless otherwise approved by the City of Carlsbad. Details regarding consistency with the City's Hillside Development Regulations can be found in Section 5.1, Aesthetics and Grading. A Hillside Development Permit is required and shall be obtained in conjunction with the development entitlements package. Policy 2-P .44: Encourage clustering of Consistent. The project site is approximately 50.80 development to preserve natural terrain and . acres in size. The area proposed to be developed is maximize open space areas around the previously disturbed agricultural area on the developments. easterly and westerly side of the future extension of Poinsettia Lane. Approximately 25.1 acres of the project site will be recorded as an open space lot and conserved as permanent open space. 6.5 Conservation Measures to Ensure Compliance with Zone-Level and Species-Specific Standards The discussion above outlines numerous different conservation measures that ensure compliance with each of the zone-level and species-specific standards~ Many of these measures are incorporated into the project design through avoidance and minimization of native habitats. Impacts to 6.3 acres of southern maritime chaparral and a reduction of HMP Preserve land of 5.1 acres would be offset through conservation and restoration of onsite and offsite HMP Preserve lands. A number of potential mitigation options are described in BTR Section S.1 including proposed HMP Preserve and habitat mitigation credits. A scenario of potential mitigation credits is outlined in Table 2 of this document which would provide the required habitat and HMP Preserve mitigation. EIR 15-03-POINSETIIA 61-REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF EQUIVALENCY January 12, 2017 Pa e 21 7 LITERATURE CITED City of Carlsbad. 2004. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities within the City of Carlsbad. As amended. City of Carlsbad Planning Department. November 2004. City of Carlsbad. 2014. City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program. Adopted July 16, 1996; last amended August 13, 2014. Accessed March 6, 2015. http:Uwww.carlsbadca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BiobiD=24088. City of Carlsbad. 2016. Draft Environmental Impact Report for Poinsettia 61 Project. SCH No. 2016031006. Prepared by HDR. October 2016. Dudek. 2015. "Memorandum-Alternatives Analysis of Poinsettia Project, Carlsbad California." September 24, 2015. Dudek. 2016. Fifth Draft-Biological Resources Technical Report Poinsettia Project, Carlsbad California. EIR 15- 03. October 2016 SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments). 2003. Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for Threatened and Endangered Species Due to the Urban Growth within the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program Planning Area. SCH No. 93121073. March 2003. http://www.sandag.org/?projectid=97&fuseaction=projects.detail. If you have any questions regarding the above, please feel free to give me a call at (760) 602-4611 or email at teri.delcamp@carlsbadca.gov. Sincerely, TERI DELCAMP Senior Planner Enclosures TD:fn c: Rosanne Humphrey, Senior Program Manager Andrew Han, Lennar Homes, Suite 300, 25 Enterprise, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Ryan Anderson, 4601 College Boulevard, Leawood, KS 66211 File Copy Exhibit "GPA 14-06" February 1, 2017 GPA 14-06 Poinsettia 61 EXISTING tR-23 R-8 OS PROPOSED Related Case File No(s): EIR 15-03/ZC 14-04/LCPA 14-06/CT 14-10/ PUD 14-12/SDP 14-15/CDP 14-34/HDP 14-07/HMP 14-04 General Plan Land Use Designation Changes Property From: To: A. 215-020-07 R-4 R-8/0S B. 215-050-21 R-4/0S R-8/0S C. 215-050-22 R-4/0S OS D. 215-050-44 R-4/0S OS E. 215-050-47 R-4/0S OS F. 215-050-45 R-4/0S OS (Offsite Mitigation) E. 215-050-46 R-4/0S OS (Offsite Mitigation) Exhibit "LCPA 14-06" February 1, 2017 LCPA 14-06 (Land Use) Poinsettia 61 R-ta OS R-4 EXISTING R-2~ R-8 0.S) PROPOSED Related Case File No(s): EIR 15-03/GPA 14-06/ZC 14-04/CT 14-10/ PUD 14-12/SDP 14-15/CDP 14-34/HDP 14-07/HMP 14-04 LCPA Land Use Designation Changes Property From: To: A. 215-020-07 R-4 R-8/0S B. 215-050-21 R-4/0S R-8/0S C. 215-050-22 R-4/0S OS D. 215-050-44 R-4/0S OS E. 215-050-47 R-4/0S OS F. 215-050-45 R-4/0S OS (Offsite Mitigation) E. 215-050-47 R-4/0S OS (Offsite Mitigation)