Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-12-07; Planning Commission; Resolution 59931 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5993 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND TO AMEND OTHER EXISTING CHAPTERS FOR PURPOSES OF IMPLEMENTING THE CITY’S HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN. CASE NAME: HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION CASE NO.: ZCA 05-01/LCPA 05-09 WHEREAS, the City, “Applicant,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as: Citywide (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said request; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of December 2005, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration, Exhibit “ND,” according to Exhibits “NOI” dated October 4, 2005, and “PII” dated September 19, 2005, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Findiws: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration analyzing the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and b. the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and d. based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of December 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, and Whitton NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION kTTE S T : a&% DON NEU Assistant Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5993 -2- - City of Carlsbad NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION Habitat Management Plan (HMP) Implementation -- CASE NAME: PROJECT LOCATION: Citywide CASE NO: ZCA 05-01LCPA 05-09 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Miscellaneous amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to implement and require compliance with the City’s recently approved Habitat Management Plan (HMP). The amendments include a new chapter of the Zoning Ordinance titled Habitat Preservation and Management Requirements. A Local Coastal Program Amendment is necessary because the Zoning Ordinance is the implementing ordinance for the Local Coastal Program. PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) did not identifl any potentially significant impacts on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. - A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments fiom the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of the date of this notice. The proposed project and Negative Declaration are subject to review and approvalladoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Michael . Grim in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4623. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD PUBLISH DATE October 4,2005 October 4.2005 through November 2,2005 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 0 (760) 6024600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsb d ca.us January 30, ibO3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: ZCA 05-OlLCPA 05-09 DATE: September 19,2005 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. CASE NAME: Habitat Management Plan (HMP) Implementation LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv of Carlsbad CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Michael Orim. (760) 602-4623 PROJECT LOCATION: Non-site suecific - Citywide Application PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad. 1635 Faraday Ave, Carlsbad CA 92008 GENEW PLAN DESIGNATION Not Applicable ZONING: Not Auulicable OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): California Coastal Commission PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The uroject consists of miscellaneous amendments to the Citv’s Zoning Ordinance in order to fully imulement and require compliance with the City’s recently approved Habitat Management Plan (HMP) . A Local Coastal Promam Amendment is necessarv because the Zoning Ordinance is the implementing document for the Citv’s Local Coastal Promam. A new chanter of the Zoning Ordinance will be created (Chapter 21.2 10) entitled “Habitat Preservation and Management Reauirements.” This chapter will contain provisions, standards and permitting reauirements to ensure that all develoument projects in the city comply with the HMP. Other existing chauters of the Zoning Ordinance are proposed for minor amendments in order to ensure consistencv with the new chapter (21.210) and the HMP. The project does not involve a specific site or zone in the Citv but rather is applicable citwvide. The project Droposes no physical 1 Rev. 07/03/04 develoDment citywide, and since it affects remlations and mrrnittinn Drocedures citywide, there is no mecific woject site with a specific environmental setting or surrounding land uses. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: None The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Aesthetics 0 ~ir Quality 0 HydrologyWater Quality 0 Public Services 0 Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Recreation 0 Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources 0 TransportatiodCircUation - Utilities & Service systems Mandatory Findings of Significance 2 Rev. 07/03/04 DETERMINAVON. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATNE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have “potentially significant @act(s)” on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. - I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WlLL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are iI,nposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. 9/2 s/os Assistant Planning Director’s Signature Date 3 Rev. 07/03/02 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. A brief explanation is required for all answers except ‘Wo Impact” answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect fi-om “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. - “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly adverse. Based on an “EM-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required. When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment. If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. 4 Rev. 07/03/02 a An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Ovemding Considerations” for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier Em, (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the EIA-Part 11 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL. EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant. 5 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Idormation Sources). Potentially Significant Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact Unless Less Than Potentially Impact Significant I. AESTHETICS - WouJd the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 0 0 om o OIXI b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildmgs within a State scenic highway? 0 c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 0 0- om d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are sigmficant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project 05 0 a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 0 0 om om b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 0 c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the si@cance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) Would the project n nEl om a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? u b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? U 6 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? _- d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or US. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Impact triiutary areas that are environmentally sensitive? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact Unless Less Than 0 ON 0 ON 0 -0 lxl 0 0 0 0 0 0 ON 0 'N OIXI OIXI 7 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resourye as defined in § 15064.5? Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of an archeological resource pursuant to $15064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi- cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. u. ... lll. iv. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Strong seismic ground shaking? Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Landslides? Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and'potentially result in on- or off-site landsIide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1 997), creating substantial risks to life or property? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Mitigation Significant No Unless, LessThan Incorporated Impact Impact 0 om 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'W m- um om om 8 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 0 OIXI e) Have soils incapable of adequately sugporting’the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? W. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 0 0 IXI- 0 OIX] 0 0 OIXI 0 0 0 0 VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: 0 0 a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? OIXI OIX] OIXI 9 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Impacts to groundwater quality? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off- site? Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff! Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation tllap? Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? 10 Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I7 0 Less Than Significant No -la Ixl - IXI IXI la- m Ixl Ixl Ix1 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Unless LessThan Significant Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? 0 0 0 om 0 OIXI 0) Increase in any pollutant to an .already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? 0 om p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? M. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ON OIXI 0 0 0 0 b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 0 0 0" X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 0 17 0 b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: cl 0 a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? 0 0 0 0 0 o b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 11 . Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Potentially Significant @act Less Than Significant No Impact @act e) For a project located within an airport land use p'h or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing .or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 0 0 4 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 0 0 OIXI W. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: 17 0 a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 0 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? cl 0 WI. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? 0 0 0 0 ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? 0 iv) Parks? 0 v) Other public facilities? 0 XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 0 0 12 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant No Impact Impact o b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 0 OH XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? 0 um o 0 b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in trafiic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 0 0 0 0 OH e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in insufficient parking capacity? 0 cl 0 0 0 om DIXI om 0 g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn- outs, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? om 0 17 om 17 b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? 0 0 c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have suMicient water supplies available to serve the project fiom existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 0 om 0 13 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Info&ation Sources). e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve.the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XW. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumula- tively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XWI. EARLIER ANALYSES Potentially Significant Impact cl 0 0 0 0- 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated (7 0 cl 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 No ImP=t IXI 1xI Is) IXI Ix) IXI Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EJR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects fiom the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. b) c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined fiom the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 14 Rev. 07/03/02 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. AESTHETICS The project does not have the potential for aesthetic impacts. No development projects are proposed or permitted by this action. No grading, construction or development of any kind is proposed or permitted by this project. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES No agricultural lands will be affected by these amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. III. AIR QUALITY--Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non-attainment area for ozone to3), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PMto). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the-San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state- mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans fiom all other California non-attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996. - The proposed project relates to the SIP andor RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city’s and the County’s general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact. Section 15125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following: 0 0 Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area? Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan? The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions of the City’s General Plan and the RAQS. Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan. In addition to the above, the project under consideration at this time has no potential to create air quality impacts because it is solely a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to implement the recently approved Habitat Management Plan. No physical development projects are proposed or permitted by this action. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? No Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is in the City of Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April 2002, indicates that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and 2001) and one day in 2001 for the federal %hour . 15 Rev. 07/03/02 average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour state standard for suspended particulates in 1996. No violations of any other air quality standards have been recorded recently. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? No Impact. The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The proposed project would not represent a contriiution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. Air Quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact. The proposed project is solely an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to implement the HMP and would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations. - e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. The project has no potential to result in objectionable odors. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The project does not have the potential for significant impact to biological resources because it is only an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to implement the city’s recently approved Habitat Management Plan as such greater protection and management of biological resources will occur which is a positive effect. No development projects are proposed or permitted by this action. No grading, construction or development of any kind is proposed or permitted by this action. - V. CULTURAL RESOURCES The project does not have the potential for significant impacts to cultural resources because it is solely an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to implement the city’s recently approved Habitat Management Plan. No development projects are proposed or permitted by this action. No grading, construction or development of any kind which could potentially impact cultural resources is proposed or permitted by this action. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS The project does not have the potential for significant impacts to geology and soils because it is solely an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to implement the city’s recently approved Habitat Management Plan. No grading, construction or development of any kind which could potentially impact cultural resources is proposed or permitted by this action. M. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The project does not have the potential for significant impacts to hazards and hazardous materials because it is solely an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to implement the city’s recently approved Habitat ~ Management Plan. No development projects are proposed or permitted by this action. No grading, construction or development of any kind which could potentially impact cultural resources is proposed or permitted by this action. WI. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY The project does not have the potential for significant impacts to hydrology and water quality because it is solely an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to implement the city’s recently approved Habitat Management Plan. No development projects which could potentially impact water quality are proposed or permitted by this action. No grading, construction or development of any kind which could potentially impact cultural resources is proposed or permitted by this action. E. LAND USE AND PLANNING The proposed project is a Land Use and Planning action in that it consists of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to implement the HMP. The project is consistent with the General Plan. Specifically, the Open Space and Conservation Element and the Land Use Element were recently amended to reference the HMP and to require all development 16 Rev. 07/03/02 projects to comply with the Plan. No development projects are proposed or permitted by this action. No grading, construcfon or development of any kind is proposed or permitted by this action. The project does not have the potential for significant impacts to mineral resources. No grading or construction of any kind could potentially impact mjnsral resources is proposed or permitted by this action. x MINERAL RESOURCES XI. NOISE The project does not have the potential for generating signiscant -noise impacts because it is solely an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to implement the city’s recently approved Habitat Management Plan. No development proposed or permitted by this action. XU. POPULATION AND HOUSING The project does not have the potential for generating significant population and housing impacts because it is solely an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to implement the city’s recently approved Habitat Management Plan. No development is proposed or permitted by this action. The action will not impact the amount of housing permitted in the city because residential density is allowed to be transferred to portions of property that least impact biological resources. MII. PUBLIC SERVICES The project does not have the potential for generating sigdicant impacts to public services because it is solely an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to implement the city’s recently approved Habitat Management Plan. No development is proposed or permitted by this action. XIV. RECREATION - The project does not have the potential for generating significant impacts to recreation because it is solely an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to require development projects to comply with the city’s recently approved Habitat Management Plan. No grading, construction or development of any kind is proposed or . permitted by this action. XV. TRANSPORTATIONllXAlWIC The proposed project is an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that development projects comply with the city’s Habitat Management Plan. It does not, however, approve any development projects which could impact transportation or vehicular traffic, result in traffic hazards or impact emergency access or parking as such, the proposed project will not have any simcant impacts on transportatiodtraflic. ‘ XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS The project does not have the potential for generating signiscant impacts to utilities and service systems because it is solely an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to implement and require compliance with the city’s recently approved Habitat Management Plan. No gradmg, construction or development of any kind is proposed or permitted by this action. XW. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The project does not have the potential for generating significant impacts to mandatory sadings of significance because it is solely an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to implement and require compliance with the city’s recently approved Habitat Management Plan. No grading, construction or development of any kind is proposed or permitted by this action. EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, Califoraia, 92008. 8 1. Final Master Environmental lmoact Reuort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MER 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. 2. City of Carlsba General Plan- &-& space and Conservation El- Land Use Element City of Carlsbad Planning Department 3. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad (2004, with Impldg Agreement and Terms and Conditions). City of Carlsbad Planning Department 17 Rev. 07/03/02 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) u[A APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE-PROJECT. Date Signature 18 Rev. 07/03/02 11/02/2005 18: 25 8586273984 DFG SO COAST PAGE 02 U.S. Fiah and Wildlife sarvics Carisbad Fish and Wildlife Office 60 10 Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, California 9201 1 (760) 43 1-9440 (858) 467-4201 FAX (760) 43 1-5902 + 96 18 calif& Dcl)arbwnt of Fish & Oame South Coast h@on 4949 Viewridge Avenua Sg Dkgo, Wfo& 92123 FAX (858) 4674299 In Rsply Refer To: FWVCDFO-SDG-847.6 Mr. Mike Grim City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 - Re: Negative Declaration (Sa# 2005101012) on the draft zaning Wmce Amendments for the Implementation of the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan DcarMr. m: The California Department of Fish and Game (Department) and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) (collectively, ‘Wildlife Agencies”) have reviewed the October 4,2005, Negative Declaration @ID) on the draft Zoning Ordinance AmenQnents (ZOAs) for the hplementation of the City of Carlsbad’s (City) Habitat Managemmt Plan (HMP). The Wildlife Agencies have reviewed the ZOAs to evaluate potential conflicts with the City‘s HMP. Implementing Agreement (LA), Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) Subregion4 Plan, and the Natural Communities Conswation Plan (NCCP) and lO(a)l(B) permit conditions for the City’s HMP. The comments provided herein am based on the infomation provided in the ZOAs, IA, MHCP, the NCCP and IO(a)l(B) permit conditions, and our participation in other regional conservation planning efforts. We are pleased with the progress the City has made on the imp1cment;ktion of the Hhlk and would like to thank the City far the continued efforts of their staffwho have been working cooperatively with Wildlife help the City ensure the HMP will be implemented eEcctivcly and efficiently -5s Agency staff on implementing the HMP. We offer our comments on the 20.4s below to _--- Section 21.210.10 Purpose and Intent Ita B should be changed to read ‘7mplement the City’s habitat ,management plan, IA, MHCP, and NCCP and 1 O(a)l (B) permit conditions.” TAKE PRIDE’--* INAMERICA- 11/02/2005 18: 25 8586273984 L DFG SO COAST PAGE 63 Mike Grim (FWS-SDG-847.6) 2 ic Sectloa 21.210.11 Definitions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Comervation: The term conservation also refers to helping move the species toward fBcovGIy. = Development Project: Please ensure the definition of “Development Project” is adequately inclusive to enswe impacts to naturalhabitats could not be adversely affected, For example, is the current deiinition adequate CO restrict grubbing and firel modification activities? This is important to address since the rcquiremcnta of this chapter only apply to “devclopmem projects.” Habitat: Since the following terms arc uscd throughout the document: “naturaf habitat” and %ative habitat,” it would be useful for the deation of “habitat” to clarify that it includes both natural and native habitat. Hardline Preserve Areas: This definition may confust some, as it did the Department of Interior’s Solicilor. To recti& such confhion, we recommend splitting this term into two defined term 83 in the W; one for existing hardline presetvcs and the other for proposed hardlirtc preserves. It should also be made clear that no development will occur within the propaeed preserve portion of the hardhe projects. Thus, the tcna “Proposed Hardline Pressme Axeas” would have the same definition aa provided, but the language in the second sentence changed to read “If the area proposed for development and the area proposed for conservation are in confixmanee with the HMP, the development will be dlowad under the HMP.” MHCP: The MHCP preserve is not all “native vegetation.” The language should be changed to ‘‘natural vegetation.” -L -- Section 21.210.12 ApplicabUtty Itan A should aisurc that all the necessary documents are abided by. Thus, please add cornplhce to the IA, MHCP, and NCCP and lO(a)I(B) permit conditions, Section 21.210.13 Habitat Preservation Requliremenu 1. ’ 2. 3. 4. Hardline Presme Areas: Again this may be confusing to lump all hardline preserve areas together. It may be more clear and effective to have I section on existing hardline preserve areas and a section for proposed preserve mas. Both of which should have the following statement added after the tht sentence: “prohibited firom development located in or encroaching into the hardline preserve area Hardline preserve areas are to be designated as biological open space (the removal of such designation is prohibited) and prcswed in perpetuity.’’ standards amas: Please add the following tact &er the fit sentence: “. . .D.3(c) of the HMP, which are hereby incorporated by reference into this document.” Additional Mitigation; item b: This section should clatifjr that it docs not apply to slivers of remaining habitat or habitat completely isolated fkom the FPA. Additional Mitigation; item c: This text is verbatim to the HMP; howevcr, it would benefit us to provide more detail in this ordinance of how you account for 67 percent of the habitat. For example, if the project was impacting 80 percent of CSS, but perving 67 pcrcent of the natural land on site (Le., the preserved area is all non-native grassland), ,.a ’ 11/02/2005 18: 25 8586273984 DFG SO COAST PAGE 04 :*- I Mike Grim (FWS-SDG-847.6) 3 someone mi& argue that they are meeting the conditions of the HMP; however, the City would have a diEcult time to meet their obligation that at least 67 percent of CSS will bc preserved Citywide. In addition, it is likely that a small bolat&’area of habitat outside of the FFA would IJC proposed to be preserved on-site by a project proponent in ordm not to mitigate off-site or pay the in-lieu-fee. This would not benefit building the City’s preserve systcm and should not be considered acceptable mitigation. Thus, we would like to work with the City on craftin$ specific language to insert in the ordinance to clarifL the intent of the €IMP in order to emwe pjects have mitigated filly and appropriateiy, in particular by avoiding out-of-kind mitigation that could leave the City out-of-step with the cansewation goals for each habitat type. 5. Additional conditions; itern I : We agree with the language in this section; however, we recommend citing the nww endemic policy in the MHCP and incorporating the policy by reference since this section only summarizes the standard. 6. Additional conditions; item 4: The follow@ language should be added to this sentence “outside the presetvc mas, considered pcmmendy impacted and mitigated appropriately.” concurrence hm the Wildlife Agencies and possibly a U.S. Army Corps of Erxgineaxs pcnnit. In addition, to receive coverage fbr vernal pool species, no impacts to pools or their watersheds could occur, as statad in MHCP Volume II. These conditions should be stated in the ordinance, 8. Additional conditions; item 6: The term “gendf’ should be removed to be consistent with the HMP which states that 67 percent of CSS and 75 percent of gnatcatchers “shall” be preserved. The ordhce must match the standard of the HMP and not lessen it. 9. Additional conditions; item 8: This sentence is vague. Either define the term ‘keviewed“ or require that the standards of the MHCP be met and the applicant provide in writing how cach of the standards of the MHCP are being met by the project. 7. Additional conditions; item 5: No impacts to vernal pool habitat could occur without -1 Section 21210.14 Habitat Management Requirements 1. Interim hewe Management Plan: The text seems to be a little out of order. To avoid confusion, it may be better to move the second sentence (’The plan shall be based on a PAR.. .) to der the third sentence (The plan shall include the costs.. ,). 2. Funding of Management: How do we recti@ any potential funding shortfalls that may be created by the PAR being conducted on the interim preserve managcmcnt plan rather than the pcrmancnt preserve management plan? Thia could be a significant problem if not rectified when the PAR is funded by a project applicant, and it would be the responsibility of the City to fimd the difference in the future. 3. Pcnnanent Preserve Management Plan; item ii: To avoid confisioa or arguments lata by project proponents, this item should clarify that the baseline biological conditions need to be based on recent (i.e., no more than 1 year old) field surveys of the site. *S? ., .- 11/02/2005 18: 25 8586273984 DFG So COST PAGE 05 Mike Grim (FWS-SDG847.6) 4 Sectioa 21.210.16 HMP Permit 1. 2. 3. 4. Application Rec~Uitements; item 1 : The biological survey &odd also be adequate to identify any cbvered species on site. Application Requimncnts; item 2: The current language could be misinterpreted to assume that projects Will be located in the preserve. Tbis is the same issue as identified earlier. Thus, we recommend changing the language to the following Tor projects located in a proposed hardline area, a map shall be submitted showing the precise boundary of &e proposed devtlopmcnt area and proposed preoewe arca, consistent with the proposed hardtine preserve ma figures contained in the HMP.” Application Requirnncnts; item 3: The pmjtcts should not only show how they are consistent with the HMP, but also with alf volunes of the MHO, TA, 4 any applicable permit conditions in the NCCP and IO(a)l(B) permits. Required Findin$s; item 2: The IA, MHCP, and NCCP and lO(a)l,(B) permit conditions should also be idmtified hac. .-. - Section 21310.17 Ikviation from Requirements 1. This entire section either needs to be rmoved or significantly mWritt.cn with a new title because it is rnot possible to create the abiliv for someone to deviate fbm the HMP, MHO, IA, and NCCP and lO(a)l(B) pennit conditions by this ordinance. Any deviation. that would dlow a project, regardless of the applicant (private entity or City), to not meet the requiremeatti as stated in the above mentioned documexxts is not permissible without resubmitting a new plan to the Wildlife Agencies, conducting CEQA and NEPA public review, and entering into a new IA, NCCP pennit, and lO(a)€(B) permit. Please note, there is potential to change the preserve &om that identitied in the HMP through a boundary adjustment under the major amendment procedures identified in the plan and described later in this ordinance. Any such changes would need the concurrence of the Wildlife Agencies, 2. We recognize that the intd process the City chooses to use to process projects under the HMP is the City’s discretion and we would support a simpler process for projects under one am and csscntial City projects; however, it is not possible for such projects to have a reduced set of standards. All projects must filly implement the WMP, IA, MHCP, and NCCP and 1 O(a)l(B} permit conditions. If the City would like to develop a different permitting process for some projects, such as those less than one acre in size, we would =& -c- like to work with the City on such a process. Amendment to Chapter 2133 of the Zoning Code-Open Space Zone (0-s) for HMP Implementatton Parpagses: 1. After consulWan. with the Department of Interior’s Office of the Solicitor, we are concerned that this amendment does not fulfill the purpose of ensuring that preserved lands are prcscn-ed exclusively and in pqetuity for conservation purposes consistent With the HMP, I& MHCP, NCCP permit, and lO(a)l(B) pdt. This language appears to allow uscs that were not identified in the HMP, U, MHCP, NCCP permit, and lO(a}l(B) pennit and analyzed by the Wildlife Ageacies in our permitting processes. Wke Wrn (WSSDG-&47..6) 5 -' I 2. Sccdon 2.A Add "and spproved by the Wildlife Agcnciaa" hr "as provided below." 3. Section IL.A.(L):-'Please ensure thii;does not dow fuel nf~djficd6n actiiitiea in the preserve. This should not be a problem because all €tad modification areas art to be fully sited within the devnlopmt area. Section ZA.(3): Replace "which are in LocM" with "which am locrrted'' and add "and m consistent with requiremars and MNCP Volunrs: I, section 6.3.8 for public acct5~" trl the end of the sentence. This section would allow trails in the preserve that have not necessarily becn miewad by the Wildlife Agencies. Thus, plow add With Wildlife Agency concurrence" to the end of the sentence. Plea&? note that LLGW trds that present ncw impacts to the preserve would need to be analyzed unda the difmia EnvironmenM Quality ~ct. 6. Scction ZA(5); Add '%xisting" before "utility camaents," 7, Section 2-A.(6): It is our undentonding that BCCGSS for policc and fire aCp&ents and existing utility cwxnents is allowed within rhc preserve without being specifically mentioned here. Thus, we recommend striking this language from the ordinance. If such languagc is ndd far the policc md lire departments to dom the law and/or suppress fires, we recommend using language that aIlows access by the fir: and police dtpartments to taka any prudent action necassay under emmggncy condiiboas to prevent, abate, or mitig;ue significant injruy to perrons mdor w. Such language should not be necessary for Utility easements since only existing easements arc allowed and access to such etuemmta will already have been pintad 8. Section 2.A.P): Ancilliuy tNructurcs that rue specific to B project develcqmen~ such as a storm drain or &tendon ban, shall be outside the psurve (any txceprions shalI go through the appropriate procew for a boundmy adjustment). 4. Section 2.A,,@): Remove the ama space brforc ''native trees." 8 Ameadment to Chapter 2135 of the Zoning Code . 1. Subsaclion A.3: What arc Tht raquitcmsnts of Section 21.95.1201 Thank you for the opportunity to review the ZOAs. If you have my qukstions concerning the contm~ of this letter, pIcase contact hc Ana Carranza (Service) at 760-43 1-94-40 or Nmcy Fm (Department) a1 (858) 637-551 1. Sincerely. . Therese 0 Ra rk Assistant Field Supervisor U.S. Rsh and WiIdlifc Service Dsgury Regional Manager California Dgw~mmt of Fish and Qvne &* i