Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-04-01; City Council; 17120; Community Forest Management Plan\B# 17,120 dTG. IEPT. PW/GS 4-1-03 I CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL I TITLE: DEPT. HD. COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN CITY Amy. CITY MGR. * RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. 2003-085 approving the Community Forest Management Plan and directing staff to implement said plan. ITEM EXPLANATION: On June 6,2000, the City Council appropriated funds and directed staff to implement the Accessory Recommendations created by the Citizen Committee to Study the City's Tree Policy. The Committee felt that the Accessory Recommendations would enhance the tree policy for the entire City. One of the main recommendations was to create a Community Forest Management Plan (CFMP). A CFMP is a document that will set guidelines on how to manage tree-related issues in a proactive manner. The plan will address public trees and will discuss planting, maintenance, removal, replacement and the preservation of public trees. The Plan will also help raise citizen awareness of the benefits of a healthy and diverse urban forest, proper tree selection and care. In addition, the Plan will include the remaining Accessory Recommendation items such as: 0 Updating the City's tree list. 0 Updating the City's Uniform Street Tree Planting Map. 0 Replace old age trees. 0 Removal of trees not in the City's right-of-way. Develop a Heritage Tree Program. 0 Develop a Management and Rehabilitation Plan for Hosp Grove. On February 20, 2001, Council awarded a contract to David Evans and Associates to assist staff with the development of the CFMP. In April 2002, a draft CFMP was completed and copies were made available at the Main and Cole Libraries for public review during the month of May. The CFMP was also available on the City's website. Attached, as Exhibit 2 is a copy of the announcement that was featured in the San Diego Union-Tribune Newspaper. In addition, staff notified the Citizen Committee that the CFMP is available for review (see Exhibit 3). During the review period, staff received suggestions from the public to add different tree species to the proposed tree list in the CFMP. Staff agreed with the suggestions and incorporated these changes into the Plan. On May 13,2002 the CFMP was presented to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) and was supported by the commission. The HPC has been developing a comprehensive heritage tree program that will include how to manage and preserve heritage trees. When the Heritage Tree Program is complete, its findings and management recommendations will be made an addendum to the CFMP. On May 20,2002 the CFMP was presented to the Parks & Recreation Commission. The Commission unanimously accepted the Plan. Staff is recommending that Council adopt the CFMP and direct staff to implement said Plan. If adopted, staff can begin implementing the Plan immediately. A representative from David Evans & Associates will be attending tonight's meeting to give a brief presentation about the CFMP. t PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 17 120 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The potential environmental impacts associated with the Community Forest Management Plan were reviewed and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was issued on October 24, 2002 (please see Exhibit 4). The Mitigated Negative Declaration includes mitigations in the areas of biological resources, geological and soil resources, and hydrology and water quality. Given these measures the implementation of the proposed Community Forest Management Plan would not cause any significant environmental impacts. FISCAL IMPACT: The CFMP includes an Operation Plan that identifies a list of priority projects recommended for completion and the estimated costs to complete said projects. Additionally, staff recommends installing an irrigation system in Hosp Grove to ensure the establishment of the newly planted trees. The following is a list of those projects and the estimated costs. Total General Fund: Inventory and Software $ 45,000 Irrigation system 84,000 Public Education 8,000 Hosp Grove: Hosp Grove tree removal - $1 0,000 per year for 4 years 40,000 Hosp Grove Replanting - $20,000 per year for 15 years 300.000 Total General Fund 477,000 Lighting and Landscaping District: Tree plantings - $38,000 per year for 6 years 228,000 Total (over 15 years) $705,000 In addition, it will require about $25,000 per year to maintain Hosp Grove, which includes the cost of water and minor maintenance costs. As indicated in the table, most of the costs will be borne by the General fund. The street tree replanting may be paid from the Street Tree Zone of the City's Lighting and Landscaping District if sufficient funds are available. Due to the passage of Proposition 218 several years ago, the City cannot raise the amount of the assessment without a vote of the property owners in the District. At this time, it is uncertain whether there will be sufficient revenue in the District to fund the additional costs. If the funds are not available, the only other source of revenue is the General fund. Staff is preparing forecasts for the Districts and will provide Council more information on their status later this year. In 2000, Council appropriated $234,000 to implement the Street Tree Policy citywide and the Accessory Recommendations from the Citizens Committee. An additional $84,000 was appropriated in 2002 to provide for the irrigation system. To date, approximately $85,000 has been spent on developing the plan, removing 51 trees and planting over 200 trees (an additional 800 trees were planted from the Street Tree assessment district budget). Approximately, $233,000 in appropriations remains, which will be sufficient to finance the initial costs and the first 3 years of the Hosp Grove replanting program (through fiscal year '05). Future costs will be included in future year budgets as required to complete the program. PAGE 3 OF AGENDA BILL NO. l7 120 The costs for the Street 'Tree replanting will be included in the Street Tree assessment district budget each year, if funds are available. If there are not sufficient revenues, this will be brought back for Council review and direction during the budget process. EXHIBITS: 1. Resolution No. 2003-085 approving the Community Forest Management Plan and directing staff to implement said plan. 2. CFMP Announcement Featured in the San Diego Union Tribune Newspaper. 3. Sample Notification to the Citizen Committee to Study the City's Tree Policy. 4. Mitigated Negative Declaration. 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 EXHIBIT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2003-085 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, on January 25, 2000, the City Council accepted the Final Report from the Citizens Committee to study street trees in Olde Carlsbad; and WHEREAS, the Final Report from the Citizens Committee included the creation of a Community Forest Management Plan, hereafter referred to as the ”Plan”, that was part of the Accessory Recommendations list; and WHEREAS, on June 6, 2000, the City Council appropriated funds to begin developing the Plan; and WHEREAS, on February 20, 2001 the City Council awarded a contract to David Evans md Associates to assist the City in developing said Plan; and WHEREAS, on May 13, 2002, the completed Plan was presented and supported by the Historic Preservation Commission; and WHEREAS, on May 20, 2002, the Plan was presented and accepted by the Parks and Recreation Commission; and WHEREAS, the Plan was available for public comments/suggestions at the Main and Cole Libraries, as well as on the City’s website during the month of May; and WHEREAS, the City received public commentslsuggestions regarding the Plan; and WHEREAS, staff has incorporated the changes into the Plan; and WHEREAS, on October 24, 2002, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was issued and it was jetermined that the Plan would not cause any significant environmental impacts to Hosp Grove; and WHEREAS, there are sufficient appropriations in the Fire and Parks Maintenance 3epartment budgets to pay for the costs of the Plan for this year; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds it in the public best interest to achieve a safe and lealthy community forest by adopting the proposed Community Forest Management Plan. 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, =alifornia, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the proposed Community Forest Management Plan as referenced hereto is hereby approved. 3. That staff is hereby authorized and directed to proceed implementing the tasks described in the Plan. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council leld on the 1s t day of APRIL , 2003 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Finnpa), Kulchin, Hall, Packard 4TTEST: Page 2 of 2 of Resolution No. 2003-085 EXHIBIT 2 Tmmmanagement plan available,.fot review 'UNiW:TklBUMt .. .. .. CrnBJgJ 2 :&@&&nts .can vim -aiNbmm?nt ofl the 1775 Dove Lane; at the. Geor- gina Cole Library, 1250-1Carb bad Muage Drive; bd at the city Web. site .at www.ci.carls .bad.ca.us/cserv/chp.hW. The ph sets guidelines and procedures on how- the city can plant, maintain, . remove, re- Exhibit 3 - City of Carlsba’d May 1,2002 Eric Larson 1355 Forest Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Community Forest Management Plan Dear Eric: On behalf of the City of Carlsbad, I am please to announce that the Community Forest Management Plan (CFMP) is now available for public comment. A copy of the CFMP is available at the City’s Main Library, 1775 Dove Lane and at the Georgina Cole Library, 1250 Carlsbad Village Drive. An electronic copy is also available on the City’s website at http://www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us/cserv/cfmp.htrnl. As you know, this plan will set guidelines and procedures on how the City can plant, maintain, remove, replace and preserve public trees in the City’s right of way. The plan also includes the Citizen Committee’s accessory recommendations on issues that would enhance the tree policy such as: A new and revised tree-planting list Updating the Uniform Street Tree Planting Map Removing trees that are not in the City’s right of way Preserving heritage trees Replacing old age trees A Management and Rehabilitation Program for Hosp Grove A Street Tree Education Program The CFMP will be available for public comment from May 1 through May 31,2002. On May 13* the plan will be presented to the City’s Historic Preservation Commission and on May 20a the Parks and Recreation Commission will hear a presentation on the proposed plan. Both meetings will be held in the City Council Chambers at 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive at 5:30 p.m. In June 2002, the final CFMP will be presented to the City Council for approval and adoption. We plan on implementing the plan in July. If you have any questions regarding the CFMP, please don’t hesitate to contact me at 434-2862 or Scott Carroll, of my staff at 434-2992. Sincerely, Services 7 405 Oak Avenue 0 Carlsbad, CA 92008-3009 - (760) 434-2980 FAX (760) 720-9562 @ I EXHIBIT 4 City of Carlsbad MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Addresshcation: Citywide in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California Project Description: Adoption of a Community Forest Management Plan for the planting, maintenance, removal, replacement, and ‘preservation of public trees within the City. - 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) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Michael Grim in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4623. DATED: OCTOBER 23,2002 CASE NO: EIA 02-04 CASE NAME: COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN PUBLISH DATE: OCTOBER 23,2002 MICHAEL J. H”MER Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us i ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 I (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: EIA 02-04 DATE: October 10.2002 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. CASE NAME: Community Forest Management Plan LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv of Carlsbad CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Michael Grim (760) 6024623 - PROJECT LOCATION: Throughout the Citv of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv of Carlsbad Public Works Deuartment, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad. CA GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Various ZONING Various OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): none PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: City-wide plan for the planting, maintenance, removal. replacement, and preservation of public trees. The plan also includes a communitv education program to encourage urivate prouertv owners to maintain their trees in similar manner to the citywide public tree promam in order to address the entire urban forest system. The proiect covers the entire City. with the plantin% maintenance, removal, replacement, and ureservation activities being confined to those trees within the Street Tree Assessment District uublic right-of-way. 1 Rev. 07/03/02 '? ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: 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. Aesthetics Geology/Soils 0 Noise 0 Agricultural Resources 0 mards/Hmdous Materials UPopulation and Housing (XI Air Quality (XI HydrologyNater Quality Public Services (XI Biological Resources Land Use and Planning 0 Recreation 0 Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources TransportatiodCirculation - u Mandatory Findings of 0 Utilities & Service Systems Significance 2 Rev. 07/03/02 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 0 IXI 0 0 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 NEGATIVE 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 impact(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 WILL 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 im osed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. R Planning DirectorWgnatMe Date 3 Rev. 07/03/02 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 “No 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 from “F’otentially 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 ‘‘EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but &I 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 2 id e 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 Overriding Considerations” for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the EIA-Part I1 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. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: Potentially Potentially Less Than No - Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but 0 0 OIXI not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic 0 DIXI buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 0 0 OIXI d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views I7 0 0IXI in the area? 11. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant 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: 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 ‘17 IXI b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a 0 0 Williamson Act contract? om 5 Rev. 07/03/02 13 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation LessThan No Significant Impact Impact 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? 0 om Incorporated 0 Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 0 OIXI Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 0 OIXI Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? 0 0 ON b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to 0 15064.9 0 0 DEI c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi- 0 I7 cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? 0 IXI' d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 0 0 o[xI IV. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. 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. 0 0 OB 0 0 OIXI ii. Strong seismic ground shakmg? 0 0 OIXI iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? cl 0 iv. Landslides? 7 Rev. 07/03/02 Pi Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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? 111. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance 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: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 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)? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 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 U.S. 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? 6 Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 cl 0 0 cl 0 IXI Less Than Significant lmpact 0 0 IXI IXI 0 0 0 0 0 1g Rev. 07/03/02 a) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 0 b) 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 landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? 0 c) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997). creating 0 . substantial risks to life or property? d) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 0 IV. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 0 environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) 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? 0 c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 0 d) 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? 0 e) 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? 0 f) 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? 0 0 g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? nu om 0 om 0 om 0 OIXI 0 0 om 8 Rev. 07/03/02 \b h) 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? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 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 map? 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? 9 Rev. 07/03/02 IX. X. X. I) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. 0. IXI no m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, 0 IXI on 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)? Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? 0 0 OH Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? 0 0 0 'IXI 0 0 OH - LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project: Physically divide an established community? 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? 0 0 0 0 0 IXI Ix1 Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 0 OH 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 0 OM b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local 0 ON general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? 0 NOISE - Would the project result in: 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 OIXI Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise OIXI levels? 0 0 10 Rev. 07/03/02 c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 0 Ix1 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 0 0 Ixl e) For a project located within an airport land use plan 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 f) 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 o 0 X. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: 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)? 0 0 0 (XI b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 0 0 IXI (XI c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating 0 the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 XIII. 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? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI IXI 0 0 0 (XI 0 0 Ixl IXI 0 XIV. RECREATION 11 Rev. 07/03/02 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? 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? XV. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC - 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)? 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 traffic 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)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in insufficient parking capacity? 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: 0 0 OH 0 OH 0 0 IxIn 0 0 OIXI 0 0 0 0 OIXI Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality €ontrol Board? 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? 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? 0 0 OIxI 0 0 OIXI 0 OH 12 Rev. 07/03/02 d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 0 0 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? 0 0 f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 0 g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and 0 0 regulations related to solid waste? 0 0 0 XVII. 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? 0 0 CIm 0 cl om cl om DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The proposed action involves the adoption of a Community Forest Management Plan for the City of Carlsbad. The plan would include planting, maintenance, removal, replacement, and preservation of public trees within the City. The plan also includes a community education program to inform private property owners of the importance of maintaining private trees within the urban forest canopy. Implementation of the plan would result in the addition of approximately 2,000 new trees within the City and the removal of all diseased and dead public trees. The first area of concern is Hosp Grove, where numerous diseased eucalyptus trees require removal. The Hosp Grove site was originally planted in 1908 and contains red gum eucalyptus trees that are infested with the lerp psyllid. It is estimated that this removal will take approximately four years to complete. The planting of replacement trees and installation of irrigation will occur over the next 15 years and would introduce age and species diversity to the existing red gum eucalyptus grove. Since some of the Hosp Grove area is located within the City’s Coastal Zone, a Coastal Development Permit would be required for the removal of significant vegetation. In addition, the removal of mature trees within those portions of the public right-of-way located in the Coastal Zone may also require Coastal Development Permits prior to tree removal. No other development or discretionary permits would be required for tree removal. 13 Rev. 07/03/02 The other major component of the Community Forest Management Plan involves the maintenance, removal and planting of trees within the public rights-of-way. Tree maintenance would be ongoing and it is anticipated that the planting additional trees within the public right-of-way will occur over a six-year timeframe. These operations could include partial street blockages and the movement and placement of soil and vegetation debris within the improved street. All operations must comply with the City’s Traffic Control Plan standards and the requirements of the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. Given the following analysis and mitigation measures, implementation of the proposed Community Forest Management Plan would not result in a significant effect on the environment. AESTHETICS - Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; substantially damage scenic resources, including but no limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway; substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; or create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact. The proposed Community Forest Management Plan would involve the removal of only dead and dying trees that do not contribute in a positive manner to the scenic resources of the City. In fact the planting of new trees and active maintenance of the existing trees would likely improve the scenic qualities of the City. There are no rock outcroppings or historic buildings located in proximity to any public trees and no sources of light or glare would be involved with the implementation of the Management Plan. Removal of any major vegetation in the Coastal Zone requires a Coastal Development Permit, thereby further evaluating and precluding the potential impacts to coastal scenic resources. Therefore, no significant impacts to aesthetics would occur as a result of the Community Forest Management Plan. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project convert prime farmland, unique farmland, of farmland of Statewide importance to non-agricultural uses; conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract; or involve other changes in the existing environment which due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use? No Impact. Since most of the public trees are located in the City right-of-way and the others, such as Hosp Grove, are not located on or near any farmlands, no adverse impacts to prime or unique farmlands or lands covered by a Williamson Act contract would result. Given this fact, the implementation of the Community Forest Management Plan would not result in the changes in the existing environment that could result in the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use. No adverse impacts to agricultural resources would result from the Management Plan. 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 (03), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PMlo). 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 from 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 and/or 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 14 Rev. 07/03/02 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: 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. - b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant 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 indicate 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 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. The project would involve minimal short-term emissions associated with tree removal and chipping. Such emissions would be minimized through standard construction measures such as the use of properly tuned equipment. Although air pollutant emissions would be associated with the project, they would neither result in the violation of any air quality standard (comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality readings), nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. 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? Less Than Significant Impact. The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the proposed project would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the proposed project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (a)(4), the proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact. As noted above, the proposed project would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations. In addition, there are no sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or hospitals) located in the vicinity of the project. No impact is assessed. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. The construction of the proposed project could generate fumes from the operation of construction equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would be short-term or transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not considered substantial. 15 Rev. 07/03/02 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) 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? No Impact. Most of the areas where public trees are located exist in the City right-of-way and contain no native habitat or sensitive species. Some areas, such as the Hosp Grove area, are not located within the City right-of-way and are more naturalized. Biological surveys of the Hosp Grove area have indicated that the area contains numerous common species but no candidate, sensitive or special status flora or fauna species. Therefore, no impacts to such would occur with the implementation of the plan. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on ay 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. No riparian, aquatic, or wetland habitat or other sensitive communities are located within the areas covered by the Community Forest Management Plan. The Hosp Grove area is separated from Buena Vista Lagoon by an intervening roadway, drainage facilities, and a parking area. No off-site siltation of the lagoon or other impacts would occur as a result of the limited tree maintenance, removal, and planting operations. C) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act through direct removal, tiling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. The proposed Community Forest Management Plan does not involve and removal, filing, hydrological interruption or other activities on federally protected wetlands. All areas covered by the plan are upland areas that do not include tributaries or other hydrological connections to federally protected wetlands. Therefore the implementation of the plan would not result in any significant impacts to wetlands. d) 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? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The Hosp Grove area has been the site of previous nesting of migratory birds, sub-tropicals, and raptors. Since tree removal or pruning operations could potentially impact the nesting of these birds, City staff has consulted with the California Department of Forestry as to the limitations during the January to June nesting season. Based upon that consultation, it was determined that the prime nesting season for the Hosp Grove area is from March 15 to May 30. Therefore, implementation of the plan is conditioned to not remove or damage any active nests nor conduct any tree pruning or removal operations within 500 feet of any active nest shall occur during the prime nesting season from March 15 to May 30. In addition, prior to any tree removal or pruning operations proposed outside of the prime nesting season but within the period between January and June, a confirmation from a biologist that no disturbance to the nests or nesting activities would occur is required prior to the beginning of operations. Given these mitigation measures, the proposed Community Forest Management Plan would not result in any significant adverse impacts to native resident or migratory wildlife species. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. The City of Carlsbad does not have a tree preservation policy or ordinance and the Environmental Protection Procedures Ordinance (Chapter 19 of the Municipal Code) addresses the processing of environmental review documents. The City’s Local Coastal Program calls for the protection of wetland and upland native habitats. The areas covered by the proposed Community Forest Management Plan, namely the public rights-of-way and Hosp Grove, do not contain any wetlands or native upland habitat. Therefore, the proposed plan would not result in any conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and no impacts to such would result from implementation of the plan. 16 Rev. 07/03/02 f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The City has prepared a Habitat Management Plan through consultation with the wildlife agencies. While this plan has yet to be officially adopted, it serves as a valuable biological reconnaissance for the City with regard to sensitive species and wildlife corridors. The areas covered by the proposed Community Forest Management Plan, namely the public rights-of-way and Hosp Grove, are not identified in the Habitat Management Plan as areas containing sensitive species or potential or actual wildlife corridors. Therefore, there areas area not identified as being in need of conservation from a Habitat Management Plan and the proposed tree maintenance, removal and planting operations would not conflict with the provisions of the plan. No impacts to such would result from the proposed plan. g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? No Impact. The areas covered by the Community Forest Management Plan do not include any tributary areas, therefore no impacts to such would result from implementation of the plan. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource; cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource; or directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No Impact, The City public rights-of-way are all developed and contain no significant historical resources. The Hosp Grove area is completely wooded and contains no significant historical resources. According to the San Diego Museum of Man archeological site records, the public rights-of-way and the Hosp Grove area do not contain any archeological sites. No grading is proposed with the plan implementation therefore, no impacts to paleontological resources or unique geologic features, should they exist, would occur. Given the above, the proposed Community Forest Management Plan would no cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical or archeological resource or destroy a paleontological resource or unique geologic feature. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the proposal result in any of the following? Exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure (including liquefaction), or landslides; Substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; Grading operations or development 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 landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse; or on an area of expansive soils; Soils that are incapable of supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of the plan does not include any grading operations. According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, dated November 1992, the areas covered by the proposed Community Forest Management Plan do not contain any known earthquake faults or areas of geotechnical concern (such as seismic ground-shaking, liquefaction,,or expansive soils). Since none of the project areas are developed, no wastewater disposal systems are needed, however should the need arise, sewer facilities are available in close proximity. The Hosp Grove area is typified by high slope stability but medium to high erosion potential. Therefore, a mitigation measure to ensure that no on- or off-site erosion occurs during tree removal or plantkg or during application of soil amendments has been included in this environmental documentation. Given that the no grading is involved, the areas covered by the plan do not contain any areas of geotechnical concern, and there is a mitigation measure to control erosion, no adverse impacts to geology or soils should occur as a result of Community Forest Management Plan, as conditioned. 17 Rev. 07/03/02 al; HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the proposal result in any of the following? Creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; Creation of a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment; Emission of hazardous emissions or the handling or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; Location of development on a site which is identified on a list of hazardous materials site compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or environment; A safety hazard for people residing or working in the proximity of a public airport; Impairment of the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; Exposure of 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. No Impact. The proposed Community Forest Management Plan does not involve the use or exposure of people to any hazardous materials. The only by-products of the plan implementation would be trimmings, debris, and other vegetation material from tree trimming and removal. No emissions of hazardous materials should result from the plan. The City rights-of-way and the Hosp Grove area are not listed on the State of California's hazardous materials site list and no impacts to airport operations or the surrounding residents or workers should result from the tree trimming, removal, and planting operations. All tree maintenance, removal, and planting operations that necessitate a blockage of a travelway require the compliance with a City Traffic Control Plan. .Depending on the spatial and temporal extent of the blockage, a standardized or customized Traffic Control Plan could be required. Both types of plans allow for the safe and adequate passage of emergency vehicles, thus allowing the tree maintenance operations to no interfere with emergency response and evacuation plans. Part of the impetus for that portion of the Community Forest Management Plan covering the Hosp Grove area is wildland fire suppression. Without active management, the eucalyptus trees and undergrowth within Hosp Grove have the potential of creating a large amount of fuel. Therefore the Management Plan includes provisions for undergrowth maintenance, tree planting spacing and fuel breaks. Given the above, the proposal would not result in any significant impacts due to hazards or hazardous materials. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -Would the proposal result in any of the following? Violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements; Substantial depletion of groundwater supplies or substantial interference 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; Impacts to groundwater quality; Substantial alteration of 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; Substantial alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or the substantial increase in the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- of off-site; 18 Rev. 07/03/02 Creation or contribution of runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; Substantial degradation in water quality; Placement of 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 map; Placement of structures within the 100-year flood hazard area which would impede or redirect flood flows; Exposure of people or structures to a signscant 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; Increase in erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters; - Increase in pollutant discharges into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality; Change to receiving water quality during or following construction; Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 3030@) list; The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The implementation of the proposed plan would not involve any area within the 100-year floodplain or any areas susceptible to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Since no grading is involved and no wells are proposed, no impacts to the groundwater quality or quantity would result from the plan. There is a potential that vegetative debris and soil could be placed within the improved right-of-way during operations and, without mitigation measures, these materials could enter the City storm drain system. Therefore the proposal is conditioned to adhere to the requirements of the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit which would necessitate the collection and removal of all debris and soil from the area prior to its entry into the storm drain system. Given the above, the proposed Community Forest Management Plan would not result in a significant adverse impact to hydrology or water quality. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project physically divide an established community; conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. The proposed plan does not involve any development in new areas. Most of the area covered by the plan is within the City right-of-way. The Hosp Grove area has a zoning designation of Open Space and tree maintenance operations are consistent with, and allowed by, the Open Space zoning designation. The areas covered by the plan are not identified in the City’s Habitat Management Plan as conservation areas. Therefore, the proposed Community Forest Management Plan would not result in any significant impacts to land use or planning. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the proposal 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; or 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? No Impact. The proposed plan does not involve any grading or excavation, except for limited digging for tree planting preparation. Therefore, no impacts to any known mineral resource or resource recovery site would occur with the implementation of the Community Forest Management Plan. 19 Rev. 07/03/02 NOISE - Would the project result in any of the following? 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; Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundborne noise levels; A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; Exposure of people residing or.working near a public airport to excessive noise levels; No Impact. All noise generated by tree maintenance, removal and planting operations must comply with the City’z Noise Ordinance with regard to construction activities (Section 8.48 of the Municipal Code), thereby limiting activities to daylight hours and precluding operations on Sundays and selected holidays. Since the operations are intermittent and short-term in nature, no permanent increase in ambient noise levels would occur and, as discussed above, no impact to airport operations would occur. Given the above, implementation of the Community Forest Management Plan would not result in any significant impacts due to noise. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project induce substantial growth in an area directly or indirectly; displace substantial numbers of existing housing or substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The proposed Community Forest Management Plan addresses only those areas with existing or future public trees. No housing would be created or displaced due to the tree maintenance operations, therefore no replacement housing would be necessary. No impacts to population or housing should result from the implementation of the proposed plan. PUBLIC SERVICES - 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 environment impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for tire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities? No Impact. The proposed Community Forest Management program would involve existing staff and equipment or contract tree maintenancehemoval services. No additional governmental facilities, personnel or equipment would be needed to implement the program. The removal of overgrowth and dead trees within Hosp Grove would reduce fire protection concerns in the area. As discussed in the Recreation section below, the operations within Hosp Grove would be phased to allow for the continued use of the passive park and trail system. No impacts to police protection, schools, or other public facilities would occur due to the tree maintenance, removal and planting activities. Therefore, the proposed plan would not adversely impact public services. RECREATION - 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; or 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? No Impact. Except for the operations within Hosp Grove, the proposed Community Forest Management Plan does not involve or impact any recreational areas not does it generate an increased demand for’recreational facilities. . Operations within Hosp Grove, which includes walking trails and a tot lot and serves as a passive recreation area, would be phased through different portions of the park and would be short-term in nature, thus allowing for the continued use of the area. 20 Rev. 07/03/02 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC-Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate a negligible amount of traffic in that the Parks Department already deploys service vehicles on a daily basis for parkway maintenance. The proposed project would not, therefore, cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The impacts from the proposed project are, therefore, less than significant. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant Impact. SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The Existing and Buildout average daily traffic (ADT) and Existing LO5 on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is: Existine ADT* Buildout ADT* Rancho Santa Fe Road 15-32 “A-C“ 28-43 El Camino Real Palomar Amport Road SR 78 1-5 2 1-50 “A-C’ 32-65 10-52 “A-B” 29-77 120 ‘F 144 183-198 “D’ 219-249 *The numbers are in thousands of daily trips. The Congestion Management Program’s (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is “E“. or LOS “F’ if that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS “F’ in 1990). Accordingly, all designated roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS. Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region’s general and community plans. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan and, therefore, its traffic was used in modeling the buildout projections. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) “E” standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacity(ies) of the designated roads and highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level@) of service in the short- term and at buildout. a) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport. It would not, therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed. b) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? No Impact. The project does not involve the construction of any circulation improvements, therefore, no creation of design hazards would occur. No impact assessed. c) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The proposed project would not constrict emergency access routes in that the all partial blockages of City streets resulting from tree trimming or removal activities are required by standard practice to follow the City’s Traffic Control Plan (TCP) requirements and process. No impact assessed. 21 Rev. 07/03/02 d) Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The proposed project does not create, nor does it require, additional parking. No impact assessed. e) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or program supporting alternative transportation (e+, bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? No Impact. Since the project generates negligible traffic, and that traffic consists of service vehicles traveling to tree trimming, removal, and planting activities, no alternative transportation plans or programs are necessary to accommodate the proposal. No impact assessed. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS -Would the project result in any of the following? Exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board; A requirement or the resulting need to construct new water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage facilities, or the expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects; Lack of sufficiency of water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources without the need to new or expanded entitlements; A determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projects demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments; The sufficiency of the serving landfill capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs; The non-compliance with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. No Impact. Implementation of the proposed plan would not effect wastewater treatment facilities or systems or cause the need for significant amount of potable or reclaimed water. All debris from tree maintenance and removal -operations would be chipped into green waste for composting and use as soil amendments or used for soil mulching. Therefore, no impacts to wastewater treatment, water or storm drain systems, or landfills would occur due to the Community Forest Management Plan. 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, California, 92008. 1. Final Master Environmental Imuact Reuort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. 2. Citv of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analvsis and Mauuine Study. Leighton and Assoc. and David Evans and Assoc. November 1992. 3. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad. City of Carlsbad. December 1999. 22 Rev. 07/03/02 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES 1. To mitigate potential impacts to biological resources from the implementation of the Community Forest Management Plan (“the Pian”), more specifically migratory bird species that may use portions of the tree canopy in Hosp Grove for nesting, no removal or damage of any active nests nor any tree pruning or removal operations within 500 feet of any active nest shall occur during the prime nesting season, that being from March 15 to May 30. In addition, prior to any tree removal or pruning operations proposed outside of the prime nesting season but within the period between January and June, a confirmation from a biologist that no disturbance to the nests or nesting activities would occur is required prior to the beginning of operations. 2. To mitigate potential impacts to geological and soils resources from implementation of the Plan, more specifically soil erosion andor loss of topsoil, all tree removal and planting operations as well as soil amendment application and other soil treatments shall include standard or custom erosion control measures to preclude the transport of soil or topsoil off the site, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 3. To mitigate potential impacts to hydrology and water quality from the implementation of the Plan, more specifically the increase of sediment and/or pollutant discharges into receiving waters or the storm drain_ system, all operations shall conform to the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit by using Best Management Practices to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 23 Rev. 07/03/02 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. 24 Rev. 07/03/02