(2)AR 011607 Endangered Species - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

This exception would only apply to the City's reliance on the Class 5 (minor alterations in land use limitations) exemption. This exemption does not apply because the proposed ordinance would protect environmental resources of critical concern (i.e., potential endangered species habitat). Notably, no critical habitat has been designated within the City. Further, the ordinance is consistent with the City's General Plan. Therefore, this exception could not apply. (b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. As explained above, the proposed ordinance would have no project -specific adverse environmental impacts. Further, the City is unaware of other similar regulations in other jurisdictions, other than local agencies' participation in habitat conservation planning with the Wildlife Agencies. These actions are designed to have a beneficial impact on endangered species, so there would be no significant adverse impact. This exception, therefore, would not apply. (c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. The City has no evidence of any reasonable possibility that the proposed ordinance would have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. During litigation over Urgency Ordinance No. 0-02-06, the Petitioner argued that an ordinance that regulates habitat conservation could discourage land- owners from preserving endangered species habitat, which would contribute to deteriorating conditions for the Delhi Fly in particular. Staff has analyzed that concern as it relates to the proposed ordinance, and concludes that there is no reasonable possibility that the ordinance as written would have such an effect. First, there is no evidence suggesting a negative landowner reaction, so such a suggestion is merely speculative. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15384 ("[a]rgument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly erroneous or inaccurate, or evidence of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to or are not caused by physical impacts on the environment does not constitute substantial evidence").) Second, the ordinance is designed to ensure proper management of habitat for endangered species. The following examples illustrate how the ordinance will have a purely beneficial impact: o Landowner Works with Wildlife Agencies. If a landowner works with federal or state wildlife agencies, the proposed ordinance provides that the City must grant the conditional use permit. (Section 18.31.040(C).)