Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachment 3a-18 - Response To Comments - Lozeau Drury Recirculated LetterRESPONSE TO RECIRCULATED COMMENT LETTER 1 Lozeau Drury LLP L1-1 These introductory comments summarize the project and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) legal standards, including a general statement of the commenter’s opinion that the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is insufficient under CEQA. Responses to the specific comments are set forth below. As set forth therein, the commenter has not provided credible evidence that the project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) does not need to be prepared. L1-2 The comment generally summarizes applicable CEQA legal standards but does not address any topics in the IS/MND. No further response is required. L1-3 The comment provides introductory statements about the commenter’s qualifications. This comment does not identify any significant new environmental issues or impacts not already addressed in the IS/MND. No further response to the comment is necessary. L1-4 This comment and comments L1A-2 through L1A-3 state that the CalEEMOD output in the report does not sufficiently demonstrate how changes were made from default parameters. However, “User Changes to Default Data” are included in Section 8 of the Output (page 77/77), stating the location and justification for any changes and inputs and where they can be found in the respective sections. L1-5-L1-9 These comments, and comments L1A-4 through L1A-8, state that the health risk assessment for the project was inadequate as construction emissions were not evaluated alongside operational emissions. However, as discussed on page 36 of the IS/MND, currently, there are no requirements or guidelines for conducting construction health risk assessments in the San Diego Air Pollution Control District or the adjacent South Coast Air Quality Management District. Therefore, this project does not require a construction health risk assessment (HRA). Additionally, the HRA attached to the Lozeau Drury LLP (LD) letter uses a crude screening level model that substantially overstates impacts by assuming a worst- case one-hour scenario will be occurring for the entire duration of construction as well as by being unable to account for the multiple emission sources which would exist during construction and therefore is not recommended for this type of analysis by the SDAPCD or the EPA. The model, called AERSCREEN, assumes that diesel particulate matter emissions are emitted from a single location, whereas in reality, diesel particulate matter emissions are geographically dispersed. For instance, off- road construction equipment emissions would be generated on the project site, whereas on-road truck emissions would be generated primarily on roadways near the project site. When conducting HRAs, the geographic distribution of pollutants associated with a project is of critical importance because health risk impacts are a direct result of toxic air contaminants (TAC) concentrations. The AERSCREEN model, by its very design, cannot account for this type of geographic distribution of emissions. Furthermore, the AERSCREEN model cannot account for the temporal distribution of emissions. For example, construction emissions would be overwhelmingly generated during the daytime hours when the atmospheric dispersion of TACs is greater. Additionally, the AERSCREEN model does not have the capability to utilize real-world meteorological data to calculate the effects of wind speed and wind direction on pollutant concentrations. These factors are critical when conducting HRAs to determine modeled pollutant concentrations more accurately, and excluding these factors will result in concentrations of pollutants at modeled receptor locations that are artificially elevated to highly unreasonable levels. Therefore, LD’s HRA does not provide credible evidence of a significant project impact. L1-10 This comment states that mitigation measures are required related to claimed impacts to air quality and human health. However, as shown in the analysis provided in the IS/MND and the above responses to comments for L1-4 through L1-9, no significant impacts will occur as a result of the project, and therefore no mitigation is required. This comment’s conclusions are based on inaccurate information and methodologies as discussed in responses to comments for L1-4 through L1-9 above. L1-11 The comment provides introductory statements about the commenter’s qualifications. This comment does not identify any significant new environmental issues or impacts not already addressed in the IS/MND. No further response to the comment is necessary. L1-12 This comment discusses the claimed biological surveys of the project site and states that significant biological impacts may occur. However, as shown in the analysis provided in the IS/MND, no significant biological impacts will occur as a result of the project. The project’s environmental setting is a relatively small parcel (9.7 acres) that is partially disturbed with unmapped trails in parts and large sections of the northern half of the site devoid of natural vegetation. Also, the relatively small project site is isolated from any adjoining open space, sensitive habitat, or habitat corridors due to (1) active developed commercial property and active traffic on Main Street to the south, (2) active developed dense residential properties and active traffic Oleander Avenue to the west, (3) active developed dense residential properties and active traffic on Mendocino Drive to the north, and (4) active developed commercial property and active traffic on Brandywine Avenue to the east. This project setting is not suitable for special-status species to be present on site. However, in an effort to conservatively analyze impacts to burrowing owl, the IS/MND requires implementation of mitigation measure MM-BIO-2 (Burrowing Owl Take Avoidance Surveys). Further, the project site is distant from any mapped or designated sensitive habitat or species areas or corridors related to the alleged 9 special-status species identified in the comment. Moreover, neither of the commentor’s 2 surveys were conducted on-site, but were made only from the periphery of the Property through binoculars. This attempted survey method does not comply with applicable protocols and methodologies of any applicable agencies or regulatory bodies, or with industry standards. Also, the alleged identification of the 9 special-status species, and the related claimed “high level of endism” did not result from the application of proper protocols, methodologies or programs of any applicable agencies or regulatory bodies, and industry standards. L1-13 This comment asserts that the project would prevent an estimated 241 bird fledglings per year. All impacts in the IS/MND have been assessed in accordance with CEQA and local plans. Implementation of MM-BIO-1 requires compensatory mitigation for impacts to upland habitat through the purchase of mitigation credits at a mitigation bank. Implementation of MM-BIO-3 will ensure avoidance of any nesting birds on site, if activities occur during the nesting bird season. Further, the impacts claimed in this comment did not result from the application of proper protocols, methodologies or programs of any applicable agencies or regulatory bodies, and industry standards. See also the response to comment L1-12 above. L1-14 This comment asserts that the project would interfere with wildlife movements. However, as shown in the analysis provided in the IS/MND, no significant biological impacts to wildlife movements will occur as a result of the project. Further, the impacts claimed in this comment did not result from the application of proper protocols, methodologies or programs of any applicable agencies or regulatory bodies, and industry standards. See also the response to comment L1-12 above. L1-15 This comment asserts that the project would have an impact on special-status species due to project-related traffic. However, as shown in the analysis provided in the IS/MND, no significant biological impacts to special status species will occur as a result of the project. Further, the impacts claimed in this comment did not result from the application of proper protocols, methodologies or programs of any applicable agencies or regulatory bodies, and industry standards. See also the response to comment L1-12 above. L1-16 This comment, comments L1A-9 through L1A-10, and L1B-1 state that mitigation is required due to the findings of significant impacts, as noted in the letter. However, as shown in the analysis provided in the IS/MND and the above responses to comments L1-4 through L1-15, no significant impact will occur as a result of the project, and therefore no mitigation is required. L1-17 As noted throughout the responses to comments, the commenter has not provided any credible evidence to support a fair argument that there are significant impacts on air quality or biological resources. The IS/MND, as well as all supporting technical studies, provide the existing setting comprising the baseline conditions for the project, and all feasible mitigation measures for the project’s impacts have been applied. Therefore, an EIR is not required. RESPONSE TO RECIRCULATED COMMENT LETTER 1 Exhibit A L1A-1 These introductory comments summarize the project, including a general statement of the commenter’s opinion that the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is insufficient under CEQA. Responses to the specific comments are set forth below. As set forth therein, the commenter has not provided credible evidence that the project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) does not need to be prepared. L1A-2 – L1A-3 See Response L1-4 above. L1A-4 – L1A-8 See Responses L1-5 – L1-9 above. L1A-9 – L1A-10 See Responses L1-10 and L1-16 above. L1A-11 As noted throughout the responses to comments, the commenter has not provided any credible evidence to support a fair argument that there are significant impacts on air quality. The IS/MND, as well as all supporting technical studies, provide the existing setting comprising the baseline conditions for the project, and all feasible mitigation measures for the project’s impacts have been applied. Therefore, an EIR is not required. L1A12 The Commenter provides a disclaimer regarding limited discovery. This comment does not identify any significant new environmental issues or impacts not already addressed in the IS/MND. No response to the comment is necessary. L1A-13 – L1A-14 These comments include the output for an AERSCREEN model run with the assumptions made by LD in comments L1A-4 through L1A-8, which found the project to have a significant impact on diesel particulate emissions regarding health risks during construction. However, as stated in responses L1-5 – L1-9 above, a construction HRA is not required for the project. Furthermore, AERSCREEN is a crude screening model that vastly overstates emissions, does not accurately identify health risks related to a project-specific environmental setting, and does not provide credible evidence of a significant project impact. Therefore, the model in these comments and its findings are not relevant RESPONSE TO RECIRCULATED COMMENT LETTER 1 Exhibit B L1B-1 The comment is an excerpt from the California Attorney General’s Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act document. The document is one of the environmental justice tools used to advance environmental justice. It is a broad-based document for lead agencies to use while preparing such documents as General and Specific Plans. However, specific tools noted in the document are included in the project design. The project has been sited at this location as the City has determined the site to be a viable industrial site through the General Plan and Zoning designations. The building has been oriented to keep the heavy heavy truck away from the residential properties, with the loading dock facing east. Full Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Energy, Noise, and Traffic Impact Studies have been prepared to ensure that the project will have a less than significant impact on the residents and the environment. See Responses L1-10 and L1-16 above. The comment does not identify any significant new environmental issues or impacts not already addressed in the IS/MND. No further response to the comment is necessary. RESPONSE TO RECIRCULATED COMMENT LETTER 1 Exhibit C C-1 The comment provides introductory statements about the project materials reviewed in preparing the comments standards but does not address any topics in the IS/MND. No further response to the comment is necessary. C-2 The comment provides details of the commenter’s associate’s visit to the site, describes observations made during the site visit, references photos and a table included in the letter, and provides certification from the commenter’s associate on the accuracy of the survey results. See response L1-12 above. The comment does not provide any contentions about the adequacy of the project’s IS/MND; therefore, no response to the comment is necessary. C-3 The comment provides photos of the project site taken by the commenter’s associate, provides a tabular list of the 33 species observed from the two site visits and contends that the revised IS/MND does not account for a suggested relationship between survey effort and species observed. The additional species observed by the commentors associate’s second site visit were almost all common species, with many being non-native species and/or off the project site. Three of the four special-status species observed by the commenters associate were not on the project site. Additionally, a species use of a site is highly dependent on multiple factors, and the detection of a species is not exclusively a factor of survey time. As documented in the project’s IS/MND (page 51), focused and general biological surveys were conducted in 2018, 2021, and 2022 and no special-status wildlife species have a moderate or high potential to occur on the project site “due to the disturbed nature of the site (past grading, presence of invasive species, etc.). The location is surrounded by urban development. Based on this information, no additional significant direct impacts to special-status wildlife species are anticipated.” This determination was based on literature and data reviews and field surveys of the site, including reconnaissance-level surveys for special-status resources, vegetation community mapping, focused surveys, and jurisdictional delineations. See response L1-12 above. Therefore, no significant impacts on existing biological resources were identified for the project. C-4 The comment claims that the project’s IS/MND underestimates the species richness at the project site and suggests that the number of special-status species of wildlife observed would eventually increase if biological surveys were repeated. See response L1-12 above. Further, this comment is speculative and does not provide any contentions about the adequacy of the project’s IS/MND; therefore, no response to the comment is necessary. The comment also includes a figure and describes revised model predictions of the number of wildlife species detected relative to survey time using data from the commenter’s associates’ survey of the site and the commenter’s survey data, which was not included in the letter, from other, unidentified sites in the South Coast region. It is unclear whether these other sites were comparable to the project site. Therefore, the modeling is not credible. Moreover, a species use of a site is highly dependent on multiple factors, and the detection of a species is not exclusively a factor of survey time. For argument’s sake, even assuming that the modeling is accurate, it does not disclose the presence of any candidate, sensitive, or special status species at the project site. C-5 The commenter contends that the project’s Biology Letter Report (Dudek 2022) was based on surveys in 2018 but did not report the survey date, timeframe, or personnel details. The project’s Biological Resources Technical Report (Dudek 2022) documented that the 2018 burrowing owl habitat assessment survey was conducted in January 2018. The survey occurred on January 18, 2017, from 8:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. by a Dudek Biologist. A focused burrowing owl survey was conducted during the non-breeding season on January 25, 2018. Survey durations, methods, and site conditions are provided for all surveys. The comment includes quotes from the Biology Letter Report (Dudek 2022) concerning raptors and the commenter’s interpretation of special status. The comment does not provide any contentions about the adequacy of the project’s IS/MND; therefore, no response to the comment is necessary. The comment contends that the conducted burrowing owl surveys and results were misleading and appropriate surveys need to be completed. The comment also claims the significance of the Monarch butterfly habitat is falsely characterized. The projects Biological Technical Report documents the surveys, reports, and analyses used to characterize the project site’s biological resources existing setting used in determining the potential for burrowing owls to occur and impacts to the Monarch butterfly, which are considered by the City to adequately support the analysis and determinations of the project’s IS/MND. Also, see response L1-12 above. C-6 The comment further continues the claims of inadequate species surveys with specific attention to the detection surveys for burrowing owls, stating that survey and reporting methods failed to achieve California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) standards for burrowing owls. As stated in the Biological Technical Report, residential and commercial development surrounding the site precluded the completion of the CDFG (2012) standard of conducting off- site surveys in a 150m buffer (Dudek 2022, Biology Letter Report, page 2). As stated in Comments C-3 through C-55, the project’s biological report documents the surveys, reports, and analyses used to characterize the site’s existing biological resources setting, which the City considers to adequately support the analysis and determinations of the project’s IS/MND. Additionally, implementing monitoring through mitigation measure MM BIO-2, Burrowing Owl Take Avoidance Surveys (IS/MND, pages 51 and 55), the impacts to burrowing owls would be less than significant. Also, see response L1-12 above. C-7 The comment concludes that an EIR is necessary to appropriately analyze potential project impacts to special-status wildlife not included in the revised IS/MND. However, as described in detail in the responses to Comments C3 through C6, the project’s Biology Letter Report (Dudek 2022) documents the surveys, reports, and analyses used to characterize the project site’s biological resources existing setting, which are considered by the City to adequately support the analysis and determinations of the project’s IS/MND. Also, see response L1-12 above. C-8 This comment claims the IS/MND fails to address the project’s potential to reduce the numerical capacity of birds. An EIR is needed to analyze the project’s potential impact to productive capacity. As described in the project’s Biology Letter Report and the IS/MND (Dudek 2022, IS/MND pages 54-55), impacts to habitat will be mitigated in compliance with “the City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan (Subarea Plan) and Habitat Loss Incidental Take (HLIT) Ordinance. The HLIT is consistent with the conservation and mitigation goals of the 1998 MSCP Subregional Plan and the City’s Subarea Plan. Furthermore, the HLIT provides standards for development, identifies specific impact thresholds, and defines the mitigation requirements for impacts to native and some non-native communities (e.g., non-native grassland).” As detailed in the IS/MND (page 54), “the project does not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or another approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan and has no impact.” Also, see response L1-13 above. C-9 The comment claims that the project site is critical for wildlife movement and that the analysis of the project’s impacts on wildlife movement in the IS/MND is flawed. Based on the surrounding high-density residential and commercial land uses, which present barriers to wildlife movement, and the minimal habitat value and diversity provided by the 9.75-acre project site, the project site is not critical to wildlife movement in the area. Therefore, the IS/MND determination of no significant impact on wildlife corridors or habitat linkages (IS/MND page 53) is appropriate. Also, see response L1-14 above. While it is true that bird species are known to use patches of habitat as “stepping stones” for stopovers and movement between larger habitat areas, the project site provides only marginal habitat value for such movements. The bird species detected using the site by the commenter’s associate, as documented in the project’s Biological Resources Technical Report, are generally common species known to use urban areas (e.g., American crow, Anna’s hummingbird, Cassin’s kingbird, Say’s phoebe, common raven, house finch, California towhee, mourning dove, and Bewick’s wren). As a result, the bird species with the potential to use the project site are considered urban- adapted, and implementation of the project would have no impact on their movements. Additionally, because of regular human activity and considerable vehicle traffic in and surrounding the project site, predominantly urban-adapted wildlife species are expected to occur in this area, such as raccoons (Procyon lotor), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and brush rabbits (Sylvilagus spp.). Therefore, as stated in the IS/MND (page 53), the project site is not expected to provide for wildlife movement or serve as a habitat linkage since it is not connected to or located near other habitat areas. C-10 The comment summarizes the commenter’s analysis of project-related traffic impacts to wildlife based on the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) estimated in the project’s IS/MND and that preparing an EIR is necessary to analyze the impacts. No such analysis is warranted. As described in the IS/MND (pages 52-53), the site is surrounded by high-density development, is not near or connected to other habitat areas, and wildlife use is limited to urban-adapted wildlife species. The site is not located within a wildlife corridor or habitat linkage. Because the site has limited capacity to support wildlife species and no special-status reptiles, amphibians, or mammals have the potential to occur, no significant impacts to wildlife from traffic collisions would occur. Also, see response L1-15 above. C-11 The comment claims the project’s cumulative impacts analysis is flawed and that an EIR is necessary to analyze how cumulative impacts can be mitigated. The project’s IS/MND found that the project would have no impact on four of the six biological resources significance threshold questions (IS/MND page 48- 49). Therefore, the project would not result in any impacts or have any incremental contribution to a cumulative impact and, therefore, would not have any cumulative impacts. The project was found to have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated on the biological resources significance threshold of a project’s substantial adverse effects on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. The project site was not found to support any special-status plant species, and potential impacts to special- status Monarch butterfly (occurred on site) and burrowing owl (low potential to occur) would be less than significant through the implementation of MM BIO-2 (IS/MND page 51). No special-status species were found to have a moderate or high potential to occur on the site. The project would also comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and would avoid impacting migratory birds. The site mainly supports non-native grassland and disturbed habitat that provides limited habitat value. MM BIO-1 (IS/MND page 54) states that impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat shall be mitigated at the ratios required per the HLIT ordinance. Therefore, the project’s effects were considered less than significant, and the project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable. Furthermore, the applicant shall secure mitigation credits within the San Miguel Conservation Bank (IS/MND page 55). Mitigation Credits shall be for habitat of equivalent or higher habitat value than coastal sage scrub for impacts to coastal sage scrub and equivalent or higher habitat value than non-native grasslands for non-native grassland impacts, with value determined consistent with the Subarea Plan tier system (see Subarea Plan Table 5-3). The applicant is required to provide the City with verification of mitigation credit purchase prior to issuance of any grading permit, including clearing, grubbing, grading, and construction permit (IS/MND page 55). Also, see response L1-16 above. C-12 The comment claims that the project’s Mitigation Measures MM BIO-1 through 3 are insufficient and that additional compensatory measures are warranted, along with the preparation of an EIR.  MM BIO-1 Compensatory Uplands Mitigation: The comment relies on the idea of habitat acreage as the driver for species presence and misleadingly ignores other habitat value factors that determine the potential for special-status species to occur, such as foraging opportunities, nearby species occurrences, and surrounding land types. As stated in the IS/MND (page 49), the urban/developed lands and disturbed habitat on-site provide little native habitat value and foraging opportunities for wildlife, and impacts to these vegetation communities/land covers would not be considered significant. No mitigation is required for impacts to eucalyptus woodland, disturbed habitat, or urban/developed lands in accordance with the requirements in the Habitat Loss Incidental Take (HLIT) ordinance. Furthermore, as stated in Comments 8 and 9, the project site is entirely surrounded by development and does not impact any wildlife corridors or habitat linkages. As detailed in the IS/MND (page 54), the project does not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or another approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan and has no impact.  MM BIO-2 Burrowing Owl Take Avoidance Surveys: The comment claims that mitigation measures are flawed. The IS/MND (page 51) found that impacts to burrowing owls would be less than significant, and the commenter has provided no credible evidence to the contrary. The mitigation measure follows the survey methods and avoidance recommendations based on the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012). Any necessary avoidance and minimization measures follow this report. Therefore, no additional mitigation measures are warranted.  MM BIO-3 Avoidance of Nesting Bird Impacts: The comment claims that the MM BIO-3 for pre-construction nesting bird surveys is insufficient to reduce the project impact on nesting birds to less than significant levels. The comment misleadingly implies that pre- construction nesting bird surveys are ineffective; however, MM BIO- 3 is an industry-standard measure for avoiding impacts to active nests and nesting birds to reduce these potential impacts to less than significant levels. If common or special-status bird species are nesting in the project site, properly performed pre-construction surveys are equivalent to the commenter’s reference to “detection” surveys and would detect the active nest, and the avoidance measures, like buffers, would prevent the impact. Regarding the site, the non-native grasslands, small ornamental trees, and disturbed habitat provide limited nesting opportunities. Species using the site are likely to be urban-adapted species similar to the common species reported as occurring in the project’s Biology Letter Report (Dudek 2022, IS/MND page 52) or those common species observed during the commenter’s associate site visit; therefore, the project would not result in the loss of habitat for special-status bird species. C-13 The comment claims an EIR is needed to formulate appropriate measures to mitigate project impacts to wildlife and suggest further measures that will be responded to below.  The comment contends that the project needs to implement species detection surveys. As described above in multiple responses, the City considers the existing biological resources to be adequately characterized by the surveys, reports, and database reviews conducted for the project as documented by the project’s Biology Letter Report (Dudek 2022). The multiple surveys conducted were designed to detect wildlife species on the project site and are considered equivalent to the commenter’s reference to “detection” surveys. Concerning the burrowing owl, this species was considered to have a low potential to occur. No sign or other indication of species’ use of the site was ever detected during multiple site surveys over multiple years. Additionally, see the response to Comment 12 on the adequacy of Mitigation Measure MM-BIO- 1 (IS/MND page 54-55) for pre- construction nesting bird surveys. No additional surveys are warranted to assess or reduce potential impacts to less than significant in compliance with CEQA.  The comment contends that bat detection surveys must be implemented for the project. As described above in multiple responses, the City considers the existing biological resources to be adequately characterized by the surveys, reports, and database reviews conducted for the project as documented by the project’s Biology Letter Report (Dudek 2022). As documented in the project’s biological documentation, there is low or no potential for special-status bat roosting to occur on the project site, and no significant impacts to special-status bat species would result from the loss of approximately 9.72 acres of non- native grassland, disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub, Eucalyptus woodland, and other disturbed habitat. Additionally, as stated in the project’s IS/MND (pages 54-55), the City requires compensation for the loss of coastal sage scrub at a 1:1 mitigation ratio and non-native grassland compensation at a 0.5:1 ratio, which was provided through mitigation credit purchase at the San Miguel Conservation Bank, which would offset the loss of potential foraging habitat for species. No additional surveys are warranted to assess or reduce potential impacts below a significance level for compliance with CEQA.  The comment contends that pre-construction survey methods and results should be reported and reports made available to the public. Reporting the results of pre-construction surveys to the public is unnecessary to achieve the survey’s objectives. The comment does not provide any contentions about the adequacy of the project’s IS/MND; therefore, no further response to the comment is necessary.  The comment contends that biological construction monitoring is necessary for the project. Biological construction monitoring is typically employed for projects with sensitive or special-status biological resources to be avoided on-site or where such project sites are located adjacent to properties with sensitive or special- status biological resources. For this project site, the entire site is proposed to be developed (no on-site avoidance areas). As described in Comment 11, the project was found to have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated on the biological resources significance threshold of a project’s substantial adverse effects on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. Implementing mitigation measures MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-3 will reduce impacts to less than significant (IS/MND pages 51-52).  The comment states that compensatory mitigation is warranted for habitat loss. As described in the IS/MND (MM BIO-1 pages 54-55) and response above and to Comment 11, the City requires compensation for the loss of coastal sage scrub at a 1:1 mitigation ratio and non-native grassland compensation at a 0.5:1 ratio. This compensation was provided through a mitigation credit purchase at the San Miguel Conservation Bank. As impacts would be less than significant, no further compensatory mitigation is necessary.  The comment contends that compensatory mitigation is necessary for the increase in wildlife road mortality resulting from the project. See responses to Comments 9 and 10. As set forth therein, impacts due to wildlife road mortality would be less than significant (IS/MND page 52) or require compensatory mitigation. Therefore, no mitigation is warranted.  The comment contends that compensatory mitigation is necessary to fund wildlife rehabilitation facilities to deal with injured wildlife resulting from vehicle collisions caused by the project. See the response immediately above and to Comments 9 and 10. As set forth therein, impacts due to wildlife road mortality would be less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation is warranted.  See responses L1-12 through L1-16 above. RESPONSE TO RECIRCULATED COMMENT LETTER 1 Exhibit D D-1 The comment provides introductory statements about the materials reviewed in preparing the comments. This comment does not identify any significant new environmental issues or impacts that were not already addressed in the MND. No response to the comment is necessary. D-2 The comment provides details of the commenter’s associate’s visit to the site, describes observations made during the site visit and references to the photos and table included in the comment, and provides certification from the commenter’s associate on the accuracy of the survey results. See response L1-12 above. The comment does not provide any contentions about the adequacy of the project’s IS/MND; therefore, no response to the comment is necessary. D-3 The comment contends that additional species would have been observed if the commenter’s associate had spent more time or was accompanied by other biologists during the site survey. This comment is speculative and does not provide any contentions about the adequacy of the project’s IS/MND; therefore, no response to the comment is necessary. The comment states that the site likely supports a higher species richness than observed due to seasonality, multi-annual movement patterns, and habitat occupancy. The City acknowledges the commenter’s statement about species presence varying seasonally and over time. As documented in the project’s Biology Letter Report (Dudek 2022), the assessment of the potential suitability of the site to support special-status species was based on surveys over multiple years, habitat affiliations of special-status species relative to the habitats present on the project site, and documented occurrences of special-status species in the regional vicinity of the project site. This approach is the industry standard for conducting such assessments for the purposes of CEQA. Also, see response L1-12 above. The comment does not provide any contentions about the adequacy of the project’s IS/MND; therefore, no further response to the comment is necessary. D-4 The comment describes model predictions for the number of wildlife species detected relative to survey time using data from the commenter’s associates’ survey of the site and the commenter’s survey data, which was not included in the letter, from other, unidentified sites in the south coast region. It is not clear whether these other sites were comparable to the project site. Therefore, the modeling in not credible. Moreover, a species use of a site is highly dependent on multiple factors, and detection of a species is not exclusively a factor of survey time. Even assuming, for argument’s sake, that the modeling is accurate, it does not disclose the presence of any candidate, sensitive, or special status species at the project site. The comment continues to use the above-mentioned model to claim, based on surveys conducted in the other region(s) of California, that had more time been spent surveying the site, 119 species would be predicted to be observed and that 23 of those would be special-status species. First, it is not clear why data from the Altamont Pass, which is in northern California, is referenced here in this comment. The model described in this comment above also references data from the south coast region, which is in southern California, but does not identify any specific sites. Second, Altamont Pass support different species compositions and richness than an approximately 9.75-acre site surrounded by existing development in the City of Chula Vista. Additionally, as noted in this comment above, species use of a site is highly dependent on multiple factors (e.g., habitat types and variability, habitat connectivity, site size, disturbance factors, etc.), and detection of a species is not exclusively a factor of survey time. Therefore, the commenter’s claim that more survey time would have resulted in considerably more species detected is highly speculative. Also, see response L1-12 above. D-5 The comment describes the preparation of an accurate existing environmental setting as a key first step in analyzing project impacts on biological resources and claims that this step is incomplete and misleading. The City agrees that establishing an accurate existing environmental setting is essential. The project’s Biology Letter Report (Dudek 2022) documents the methods and results used to establish the existing biological resources setting. This comment does not provide any credible evidence showing that the existing setting is incomplete or misleading. Also, see response L1-12 above. D-6 The comment generally discusses the use of field surveys to identify the presence of species on a project site for use in developing the environmental setting. The initial comment does not provide any contentions about the adequacy of the project’s IS/MND; therefore, no response to this comment is necessary. The comment further states that there are uncertainties in detection surveys, reconnaissance surveys, and habitat assessments, and that consulting biologists often rely on habitat associations to determine the likelihood of special-status species occurrence and contends that this approach is speculative and prone to error. Habitat affiliations of special-status species is one factor typically used in determining the potential use of a site by species and is a standard consideration used by consulting biologists, wildlife and regulatory agencies, and conservation biologists. As described above in response to Comment D-3, the project’s Biology Letter Report (Dudek 2022) used information from surveys over multiple years, habitat affiliations of special- status species relative to the habitats present on the project site, field surveys to inventory observed species in combination with vegetation mapping to develop an assessment of the potential to occur for special-status species based on species’ habitat affiliations, and documented occurrences of special- status species in the regional vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the project’s existing biological resource setting is not based on survey observations alone. Also, see response L1-12 above. Further, the comment does not provide any contentions about the adequacy of the project’s IS/MND; therefore, no further response to the comment is necessary. D-7 The commenter contends that the project’s Biology Letter Report (Dudek 2022) was based on two reconnaissance-level surveys in 2018 and 2021 but did not report the details of the survey date, timeframe, or personnel. As documented in the project’s Biology Letter Report (Dudek 2022), the two reconnaissance surveys for the project site were conducted in January 2018, and July 2021. These reconnaissance surveys occurred on January 18, 2018, and July 23, 2021 and the vegetation communities and land covers were mapped according to Holland (1986) and Oberbauer (2008). Additional focused burrowing owl surveys were conducted on January 18, 2018, and the survey times, methodology, and conditions are provided. The June 1, 2022 rare plant survey was conducted by Dudek botanist Erin Bergman by walking transects throughout the entire study area. The study area was surveyed between 8:24 a.m. and 1:49 p.m. with temperatures ranging from 67°F to 74°F with very light wind (0–3 mph) and 0% to 10% cloud cover. The comment states that the wildlife species documented as occurring on the project site, as described in Dudek (2022), are fewer than in the commenter’s associate’s site visit observations. The commentor’s associate surveyed both the project site and in areas adjacent, including species counted both on and off the project site. The commentors claim that Dudek surveys were inaccurate and that the wildlife surveys in the IS/MND are misleading, due to a difference in species count, is speculative. The project’s Biology Letter Report sufficiently characterizes wildlife species use of the property for the purposes of evaluation in the project’s IS/MND. The comment continues to claim inaccuracy in survey effort and reporting results of raptors observed. As described in the IS/MND (page 52), a red-tailed hawk was observed soaring over the project site. Furthermore, as stated in Comment D-4, a species use of a site is highly dependent on multiple factors, and detection of a species is not exclusively a factor of survey time/effort. The project’s Biology Letter Report sufficiently characterizes wildlife species use of the property for the purposes of evaluation in the project’s IS/MND. The comment further claims inaccuracies in the reporting of the significance of monarch butterfly that was detected on site. The commentor misleadingly claims the occurrence of Monarch was reported as insignificant. As described in the IS/MND (page 51), that while there are flowering plants, the site lacks this species’ host plant (Asclepias spp.) and suitable overwintering habitat, and impacts to this special-status species would be less than significant. The comment states that the presence of ground squirrels on site needs to be clarified. All species observed are summarized in the projects Biology Letter Report (Dudek 2022, Appendix C and E). The project’s Biological Resources Technical Report sufficiently characterizes wildlife species’ use of the property for the purposes of evaluation in the project’s IS/MND. Also, see response L1- 12 above. D-8 The comment contends that the focused burrowing owl surveys were inconsistent with established survey recommendations. As described in Comments C-13, the City considers the existing biological resources to be adequately characterized by the surveys, reports, and database reviews conducted for the project as documented by the project’s Biology Letter Report (Dudek 2022, Appendix B and C). The multiple surveys conducted were designed to detect wildlife species on the project site and are considered equivalent to the commenter’s reference to “detection” surveys. Regarding burrowing owl, this species was considered to have a low potential to occur and no sign of or other indications of species’ use of the site was ever detected during multiple site surveys over multiple years. Additionally, see the response to Comment C-12 on the adequacy of Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-1 and MM- BIO-2 (IS/MND page 54-55) for pre-construction nesting bird surveys and Burrowing Owl Take Avoidance Surveys. No additional surveys are warranted to assess or reduce potential impacts to less than significant in compliance with CEQA. Also, see response L1-12 above. D-9 The comment contends that the project’s IS/MND is inadequately informed by the literature and database review and that the CNDDB database was not designed to screen out species potential to occur on a project site, and is informed by voluntary reporting information and is a database for special-status species, and contends that it may not completely report observations for species more recently designated as special-status. As described in the project’s Biology Letter Report (Dudek 2022) that supported the determinations of the project’s IS/MND, the evaluation of the special-status wildlife species with the potential to occur on the project site was informed by the California Department of Wildlife’s CNDDB database as well as by observations from site surveys by qualified biologists conducted in 2018, 2021, and 2022 as described in response to Comment C-3, information provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) database, and vegetation community mapping to determine habitat suitability based on species’ habitat affiliations. Therefore, the use of CNDDB in conjunction with all the other sources of information was considered appropriate and followed industry-standard approaches for developing biological resources analysis in support of the project’s IS/MND. The comment also provides a table that includes 127 species and contends that the species should have been analyzed for the potential to occur on the project site and that surveys should have been conducted for these species to determine their use of the project site. However, this table includes species observed off-site as far as 30 miles away. The commenter speculates that these species occur on the project site, but provides no credible evidence thereof. Nor does the commenter provide evidence that the other sites where these species were observed are comparable to the project site. As described in previous responses, the potential for a special-status wildlife species to occur on the project site is dependent on multiple factors, including suitable habitat types and variability, habitat connectivity, site size, and disturbance factors, among other factors. Also, see response L1-12 above. Additionally, as noted in previous, information from all site surveys was incorporated into the analysis in the project’s Biology Letter Report (Dudek 2022). The Technical Report supported the project’s IS/MND; therefore, sufficient analysis concerning special-status wildlife species was used to support the determinations of the project’s IS/MND. The comment further states that numerous special-status species occur within close vicinity of the project site and, therefore, should be considered to have a higher potential to occur on the project site. As noted in several of the previous responses to comments, the potential for a special-status wildlife species to occur on the project site is dependent on numerous other factors and not just proximity. Importantly, the potential for a special-status wildlife species to occur on the project site depends on suitable habitat types and variability, habitat connectivity, site size, and disturbance factors, among other factors. Also, see response L1-12 above. As stated in the project’s IS/MND (page 49-50), the site is characterized primarily by non-native grasslands, non-native woodlands, and disturbed habitat. These vegetation communities provide minimal habitat value for special-status or common wildlife species and is a primary reason for the low species richness and lack of potential for the site to support special-status wildlife species. Therefore, the determinations of the potential to occur for special-status wildlife species used to support the CEQA analysis in the IS/MND are considered sufficient and justified by the technical documentation. The comment contends that the IS/MND neglected to analyze the potential occurrence of special-status wildlife species for the project site, including the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) species. The MSCP is a regional conservation program that provided a regional framework for habitat conservation in the southwestern San Diego County area; this program was adopted and approved by the City of Chula Vista. As stated in the project’s IS/MND (page 53-55), the project design is consistent with the MSCP Subarea Plan through specific adherence to mitigation/conveyance requirements for Development Projects Outside of Covered Projects as defined in the City MSCP Subarea Plan. As noted in Section 5, Regulatory Context of the Biology Letter Report (page 6) , the project site is designated as “Development Area Outside of Covered Projects” (i.e., not designated a preserve or conservation area). These comments summarize the commentors previous encounters with San Diegan tiger whiptail, Blainville’s horned lizard, rufus-crowned sparrows, peregrine falcon, California horned lark, and claims that the habitat use of multiple species is misrepresented within the project’s Biology Letter Report (Dudek 2022). As stated is previous responses, the potential for a special- status wildlife species to occur on the project site is dependent on multiple factors, including suitable habitat types and variability, habitat connectivity, site size, and disturbance factors, among other factors. Therefore, the determinations of the potential to occur for special-status wildlife species used to support the CEQA analysis in the IS/MND are considered sufficient and justified by the technical documentation. The comment contends that an EIR is necessary to characterize the biological resources existing conditions and potential impacts appropriately. The City acknowledges the commenter’s concern; however, as the City’s MSCP described above in this response, the project’s Biology Letter Report (Dudek 2022) documents the surveys, reports, and analyses used to adequately characterize the project site’s biological resources existing setting for use in the IS/MND. Also, see response L1-12 above. D-10 The comment includes introductory statements leading into subsequent comments regarding the assessment of the biological impact. The comment does not provide any contentions about the adequacy of the project’s IS/MND; therefore, no response to the comment is necessary. D-11/12 The comment describes the decline in species abundance resulting from habitat fragmentation and that the project would further contribute to habitat fragmentation in the area. The comment also references two studies on bird nesting densities and applies those densities to calculate a predicted bird loss for the project site. The project site is an approximately 9.75-acre parcel surrounded on all sides by existing residential, and commercial development within the City of Chula Vista; therefore, development of the approximately 9.75-acre site would not appreciably contribute further to habitat fragmentation as the surrounding lands do not support habitat. Also, see response L1-12 above. Further, the site is characterized primarily by non-native grassland and disturbed habitat, and overall provides marginal habitat value and minimal habitat diversity for wildlife species. Furthermore, as stated in the projects IS/MND (page 54-55) the implemented Mitigation Measures will reduce any impacts to less than significant. Concerning the commenter’s predicted loss of bird nests, it is not considered appropriate to apply bird nesting densities from two studies from 1948 and 1982 in grassland/wetland/woodland complexes to predict the potential loss of bird nests from the project site. The cited studies were conducted on ecological reserves and agricultural research stations that are not representative of the project site within the City of Chula Vista, surrounded by urban development. These studies were also conducted in the Midwest, and geographic location plays an important role in species richness, abundance, and bird nesting. Additionally, as described in the project’s IS/MND (page 54-55), the loss of habitat from the project will be offset through the purchase of off-site mitigation credits at the San Miguel Conservation Bank, which compensates for the habitat loss from the project. Further, Mitigation Measure MM BIO-3 in the project’s IS/MND includes seasonal timing restrictions or pre-construction nesting bird surveys with active nest avoidance and buffers to avoid impacts on nesting birds. The comment claims that the predicted loss of bird nests would be a significant impact not addressed in the IS/MND and that the loss of the predicted nests would further cause the loss of annual fledgling production each year forward. As described above, it is not appropriate to use bird nest densities from studies of other, non-comparable sites to predict the number of bird nests on this site. Applying annual fledgling production estimates to the predicted number of nests is also inappropriate. The annual fledgling production estimates applied in this comment are from a 1948 study in Wisconsin. Annual bird fledging production varies widely due to many factors including by species, habitat conditions, and resource availability, among others; therefore, applying a single production value to the predicted number of nests, as is done by the commenter, is highly speculative. Also, see response L1-13 above. See also above, that describes the compensation for habitat loss provided through off- site mitigation credit purchase and the avoidance of direct impacts to nests and nesting birds through Mitigation Measure MM BIO-1 (IS/MND page 54). D-13 The comment claims the projects IS/MND is fundamentally flawed in its conclusion that the project would not interfere with wildlife movement, with the commentor suggesting that the “aerosphere” is habitat that is not considered habitat in the IS/MND. As described in Comment C-9, while it is true that bird species are known to use patches of habitat as “stepping stones” for stopovers and movement between larger habitat areas, the project site provides only marginal habitat value for such movements. The bird species detected using the site by the commenter’s associate, as documented in the project’s Biology Letter Report (Dudek 2022), are generally common species known to use urban areas (e.g., American crow, Anna’s hummingbird, Cassin’s kingbird, Say’s phoebe, common raven, house finch, California towhee, mourning dove, and Bewick’s wren). As a result, the bird species with the potential to use the project site are considered urban-adapted, and implementation of the project would have no impact on their movements. Additionally, because of regular human activity and considerable vehicle traffic in and surrounding the project site, predominantly urban-adapted wildlife species are expected to occur in this area, such as raccoons (Procyon lotor), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and brush rabbits (Sylvilagus spp.). Therefore, as stated in the IS/MND (page 53), the project site is not expected to provide for wildlife movement or serve as a habitat linkage since it is not connected to or located near other habitat areas. Also, see response L1- 14 above. D-14 The comment generally describes possible impacts on wildlife from vehicle collisions and references included photos of wildlife crossing roads and wildlife mortalities on roadways from other locations in California. It states that the project’s IS/MND fails to address this substantial impact. The comment further summarizes the results of traffic-caused wildlife mortality studies from Contra Costa County in northern California (these summarized studies are further referenced in Comment D-15), and the comment claims that an analysis of the impacts of project traffic on local impacts to wildlife is needed. Wildlife mortalities from vehicle collisions are a known risk; however, this project is an infill development within an urban area and will not develop any new arterial roadways. It is highly speculative to claim that the project would result in significant wildlife-vehicle collision impacts or impacts to special-status wildlife species based on extrapolations from studies conducted on a rural, undeveloped stretch of roadway in northern California. Also, see response L1- 14 above. Therefore, no additional analysis is necessary based on this comment. The comment also includes the commenters analysis of a 2009 study of other locations in California. The comment does not provide any contentions about the adequacy of the project’s IS/MND; therefore, no response to the comment is necessary. D-15 The comment uses data from a study in northern California to predict the number of common wildlife and special-status wildlife species collisions from the annual vehicle miles traveled for the project. The data used to extrapolate predicted wildlife collisions were taken from a mortality study on a 2.5-mile section of road in a rural, undeveloped area of Contra Costa County, California. The rate of wildlife mortalities from this study cannot meaningfully be compared to the proposed project, which is located in a highly urbanized portion of Chula Vista, California. The comment provides no evidence that special-status wildlife species have been killed on roadways in urban settings similar to the projects. It is misleading and speculative to predict the number of common or special- status wildlife fatalities-based data from a rural road in Northern California. The comment does not provide credible evidence supporting a fair argument that the project would result in significant impacts on the viability of a species or species group or significant impacts to special-status species due to roadway mortality. Also, see response L1-15 above. The comment maintains that the project’s IS/MND does not address or mitigate the impacts of wildlife-vehicle collisions and that the preparation of an EIR is necessary to analyze the impacts. No such analysis is warranted. The project site is located in a highly urbanized portion of Chula Vista, California with heavily traveled roadways and is not located within a wildlife corridor (IS/MND page 52). Therefore, the incremental increase in roadway traffic from the project would not result in significant impacts on the viability of a species or species group or significant impacts to special-status species due to roadway mortality. Therefore, no additional analysis is necessary based on this comment. D-16 The comment claims an overall flawed analysis in the IS/MND regarding cumulative impacts. The project’s IS/MND found that the project would have no impact on four of the six biological resources significance threshold questions. Therefore, for those biological resources considerations, the project would not result in any impacts or have any incremental contribution to a cumulative impact and, therefore, would not have any cumulative impacts. As described in Comment C-11, the project was found to have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated on the biological resources significance threshold of a project’s substantial adverse effects on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. The project site was not found to support any special-status plant species, and potential impacts to special-status Monarch butterfly (occurred on site) and burrowing owl (low potential to occur) would be less than significant through implementation of MM-BIO-2 (IS/MND page 51). No special-status species were found to have a moderate or high potential to occur on the site. The project would also comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and would avoid impacting migratory birds. The site mainly supports non-native grassland and disturbed habitat that provides limited habitat value. As described in MM-BIO-1 (IS/MND page 54), impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat shall be mitigated at the ratios required per the HLIT ordinance. Also, see response L1-16 above. Therefore, the project’s effects were considered less than significant, and the project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable. Furthermore, the applicant shall secure mitigation credits within the San Miguel Conservation Bank. Mitigation Credits shall be for habitat of equivalent or higher habitat value than coastal sage scrub for impacts to coastal sage scrub and equivalent or higher habitat value than non-native grasslands for non- native grassland impacts, with value determined consistent with the Subarea Plan tier system (IS/MND Subarea Plan Table 5-3). The applicant is required to provide the City with verification of mitigation credit purchase prior to issuance of any grading permit, including clearing, grubbing, grading, and construction permit (IS/MND page 55). D-17 See response to Comment C-12 D-18 See response to Comment C-13