Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-06-03; Planning Commission; Resolution 7578A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AN SB 131 FOCUSED INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 397-UNIT, FIVE- STORY, MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE WITH 548 VEHICULAR PARKING SPACES BOTH AT GRADE AND WITHIN AN ATTACHED, FIVE-STORY PARKING STRUCTURE ON A 9.78-ACRE SITE LOCATED ON SALK AVENUE BETWEEN COLLEGE BLVD AND EL CAMINO REAL (ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 212-021-04-00), WITHIN THE FENTON CARLSBAD CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN, IN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE CITY, THE RD-M ZONE, AND LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5 CASE NAME: SALK AVENUE APARTMENTS CASE NO.: SDP2025-0004 (DEV2025-0001) WHEREAS,Hanover R.S. Limited Partnership, “Developer”, has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Scripps Health, “Owner,” described as LOT 4 OF CARLSBAD TRACT NO. 00-20 FOX MILLER PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 15253, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, JANUARY 30, 2006. (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code section 21000 et. seq.) and its implementing regulations (the State CEQA Guidelines), Article 14 of the California Code of Regulations section 15000 et. seq., the city is the Lead Agency for the project, as the public agency with the principal responsibility for approving the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the project qualifies for the statutory exemption under Public Resource Code section 21080.66, except for the single condition of the project site containing habitat for protected species; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.7578_           WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resource Code section 21080.1, a housing development project that fails to qualify for certain CEQA exemptions due to a single disqualifying condition may carry out a focused CEQA review limited to only those environmental effects caused by the single disqualifying condition and waive the need for analysis of project alternatives and growth-inducing effects; and WHEREAS, the city prepared a single-condition Focused Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, dated February 2026, to consider, identify and analyze the potential environmental impacts to biological resources associated with the proposed Salk Avenue Apartment Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2026030432, City Planning Case No. SDP 2025-0004). The Draft IS/MND concluded that the project could result in potentially significant impacts to Biological Resource and that all the potentially significant impacts of the project can be avoided or reduced to insignificance with implementation of mitigation measures; and WHEREAS, the city provided notice of the availability of the Draft IS/MND and its intent to adopt an IS/MND to and sought comments from all interested individuals and agencies on the Draft IS/MND as required by CEQA: x Publishing “Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration” in San Diego Union Tribune newspaper on February 25, 2026. x Submitting a notice to the County Clerk of the County of San Diego and the State Clearinghouse for posting. x Providing copies of the notice to individuals and organizations that previously submitted written requests for the notice. x Posting of the notice and Draft IS/MND on the City of Carlsbad Planning Department webpage; and           WHEREAS, the Draft IS/MND was issued for a minimum 30-day public review period, which began on Feb. 25, 2026, and ended on April 10, 2026, in conformance with Public Resources Code section 21091(b) and CEQA Guidelines sections 15072 and 15105(b). The city received two comment letters during the 30-day public comment period, one of which was submitted by a member of the public and one from an environmental law firm. A Response to Comments (RTC) document was prepared and responds to all of the comment letters received on the Draft IS/MND. An Errata Sheet (Errata) incorporates minor modifications made to the Draft IS/MND as a result of those responses to comments. The Draft IS/MND, as revised by the Errata section, together with the RTC, are collectively referred to herein as the Final IS/MND (State Clearinghouse No. 2026030432) (Attachment “A”); and WHEREAS, upon approving a project for which an IS/MND is adopted, the Lead Agency must also adopt a Mitigation, Monitoring or Reporting Program (MMRP) pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines section 15074(d); and WHEREAS, the city duly noticed a public hearing of the Salk Avenue Apartments Project on June 3, 2026, to consider adoption of the Final IS/MND and MMRP, and the project. Evidence was submitted to and considered by the Planning Commission, including, without limitation: x Written information including all application materials and other written and graphical information posted on the project website. x Oral testimony from city staff, interested parties, and the public. x dŚĞථPlanning CommissionථƐƚĂĨĨ report, dated June 3, 2026, which along with its attachments, is incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein. x Additional information submitted during the public hearing; and           WHEREAS, CEQA Guidelines section 15074(b) states that prior to approving a project, the Lead Agency must consider the proposed IS/MND together with any comments ƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐƌĞǀŝĞǁƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ͖ĂŶĚථ WHEREAS, the Record of Proceedings upon which the Planning Commission bases its decision includes, but is not limited to: (1) the Final IS/MND and the appendices and technical reports cited in and/or relied upon in preparing the Final IS/MND and MMRP; (2) the staff reports, city files and records and other documents, prepared for and/or submitted to the city relating to the Final IS/MND, MMRP, and the project itself; (3) the evidence, facts, findings and other determinations set forth in herein; (4) the General Plan and the Carlsbad Municipal Code; (5) all designs, plans, studies, data and correspondence submitted to the city in connection with the Final IS/MND, the MMRP, and the project itself; (6) all documentary and oral evidence received at public workshops, meetings, or hearings or submitted to the city during the comment period relating to the Final IS/MND and MMRP and/or elsewhere during the course of the review of the project itself; (7) all other matters of common knowledge to the to the city, including, but not limited to, city, state, and federal laws, policies, rules, regulations, reports, records and projections related to development within the city and its surrounding areas. NOW, THEREFORE, /dZ^K>sďLJƚŚĞථPlanning CommissionථŽĨƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨ Carlsbad as follows: 1. ZĞĐŽƌĚĂŶĚĂƐŝƐĨŽƌĐƚŝŽŶ͘ථdŚĞථPlanning CommissionථŚĂƐĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚƚŚĞĨƵůů ƌĞĐŽƌĚďĞĨŽƌĞŝƚ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐƚŚĞZĞĐŽƌĚŽĨWƌŽĐĞĞĚŝŶŐƐ͘ථ&ƵƌƚŚĞƌŵŽƌĞ͕ƚŚĞ recitals set forth above are found to be true and correct and material to this resolution; and are incorporated herein by reference. 2. The Draft IS/MND prepared for the project identifies potentially significant effects on the environment, but (A) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the Applicant before the proposed IS/MND were 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 (B), there is no           substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project as reviewed may have a significant effect on the environment. 3. Revisions were made to clarify information presented in the Draft IS/MND, and only minor technical changes or additions have been made. These changes and additions to the Draft IS/MND do not raise new important issues related to significant effects on the environment. The modifications made to the Draft IS/MND in the RTC and Errata simply provide minor clarifications and do not amount to substantial revisions requiring recirculation of the IS/MND pursuant to Section 15073.5 of CEQA Guidelines. 4. A Final IS/MND has been prepared in compliance with all requirements contained in CEQA, CEQA Guidelines, and Carlsbad Municipal Code. 5. In determining whether the proposed project has a significant effect on the environment, the Planning Commission is able to base its decision on substantial evidence and has complied with Public Resources Code section 21082.2 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091(b). Mitigation measures were developed to reduce potential impacts to Biological Resources. The project Applicant has agreed to implement all mitigation measures identified in the Final IS/MND in order to reduce all potentially significant environmental impacts to a less-than- significant level, in accordance with the MMRP (Attachment “B”). Mitigation measures incorporated as part of the project’s conditions of approval reduce impacts to a level less than significant, therefore an IS/MND is appropriate for adoption. The Planning Commission hereby finds that after considering the public comments received and the evidence and testimony before it, that the Final IS/MND reflects the independent judgement of the city as the Lead Agency. The IS/MND, inclusive of the RTC and Errata, has been prepared in accordance and full compliance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines, has been made available and circulated for review and comment by interested members of the public and relevant agencies as required by law, and has been presented to, reviewed and considered by this Planning Commission prior to the decision on the project. Therefore, the Planning Commission does hereby find that on the basis of the whole record before it, that there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised and conditioned, will have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission adopts the Final IS/MND (Attachment “A”) and MMRP (Attachment “B”), as the valid environmental review for this project. The Planning Commission further finds that the Record of Proceedings has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, and that the findings related to the Final IS/MND, taken together, reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. 6. The custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based is the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Carlsbad, 1200 Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008.           BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs the Director of Community Development, or their designee, to file the notice of determination required by Public Resources Code section 21152(a) within five days after project approval.           NOTICE TO APPLICANT An appeal of this decision to the City Council must be filed with the City Clerk at 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92008, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the Planning Commission’s decision. Pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.54, section 21.54.150, the appeal must be in writing and state the reason(s) for the appeal. The City Council must make a determination on the appeal prior to any judicial review. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on June 3, 2026, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Hubinger, Lafferty, Fitzgerald, Foster, Meenes. NAYES: None. ABSENT: Burrows, Merz. ABSTAIN: None. ROY MEENES, Chair Carlsbad Planning Commission ATTEST: ______________________________ ERIC LARDY, Assistant Director of Community Development           Salk Avenue Apartments Project AB 130/SB 131 – Final Focused Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SCH No. 2026030432 May2026 Lead Agency:Prepared by: City of Carlsbad Community Development Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Michael Baker International 5050 Avenida Encinas, Suite 260 Carlsbad, CA 92008 JN 205484 $WWDFKPHQW$           Final Focused Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page i TTTaaaaabbbbbllllleeeee ooooofffff 1.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 AB 130 and SB 131 Applicability .................................................................................1-1 1.2 Format of this Focused IS/MND ..................................................................................1-2 2.0 Project Information...........................................................................................................2-1 3.0 Determination....................................................................................................................3-1 4.0 Environmental Impact Analysis ......................................................................................4-1 5.0 List of Preparers ...............................................................................................................5-1 6.0 References ........................................................................................................................6-1 LLLiiiisssssttttt Figure 1. Regional Vicinity Map...............................................................................................2-5 Figure 2. Project Vicinity..........................................................................................................2-6 Figure 3. Conceptual Site Plan................................................................................................2-7 Figure 4a. Biological Resources/Impacts ................................................................................4-10 Figure 4b. Biological Resources/Impacts - Off-Site Sewer Line..............................................4-11 Figure 5. Plans and Policies ..................................................................................................4-12 AAAAAppppppppppeeeeennnnndddddiiiiccccceeeeesssss Appendix A Assembly Bill 130 Statutory Exemption Checklist Appendix B Senate Bill 131 Exclusions of Certain Types of Housing Development Projects Checklist Appendix C Biological Resources Technical Letter Report           Final Focused Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page ii List of Acronyms and Abbreviations AB California Assembly Bill CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act FCCSP Fenton Carlsbad Center Specific Plan HMP Habitat Management Plan IS Initial Study MM Mitigation Measure MND Mitigated Negative Declaration ND Negative Declaration PRC Public Resources Code SB California Senate Bill USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service           Final Focused Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 1-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Carlsbad (City) has prepared this single-condition Focused Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Focused IS/MND) to address the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Salk Avenue Apartments Project (project). This single-condition Focused IS/MND is prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000, et seq., as amended), its implementing guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000, et seq., 2026), and the CEQA provisions in California Assembly Bill (AB) 130 and California Senate Bill (SB) 131 (codified in PRC Sections 21080.66 and 21080.1). 1.1 AB 130 and SB 131 Applicability AB 130 AB 130 (codified in PRC Section 21080.66) establishes a statutory exemption from CEQA for qualifying housing development projects that meet certain criteria and requirements. An AB 130 Statutory Exemption Checklist was prepared for the proposed project (refer to Appendix A). Based on the checklist, the project would have qualified for the statutory exemption established by AB 130, except for the single condition of the project site containing habitat for protected species. Specifically, the northwestern portion of the project site contains habitat suitable for protected species, including coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica, federally threatened, state species of concern), Crotch’s bumble bee (CBB; Bombus crotchii; state candidate endangered), and thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia; federally threatened, state endangered, California Rare Plant Rank 1B.1). SB 131 SB 131 (codified in PRC Section 21080.1) applies to housing development projects that fail to qualify for certain CEQA exemptions due to a single disqualifying condition. In such “near-miss” instances, SB 131 limits CEQA review to those environmental effects caused solely by that single condition and waives the need for analysis of project alternatives and growth-inducing effects. However, these “near miss” provisions do not apply to projects with multiple disqualifying conditions, or to projects involving distribution centers, oil and gas infrastructure or on protected land, etc. Refer to Appendix B, SB 131 Exclusions of Certain Types of Housing Development Projects, for a complete analysis of the project’s eligibility for the SB 131 housing development project statutory exemption. As shown in Appendix B, none of the SB 131 exclusions apply to the project. The Combined Effect of AB 130 and SB 131 The “near-miss” rule introduced by AB 130 and SB 131 allows for streamlined review of residential projects that meet all but one condition for a CEQA exemption. Any CEQA review for the proposed project should focus only on the environmental impacts related to the missed criterion. In this instant, the “near miss” provision is where the proposed project meets all aspects of the new infill exemption (AB 130), except that the project would impact habitat for protected species. In such case, any CEQA review would focus only on the environmental impacts related to potential biological impacts (SB 131).           Final Focused Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 1-2 1.2 Format of this Focused IS/MND This single-condition Focused IS/MND is organized in the following manner: x Section 1.0, Introduction, provides an introduction and overview of this single-condition Focused IS/MND, including the content and format, as well as the applicability of AB 130 and SB 131 to the proposed project. x Section 2.0, Project Information, provides a detailed description of the proposed project, its location, surrounding land uses and setting, and required discretionary actions. x Section 3.0, Environmental Impact Analysis, contains an analysis of the single condition of AB 130 that was not met by the proposed project—habitat for protected species (i.e., biological resources). x Section 4.0, List of Preparers, lists the persons, firm, and lead agency preparing this single-condition Focused IS/MND. x Section 5.0, References, lists the source material for the information presented in this single-condition Focused IS/MND.           Final Focused Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 2-1 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 1. Project Title:Salk Avenue Apartments 2. Lead Agency Name and Address:City of Carlsbad Community Development Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 3. Contact Person and Phone Number:Kyle Van Leeuwen, Senior Planner 442-339-2611 4. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:Hanover R.S. Limited Partnership 11611 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 740 Los Angeles, California 90049 5. Project Location:The approximately 9.8-acre project site is located on vacant, undeveloped land south of Salk Avenue, west of El Camino Real, east of College Boulevard, and north of Faraday Avenue in the City of Carlsbad, California (Assessor’s Parcel Number 212-021-04-00). Refer to Figure 1, Regional Vicinity Map, and Figure 2, Project Vicinity. 6. General Plan Designation:The project site is designated as Residential, 23-30 Dwelling Units Per Acre (du/ac) (R-30) and is located in the Fenton Carlsbad Center Specific Plan (FCCSP) under the City of Carlsbad General Plan. 7. Zoning:The project site has a zoning designation of Residential Density-Multiple (RD-M). 8. Description of Project: The project proposes a multi-family residential development on an approximately 9.8-acre vacant site located on Salk Avenue, east of College Boulevard and west of El Camino Real within the FCCSP area of the City (Assessor’s Parcel Number 212-021-04-00). The site currently consists of a vacant graded pad. The project proposes 397 multi-family residential dwelling units (Figure 3, Conceptual Site Plan). The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Residential (R- 30), which allows between 23 and 30 du/ac. The R-30 land use designation would allow up to 294 units on the project site (i.e., 294 units is the base density). However, the project qualifies for a 35 percent density bonus, pursuant to California Government Code Section           Final Focused Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 2-2 65915(f)(2) and Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 21.86, because 59 units (or 20 percent of the base density) of the total dwelling units would be restricted to low-income households. As such, a density bonus of 103 units was applied to the base density of 294 units, for a total of 397 dwelling units proposed by the project. This equates to a proposed on-site density of 40.5 du/ac. The breakdown of the proposed 397 residential apartment units is as follows: Unit Types Number of Unit Types Average Square Footage Studio 4 643 1-Bedroom 253 744 2-Bedroom 112 1,110 3-Bedroom 28 1,371 Total 397 -- The proposed residential complex would be Type III-A construction (i.e., exterior walls would be built with non-combustible materials) and would include one 5-story building with a maximum building height of 59 feet, with allowed architectural projections up to 74 feet, 7 inches. The gross building area would total approximately 416,152 square feet. The residential complex would include approximately 27,000 square feet of outdoor open space areas, including courtyards, private balconies, and residential amenities such as a swimming pool and pool deck courtyard, and interior courtyards. Interior amenities would include fitness facilities, co-working space, and a media room. Landscaping would occur throughout the development and would include drought- resistant and ignition-resistant trees, shrubs, vines, plants, and groundcover. Additionally, retaining walls ranging from approximately 4 to 9 feet in height would be erected along the perimeter of the proposed development. Parking A total of 541 vehicular parking spaces is proposed both at-grade and within a five-level aboveground parking structure with rooftop parking. The parking structure footprint would total approximately 107,300 square feet. The parking structure would include 70 electric vehicle charging stations. An additional five spaces are proposed as drop-off, delivery, and van accessible spaces near the main entrance of the residential complex. Utilities The project would include off-site tie-in connections to existing water (including dedicated pipelines extension for potable, recycled, and fire), sewer, storm water, electricity, and natural gas in Salk Avenue adjacent to the project site. Once utility tie-ins are completed, Salk Avenue would be repaved.           Final Focused Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 2-3 Other off-site improvements would include replacement of approximately 875 linear feet of sewer pipeline beneath College Boulevard between El Camino Real and Sunny Creek Road. Fire Safety In addition to the proposed Type III-A construction, the project would include drought- resistant and ignition-resistant landscaping. A 60-foot-wide fuel modification area would encompass the proposed residential building in accordance with the City’s Landscape Manual (2016). Fuel modification zones would be maintained during routine landscape maintenance. The City Fire Department has reviewed and preliminarily approved the proposed fuel modification zones for the project. Further, the proposed project driveway and internal access road width would meet the requirements for fire apparatus. As such, it is anticipated that the project would meet fire safety requirements pursuant to the City Fire Department and the CMC. A final fire protection plan is required to be approved under the California Fire Code before building permit issuance. The plan's final review and approval by the City Fire Department would ensure that the proposed fire protection and suppression systems meet the necessary safety and performance standards as required by applicable law and code. Construction The main phases of construction would include site preparation and grading, foundations and building construction, and finishing. The total construction duration is anticipated to be 22 months. Cut and fill (site grading) would be balanced on the site (23,500 cubic yards of cut and fill, resulting in no soil export or import). 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: As shown on Figure 2, Project Vicinity, light industrial buildings are adjacent to the project site to the east and south, and a private driving range and golf facility are adjacent to the west. A Scripps medical office building borders the project site to the north, opposite Salk Avenue. The site is within the FCCSP,which was developed to address the need for a full mix of office and medical facilities in the City, to serve both residents and the daily workforce, as well as providing housing close to jobs, including housing affordable to lower-income households. Surrounding land uses near the proposed off-site sewer line within College Boulevard include a residential community immediately east of College Boulevard and a planned residential community will be constructed in a currently vacant, graded area immediately west of College Boulevard.           Final Focused Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 2-4 10 . Agency Approvals: Agency Discretionary Action Lead Agency City of Carlsbad Adoption of the Focused IS/MND and approval of the project Issuance of a Site Development Permit Trustee Agency California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Consultation and potential issuance of an Incidental Take Permit for species protected by the state Endangered Species Act if Crotch’s bumble bee occur on-site Responsible Agency San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Construction General Permit and approval of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? The City mailed US Postal Service-certified mail and emailed letters to the Desert Cahuilla Indians, Mesa Grande Band of Diegueño Mission Indians, Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, and San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians on January 5, 2026, to initiate the AB 52 notification process, in accordance with AB 52 tribal notification requirements. Consultation was requested by the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians. The City coordinated with the tribe, and an agreement was made that the tribe will provide tribal cultural monitoring during ground-disturbing construction activities associated with the project (as part of the Conditions of Approval for the project). As such, AB 52 consultation has concluded.           3URMHFW6LWH 3URMHFW/RFDWLRQ l 6RXUFH(VUL$UF*,62QOLQH86*66DQ'LHJR&RXQW\ 5HJLRQDO9LFLQLW\0DS )LJXUH )2&86(',601' 6$/.$9(18($3$570(176352-(&7          - 1         ? ? 6 D Q W F D  K X E ? V D Q G F D  I V  ? + U R R W ? 3 ' $ 7 $ ?       B + D Q R Y H U  & D U O V E D G ? * , 6 ? $ 3 5 ; ?        + D Q R Y H U  6 D O N  $ Y H  1 5 ?        + D Q RY H U  6 D O N  $ Y H  1 5  D S U [   0LOHV           l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l 6RXUFH)XVFRH(QJLQHHULQJ1RYHPEHU &RQFHSWXDO6LWH3ODQ )LJXUH )2&86(',601' 6$/.$9(18($3$570(176352-(&7          - 1         ? ? 6 D Q W F D  K X E ? V D Q G F D  I V  ? + U R R W ? 3 ' $ 7 $ ?       B + D Q R Y H U  & D U O V E D G ? * , 6 ? $ 3 5 ; ?        + D Q R Y H U  6 D O N  $ Y H  1 5 ?        + D Q RY H U  6 D O N  $ Y H  1 5  D S U [ 127726&$/(           Final Focused Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 3-1 3.0 DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: ܆ 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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. 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 a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 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. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 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, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date           Final Focused Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 4-1 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS The environmental evaluation below is limited to the Biological Resources thresholds from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, as habitat on-site is the “near-miss” single condition that was identified in evaluating AB 130 / SB 131 statutory exemption applicability (see Appendix A). For the evaluation of potential impacts to biological resources, the questions in the Initial Study (IS) Checklist are stated and a determination and explanation are provided. The analysis considers short-term (construction) and long-term (operation), direct and indirect impacts of the project. To each question, there are four possible responses: x No Impact. The project would not have any measurable environmental impact on the environment. x Less Than Significant Impact. The project would have the potential for impacting the environment, although this impact would be below established thresholds that are considered to be significant. x Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project would have the potential to generate impacts which may be considered a significant effect on the environment, although measures or changes to the development’s physical or operational characteristics can reduce these impacts to levels that are less than significant. x Potentially Significant Impact. The project would have impacts which are considered significant, and additional analysis is required to identify measures that could reduce these impacts to less than significant levels.           Final Focused Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 4-2 EEEvvvvvaaaaallllluuuuuaaaaatttttiiiiiooooonnnnn ooooofffff Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ܆ ܈ ܆ b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ܆ ܆ ܆ c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? ܆ ܆ ܆ 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? ܆ ܆ ܆ e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ܆ ܆ ܈ 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? ܆ ܆ ܈ DiDiDiDiDscscscscscususususussisisisisiononononon The discussion section below is based on the Biological Resources Technical Letter Report for the Salk Avenue Apartments Project in Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, prepared by Michael Baker International and dated April 30, 2026, which is included as Appendix C. a) 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           Final Focused Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 4-3 species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.There is one special-status plant species, thread-leaved brodiaea (federally threatened, state endangered, California Rare Plant Rank 1B.1), and one special-status wildlife species, Crotch’s bumble bee (CBB; state candidate endangered), that have potential to occur on a portion of the project site or within close proximity. Additionally, one special-status wildlife species, coastal California gnatcatcher (federally threatened, state species of concern), was detected on the project site during the general biological field survey conducted by Michael Baker International on January 24, 2025 (see Appendix C). It is noted that a coastal California gnatcatcher observation was also made in 2000 / 2001 in association with the Fox Miller Project focused surveys, but this special-status species was not detected during the 2003 focused surveys. Special-Status Plant Species One special-status plant species has the potential to occur on the project site: thread-leaved brodiaea. Additionally, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) mapped designated critical habitat for thread-leaved brodiaea in the vicinity of the project site, including within the northwestern portion of the project site (see Figure 4a, Biological Resources/Impacts). However, the special-status plant species was not observed on the project site as part of the 2000 / 2001 focused studies conducted in 2003 (RECON 2024), or the field survey conducted in 2025. The project site was graded in 2007, resulting in primarily disturbed vegetation, and is mowed on an annual basis. A 0.33-acre patch of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub in the northwest corner of the project site that is designated as critical habitat for thread-leaved brodiaea is located approximately 100 feet beyond the proposed development footprint. Project construction activities would not result in impacts to this isolated patch of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, which is the only suitable habitat on the project site for thread-leaved brodiaea. Therefore, no impact would occur to thread-leaved brodiaea or its habitat. The off-site sewer line would be located in paved areas of College Boulevard (Study Area-Off- Site Sewer Line). The proposed construction footprint for the off-site sewer line does not contain natural habitat or vegetation that could support special-status plant species. This area is fully developed (paved roadway) and does not contain natural habitat or vegetation. Special-Status Wildlife Species Coastal California Gnatcatcher and Other Nesting Birds One coastal California gnatcatcher was observed in the 0.33-acre patch of Diegan coastal sage scrub in the northwest corner of the project site during the 2025 biological survey (Figure 4a, Biological Resources/Impacts). As noted above, the habitat is approximately 100 feet beyond the construction footprint of the proposed project and would not be disturbed. Accordingly, no direct impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher would occur. Several non-listed, sensitive bird species could potentially nest and/or forage over the site, although the potential is low. There is potential for other nesting bird species to occur on-site in the two on-site non-native, invasive fig trees to be removed, as well as in the isolated patch of           Final Focused Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 4-4 Diegan coastal sage scrub. Nesting birds may also potentially occur in trees adjacent to the project site and the College Boulevard sewer replacement location (Study Area-Off-Site Sewer Line). Removal of the two fig trees could potentially directly affect nesting birds, while construction noise has potential to indirectly affect nesting birds in the isolated patch of Diegan coastal sage scrub and off-site trees. Implementation of mitigation measure (MM) BIO-1 would reduce impacts to nesting birds, including coastal California gnatcatcher, to less than significant levels. Crotch’s Bumble Bee The closest location of the species is documented in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), with two occurrences of CBB in 2024 noted approximately 2.5 miles north of the project site at Lake Calavera Preserve. However, no individuals or nests of CBB were observed on or adjacent to the project site during the general biological survey for the project on January 24, 2025. Because of (1) the presence of nectaring sources (i.e., food sources) present on and near the project site, (2) the presence of other bumble bees on the project site during the January 24, 2025 biological survey (a yellow-faced bumble bee [Bombus vosnesenskii]), and (3) two known CNDDB identifications of CBB within approximately 2.5 miles of the project site, there is moderate potential for CBB to occur on the project site, although likely only within the 0.33-acre patch of Diegan coastal sage scrub in the northwest corner of the project site. This limited area of habitat supports nectaring sources that may be used by foraging CBB and soils that could provide nesting and overwintering habitat. The project’s proposed off-site sewer line replacement would be located in paved areas of College Boulevard and does not contain natural habitat or vegetation that could support CBB. Although no direct impacts to CBB individuals or nests are expected from the project due to lack of suitable nectaring sources for foraging and lack of nesting habitat, there is a potential for indirect effects if the species is present in the 0.33-acre patch of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub in the northwest corner of the project site. Indirect impacts to CBB could occur from fugitive dust during ground-disturbing construction activities. Such indirect impacts to CBB would be potentially significant. However, implementation of MM BIO-2 would reduce potential indirect impacts to CBB to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measures: MM BIO-1 Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Surveys, Avoidance, and Notification.If construction activities are initiated during the bird nesting season (February 1– August 31) involving removal of vegetation or other nesting bird habitat, including abandoned structures and other man-made features, a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than three days prior to initiation of ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities. The nesting bird pre-construction survey shall be conducted on foot and shall include a 300-foot survey buffer around the construction site. The survey shall be conducted by a biologist familiar with the identification of avian species known to occur in southern California coastal communities (i.e., qualified biologist). If active nests are found, an avoidance buffer shall be determined by a qualified biologist in coordination with the City. The avoidance buffer width will depend upon the species, the proposed work activity, and existing disturbances associated with land uses outside of the site, which shall           Final Focused Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 4-5 be demarcated by the biologist with bright orange construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to demarcate the boundary. All construction personnel shall be notified as to the existence of the buffer zone and to avoid entering the buffer zone during the nesting season. No ground-disturbing activities shall occur within the buffer until the biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed, and the young have fledged the nest. Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the qualified biologist on the basis that the encroachment will not be detrimental to an active nest. A report summarizing the pre-construction survey(s) shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and shall be submitted to the City prior to the commencement of construction activities. If an active coastal California gnatcatcher nest is found during pre-construction surveys, a minimum 500-foot no-disturbance buffer shall be established around the nest. The buffer shall be clearly marked (e.g., with fencing or flagging) and maintained until a qualified biologist confirms that the young have fledged, the nest is no longer active, or that construction noise levels can be maintained below 60 dBA Leq at the nest site with a smaller buffer. In no circumstances shall a buffer of less than 100 feet be used even with noise attenuation measures. Any reduction in the 500-foot buffer must be supported by site-specific analysis by the qualified biologist and approved by the City in consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Note: To mitigate the potential impact to California gnatcatcher or other nesting birds, this mitigation measure shall be applied to land use and activities occurring at the project site. No Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Surveys, Avoidance, and Notification mitigation is required to implement the Study Area-Off-Site Sewer Line portion of the project. MM BIO-2 Crotch’s Bumble Bee Avoidance and Clearance Survey x Focused Survey. Three on-site surveys for Crotch’s bumble bee (CBB) shall be conducted prior to initiation of ground disturbing project activities to identify if the CBB is present within the project site. This survey shall be conducted simultaneously with the blooming period of the species’ recognized food plants, when the CBB is most active. Each survey shall be spaced at least 2 weeks but no more than 4 weeks apart, corresponding with the Colony Active Season for Bombus species (April–August). The surveying biologist shall be familiar with the primary identification characteristics of the CBB and be proficient in the methodology produced by the Xerces Society. The qualified biologist shall utilize a telephoto lens or a sufficiently long macro lens to obtain high-quality photos of bumble bees, sufficient for species identification, without having to capture and potentially harm the bumble bees. x Absence of Species. If no CBB are detected during the focused surveys, no further measures shall be necessary. x Presence of Species. If CBB are detected, then site-specific measures shall be implemented to avoid take unless an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) for the species is obtained from CDFW. Such avoidance measures shall include:           Final Focused Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 4-6 o If vegetation removal activities and initial ground-disturbing activities (i.e., clearing, grubbing, and initial site grading) occur during the Queen and Gyne Flight Period and Colony Active Period for these species (February–October), a qualified biologist shall conduct daily biological monitoring. During monitoring, the qualified biologist shall inspect suitable habitat for CBB activity within the day’s work area. If the species is not detected, then project activities can proceed without further biological monitoring that day. o If the CBB is detected using nectar sources, then a no-disturbance buffer of at least 25 feet around the individual(s) shall be established, and the individual(s) shall be monitored by a biological monitor until the CBB are confirmed to have left the area on their own. o If a CBB nest is detected where ground disturbance is proposed to occur, then a minimum 30-foot no-disturbance buffer (with a buffer of up to 60 feet if disturbance is substantial) around the nest shall be established. This buffer shall remain in place until the nest senesces, which would occur after no nest activity observations for three sequential days. The qualified biologist shall discuss the buffer with the contractor to ensure that work areas, including ingress and egress routes, avoid the CBB. o If the project cannot avoid the established no-disturbance buffer(s) identified above, the project applicant shall halt work within the buffer area and shall consult with CDFW on appropriate avoidance actions and obtain an Incidental Take Permit if necessary. Note: To mitigate the potential impact to Crotch’s Bumble Bee (CBB), this mitigation measure shall be applied to land use and activities occurring at the project site. No CBB Avoidance and Clearance Survey mitigation is required to implement the Study Area-Off-Site Sewer Line portion of the project. b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The project site consists of the following vegetation communities/land cover types: Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, Disturbed Habitat, and Urban/Developed Land (Figure 4a, Biological Resources/Impacts). The off-site improvement areas (including abutting the project site in Salk Avenue and the off-site sewer line in College Boulevard) contain Disturbed Habitat and Urban/Developed Land (Figure 4b, Biological Resources/Impacts – Off-Site Sewer Line). Of these vegetation communities/land cover types, Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub is the only sensitive vegetation community on the project site or off-site improvement areas, and it occurs in an isolated 0.33-acre area in the northwest corner of the project site. However, as shown on Figure 4a, this isolated patch of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub is approximately 100 feet from the proposed development footprint. Therefore, the project, and its limits of disturbance will avoid any impact to this plant species. Furthermore, there is no riparian habitat on or near the project site           Final Focused Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 4-7 or off-site improvement areas. Therefore, no impact to riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities would occur. Mitigation Measures: None c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. There are no state or federally protected wetlands on or near the project site or off- site improvement areas. Therefore, no impact to state or federally protected wetlands would occur. Mitigation Measures: None d) Would the project 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? No Impact.As the project site is surrounded by urban uses, including Salk Avenue, commercial buildings, and the TaylorMade golf facility, there are no landscape features or vegetative cover that would support wildlife movement or native wildlife nursery sites within the project site. The project site is further characterized by open, exposed areas that lack suitable cover and resources that are typically associated with wildlife movement areas. Additionally, the off-site improvement areas occur within developed roadways (Salk Avenue and College Boulevard) with no landscape features or vegetative cover that would support wildlife movement or native wildlife nursery sites. Common birds and mammals might move through the site to forage and during dispersal activities; however, they would not be expected to use the site as a wildlife corridor, linkage, or specific travel route to and from nursery sites or other important resources. The project site, off-site improvement areas, and project vicinity do not support wildlife movement or native wildlife nursery sites. Accordingly, the project would not 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. Thus, no impacts to wildlife movement or native wildlife nursery sites would occur. Mitigation Measures: None e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less Than Significant Impact. CMC Section 11.12.140, Heritage Trees, and Section 11.12.090, Permits Required for Tree Removal and Maintenance, regulates trees located on public streets, trees with notable historic interest, and trees of unusual species or size. There are no City protected trees on the project site or off-site improvement areas. There are two non-native, invasive fig trees within the proposed project footprint that would be removed; however, neither fig tree is in the public right-of-way, of notable historic interest, or of an unusual species or size, pursuant to CMC Section 11.12.140. Therefore, these fig trees are           Final Focused Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 4-8 not considered protected trees. No trees would be impacted by the construction of the off-site sewer line in College Boulevard. Thus, the project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Less Than Significant Impact.The project site and off-site improvement areas are within the boundaries of the City’s Habitat Management Plan (HMP) in Special Resource Area (SRA) 1; however, the project site is not within the HMP Hardline Conservation Area or HMP Proposed Hardline Conservation Area, which is identified in the HMP for conservation. The northernmost approximately 40 feet of the existing driveway that provides access to the project site, which would be improved as part of the proposed project and serve as egress/ingress for the project site, is within 100 feet of a HMP Proposed Hardline Conservation Area (Figure 5, Plans and Policies). The HMP includes Adjacency Standards that are designed to prevent negative effects to urban wildlife preserve systems and include fire management; erosion control; landscaping restrictions; fencing, signs, and lighting; and predator and exotic species control (pursuant to Section F.3 of the HMP). The following describes the project’s adherence to the HMP Adjacency Standards, as required by the City’s conditions of approval for the project: x Fire Management:Proposed improvements associated with the northernmost approximately 40 feet of the existing driveway would be subject to applicable fuel modification zone requirements for fire management. The City’s Fire Department has reviewed and preliminarily approved the proposed fuel modification zones for the project. Additionally, it is noted that the fuel modification area required for the proposed project would not encroach into a HMP Proposed Hardline Conservation Area. As such, the project would adhere to the HMP Adjacency Standards. x Erosion Control:Construction of the project shall include implementation of standard construction best management practices, as well as implementation of a project-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, which would minimize erosion during construction. The project landscape plan shall ensure that project site slopes are stabilized after construction is completed. As such, the project would not result in increased storm water runoff volume or velocity into the preserve, and the project would adhere to the HMP Adjacency Standards. x Landscaping Restrictions:The project landscape plan shall be reviewed by the City Planning Division prior to issuance of a grading permit to ensure that no non-native, invasive plant species are proposed. Drought-tolerant plant species shall also be used on- site to minimize irrigation runoff potential. The project shall limit the amount of fertilization of ornamental plants on the project site that could drain toward the HMP Proposed Hardline Conservation Area to the north of Salk Avenue. As such, the project would adhere to the HMP Adjacency Standards.           Final Focused Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 4-9 x Fencing, Signs, and Lighting:The Project shall not include fencing within the HMP Preserve, and as such, the project would not impede wildlife movement within the preserve. No signs prohibiting entrance into the preserve would be required on the project site, as Salk Avenue is located in between the project site and the closest HMP Proposed Hardline Conservation Area. However, future project residences shall receive educational brochures upon moving in to deter human and pet access into the preserve. Streetlighting currently exists along Salk Avenue. The project shall include security lighting along the driveway; however, proposed lighting would be low pressure sodium, directed downward, and shielded away from the HMP Proposed Hardline Conservation Area. As such, the project would adhere to the HMP Adjacency Standards. x Predator and Exotic Species Control:As previously stated, future project residences shall receive educational brochures upon moving in regarding the nearby HMP Preserve to deter human and pet access into the preserve. As such, the project would adhere to the HMP Adjacency Standards. With adherence to these standards, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of the HMP, including its Adjacency Standards, and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None           l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l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l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inal Focused Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 5-1 5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS Lead Agency – City of Carlsbad Community Development Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Kyle Van Leeuwen, Senior Planner 442-339-2611 Michael Baker International, Inc. Bob Stark, AICP, Principal-in-Charge Melissa Whittemore, Project Manager Audrey Tamayo, Environmental Planner Ryan Henry, Principal Biologist Marisa Flores, Senior Biologist Samantha Martinez, Biologist Connor Lance, GIS Specialist Ana Cotham, Technical Editor           Final Focused Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 6-1 66666....00000 RRRRREEEFFFEEERRREEEEENNNCCCCCEEEEESSSSS Carlsbad, City of. 1999.Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad. Carlsbad, City of. 2016.Landscape Manual –Policies and Requirements. Carlsbad, City of. 2017. City of Carlsbad General Plan Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element. Carlsbad, City of. 2023. Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. Michael Baker International. 2026. Biological Resources Technical Letter Report for the Salk Avenue Apartments Project in Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. RECON. 2001. Revised Biological Technical Report for the Fox Property, Carlsbad, California. RECON. 2004. Biological Resources Survey Update and Project Impact Revisions for Fox-Miller Property, Carlsbad, California.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Final Focused Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Salk Avenue Apartments Project Appendices APPENDIX C: Biological Resources Technical Letter Report           5050 Avenida Encinas, Suite 260 | Carlsbad CA 92008 Office: 760-476-9193 April 30, 2026 JN 205484 JOE GAMBILL Hanover Company 11611 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 740 Los Angeles, California 90049 SUBJECT: Biological Resources Technical Letter Report for the Salk Avenue Apartments Project in Carlsbad, San Diego County, California Dear Mr. Gambill, Michael Baker International is pleased to submit this technical letter report documenting the results of a biological resources assessment for the proposed Salk Avenue Apartments Project (the project), which proposes the development of multifamily residential units in the City of Carlsbad, California. This report is intended to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP). 1.0 PROJECT LOCATION The 9.8-acre project site is located in the City of Carlsbad, California, south of Salk Avenue, west of El Camino Real, east of College Boulevard, and north of Faraday Avenue (Assessor’s Parcel Number 212-021-04-00). The project occurs within Township 12 South, Range 04 West of the San Luis Rey 7.5-minute United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle map (Attachment A, Figure 1, Regional and Project Vicinity). The project site is within the boundaries of the City of Carlsbad HMP and must be in compliance with the plan. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes the construction and occupation of a 397-dwelling unit apartment complex on the approximately 9.8-acre project site (refer to Attachment 2a, Project Site). The residential building would be five stories with a maximum building height of 59 feet, with allowed architectural projections up to 74 feet, 7 inches. The building configuration would result in several outdoor courtyard areas with landscaping and hardscape amenities such as seating areas. A five-level aboveground parking garage would be constructed to the south of the residential building. Surface parking would also be provided along the perimeter of the residential building. Site ingress/egress would occur via a new driveway from Salk Avenue. The property was previously graded around 2007 to create a development pad for the Fox Miller Project but otherwise remains undeveloped. The proposed project would develop 6.35 acres of the project site (Limits of Disturbance) (refer to Attachment A, Figure 2a, Project Site). Off-site improvements for the proposed project would replace approximately 875 linear feet of sewer           Biological Resources Technical Letter Report April 30, 2026 Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 2 pipeline beneath College Boulevard between El Camino Real and Sunny Creek Road (refer to Attachment A, Figure 2b, College Blvd Sewer Line Extension Location). 3.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The project site and a 100-foot buffer (the study area) were evaluated for the proposed project site (refer to Attachment A, Figure 4a, Study Area). A 25-foot study area buffer was applied to the College Boulevard sewer line improvement (off-site improvement area; refer to Attachment A, Figure 4b, Study Area-Off-Site Sewer Line). Elevations on-site range from approximately 170 feet in the northwest along Salk Avenue to 275 feet along the southeastern portion of the project site. Elevations for the off-site improvement area range from 80 feet to 110 feet. Refer to Attachment B for representative photographs taken throughout the project site. Soils on-site consist of the following types (USDA NRCS 2025; see Attachment A, Figure 3a, USDA Soils): x AtC: Altamont Clay, 5 to 9 percent slopes x AtE: Altamont Clay, 15 to 30 percent slopes, warm MAAT, MLRA 20 Soil properties in the off-site improvement area (Study Area-Off-Site Sewer Line) consist of the following types (USDA NRCS 2025; see Attachment A, Figure 3b, USDA Soils-Off-Site Sewer Line): x Altamont clay, 9 to 15 percent slopes, warm MAAT, MLRA 20 x Altamont clay, 15 to 30 percent slopes, warm MAAT, MLRA 20 x Salinas clay, 2 to 5 percent slopes x Tujunga sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes 3.1 Project Site History The project site was previously evaluated as part of a larger property known as the Fox Miller Property II (for the Fox Miller Project). In 2001, a Biological Technical Report was prepared by RECON. Additionally, focused studies for thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia) and coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) were conducted in 2003 (RECON 2004). A Mitigated Negative Declaration was also prepared and adopted by the City of Carlsbad in 2002. After approval of the Fox Miller Project, the Salk Avenue Apartments Project site was filled and graded (circa. 2007) to create a development pad but has remained vacant and undeveloped. The approval of the Fox Miller Project included mitigation for impacts on thread-leaved brodiaea. During the 2003 focused surveys for the Fox Miller Project, a total of 19,100 thread-leaved brodiaea plants were counted; however, none of these plants occurred within the Salk Avenue Apartments Project study area. A coastal California gnatcatcher observation was made in 2000/2001, but this species was not detected during the 2003 RECON focused surveys.           Biological Resources Technical Letter Report April 30, 2026 Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 3 3.2 City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan The HMP provides a comprehensive, citywide, program to identify how the City of Carlsbad, in cooperation with federal and state wildlife agencies, preserves the diversity of habitat and protect sensitive biological resources in some areas, while allowing for development in other areas. The City of Carlsbad’s HMP maps the distribution of vegetation communities and sensitive species through the use of Focus Planning Areas – which are further broken down into HMP cores, linkages and Special Resource Areas. Certain naturally vegetated areas in the City of Carlsbad are too small, edge-effected, or isolated to be considered biological cores or linkage areas but are nonetheless important to preserve design or the conservation of particular species. These areas are described here as Special Resource Areas (SRAs). SRA 1 lies between El Camino Real, Faraday Avenue, and College Boulevard within Zone 5. It comprises slopes covered by grasslands and small patches of coastal sage scrub. This area is known to support a major population of a Narrow Endemic plant species (Brodiaea filifolia) and may support additional Narrow Endemic species. Although SRA 1 is isolated from biological core and linkage areas, conservation of Narrow Endemic plant populations within the SRA is considered important for species conservation. The project site is a covered activity under the City of Carlsbad HMP and is located in SRA 1. However, the project site is not within a HMP Hardline Conservation Area or HMP Proposed Hardline Conservation Area. There is no HMP Hardline Conservation Area located within or between the El Camino Real, Faraday Avenue, and College Boulevard area. There is a HMP Proposed Hardline Conservation Area located to the north of the project site, across Salk Avenue (refer to Attachment A, Figure 6, Plans and Policies). The northernmost 40 feet of the existing driveway that provides access to the project site and would be improved as part of the proposed project and serve as egress/ingress for the project is within 100 feet of a Proposed Hardline area (Attachment A, Figure 6, Plans and Policies) and may be subject to the HMP Adjacency Standards. The HMP Adjacency Standards ensure that the project addresses potential indirect effects and incorporates measures for fire management, erosion control, landscaping, fencing/signs/lighting, and predator/exotic species control. 4.0 METHODS 4.1 Literature Review Prior to conducting the field survey, Michael Baker conducted a thorough literature review and records search to characterize existing site conditions and assess the potential for special-status1 biological resources to occur that might pose a constraint to implementation of the project. A query of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CNDDB 2025) and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2025) was conducted to obtain a list of special-status plant and wildlife species occurrence records within 1 Special-status refers to plant and wildlife species that are federal or state-listed, proposed, or candidates; plant species that have been designated a California Rare Plant Rank by the California Native Plant Society; wildlife species that are designated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife as Fully Protected, or Species of Special Concern; and other state or locally rare vegetation communities.           Biological Resources Technical Letter Report April 30, 2026 Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 4 the following USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle maps: San Luis Rey, Las Pulgas Canyon, Morro Hill, Bonsall, Oceanside, San Marcos, Encinitas, and Rancho Santa Fe. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) IPaC online database was also reviewed to identify special-status species and other resources, such as Critical Habitat, known or expected to occur on the project site or within the immediate vicinity (USFWS 2025). Due to the results listed in the IPaC report, the USFWS Critical Habitat for Threatened & Endangered Species mapping tool (USFWS 2025) was accessed to determine the location of designated Critical Habitat in relation to the project site. Other sources of information about the project site and surrounding area include the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (USDA NRCS 2025) and the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 2025). All the information obtained informed the understanding of the project site and assisted with the field survey and subsequent analysis. The results presented in this report provide a detailed assessment of the suitability of the habitat on-site to support special-status plant and wildlife species and other sensitive natural resources. 4.2 Habitat Assessment/Field Survey Michael Baker biologists Marisa Flores and Samantha Martinez conducted a field assessment on January 24, 2025, between 8:15 a.m. and 10:15 a.m. to document existing conditions, conduct a habitat assessment for special-status plant and wildlife species and sensitive natural communities, and determine the presence of aquatic resources within the project site. Weather conditions were generally sunny and calm with temperatures ranging from 56 to 69 degrees Fahrenheit. The project site and a 100-foot buffer (the study area) was evaluated. Classification of the on-site vegetation communities and other land uses is based on the descriptions of terrestrial vegetation classification systems described in the Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County (Oberbauer et al. 2008) which is based on Holland (1993) classifications. In addition, site characteristics such as soil condition, topography, hydrology, anthropogenic disturbances, indicator species, condition of on-site vegetation communities, and the presence of potentially regulated jurisdictional features were noted. A formal aquatic resources delineation was not conducted. Michael Baker used geographic information systems (GIS) software to digitize the mapped vegetation communities and overlayed the data onto an aerial photograph to further analyze existing conditions and quantify the acreages of each vegetation community on-site. All plant and wildlife species observed during the field survey were recorded in a field notebook. Plant species observed were identified by visual characteristics and morphology in the field while unusual and less familiar plant species were photographed and later identified using taxonomic guides. Plant species nomenclature and taxonomy follows The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second edition (Baldwin et al. 2012) and scientific names are provided immediately following common names of plant species (first reference only). Wildlife detections were made through aural and visual detection, as well as observation of signs including scat, trails, tracks, burrows, and nests.           Biological Resources Technical Letter Report April 30, 2026 Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 5 Field guides used to assist with identification of species during the field survey included The Sibley Guide to Birds (Sibley 2014) for birds, A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians (Stebbins 2003) for herpetofauna, and A Field Guide to Mammals of North America (Reid 2006) for mammals. Wildlife species taxonomy follows the North American Butterfly Association (NABA) (NABA 2025) for butterflies, the Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles (Crother et al. 2017) for herpetofauna, the American Ornithological Society for birds (Chesser et al. 2023), and Mammal Species of the World (Wilson et al. 2005) for mammals. Scientific names are provided immediately following common names of wildlife species (first reference only). The potential for special-status species to occur in the study area was evaluated based on each species’ known geographic distribution and elevation range; species-specific habitat requirements (e.g., vegetation communities/land covers, soils, hydrology, slope/aspect, and other requirements); life history traits (e.g., disturbance tolerance); and Michael Baker biologists’ expertise, knowledge, and best professional judgement. Current and historic records of species identified during the literature review were also considered during the analysis; however, a species’ potential to occur determination was not solely based on the age or location of these previously documented records. The potential to occur categories used in this analysis are defined as follows: x Present:The species was observed or detected within the study area. x Expected:The study area is within the known geographic distribution and elevation range of the species, there is high quality suitable habitat present (considering vegetation, soils, and other factors), and there is viable landscape connectivity to a local, known extant population(s) or sighting(s) within the study area. x Moderate:The study area is within the known geographic distribution and elevation range of the species, there is moderate to low quality suitable habitat present (considering vegetation, soils, and other factors), and there is limited or no landscape connectivity to a local, known, extant population. x Not Expected:The study area is outside the known geographic distribution and elevation range of the species, there is marginal to no suitable habitat, and there is no connectivity to known, extant populations. x Absent:The species was not detected during focused or agency-approved protocol surveys. 5.0 RESULTS 5.1 Vegetation Communities and Land Covers The project site supports the following land cover types: Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, Disturbed Habitat, and Urban/ Developed as summarized in Table 1, Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types, and depicted in Attachment A, Figure 5a, Vegetation Communities/Land Uses and Figure 5b, Vegetation Communities/Land Uses – Off-Site Sewer Line.           Biological Resources Technical Letter Report April 30, 2026 Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 6 TABLE 1. VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND LAND COVER TYPES Vegetation Community/ Land Cover Type Project Site (Acres) Project Site + 100-foot Study Area (Acres) Off-site Sewer Improvement Area LOD (Acres) Off-site Sewer Improvement Area LOD + 25- foot Study Area (Acres) 32530 Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 0.33 0.95 - - 1130 Disturbed Habitat 6.76 9.38 - 0.07 12000 Urban/ Developed 2.69 6.25 0.85 2.78 32500 Coastal Sage Scrub - 0.29 - - 79100 Eucalyptus Woodland - 0.19 - - TOTAL 9.78 17.06 0.85 2.85 Notes: LOD = Limits of Disturbance 32530 Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub The Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub land cover mapping unit is located along the northwestern corner of the project site compromising of a basin vegetated with coyote brush scrub. An undisturbed area of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub was also present south of the project site within the study area. Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub land cover is not impacted by the College Boulevard sewer line extension (Study Area-Off-Site Sewer Line). This area is fully developed (paved roadway) and does not contain natural habitat or vegetation. 1130 Disturbed Habitat The disturbed habitat is primarily escaped ornamentals, scattered coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), and non-native grasses within the rough graded pad. This area is routinely mowed and grass species were not identifiable during the site visit. Additional Disturbed Habitat was observed within the study area west of the project site and was comprised of non-native grasses and artichoke thistle (Cynara cardunculus). The disturbed habitat is also within the off-site study area, west of the off-site improvement area limits of disturbance (Study Area-Off-Site Sewer Line). 12000 Urban/Developed This land cover consists of irrigated ornamental landscaping around the perimeter of the project site and developments to the east and west.           Biological Resources Technical Letter Report April 30, 2026 Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 7 The urban/ developed land cover also includes the off-site limits of disturbance along College Boulevard between El Camino Real and Sunny Creek Road (Study Area-Off-Site Sewer Line). 79100 Eucalyptus Woodland The eucalyptus woodland is located just southwest of the project site, within the study area. It is comprised of a woodland area dominated by gum trees (Eucalyptus spp.) and may provide suitable nesting habitat for large birds and raptors. Eucalyptus Woodlands is not impacted by the College Boulevard sewer line extension (Study Area-Off-Site Sewer Line). This area is fully developed (paved roadway) and does not contain natural habitat or vegetation. 5.2 General Floral Inventory A total of 22 species of native or naturalized plants, 7 native (32 percent) and 15 non-native (68 percent), were recorded on-site. Attachment C, Species Compendiums, contains a list of observed plant species. General native or naturalized plants are not impacted by the College Boulevard sewer line extension (Study Area-Off-Site Sewer Line). This area is fully developed (paved roadway) and does not contain natural habitat or vegetation. 5.3 General Wildlife Inventory A total of 23 wildlife species were observed during the field survey, 21 native (91 percent) and 2 non-native (9 percent). The most commonly occurring birds during the field survey included California towhee (Melo one crissalis), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus). Attachment C contains a full list of wildlife species detected on the project site. General wildlife species are not impacted by the College Boulevard sewer line extension (Study Area-Off-Site Sewer Line). This area is fully developed (paved roadway) and does not contain natural habitat or vegetation. 5.4 Special-Status Biological Resources Sensitive Natural Communities Eleven natural communities considered sensitive by the CDFW were reported in the CNDDB from the eight USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle map regions surrounding and including the San Luis Rey map. These include: x Coastal Brackish Marsh x Maritime Succulent Scrub x San Diego Mesa Claypan Vernal Pool           Biological Resources Technical Letter Report April 30, 2026 Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 8 x San Diego Mesa Hardpan Vernal Pool x Southern Coastal Salt Marsh x Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest x Southern Maritime Chaparral x Southern Riparian Forest x Southern Riparian Scrub x Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland x Southern Willow Scrub The project site consists of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, Disturbed Habitat, and Urban/Developed land cover types. The Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub is located in the northwest corner of the project site and outside the limits of disturbance. There are no natural communities considered sensitive by the CDFW within the project site. There are no sensitive natural communities impacted by the College Boulevard sewer line extension (Study Area-Off-Site Sewer Line). This area is fully developed (paved roadway) and does not contain natural habitat or vegetation. Special-Status Plant Species A total of 68 special-status plant species were reported in the CNDDB and CNPS Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California from the nine USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle map regions surrounding and including the San Luis Rey map. After a review of specific habitat preferences, known distributions, and elevation ranges, one special-status plant species has the potential to occur within the study area: thread-leaved brodiaea. However, Attachment D contains a summary of special-status species with their potential to occur on the project site. There are no sensitive natural communities impacted by the College Boulevard sewer line extension (Study Area-Off-Site Sewer Line). This area is fully developed (paved roadway) and does not contain natural habitat or vegetation. Special-Status Wildlife Species Sixty-four special-status wildlife species were reported in the CNDDB from the eight USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle map regions surrounding and including the San Luis Rey map. A California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica FT, SSC, Covered) was observed within the northwest corner of the project site during the survey (Attachment A, Figure 5a, Vegetation Communities and Other Land Uses). The closest location of Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii SCE) is documented in the CNDDB, with two occurrences of the species in 2024 noted approximately 2.5 miles north of the project site at Lake Calavera Preserve. Therefore, because of (1) the presence of nectaring sources (i.e., food sources) present on and near the project site, (2) the presence of other bumble bees on the project site during the January 24, 2025 biological survey (a yellow-faced bumble bee [Bombus vosnesenskii]), and (3) two known CNDDB identifications of Crotch’s bumble bee within approximately 2.5 miles of the project site, there is           Biological Resources Technical Letter Report April 30, 2026 Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 9 moderate potential for Crotch’s bumble bee to occur on the project site, although likely only within the 0.33-acre patch of Diegan coastal sage scrub in the northwest corner of the project site. No other special-status wildlife species were observed during the field survey and are not expected to occur on the project site due to a lack of suitable habitat and a review of specific habitat preferences, known distributions, and elevation ranges. Attachment D contains a summary of the special-status species with their potential to occur on the project site. There are no special-status wildlife species impacted by the College Boulevard sewer line extension (Study Area-Off-Site Sewer Line). This area is fully developed (paved roadway) and does not contain natural habitat or vegetation. Critical Habitat Under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), Critical Habitat may be established for species listed as threatened or endangered. Critical Habitat refers to specific areas within the geographical range of a species that were occupied at the time it was listed that contain the physical or biological features that are essential to the survival and eventual recovery of that species and that may require special management considerations or protection, regardless of whether the species is still extant in the area. Areas that were not known to be occupied at the time a species was listed can also be designated Critical Habitat if they contain one or more of the physical or biological features that are essential to that species’ conservation and if the other areas that are occupied are inadequate to ensure the species’ recovery. In the event that a project may result in take or adverse modification to a listed species’ designated Critical Habitat, a project proponent may be required to engage in suitable mitigation. However, consultation for impacts to Critical Habitat is only required when a project has a federal nexus. This may include projects that occur on federal lands, require federal permits (e.g., Clean Water Act [CWA] Section 404 permit), or receive any federal oversight or funding. If there is a federal nexus, then the federal agency that is responsible for providing funds or permits would be required to consult with the USFWS under the ESA. The USFWS has mapped designated Critical Habitat for thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia) within the northwestern portion of the project site (Attachment A, Figure 7a, Biological Resource Impacts). Soils on the project site are comprised of fill dirt brought in around 2007 for the Fox Miller Project. Although some clay soils were observed on the margins of the project site, soils within the majority of the project site appeared to be comprised of loam. Based on the focused studies conducted by RECON in 2003, the species was not present on the project site when habitat and soils would have been more suitable for the species. Routine soil and vegetation disturbances also occur on the landscaped slopes and pad. Based on the historic and current site disturbances the project site does not display the physical and biological characteristics for Critical Habitat.           Biological Resources Technical Letter Report April 30, 2026 Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 10 State and Federal Jurisdictional Aquatic Features Four key agencies regulate activities within coastal streams, wetlands, and riparian areas in California. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Regulatory Branch regulates activities that result in the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S., including wetlands, pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Of the state agencies, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates discharges to waters of the State, including wetlands, pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA, Section 13263 of the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State; the CDFW regulates alterations to lakes, streambeds, and associated riparian habitat pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the CFGC; and the California Coastal Commission (CCC) regulates land use in the coastal zone pursuant to the California Coastal Act (CCA). Based on a review of aerial photographs, USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle maps, USFWS National Wetland Inventory maps, and observations made during the field survey, there is one potential jurisdictional aquatic resource in the project site. A vegetated basin, created during initial site grading in 2007, was present at the northwest corner of the project site. A jurisdictional delineation was not conducted as part of the 2025 biological investigations since there would be no effects from the proposed project. 5.5 Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages Wildlife corridors link areas of suitable habitat that are otherwise separated by areas of non-suitable habitat such as rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance. Wildlife corridors are essential to the regional ecology of a species because they provide avenues of genetic exchange and allow animals to access alternative territories as dictated by fluctuating population densities. Fragmentation of open space areas by urbanization creates “islands” of wildlife habitat that are more or less isolated from each other. Corridors mitigate the effects of this fragmentation by (1) allowing animals to move between remaining habitats, thereby permitting depleted populations to be replenished and promoting genetic exchange; (2) providing escape routes from fire, predators, and human disturbances, thus reducing the risk of catastrophic events (such as fire or disease) that could lead to local extinction; and (3) serving as travel routes for individual animals as they move within their home ranges in search of food, water, mates, and shelter. Wildlife corridors are usually bounded by urban land areas or other areas unsuitable for wildlife. The corridor generally contains suitable cover, food, and/or water to support species and facilitate movement while in the corridor. Larger, landscape-level corridors (often referred to as “habitat or landscape linkages”) can provide both transitory and resident habitat for a variety of species. Although it is commonly used as a synonym for wildlife corridor, a habitat linkage refers to a more substantial, or wider, land connection between two habitat areas. Habitat linkages allow for the periodic exchange of animals between habitat areas, which is essential to maintain adequate gene pools. The project site is located within an SRA, which is documented in the City of Carlsbad HMP as an area that is too small, edge-effected, or isolated to be considered biological Cores or linkage           Biological Resources Technical Letter Report April 30, 2026 Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 11 areas. No known wildlife corridors or linkage areas are mapped as occurring on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. The project site is surrounded by a road to the north, commercial buildings to the east and south, and a golf course to the west. There are no landscape features or vegetative cover that would support wildlife movement across the landscape. Thus, the project site does not serve as a habitat linkage or wildlife corridor. 6.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS The following discussion examines the impacts to biological resources that may occur as a result of the proposed project. The determination of impacts is based on both the features of the proposed project and the biological values of the habitat and sensitivity of plant and wildlife species potentially affected. Based on the project description in Section 2.0 and architecture data provided by the project applicant, Michael Baker conducted an impact analysis using GIS technology. Impacts to biological resources are assessed using impact significance threshold criteria, which mirror the policy statement contained in the CEQA, Section 21001(c) of the California Public Resources Code. The questions below model those included in the checklist of questions listed in Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines and that are considered to determine if the project would have significant impacts to biological resources. 6.1 Impacts to Special-Status Species a ould 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 the California Department of Fish and ildlife or U.S. Fish and ildlife Service Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.In general, special-status that are known to the region were not expected to be observed found during surveys on the project site due to general lack of suitable habitat. None of the special-status animal species known to the region have a high potential to occur within the project site due primarily to the isolation of the site from undeveloped habitat blocks in the region and disturbances associated with the highly urbanized setting. The site does not support the constituent elements required by many of the special-status animals known to the region for nesting/breeding, foraging, dispersal, and other life history requirements. However, a coastal California gnatcatcher was observed within the northwest corner of the project site during the 2025 survey of the project study area. It is noted that a coastal California gnatcatcher observation was also made in 2000/2001 in association with the Fox Miller Project focused surveys, but this species was not detected during the 2003 focused surveys. Even though there is no suitable habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher within the project limits of disturbance, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 (refer to Section 7.0, Mitigation Measures, below), would ensure that no indirect effects to coastal California gnatcatcher would occur.           Biological Resources Technical Letter Report April 30, 2026 Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 12 No other special-status wildlife species were observed during the 2025 survey and are not expected to occur on the project site due to a lack of suitable habitat and a review of specific habitat preferences, known distributions, and elevation ranges. The closest location of another type of special-status species is documented in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), with two occurrences of Crotch’s bumble bee in 2024 noted approximately 2.5 miles north of the project site at Lake Calavera Preserve. However, no individuals or nests of Crotch’s bumble bee were observed on or adjacent to the project site during the general biological survey for the project on January 24, 2025. Because of (1) the presence of nectaring sources (i.e., food sources) present on and near the project site, (2) the presence of other bumble bees on the project site during the January 24, 2025 biological survey (a yellow-faced bumble bee), and (3) two known CNDDB identifications of Crotch’s bumble bee within approximately 2.5 miles of the project site, there is moderate potential for Crotch’s bumble bee to occur on the project site, although likely only within the 0.33-acre patch of Diegan coastal sage scrub in the northwest corner of the project site. This limited area of habitat supports nectaring sources that may be used by foraging Crotch’s bumble bee and soils that could provide nesting and overwintering habitat. Although no direct impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee individuals or nests are expected from the project due to lack of suitable nectaring sources for foraging and lack of nesting habitat, there is a potential for indirect effects if the species is present in the 0.33-acre patch of Diegan coastal sage scrub in the northwest corner of the project site. Indirect impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee could occur from fugitive dust during ground-disturbing construction activities. Such indirect impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee would be potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would reduce potential indirect impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee to less than significant levels. Several non-listed, sensitive bird species could potentially nest and/or forage over the site, although the potential is low. These species are relatively common to the region. Construction activities associated with the project could potentially result in significant impacts to nesting birds if project activities cause a nest(s) to fail. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 (refer to Section 7.0, Mitigation Measures, below), project impacts to nesting birds would be less than significant. No special-status plant species were observed during the field survey; however, as discussed in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the Housing Element Update SEIR, thread-leaved brodiaea has a high potential to occur in the Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub in the northwest corner of the project site, which would not be impacted by development of the proposed project. The project site was also subject to focused surveys for the species in 2001 and 2003 associated with the Fox Miller Project. During the 2003 focused surveys, a total of 19,100 thread-leaved brodiaea plants were counted on the Fox Miller Property II; however, none of these plants were observed on the project site. Additionally, the 2002 Fox Miller Project MND concluded that implementation of the Fox Miller Project could potentially result in significant impacts to thread-leaved brodiaea. The required mitigation for impacts to thread-leaved brodiaea due to development of the Fox Miller Property II, which included the project site, was previously conducted under the Fox Miller Project. The proposed project would not introduce new areas of disturbance or result in a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects to thread-leaved brodiaea included in the 2002 MND. The anticipated environmental impacts to thread-leaved           Biological Resources Technical Letter Report April 30, 2026 Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 13 brodiaea were adequately analyzed in the prior environmental analysis, and that impact analysis did not indicate impact on or from the project site, requiring no additional environmental review. The project site was graded in 2007, resulting in primarily developed and disturbed vegetation. Per correspondence with the project applicant, the project site is maintained (mowed) on an annual basis. The isolated 0.33-acre patch of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub in the northwest corner of the project site is located outside the proposed development footprint. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not impact special-status species habitat. Additionally, the project includes an off-site limits of disturbance area associated with installation of a sewer line within the existing developed roadway on College Boulevard (Study Area-Off-Site Sewer Line). This area is fully paved and does not contain natural habitat or vegetation that could support special-status species. Therefore, construction within this off-site improvement area would have no impact on candidate, sensitive, or special-status species. 6.2 Impacts to Sensitive Natural Communities b ould the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and ildlife or U.S. Fish and ildlife Service No Impact. The project site supports the following vegetation communities/land cover types: Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, Disturbed Habitat, and Urban/Developed. Of these, Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub is a sensitive vegetation community and is habitat for sensitive species. The Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub is limited to an isolated 0.33-acre patch in the northwest corner of the project site. However, the isolated 0.33-acre patch of Diegan coastal sage scrub is located outside the proposed limits of disturbance. Further, there is no riparian habitat within the project site, off-site improvement area, or adjacent areas. Therefore, the project would result in no impact on riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities. 6.3 Impacts to State or Federal Wetlands c ould the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected etlands including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc. through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means No Impact. There are no State or Federally protected wetlands on the project site or the off-site improvement area. Therefore, implementation of the project would result in no impact to State or Federally protected wetlands.           Biological Resources Technical Letter Report April 30, 2026 Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 14 6.4 Impacts to Wildlife Movement or Wildlife Corridors d ould the project interfere substantially ith the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or ildlife species or ith established native resident or migratory ildlife corridors, or impede the use of native ildlife nursery sites No Impact. The project site is surrounded by a road to the north, commercial buildings to the east and south, and a golf course to the west. The project site is further characterized by open, exposed areas that lack suitable cover and resources that are typically associated with wildlife movement areas. There are no landscape features or vegetative cover that would support wildlife movement or native wildlife nursery sites across the landscape in the project area. Common birds and mammals might move through the site to forage and during dispersal activities; however, they would not be expected to use the site as a wildlife corridor, linkage, or specific travel route to and from nursery sites other important resources Additionally, the off-site limits of disturbance area (Study Area-Off-Site Sewer Line) is a fully developed road with no landscape features or vegetative cover that would support wildlife movement or native wildlife nursery sites. Thus, the project site, off-site improvement area (Study Area-Off-Site Sewer Line) and immediately adjacent areas do not support wildlife movement or native wildlife nursery sites. Accordingly, the project would not 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, and no impact would occur. 6.5 Conflicts with Local Policies or Ordinances e ould the project conflict ith any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance Less Than Significant Impact. There are no regulated trees on the project site or the off-site improvement area (Study Area-Off-Site Sewer Line) that would be subjected to the provisions of City of Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 11.12.140, Heritage Trees, and Section 11.12.090, Permits Required for Tree Removal and Maintenance. These ordinances regulate trees located on public streets, trees with notable historic interest, and trees of unusual species or size. There are two non-native, invasive fig trees within the proposed project footprint that would be removed; however, neither fig tree is in the public right-of-way, of notable historic interest, or of an unusual species or size, pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 11.12.140. Therefore, these fig trees are not considered protected trees. No trees would be impacted by the construction of the off-site sewer line in College Boulevard. Thus, the project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and impacts would be less than significant.           Biological Resources Technical Letter Report April 30, 2026 Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 15 6.6 Conflicts with Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan f ould the project conflict ith the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan Less Than Significant Impact.As mentioned in Section 3.2 above, the project site and the off- site improvement area (Study Area – Off-Site Sewer Line) are within the boundaries of the City of Carlsbad HMP and is located in SRA 1. However, the project site is not within a HMP Hardline Conservation Area or HMP Proposed Hardline Conservation Area, which is identified for conservation. The northernmost approximately 40 feet of the existing driveway that provides access to the project site and would be improved as part of the proposed project and serve as egress/ingress for the project. This area is within 100 feet of a HMP Proposed Hardline Conservation Area (Attachment A, Figure 6,Plans and Policies). The Proposed Hardline Conservation Areas are specific zones within the HMP that are designated for conservation. The HMP Adjacency Standards are designed to prevent negative effects to urban wildlife preserve system and include fire management; erosion control; landscaping restrictions; fencing, signs, and lighting; and predator and exotic species control (pursuant to Section F.3 of the HMP). Even though the proposed improvements associated with the proposed project are not within a designated HMP Proposed Hardline Conservation Area, the project would be required to adhere to the HMP Adjacency Standards, as part of the City’s conditions of approval for the project. Proposed improvements associated with the northernmost appropriately 40 feet of the existing driveway would be subject to applicable fuel modification zone requirements for fire management; the City Fire Department has reviewed and preliminary approved the proposed fuel modification zones for the project. Additionally, it is noted that the fuel modification area required for the project would not encroach into a HMP Proposed Hardline Conservation Area. Construction of the project would include implementation of standard construction best management practices (BMPs), as well as implementation of a project-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which would minimize erosion during construction. The project landscape plan would ensure project site slopes are stabilized after construction is completed. Additionally, the project landscape plan would be reviewed by the City Planning Division prior to issuance of a grading permit to ensure that no non-native, invasive plant species are proposed. Drought-tolerant plant species would also be used on-site to minimize irrigation runoff potential. The project would limit the amount of fertilization of ornamental plants on the project site that could drain towards the Proposed Hardline area to the north of Salk Avenue. The project would not include fencing within the HMP Preserve, and as such, the project would not impede wildlife movement within the Preserve. No signs prohibiting entrance into the preserve would be required on the project site, as Salk Avenue is located in between the project site and the closest HMP Proposed Hardline Conservation Area. However, to minimize any potential indirect impact, future project residences would receive educational brochures regarding the nearby HMP Preserve to deter human and pet access into the Preserve. Streetlighting currently           Biological Resources Technical Letter Report April 30, 2026 Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 16 exists along Salk Avenue. The project would include security lighting along the driveway; however, proposed lighting would be low pressure sodium, directed downward, and shielded away from the HMP Proposed Hardline Conservation Area. Accordingly, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of the Carlsbad HMP or Adjacency Standards, and impacts would be less than significant. 7.0 MITIGATION MEASURES With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 and Mitigation Measure BIO-2, project impacts to biological resources would be less than significant. No other mitigation is required. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 (Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Surveys, Avoidance, and Notification).If construction activities are initiated during the bird nesting season (February 1– August 31) involving removal of vegetation or other nesting bird habitat, including abandoned structures and other man-made features, a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than three days prior to initiation of ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities. The nesting bird pre-construction survey shall be conducted on foot and shall include a 300-foot survey buffer around the construction site. The survey shall be conducted by a biologist familiar with the identification of avian species known to occur in southern California coastal communities (i.e., qualified biologist). If active nests are found, an avoidance buffer shall be determined by a qualified biologist in coordination with the City. The avoidance buffer width will depend upon the species, the proposed work activity, and existing disturbances associated with land uses outside of the site, which shall be demarcated by the biologist with bright orange construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to demarcate the boundary. All construction personnel shall be notified as to the existence of the buffer zone and to avoid entering the buffer zone during the nesting season. No ground-disturbing activities shall occur within the buffer until the biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed, and the young have fledged the nest. Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the qualified biologist on the basis that the encroachment will not be detrimental to an active nest. A report summarizing the pre-construction survey(s) shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and shall be submitted to the City prior to the commencement of construction activities. If an active coastal California gnatcatcher nest is found during pre-construction surveys, a minimum 500-foot no-disturbance buffer shall be established around the nest. The buffer shall be clearly marked (e.g., with fencing or flagging) and maintained until a qualified biologist confirms that the young have fledged, the nest is no longer active, or that construction noise levels can be maintained below 60 dBA Leq at the nest site with a smaller buffer. In no circumstances shall a buffer of less than 100 feet be used even with noise attenuation measures. Any reduction in the 500-foot buffer must be supported by site-specific analysis by the qualified biologist and approved by the City in consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service.           Biological Resources Technical Letter Report April 30, 2026 Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 17 Note: To mitigate the potential impact to California gnatcatcher or other nesting birds, this mitigation measure shall be applied to land use and activities occurring at the project site. No Pre- Construction Nesting Bird Surveys, Avoidance, and Notification mitigation is required to implement the Study Area-Off-Site Sewer Line portion of the project. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 (Crotch’s Bumble Bee [CBB] Avoidance and Clearance Survey). x Focused Survey. Three on-site surveys for Crotch’s bumble bee (CBB) shall be conducted prior to initiation of ground disturbing project activities to identify if the CBB is present within the project site. This survey shall be conducted simultaneously with the blooming period of the species’ recognized food plants, when the CBB is most active. Each survey shall be spaced at least 2 weeks but no more than 4 weeks apart, corresponding with the Colony Active Season for Bombus species (April–August). The surveying biologist shall be familiar with the primary identification characteristics of the CBB and be proficient in the methodology produced by the Xerces Society. The qualified biologist shall utilize a telephoto lens or a sufficiently long macro lens to obtain high-quality photos of bumble bees, sufficient for species identification, without having to capture and potentially harm the bumble bees. x Absence of Species. If no CBB are detected during the focused surveys, no further measures shall be necessary. x Presence of Species. If CBB are detected, then site-specific measures shall be implemented to avoid take unless an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) for the species is obtained from CDFW. Such avoidance measures shall include: o If vegetation removal activities and initial ground-disturbing activities (i.e., clearing, grubbing, and initial site grading) occur during the Queen and Gyne Flight Period and Colony Active Period for these species (February–October), a qualified biologist shall conduct daily biological monitoring. During monitoring, the qualified biologist shall inspect suitable habitat for CBB activity within the day’s work area. If the species is not detected, then project activities can proceed without further biological monitoring that day. o If the CBB is detected using nectar sources, then a no-disturbance buffer of at least 25 feet around the individual(s) shall be established, and the individual(s) shall be monitored by a biological monitor until the CBB are confirmed to have left the area on their own. o If a CBB nest is detected where ground disturbance is proposed to occur, then a minimum 30-foot no-disturbance buffer (with a buffer of up to 60 feet if disturbance is substantial) around the nest shall be established. This buffer shall remain in place until the nest senesces, which would occur after no nest activity observations for three sequential days. The qualified biologist shall discuss the buffer with the           Biological Resources Technical Letter Report April 30, 2026 Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 18 contractor to ensure that work areas, including ingress and egress routes, avoid the CBB. o If the project cannot avoid the established no-disturbance buffer(s) identified above, the project applicant shall halt work within the buffer area and shall consult with CDFW on appropriate avoidance actions and obtain an Incidental Take Permit if necessary. Note: To mitigate the potential impact to Crotch’s Bumble Bee (CBB), this mitigation measure shall be applied to land use and activities occurring at the project site. No CBB Avoidance and Clearance Survey mitigation is required to implement the Study Area-Off-Site Sewer Line portion of the project. 8.0 CONCLUSIONS With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 and Mitigation Measure BIO-2, the proposed Salk Avenue Apartments Project’s impacts to biological resources would to less than significant. Please do not hesitate to contact Marisa Flores at (858) 614-5052 or marisa.flores@mbakerintl.com should you have any questions or require further information. Sincerely, Marisa Flores Associate Natural Resources Technical Manager Attachments A. Figures B. Site Photographs C. Species Compendium D. Special-Status Species Potential to Occur Tables Marisa Flores YŻ÷ŀµ0ďƒeŀ           Biological Resources Technical Letter Report April 30, 2026 Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 19 REFERENCES Carlsbad, City of .1999. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad. CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2025. Natural Communities List Arranged Alphabetically by Life Form. January 2025. Accessed January 22, 2025. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities. Chesser, R. T., S. M. Billerman, K. J. Burns, C. Cicero, J. L. Dunn, B. E. Hernández-Baños, R. A. Jiménez, A. W. Kratter, N. A. Mason, P. C. Rasmussen, J. V. Remsen, Jr., and K. Winker. 2023. Check-list of North American Birds (online). American Ornithological Society. https://checklist.americanornithology.org/taxa/. CNDDB (California Natural Diversity Database). 2025. RareFind 5 [Internet]. California Department of Fish and Wildlife [January 22, 2025]. CNDDB. 2025. Special Animals List. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA. CNDDB. 2025. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA. CNDDB. 2025. State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA. CNDDB. 2025. State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA. CNPS (California Native Plant Society), Rare Plant Program. 2025. Rare Plant Inventory (online edition, v9.5). Website https://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed 22 January 2025]. Crother, B.I., ed. 2017. Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North America North of Mexico, with Comments Regarding Confidence in Our Understanding. Herpetological Circular, no. 43. 8th ed. Shoreview, Minnesota: Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. https://ssarherps.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/10/8th-Ed-2017-Scientific-and-Standard-English-Names.pdf. Google (Google, Inc.). 2025. Google Earth Pro, version 7.3.6.9345. Historical aerial imagery from 1985 to 2025. HistoricAerials.com. 2025. Historic aerial image from 1962. http://www.historicaerials.com. NABA (North American Butterfly Association). 2025.Checklist of North American Butterflies, Butterflies Occurring North of Mexico, Edition ..https://naba.org/butterfly-names- checklist/. Oberbauer, Thomas, Meghan Kelly, and Jeremy Buegge. March 2008. Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County. Based on “Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California,” Robert F. Holland, Ph.D., October 1986.           Biological Resources Technical Letter Report April 30, 2026 Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 20 RECON. 2001. Revised Biological Technical Report for the Fox Property, Carlsbad, California. April. RECON. 2004. Biological Resources Survey Update and Project Impact Revisions for Fox-Miller Property, Carlsbad, California. Reid, F.A. 2006. A Field Guide to Mammals of North America, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, New York. Sibley, D.A. 2014. The Sibley Guide to Birds, Second Edition. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York, New York. Stebbins, R.C. 2003. A Field Guide to estern Reptiles and Amphibians, Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, New York. USDA NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2025. Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx [accessed April 5, 2024]. USFWS. 2025. Critical Habitat for Threatened & Endangered Species. https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=9d8de5e265ad4fe098 93cf75b8dbfb77 [accessed January 22, 2025]. USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2025. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/index [accessed January 22, 2025]. USFWS. 2025. National Wetlands Inventory. Website https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/[accessed January 22, 2025]. Wilson, D.E., and D.M. Reeder, eds. 2005. Mammal Species of the orld A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. 3rd ed. Online version. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press. Accessed August 17, 2010. http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3/.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments SCH No. 2026030432 May 2026 Lead Agency Prepared by City of Carlsbad Community Development Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 5050 Avenida Encinas, Suite 260 Carlsbad, CA 92008 JN 205484           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page i Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction....................................................................................................................... 1-1 2.0 Comment Letters Received and Responses to Comments.......................................... 2-1 Letter 1 ................................................................................................................................... 2-2 Letter 2 ................................................................................................................................. 2-26           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 1-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Carlsbad (City) prepared a Focused Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Salk Avenue Apartments Project (proposed project). Pursuant to Sections 15072 and 15073 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the IS/MND and Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt the MND were circulated for a 31-day public review period that began on February 25, 2026, and ended on March 27, 2026. The NOI was filed with the County of San Diego County Clerk on February 25, 2026. Additionally, the IS/MND and NOI were posted on the City’s website throughout the duration of the public review period and hard copies were made available for public review at the City’s Planning Division Counter. A total of two comment letters were received during the public review period. The letters are included herein in their entirety and are followed by the City’s written responses. Refer to Section 2.0, Comment Letters Received and Responses to Comments. Pursuant to Section 15074(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the lead agency (City) is required to consider the MND along with any comments received during the public review period. While written responses to comments submitted on MNDs are not required, responses are provided herein to each written comment received for the record, with particular regard for environmental concerns related to CEQA issues. Based on the whole of the record, the City finds that the comments received do not raise any new potentially significant impacts, do not identify an increase to the severity of any impacts disclosed in the IS/MND, and do not require substantial revision of the IS/MND. Pursuant to Section 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, recirculation of the IS/MND is not required. Further, preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not required as all potentially significant environmental impacts that may result from the proposed project have been mitigated to less than significant levels.           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 2-1 2.0 COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Re: Comment on Focused Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Salk Avenue Apartments Project (SCH No. 2026030432); AB 130/SB 131 CEQA Exemption Evaluation (Appendices A and B) Dear Mr. Van Leeuwen: I am submitting the following comments on the Focused Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“Focused IS/MND”) and the associated AB 130 Housing Development Project CEQA Exemption Evaluation Checklist (Appendix A) and SB 131 Exclusions of Certain Types of Housing Development Projects CEQA Exemption Evaluation (Appendix B) prepared for the Salk Avenue Apartments Project (“Project”) in the City of Carlsbad (“City”). The Project proposes 397 multi-family residential dwelling units in a Ʊve-story building on an approximately 9.78-acre site located on Salk Avenue within the Fenton Carlsbad Center SpeciƱc Plan area. The Project claims entitlement to a 35 percent density bonus under Government Code Section 65915 and relies on the SB 131 near-miss pathway under Public Resources Code Section 21080.1 to limit CEQA review to biological resources, asserting that habitat for protected species under Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6)(J) is the sole disqualifying condition preventing full AB 130 exemption. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(f)(2) and Public Resources Code Section 21082.2, an Environmental Impact Report is required whenever substantial evidence supports a fair argument that a project may have a signiƱcant eƯect on the environment, regardless of whether other substantial evidence supports a contrary conclusion. (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75.) As detailed below, the administrative record raises two independent grounds for challenge: (1) the Project does not qualify for SB 131 near-miss treatment because it fails the AB 130 statutory exemption due to multiple disqualifying conditions, not a single condition; and (2) even accepting the City’s single-condition framework arguendo, the Focused IS/MND’s biological resources analysis is substantively inadequate because it fails to analyze well- documented impact pathways identiƱed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as threats to the survival and recovery of species conƱrmed on-site. Each ground independently requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. I. THE SB 131 NEAR-MISS PATHWAY IS UNAVAILABLE BECAUSE THE RECORD IDENTIFIES MULTIPLE DISQUALIFYING CONDITIONS The Project’s entire CEQA compliance strategy depends on a single premise: that habitat for protected species under Section 65913.4(a)(6)(J) is the only condition disqualifying the Project from the AB 130 statutory exemption. PRC Section 21080.1(4)(B) expressly provides that SB 131’s streamlined review does not apply to “[a] proposed housing development 1-1 Pa e 2-2           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project project that is ineligible for the statutory exemption or categorical exemption due to two or more conditions.” The administrative record identiƱes multiple disqualifying conditions through two independent analytical pathways. A. Three Species Under Three Regulatory Frameworks Constitute Multiple Conditions Under Section 21080.66(a)(6)(J) Section 21080.66(a)(6)(J) disqualiƱes sites containing “[h]abitat for protected species identiƱed as candidate, sensitive, or species of special status by state or federal agencies, fully protected species, or species protected by the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 . . . , the California Endangered Species Act . . . , or the Native Plant Protection Act.” The statute does not treat these as synonyms. It enumerates distinct legal categories with distinct regulatory consequences. The Project’s own biological consultant identiƱes habitat or conƱrmed presence for three distinct species operating under at least three separate regulatory frameworks: Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica): Federally listed as threatened under the ESA; California Species of Special Concern. ConƱrmed present on- site during the January 24, 2025 biological survey. The site includes USFWS-designated critical habitat. This species has its own recovery plan, recovery implementation strategy, and critical habitat designation rule, all administered by the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife OƯice, the same USFWS oƯice with jurisdiction over this Project site. The gnatcatcher triggers federal Section 7 consultation requirements. Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii): State candidate endangered under CESA, with protections equivalent to a fully listed species under Fish and Game Code Section 2085. The Focused IS/MND acknowledges “moderate potential” for occurrence and identiƱes CDFW as a trustee agency that may need to issue an Incidental Take Permit, a separate discretionary action under an entirely diƯerent statutory framework than the ESA. Thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea Ʊlifolia): Federally threatened under the ESA; state endangered under CESA; California Rare Plant Rank 1B.1; additionally protected under the Native Plant Protection Act. USFWS has designated critical habitat on the Project site. This single species is subject to protection under three separate statutory frameworks - the ESA, CESA, and NPPA - each independently referenced in Section 21080.66(a)(6)(J). PRC Section 21080.1 deƱnes “condition” as “a physical or regulatory feature of the project or its setting or eƯect on the environment caused by the project.” Each of these three species involves distinct physical and regulatory features. The gnatcatcher is an obligate coastal sage scrub species with speciƱc territory requirements, noise sensitivity thresholds, and vulnerabilit to redation and brood arasitism. Crotch’s bumble bee is a 1 1 (cont.) Pa e 2-3           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project ground-nesting pollinator with entirely diƯerent habitat use patterns requiring nectaring sources and speciƱc soil conditions for nesting and overwintering, triggering a separate CESA regulatory pathway. Thread-leaved brodiaea is an edaphic specialist dependent on speciƱc clay soil moisture regimes, with diƯerent sensitivity to altered hydrology; a distinct impact pathway not shared with the other two species. The presence of three biologically distinct species, three separate listing statutes, three independent regulatory pathways, and three diƯerent impact mechanisms constitutes multiple “physical or regulatory feature[s]” of the Project’s setting. The City’s conƲation of these into a single “condition” is inconsistent with the statutory text. B. The HMP Special Resource Area Designation Creates an Independent Second Disqualifying Condition The Project’s own biological technical report states that the site is “not within a . . . Special Resource Area.” In the same section, the report quotes the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan description of Special Resource Area 1 as lying “between El Camino Real, Faraday Avenue, and College Boulevard within Zone 5.” The Project site is located south of Salk Avenue, west of El Camino Real, east of College Boulevard, and north of Faraday Avenue, within the geographic boundaries the HMP describes for SRA 1. The document quotes the description and then denies the site falls within it, without explanation or reconciliation. The HMP describes SRA 1 as supporting “a major population of a Narrow Endemic plant species (Brodiaea Ʊlifolia)” and states that “conservation of Narrow Endemic plant populations within the SRA is considered important for species conservation.” This language, “identiƱed” in an adopted NCCP as “important for species conservation” maps directly onto the disqualifying condition in Section 65913.4(a)(6)(I): lands identiƱed for conservation in an adopted natural community conservation plan. This reading is reinforced by SB 158, signed October 11, 2025, which revised the deƱnition of “natural and protected lands” in PRC Section 21067.5 to expressly include lands identiƱed for conservation in an adopted NCCP. The Carlsbad HMP is an NCCP. The SRA designation, which the HMP itself describes as important for species conservation, constitutes identiƱcation for conservation under the post-SB 158 framework. If SRA 1 constitutes land identiƱed for conservation under Section 65913.4(a)(6)(I), the Project has at minimum two disqualifying conditions: (a)(6)(J) for protected species habitat and (a)(6)(I) for NCCP conservation lands. Two conditions defeat the near-miss pathway under Section 21080.1(4)(B). The consequence is the collapse of the focused IS/MND framework, requiring full CEQA review of all environmental topics. 1 1 (cont.) 1-2 Pa e 2-4           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project C. The Two Analytical Pathways Are Independent and Cumulative The multi-species argument (Section I.A) and the SRA 1 argument (Section I.B) are independent. Either alone establishes multiple disqualifying conditions. Together, they demonstrate that the Project’s claimed single condition is, at minimum, two conditions and potentially several more. The City must prevail on both arguments to sustain the near- miss pathway. If either succeeds, full CEQA review is required for all environmental topics including the disciplines the SB 131 framework currently excludes: air quality, traƯic, noise, hydrology, geology, aesthetics, greenhouse gas emissions, and land use. II. EVEN IF THE NEAR-MISS PATHWAY IS AVAILABLE, THE FOCUSED BIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS IS INDEPENDENTLY INADEQUATE Independent of whether the Project satisƱes the statutory criteria for the SB 131 near-miss pathway, the IS/MND contains signiƱcant analytical deƱciencies that independently require preparation of an EIR. Under the SB 131 framework, the biological analysis is the only environmental analysis required. The adequacy of that analysis is therefore the central question for the entire environmental document. The deƱciencies identiƱed below demonstrate that the analysis does not satisfy CEQA’s requirements. A. Deferred Baseline Investigations for Listed and Candidate Species The IS/MND adopts less-than-signiƱcant Ʊndings for two listed or candidate species without Ʊrst establishing whether those species are present on the project site. The signiƱcance determinations are contingent on information that does not yet exist in the record. Crotch’s bumble bee.MM BIO-2 defers the presence/absence determination to preconstruction focused surveys conducted after project approval. If the species is detected, avoidance buƯers are required; if avoidance is not feasible, an ITP must be obtained from CDFW. The IS/MND concludes less than signiƱcant with mitigation without knowing whether the species is present, what the extent of use is, or whether avoidance is feasible. The focused surveys required by MM BIO-2 are the analysis necessary to determine signiƱcance and should have been conducted during CEQA review. (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296.) The deferral is compounded by a facial inconsistency. The biological technical report states that the 0.33-acre CSS patch “supports nectaring sources that may be used by foraging Crotch’s bumble bee and soils that could provide nesting and overwintering habitat.” The IS/MND then states that “no direct impacts to CBB individuals or nests are expected from the project due to lack of suitable nectaring sources for foraging and lack of nesting habitat.” The document identiƱes suitable habitat as the basis for a moderate occurrence 1-3 1-4 Pa e 2-5           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project potential and then denies the existence of that same habitat to support a less-than- signiƱcant determination. This internal contradiction undermines the reliability of the signiƱcance conclusion. Thread-leaved brodiaea The IS/MND concludes no impact based on focused surveys conducted in 2001 and 2003 - twenty-two to twenty-four years before the current document - and a January 2025 survey conducted outside the species’ March-through-June blooming period. Thread-leaved brodiaea is a geophyte reliably detectable only during bloom. The 0.33-acre CSS patch overlapping USFWS-designated critical habitat was not graded in 2007 and remains intact. The document’s own Attachment D assigns “Moderate” potential. No current-year focused botanical survey during the blooming period has been conducted. The CDFW 2018 Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations require Ʋoristic surveys timed to the blooming period of target species. Foundational baseline deƱciency Both species-speciƱc failures are symptomatic of a broader problem. The entire biological resources analysis rests on a single two-hour habitat assessment conducted on January 24, 2025, from 8:15 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. January is outside the primary blooming period for most special-status plant species in coastal San Diego County, outside the breeding season for gnatcatcher, and outside the colony active season for Crotch’s bumble bee. The document uses this single winter visit to inform the dismissal of 64 special-status wildlife species and 67 of 68 special-status plant species as “not expected to occur.” Where the SB 131 framework concentrates the entire CEQA document on biological resources, the adequacy of the biological baseline is paramount. B. ConƱrmed Federally Threatened Species: Inadequate Analysis and Unenforceable Mitigation A coastal California gnatcatcher was conƱrmed present on the project site during the January 2025 survey. The IS/MND’s treatment of this species is deƱcient in four independent respects. 1. No Protocol Survey No protocol-level focused survey was conducted. The USFWS Coastal California Gnatcatcher Presence/Absence Survey Protocol requires a minimum of six breeding- season visits between March 15 and June 30 with taped vocalization playback. Without protocol data on territory boundaries, pair status, and nesting locations, the document cannot evaluate whether the 100-foot buƯer between the CSS patch and the development 1-4 (cont.) 1-5 1-6 1-7 Pa e 2-6           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project footprint is adequate. USFWS guidance recommends a minimum 500-foot buƯer from active nests or demonstration that construction noise will not exceed 60 dB(A) Leq at the nest. The IS/MND evaluates the project against neither standard. 2. Unenforceable Mitigation MM BIO-1 defers the determination of avoidance buƯer width to the discretion of a qualiƱed biologist “in coordination with the City” without establishing minimum buƯer distances or noise thresholds. While discretionary buƯer determination is accepted practice for common nesting birds, it is insuƯicient for a federally threatened species with established noise sensitivity thresholds. A mitigation measure that defers the critical protective determination for a federally listed species to post-approval discretion without minimum enforceable criteria does not constitute enforceable mitigation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4. 3. Omission of Indirect Impact Analysis The IS/MND concludes “No Impact” to sensitive natural communities under threshold (b) based solely on avoidance of direct impacts to the 0.33-acre CSS patch. This determination fails to analyze indirect impacts from a 397-unit, Ʊve-story residential complex approximately 100 feet away. The document’s own analysis under threshold (f) acknowledges the need for HMP Adjacency Standards to address lighting, erosion, invasive species, and predator control - the same categories of indirect eƯects that must be analyzed under threshold (b). The document cannot simultaneously acknowledge indirect eƯects under one threshold and deny them under another. 4. Failure to Address Federal Recovery Framework The IS/MND’s indirect impact analysis and mitigation measures are inconsistent with the federal recovery planning framework for the species conƱrmed on-site. The USFWS completed the Recovery Implementation Strategy for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher in July 2025, prepared by the same Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife OƯice with jurisdiction over the Project site. The USFWS also published the Draft Recovery Plan for the species in 2025. These documents identify speciƱc threats and recovery priorities that the IS/MND fails to address: Predation. The USFWS critical habitat designation rule (68 Fed. Reg. 20228, April 24, 2003) identiƱes predation as the most common cause of nest failure, accounting for 30 to 60 percent of nest failures in some areas, and speciƱcally identiƱes domestic or feral cat as a recognized predator of gnatcatcher eggs and nestlings. (Citing Atwood 1990; Braden et al. 1997; Grishaver et al. 1998.) The 1993 listing rule recognized the “synergistic eƯects” of redation in combination with habitat loss, fra mentation, and cowbird arasitism. 1-7 (cont.) 1-8 1-9 1 10 Pa e 2-7           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Gnatcatchers nest at approximately three feet above ground in coastal sage scrub, well within reach of domestic cats. The Project will introduce potentially hundreds of domestic cats within 100 feet of conƱrmed gnatcatcher habitat. The IS/MND’s sole response is “educational brochures” to future residents, characterized as an HMP adjacency standard rather than analyzed as a species impact. Educational brochures are not an enforceable mitigation measure and would not satisfy requirements under ESA Section 7 or Section 10. Brown-headed cowbird brood parasitism. The Focused IS/MND contains no analysis of cowbird brood parasitism despite the fact that cowbird parasitism was identiƱed in the 1993 listing rule as a contributing threat. The July 2025 Recovery Implementation Strategy makes cowbird control a Priority 3 recovery action (Action 7), including monitoring occupied areas for cowbird presence and trapping where necessary. A 397-unit residential complex will generate food subsidies - trash, pet food, bird feeders, landscaping with seed- producing ornamentals - that attract cowbirds into adjacent habitat. The complete absence of cowbird analysis is a signiƱcant deƱciency. Habitat connectivity and fragmentation. The IS/MND makes a “No Impact” Ʊnding on wildlife movement, asserting that the site does not support wildlife corridors. This Ʊnding is directly contradicted by the federal recovery framework. The Draft Recovery Plan states that gnatcatchers require “connected habitat patches of adequate area and quality” for population viability. The Recovery Implementation Strategy identiƱes restoring areas to “enhance connectivity of areas occupied by coastal California gnatcatcher” as a Priority 2 action (Activity 4-6), noting this is “particularly important where open areas may be fragmented by development.” Activity 4-7 speciƱcally targets the gnatcatcher corridor identiƱed in the MHCP, the conservation planning framework under which Carlsbad’s HMP operates. The USFWS 2024 Ʊve-year status review notes the gnatcatcher “is likely to be sensitive to further increases in fragmentation and isolation of habitat within the northern portion of its range.” The 0.33-acre CSS patch with a conƱrmed gnatcatcher is likely functioning as stepping-stone habitat within the broader HMP preserve network. A Ʊve- story building with perimeter retaining walls will permanently sever any connectivity function. ArtiƱcial lighting. The IS/MND addresses lighting only as an HMP adjacency design standard (low-pressure sodium, directed downward, shielded). It entirely ignores the aggregate lighting from a Ʊve-story, 397-unit residential building with windows, balconies, common areas, a swimming pool, a Ʊve-level parking structure with rooftop parking, and 27,000 square feet of outdoor open space. The building itself is a massive permanent light source that will alter the light environment of adjacent CSS habitat, aƯecting avian 1 10 (cont.) 1 11 Pa e 2-8           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project behavior, predator-prey dynamics, and insect foraging patterns relevant to both gnatcatcher prey availability and bumble bee foraging. Invasive species. The Recovery Implementation Strategy identiƱes control of nonnative vegetation as a Priority 2 recovery action (Action 5). The IS/MND addresses invasive species solely through a landscape plan review commitment. It does not analyze the invasive species introduction pathway from a 397-unit development: irrigation overspray, garden escapees, ornamental seed dispersal, and nutrient inputs via fertilizer runoƯ. These are standard impact pathways at the urban-wildland interface. Altered hydrology and thread-leaved brodiaea critical habitat. The Project will convert approximately 9.78 acres to largely impervious surface, including a 416,152-square-foot building and 107,300-square-foot parking structure. Thread-leaved brodiaea is an edaphic specialist dependent on speciƱc soil moisture conditions in clay soils. USFWS designated critical habitat on-site because the physical and biological features essential for the species’ conservation are present. The IS/MND contains no analysis of whether altered drainage patterns, inƱltration rates, or soil moisture regimes from the Project will aƯect designated critical habitat 100 feet away. The stormwater discussion is limited to construction-phase erosion BMPs. C. Internal Inconsistencies Undermine SigniƱcance Determinations The IS/MND contains internal inconsistencies where the document simultaneously identiƱes and denies the existence of habitat conditions. As discussed above, the Crotch’s bumble bee habitat characterization is facially contradictory: suitable habitat is identiƱed as the basis for moderate occurrence potential and then denied to support a less-than-signiƱcant determination. The SRA 1 geographic inconsistency is similarly irreconcilable: the report quotes an HMP description that places the site within SRA 1 and then denies the site is within an SRA. If the site is within SRA 1, the HMP consistency analysis must address SRA-speciƱc conservation objectives, including the protection of narrow endemic plant populations—speciƱcally thread-leaved brodiaea. D. The 0.33-Acre CSS Patch: Convergence of Analytical DeƱciencies The deƱciencies identiƱed above converge on a single feature: the 0.33-acre patch of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub in the northwest corner of the site. This patch was not graded in 2007 and remains intact. It overlaps USFWS-designated critical habitat for thread-leaved brodiaea. It falls within the geographic boundaries described for HMP Special Resource Area 1. A coastal California gnatcatcher was conƱrmed present. The biological technical 1 11 (cont.) 1 12 1 13 1 14 1 15 1 16 Pa e 2-9           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project report identiƱes it as supporting nectaring sources and soils suitable for Crotch’s bumble bee. The HMP describes SRA 1 as designated speciƱcally to protect the narrow endemic plant species that this critical habitat was designated to conserve. The document’s treatment of this feature exhibits the full range of analytical deƱciencies: baseline characterization based on a single out-of-season survey and decades-old focused studies; no protocol survey for a conƱrmed federally listed bird; a signiƱcance determination for a candidate species that contradicts the document’s own habitat characterization; a “No Impact” Ʊnding for indirect eƯects to a sensitive natural community that the document elsewhere acknowledges will experience indirect eƯects; denial of SRA status contradicted by the document’s own quoted HMP description; mitigation measures lacking enforceable performance standards; and complete omission of impact pathways identiƱed by the species’ own federal recovery framework. The systematic minimization of this feature’s signiƱcance across multiple analytical dimensions is not the product of independent professional judgments reaching consistent conclusions. III. THE CDFW INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT ISSUE IS UNRESOLVED The Focused IS/MND identiƱes CDFW as a trustee agency that may need to issue an Incidental Take Permit for Crotch’s bumble bee. MM BIO-2 provides that if the Project “cannot avoid the established no-disturbance buƯer(s),” the applicant “shall consult with CDFW on appropriate avoidance actions and obtain an Incidental Take Permit if necessary.” If an ITP is required, CDFW must make its own CEQA Ʊndings as a responsible agency before issuing the permit. The Focused IS/MND does not address whether this document - limited by SB 131 to the environmental eƯects of a single condition - provides adequate CEQA coverage for CDFW’s independent responsible agency obligations. This procedural gap creates uncertainty about whether the document can serve its intended function if CDFW determines that a discretionary ITP action is required. IV. SYSTEMATIC PATTERN OF MINIMIZATION The individual deƱciencies documented above are not isolated analytical errors. They form a unidirectional pattern. Across the biological resources analysis—the sole discipline reviewed under the SB 131 framework, every analytical choice trends toward a less-than- signiƱcant determination and in favor of project approval: Reliance on a single two-hour winter survey as the sole current Ʊeld eƯort; use of twenty- two-year-old focused surveys in lieu of current blooming-period surveys for a federally listed plant with critical habitat on-site; failure to conduct protocol surveys for a federally listed bird conƱrmed resent; internal inconsistenc in habitat characterization for a state 1 16 (cont.) 1 17 1 18 Pa e 2-10           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project candidate endangered species; deferral of species presence/absence determinations to post-approval mitigation; omission of indirect impact analysis for a sensitive natural community that the document elsewhere acknowledges will experience indirect eƯects; complete omission of predation, cowbird parasitism, habitat connectivity, altered hydrology, and invasive species impact pathways identiƱed in the species’ own federal recovery framework; denial of SRA status contradicted by the document’s own quoted HMP description; and mitigation measures lacking enforceable performance standards for listed species. No counterdirectional Ʊnding was identiƱed. No instance was found where the document overstated an impact, applied a more protective standard than warranted, or erred in a direction that disfavored the project. This unidirectional pattern is independently signiƱcant under Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 515–516, as it demonstrates that the IS/MND does not serve CEQA’s informational purpose. The pattern is particularly consequential here because the SB 131 near-miss framework concentrates the entire CEQA analysis on biological resources, the single discipline where the pattern of minimization is most pronounced. The document that was supposed to provide rigorous, focused biological analysis as the tradeoƯ for exempting every other environmental topic from review has instead produced the least reliable analysis in the record. V. CONCLUSION AND REQUESTED ACTIONS The administrative record contains substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may have signiƱcant eƯects on biological resources. The record also demonstrates that the Project does not satisfy the statutory eligibility criteria for the SB 131 near-miss pathway, given (a) the presence of three species under three regulatory frameworks constituting multiple conditions under Section 21080.66(a)(6)(J), and (b) the potential second disqualifying condition of NCCP conservation lands under Section 65913.4(a)(6)(I). I respectfully requests that the City: 1. Withdraw the Focused IS/MND and conduct full CEQA review through a comprehensive Initial Study or Environmental Impact Report addressing all environmental topics, on the grounds that the Project fails the AB 130 exemption due to multiple conditions and does not qualify for SB 131 near-miss treatment; 1 18 (cont.) 1 19 Pa e 2-11           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project 2. In the alternative, if the City maintains the single-condition framework, substantially revise the Focused IS/MND to include: (a) protocol-level gnatcatcher surveys per the USFWS protocol; (b) current blooming-period surveys for thread-leaved brodiaea within the designated critical habitat; (c) pre-approval focused surveys for Crotch’s bumble bee; (d) analysis of all indirect impact pathways identiƱed in this letter, including predation, cowbird parasitism, artiƱcial lighting, altered hydrology, invasive species, and habitat connectivity, with reference to the USFWS Recovery Implementation Strategy and Draft Recovery Plan; and (e) enforceable mitigation measures with minimum performance standards for all listed and candidate species; and 3. Refrain from adopting the Focused IS/MND until all tribal consultations under AB 52 are complete and CDFW has conƱrmed whether an Incidental Take Permit will be required for Crotch’s bumble bee. This letter is submitted for inclusion in the administrative record for the Project. Respectfully submitted, Jim jkmiller7@proton.me 1-20 1-21 Pa e 2-12           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 2-13 Responses to Comments from Jim Miller Response to Comment 1-1 The City acknowledges that the project site contains, or could support, three special-status species or habitats, all of which have been thoroughly evaluated in the IS/MND. According to CEQA exemption criteria, these are considered collectively as “habitat for protected species,” which is a single disqualifying factor under Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6)(J). Pursuant to AB 130, the City evaluated whether these biological conditions constitute more than one disqualifying factor. The City does not agree that these three special-status species/habitats should be viewed as “multiple conditions” within the law; instead, it is a single environmental topic (biological resources) with several components included, each fully addressed. Therefore, the AB 130/SB 131 Focused IS/MND remains valid, and the project’s biological impacts have been avoided or minimized to less than significant levels with implementation of the identified mitigation measures. Response to Comment 1-2 The City’s HMP designates three Special Resource Areas (SRAs) citywide, and the project site is located in SRA 1. Importantly, SRA 1 is not a hardline preserve or conservation easement designated for permanent conservation; rather, it is an area recognized for biological importance but largely comprised of private lands where development can occur as a covered activity under the HMP, subject to certain requirements. The Biological Resources Technical Report explicitly states, “The project site is a covered activity under the City of Carlsbad HMP and is located in SRA 1. However, the project site is not within a HMP Hardline Conservation Area or HMP Proposed Hardline Conservation Area.” This is also illustrated on Figure 5, Existing Hardline Conservation Areas, and Figure 6, Proposed Hardline Conservation Areas, of Section D, Conservation Strategy, of the City HMP. Further, as illustrated on HMP Figure 28, Habitat Management Plan, the project site is designated as a “Development Area,” not a “Conservation Area.”1 This means that while the general area is known to have high biological value, the project site, as well as areas located east, south, and west of the project site, were not set aside solely for conservation under the HMP. In fact, the site is anticipated for development by the City (it was previously graded in 2007 for a prior project and is also identified for residential development as Site 7 in the City’s Housing Element; see also HMP Figure 28), and thus it is included as part of the HMP’s “covered projects” with specific mitigation obligations. Moreover, as stated in the City HMP Appendix B, Section 2, Definitions, “Proposed Hardline Areas” is defined as, “Properties whose conservation and development areas have been planned as part of the HMP, as depicted on Figure 6 These areas have been agreed-upon in coordination with the landowners, the City, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the California Department of Fish and Game [now known as the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or CDFW].” In summary, the project site is not identified in the HMP as a Core Area, Linkage Area, or Hardline Conservation Area and is not proposed for preservation by the City. Therefore, the City does not consider the presence of an SRA designation – absent inclusion in a preserve – to be equivalent to “lands identified for conservation” in the context of SB 131, 1 City of Carlsbad. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad. Final approved December 1999; as amended and approved November 2004. https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/1600/638366818940500000.           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 2-14 especially since development within SRAs is allowed with mitigation. Since the project site is not designated for conservation in the HMP, the near-miss eligibility condition under Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6)(I) is not triggered. Response to Comment 1-3 As stated above, the City does not concur with the assertion that there are two (or more) separate disqualifying conditions. Both the presence of multiple special-status species and the HMP SRA context fall under the singular “biological resources” category for SB 131 purposes. Each of the commenter’s concerns has been addressed through the focused biological analysis. Neither the multi-species presence nor the SRA context creates a scenario where the project would cause unmitigated significant impacts or where an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required for biological resources. As stated in Response to Comment 1-2, a property within an SRA does not automatically equate to a property being within a hardline preserve or conservation easement designated for permanent conservation; rather, an SRA is an area comprised of private lands where development can occur as a covered activity under the HMP, subject to certain requirements. As stated in the project-specific Biological Resources Technical Report, “The project site is a covered activity under the City of Carlsbad HMP and is located in SRA 1. However, the project site is not within a HMP Hardline Conservation Area or HMP Proposed Hardline Conservation Area.” As such, the SB 131 near-miss approach is appropriate for this project, given that all other CEQA exemption criteria are met and the biological resources impacts have been reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation. Response to Comment 1-4 The IS/MND baseline was established through multiple steps: comprehensive literature and database review, field habitat assessment, and analysis of focused surveys from previous projects. The IS/MND did not “conclude no significant impact” simply due to lack of data; rather, it used all available data (including historical surveys and current habitat conditions) to inform its significance determinations. In cases of uncertainty, the analysis erred on the side of caution by assuming presence and built in appropriate mitigation measures accordingly. The City does not consider this an inappropriate deferral, but a CEQA-compliant strategy to deal with potential species presence. Regarding Crotch’s bumble bee, a site-specific three-survey protocol design was approved by CDFW in April 2026. The three subsequent surveys were conducted in April and May 2026. Crotch’s bumble bee was not detected in any of the three surveys and the negative findings were reported to CDFW. Response to Comment 1-5 The IS/MND’s determination of no significant impact regarding thread-leaved brodiaea is supported by substantial evidence: (a) focused surveys conducted during the species’ bloom period in 2001 and 2003 yielded negative results on what is now the project site; (b) the only potential habitat the 0.33-acre Diegan coastal sage scrub area remains undeveloped and would not be subject to grading; and (c) regional mitigation for brodiaea impacts under the Fox Miller project has already been implemented. The City, however, acknowledges that the January 2025 survey was conducted outside the March-through-June blooming period and therefore           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 2-15 cannot be solely relied upon for presence/absence determination. However, comprehensive surveys from 2001 and 2003 did not detect thread-leaved brodiaea on what is now the project site. Moreover, grading and fill activities on site in 2007 likely removed or buried any suitable clay soils required by this edaphic specialist species. According to the Biological Resources Technical Report, the current site soils primarily consist of imported fill and loam, rather than the native clay subsoil necessary for brodiaea viability. Although the IS/MND considered the potential for occurrence as high within the Diegan coastal sage scrub patch due to habitat characteristics and historical records, no significant impacts to thread-leaved brodiaea was concluded based on the absence of documented individuals, the age of the critical habitat record, and preservation of the Diegan coastal sage scrub patch from project disturbance. The current project does not affect areas known to host or conserve thread-leaved brodiaea under the HMP. Response to Comment 1-6 The commenter’s concern about the two-hour January 2025 survey is acknowledged. A single survey would not typically show the use in all seasons; however, the City’s biologists relied on evidence from current conditions, historical data, habitat suitability, and professional judgment. Most special-status species were excluded from further review in the IS/MND because the site lacks suitable habitat or is outside their range not just due to absence during one survey. The Biological Resources Technical Report appendix lists these species with reasons for their expected absence or low likelihood. The SB 131 review focused on resources likely present: coastal California gnatcatcher, Crotch’s bumble bee, thread-leaved brodiaea, and the Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat. The baseline characterization is considered sufficient as it highlights the key issues addressed by mitigation and further study. As noted above in Response to Comment 1-4, subsequent protocol surveys for Crotch’s bumble bee were negative. Response to Comment 1-7 A protocol survey was not conducted prior to finalizing the IS/MND. The January 2025 habitat assessment confirmed the presence of at least one gnatcatcher on site, which established the need for protective measures regardless of the precise number of individuals or nests. The City acknowledges the USFWS Coastal California Gnatcatcher Presence/Absence Survey Protocol, which generally recommends a minimum of six breeding-season survey visits between March 15 and June 30 to document territory boundaries, pair status, and nesting activity. However, it is important to note that Carlsbad is within an area covered by a Natural Communities Conservation Program (i.e., the City HMP) that covers coastal California gnatcatcher, and as such, only three breeding-season survey visits would be required, rather than six. While protocol surveys provide valuable data on territory boundaries, pair status, and nesting locations, confirmation of species presence is sufficient to trigger protective mitigation under CEQA. Accordingly, the City is assuming presence of coastal California gnatcatcher on-site. As stated in revised MM BIO-1 (refer to Response to Comment 1-8), site-specific measures shall be implemented to avoid and minimize impacts. MM BIO-1 establishes clear performance standards to avoid and minimize indirect impacts to gnatcatchers, including protection of active nests and limitation of construction-related disturbance. The mitigation measure requires installation of a 500-foot no-disturbance buffer           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 2-16 around any active coastal California gnatcatcher nest identified by a qualified biologist and implementation of construction controls to ensure disturbance levels remain below thresholds that could adversely affect nesting behavior. Consistent with USFWS guidance, these performance standards are intended to meet or exceed commonly recommended buffers and construction noise limits during the breeding season, unless a qualified biologist determines that site-specific conditions support an alternative protective distance or additional measures. The City acknowledges that USFWS guidance commonly recommends a minimum 500-foot buffer around active gnatcatcher nests and includes construction noise thresholds intended to limit disturbance during the breeding season. USFWS guidance also allows these buffers and noise controls to be refined based on site-specific conditions, nest location, topography, intervening screening, and the nature of construction activities. In no circumstances shall a buffer of less than 100 feet be used even with noise attenuation measures. Any reduction in the 500-foot no-disturbance buffer must be supported by site-specific analysis by the qualified biologist and approved by the City in consultation with USFWS. As a result, MM BIO-1 ensures that protective measures consistent with USFWS recovery objectives will be implemented, and the absence of a pre-approval protocol survey will not result in any unmitigated significant impact. Because the coastal California gnatcatcher is a covered species by the City HMP, the HMP holistically addresses species concerns on a broader ecosystem scale. By establishing a citywide preserve system with core areas interconnected with wildlife movement corridors, the City is protecting the gnatcatcher at buildout and in perpetuity, while allowing development in appropriate places. For other nesting bird species (other than the coastal California gnatcatcher), if active nests are observed during the pre-construction nesting bird survey, an avoidance buffer shall be determined by a qualified biologist in coordination with the City. The avoidance buffer width will depend upon the species, the proposed work activity, and existing disturbances associated with land uses outside of the project site. Response to Comment 1-8 MM BIO-1 was originally formulated to be flexible, recognizing that appropriate buffer distances can depend on factors such as avian behavior, location of the nest, existing ambient noise, and the nature of construction activity. To directly address the concern raised, the City has updated MM BIO-1 (Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Surveys, Avoidance, and Notification) to require that, if a gnatcatcher nest is found during pre-construction surveys, a minimum 500-foot wide no-disturbance buffer be established around the nest and maintained until a qualified biologist confirms that the young have fledged, the nest is no longer active, or that construction noise levels can be maintained below 60 dBA Leq at the nest site with a smaller buffer. For purposes of this mitigation measure, a “qualified biologist” is defined as a professional biologist with demonstrated experience conducting nesting bird surveys in southern California coastal habitats and familiarity with the identification, behavior, and nesting ecology of avian species known to occur in the region, including federally listed species such as the coastal California gnatcatcher. By incorporating these specifics – a numeric distance, noise criteria, and biologist qualifications MM BIO-1 would have clear performance standards. Specifically, MM BIO-1 from the public review IS/MND stated: MM BIO-1 Pre-Construction Bird Surveys, Avoidance, and Notification.If construction activities are initiated during the bird nesting season (February 1–August 31) involving removal of vegetation or other nesting bird habitat, including abandoned           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 2-17 structures and other man-made features, a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to initiation of ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities. The nesting bird pre-construction survey shall be conducted on foot and shall include a 300-foot survey buffer around the construction site. The survey shall be conducted by a biologist familiar with the identification of avian species known to occur in southern California coastal communities (i.e., qualified biologist). If active nests are found, an avoidance buffer shall be determined by a qualified biologist in coordination with the City. The avoidance buffer width will depend upon the species, the proposed work activity, and existing disturbances associated with land uses outside of the site, which shall be demarcated by the biologist with bright orange construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to demarcate the boundary. All construction personnel shall be notified as to the existence of the buffer zone and to avoid entering the buffer zone during the nesting season. No ground-disturbing activities shall occur within the buffer until the biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed, and the young have fledged the nest. Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the qualified biologist on the basis that the encroachment will not be detrimental to an active nest. A report summarizing the pre-construction survey(s) shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and shall be submitted to the City prior to the commencement of construction activities. Note: To mitigate the potential impact to California gnatcatcher or other nesting birds, this mitigation measure shall be applied to land use and activities occurring at the project site. No Pre-Construction Bird Surveys, Avoidance, and Notification mitigation is required to implement the Study Area-Off-Site Sewer Line portion of the project. MM BIO-1 has been revised as follows (the preconstruction survey window has been modified to no sooner than three days prior to ground disturbance, and the second paragraph is newly added text): MM BIO-1 Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Surveys, Avoidance, and Notification.If construction activities are initiated during the bird nesting season (February 1– August 31) involving removal of vegetation or other nesting bird habitat, including abandoned structures and other man-made features, a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than three days prior to initiation of ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities. The nesting bird pre-construction survey shall be conducted on foot and shall include a 300-foot survey buffer around the construction site. The survey shall be conducted by a biologist familiar with the identification of avian species known to occur in southern California coastal communities (i.e., qualified biologist). If active nests are found, an avoidance buffer shall be determined by a qualified biologist in coordination with the City. The avoidance buffer width will depend upon the species, the proposed work activity, and existing disturbances associated with land uses outside of the site, which shall be demarcated by the biologist with bright orange construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to demarcate the boundary. All construction personnel shall be notified as to the existence of the buffer zone and to avoid entering the buffer zone during the nesting season. No ground-disturbing activities shall occur within the buffer until the biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 2-18 is completed, and the young have fledged the nest. Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the qualified biologist on the basis that the encroachment will not be detrimental to an active nest. A report summarizing the pre-construction survey(s) shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and shall be submitted to the City prior to the commencement of construction activities. If an active coastal California gnatcatcher nest is found during pre-construction surveys, a minimum 500-foot no-disturbance buffer shall be established around the nest. The buffer shall be clearly marked (e.g., with fencing or flagging) and maintained until a qualified biologist confirms that the young have fledged, the nest is no longer active, or that construction noise levels can be maintained below 60 dBA Leq at the nest site with a smaller buffer. In no circumstances shall a buffer of less than 100 feet be used even with noise attenuation measures. Any reduction in the 500-foot buffer must be supported by site-specific analysis by the qualified biologist and approved by the City in consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Note To mitigate the potential impact to California gnatcatcher or other nesting birds, this mitigation measure shall be applied to land use and activities occurring at the project site. No Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Surveys, Avoidance, and Notification mitigation is required to implement the Study Area-Off-Site Se er Line portion of the project. It is also noted that such clarification to MM BIO-1 does not represent “significant new information” as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. The revised MM BIO-1 is more effective than that presented in the Draft IS/MND. Therefore, recirculation of the IS/MND prior to adoption is not required (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15073.5[c][1] and 15074.1). Response to Comment 1-9 The 0.33-acre Diegan coastal sage scrub patch located in the northwest corner of the site is classified as a sensitive natural community. The IS/MND determined there was no impact on this community because the project avoids any direct removal or disturbance of this Diegan coastal sage scrub patch. Indirect impacts addressed in Threshold (f) included potential edge effects on adjacent habitats according to the Carlsbad HMP Adjacency Standards. These standards apply to any project next to a preserve or sensitive area and require actions to limit indirect effects like lighting, invasive species, noise, human activity, predator management, erosion, and hydrology. These measures were built into the project’s design pursuant to the City’s HMP, Objective Design Standards, and Landscape Manual and are detailed in the IS/MND, especially in the analysis of HMP policy compliance and standard features. As a result, indirect impacts were not ignored rather, they were managed through commitments to protective measures. To further clarify this issue, the City has updated the IS/MND so that Threshold (b) references the HMP Adjacency Standards and related protective measures. Because these protections are part of the project and would be enforced, the “no significant impact” finding remains valid: the project would not significantly harm the nearby Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat, either directly or indirectly. The habitat would be preserved, with adjacency protective measures guarding against edge effects and preventing major degradation of this sensitive community.           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 2-19 Response to Comment 1-10 Refer to Response to Comment 1-7. The City has carefully reviewed each of the commenter’s cited potential indirect impacts to the gnatcatcher. One coastal California gnatcatcher was observed in 2025 in the 0.33-acre Diegan coastal sage scrub patch located in the northwest corner of the site, which would be avoided by the project. The consulting biologist concluded that the individual was transient, most likely residing in the more abundant and established habitat opposite Salk Avenue and using the patch for foraging. It is important to note that the coastal California gnatcatcher is a covered species by the City HMP, and the HMP holistically addresses species concerns on a broader ecosystem scale. By establishing a citywide preserve system with core areas interconnected with wildlife movement corridors, the City is protecting the gnatcatcher at buildout and in perpetuity, while allowing development in appropriate places. We provide responses to each point below: x Predation by Domestic Cats:The risk of pet (particularly cat) predation on wildlife, including to birds, is a known issue in urban-wildland interfaces. Coastal California gnatcatchers primarily occupy coastal sage scrub characterized by dense, low-growing shrub cover, where nests are typically placed several feet above ground within intact vegetation, limiting exposure to urban predators. Predation pressure documented for the species is primarily associated with avian predators and habitat fragmentation, and domestic cats are not identified by USFWS as a common or significant source of gnatcatcher mortality.2 Additionally, predation by domestic cats on birds and other wildlife is a recognized issue primarily associated with single-family residential development, where cats can freely exit homes and roam yards and adjacent open space. In contrast, a multi-level apartment building is inherently not conducive to free-roaming cats, as pets cannot independently open doors or access elevators to enter or exit units. As a result, cats residing in multi-family developments are predominantly, if not entirely, indoor pets, substantially reducing the likelihood of access to adjacent habitat. Moreover, the HMP Adjacency Standards explicitly require that projects adjacent to preserves implement measures to manage pets and potential predators of developments adjacent to preserve area. Consistent with these requirements, the project would include provisions to further minimize any already low potential for pets entering the adjacent habitat, including the following: o Resident Education:In compliance with the City’s HMP Adjacency standards, the project applicant would provide educational materials (e.g., brochures or handbook provisions) to all new residents informing them of the nearby sensitive habitat and requiring cats be kept indoors, with outdoor access permitted only if leashed and under direct supervision. o Landscape Management:The project’s landscape plan would avoid planting features that might inadvertently attract domestic animals to the habitat edge (e.g., no litter boxes near open space, no features that encourage house pets to roam 2 US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Coastal California Gnatcatcher Species Profile.https://www.fws.gov/story/coastal- california-gnatcatcher.           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 2-20 near the preserve boundary). Additionally, it is noted that the habitat patch is relatively small and bordered on two sides by existing development or roads. While the City can manage pet-related risks through project design and adherence to the City’s HMP, the project’s incremental contribution to domestic cat presence near the preserve would be negligible. x Brown-Headed Cowbird Brood Parasitism:Cowbirds (Molothrus ater) are known brood parasites that can affect songbirds like the gnatcatcher by laying eggs in their nests. The City acknowledges that the USFWS 1993 listing rule for the gnatcatcher identified cowbird parasitism as a contributing threat, and the July 2025 Recovery Implementation Strategy, which serves as an adaptable, action-oriented document under the USFWS’s three-part framework, focusing on specific implementation actions to recover listed threatened or endangered species, includes cowbird control as a Priority 3 recovery action (Action 7). However, no substantial evidence supports the assertion that construction of an apartment complex in the urbanized Carlsbad environment would measurably increase brown- headed cowbird brood parasitism on species (and specifically, the coastal California gnatcatcher) in the on-site Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat. Neither the City’s HMP nor the North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Program identifies cowbird predation as a significant threat to gnatcatcher populations in this region. In fact, the HMP only mentions cowbird control as a general preserve-wide management guideline alongside broader edge-effect provisions not as a species-specific threat for gnatcatcher in the plan area. The commenter has provided no site-specific data no cowbird abundance counts, nest parasitism rates, or monitoring results to substantiate a causal link between the project and a “substantial increase” in cowbird parasitism. Cowbird concentrations require large- scale food subsidies (e.g., livestock feed, open agriculture, extensive lawns, etc.). Per project design, the proposed apartment complex in an urbanized area with fully enclosed trash rooms, regularly scheduled trash removal, and no dumpsters accessible from the outside would not create these conditions. As such, potential impacts under Threshold (f) would remain less than significant. x Habitat Connectivity and Fragmentation:The Focused IS/MND concluded that the project would have no impact on wildlife movement or migration corridors. This conclusion was based on site-specific conditions: the project site is isolated by existing development and roads, and is not part of any large, continuous wildlife corridor. The City acknowledges the commenter’s citation to the USFWS Draft Recovery Plan for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher (2025) and the Recovery Implementation Strategy. However, the HMP describes SRA 1 (which includes the site) as “too small, edge-effected, or isolated to be considered biological cores or linkage areas,” which supports the conclusion that the area is not a critical transit corridor for wildlife. The Draft Recovery Plan (2025) emphasizes maintaining connectivity between habitat patches for long-term species viability. The City agrees that habitat connectivity is important at a landscape scale. However, in this case the on-site habitat is extremely limited (0.33 acres) and bordered by existing urban development. It is not part of a larger open space continuum; to the north is Salk Avenue and a designated Hardline Preserve (from which it is separated by the road), and to the south and east are developed parcels. To the west lies a golf course (maintained turf is not suitable gnatcatcher habitat). In essence, the project site’s Diegan coastal sage scrub patch is an isolated “island” of habitat. As noted in the Biological Resources Technical Report, “there are no landscape features or vegetative cover that would support wildlife           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 2-21 movement... the site does not serve as a habitat linkage or wildlife corridor.” Further, as previously stated in Responses to Comments 1-2 and 1-3, the project site is not identified in the HMP as a Core Area, Linkage Area, or Hardline Conservation Area and is not proposed for preservation by the City. Additionally, the project would not introduce new barriers such as wide roads or fencing across any natural habitat that would impede wildlife movement. The building and hardscape would be largely confined to the already graded pad. A final point of clarification is that the broad north-south corridor identified in the MHCP regional framework is associated with larger patches of habitat in the vicinity (e.g., around Lake Calavera, riparian corridors, etc.), not with the SRA 1 patch at the project site. The USFWS Recovery Implementation Strategy Priority 2 actions that address enhancing connectivity in North County are aimed at regional planning (connecting larger preserves), rather than maintaining every minor fragment. By complying with the HMP, the City is contributing to that larger connectivity goal through established preserves and mitigation banks. Therefore, the IS/MND’s finding remains sound: the project would not significantly interfere with wildlife movement or fragment an existing corridor. The on-site habitat patch will maintain any limited role it has in connectivity. No additional mitigation is necessary because the project’s footprint does not intersect any identified corridor and because standard HMP adjacency requirements (fencing, sensitive lighting, etc.) would ensure the new development does not create undue edge effects that could exacerbate regional fragmentation. Response to Comment 1-11 The IS/MND addressed lighting through design commitments pursuant to the City’s Objective Design Standards: all project outdoor light fixtures will be fully shielded, downward-facing, and directed away from the adjacent habitat, consistent with HMP requirements. Energy-efficient fixtures incorporating light emitting diode (LED) lamps or equivalent energy-efficient fixtures would be used for outdoor lights near the habitat. The project site is located within an urbanized area of the City where existing nighttime conditions already include nighttime lighting associated with nearby roadways and commercial/industrial development. As such, a five-story building with windows and traditional light sources would not introduce lighting in an undisturbed natural environment. With respect to building-related lighting and window glow, illumination would be consistent with other residential developments in the City. Lighting would be shielded, directed downward, and limited to the minimum necessary for safety and security, reducing light spill and skyglow. Vehicle headlights within the parking structure would be intermittent, contained within the structure, and similar to conditions already present in other multi-story residential and mixed-use developments. Given the urban context of the site, the absence of adjacent conserved habitat, and compliance with applicable City development standards consistent with the HMP, project lighting would not substantially alter existing nighttime conditions or result in adverse effects to wildlife. Accordingly, lighting impacts would be less than significant. Response to Comment 1-12 The prevention of invasive non-native plant and animal introduction is another aspect of the HMP Adjacency Standards that the project must follow. The project’s landscape plans will be reviewed and approved by the City to ensure the plans meet the requirements set forth in the City’s           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 2-22 Landscape Manual. No invasive plant species (as listed by California Invasive Plant Council or the Carlsbad HMP) would be planted adjacent to the on-site open space. The project would use only native or drought-tolerant, non-invasive landscaping for the areas near the habitat. The comment mentions irrigation overspray and fertilizer runoff as potential issues; the City’s standard Storm Water Best Management Practices will address those concerns, requiring efficient irrigation design (preventing overspray) and integrated pest management to avoid chemical runoff. Additionally, the on-site 0.33-acre habitat patch would be buffered from the development by open space and any necessary physical barriers, which reduces the chance of direct encroachment by invasive plants. Response to Comment 1-13 The project avoids direct impacts to the 0.33-acre patch of Diegan coastal sage scrub that overlaps designated critical habitat for thread-leaved brodiaea, and no individuals of the species have been observed on-site in past or current surveys. Additionally, the State Water Resources Control Board has adopted General Permit No. CAS000002 – Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activity (General Permit) for California, which applies to most construction-related stormwater discharges within California. The General Permit requires that projects disturbing greater than one acre develop and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan that specifies best management practices (BMPs) to be used during project construction. Implementation of the BMPs would ensure runoff and discharges during the project construction phase would not violate any water quality standards. Additionally, the project would be required to implement a project-specific Water Quality Management Plan that identifies BMPs for the management of urban stormwater runoff, including design criteria for treatment control. Compliance with the project-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Water Quality Management Plan would ensure that construction-related and operational impacts on water quality would be less than significant. Response to Comment 1-14 With regard to Crotch’s bumble bee habitat, the 0.33-acre area located in the northwest corner of the site is the only place with any potential bumble bee habitat present, and that small area is not being developed as part of the project. When the IS/MND refers to “lack of suitable nectaring and nesting habitat” in the context of direct impacts, it is referring to the fact that within the project’s construction footprint (i.e., the areas to be graded or built upon), there are no high-quality nectar sources or intact soils for bumble bees. All such resources are in the small 0.33-acre area to be left untouched. Thus, no direct mortality or physical destruction of a bumble bee nest is anticipated from construction, supporting the statement that direct impacts are not expected. Additionally, as noted in Response to Comment 1-4, CDFW-approved protocol surveys were conducted in April and May 2026 and Crotch’s bumble bee was not detected. Response to Comment 1-15 The IS/MND and Biological Resources Technical Report are consistent in stating that the project site lies within the geographical boundaries of SRA 1 but that the property itself is not an HMP conservation area. The IS/MND and the Biological Resources Technical Report have been revised to clarify this point. Refer also to Response to Comment 1-2. These changes would not result in a new significant impact and do not represent “significant new information” as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Therefore, recirculation of the IS/MND prior to adoption is not required (CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5[c][1]).           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 2-23 Response to Comment 1-16 The 0.33-acre Diegan coastal sage scrub patch is indeed a central feature in the project’s biological considerations. Far from minimizing its importance, the City’s analysis recognized it as environmentally sensitive and made it the cornerstone of the mitigation strategy through avoidance and protective measures. The following points highlight how the IS/MND addressed the resources associated with this limited area: x The site plan was deliberately designed to exclude the 0.33-acre Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat from development. By not building on this area, the project would avoid direct impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub, gnatcatcher habitat, and any species using that habitat. Avoidance is the most effective mitigation, and it was the first measure applied. x One coastal California gnatcatcher was observed in 2025 in the 0.33-acre Diegan coastal sage scrub patch located in the northwest corner of the site, which would be avoided by the project. The consulting biologist concluded that the individual was transient, most likely residing in the more abundant and established habitat opposite Salk Avenue and using the patch for foraging. The IS/MND requires seasonal avoidance of the area if nesting is observed during preconstruction nesting bird surveys and buffering it from construction disturbance (refer to MM BIO-1). The adequacy of the buffer and mitigation has been addressed above in Response to Comment 1-7. x The Diegan coastal sage scrub patch’s role as potential Crotch’s bumble bee habitat and thread-leaved brodiaea critical habitat has been addressed in Responses to Comments 1-4, 1-5, and 1-14. The patch would not be disturbed. CDFW-approved protocol surveys were conducted in April and May 2026 and Crotch’s bumble bee was not detected. x The patch is within SRA 1; however, it is not designated in the City HMP as a permanent conservation site. As illustrated on HMP Figure 28, Habitat Management Plan, the project site is designated as a “Development Area,” not a “Conservation Area.” The HMP specifically calls out the importance of conserving Brodiaea filifolia in SRA 1; however, no thread-leaved brodiaea populations are known to exist in the patch. Nevertheless, the project’s avoidance would keep the habitat available. x The presumed “no impact” finding for indirect effects on the patch is not a dismissal of those effects, but rather a reflection that, with standard project design features in place and adherence to the City’s development requirements, including the City HMP, City Objective Design Standards, and City Landscape Manual, indirect effects would be rendered less than significant (see above). Responses to Comments 1-9 through 1-13 above detail how issues like lighting, noise, pets, and runoff are being managed for this patch. The key protective City requirements built into project design include buffering, shielding (for light), controlling human and pet access, and monitoring. In summary, the City does not agree that there was a “systematic minimization” of this feature’s importance. On the contrary, a primary focus of the analysis relates to the 0.33-acre patch and the species it may support. Further, the mitigation measures (MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-2) are aimed at protecting the resources in or adjacent to this area. The project’s avoidance of the patch is a strong protective step.           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 2-24 Response to Comment 1-17 The City acknowledges CDFW’s role as a responsible agency with regard to a potential ITP for Crotch’s bumble bee (which is currently a candidate species under the California Endangered Species Act). CDFW approved of a site-specific Crotch’s bumble bee survey protocol consisting of three surveys spaced at least two weeks apart. The surveys were conducted in April and May 2026 with no bees detected. Response to Comment 1-18 The City does not concur that there was a “systematic bias” in the analysis. On the contrary, the approach was science-based and precautionary. When in doubt, the analysis presumed the resource may be present or impacted and required mitigation accordingly. Additionally, as stated in Response to Comment 1-2, the site was previously graded in 2007 for a prior project and is also identified for residential development as Site 7 in the City’s Housing Element (see also HMP Figure 28), and thus was analyzed for environmental affects in the City’s Housing Element Implementation and Public Safety Element Update Supplemental EIR. Further, the project site is included as part of the HMP “covered projects” with specific mitigation obligations. The absence of identified significant impacts in the project-specific IS/MND is a result of effective project design and mitigation, not a failure to look for impacts. The City would carry forward all commitments made in the IS/MND and in these responses into the final project approval and monitoring requirements. Therefore, an EIR is not warranted for biological resources, as the IS/MND provides a complete and adequate analysis of potential impacts and mitigation measures for the site’s biological issues. Response to Comment 1-19 The City believes that a fully informed, good-faith revised analysis of the project’s biological resources has been achieved without the need for an EIR. After implementing the avoidance and mitigation measures – many of which are built into the project by design and adhere to the City’s development requirements, including the City HMP, City Objective Design Standards, and City Landscape Manual – impacts on biological resources are not significant. For instance, no sensitive habitat would be removed; listed species are either absent or would be protected in place if present; and indirect effects from the new development on adjacent habitat are avoided or reduced through proven measures (lighting controls, noise reduction, invasive species management, etc.). Refer also to Responses to Comments 1-1 through 1-3. Response to Comment 1-20 Please refer to Response to Comment 1-7 above for reasoning why protocol-level gnatcatcher surveys are not required for the project. Refer to Response to Comment 1-5 for the explanation why current blooming-period surveys for thread-leaved brodiaea within the designated critical habitat is not necessary. See Response to Comment 1-4 regarding the comment about requiring pre-approval focused surveys for Crotch’s bumble bee. Refer to Responses to Comments 1-9 through 1-13 regarding the analysis of indirect impacts related to predation, cowbird parasitism, artificial lighting, altered hydrology, invasive species, and habitat connectivity. See Response to Comment 1-8 regarding the commenter’s previous comment on enforceable mitigation measures.           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 2-25 Response to Comment 1-21 Tribal Consultation was initiated with all tribes consulting with the City under AB 52 on January 5, 2026. Consultation was requested by the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians and conducted through a series of letters and meetings. The City coordinated with the tribe, and an agreement was made that the tribe will provide tribal cultural monitoring during ground-disturbing construction activities associated with the project. As such, AB 52 consultation has concluded. Refer to Response to Comment 1-4 regarding Crotch’s bumble bee concerns.           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Letter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age 2-26           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project 6??DB5C945>D91<45F5<?@=5>D9>3<E49>7 =E<D961=9<I4G5<<9>7E>9DC1>4  CAE1B5655D?6 ?ED4??B?@5>C@1351CG5<<1C1>12?F57B?E>469F5<5F5<  CAE1B56??D@1B;9>7 CDBE3DEB5G9D8 @1B;9>7C@135C)85%B?:53DC9D53?F5BC12?ED13B5C?6F131>D1>4 E>45F5<?@54<1>4)85C9D59C<?31D54?>(1<;F5>E551CD?6?<<575?E<5F1B41>4G5CD?6< 1=9>?'51<9>D859DI?61B<C214(EBB?E>49>7<1>4EC5C9>3<E459>4ECDB91<2E9<49>7CD?D85 51CD1>4C?ED81@B9F1D54B9F9>7B1>751>47?<66139<9DID?D85G5CD1>41=54931<?669352E9<49>7 D?D85>?BD8)85C9D59C<?31D54G9D89>D851B141I1B<C2145>D5B(@539693%<1>1B51 45C97>1D541C'5C945>D91<E>45BD855>5B1<%<1>1>4J?>54'5C945>D91<5>C9DI"E<D9@<5' "  CD851<96?B>91(E@B5=5?EBD85<4M/906>?'81C255>@B5@1B546?B1>?>5H5=@D @B?:53D2EDCE2CD1>D91<5F945>359>D85B53?B4CE@@?BDC1619B1B7E=5>DD81DD85@B?:53D=1IB5CE<D 9>C97>96931>D14F5BC59=@13DCD85@B?@5BB5=54I9CD??B45B@B5@1B1D9?>?61>'N &$$+% * )&(**( %,0*,&+*&)* (+# *.$* )* 1<D8   M(97>96931>D5>F9B?>=5>D1<56653DN9C4569>54F5BI2B?14<I1CM1CE2CD1>D91<?B @?D5>D91<<ICE2CD1>D91<14F5BC5381>759>D855>F9B?>=5>DN%E2'5C?45/M%'N0K  C551<C? 1<96?B>91?45?6'57E<1D9?>C/M'N0K   >56653D?>D855>F9B?>=5>D >554>?D25M=?=5>D?ECND?=55DD85&D5CD6?BC97>96931>359D9C5>?E78D81DD859=@13DC 1B5M>?DDB9F91<N& # %, *.&&)%#)  1< 4 M)85O6?B5=?CD @B9>39@<5P9>9>D5B@B5D9>7&9CD81DD85!579C<1DEB59>D5>454D8513DD?25B514C?1CD?166?B4 D856E<<5CD@?CC92<5@B?D53D9?>D?D855>F9B?>=5>DG9D89>D85B51C?>12<5C3?@5?6D85CD1DED?BI <1>7E175N&$$+% * )&(**( %,0*,#)%.  1<@@D8  )85'9CD85F5BI851BD?6&"() # * /%)&(&#&%*(&#, *.& "() #  1<@@D8  &"*(&**&(), *.&($%*&  1<@@D8  )85'9C1>M5>F9B?>=5>D1<O1<1B=25<<PG8?C5@EB@?C59CD?1<5BD D85@E2<931>49DCB5C@?>C92<5?669391<CD?5>F9B?>=5>D1<381>75C256?B5D85I81F5B513854D85 53?<?7931<@?9>DC?6>?B5DEB>N"() # * /%))+'( 1<@@D81D )85' 1<C?6E>3D9?>C1C1M4?3E=5>D?6133?E>D129<9DIN9>D5>454D?M45=?>CDB1D5D?1>1@@B585>C9F5 39D9J5>BID81DD85175>3I81C9>613D1>1<IJ541>43?>C945B54D8553?<?7931<9=@<931D9?>C?69DC 13D9?>N+(#  *) $'(&,$%*)))%,%*)&% ,&# 1< 4   )85'@B?35CCM@B?D53DC>?D?><ID855>F9B?>=5>D2ED1<C?9>6?B=54C5<67?F5B>=5>DN &"*(&**&() 1<@@D8   >'9CB5AE9B5496MD85B59CCE2CD1>D91<5F945>359><978D?6D85G8?<5B53?B4256?B5 D85<514175>3ID81DD85@B?:53D=1I81F51C97>96931>D56653D?>D855>F9B?>=5>DN%'K  4C551<C?&"*(&**&()CE@B1 1<@@D81D >"#9>CD514?61> '9C@B?@5B?><I96@B?:53DB5F9C9?>CG?E<41F?94?B=9D971D5D85@?D5>D91<<IC97>96931>D56653DC 945>D969549>D859>9D91<CDE4IMD?1@?9>DG85B53<51B<I>?C97>96931>D56653D?>D855>F9B?>=5>D G?E<4?33EB1>4D85B59C>?CE2CD1>D91<5F945>359><978D?6D85G8?<5B53?B4256?B5D85 @E2<93175>3ID81DD85@B?:53D1CB5F9C54=1I81F51C97>96931>D56653D?>D855>F9B?>=5>DN ! , *.&&)%#)  1<@@D8  /AE?D9>7%'KK   3 0>D81D3?>D5HDM=1IN=51>C1B51C?>12<5@?CC929<9DI?61C97>96931>D56653D?>D85 5>F9B?>=5>D%'KK   1   1&"*(&**&())+'( 1<@@D8  FRQW Page 2-27           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project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age 2-28           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project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age 2-29           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project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age 2-30           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project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age 2-31           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project %B?D53D9?>3DMD8EC31EC9>7C97>96931>DE>=9D971D549=@13DCD81DG5B5>?D144B5CC549>D85 ( "#N 1D   )85%B?:53DG9<<81F51C97>96931>D14F5BC59=@13D?>G9<4<9651C1B5CE<D?6 3?<<9C9?>CG9D8D851449D9?>1<DB1669375>5B1D542ID85%B?:53D B(=1<<G??46?E>4D81DD85"#619<54D?144B5CCD85%B?:53DPC@?D5>D91<9=@13DCD? G9<4<9656B?=B?143?<<9C9?>=?BD1<9DI1C1B5CE<D?69>3B51C54DB1669375>5B1D542ID85%B?:53D   CB(=1<<G??45H@<19>54F5893<53?<<9C9?>C81F5133?E>D546?BD85451D8C?6=1>I D8?EC1>4C?61=@89291>B5@D9<5=1==1<29B41>41BD8B?@?461E>11>4D859=@13DC81F5?6D5> 255>6?E>4D?25C97>96931>D1DD85@?@E<1D9?><5F5< B(=1<<G??4@B?F9454C5F5B1<CDE495C 45=?>CDB1D9>7C97>96931>D1>9=1<451D8C4E5D?DB166933?<<9C9?>C9>D85D8?EC1>4C1>>E1<<I@5B ;9<?=5D5BC?6B?14 1D  )85"#494>?D1>1<IJ5G85D85B9>3B51C54DB16693 75>5B1D542ID85%B?:53DG?E<4B5CE<D9>C97>96931>D9=@13DCD?G9<4<965 )85"#4?5C>?DB5@?BDD851>>E1<F5893<5=9<5CDB1F5<54M+")ND81DD85%B?:53D G?E<475>5B1D5 1D ?G5F5BB(=1<<G??4@B5493D54D81DD85%B?:53DG?E<475>5B1D5   1>>E1<+") 531<3E<1D54D81DD85%B?:53DG?E<431EC51@@B?H9=1D5<I  D?  F5BD52B1D5G9<4<96561D1<9D95C@5BI51B4E5D?3?<<9C9?>CG9D8%B?:53D75>5B1D54DB16693 1D  5D85B56?B53?>3<E454D81DMD85@B?:53D75>5B1D54DB16693G?E<431EC5CE2CD1>D91< C97>96931>D9=@13DCD?G9<4<965N1@?D5>D91<9=@13DD85"#494>?D144B5CC 1D B (=1<<G??4PC31<3E<1D9?>C3?>CD9DED5CE2CD1>D91<5F945>35CE@@?BD9>71619B1B7E=5>DD81DMD85 @B?@?C54@B?:53DG?E<4B5CE<D9>@?D5>D91<<IC97>96931>D14F5BC529?<?7931<9=@13DCN 1D >'9CB5AE9B54D?@B?@5B<I1>1<IJ51>4=9D971D5D89C9=@13D  )85B59C1619B1B7E=5>DD81DD85%B?:53D=1I81F5C97>96931>D3E=E<1D9F5 9=@13DCD81DD85"#619<54D?145AE1D5<I1>1<IJ5 &4?3E=5>DCCE381CD85"#=ECD49C3ECC3E=E<1D9F59=@13DC1>4=9D971D5 C97>96931>D3E=E<1D9F59=@13DC 'K  1)89CB5AE9B5=5>D6<?GC6B?=& (53D9?>  G8938B5AE9B5C169>49>7D81D1@B?:53D=1I81F51C97>96931>D56653D?>D85 5>F9B?>=5>D96 )85@?CC92<556653DC?61@B?:53D1B59>49F94E1<<I<9=9D542ED3E=E<1D9F5<I3?>C945B12<5 OE=E<1D9F5<I3?>C945B12<5P=51>CD81DD859>3B5=5>D1<56653DC?61>9>49F94E1<@B?:53D 1B53?>C945B12<5G85>F95G549>3?>>53D9?>G9D8D8556653DC?6@1CD@B?:53DCD8556653DC ?6?D85B3EBB5>D@B?:53DC1>4D8556653DC?6@B?212<56EDEB5@B?:53DC %'K  2 <571<<I145AE1D53E=E<1D9F59=@13DC1>1<IC9CF95GC1@1BD93E<1B@B?:53D ?F5BD9=51>49>3?>:E>3D9?>G9D8?D85BB5<1D54@1CD@B5C5>D1>4B51C?>12<I6?B5C5512<5 @B?212<56EDEB5@B?:53DCG8?C59=@13DC=978D3?=@?E>4?B9>D5BB5<1D5G9D8D8?C5?6D85@B?:53D 1D81>4 B(=1<<G??46?E>4D81DD85"#619<54D?1CC5CCD85%B?:53DPC3?>DB92ED9?>CD? 3E=E<1D9F59=@13DC?>29?<?7931<B5C?EB35CH1D "@B?F9454>?<9CD?6@1CD?>7?9>7  FRQW   Page 2-32           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project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age 2-33           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project (9>35B5<I '5253311F9C !$.*'*'-!!% Page 2-34           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project   Page 2-35           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Shawn Smallwood, PhD 3108 Finch Street Davis, CA 95616 Attn: Kyle Van Leeuwen, Senior Planner City of Carlsbad Community Development Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 20 March 2026 RE: Salk Avenue Apartments Project Dear Mr. Van Leeuwen, I write to comment on potential impacts to biological resources that would result from development of the proposed Salk Avenue Apartments Project. The project would add 397 apartment units within a 59-foot-tall, five-story building grossing 416,152 square feet and 541 parking spaces on 9.8 acres on the south side of Salk Avenue in between College Blvd and El Camino Real in Carlsbad, California. My comments that follow address my concerns that the Focused Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) supported by Michael Baker International (MBI 2026), mischaracterizes the existing environmental setting, and that its impacts analysis is flawed and its mitigation measures are inadequate. My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D. degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I also worked as a post- graduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, wildlife interactions with the anthrosphere, and conservation of rare and endangered species. I authored many papers on these and other topics. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society – Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife Society, and I’ve lectured part-time at California State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of wildlife biology’s premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for thirty- seven years. My CV is attached. THE WILDLIFE COMMUNITY AS A BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE Most environmental reviews pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) focus on special-status species because CEQA’s Checklist Evaluation of Environmental Impacts specifies that such evaluation should prioritize potential impacts to special-status species. However, an important policy of CEQA is “to prevent the elimination of fish or wildlife species due to man’s activities, insure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below self-perpetuating levels, and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal communities and examples of the  Page 2-36           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project major periods of California history.” Pub. Res. Code § 21001(c). Seemingly at odds with the Checklist Evaluation’s specification, this policy is not restricted to special-status species; it also applies to wildlife populations and plant and animal communities. In fact, the CEQA Guidelines Section 21155.1 defines wildlife habitat as “the ecological communities upon which wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and invertebrates depend for their conservation and protection.” This definition is consistent with the scientific definition of habitat, which is that portion of the environment that is used by members of a species for survival and reproduction (Hall et al. 1997). An essential portion of the environment used by any special-status species is composed of the collection of other species of plants and wildlife, because these species provide for special-status species their forage, refugia and nest substrates, and some serve as ecological mutualists; no special-status species can exist in a vacuum of other wildlife. The CEQA Checklist Evaluation assigns priority to special-status species to balance information and cost, but it does not exclude the need to evaluate environmental impacts to other species, which, after all, are members of the very communities within which special-status species inter-depend for survival and reproduction. All wildlife species should be of concern in a CEQA review, but with priority directed to special-status species. The species I consider to be special-status species are those listed in California’s Special Animals List inclusive of threatened and endangered species under the California and federal Endangered Species Acts, candidates for listing under CESA and FESA, California’s Fully Protected Species, California species of special concern, and California’s Taxa to Watch List (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx? DocumentID=109406), continental and region-specific US Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ birds-of-conservation-concern-2021.pdf), and naturally rare species such as raptors protected by California’s Birds of Prey laws, Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3505 and 3513 (see https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/ Birds/Raptors). What follows is a summary of a site visit to detect as many of the species of wildlife as possible within the short time available. The survey was also intended to detect as many of the special-status species as possible, but with the understanding that most special- status species are less readily detectable due to rarity and crypticity. Nonetheless, the species detected can indicate the ecological integrity of the site and thus the likelihood of occurrence of special-status species not yet detected. SITE VISIT On my behalf, Noriko Smallwood, a wildlife biologist with a Master of Science Degree from California State University Los Angeles, visited the site of the proposed project for 3 hours of survey from 07:00 to 09:00 hours on 11 March 2026. Noriko walked the site’s perimeter where accessible, stopping to scan for wildlife with use of binoculars. Noriko recorded all species of vertebrate wildlife she detected, including those whose members flew over the site or were seen just off the site. Animals of uncertain species identity were either recorded to the Genus or higher taxonomic level.  FRQW Page 2-37           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Conditions were sunny with 4 MPH north wind and temperatures of 51-64 F. The site has been previously graded and contains annual grassland, coastal sage scrub, and riparian vegetation (Photos 1 and 2) Noriko saw Allen’s hummingbird and Anna’s hummingbird (Photos 3 and 4), red- shouldered hawk and red-tailed hawk (Photos 5 and 6), double-crested cormorant and ring-billed gull (Photos 7 and ), American crow and Cassin’s kingbird (Photos 9 and 10), northern mockingbird (Photo 11), California scrub-jay and cedar waxwing (Photos 12 and 13), California towhee and spotted towhee (Photos 14 and 15), orange-crowned warbler and house wren (Photos 16 and 17), wrentit and white-crowned sparrow (Photos 1 and 19), song sparrow (Photo 20), and lesser goldfinch and hooded oriole (Photos 21 and 22). Noriko detected 37 species of vertebrate wildlife at or adjacent to the project site, including seven species with special status (Table 1). Photos 1 and 2.Views of the project site, 11 March 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.  FRQW Page 2-38           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Photos 3 and 4. Allen’s hummingbird (left), and Anna’s hummingbird (right) on the project site, 11 March 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. Photos 5 and 6.Red-shouldered hawk eating a prey item (left), and red-tailed hawk (right) on the project site, 11 March 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.  FRQW Page 2-39           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Photos and .ouble-crested cormorant (left), and ring-billed gull (right) on the project site, 11 March 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. Photos and . American crow with nest material (left), and assin’s kingbird (right) on the project site, 11 March 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.  FRQW Page 2-40           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Photo . Northern mockingbird on the project site, 11 March 2026. Photo by Noriko Smallwood. Photos and 3. alifornia scrub-jay (left), and cedar wa wings (right) on the project site, 11 March 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.  FRQW Page 2-41           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Photos 4 and 5. alifornia towhees (left), and spotted towhee (right) on the project site, 11 March 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. Photos 6 and . range-crowned warbler (left), and house wren (right) on the project site, 11 March 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.  FRQW Page 2-42           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Photos and . rentit (left), and white-crowned sparrow (right) on the project site, 11 March 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. Photo . Song sparrow with a caterpillar on the project site, 11 March 2026. Photo .  FRQW Page 2-43           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Photos and . esser goldfinch with nest material (top), and hooded oriole (bottom) on the project site, 11 March 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. Noriko Smallwood certifies that the foregoing and following survey results are true and accurately reported.  FRQW Page 2-44           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Table 1. Wildlife that Noriko observed in 3 hours of survey on the project site, 11 March 2026. Common name Species name Status1 Notes Great Basin fence lizard Eurasian collared-dove Non-native Mourning dove White-throated swift Flock Anna’s hummingbird Allen’s hummingbird BCC Foraged, displayed Killdeer Ring-billed gull Flew over Double-crested cormorant WL, CSD2 Flew over Great egret Flew over Cooper’s hawk WL, BOP, CSD1 Flew over just off site Red-shouldered hawk BOP, CSD1 Ate prey item Red-tailed hawk BOP Cassin’s kingbird Swinhoe’s white eye Non-native California scrub-jay American crow Gathered nest material Tree swallow Just off site Bushtit Foraged Wrentit BCC Sang, foraged Cedar waxwing Many California gnatcatcher FT, SSC2, CSD1 Just off site Bewick’s wren Northern house wren Northern mockingbird House finch Lesser goldfinch Gathered nest material Dark-eyed junco White-crowned sparrow Foraged Song sparrow Foraged California towhee Copulated Spotted towhee Foraged Hooded oriole Foraged Brown-headed cowbird Flew over Orange-crowned warbler Just off site Yellow-rumped warbler Botta’s pocket gopher Burrows 1 Listed on CDFW’s Special Animals List (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx? DocumentID=109406) as FT = federal threatened; SSCi = California Species of Special Concern with i = priorities 1, 2 and 3; WL = CDFW’s Taxa to Watch List; BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Bird of Conservation Concern (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/birds- of-conservation-concern-2021.pdf); and BOP = protected by Birds of Prey (California Fish and  FRQW Page 2-45           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Game Code 3503.5, see https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Birds/Raptors); CSD1 = Group 1 species on County of San Diego Sensitive Animal List (County of San Diego 2010). N S S C NN SS NC S Noriko detected 37 species of vertebrate willdife, which was a large number for the brevity of her survey effort. All the species in Table 1 would lose habitat as the result of the project and its replacement of natural ground covers with impervious surfaces. Smallwood and Smallwood (2023) confirmed this habitat loss by measuring the impacts of similar developments on species richness and the abundances of wildlife. Smallwood and Smallwood (2023) directly compared the species and the numbers of animals observed prior to development to the those observed after development, while they did the same at control sites. The measured losses of these species resulting from development is indicative of habitat loss, because habitat is defined as that portion of the environment that is used for survival and reproduction by members of a species (Hall et al. 1997), and this use is inferred by observations of the presence of a species (Smallwood 2002). However, the species of wildlife Noriko detected at the project site were not the only species that were present during her survey, as there are always species that are not detected. To demonstrate this, I fit nonlinear regression models to Noriko’s accumulation of first detections of vertebrate wildlife species with time into her daytime surveys to predict the number of species that she would have detected with longer surveys or perhaps with additional biologists available to assist her. The type of model is a logistic growth model, which reaches an asymptote that corresponds with the theoretical maximum number of vertebrate wildlife species that could have been detected during the survey. The model fit to Noriko’s survey data from the morning of 11 March predicts 4 species of vertebrate wildlife were available to be detected, or 11 more species than she detected that morning (Figure 1). Noriko’s rate of species detections exceeded the upper bound of the 95 confidence interval estimated from many other morning surveys we have completed in southcoast California environments. Unknown are the identities of the species Noriko missed, but the species that Noriko did and did not detect on composed only a fraction of the species that would occur at the project site over the period of a year or longer. This is because many species are seasonal in their occurrence, some re uire more survey effort because they are highly cryptic, and the members of other species would visit the site only periodically while patrolling large home ranges. Surveys on only two days cannot possibly detect all of the species of the local wildlife community. At least a year’s worth of surveys would be needed to more accurately report the number of vertebrate species that occur at the project site, but I only have Noriko’s one survey. However, by use of an analytical bridge, a modeling effort applied to a large, robust data set from a research site can predict the number of vertebrate wildlife species that likely make use of the site over the longer term. This analytical bridge draws inference from the pattern of species detections more than it does from the research site, and I note that the pattern, i.e., rate, of species detections is consistent from site to site.  FRQW  Page 2-46           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project i e 1.Actual and predicted relationships between the numbers of vertebrate wildlife species detected and the elapsed survey time based on Noriko s visual scan surveys on 11 March 2026. Note the confidence interval orange applies only to the morning survey red line . As part of my research, I completed a much larger survey effort across 167 km2 of annual grasslands of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, where from 2015 through 2019 I performed 721 1-hour visual-scan surveys, or 721 hours of surveys, at 46 stations. I used binoculars and otherwise the methods were the same as the methods I and other consulting biologists use for surveys at proposed project sites. At each of the 46 survey stations, I tallied new species detected with each se uential survey at that station, and then related the cumulative species detected to the hours (number of surveys, as each survey lasted 1 hour) used to accumulate my counts of species detected. I used combined uadratic and simplex methods of estimation in Statistica to estimate least-s uares, best-fit nonlinear models of the number of cumulative species detected regressed on hours of survey (number of surveys) at the station: ܴ෠ ൌ ଵ ଵ ௔ൗା௕ൈሺு௢௨௥௦ሻ೎ , where ܴ෠ represented cumulative species richness detected. The coefficients of determination, r2, of the models ranged 0. to 1.00, with a mean of 0.97 (95 CI: 0.96, 0.9 ); or in other words, the models were excellent fits to the data. I projected the predictions of each model to thousands of hours to find predicted asymptotes of wildlife species richness. The mean model-predicted asymptote of species richness was 57 after 11, 57 hours of visual-scan surveys among the 46 stations of my research site. I also averaged model predictions of species richness at each incremental increase of number of surveys, i.e., number of hours (Figure 2). On average I would have Cu m u l a t i v e n u m b e r o f w i ld l i f e s p e c i e s d e t e c t e d 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Minutes into survey 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Model prediction; r2 = 0.98 95% CI of morning surveys LQUHJLRQ௅ Actual count of species  FRQW Page 2-47           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project detected 12.7 species over my first 3 hours of diurnal surveys at my research site in the Altamont Pass (3 hours to match the 3 hours Noriko surveyed during daylight hours at the project site), which composed 22.3 of the predicted total number of species I would detect with a much larger survey effort at the research site. Given the example illustrated in Figure 2, the 37 diurnally active species Noriko detected after her 3 hours of daylight survey at the project site likely represented 22.3 of the species to be detected after many more visual-scan surveys over another year or longer. With many more repeat surveys through the year, Noriko would likely detect ͵͹ ͲǤʹʹ͵ൗ ൌ ͳ͸͸ species of vertebrate wildlife in daylight surveys at the site. Assuming Noriko’s ratio of special-status to non-special-status species was to hold through the detections of all 166 predicted species, then continued daylight surveys would eventually detect 31 special- status species of vertebrate wildlife. Because my prediction of 166 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 31 special-status species, is derived from daytime visual-scan surveys, and would detect few nocturnal mammals such as bats, the true number of species composing the wildlife community of the site must be larger. Noriko’s reconnaissance survey should serve only as a starting point toward characteri ation of the site’s wildlife community, but it certainly cannot alone inform of the inventory of species that use the site. More surveys are needed than her one survey to produce an inventory the project site’s wildlife community. Nevertheless, the large number of species I predict at the project site is indicative of a relatively species-rich wildlife community that warrants a serious survey effort. i e . Mean CI predicted wildlife species richness, ܴ෠, as a nonlinear function of hour long survey increments across 6 visual scan survey stations across the Altamont Pass Wind esource Area, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, 201 ࣣ201 . Note that the location of the study is largely irrelevant to the utility of the graph to the interpretation of survey outcomes at the project site. It is the pattern in the data that is relevant, because the pattern is typical of the pattern seen elsewhere.0 20 40 60 80 1000 10 20 30 40 50 Cumulative number of surveys (hours) (9 5 % C I )  FRQW Page 2-48           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project S N N N N S N The first step in analysis of potential project impacts to biological resources is to accurately characteri e the existing environmental setting, including the wildlife community and any key ecological relationships and known and ongoing threats to special-status species. A reasonably accurate characteri ation of the environmental setting can provide the baseline from which to analy e potential project impacts. For these reasons, characteri ation of the environmental setting, including the project site’s regional setting, is one of the CEQA’s essential analytical steps. Methods to achieve this first step typically include (1) surveys of the site for biological resources, and (2) reviews of literature, occurrence databases and local experts to help predict the occurrences of special-status species. In the case of the proposed project, these steps were taken, though not with sufficient rigor, and not interpreted in furtherance of an accurate characteri ation of the wildlife community. n onmenta Sett n n o me e Su e s To CEQA’s primary objective to disclose potential environmental impacts of a proposed project, the analysis should be informed of which biological species are known to occur at the proposed project site, which special-status species are likely to occur, and the limitations of the survey effort directed to the site. Analysts need this information to characteri e the environmental setting as a basis for opining on, or predicting, potential project impacts to biological resources. In the case of this project, however, more surveys were needed, as were more appropriate interpretations of the survey findings. MBI (2026) conducted a reconnaissance survey on 24 anuary 2026 “to document existing conditions, conduct a habitat assessment for special-status plant and wildlife species and sensitive natural communities, and determine the presence of a uatic resources within the project site.” MBI (2026) deployed two biologists who committed 4 person-hours starting at 0 :30, and they detected 21 species of vertebrate wildlife. In comparison to MBI’s 21 species detected in 4 person-hours, Noriko detected 37 species of vertebrate wildlife at or immediately adjacent to the project site in 3 hours. MBI detected seven species that Noriko did not, and Noriko detected 23 species that MBI did not. With Noriko Smallwood’s survey, the total number of vertebrate wildlife species detected on the project site increases to 44, or more than twice the number MBI’s biologists detected. Noriko’s additional species detections suggest that the project site supports many more species yet to be detected. The accumulation of species detections remains in the early growth phase. MBI’s vertebrate wildlife species tally was slightly fewer than the average from among consultants who survey for wildlife at project sites, whereas Noriko detected 7 more than we average at project sites (Figure 3). MBI’s tally of special-status species of vertebrate wildlife e ualed the average among consultant surveys, whereas Noriko detected one more than we average (Figure 3). This type of comparative analysis is missing from MBI (2026), but it is needed to understand the meaning of the survey results.  FRQW Page 2-49           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project i e . re uency distribution of the number of vertebrate wildlife species detected by consulting biologists left graph and by me and Noriko right graph among project sites that were surveyed in support of environmental reviews in California. i e . re uency distribution of the number of special status species of wildlife detected by consulting biologists left graph and by me and Noriko right graph among project sites that were surveyed in support of environmental reviews. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Vertebrate wildlife species detected 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Consultants Nu m b e r o f p r o j e c t s i t e s 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000 20 40 60 80 100 Smallwoods Nu m b e r o f p r o j e c t s i t e s = 22.8 = 30.3 Salk Ave Apts (21) Salk Ave Apts (37) Vertebrate wildlife species detected 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 400 20 40 60 80 100 Special-status species of vertebrate wildlife detected Consultants Nu m b e r o f p r o j e c t s i t e s 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 280 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Special-status species of vertebrate wildlife detected Smallwoods Nu m b e r o f p r o j e c t s i t e s = 4 = 6 Salk Ave Apts (4)Salk Ave Apts (7)  FRQW Page 2-50           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Three comparative contexts are needed to fully disclose the meanings of survey findings in the IS/MND. The first is to contextuali e the survey findings relative to the survey effort, because otherwise it is misleading to insinuate that the species detected were definitive of the wildlife community. As Figures 1 and 2 demonstrate, additional surveys contribute to greater accuracy in the characteri ation of the wildlife community, eventually obtaining the species inventory. (An inventory may not be necessary, but it helps to disclose the approximate number of species yet to be detected.) That Noriko could survey briefly and still more than double the number of vertebrate wildlife species from MBI’s 21 species means that there are many more species yet to be detected. As I commented above, by analytically bridging Noriko’s survey data to a more extensive research survey effort, I predict 166 species of vertebrate wildlife, inclusive of 31 special- status species, and these are the tallies expected of only diurnal surveys. Adding nocturnal surveys would increase these numbers substantially, as many mammals, reptiles and amphibians and some birds are active mostly at night. The second comparative context is to compare the survey findings on the project site to survey findings from other sites of proposed projects or at sites that can serve as reference sites. Figures 3 and 4 exemplify this comparative context, as do the confidence intervals in Figures 1 and 2. Another example can be found in Figure 5, which compares Noriko’s findings to hundreds of other survey results at other proposed project sites, developed sites, and at relatively intact “references sites,” but it does so relative to the survey effort. This approach is more informative than the other comparative contexts because it factors in survey effort. The third comparative context is to assess the probabilities of detection considering the survey effort of each special-status species, whether detected or not. MBI (2026) reports having failed to detect most special-status species that could conceivably occur on the project site, but what do these failures to detect species really mean? Each species presents survey personnel with a uni ue range of detection probabilities, but the IS/MND fails to discuss this, and instead gives the false impression that field surveys are e ual in their ikelihoods to detect any and all species of vertebrate wildlife. For any given species, the likelihood it would be detected varies with survey effort and distance from known activity areas, among other factors. Many animals maintain home ranges that are larger than most project sites, and they periodically shift their foraging activities to various parts of their home range, hence occurring on a particular site only periodically. To detect these species, survey personnel must be at the site on the same date and time as the one or more members of the species. Therefore, the probability of detection during any given survey is less than 100 .  FRQW Page 2-51           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project i e . Noriko Smallwood s survey findings at the Salk Ave Apartments Project site relative to our survey findings at other project sites red , at developed sites black , and at more pristine sites that we survey as reference sites green . Noriko s findings exceed the upper bound of the confidence interval based on the results of hundreds of surveys at project sites, and they almost reach the lower bound of the CI from many surveys at reference sites. For example, knowing that the nearest eBird occurrence record of white-tailed kite was within 1.5 miles from the project site, Noriko’s survey effort of 3 hours afforded her a 9 likelihood of detection of white-tailed kite (Figure 6). Noriko would have needed to conduct another 9 surveys to accumulate a reasonable likelihood of detecting white- tailed kite, but the model fit to the data indicates that with more surveys she would eventually detect white-tailed kite on the project site. Assuming for the sake of argument that the skills of MBI’s biologists were e ual to Noriko’s, then the model predicts MBI’s likelihood of detection of white-tailed kite is 11 , or not much greater than Noriko’s detection probability. Both Noriko and MBI stood a low likelihood of detection of white- tailed kite, but this does not mean that white-tailed kites are unlikely to occur on the site. There is a fundamental difference between detection likelihood and occurrence likelihood, but this difference is not mentioned or discussed in MBI (2026). 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Minutes into survey 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Early morning surveys for vertebrate wildlife Reference sites Proposed project sites Developed sites Me a n ( 9 5 % C I ) c u m u l a t i v e s p e c i e s d e t e c t e d Noriko’s morning tally of 37 vertebrate wildlife species at Salk Ave  FRQW Page 2-52           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project i e . Probability of detection of white tailed kite as a function of survey effort and proximity of occurrence records to a project site, based on hundreds of reconnaissance surveys we completed 201 202 . This third comparative context is very important because it is the basis for the formulation of detection survey protocols. Experienced biologists are aware of survey limitations due to ranges of variation in the activity periods, levels of crypticity, and periodic movement patterns of wildlife species, and due to variation in the skill and commitment of survey personnel. This third comparative context acknowledges that the occurrence likelihood of a species on a particular site is rarely if ever ero, so long as the site is within the species’ geographic range and it provides habitat. This third comparative context reveals that a determination of ero likelihood of occurrence is typically indicative of insufficient survey effort. A common goal of detection survey protocols is to support absence determinations with a survey effort that should have resulted in a detection if the species had been present at the time of the surveys, but it does not prove that the species is always absent from the site. This third comparative context and its implications should not be neglected in CEQA review, but in the case of the IS/MND prepared for this Project, it is entirely neglected. As for detection surveys, none were implemented on the project site. No breeding- season detection surveys were implemented for burrowing owl as recommended by CDFW (2012), none were implemented for candidate species of bumble bee as recommended by CDFW (2023), and none were implemented for rare plants as Log10 Survey hours -0.6 -0.2 0.2 0.6 1.0 1.4 1.8 2.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 Pr o b a b i l i t y o f d e t e c t i o n 1.5 and 40 miles Within 1.5 miles On site or adjacent Nearest eBird records White-tailed kite (ODQXV OHXFXUXV California Fully Protected 0.4 158410 Hours1 P = 0.09  FRQW Page 2-53           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project recommended by CDFW (201 ). A meandering 2-hoour walk by two biologists could not have effectively substituted for protocol-level detection surveys. In summary, MBI detected the usual number of wildlife species that consultants detect in surveys conducted in support of CEQA review, but Noriko’s survey brings the species tally to 44 species of vertebrate wildlife, and it indicates many more occur there but have yet to be documented. It is delin uent of MBI (2026) to have reported its findings without any comparative context to aid in interpretation. At least a fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR so that a sufficient survey effort can be completed and its results appropriately interpreted and reported. n onmenta Sett n n o me es to e e The purpose of literature and database reviews and of consulting with local experts is to inform the field survey, and to augment interpretation of its outcome. Analysts need this information to identify which species are known to have occurred at or near the project site, and to identify which other special-status species could conceivably occur at the site due to geographic range overlap and migration flight paths. In the case of this project, the desktop review was incomplete, and the review that was completed was distorted to minimali e the likelihoods of occurrence of special-status species. To establish its pool of special-status species for assessment of occurrence likelihoods, MBI (2026) ueried the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) for occurrence records within eight USGS 7.5’ Quadrangles. However, the CNDDB is a volunteer positive-sightings database, and as such it is useful for confirming presence but not for confirming absence of species because such databases are not designed for this purpose. As noted by the CNDDB, “The CN B is a positive sighting database. It does not predict where something may be found. We map occurrences only where we have documentation that the species was found at the site. There are many areas of the state where no surveys have been conducted and therefore there is nothing on the map. That does not mean that there are no special status species present.” MBI (2026) and hence the IS/MND misuse the CNDDB. The CNDDB relies entirely on volunteer reporting from biologists who were allowed access to whatever properties they report from. Many properties have never been surveyed by biologists. Many properties have been surveyed, but the survey outcomes never reported to the CNDDB. Many properties have been surveyed multiple times, but not all survey outcomes reported to the CNDDB. Furthermore, the CNDDB is interested only in the findings of special-status species, which means that species more recently assigned special status will have been reported many fewer times to the CNDDB than were species assigned special status since the inception of the CNDDB. Therefore, occurrence records in the CNDDB are most abundant for species assigned special status decades ago, but fewest for species only recently assigned special status. And because negative findings are not reported to the CNDDB, the CNDDB is also inappropriate as a basis for weighting occurrence likelihoods such as absent, not expected, unlikely, low, moderate or high. Whereas the CNDDB can be confirmatory of species presence, it cannot support absence determinations or assignments of low likelihood of occurrence.  FRQW  Page 2-54           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project And again, the screening out of a species due to lack of occurrence records in the CNDDB is the same as an absence determination, and this step is being taken without ade uate support of field surveys. In my assessment based on a database review and site visits, 143 special-status species of wildlife are known to occur near enough to the site to warrant analysis of occurrence potential (Table 2). Not all these species should be expected to occur at the project site, but each of them should be given a closer look to determine occurrence likelihoods and whether additional surveys are needed, or implementation of detection surveys, or whether it would be reasonable to assume presence. Of these 143 species, (6 ) were recorded on or just off the project site, and another 47 (33 ) species have been documented within 1.5 miles of the site ( ery close), another 43 (30 ) between 1.5 and 4 miles (Nearby), and another 39 (27 ) between 4 to 30 miles (In region). Two thirds (69 ) of the species in Table 2 have been reportedly seen within 4 miles of the project site. The site therefore supports at least eight special-status species of wildlife, and it carries the potential for supporting many more special-status species of wildlife based on the proximities of recorded occurrences. Evidence certainly suggests that habitat assessments are needed for these species. MBI (2026) considers the occurrence likelihoods of only 46 (32 ) of the special-status species listed in Table 2, which means that 97 (6 ) of the special-status species in Table 2 were screened out of the analysis in the first step of the desktop review. Of the 46 species considered, all but two were determined to be “not expected” to occur on the project site. Of the species determined to be “not expected,” one of them, Cooper’s hawk, was observed just off the project site, another 13 species have been documented within 1.5 miles of the project site, and another 12 species have been documented within 4 miles of the project site. In summary, MBI’s occurrence likelihood determinations comport poorly with the data. s a a te at on o t e e Commun t MBI (2026) reports on a field survey and a desktop review having been performed, but the field survey results are interpreted without any context to survey results from elsewhere, and the desktop review starts with an inappropriately small pool of special- status species after misusing the CNDDB. MBI (2026) often resorts to speculation in its analyses of occurrence likelihoods, having not completed surveys appropriate to bats and burrowing owls, and having committed too little survey effort overall. Speculated habitat assessments are highly uncertain, which is inappropriate for precious or rare resources such as special-status species (National Research Council 19 6). The true wildlife community remains to be described with sufficient accuracy. Without a more accurate characteri ation of the wildlife community, the basis is inade uate for predicting impacts and formulating appropriate mitigation strategies. At least a fair argument can be made for the need to prepare and EIR to accurately characteri e the wildlife community of the projects site as a suitable baseline from which to predict project impacts and to formulate an appropriate mitigation strategy.  FRQW  Page 2-55           Salk Avenue Apartments Project Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Table .Occurrence likelihoods of special status species of wildlife at or near the proposed project site, according to eBird iNaturalist records https eBird.org, https www.inaturalist.org and on site survey findings, where ery close indicates within 1. miles of the site, nearby indicates within 1. and miles, and in region indicates within and 30 miles, and in range means the species geographic range overlaps the site. MSCP cover refers to whether incidental take of the species is covered by the San iego Multiple Species Conservation Program. ntries in bold font identify species detected by Noriko Smallwood during her site visit. Common name Species name Status1 SC ernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta lynchi FT In region San Diego fairy shrimp Branchinecta sandiegonensis FE, CSD1 Yes Not expected In region Riverside fairy shrimp Streptocephalus woottoni FE Yes Not expected In region Wandering skipper Pano uina errans CSD1 Nearby uino checkerspot butterfly uphydryas editha uino FE, CSD1 Yes In region Monarch anaus plexippus FC, CSD2 Not expected ery close Crotch’s bumble bee Bombus crotchii CCE Moderate ery close Western spadefoot Spea hammondii SSC, CSD2 Yes Not expected Nearby Southwestern pond turtle Actinemys pallida FC, SSC Yes Not expected In region San Diego banded gecko Coleonyx variegatus abbotti SSC, CSD1 In region Coast horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii SSC, CSD2 Yes Not expected Nearby Coronado skink Plestiodon skiltonianus interparietalis WL, CSD2 Not expected In region Orange-throated whiptail Aspidoscelis hyperythra WL, CSD2 Yes Not expected In region Coastal whiptail Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri SSC, CSD2 Not expected ery close San Diegan legless lizard Anniella stebbinsi SSC Not expected Nearby Coastal rosy boa Lichanura orcutti CSD2 Nearby California glossy snake Arizona elegans occidentalis SSC, CSD2 Not expected In region San Diego ringneck snake iadophis punctatus similis CSD2 Nearby Coast patchnose snake Salvadora hexalepis virgultea SSC, CSD2 Not expected In region Two-striped gartersnake Thamnophis hammondii SSC, CSD1 Yes Not expected Nearby South coast garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis pop. 1 SSC, CSD2 Not expected In region Red diamond rattlesnake Crotalus ruber SSC, CSD2 Yes Not expected ery close Brant Branta bernicla SSC2 Nearby Cackling goose (Aleutian)Branta hutchinsii leucopareia WL Nearby  Page 2-56           Salk Avenue Apartments Project Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Common name Species name Status1 SC Moffitt’s Canada goose Branta canadensis moffitti CSD2 In region Redhead Aythya americana SSC2, CSD2 ery close Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis BCC, CSD1 Nearby Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii BCC Nearby Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis FT, CE, CSD1 Not expected ery close Black swift Cypseloides niger SSC3, BCC, CSD2 ery close aux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC ery close Calliope hummingbird Selasphorus calliope BCC Nearby Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC ery close Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC Present ery close/n s te Light-footed Ridgway’s rail allus obsoletus levipes FE, CE, CFP Not expected Nearby Mountain plover Charadrius montanus SSC2, BCC, CSD2 In region Snowy plover Charadrius nivosus BCC Nearby Western snowy plover Charadrius nivosus nivosus FT, SSC Not expected In region Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus WL, CSD2 Nearby Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa BCC Nearby Red knot (Pacific)Calidris canutus BCC Nearby Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus BCC Nearby Willet Tringa semipalmata BCC Nearby Laughing gull Leucophaeus atricilla WL, CSD2 Nearby Heermann’s gull Larus heermanni BCC Nearby Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC ery close California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL, CSD2 ery close California least tern Sternula antillarum browni FE, CE, CFP, CSD1 Not expected ery close Gull-billed tern elochelidon nilotica BCC, SSC3 Nearby Black tern Chlidonias niger SSC2, BCC, CSD2 Nearby Elegant tern Thalasseus elegans BCC, WL, CSD1 Nearby Black skimmer ynchops niger BCC, SSC3, CSD1 Nearby Common loon avia immer SSC, CSD2 Nearby  FRQW Page 2-57           Salk Avenue Apartments Project Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Common name Species name Status1 SC Wood stork Mycteria americana SSC1, CSD2 In region Brandt’s cormorant rile penicillatus BCC Nearby Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL, CSD2 ery close/n s te American white pelican Pelacanus erythrorhynchos SSC1, CSD2 ery close Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis SSC2, CSD2 Not expected Nearby Great blue heron Ardea herodias CSD2 ery close Reddish egret gretta rufescens CSD2 Nearby Green heron Butorides striatus CSD2 ery close White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi WL, CSD1 Yes Not expected ery close Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP, CSD1 ery close Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL, BOP, CSD1 Yes ery close White-tailed kite lanus leucurus CFP, BOP, CSD1 Not expected ery close Golden eagle A uila chrysaetos BGEPA, BOP, WL, CFP, CSD1 Yes Not expected In region Northern harrier Circus cyaneus SSC3, BCC, BOP, CSD1 Yes Not expected ery close Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP, CSD1 ery close Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperi WL, BOP, CSD1 Not expected ery close/ust o Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus CE, BGEPA, BOP CSD1 Nearby Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP, CSD1 ery close/n s te Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP, CSD1 Not expected ery close one-tailed hawk Buteo albonotatus BOP ery close Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Present ery close/n s te Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis BOP, WL, CSD1 Nearby American barn owl Tyto furcata BOP, CSD2 ery close Western screech-owl Megascops kennicotti BOP ery close  FRQW Page 2-58           Salk Avenue Apartments Project Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Common name Species name Status1 SC Great-horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP ery close Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia CCE, BCC, SSC2, BOP, CSD1 Yes Nearby Long-eared owl Asio otus BCC, BOP, SSC3, CSD1 In region Short-eared owl Asia flammeus BCC, SSC3, BOP, CSD2 Nearby Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC, CSD1 Nearby Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Present ery close/On site (MB) American kestrel alco sparverius BOP ery close Merlin alco columbarius WL, BOP, CSD2 ery close Peregrine falcon alco peregrinus BOP, CSD1 ery close Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus WL, BOP, CSD1 In region Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi BCC, SSC2, CSD2 ery close Willow flycatcher mpidonax trailii CE ery close Southwestern willow flycatcher mpidonax traillii extimus FE, CE Yes Not expected In region ermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2, CSD1 ery close Least Bell’s vireo ireo belli pusillus FE, CE, CSD1 Yes Not expected ery close Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus SSC2, CSD1 ery close Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC ery close California horned lark remophila alpestris actia WL, CSD2 ery close Bank swallow iparia riparia CT, CSD1 Not expected Nearby Purple martin Progne subis SSC2, CSD1 ery close Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC ery close/ust o California gnatcatcher Polioptila c. californica FT, SSC2, CSD1 Yes Present ery close/On site (MB)/ust Clark’s marsh wren Cistothorus palustris clarkae SSC2 In range  FRQW Page 2-59           Salk Avenue Apartments Project Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Common name Species name Status1 SC San Diego cactus wren Campylorhynchs brunneicapillus sandiegensis SSC1, CSD1 Yes Not expected Nearby California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC ery close Western bluebird Sialia mexicana CSD2 ery close Cassin’s finch Haemorhous cassinii BCC In region Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC ery close Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2, CSD1 Yes Nearby Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis BCC In region Bell’s sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL, CSD1 Yes In region Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2 In range Belding’s savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi CE, BCC, CSD1 Not expected Nearby Large-billed savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis rostratus SSC2, CSD2 In region Southern California rufous- crowned sparrow Aimophila ruficeps canescens WL, CSD1 Yes Not expected ery close Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3, CSD1 Yes Not expected ery close Yellow-headed blackbird anthocephalus xanthocephalus SSC3 ery close Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC ery close Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC, SSC1, CSD1 Yes Not expected Nearby Lucy’s warbler Leiothlypis luciae SSC3, CSD1 ery close irginia’s warbler Leiothlypis virginiae WL, BCC Nearby Northern yellow warbler Setophaga aestiva SSC2, CSD2 Not expected ery close Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1, CSD2 ery close Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG H, CSD2 Yes Not expected In region Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC, WBWG:H, CSD2 Yes Not expected In region Spotted bat uderma maculatum SSC, WBWG H, CSD2 In region California leaf nosed bat Macrotus californicus SSC, WBWG H, CSD2 In region Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG H, CSD2 In region Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG M Nearby Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus SSC, WBWG H In region Small-footed myotis Myotis cililabrum WBWG M, CSD2 In region  FRQW Page 2-60           Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Common name Species name Status1 SC Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis WBWG M, CSD2 In region Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes WBWG H, CSD2 In region Long-legged myotis Myotis volans WBWG H, CSD2 In region Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis WBWG LM, CSD2 Not expected In region Western mastiff bat umops perotis SSC, WBWG H, CSD2 Not expected In region Pocketed freeǦtailed bat Nyctinomops femorosaccus SSC, WBWG M, CSD2 Not expected In region Big free-tailed bat Nyctinomops macrotis SSC, WBWG MH, CSD2 In region San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus bennettii SSC, CSD2 Yes In region Southern grasshopper mouse Onychomys torridus ramona SSC, CSD2 In range Dulzura pocket mouse Chaetodipus californicus femoralis SSC, CSD2 Not expected In range Pallid San Diego pocket mouse Chaetodipus fallax pallidus SSC, CSD2 In range Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse Chaetodipus fallax fallax SSC, CSD2 Not expected Nearby Los Angeles pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris brevinasus SSC, CSD2 In range Stephens’ kangaroo rat ipodomys stephensi FT, CT, CSD1 Yes Not expected In region San Diego Bryant’s woodrat Neotoma bryanti intermedia SSC, CSD2 Not expected Nearby 1 Listed on CDFW’s Special Animals List (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109406) as FT or FE = federal threatened or endangered; FC = federal candidate for listing; CT or CE = California threatened or endangered; CCT or CCE = Candidate California threatened or endangered; CFP = California Fully Protected (California Fish and Game Code 3 11); SSCi = California Species of Special Concern with i = priorities 1, 2 and 3; WL = CDFW’s Taxa to Watch List; BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H); BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Bird of Conservation Concern (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/birds-of- conservation-concern-2021.pdf); BOP = protected by Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3 03. , see https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Birds/Raptors); and as CSD1 and CSD2 = Group 1 and Group 2 species on County of San Diego Sensitive Animal List (County of San Diego 2010).  FRQW Page 2-61           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project I I I TS SSESS E T The impacts analysis in CEQA review involves prediction. Predictions are necessary because measuring a project’s impacts directly could not happen until after the impacts occur, and the timing of this type of measurement would come too late for the formulations of avoidance and minimi ation mitigation strategies that are prioriti ed by the CEQA. Impact predictions are necessary as part of the environmental review. The accuracy of the predictions of impacts and their significance ultimately relies on the degree of accuracy in the characteri ation of the existing environmental setting (Figure 7). . eneral flow of information from the gathering stage through the characteri ation of the e isting en ironment to predictions of impacts and their significance. Impact predictions can derive from speculation or from experience (Figure 6). Speculation is repeatedly discouraged in the CEQA Guidelines, because speculation is an inconclusive guess or ponderance on a phenomenon without the benefit of data. Prediction accuracy improves with experience, though the experience that can be brought to bear on impact predictions ranges from anecdotes to careful use of scientific inference. Inference is a conclusion derived logically from data that are available about a phenomenon. Any type of experience is usually better than relying on speculation, but careful scientific inference, especially inference drawn from experiments, has proven most effective. An analogy would be predicting the boiling temperature of water at a certain place with a known atmospheric pressure after having measured it hundreds of times at other places under various atmospheric pressures. The experience of measuring the boiling temperature at all these other places would certainly result in a more accurate prediction of the boiling point as compared to a speculative prediction. We know that use of inference in this example is certainly more predictive, and not Assess species occurrence likelihoods 1. Desktop review a. Species geographic range overlap or database occurrence records b. Crosswalk habitat associations with mapped ground cover 2. Reconnaissance survey/Habitat assessment 3. Detection surveys for special-status species Outcomes 5. Predict impacts 6. Formulate mitigation strategy 7. Determine si nificance of impacts Characterize wildlife community 4. Lists of species detected and of those expected but not yet detected, and any known trends Note: Impact predictions and significance determinations have been of unknown accuracy in the absence of experimental measurement  Page 2-62           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project potentially more predictive, because we have a long successful history with the application of this type of experimentation to draw predictive inference. The many projects that have undergone CE A review provide a comparative basis for drawing inferences needed to predict the impacts of the next proposed project (Figure ). Reconnaissance survey results that are not compared to survey results from other project sites miss the opportunity to interpret the results for the purpose of predicting impacts. The same is true of CDNNB occurrence records. For example, it would be helpful to know how often a species lacking CNDDB occurrence records on a site is nevertheless detected onsite by reconnaissance survey(s). It would be helpful to know how often the impact predictions of other projects are proven accurate, and how often the re uired mitigation measures are proven effective. The comparative method enables the use of scientific inference over speculation and the blind confidence of simply repeating impact conclusions of unknown accuracy and mitigation strategies of unknown efficacy. i e . A framework for arriving at predicted project impacts based on experience with other project sites. Ideally, there is a pool of similar projects in similar circumstances where predicted impacts were compared to realized impacts, and into which the proposed project can also contribute to experience. In the following, I analyze several types of impacts likely to result from the project, none of which are analyzed ade uately in the IS/MND, and some of which are not analyzed at all. Inference Project site Preconstruction study Predict project impacts Preconstruction studies Post-construction studies Pool of experience Post-construction study Test predictions  FRQW Page 2-63           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project C C C C SS Habitat loss results in a reduced productive capacity of affected wildlife species. The site is proven to serve as habitat to at least 44 species of vertebrate wildlife which Noriko and MBI observed on the site, but the number of avian nest sites remains unknown. The surveys that have been conducted on the project site were unsuitable for detecting all bird nests or estimating total nest density. The alternative method for estimating avian productive capacity is to infer it from estimates of total nest density elsewhere. Noriko and I completed studies to estimate total avian nest density in similar environments. Noriko estimated 1.63 nests/acre in 1.23 acres of sage scrub in Murrieta, California. Among three of her grassland study sites, one of my grassland study sites, and an estimate from another grassland (Jorgensen et al. 2014), the average was 3.2 nests/acre. However, I estimated 21.2 nests/acres at a study site composed of ornamentals grown in hedges. Applying Noriko’s 1.63 nests/acre to the site’s 0.33 acres of Diegan sage scrub predicts 0. 4 nests/acre, or a nest every other year. To the 9.4 of the remainder of the site, I will adjust my average 3.2 nests/acre for the inclusions of ornamentals to estimate 6.4 nests/acre. This density applied to the 9.4 acres of the project site would predict 60. nest sites. Altogether with the Diegan sage scrub, I estimate 61 nest sites on the project site. Assuming 1.39 broods per nest site based on a review of 322 North American bird species, which averaged 1.39 broods per year, then I estimate nest attempts per year on the project site. Assuming Young’s (194 ) study site typifies bird productivity of 2.9 fledged birds per nest attempt, then I predict 24 fledglings/year at the project site. The loss of 61 nest sites and nest attempts per year would ualify as significant impacts that have not been analyzed in the IS/MND. But the impacts would not end with the immediate loss of nest sites. The reproductive capacity of the site would be lost. The project would prevent the production of 24 fledglings per year. Assuming an average bird generation time of 4 years, the lost capacity of both breeders and annual fledgling production can be estimated from an e uation in Smallwood (2022): (nests/year chicks/nest number of years) (2 adults/nest nests/year) (number of years years/generation) (number of years) = 2 birds per year lost to California. The loss of 2 birds per year would be a loss of significant habitat value that is currently provided by the project site. Most if not all these birds are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and by California’s Migratory Bird Protection Act, both of which are intended to most strongly protect breeding migratory birds. The loss of 2 birds per year would easily ualify as an unmitigated significant impact. N NC N One of CE A’s principal concerns regarding potential project impacts is whether a proposed project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. Unfortunately, this concern has not motivated any serious analysis of whether or how the project would   Page 2-64           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project conclusory statements about how the project site is isolated and lacks vegetative cover of the sort that would support wildlife movement. No sources are cited in support of the IS/MND’s conclusions. However, contrary to the IS/MND’s characterization, the project site is covered by ornamentals, scattered coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), and grassland, as well as a patch of Diegan sage scrub. Noriko saw and photographed birds flying across the site, foraging and collecting nest materials. The isolated nature of the site only increases its value to migratory wildlife in need of stopover opportunities for forage, rest and cover. The evidence readily refutes the conclusory statements in the IS/MND. The IS/MND also resorts to the red-herring argument that a known wildlife movement corridor needs to exist before any significant impact can be determined. However, the CE A standard expressed in uestion (d) of CE A’s App. G Checklist applies to all types of movement and not just the movement channeled by corridors. Moreover, MBI (2026) reports no survey objective to detect signs or patterns of wildlife movement or roosting, and it implemented no study design or program of observation to characterize wildlife movement or to detect roost sites. No data were collected that would have supported the IS/MND’s conclusions regarding the site’s value to wildlife movement or nursery value. The IS/MND’s conclusions are unfounded. N S C S Considering national trends, it is safe to assume that house cats would be introduced to the project area by residents of the proposed residential units. This is significant because house cats serve as one of the largest sources of avian mortality in North America (Dauphin and Cooper 2009, Blancher 2013, Loss et al. 2013, Loyd et al. 201 ). Loss et al. (2013) estimated 139 million cats in the USA in 2013 (range 114 to 164 million), which killed an estimated 16.9 billion vertebrate wildlife annually (range .6 to 26.3 billion). In 2012 there were 0.44 house cats per human in the USA, and 122 vertebrate animals were killed per cat, free-ranging members of which killed disproportionately larger numbers of vertebrate wildlife. The IS/MND reports no prediction of the number of new residents in the project, but assuming 2 residents per apartment unit, then the project can be expected to support 94 new residents. This is important because Ma and McLeod (2023) found that only 1 of apartment owners allow their cats to roam free. The above rates of cat ownership applied to numbers of new residents who would allow their cats to roam free would predict 2 new free- ranging cats, which based on the findings of Loss et al. (2013) would kill 6,344 vertebrate wildlife per year. House cats also contribute to downstream loading of Toxoplasma gondii. According to a UC Davis wildlife health research program, Toxoplasma gondii is a parasite that can infect virtually all warm blooded animals, but the only known definitive hosts are cats domesticated and feral house cats included. Cats catch the parasite through hunting rodents and birds and they offload it into the environment through their feces and rain that falls on cement creates more runoff than rain that falls on natural earth, (The  FRQW  Page 2-65           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project original link is no longer active, but the uote came from the program described at: https://whc.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/programs-projects/ca-conservation/sea-otter). Impacts on wildlife from the introduction of house cats into the environment would be highly significant, and yet these impacts are not considered in the IS/MND. An obvious mitigation measure would be to constrain house cat ownership such as re uiring cats to remain indoors. N C S N The IS/MND does not address one of the best-known impacts on wildlife from a residential project, and that is bird-window collision mortality. The project would introduce glass windows into an essential portion of avian habitat that portion of the gaseous atmosphere that is referred to as the aerosphere (Davy et al. 201 , Diehl et al. 201 ). The aerosphere is where birds and bats and other volant animals with wings migrate, disperse, forage, perform courtship and where some of them mate. Birds are some of the many types of animals that evolved wings as a morphological adaptation to thrive by moving through the medium of the aerosphere. The aerosphere is habitat, to which an entire discipline of ecology has emerged to study this essential aspect of habitat the discipline of aeroecology (Kunz et al. 200 ). Many special-status species of birds have been recorded at or near the aerosphere of the project site. My database review and our site visits indicate there are 101 special-status species of birds with potential to use the site’s aerosphere (Table 2). All the birds represented in Table 2 can uickly fly from wherever they have been documented to the project site, so they would all be within brief flights to the proposed project’s windows. We confirmed birds of 31 species on the project site, many of them flying across the site. Window collisions are often characterized as either the second or third largest source or human-caused bird mortality. The numbers behind these characterizations are often attributed to Klem’s (1990) and Dunn’s (1993) estimates of about 100 million to 1 billion bird fatalities in the USA, or more recently by Loss et al.’s (2014) estimate of 36 -9 million bird fatalities in the USA or Calvert et al.’s (2013) and Machtans et al.’s (2013) estimates of 22.4 million and 2 million bird fatalities in Canada, respectively. The proposed project would impose windows in the airspace normally used by birds. Glass-fa ades of buildings intercept and kill many birds, but they are differentially hazardous to birds based on spatial extent, contiguity, orientation, and other factors. At Washington State University, Johnson and Hudson (19 6) found 266 bird fatalities of 41 species within 3 months of monitoring of a three-story glass walkway (no fatality adjustments attempted). Prior to marking the windows to warn birds of the collision hazard, the collision rate was 4. per year. At that rate, and by not attempting to adjust the fatality estimate for the proportion of fatalities not found, 4, 4 birds were likely killed over the 4 years since the start of their study, and that’s at a relatively small building fa ade. Accounting for the proportion of fatalities not found in searches, the number of birds killed by this walkway over the last 4 years would have been about  FRQW  Page 2-66           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project 14,2 0. And this is just for one 3-story, glass-sided walkway between two college campus buildings. Klem’s (1990) estimate was based on speculation that 1 to 10 birds are killed per building per year, and this speculated range was extended to the number of buildings estimated by the US Census Bureau in 19 6. Klem’s speculation was supported by fatality monitoring at only two houses, one in Illinois and the other in New York. Also, the basis of his fatality rate extension has changed greatly since 19 6. Whereas his estimate served the need to alert the public of the possible magnitude of the bird- window collision issue, it was highly uncertain at the time and undoubtedly outdated more than three decades hence. Indeed, by 2010 Klem (2010) characterized the upper end of his estimated range 1 billion bird fatalities as conservative. Furthermore, the estimate lumped species together as if all birds are the same and the loss of all birds to windows has the same level of impact. By the time Loss et al. (2014) performed their effort to estimate annual USA bird- window fatalities, many more fatality monitoring studies had been reported or were underway. Loss et al. (2014) incorporated many more fatality rates based on scientific monitoring, and they were more careful about which fatality rates to include. However, they included estimates based on fatality monitoring by homeowners, which in one study were found to detect only 3 of the available window fatalities (Bracey et al. 2016). Loss et al. (2014) excluded all fatality records lacking a dead bird in hand, such as injured birds or feather or blood spots on windows. Loss et al.’s (2014) fatality metric was the number of fatalities per building (where in this context a building can include a house, low-rise, or high-rise structure), but they assumed that this metric was based on window collisions. Because most of the bird-window collision studies were limited to migration seasons, Loss et al. (2014) developed an admittedly assumption-laden correction factor for making annual estimates. Also, only two of the studies included adjustments for carcass persistence and searcher detection error, and it was unclear how and to what degree fatality rates were adjusted for these factors. Although Loss et al. (2014) attempted to account for some biases as well as for large sources of uncertainty mostly resulting from an opportunistic rather than systematic sampling data source, their estimated annual fatality rate across the USA was highly uncertain and vulnerable to multiple biases, most of which would have resulted in fatality estimates biased low. In my review of bird-window collision monitoring, I found that the search radius around homes and buildings was very narrow, usually 2 meters. Based on my experience with bird collisions in other contexts, I would expect that a large portion of bird-window collision victims would end up farther than 2 m from the windows, especially when the windows are higher up on tall buildings. In my experience, searcher detection rates tend to be low for small birds deposited on ground with vegetation cover or woodchips or other types of organic matter. Also, vertebrate scavengers entrain on anthropogenic sources of mortality and uickly remove many of the carcasses, thereby preventing the fatality searcher from detecting these fatalities. Adjusting fatality rates for these factors search radius bias, searcher detection error, and carcass persistence rates would greatly increase nationwide estimates of bird-window collision fatalities.  FRQW Page 2-67           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Buildings can intercept many nocturnal migrants as well as birds flying in daylight. As mentioned above, Johnson and Hudson (19 6) found 266 bird fatalities of 41 species within 3 months of monitoring of a four-story glass walkway at Washington State University (no adjustments attempted for undetected fatalities). Somerlot (2003) found 21 bird fatalities among 13 buildings on a university campus within only 61 days. Monitoring twice per week, Hager at al. (200 ) found 21 bird fatalities of 4 species, or birds/building/year, and at another site they found 142 bird fatalities of 3 species for 24 birds/building/year. Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) recorded ,400 bird fatalities under buildings in New York City, based on a decade of monitoring only during migration periods, and some of the high-rises were associated with hundreds of fatalities each. Klem et al. (2009) monitored 3 building fa ades in New York City during 114 days of two migratory periods, tallying 49 collision victims, nearly birds per day. Borden et al. (2010) surveyed a 1. km route 3 times per week during 12-month period and found 2 1 bird fatalities of 0 species. Parkins et al. (201 ) found 3 bird fatalities of 16 species within only 4 days of monitoring under 4 building fa ades. From 24 days of survey over a 4 -day span, Porter and Huang (201 ) found 4 fatalities under buildings on a university campus. Sabo et al. (2016) found 2 bird fatalities over 61 days of searches under 31 windows. In San Francisco, Kahle et al. (2016) found 3 collision victims within 1,62 days under a -story building. Ocampo-Pe uela et al. (2016) searched the perimeters of 6 buildings on a university campus, finding 6 fatalities after 63 days of surveys. One of these buildings produced 61 of the 6 fatalities, and another building with collision-deterrent glass caused only 2 of the fatalities, thereby indicating a wide range in impacts likely influenced by various factors. There is ample evidence available to support my prediction that the proposed project would result in many collision fatalities of birds. Project Impact Prediction: By the time of these comments, I had reviewed and processed results of bird collision monitoring at 213 buildings and fa ades for which bird collisions per m2 of glass per year could be calculated and averaged (Johnson and Hudson 19 6, O’Connell 2001, Somerlot 2003, Hager et al. 200 , Borden et al. 2010, Hager et al. 2013, Porter and Huang 201 , Parkins et al. 201 , Kahle et al. 2016, Ocampo-Pe uela et al. 2016, Sabo et al. 2016, Barton et al. 201 , Gomez-Moreno et al. 201 , Schneider et al. 201 , Loss et al. 2019, Brown et al. 2020, City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon 2020, Riding et al. 2020). These study results averaged 0.0 3 bird deaths per m2 of glass per year (9 CI: 0.042-0.102). This average and its 9 confidence interval provide a robust basis for predicting fatality rates at a proposed new project. With the estimated average bird collision mortality above, all that is needed is an estimate of the spatial extent of windows in the project, but the IS/MND reports no such metric. However, the IS/MND reports the building would gross 416,1 2 s uare feet of floor space, and I happen to have maintained an average extent of windows per s uare foot in other apartment projects. The average was 0.011 m2 of glass window per s uare foot of floor space, which applied to the s uare footage of the project would predict 4, 19 m2 of windows in the project. This extent of windows multiplied against the above-reported average bird collision deaths per m2 of glass per year predicts 3 2 (9 CI: 202 493) bird collision fatalities per year.  FRQW Page 2-68           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project The vast majority of these predicted deaths would be of birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and under the California Migratory Bird Protection Act, thus causing significant unmitigated impacts that were not addressed in the IS/MND. Given the predicted level of bird-window collision mortality, and the lack of any proposed mitigation, it is my opinion that the proposed project would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts, including the unmitigated take of both terrestrial and aerial habitat of birds and other sensitive species. Not only would the project take habitat of rare and sensitive species of birds, but it would transform the project’s airspace into a lethal collision trap to birds. C C S N The IS/MND neglects to address one of the project’s most obvious, substantial impacts to wildlife, and that is wildlife mortality and injuries caused by project-generated traffic. Project-generated traffic would endanger wildlife that must, for various reasons, cross roads used by the project’s traffic (Photos 23ȸ26), including along roads far from the project footprint but which would nevertheless by traversed by automobiles head to or from the project’s building. ehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003). Across North America traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3, 62 birds were estimated killed per 100 km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to ,40 deaths per 100 km per year, or 9 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014). Local impacts can be more intense than nationally. .A desert cottontail runs across the road just in Murietta, California.Such road crossings are usually successful, but too often prove fatal to the animal.  FRQW  Page 2-69           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project .A great tailed grackle crosses a road in the Imperial alley. s an . accoon killed on oad 31 just east of Highway 0 in Solano County left photo taken on 10 November 201 , and California kingsnake killed by a vehicle on a rural road in l orado County in 202 . The nearest study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality was performed along a 2. -mile stretch of asco Road in Contra Costa County, California. Fatality searches in this study found 1,2 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles over 1 months of searches (Mendelsohn et al. 2009). This fatality number needs to be adjusted for the proportion of fatalities that were not found due to scavenger removal and  FRQW Page 2-70           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project searcher error. This adjustment is typically made by placing carcasses for searchers to find (or not find) during their routine periodic fatality searches. This step was not taken at asco Road (Mendelsohn et al. 2009), but it was taken as part of another study next to asco Road (Brown et al. 2016). Brown et al.’s (2016) adjustment factors for carcass persistence resembled those of Santos et al. (2011). Also applying searcher detection rates from Brown et al. (2016), the adjusted total number of fatalities was estimated at 9,462 animals killed by traffic on the road. This fatality number projected over 1.2 years and 2. miles of road translates to 3,02 wild animals per mile per year. In terms comparable to the national estimates, the estimates from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study would translate to 1 ,191 animals killed per 100 km of road per year, or 22 times that of Loss et al.’s (2014) upper bound estimate and 3 times the Canadian estimate. An analysis is needed of whether increased traffic generated by the project site would similarly result in local impacts on wildlife. For wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and crushing under tires, road mortality can be predicted from the study of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) as a basis, although it would be helpful to have the availability of more studies like that of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) at additional locations. My analysis of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) data resulted in an estimated 3,02 animals killed per mile along a county road in Contra Costa County. The estimated numbers of fatalities were 1. birds, 26.4 mammals (many mice and pocket mice, but also ground s uirrels, desert cottontails, striped skunks, American badgers, raccoons, and others), 6 .4 amphibians (large numbers of California tiger salamanders and California red-legged frogs, but also Sierran treefrogs, western toads, arboreal salamanders, slender salamanders and others), and 4.4 reptiles (many western fence lizards, but also skinks, alligator lizards, and snakes of various species). MT is useful for predicting wildlife mortality because I was able to uantify miles traveled along the studied reach of asco Road during the period of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009), hence enabling a rate of fatalities per MT that can be projected to other sites, assuming similar collision fatality rates. e t n o e t ene ate t a m a ts on e The IS/MND fails to report annual MT that would be generated by the project. However, I have maintained a database of predicted annual MT from other apartment projects on which I provided expert testimony. The average has been 26 annual MT per s uare foot of floor space, which applied to the project’s 416,1 2 sf would predict 10, 19,9 2 annual MT would be generated by the project. During the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, 19, 00 cars traveled asco Road in Contra Costa County daily, so the vehicle miles that contributed to my estimate of non-volant fatalities was 19, 00 cars and trucks 2. miles 36 days/year 1.2 years = 22,242,1 . vehicle miles per 9,462 wildlife fatalities, or 2,3 1 vehicle miles per fatality. This rate divided into the predicted annual MT would predict 4,602 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year due to project-generated traffic. However, some might argue that this prediction relies too much on a study along a road through less-disturbed rangeland that likely supports more non-volant wildlife that is  FRQW Page 2-71           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project more vulnerable to collision mortality. I would argue that the project-generated traffic would pass through similar rural environments with ample wildlife available to be crushed under automobile tires. Nevertheless, to better represent those reaches of road that are more urban than rural, or that would become more urban with the development of the project, I recently completed my own study of wildlife mortality caused by automobiles along roads that were urban and interfaced between urban and agricultural land uses. I completed one year of daily pedestrian surveys along 2. km (1. 13 miles) of local, collector and minor arterial roads in north Davis, California, where I tallied 314 fatalities of 40 species of vertebrate wildlife. Most of the fatalities were small-bodied animals such as Sierran treefrogs, western toads, western fence lizards, 10 - to 16 -long juvenile Pacific gophersnakes, valley gartersnakes and California kingsnakes, as well as bushtits, yellow-rumped warblers, deer mice and California ground s uirrels. Most of the animals I found would never have been detected from a moving vehicle, which is why people often underestimate how many wild animals are killed by vehicle traffic. The animals I found in my study did not include all the animals killed by vehicles on the roads I searched. Many had been removed by scavengers before I could find and count them. (American crows patrol the roads every morning, and so does a large flock of wild turkeys.) Some of the animals are knocked off the road in places where I could never find them, and some were undoubtedly caught and carried away in the grills of vehicles or in tire treads. Most of the Sierran treefrogs disappeared from where I found them within several hours, so daily searches missed many of the fatalities. To adjust for these undetected fatalities, I fit a logit regression model to my fatality finds, all of which transitioned to carcass detection trials after I initially found them. Starting with the first day after each detection, I monitored the carcass trials for 30 days, and I assigned each a body mass estimate based on typical body mass reported in the literature. Predictor variables were days since detection and log10 body mass. The relationship between carcass detection probability and the predictor variables is depicted in Figure 9. My fatality finds adjusted by the model results in an estimate of 2,126 vertebrate wildlife fatalities over 1. 13 miles of roads in one year, or 1,241 vertebrate wildlife fatalities/mile/year. This rate is 40.9 of the rate measured at asco Road, or an estimated , 4 vehicle miles per fatality. Applying this urban fatality rate to the MT that is predicted for the project would predict 1, 2 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year in the area around the project that is traveled by project-generated traffic. A reasonable range of predicted mortality is therefore 1, 2 to 4,602 vertebrate wildlife fatalities/year due to project-generated traffic. Based on my analysis, the project-generated traffic would cause substantial, significant impacts on wildlife. The IS/MND does not address this potential impact, let alone propose to mitigate it. Mitigation measures to improve wildlife safety along roads are available and are feasible, and they need exploration for their suitability with the proposed project. Given the predicted level of project-generated traffic-caused mortality, and the lack of any proposed mitigation, it is my opinion that the proposed  FRQW Page 2-72           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project project would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts, and that these impacts would be unmitigated. i e . Wildlife carcass detection probability is a function of the number of days since discovery and log10 body mass. C C S One of CE A’s principal concerns regarding potential project impacts is whether a proposed project would contribute significantly to cumulative impacts of past, present and future projects, or to multiple types of impacts that are cumulatively considerable. Unfortunately, the IS/MND fails to analyze the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts on biological resources. Noriko Smallwood and I performed an experiment to measure the efficacy of permitting re uirements and re uired mitigation measures at avoiding or minimizing project impacts including cumulative impacts. We revisited the project sites we had surveyed as experts to repeat the survey methods at the same time of year, the same start time in the day, and the same methods and survey duration to control these sources of variation to cleanly measure the effects of mitigated development on wildlife. We structured the experiment in a before-after, control-impact experimental design, as some of the sites had been developed since our initial survey and some had remained undeveloped. All the developed sites had included mitigation measures to avoid, minimize or compensate for impacts to wildlife. Nevertheless, we found that mitigated development resulted in a 66 loss of species on site, and 4 loss of species in the project area. Counts of  FRQW  Page 2-73           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project vertebrate animals declined 90 . We found that Development impacts measured by the mean number of species detected per survey were greatest for amphibians (-100 ), followed by mammals (- 6 ), grassland birds (- ), raptors (- 3 ), special-status species (-49 ), all birds as a group (-4 ), non-native birds (-44 ), and synanthropic birds (-2 ). Our results indicated that urban development substantially reduced vertebrate species richness and numerical abundance, even after richness and abundance had likely already been depleted by the cumulative effects of loss, fragmentation, and degradation of habitat in the urbanizing environment, and despite all the mitigation measures and existing policies, regulations, and habitat plans. Experimental evidence demonstrates the need to analyze a project’s potentially significant contributions to cumulative impacts on wildlife. The environmental review for this project needs to include a cumulative impacts analysis. N S The mitigation strategy needs to be based on a sound understanding of the existing wildlife community. It needs to be known which species occur or are likely to occur on the project site as well as the nature of their occurrences. Are the occurrences of resident species? Migratory? For special-status species, detection surveys should have been performed to either detect the species or to obtain evidence of absence. Surveys should have been performed to understand how wildlife use the site in their movement patterns. And what was found of wildlife species needs to be carefully interpreted by comparing the findings to the findings from other survey efforts at other sites. Failures to detect species should be interpreted relative to the probabilities of their detections given the survey effort. The mitigation strategy needs to follow the steps under Assess species occurrence likelihoods and Characterize wildlife community, followed by Step : Predict impacts (Figure ). However, the IS/MND’s mitigation strategy does not follow from these steps. This pointed out, my comments follow in regular font the summary of each re uired mitigation measure in italics. 1 e ns c i n i S e s i ance an i ica i n. If construction activities are initiated during the bird nesting season ebruary 1 August 31 involving removal of vegetation or other nesting bird habitat, including abandoned structures and other man made features, a pre construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than 1 days prior to initiation of ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities. ... The survey shall be conducted by a ualified biologist ... If active nests are found, an avoidance buffer shall be determined by a ualified biologist in coordination with the City. The avoidance buffer width will depend upon the species, the proposed work activity, and existing disturbances associated with land uses outside of the site, which shall be demarcated by the biologist ... No ground disturbing activities shall occur within the buffer until the biologist has confirmed that breeding nesting is completed, ... A report summarizing the pre construction survey s shall be submitted to the City prior to the commencement of construction activities. If the project goes forward, preconstruction surveys for nesting birds should be implemented, but this measure would not avoid the permanent loss of habitat nor the  FRQW  Page 2-74           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project collision mortality with automobiles. Preconstruction, take-avoidance surveys should consist of two steps, both of which are very difficult. First, the biologist(s) performing the survey must identify birds that are breeding. Second, the biologist(s) must locate the breeding birds’ nests. The first step is typically completed by observing bird behaviors such as food deliveries and nest territory defense. To be successful, these types of observations typically re uire many surveys on many dates spread throughout the breeding season even for a single species. To identify and locate the birds of all species nesting on a site would re uire a much greater survey effort than can be accomplished in MM BIO-1’s allotted time. Many bird nests would be missed. I predict the project site supports 61 nest sites in the average year, and this number does not include those that would need to be located within the defined buffer area beyond the project site’s boundary. Even assuming all these nests could be found (not likely), the mitigation measure would apply only to the breeding season of the survey. After the breeding season of the preconstruction survey, there would be no further production of birds from the project site. The project’s impact on birds would be permanent and of large magnitude. The conservation benefits of this measure would be de minimis compared to the project’s potential impacts on breeding birds. Furthermore, the mitigation language allows a single individual to make a subjective decision, outside the public’s view, to determine the buffer area and buffer timing for any given species. This measure lacks objective criteria, and it is therefore unenforceable. Lastly, the mitigation language includes the re uirement that the preconstruction nest survey shall be conducted by a ualified biologist, and this re uirement carries over to determinations of the buffer areas and buffer timing to avoid take caused by construction activities. Undefined, however, is what ualifies as a “ ualified biologist” in these contexts, other than familiarity “with the identification of avian species known to occur in southern California coastal communities.” As mentioned earlier in this letter, Noriko Smallwood and I have been conducting surveys over the past several years to estimate total nest density, which is relevant to a preconstruction, take-avoidance survey because our surveys were likewise directed to all bird species that could be concurrently nesting on a site. Searching for the nests of one species is difficult, but searching for nests of all bird species at once is vastly more difficult. For this reason, there are very few published estimates of total nest density, and there are very few wildlife biologists who have experience with surveys for the nest attempts of all bird species on a given site. A technical way to ualify a wildlife biologist for the tasks outlined in this measure would be to obtain an agency Memorandum of Understanding in which the biologist is named and said to be ualified for conducting the preconstruction survey and for determining the take-avoidance buffer area and timing. However, a more compelling means of ualifying the biologist would be to re uire that the biologist has achieved demonstrable experience with nest surveys and avian nesting behavior. Without a better definition of what is a ualified biologist in the contexts of these tasks, BIO-1 lacks objective criteria, and it is therefore unenforceable.  FRQW Page 2-75           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project ot h s o dan and a an hree on-site sur eys for rotch’s bumble bee ( ) shall be conducted prior to initiation of ground disturbing project acti ities to identify if the is present within the project site. MM BIO-1 is inappropriate because it defers the appropriate detection survey to a time when it would no longer achieve four of CEQA’s primary objectives to (1) accurately characteri e the existing environmental setting as part of the CEQA review, (2) disclose potential project impacts to the public and decision-makers, and (3) foster public participation with decision-making over proposed projects to (4) identify issues and feasible alternative mitigation measures to minimi e environmental impacts. The appropriate timing of the survey is essential, not just biologically but also in terms of achieving CEQA’s objectives. According to CDFW (2023:3), “On-site surveys provide the most valuable information for determining potential impacts of proposed projects and activities on the four candidate bumble bee species, and subse uently developing measures to avoid or minimi e take of these species.” This guidance obviously recogni es the need to complete the detection surveys before the public circulation of the CEQA review document; otherwise, it would not be possible to determine potential impacts or formulate appropriate mitigation. Crotch’s bumble bee is a candidate for listing under the California Endangered Species Act. It is therefore important to implement the appropriate detection survey, which should be consistent with CDFW (2023). Furthermore, I found no evidence in the IS/MND that efforts have been made to obtain an incidental take permit (ITP), nor that CDFW is inclined to issue and ITP for Crotch’s bumble bee in this project. EE E ITI TI E S ES The project would destroy the productive capacity of the project site for birds and other wildlife. The loss of this capacity would need to be offset by compensatory mitigation as near to the site as possible. I recommend a 5:1 mitigation ratio to achieve a no net loss standard, as a 1:1 ratio would simply ensure a 50 loss of habitat between the project site and mitigation site. The loss of burrowing owl foraging opportunities would need to be mitigated, as well. The applicant needs to consult with the CDFW to learn what mitigation ratio would be acceptable for loss of burrowing owl habitat on the project site, and whether and where habitat is available to be protected nearby. If the project goes forward, it should at a minimum adhere to available Bird-Safe Guidelines, such as those prepared by American Bird Conservancy and New ork and San Francisco. The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) produced an excellent set of guidelines recommending actions to: (1) Minimi e use of glass; (2) Placing glass behind some type of screening (grilles, shutters, exterior shades); (3) Using glass with inherent properties to reduce collisions, such as patterns,  FRQW  Page 2-76           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project window films, decals or tape; and (4) Turning off lights during migration seasons (Sheppard and Phillips 2015). The City of San Francisco (San Francisco Planning Department 2011) also has a set of building design guidelines, based on the excellent guidelines produced by the New ork City Audubon Society (Orff et al. 2007). The ABC document and both the New ork and San Francisco documents provide excellent alerting of potential bird-collision ha ards as well as many visual examples. The San Francisco Planning Department’s (2011) building design guidelines are more comprehensive than those of New ork City, but they could have gone further. For example, the San Francisco guidelines probably should have also covered scientific monitoring of impacts as well as compensatory mitigation for impacts that could not be avoided, minimi ed or reduced. New research results inform of the efficacy of marking windows. Whereas lem (1990) found no deterrent effect from decals on windows, ohnson and Hudson (1976) reported a fatality reduction of about 69 after placing decals on windows. In an experiment of opportunity, Ocampo-Pe uela et al. (2016) found only 2 of 6 fatalities at one of 6 buildings the only building with windows treated with a bird deterrent film. At the building with fritted glass, bird collisions were 2 lower than at other buildings with untreated windows. ahle et al. (2016) added external window shades to some windowed fa ades to reduce fatalities 2 and 95 . Brown et al. (2020) reported an 4 lower collision probability among fritted glass windows and windows treated with ORNILU R U . City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon (2020) reduced bird collision fatalities 94 by affixing marked Solyx window film to existing glass panels of Portland’s Columbia Building. Many external and internal glass markers have been tested experimentally, some showing no effect and some showing strong deterrent effects ( lem 19 9, 1990, 2009, 2011; lem and Saenger 2013; R ssler et al. 2015). For example, Feather Friendly circular adhesive markers applied in a grid pattern across all windows reduced bird-window collision mortality by 95 in one study (Riggs et al. 2023) and by 95 in another (de Groot et al. 2021). Another study tested the efficacy of two filmshades to be applied exteriorly to windows prior to installations: BirdShades increased bird-window avoidance by 47 and Haverkamp increased avoidance by 39 (Swaddle et al. 2023). Compensatory mitigation is needed for the increased wildlife mortality that would be caused by collisions with automobiles due to project-generated road traffic in the region. I suggest that this mitigation can be directed toward funding research to identify fatality patterns and effective impact reduction measures such as reduced speed limits and wildlife under-crossings or overcrossings of particularly dangerous road segments. Compensatory mitigation can also be provided in the form of donations to wildlife rehabilitation facilities (see below). Compensatory mitigation is needed, and it ought to also include funding contributions to wildlife rehabilitation facilities to cover the costs of injured animals that will be delivered to these facilities for care. Many animals would likely be injured during construction, by house cats, and by collisions with windows and with automobiles traveling to and from the project site.  FRQW Page 2-77           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project If the project goes forward, California native plant landscaping (i.e., grassland and locally appropriate scrub plants) should be considered to be used as opposed to landscaping with lawn and exotic shrubs and trees. Native plants offer more structure, cover, food resources, and nesting substrate for wildlife than landscaping with lawn and ornamental trees. Native plant landscaping has been shown to increase the abundance of arthropods which act as important sources of food for wildlife and are crucial for pollination and plant reproduction (Narango et al. 2017, Adams et al. 2020, Smallwood and Wood 2022.). Further, many endangered and threatened insects re uire native host plants for reproduction and migration, e.g., monarch butterfly. Around the world, landscaping with native plants over exotic plants increases the abundance and diversity of birds, and it is particularly valuable to native birds (Lerman and Warren 2011, Burghardt et al. 200 , Berthon et al. 2021, Smallwood and Wood 2022). Landscaping with native plants is a way to maintain or to bring back some of the natural habitat and lessen the footprint of urbani ation by acting as interconnected patches of habitat for wildlife (Goddard et al. 2009, Tallamy 2020). Lastly, not only does native plant landscaping benefit wildlife, it re uires less water and maintenance than traditional landscaping with lawn and hedges. Thank you for your consideration, Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. ITE T E ITE Adams, B. ., E. Li, C. A. Bahlai, E. . Meineke, T. P. McGlynn, and B. . Brown. 2020. Local and landscape-scale variables shape insect diversity in an urban biodiversity hot spot. Ecological Applications 30(4):e020 9. 10.1002/eap.20 9 Barton, C. M., C. S. Riding, and S. R. Loss. 2017. Magnitude and correlates of bird collisions at glass bus shelters in an urban landscape. Plos One 12. (6): e017 667. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.017 667 Berthon, ., F. Thomas, and S. Bekessy. 2021. The role of nativenes’ in urban greening to support animal biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning 205:103959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103959 Bishop, C. A. and . M. Brogan. 2013. Estimates of avian mortality attributed to vehicle collisions in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology :2. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00604-0 0202. Blancher, P. 2013. Estimated number of birds killed by house cats (elis catus) in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology (2): 3. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE- 00557-0 0203  FRQW Page 2-78           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Borden, W. C., O. M. Lockhart, A. W. ones, and M. S. Lyons. 2010. Seasonal, taxonomic, and local habitat components of bird-window collisions on an urban university campus in Cleveland, OH. Ohio ournal of Science 110(3):44-52. Bracey, A. M., M. A. Etterson, G. . Niemi, and R. F. Green. 2016. ariation in bird- window collision mortality and scavenging rates within an urban landscape. The Wilson ournal of Ornithology 12 :355-367. Brown, B. B., L. Hunter, and S. Santos. 2020. Bird-window collisions: different fall and winter risk and protective factors. Peer :e9401 http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9401 Brown, ., . S. Smallwood, . S ewc ak, and B. aras. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project asco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California. Burghardt, . T., D. W. Tallamy, and W. G. Shriver. 200 . Impact of native plants on bird and butterfly biodiversity in suburban landscapes. Conservation Biology 23:219- 224. CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. Sacramento, California. CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 201 . Protocols for surveying and evaluating impacts to special status native plant populations and sensitive natural communities. https://nrm.dfg.ca.go CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2023. Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species. Calvert, A. M., C. A. Bishop, R. D. Elliot, E. A. rebs, T. M. ydd, C. S. Machtans, and G. . Robertson. 2013. A synthesis of human-related avian mortality in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology (2): 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-005 1-0 0211 City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon. 2020. Collisions at the Columbia Building: A synthesis of pre- and post-retrofit monitoring. Environmental Services of City of Portland, Oregon. County of San Diego. 2010. County of San Diego guidelines for determining significance and report format and content re uirements biological resources. Land Use and Environment Group Department of Planning and Land Use Department of Public Works, Fourth Revision. Dauphin , N. and R. . Cooper. 2009. Impacts of free-ranging domestic cats (elis catus) on birds in the United States: a review of recent research with conservation and management recommendations. Pages 205-219 in T. D. Rich, C. Ari mendi, D. W. Demarest, and C. Thompson, eds., Proceedings of the Fourth International Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics. Page 2-79           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Davy, C. M., A. T. Ford, and . C. Fraser. 2017. Aeroconservation for the fragmented skies. Conservation Letters 10(6): 773 7 0. Diehl, R. H., A. C. Peterson, R. T. Bolus, and D. ohnson. 2017. Extending the habitat concept to the airspace. USGS Staff -- Published Research. 1129. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/1129 Dunn, E. H. 1993. Bird mortality from striking residential windows in winter. ournal of Field Ornithology 64:302-309. Forman, T. T., D. Sperling, . A. Bisonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, . H. Dale, L. Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, . Heanue, . A. ones, F. . Swanson, T. Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology. Island Press, Covello, California. Gelb, . and N. Delacreta . 2009. Windows and vegetation: Primary factors in Manhattan bird collisions. Northeastern Naturalist 16:455-470. Goddard, M. A., A. . Dougill, and T. G. Benton. 2009. Scaling up from gardens: biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25:90-9 . doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.07.016 G me -Moreno, . del C., . R. Herrera-Herrera, and S. Ni o-Maldonado. 201 . Bird collisions in windows of Centro Universitario ictoria, Tamaulipas, M xico. Huit il, Revista Mexicana de Ornitolog a 19(2): 227-236. https://doi.org/10.2 947/ hrmo.201 .19.2.347 De Groot, . L., A. G. Wilson, R. Mc ibbin, S. A. Hudson, . M. Dohms, A. R. Norris, A. C. Huang, I. B. . Whitehorne, . T. Fort, C. Roy, . Bour ue, and S. Wilson. 2022. Bird protection treatments reduce bird-window collision risk at low-rise buildings within a Pacific coastal protected area. Peer 10(9):e13142 DOI 10.7717/peerj.13142. Hager, S. B., H. Trudell, . . Mc ay, S. M. Crandall, and L. Mayer. 200 . Bird density and mortality at windows. Wilson ournal of Ornithology 120:550-564. Hager S. B., B. . Cosentino, . Mc ay, C. Monson, W. uurdeeg, and B. Blevins. 2013. Window area and development drive spatial variation in bird-window collisions in an urban landscape. PLoS ONE (1): e53371. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053371 Hall, L. S., P. R. rausman, and M. L. Morrison. 1997. The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:173- 2. ohnson, R. E., and G. E. Hudson. 1976. Bird mortality at a glassed-in walkway in Washington State. Western Birds 7:99-107. orgensen, . G., L. R. Dinan, M. A. Brogie, W. R. Silcock, . Rink, C. laphake, and G. Steinauer. 2014. Breeding bird diversity, abundance and density at Indian Cave and Page 2-80           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Ponca State Parks, Nebraska 2012-2014. Nongame Bird Program of the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. Lincoln, NE. ahle, L. Q., M. E. Flannery, and . P. Dumbacher. 2016. Bird-window collisions at a west-coast urban park museum: analyses of bird biology and window attributes from Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. PLoS ONE 11(1):e144600 DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0144600. lem, D., r. 1990. Collisions between birds and windows: mortality and prevention. ournal of Field Ornithology 61:120-12 . lem, D., r. 19 9. Bird-window collisions. Wilson Bulletin 101:606-620. lem, D., r. 2009. Preventing bird-window collisions. The Wilson ournal of Ornithology 121:314-321. lem, D., r. 2010. Avian mortality at windows: the second largest human source of bird mortality on earth. Pages 244-251 in Proc. Fourth Int. Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics. lem, D., r. 2011. Evaluating the effectiveness of Acopian Birdsavers to deter or prevent bird-glass collisions. Unpublished report. lem, D., r. and P. G. Saenger. 2013. Evaluating the effectiveness of select visual signals to prevent bird-window collisions. The Wilson ournal of Ornithology 125:406 411. un , T. H., S. A. Gauthreaux r., N. I. Hristov, . W. Horn, G. ones, E. . . alko, R. P. Larkin, G. F. McCracken, S. M. Swart , R. B. Srygley, R. Dudley, . . Westbrook, and M. Wikelski. 200 . Aeroecology: probing and modelling the aerosphere. Integrative and Comparative Biology 4 :1-11. doi:10.1093/icb/icn037 Lerman, S. B. and P. S. Warren. 2011. The conservation value of residential yards: linking birds and people. Ecological Applications 21:1327-1339. Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2013. The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States. Nature Communications 23 0. DOI: 10.103 /ncomms23 0 Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Estimation of bird-vehicle collision mortality on U.S. roads. ournal of Wildlife Management 7 :763-771. Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Estimation of bird-vehicle collision mortality on U.S. roads. ournal of Wildlife Management 7 :763-771. Page 2-81           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Loss, S. R., T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Bird building collisions in the United States: Estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 116:-23. DOI: 10.1650/CONDOR-13-090.1 Loss, S. R., S. Lao, . W. Eckles, A. W. Anderson, R. B. Blair, and R. . Turner. 2019. Factors influencing bird-building collisions in the downtown area of a major North American city. PLoS ONE 14(11): e0224164. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0224164 Loyd, . A. T., S. M. Hernande , and D. L. McRuer. 2017. The role of domestic cats in the admission of injured wildlife at rehabilitation and rescue centers. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:55-61. Machtans, C. S., C. H. R. Wedeles, and E. M. Bayne. 2013. A first estimate for Canada of the number of birds killed by colliding with building windows. Avian Conservation and Ecology (2):6. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-0056 -0 0206 Mendelsohn, M., W. Dexter, E. Olson, and S. Weber. 2009. asco Road wildlife movement study report. Report to Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martine , California. MBI (Michael Baker International). 2026. Biological Resources Technical Letter Report for the Salk Avenue Apartments Project in Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. Letter report to oe Gambill, Hanover Company, Los Angeles, California. Miller, . 2024. Petition Before the California Fish and Game Commission to list California populations of the Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) as Endangered or Threatened Under the California Endangered Species Act. Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Burrowing Owl Preservation Society, Santa Clara alley Audubon Society, Urban Bird Foundation, Central alley Bird Club, San Bernardino alley Audubon Society. Narango, D. L., D. W. Tallamy, and P. P. Marra. 2017. Native plants improve breeding and foraging habitat for an insectivorous bird. Biological Conservation 213:42-50. National Research Council. 19 6. Ecological knowledge and environmental problem- solving: concepts and case studies. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Ocampo-Pe uela, N., R. S. Winton, C. . Wu, E. ambello, T. W. Wittig and N. L. Cagle . 2016. Patterns of bird-window collisions inform mitigation on a university campus. Peer 4:e1652;DOI10.7717/peerj.1652 O’Connell, T. . 2001. Avian window strike mortality at a suburban office park. The Raven 72:141-149. Orff, ., H. Brown, S. Caputo, E. . McAdams, M. Fowle, G. Phillips, C. DeWitt, and . Gelb. 2007. Bird-safe buildings guidelines. New ork City Audubon, New ork. Page 2-82           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Parkins, . L., S. B. Elbin, and E. Barnes. 2015. Light, glass, and bird building collisions in an urban park. Northeastern Naturalist 22: 4-94. Porter, A., and A. Huang. 2015. Bird collisions with glass: UBC pilot project to assess bird collision rates in Western North America. UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report. Report to Environment Canada, UBC SEEDS and UBC BRITE. Riding, C. S., T. . O’Connell, and S. R. Loss. 2020. Building fa ade-level correlates of bird window collisions in a small urban area. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 122:1 14. Riggs, G. ., C. M. Barton, C. S. Riding, T. . O’Connell1, and S. R. Loss. 2023. FieldǦtesting effectiveness of window markers in reducing birdǦwindow collisions. Urban Ecosystems (2023) 26:713 723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-022-01304- w R ssler, M., E. Nemeth, and A. Bruckner. 2015. Glass pane markings to prevent bird- window collisions: less can be more. Biologia 70: 535 541. DOI: 10.1515/biolog- 2015-0057 Rosenberg, . ., A. M. Dokter, P. . Blancher, . R. Sauer, A. C. Smith, P. A. Smith, . C. Stanton, A. Panjabi , L. Helft , M. Parr, and P. P. Marra. 2019. Decline of the North American avifauna. Science 10.1126/science.aaw1313 (2019). Sabo, A. M., N. D. G. Hagemeyer, A. S. Lahey, and E. L. Walters. 2016. Local avian GHQVLW\LQÀXHQFHVULVNRIPRUWDOLW\IURPZLQGRZVWULNHV3HHU-H'2, 10.7717/peerj.2170 San Francisco Planning Department. 2011. Standards for bird-safe buildings. San Francisco Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco, California. Santos, S. M., F. Carvalho, and A. Mira. 2011. How long do the dead survive on the road? Carcass persistence probability and implications for road-kill monitoring surveys. PLoS ONE 6(9): e253 3. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.00253 3 Schneider, R. M., C. M. Barton, . W. irkle, C. F. Greene, and . B. Newman. 201 . ear-round monitoring reveals prevalence of fatal bird-window collisions at the irginia Tech Corporate Research Center. Peer 6:e4562 https://doi.org/10.7717/ peerj.4562 Smallwood, .S. 2002. Habitat models based on numerical comparisons. Pages 3-95 in Predicting species occurrences: Issues of scale and accuracy, . M. Scott, P. . Heglund, M. Morrison, M. Raphael, . Haufler, and B. Wall, editors. Island Press, Covello, California. Page 2-83           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Smallwood, . S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 4-101 in M. L. Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions. ohn Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Smallwood, . S. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. ournal of Wildlife Management: e22216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22216 Smallwood, . S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2023. Measured effects of anthropogenic development on vertebrate wildlife diversity. Diversity 15, 1037. https://doi.org/10.3390/d15101037. Smallwood, N. L. and E. M. Wood. 2022. The ecological role of native plant landscaping in residential yards to urban wildlife. Ecosphere 2022;e4360. Somerlot, . E. 2003. Survey of songbird mortality due to window collisions on the Murray State University campus. ournal of Service Learning in Conservation Biology 1:1 19. Swaddle, . P., B. Brewster, M. Schuyler, and A. Su. 2023. Window films increase avoidance of collisions by birds but only when applied to external compared with internal surfaces of windows. Peer 11:e14676 http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.14676 Tallamy, D.W. 2020. Nature’s Best Hope: A New Approach to Conservation that Starts in our ard. Timber Press. Wood, E. M., and S. Esaian. 2020. The importance of street trees to urban avifauna. Ecological Applications. 0:e02149. oung, H. 194 . A comparative study of nesting birds in a five-acre park. The Wilson Bulletin 61:36-47. Page 2-84           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 2-85 Responses to Comments from Lozeau Drury LLP on behalf of the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) Response to Comment 2-1 The comment summarizes the CEQA “fair argument” standard and legal requirements for preparing an EIR versus an MND. The City acknowledges and has complied with these standards. In this case, a Focused IS/MND was prepared because all potential impacts to biological resources were found to be less than significant with mitigation. The City carefully evaluated the whole record and determined that no substantial evidence supported a fair argument of unmitigated significant impacts. On the contrary, the letter from Dr. Smallwood and the report prepared by Ms. Smallwood rely on speculative analysis and unsupported extrapolation, which substantially overstate the project’s potential impacts to biological resources. The following Responses to Comments 2-2 through 2-24 provide substantial evidence that the project’s biological resources impacts have been fully analyzed and mitigated to less than significant consistent with CEQA requirements. Response to Comment 2-2 The project-specific Biological Resources Technical Letter Report provided a comprehensive approach and included a literature/database review (California Natural Data Diversity Database [CNDDB], US Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] Information for Planning and Consultation, California Native Plant Society, etc.), a site visit by qualified biologists in January 2026, and consideration of previous biological surveys from 2001–2003. This effort identified all sensitive biological resources with potential to occur on-site (including coastal California gnatcatcher, Crotch’s bumble bee, and thread-leaved brodiaea) and determined that other special-status species were unlikely to occur due to the absence of suitable habitat (e.g., no wetlands, vernal pools, or extensive native vegetation) or other environmental constraints. The commenter’s March 11, 2026 site survey by Ms. Smallwood recorded additional common wildlife species, primarily birds such as hummingbirds, sparrows, and crows, which are typical of the region’s urban-edge habitats and were not individually listed in the IS/MND but were generally acknowledged in the description of the site’s wildlife community. These additional observations do not indicate that the IS/MND overlooked any previously unknown significant resource; rather, they reflect common wildlife species acclimated to an urban environment. Crucially, all species of concern for CEQA purposes (e.g., those that could trigger significant impacts) were duly considered in the IS/MND. The City stands by the adequacy of the environmental setting description in the IS/MND, which meets CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(d) requirements by focusing on the physical biological conditions relevant to assessing significant impacts. The commenter’s broad claim that the site supports numerous special-status species is not supported by substantial evidence of suitable habitat or direct observations beyond those already addressed. In summary, the City finds that the IS/MND and supporting biological resources technical report properly identified the presence and potential of special-status species on-site and that it provided an accurate baseline for impact analysis. No species likely to be significantly impacted by the project were omitted. Response to Comment 2-3 The City has considered whether the project’s biological resources impacts could be significant, including those listed by the commenter. For each category habitat loss and nesting productivity, wildlife movement, predation by pets, bird-window collisions, vehicle-related mortality, and           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 2-86 cumulative effects the IS/MND provides analysis and, where necessary, identifies appropriate mitigation measures. As detailed in Responses to Comments 2-4 through 2-8 below, the City’s analysis concludes that these impacts would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated. MM BIO-1 (Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Surveys, Avoidance, and Notification) establishes clear performance standards to avoid and minimize indirect impacts to gnatcatchers, including protection of active nests and limitation of construction-related disturbance. The mitigation measure requires installation of a no-disturbance buffer around any active gnatcatcher nest identified by a qualified biologist and implementation of construction controls to ensure disturbance levels remain below thresholds that could adversely affect nesting behavior. It is noted that clarification related to the coastal California gnatcatcher was made to MM BIO-1 (refer to Response to Comment 2-23 for revisions). See also Response to Comment 2-17. MM BIO-2 (Crotch’s Bumble Bee Avoidance and Clearance Survey) would ensure that Crotch’s bumble bee focused surveys would occur on-site at the appropriate time of year (during the flowering/active season) prior to any ground disturbance, when detection is most likely. Subsequent to release of the IS/MND for public review, a site-specific three-survey protocol design was approved by CDFW. The three subsequent surveys were conducted in April and May 2026. Crotch’s bumble bee was not detected in any of the three surveys and the negative findings were reported to CDFW. The commenter’s assertions that the project would result in loss of 61 bird nesting sites and 85 nesting attempts per year, as well as prevention of the production of 247 fledglings and 278 birds per year are not supported by substantial evidence and are therefore speculative (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064[d][3] and 15145). The project would convert approximately 9.5 acres of previously graded, routinely mowed disturbed habitat. This would not substantially reduce local wildlife populations or bird reproductive capacity. The only on-site native habitat (a 0.33-acre Diegan coastal sage scrub patch with potential gnatcatcher foraging value) would be avoided and preserved as open space. The remaining habitat is of low quality and supports common, regionally abundant species. Project compliance with Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code requirements would be ensured through MM BIO-1 (pre- construction nesting bird surveys and avoidance buffers). With implementation of MM BIO-1 and existing regional conservation/Citywide coverage (via the City’s HMP3), project impacts from habitat removal would be less than significant and an EIR is not warranted. Response to Comment 2-4 The project site is an isolated, disturbed infill parcel surrounded by existing roadways and development and is not identified as a designated wildlife corridor or linkage in regional plans (including the HMP, which clearly calls out wildlife corridors in the City). Existing barriers (e.g., Salk Avenue) currently limit wildlife movement through the area. The on-site Diegan coastal sage scrub patch may provide minor bird stopover value; such habitat would be avoided and preserved as open space with project implementation. The project would not add new major barriers across natural open space. Further, there is ample alternative stopover habitat in the area for migratory birds. Project conformance with applicable HMP Adjacency Standards (directed lighting, construction noise controls, and pet management) would also ensure that the project would not substantially interfere with area wildlife movement. Impacts would be less than significant. Refer 3 City of Carlsbad. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad. Final approved December 1999; as amended and approved November 2004. https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/1600/638366818940500000.           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 2-87 also to Responses to Comments 1-10 and 2-18 for additional discussion of habitat connectivity and fragmentation. Response to Comment 2-5 The project is subject to the City’s HMP Adjacency Guidelines which require pet/predator control measures. In compliance with these standards, the project would include: (1) resident education that provides all tenants with information on the ecological importance of keeping cats indoors or supervised (e.g., through community guidelines prohibiting free-roaming cats and lease provisions such as outdoor leash requirements), and (2) fully enclosed trash rooms and regularly scheduled trash removal to avoid attracting rodents or other prey that could draw feral cats or other predators. These measures are proven strategies that many jurisdictions use to minimize pet predation near sensitive areas. It is also worth noting that this infill project is surrounded by existing residential developments in the vicinity where outdoor pets are likely already present. Additionally, there is no evidence that the incremental increase of domestic cats, estimated by the commenter as approximately 50 cats. This estimated increase in domestic cats at the project site is not supported by evidence and is therefore speculative (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064[d][3] and 15145). Nevertheless, the City HMP Adjacency Standards explicitly require that projects adjacent to preserves implement measures to control pets/predators. Predation by domestic cats on birds and other wildlife is a recognized issue primarily associated with single-family residential development, where cats can freely exit homes and roam yards and adjacent open space. In contrast, a multi-level apartment building is inherently not conducive to free-roaming cats, as pets cannot independently open doors or access elevators to enter or exit units. As a result, cats residing in multi-family developments are predominantly, if not entirely, indoor pets, substantially reducing the likelihood of access to adjacent habitat. Moreover, the HMP Adjacency Standards explicitly require that projects adjacent to preserves implement measures to manage pets and potential predators of developments adjacent to preserve area. Consistent with these requirements, the project would include provisions pursuant to the City’s HMP, Objective Design Standards, and Landscape Manual to further minimize any already low potential for pets entering the adjacent habitat. Specifically, the project would provide educational materials (e.g., brochures or handbook provisions) to all new residents informing them of the nearby sensitive habitat and requiring cats be kept indoors, with outdoor access permitted only if leashed and under direct supervision. Additionally, the project’s landscape plan would avoid planting features that might inadvertently attract domestic animals to the habitat edge (e.g., no litter boxes near open space, no features that encourage house pets to roam near the preserve boundary). It is also noted that the habitat patch is relatively small and bordered on two sides by existing development or roads. There is not currently nor would the project result in an accessible path from the proposed apartment complex to the 0.33-acre Diegan coastal sage scrub patch located in the northwest corner of the site. While the City can manage pet-related risks through project design and adherence to City requirements, the project’s incremental contribution to domestic cat presence near the preserve would be negligible. Therefore, future domestic cats associated with the project would not cause a significant decline in local wildlife populations. One coastal California gnatcatcher was observed in 2025 in the 0.33-acre Diegan coastal sage scrub patch on-site, which would be avoided by the project. The consulting biologist concluded that the individual was transient, most likely residing in the more abundant and established habitat opposite Salk Avenue and using the patch for foraging. Coastal California gnatcatchers primarily occupy coastal sage scrub characterized by dense, low-growing shrub cover, where nests are           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 2-88 typically placed several feet above ground within intact vegetation, limiting exposure to urban predators. Predation pressure documented for the species is primarily associated with avian predators and habitat fragmentation, and domestic cats are not identified by USFWS as a common or significant source of gnatcatcher mortality.4 In summary, with implementation of required pet management practices and design features, indirect impacts from potential house cat predation would be minimized and would remain less than significant. Refer also to Responses to Comments 1-10 and 2-19. Response to Comment 2-6 The City acknowledges increased attention to bird-window collisions and continues to address potential risks through implementation of applicable state and local regulations. The IS/MND did not specifically analyze bird-window collisions; however, CEQA does not require evaluation or mitigation of speculative impacts absent substantial evidence that a project would have a significant effect on biological resources. The project site is located in a developed, urbanized setting and is not adjacent to large water bodies or expansive natural habitat typically associated with elevated collision risk. Ms. Smallwood’s speculative collision fatality estimates based on window area and published collision rates, such projections rely on generalized data from varied building types and locations rather than site-specific conditions for this mid-rise infill project. The collision fatality estimates are not supported by substantial evidence and are therefore speculative for evaluation (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064[d][3] and 15145). The City enforces existing state and local regulations that protect migratory and nesting birds during construction and applies building and lighting standards that are intended, in part, to reduce potential hazards to wildlife over time. Regarding the commenter’s suggested mitigation measures (i.e., bird-safe glass treatments, window films, exterior markers), mitigation is not necessary as no potential significant impacts have been identified. Moreover, such measures would only be appropriate where substantial evidence demonstrates elevated collision risk. Absent such evidence specific to this project site, imposition of these measures is not required under CEQA. The proposed apartment complex would not contain any glass fa ades (other than windows) or glass walkways, which are cited in Smallwood’s analysis. Rather, the project would include Spanish architecture with stucco exterior. Based on the project’s setting and compliance with applicable regulations, the project would not have a significant impact on migratory or resident bird species related to building design or operation, and no additional analysis or mitigation is required pursuant to CEQA. Refer also to Response to Comment 2-20. Response to Comment 2-7 The project would not create a significant new source of wildlife roadkill, and thus, potential traffic- related wildlife mortality impacts are considered less than significant. The commenter’s assertion that 1,800 to 4,600 additional animal fatalities per year would occur due to project traffic is unsupported by site-specific evidence and is therefore speculative (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064[d][3] and 15145). Such figures are derived from studies including rural highways (Vasco Road in Contra Costa County) as well as the commenter’s urban/suburban study in Davis, California; however, neither study reflects conditions comparable to the project’s infill location along already-developed arterial roads in Carlsbad. The proposed project would add traffic primarily to busy urban streets (e.g., College Boulevard, El Camino Real) where wildlife presence 4 US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Coastal California Gnatcatcher Species Profile. https://www.fws.gov/story/coastal- california-gnatcatcher.           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 2-89 is relatively low compared to the rural and semi-rural study areas cited by the commenter. Large mammals and sensitive species are rarely found on these roadways and local data does not indicate unusual roadkill hotspots that would be exacerbated by the project. The IS/MND did not identify such conditions as resulting in a significant impact because any incremental increase in collisions with common wildlife (such as small rodents or rabbits) would be unlikely to cause a substantial population decline or threaten any sensitive species. Implementation of standard operational practices along with the project’s infill nature (which inherently directs traffic onto developed roads) and minimal direct interaction with undeveloped habitat, would ensure that the effect of project traffic on wildlife is less than significant. No mitigation is required under CEQA as the impact does not meet significance criteria (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4[a][3]). Refer also to Response to Comment 2-21. Response to Comment 2-8 The IS/MND’s analysis of cumulative biological impacts is consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(b) and fully considers the project’s contribution to regional habitat loss and species decline in Carlsbad. The adopted HMP serves as a comprehensive mitigation program for cumulative biological effects by establishing a regionwide preserve system and requiring project- specific habitat mitigation fees or conservation measures for development in non-preserve areas. The project, located on a site designated for development under the HMP (and not within a hardline preserve), would comply with all applicable HMP requirements. This includes preserving the on-site Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat patch, thereby addressing the project’s part in the regional conservation strategy. In any event, the IS/MND did not identify a cumulatively considerable impact to specific species or resources. In the broader view, previous disturbance and grading (in 2007) on the project site have reduced much of the site’s habitat value (and associated species), and the current project would implement mitigation to address potentially significant impacts. Considering these factors, the City finds that the project’s incremental effects on biological resources, when viewed in combination with past and future development in Carlsbad, would not be cumulatively considerable. The conclusion of less than significant cumulative impacts is supported by project consistency with the HMP and lack of evidence of a cumulatively significant decline in biological resources attributable to the project. Refer also to Response to Comment 2-22. Response to Comment 2-9 As stated in the IS/MND, the project could result in potentially significant impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher and Crotch’s bumble bee. MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-2 would reduce potential impacts to these species to less than significant levels. MM BIO-1 establishes clear performance standards to avoid and minimize indirect impacts to coastal California gnatcatchers, including protection of active nests and limitation of construction-related disturbance. The mitigation measure requires installation of a no-disturbance buffer around any active coastal California gnatcatcher nest identified by a qualified biologist and implementation of construction controls to ensure disturbance levels remain below thresholds that could adversely affect nesting behavior. Consistent with USFWS guidance, these performance standards are intended to meet or exceed commonly recommended buffers (e.g., approximately 500 feet) and construction noise limits during the breeding season, unless a qualified biologist determines that site-specific conditions support an alternative protective distance or additional measures. The City acknowledges that USFWS guidance commonly recommends a minimum           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 2-90 500-foot buffer around active gnatcatcher nests and includes construction noise thresholds intended to limit disturbance during the breeding season. USFWS guidance also allows these buffers and noise controls to be refined based on site-specific conditions, nest location, topography, intervening screening, and the nature of construction activities. In no circumstances shall a buffer of less than 100 feet be used even with noise attenuation measures. Any reduction in the 500-foot no-disturbance buffer must be supported by site-specific analysis by the qualified biologist and approved by the City in consultation with USFWS. As a result, MM BIO-1 ensures that protective measures consistent with USFWS recovery objectives will be implemented, and the absence of a pre-approval protocol survey will not result in any unmitigated significant impact. Because the coastal California gnatcatcher is a covered species by the City HMP, the HMP holistically addresses species concerns on a broader ecosystem scale. By establishing a citywide preserve system with core areas interconnected with wildlife movement corridors, the City is protecting the gnatcatcher at buildout and in perpetuity, while allowing development in appropriate places. For Crotch’s bumble bee, MM BIO-2 ensures that focused surveys will occur at the appropriate time (during the flowering/active season) before any ground disturbance, when the species is most active and detection is most likely. Subsequent to release of the IS/MND for public review, a site-specific three-survey protocol design was approved by CDFW. The three Crotch’s bumble bee surveys were conducted in April and May 2026. Crotch’s bumble bee was not detected in any of the three surveys and the negative findings were reported to CDFW. Response to Comment 2-10 Refer to Responses to Comments 2-2 through 2-9. The comment summarizes SAFER’s position that an EIR is required, but it does not introduce new factual issues beyond those addressed in Comments 2-2 through 2-9. The City has provided detailed responses above, demonstrating that the IS/MND adequately evaluated and mitigated the project’s impacts on biological resources. As such, the record does not contain substantial evidence of a potentially significant effect that remains unmitigated and the IS/MND satisfies CEQA requirements for the project. Therefore, preparation of an EIR is not required. Response to Comment 2-11 The comment raises the issue of whether the IS/MND’s focus on special-status species overlooked broader impacts to the general wildlife community. Pursuant to CEQA, analysis must be commensurate with the potential for significant impacts. In practice, as reflected in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, CEQA prioritizes special-status species and sensitive habitats as proxies for broader ecological health. The IS/MND’s biological analysis evaluated the project site’s overall habitat value and common wildlife use. It identified the site as mostly disturbed grassland with a small area of Diegan coastal sage scrub, supporting a typical assemblage of urban-edge wildlife (various birds, small mammals, reptiles). The project’s expected effects on this common wildlife assemblage – primarily through habitat removal – were determined to be minor because the site is not unique or critical for those species, and similar habitat is widespread nearby. The project does not propose any action that would eliminate an entire species or cause wildlife populations to fall below self-perpetuating levels; thus, the broad CEQA mandate to protect all wildlife is not violated. In summary, the City has considered the wildlife community and finds that the project would not result in a significant adverse change to local fauna or ecological communities. The analysis appropriately emphasizes special-status species and sensitive           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 2-91 communities as required by CEQA, and no further generalized wildlife impact analysis is necessary. Response to Comment 2-12 The City acknowledges that Ms. Smallwood’s March 2026 site visit identified more total species than the January 2026 survey reported; however, this does not indicate a deficiency in the IS/MND analysis. Many factors influence wildlife detectability (season, time of day, survey duration, etc.), and it is expected that an early spring survey would record more migratory and breeding bird activity than a mid-winter survey. However, the additional species noted by Ms. Smallwood were predominantly common birds and one or two raptor species, all of which are typical for the area and none of which represent previously unknown sensitive species. Ms. Smallwood extrapolated from the March survey data to predict that extended surveys would detect 166 vertebrate wildlife species (including 31 special-status species); however, such statistical modeling does not constitute substantial evidence and is therefore speculative (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064[d][3] and 15145). In fact, the modeling relies on extrapolation from brief survey periods and assumes detection patterns from distant study sites (Altamont Pass) are transferable to this urban-edge infill parcel. Such assumptions are unwarranted and not based on fact. Regarding the commenter’s assertion that breeding-season detection surveys for burrowing owl were not conducted as recommended by CDFW (2012), the project site lacks suitable burrowing owl habitat (e.g., open grassland with ground squirrel burrows or similar structures); therefore, protocol-level burrowing owl surveys were not warranted. Further, the IS/MND conclusions would not change even when considering those additional observations, because the significance of a biological impact under CEQA depends on the nature of the impact, not simply the presence of common species. All of the species observed by Ms. Smallwood are generally well-adapted to urban environments or would continue to be supported in the region after project implementation (e.g., in yards, parks, and nearby open space). Preservation of the on-site Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat and implementation of mitigation (e.g., timing restrictions and buffers for nesting birds) as proposed with the project would further ensure that loss of the site’s wildlife usage would not cause significant ecological harm. While the site provides temporary habitat for a variety of wildlife, the overall environmental setting was accurately captured in the IS/MND and demonstrates that the project is unlikely to significantly impact local wildlife populations. Refer also to Responses to Comments 2-3 through 2-7. Response to Comment 2-13 CEQA does not require analysis of impacts that are speculative or unlikely to occur (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064[d][3] and 15145). The preparers of the IS/MND followed standard practice by using the CNDDB as a primary tool to identify special-status species previously documented in the vicinity of the site. Contrary to the commenter’s assertion that the City’s biologist “relied on only one database,” the biological resources analysis also consulted the California Native Plant Society inventory, USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC), and other resources for federally protected species and critical habitat, ensuring a broad initial list of species for consideration. It is true that CNDDB is a “positive occurrence” database; however, it remains the most authoritative source for known locations of sensitive species in California, and it was appropriately used to flag species for analysis. The IS/MND did not assume that absence of a CNDDB record equates to absence of a species; rather, absence of records plus lack of suitable habitat on-site led to conclusions of “not expected.” This is a scientifically           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 2-92 valid approach, as the potential for a species to occur is inherently tied to whether the environment can support it. The commenter’s claim that 143 special-status species were “known to occur near” the site is an over-inclusive list that effectively combines all species reported from a broad region (up to 30 miles away, per Dr. Smallwood’s Exhibit A) and is therefore speculative (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064[d][3] and 15145). The City’s biologists reasonably narrowed the list to 46 special-status species for detailed evaluation, focusing on those with ranges, habitat requirements, and occurrence records suggesting a plausible presence on or immediately adjacent to this infill site. For example, wetland- and aquatic-dependent species, as well as species requiring large habitats, were screened out because the project site contains no wetlands, streams, or extensive natural communities to support them. This is consistent with CEQA, which does not require analysis of every species, but rather allows for a more focused consideration of those species having a reasonable potential to be impacted. This direction supports focusing species-level analysis only on those with a reasonable potential for impact. In summary, the desktop review conducted by the City’s biologists provided a foundation for the field survey and impact analysis, emphasizing those species having the potential to be present and did not “misuse” the CNDDB. Instead, it combined CNDDB data with habitat assessment and professional judgment to focus the analysis on relevant species. The result was that the IS/MND closely examined all biological resources that may be significantly affected by the proposed development and no substantial evidence has been presented that additional undetected special- status species are present on the site. Therefore, the City finds the environmental setting description and species occurrence analysis to be adequate. Response to Comment 2-14 The comment questions whether the IS/MND mischaracterized the site’s wildlife community due to limited survey effort and an “inappropriately small pool” of species considered. While no survey can document every species on a site, the purpose of the CEQA baseline is to capture the presence of resources in sufficient detail to inform impact analysis. The IS/MND identified the key habitats on-site, the common wildlife using those habitats, and the special-status species with potential to occur. Additional context, such as regional species lists or statistical detection probability analyses, can be useful for academic study; however, CEQA does not require exhaustive surveys if the anticipated impacts can be understood and mitigated with available information. The “true wildlife community” of the site is not expected to include rare or unusual species beyond those already accounted for. Even without documenting every single species, the IS/MND’s conservative approach (e.g., assuming coastal California gnatcatcher present based on one observation, assuming Crotch’s bumble bee could be present despite none observed) ensured that if a potentially sensitive wildlife resource existed, it was considered. The conclusion that impacts would be less than significant (with mitigation for sensitive species) remains valid. Preparing an EIR or conducting additional surveys would not change the outcome; the exercise would simply confirm that the site is used primarily by common species and potentially a limited number of special-status species that the IS/MND has already addressed. Pursuant to CEQA, the adequacy of the environmental setting is judged by whether it provides decision-makers with sufficient information to assess potential impacts. Thus, the City finds no evidence of a deficiency in the baseline characterization provided in the IS/MND that would warrant a revised impact prediction or additional mitigation beyond that already proposed.           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 2-93 Response to Comment 2-15 The commenter’s Table 2 (Exhibit A) lists 143 special-status wildlife species and implies that the IS/MND should have analyzed each one’s potential occurrence. The City maintains that such an expansive analysis is unnecessary and would not yield meaningful additional protection to biological resources. The analysis in the IS/MND is focused on the subset of species with non- negligible likelihood of occurrence, considering such factors as habitat presence/absence and known species distributions. Many species in the commenter’s table require habitat types not present on the project site (e.g., vernal pools for fairy shrimp, open water for waterfowl, large undisturbed tracts for certain mammals) or are migratory birds unlikely to rely on this small, disturbed parcel for any significant portion of their life cycle. Including numerous “in-region” species some documented miles away would not change the impact analysis, as the project would not affect those species in the absence of suitable habitat or site usage. CEQA does not require an agency to analyze every species; rather, it requires agencies to use their best judgment, based on substantial evidence, to evaluate resources that could be substantially impacted by a project. The project-specific Biological Resources Technical Report’s narrowed list of 46 species was developed by considering special-status species that may conceivably use the subject property. This methodology is consistent with the CEQA Guidelines and longstanding practice in biological impact assessments. Therefore, the City finds that the list provided by the commenter does not represent the actual “wildlife community” of the project site, and no additional significant impacts would be identified by analyzing all such species. The IS/MND’s conclusions remain accurate based on the evidence gathered for the species that are considered relevant in this context. Response to Comment 2-16 The analysis provided in the IS/MND is not considered to be speculative; it is based on scientific data, including literature review and a habitat assessment/field survey conducted by qualified biologists (refer to Response to Comment 2-13). CEQA requires a “good faith effort at full disclosure” using the best available information, rather than absolute scientific certainty. In preparing the IS/MND and Biological Resources Technical Report, the City’s biologists drew upon professional experience, established scientific literature, and resource agency guidance to evaluate the project’s likely effects. For example, the assessment of Crotch’s bumble bee followed CDFW guidance for evaluating projects with potential bumble bee habitat. Impact conclusions in the IS/MND are supported by either empirical observations (e.g., the site survey and reference to historical surveys) or by accepted ecological principles (e.g., understanding that small, isolated habitat patches have limited carrying capacity for wildlife). The commenter advocates for extensive comparative data and post-project monitoring to validate predictions, efforts that go far beyond what CEQA requires for an individual project. Rather, a lead agency is required to consider available data and make reasonable assumptions in determining whether a significant impact may occur. In conforming with this approach, the IS/MND conservatively assumes the presence of sensitive species on-site and identifies appropriate mitigation based on available data, without resorting to speculation. The IS/MND’s analyses and mitigation measures were formulated using expertise and recognized standards and represents a scientifically sound basis pursuant to CEQA requirements. For these reasons, the impact assessment provided in the IS/MND is considered to be adequate and non-speculative.           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 2-94 Response to Comment 2-17 As addressed in Response to Comment 2-3, the on-site habitat (aside from the preserved Diegan coastal sage scrub patch) is of relatively low ecological value and its proposed removal would not cause a significant decline in regional bird populations. The comments provided assume that all 61 hypothetical nest sites and 278 birds produced annually on the property would be permanently lost. However, such assumptions do not constitute substantial evidence and are therefore speculative (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064[d][3] and 15145). Further, this analysis does not account for the fact that birds and other wildlife are mobile and would relocate to adjacent habitats (including the preserved on-site patch and nearby open spaces) as the site is developed. Moreover, the Diegan coastal sage scrub patch would remain intact, meaning nesting capacity for species such as wrentits and California towhees would persist on-site. The City’s determinations are guided by Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, which does not treat the loss of each individual bird or nest as a significant impact if it does not threaten a species’ population viability or otherwise cause a substantial adverse change in the environment. Furthermore, implementation of MM BIO-1 would require the project to avoid direct destruction of any active nests (those with eggs or chicks) during construction, thereby complying with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code and preventing the direct take of birds. The IS/MND therefore appropriately determined that impacts from habitat loss (and associated reduction in nesting/reproductive output) would be less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated. A more expansive interpretation of significance (treating any reduction in wildlife usage as “significant”) would be inconsistent with CEQA requirements to identify a substantial adverse effect and would effectively make any development on disturbed land appear significant, contrary to the intent of the CEQA Guidelines. Response to Comment 2-18 As discussed in Response to Comment 2-4, the project would not significantly impact regional wildlife movement. On-site vegetation and wildlife observations provided by the commenter do not equate to a crucial movement corridor. Occasional foraging and movement on-site by wildlife (e.g., birds collecting nest material or moving through the Diegan coastal sage scrub patch) would not be blocked or substantially altered because the project design would leave the key habitat area undeveloped and would implement measures to limit disturbance in that area. The site does not have “stopover” value for migratory birds or other characteristics that would make it uniquely important. Migratory songbirds and other species can and do use a variety of green spaces (including developed areas) during transit. The limited size of the parcel means its role as a stopover is opportunistic, not critical. Additionally, the project would include a landscaping plan with native trees and shrubs, which can provide some replacement for the low-quality foraging habitat that would be removed with development of the site’s ruderal portions. The IS/MND’s conclusions regarding wildlife movement were based on the absence of any large-scale corridor and the urban context of the site, which the commenter does not refute. Further, CEQA does not require a project to maintain every minor usage of a site by wildlife. Rather, it asks whether a project would substantially impede wildlife movement. Wildlife movement on the project site is already constrained by existing development, and the project’s footprint does not extend into any larger habitat block. The City finds that the project would not create a significant barrier or cause wildlife movement to be substantially more constrained than under existing conditions. Consequently, the impact remains less than significant, as originally addressed in the IS/MND.           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 2-95 Response to Comment 2-19 The commenter’s assertion that the project would result in 6,344 wildlife kills per year by 52 free- roaming cats is not supported by substantial evidence and is therefore speculative (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064[d][3] and 15145). Predation by domestic cats on birds and other wildlife is a recognized issue primarily associated with single-family residential development, where cats can freely exit homes and roam yards and adjacent open space. In contrast, a multi- level apartment building is inherently not conducive to free-roaming cats, as pets cannot independently open doors or access elevators to enter or exit units. As a result, cats residing in multi-family developments are predominantly, if not entirely, indoor pets, substantially reducing the likelihood of access to adjacent habitat. Further, the assumed number of domestic cats associated with the project likely overestimates for the project site and context, as they rely on national data that include areas with high feral cat populations and sensitive ecosystems. Nonetheless, the City acknowledges that any avoidable predation on wildlife is undesirable. Many of the potentially affected species (rodents, small birds) are abundant in the region, and the project’s design and adherence to requirements set forth in the City’s HMP, Objective Design Standards, and Landscape Manual would help ensure that increases in predation are minimized. The City therefore maintains that the project’s impact from domestic animals would not result in a significant impact. This issue does not involve non- compliance with any specific regulatory threshold as neither CEQA nor local ordinances consider incremental pet predation a “significant impact” unless it affects a sensitive species or violates a policy, which is not the case being considered in this scenario. Response to Comment 2-20 The City has considered the issue of potential bird collisions with windows that would be installed on-site with the proposed residential development (see Response to Comment 2-6). Importantly, it is not standard practice under CEQA to quantify expected bird fatalities for every project, especially when a project is not located in a known migratory bird concentration area, nor is such analysis required by law. The project’s location and scale do not suggest an unusually high collision risk compared to typical urban development; rather, the project proposes a mid-rise structure in a developed setting, similar to other buildings in Carlsbad that have not been associated with noteworthy bird mortality events. Ms. Smallwood substantially overestimates the amount of exterior window area associated with the project, and her statement that bird-window collision fatalities are higher than nationwide estimates is not supported by evidence and is therefore speculative (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064[d][3] and 15145). The IS/MND’s conclusion that no significant operational impacts to avian species would occur remains valid. Response to Comment 2-21 As addressed in Response to Comment 2-7, the project’s traffic-related wildlife impacts are expected to be less than significant. The commenter cites studies of roadkill in various settings (rural highways, semi-urban roads) and uses an inferred rate per vehicle-miles-traveled to predict thousands of annual wildlife fatalities from project traffic. This information is not supported by evidence and is therefore speculative (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064[d][3] and 15145). The project is estimated to generate approximately 2,382 average daily trips (ADTs) contributing vehicle trips to major roadways that already experience tens of thousands of ADTs under existing conditions. Any wildlife (mostly small mammals, reptiles, and birds typical of urban edges) on area roadways are already subject to vehicle hazards. Dr. Smallwood overestimates vehicle miles           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 2-96 traveled for the project by more than 72 percent compared to City’s analysis. The incremental increase in traffic from the proposed project would be a fraction of total volumes and would not create a new significant “death toll” for local wildlife. Additionally, evidence that such incremental road mortality would threaten any local wildlife populations or involve special-status species is not presented. The City’s experience with similar infill projects in developed areas has not shown traffic-wildlife collisions to rise to the level of CEQA significance. CEQA requires mitigation for significant impacts; given the lack of substantial evidence linking project traffic to a significant wildlife impact, additional specific mitigation is not merited (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4[a][3]). The project’s potential effect on wildlife from increased traffic is expected to be negligible in the context of existing conditions. Response to Comment 2-22 The IS/MND’s discussion of cumulative biological impacts (see also Response to Comment 2-8 above) is in line with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(b), which focus on whether a project’s incremental contribution is cumulatively considerable. The City’s reasoning, in combination with the findings of its biologists, is that the project’s contribution to area-wide habitat loss and wildlife impacts are addressed through existing frameworks. Specifically, the HMP and related programs have already accounted for the cumulative loss of habitats, including on the project site, and have set aside conservation areas to balance growth. The project would be consistent with the HMP by avoiding direct impacts to sensitive on-site habitat (thus not diminishing the preserved open space network) and implementing HMP standards to protect adjacent natural lands. In addition, no aspect of the project would produce a unique or additive effect on biological resources in combination with other projects. Project-related construction noise would be temporary and localized; any incremental pet or lighting effects would be managed on-site; and the project would not substantially affect regional wildlife corridors or water resources. The commenter references a generalized study pertaining to mitigation effectiveness. As such, this claim is not supported by substantial evidence and is therefore speculative (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064[d][3] and 15145). The City can only evaluate the specific context and mitigation for the proposed project. Based on the evidence, the project would not result in a considerable contribution to cumulative biological resource issues such as habitat fragmentation or species decline. Other future development proposed in the project vicinity would also be required to comply with applicable HMP and CEQA regulations to ensure that overall cumulative effects remain mitigated to the degree feasible. The IS/MND conclusion that the proposed project would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact on biological resources remains valid. Response to Comment 2-23 MM BIO-1 was originally formulated to be flexible, recognizing that appropriate buffer distances can depend on factors such as avian behavior, location of the nest, existing ambient noise, and the nature of construction activity. To directly address the concern raised, the City has updated MM BIO-1 (Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Surveys, Avoidance, and Notification) to require that, if a gnatcatcher nest is found during pre-construction surveys, a minimum 500-foot wide no-disturbance buffer be established around the nest and maintained until a qualified biologist confirms that the young have fledged, the nest is no longer active, or that construction noise levels can be maintained below 60 dBA Leq at the nest site with a smaller buffer.           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 2-97 A “qualified biologist” is defined as a professional biologist with demonstrated experience conducting nesting bird surveys in southern California coastal habitats and familiarity with the identification, behavior, and nesting ecology of avian species known to occur in the region, including federally listed species such as the coastal California gnatcatcher. By incorporating these specifics a numeric distance, noise criteria, and biologist qualifications MM BIO-1 would have clear performance standards. Specifically, MM BIO-1 from the public review IS/MND stated: MM BIO-1 Pre-Construction Bird Surveys, Avoidance, and Notification.If construction activities are initiated during the bird nesting season (February 1–August 31) involving removal of vegetation or other nesting bird habitat, including abandoned structures and other man-made features, a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to initiation of ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities. The nesting bird pre-construction survey shall be conducted on foot and shall include a 300-foot survey buffer around the construction site. The survey shall be conducted by a biologist familiar with the identification of avian species known to occur in southern California coastal communities (i.e., qualified biologist). If active nests are found, an avoidance buffer shall be determined by a qualified biologist in coordination with the City. The avoidance buffer width will depend upon the species, the proposed work activity, and existing disturbances associated with land uses outside of the site, which shall be demarcated by the biologist with bright orange construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to demarcate the boundary. All construction personnel shall be notified as to the existence of the buffer zone and to avoid entering the buffer zone during the nesting season. No ground-disturbing activities shall occur within the buffer until the biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed, and the young have fledged the nest. Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the qualified biologist on the basis that the encroachment will not be detrimental to an active nest. A report summarizing the pre-construction survey(s) shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and shall be submitted to the City prior to the commencement of construction activities. Note To mitigate the potential impact to California gnatcatcher or other nesting birds, this mitigation measure shall be applied to land use and activities occurring at the project site. No Pre-Construction Bird Surveys, Avoidance, and Notification mitigation is required to implement the Study Area-Off-Site Se er Line portion of the project. MM BIO-1 has been revised as follows (the bird survey window has been revised to a minimum of three days prior to ground disturbance, and the second paragraph is newly added text): MM BIO-1 Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Surveys, Avoidance, and Notification.If construction activities are initiated during the bird nesting season (February 1– August 31) involving removal of vegetation or other nesting bird habitat, including abandoned structures and other man-made features, a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than three days prior to initiation of ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities. The nesting bird pre-construction survey shall be conducted on foot and shall include a 300-foot survey buffer around the construction site. The survey shall be conducted by a biologist familiar with the identification of avian species known to occur in southern California coastal           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 2-98 communities (i.e., qualified biologist). If active nests are found, an avoidance buffer shall be determined by a qualified biologist in coordination with the City. The avoidance buffer width will depend upon the species, the proposed work activity, and existing disturbances associated with land uses outside of the site, which shall be demarcated by the biologist with bright orange construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to demarcate the boundary. All construction personnel shall be notified as to the existence of the buffer zone and to avoid entering the buffer zone during the nesting season. No ground-disturbing activities shall occur within the buffer until the biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed, and the young have fledged the nest. Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the qualified biologist on the basis that the encroachment will not be detrimental to an active nest. A report summarizing the pre-construction survey(s) shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and shall be submitted to the City prior to the commencement of construction activities. If an active coastal California gnatcatcher nest is found during pre-construction surveys, a minimum 500-foot no-disturbance buffer shall be established around the nest. The buffer shall be clearly marked (e.g., with fencing or flagging) and maintained until a qualified biologist confirms that the young have fledged, the nest is no longer active, or that construction noise levels can be maintained below 60 dBA Leq at the nest site with a smaller buffer. In no circumstances shall a buffer of less than 100 feet be used even with noise attenuation measures. Any reduction in the 500-foot buffer must be supported by site-specific analysis by the qualified biologist and approved by the City in consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Note To mitigate the potential impact to California gnatcatcher or other nesting birds, this mitigation measure shall be applied to land use and activities occurring at the project site. No Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Surveys, Avoidance, and Notification mitigation is required to implement the Study Area-Off-Site Se er Line portion of the project. It is also noted that such clarification to MM BIO-1 does not represent “significant new information” as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. The revised MM BIO-1 is more effective than that presented in the Draft IS/MND. Therefore, recirculation of the IS/MND prior to adoption is not required (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15073.5[c][1] and 15074.1). Regarding Crotch’s bumble bee, a site-specific three-survey protocol design was approved by CDFW subsequent to release of the IS/MND for public review. The three subsequent surveys were conducted in April and May 2026. Crotch’s bumble bee was not detected in any of the three surveys and the negative findings were reported to CDFW. Response to Comment 2-24 The City has reviewed the additional measures suggested by the commenter, including compensatory habitat protection at a 5:1 ratio, bird-safe glass treatments, native plant landscaping, and funding for wildlife rehabilitation facilities. The project’s biological resource impacts have been reduced to a less than significant level through the mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND (including MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-2), project design (including avoidance/preservation of the on-site Diegan coastal sage scrub), and applicable HMP           Comment Letters and Responses to Comments Salk Avenue Apartments Project Page 2-99 requirements and Adjacency Standards. Regarding compensatory habitat protection, the project’s compliance with HMP requirements addresses the project’s contribution to habitat loss within the established regional framework. Bird-safe glass treatments are addressed in Response to Comment 2-6. Native plant landscaping is encouraged through the project’s landscaping plan, which includes native trees and shrubs; however, mandatory native-only landscaping requirements are not necessary to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. As the mitigation identified for the project would adequately reduce project impacts to less than significant, additional mitigation measures beyond those already required are not warranted under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4[a][3]).           6DON$YHQXH$SDUWPHQWV3URMHFW M m SCH No. 2026030432 May 2026 /HDG$JHQF\3UHSDUHGE\ &LW\RI&DUOVEDG &RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW'HSDUWPHQW )DUDGD\$YHQXH &DUOVEDG&$ 0LFKDHO%DNHU,QWHUQDWLRQDO $YHQLGD(QFLQDV6XLWH &DUOVEDG&$ :EϮϬϱϰϴϰ $WWDFKPHQW%                     0LWLJDWLRQ0RQLWRULQJDQG5HSRUWLQJ3URJUDPBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB6DON$YHQXH$SDUWPHQWV3URMHFW WĂŐĞϭ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•0LWLJDWLRQ0HDVXUH1XPEHU3URYLGHVWKHPLWLJDWLRQPHDVXUHQXPEHUDVLGHQWLILHGLQ WKH)RFXVHG,QLWLDO6WXG\0LWLJDWHG1HJDWLYH'HFODUDWLRQ •0LWLJDWLRQ0HDVXUH,GHQWLILHVWKHGHWDLOVRIHDFKPLWLJDWLRQPHDVXUHUHTXLUHG •7LPHIUDPHRI0LWLJDWLRQ,GHQWLILHVDWZKLFKVWDJHRIWKHSURMHFWWKHPLWLJDWLRQPHDVXUH PXVWEHFRPSOHWHG •5HVSRQVLEOH 3DUW\,GHQWLILHV WKH SDUW\ RU SDUWLHV ZLWK UHVSRQVLELOLW\ IRU PLWLJDWLRQ PRQLWRULQJHQIRUFHPHQWDQGUHSRUWLQJ           DŝƚŝŐĂƚŝŽŶDŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐĂŶĚZĞƉŽƌƚŝŶŐWƌŽŐƌĂŵͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ^ĂůŬǀĞŶƵĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐWƌŽũĞĐƚ WĂŐĞϮ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 0LWLJDWLRQ 0HDVXUH 1R0LWLJDWLRQ0HDVXUH 7LPHIUDPH RI0LWLJDWLRQ 0RQLWRULQJ (QIRUFHPHQW DQG5HSRUWLQJ 5HVSRQVLELOLW\ %LRORJLFDO5HVRXUFHV %,2 3UH&RQVWUXFWLRQ1HVWLQJ%LUG6XUYH\V$YRLGDQFHDQG1RWLILFDWLRQ,IFRQVWUXFWLRQDFWLYLWLHVDUHLQLWLDWHG GXULQJWKHELUGQHVWLQJVHDVRQ )HEUXDU\±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ŝƚŝŐĂƚŝŽŶDŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐĂŶĚZĞƉŽƌƚŝŶŐWƌŽŐƌĂŵͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ^ĂůŬǀĞŶƵĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƐWƌŽũĞĐƚ WĂŐĞϯ 0LWLJDWLRQ 0HDVXUH 1R0LWLJDWLRQ0HDVXUH 7LPHIUDPH RI0LWLJDWLRQ 0RQLWRULQJ (QIRUFHPHQW DQG5HSRUWLQJ 5HVSRQVLELOLW\ %,2&URWFK¶V%XPEOH%HH$YRLGDQFHDQG&OHDUDQFH6XUYH\ •)RFXVHG6XUYH\7KUHHRQVLWHVXUYH\VIRU&URWFK¶VEXPEOHEHH &%% VKDOOEHFRQGXFWHGSULRUWRLQLWLDWLRQ RIJURXQGGLVWXUELQJSURMHFWDFWLYLWLHVWRLGHQWLI\LIWKH&%%LVSUHVHQWZLWKLQWKHSURMHFWVLWH7KLVVXUYH\ VKDOOEHFRQGXFWHGVLPXOWDQHRXVO\ZLWKWKHEORRPLQJSHULRGRIWKHVSHFLHV¶UHFRJQL]HGIRRGSODQWVZKHQ WKH&%%LVPRVWDFWLYH(DFKVXUYH\VKDOOEHVSDFHGDWOHDVWZHHNVEXWQRPRUHWKDQZHHNVDSDUW FRUUHVSRQGLQJZLWKWKH&RORQ\$FWLYH6HDVRQIRU%RPEXVVSHFLHV $SULO±$XJXVW 7KHVXUYH\LQJELRORJLVW VKDOOEHIDPLOLDUZLWKWKHSULPDU\LGHQWLILFDWLRQFKDUDFWHULVWLFVRIWKH&%%DQGEHSURILFLHQWLQWKH PHWKRGRORJ\SURGXFHGE\WKH;HUFHV6RFLHW\7KHTXDOLILHGELRORJLVWVKDOOXWLOL]HDWHOHSKRWROHQVRUD VXIILFLHQWO\ORQJPDFUROHQVWRREWDLQKLJKTXDOLW\SKRWRVRIEXPEOHEHHVVXIILFLHQWIRUVSHFLHVLGHQWLILFDWLRQ ZLWKRXWKDYLQJWRFDSWXUHDQGSRWHQWLDOO\KDUPWKHEXPEOHEHHV •$EVHQFHRI6SHFLHV,IQR&%%DUHGHWHFWHGGXULQJWKHIRFXVHGVXUYH\VQRIXUWKHUPHDVXUHVVKDOOEH QHFHVVDU\ •3UHVHQFHRI6SHFLHV,I&%%DUHGHWHFWHGWKHQVLWHVSHFLILFPHDVXUHVVKDOOEHLPSOHPHQWHGWRDYRLGWDNH XQOHVVDQ,QFLGHQWDO7DNH3HUPLW ,73 IRUWKHVSHFLHVLVREWDLQHGIURP&DOLIRUQLD'HSDUWPHQWRI)LVKDQG :LOGOLIH &'): 6XFKDYRLGDQFHPHDVXUHVVKDOOLQFOXGH o ,IYHJHWDWLRQUHPRYDODFWLYLWLHVDQGLQLWLDOJURXQGGLVWXUELQJDFWLYLWLHV LHFOHDULQJJUXEELQJDQGLQLWLDO VLWHJUDGLQJ RFFXUGXULQJWKH4XHHQDQG*\QH)OLJKW3HULRGDQG&RORQ\$FWLYH3HULRGIRUWKHVHVSHFLHV )HEUXDU\±2FWREHU DTXDOLILHGELRORJLVWVKDOOFRQGXFWGDLO\ELRORJLFDOPRQLWRULQJ'XULQJPRQLWRULQJWKH TXDOLILHGELRORJLVWVKDOOLQVSHFWVXLWDEOHKDELWDWIRU&%%DFWLYLW\ZLWKLQWKHGD\¶VZRUNDUHD,IWKHVSHFLHV LVQRWGHWHFWHGWKHQSURMHFWDFWLYLWLHVFDQSURFHHGZLWKRXWIXUWKHUELRORJLFDOPRQLWRULQJWKDWGD\ o ,IWKH&%%LVGHWHFWHGXVLQJQHFWDUVRXUFHVWKHQDQRGLVWXUEDQFHEXIIHURIDWOHDVWIHHWDURXQGWKH LQGLYLGXDO V VKDOOEHHVWDEOLVKHGDQGWKHLQGLYLGXDO V VKDOOEHPRQLWRUHGE\DELRORJLFDOPRQLWRUXQWLOWKH &%%DUHFRQILUPHGWRKDYHOHIWWKHDUHDRQWKHLURZQ o ,ID&%%QHVWLVGHWHFWHGZKHUHJURXQGGLVWXUEDQFHLVSURSRVHGWRRFFXUWKHQDPLQLPXPIRRWQR GLVWXUEDQFHEXIIHU ZLWKDEXIIHURIXSWRIHHWLIGLVWXUEDQFHLVVXEVWDQWLDO DURXQGWKHQHVWVKDOOEH HVWDEOLVKHG7KLVEXIIHUVKDOOUHPDLQLQSODFHXQWLOWKHQHVWVHQHVFHVZKLFKZRXOGRFFXUDIWHUQRQHVW DFWLYLW\REVHUYDWLRQVIRUWKUHHVHTXHQWLDOGD\V7KHTXDOLILHGELRORJLVWVKDOOGLVFXVVWKHEXIIHUZLWKWKH FRQWUDFWRUWRHQVXUHWKDWZRUNDUHDVLQFOXGLQJLQJUHVVDQGHJUHVVURXWHVDYRLGWKH&%% o ,IWKHSURMHFWFDQQRWDYRLGWKHHVWDEOLVKHGQRGLVWXUEDQFHEXIIHU V LGHQWLILHGDERYHWKHSURMHFWDSSOLFDQW VKDOOKDOWZRUNZLWKLQWKHEXIIHUDUHDDQGVKDOOFRQVXOWZLWK&'):RQDSSURSULDWHDYRLGDQFHDFWLRQVDQG REWDLQDQ,QFLGHQWDO7DNH3HUPLWLIQHFHVVDU\ 1RWH7RPLWLJDWHWKHSRWHQWLDOLPSDFWWR&URWFK¶V%XPEOH%HH &%% WKLVPLWLJDWLRQPHDVXUHVKDOOEHDSSOLHGWR ODQGXVHDQGDFWLYLWLHVRFFXUULQJDWWKHSURMHFWVLWH1R&%%$YRLGDQFHDQG&OHDUDQFH6XUYH\PLWLJDWLRQLV UHTXLUHGWRLPSOHPHQWWKH6WXG\$UHD2II6LWH6HZHU/LQHSRUWLRQRIWKHSURMHFW 3ULRUWR *URXQG 'LVWXUEDQFH 'XULQJ &RQVWUXFWLRQ DV$SSOLFDEOH &LW\RI&DUOVEDG 3XEOLF:RUNV 'HSDUWPHQW 4XDOLILHG %LRORJLVW &RQVWUXFWLRQ &RQWUDFWRU