Diane Nygaard, Co-Chair MHCP/MSCP Task Force

December 2, 2013

Diane Nygaard, Co-Chair MHCP/MSCP Task Force

Sierra Club, San Diego Chapter

5020 Nighthawk Way

Oceanside, CA 92056

Norm Pedersen, Associate Planner

()

Development Services Dept.

City of San Marcos

San Marcos, CA92069-2918

Sent Via Email 12/2/2013

RE: Mitigated Negative Declaration, San Marcos Highlands project

Case No. P13-009/SP 13-001/TSM 13-001/ND 13-010

Dear Mr. Pedersen:

I am writing as Co-Chair of the North County MHCP/MSCP Task Force of the Sierra Club – San Diego Chapter to comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the San Marcos Highlands project.

Our Task Force has been working on habitat conservation plans in NorthSan DiegoCounty since the mid-1990s. We have been closely involved in the development of the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) for seven cities in NorthCounty, including the City of San Marcos. Please note that, since the Highlands project site lies in both the City of San Marcos and the County of San Diego, two habitat conservation programs are involved. In the City, the conservation program is the MHCP; in the County, it is the North County Multiple Species Conservation Program (NC-MSCP). My comments will relate to the MHCP. The Co-Chair of our Task Force, Mary Clarke, will comment separately on the NC-MSCP. Also, we understand that the City of San Marcos intends to annex the portion of the development that is in the County; if annexation occurs, the MHCP will apply to any lands that are annexed to the City.

The MHCP plan, which serves as an umbrella document to guide the preparation of subarea plans by the cities, was approved in March 2003. Since that time, only the City of Carlsbad has completed its subarea plan. The lack of progress by the other cities on their subarea plans is a huge disappointment to those of us who have spent many hours working on the MHCP and truly believe that regional conservation planning will be beneficial to all the cities involved. The goal of the MHCP is to maintain biodiversity and ecosystem health in the region while maintaining quality of life and economic growth opportunities. Achievement of this goal through the implementation of subarea plans will benefit all the MHCP cities.

What progress has the City of San Marcos made in developing its subarea plan? When does the City expect to complete its subarea plan? The issue of the lack of progress on the San Marcos subarea plan relates to the Highlands project because the project site is in the middle of the last remaining large block of undisturbed habitat in northern San Marcos. As explained below, it is in the MHCP Biological Core and Linkage Area (BCLA) and is part of the City of San Marcos’ MHCP Northern Focused Planning Area (FPA).

Early in the MHCP Preserve planning process, a biological core and linkage area (BCLA) was identified. The BCLA defines those portions of the MHCP study area that would best contribute to a viable preserve. Focused Planning Areas (FPAs) were identified by the cities to pinpoint areas of important biological resources.

The San Marcos Highlands project site is in the BCLA and was identified by the City of San Marcos as part of its Northern Focused Planning Area. The map of the Focused Planning Area Subareas in the MHCP’s Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report, Vol. I, March 2003, Figure 2.3-5, clearly shows that the Highlands project will fragment the habitat in the Northern Focused Planning Area and block the wildlife corridor that connects the mountains on the southeast to the hills on the northwest. The conservation planning process seeks to avoid fragmenting habitat and blocking corridors; basic tenets of the planning process are that large areas of undisturbed habitat should be conserved and linkages between these “core areas” must be maintained. The Highlands project is in direct opposition to these goals and objectives of conservation planning.

ISSUES

1. Environmental impacts of the project and mitigation

The Highlands project will remove about 75 acres of coastal sage scrub (CSS) which is habitat for the threatened coastal California gnatcatcher. The habitat to be removed is in the middle of an important wildlife corridor that links undeveloped habitat to the southeast to undeveloped habitat to the northwest.

In addition, Agua Hedionda Creek runs through the project site. The habitat to be removed is adjacent to the creek, and development is proposed on either side of the creek, with a road crossing the creek. It is hard to imagine a more environmentally damaging location for a housing development.

All these impacts must be mitigated. Because the proposed project impacts waters of the U.S., the developer is required to apply for a 404 certification from the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). And because the project impacts the habitat for listed species, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)entered into a Section 7 consultation with the ACOE. The Service prepared a Biological Opinion (BO) dated April 8, 2005. The BO lays out actions that must be taken by the developer regarding the listed species and makes conservation recommendations.

The developer’s Environmental Consultants, Everett and Associates, developed a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) for the Highlands project. The HMMP is dated October 2005 and is identified as a “preliminary working draft – work in progress.”

When will the HMMP be finalized? How can the City of San Marcos and the public be assured that the mitigation measures presented in the draft HMMP and the MND will not be modified or eliminated at some point?

2. Inadequate wildlife corridors

As pointed out above, the entire Highlands project site is a linkage between two undeveloped, large blocks of habitat: the San MarcosMountains to the southeast and hills to the northwest.

According to the HMMP,the development on the northwest side of the creek will constrain the wildlife corridor on the north side of the project, west of the creek, to between 400-450 feet. On the east side of the creek, the wildlife corridor is wider, but constrained at one point to 450 feet. (It is noted that, in order to widen the corridor on the northwest side of the creek to 400-450 feet, the developer proposes to acquire an easement on an adjacent property.)

The Biological Goals, Standards, and Guidelines for Multiple Habitat Preserve Design (Ogden, Feb. 1998) states: “A typical width greater than 1,000 is recommended for large mammals…” (p. 6-3) Since mule deer inhabit this area, wildlife corridors much wider than the proposed 400-450 feet corridors are needed. It seems obvious that the development footprint of the Highlands project needs to be pulled back all along the northern part of the site to provide adequate wildlife corridors.

How can the project be redesigned to allow for much wider wildlife corridors along the north side of the site?

In addition to the wildlife corridor on the north side of the site, there is an important corridor along the creek. We know that wildlife depend on wetlands for survival; therefore, an adequate corridor along the creek is required.

The project maps show a corridor along the creek, but do not indicate its width. It appears that the corridor is even narrower than the proposed 400-450 corridor along the northern side of the site. In addition, the corridor along the creek is highly constrained by the proposed extension of Las Posas Road on the west side of the creek.

The wildlife corridor along Agua Hedionda Creek should be considered a regional corridor. It extends southward along the creek to the point where the creek enters a pipe to go under South Santa Fe Avenue. The Biological Goals, Standards, and Guidelines document states, “Regional corridors should accommodate travel for a broad range of wildlife species as well as provide habitat for foraging and reproduction.” (p. 6-3)

A broad range of wildlife inhabits in this area, as documented in the URS Biological Resources Report (Jan. 8, 2001) on the San Marcos Specific Highlands Plan. The largest species is the mule deer.

Again, the MHCP Goals, Standards, and Guidelines document recommends a corridor width of 1,000 feet where mule deer are present.

How can the project be redesigned to provide for a 1,000 foot wildlife corridor along the creek?

3. Inadequate road undercrossing for wildlife

The project plan includes a road across Agua Hedionda Creek. This road will connect the two proposed housing developments on either side of the creek.

The Goals, Standards, and Guidelines document states, “Minimize barriers such as major roads. Roads that cross corridors should provide underpasses allowing large mammals and other animals to cross. Roads crossing the corridor should be fenced by at least a 10-foot fence that channels animals toward the wildlifeunderpass. These fencesshould be buried at least 1 foot underground so animals cannot dig underneath. Bridges are the preferred type of wildlife underpass; box and pipe culverts are infrequently used by deer (Ogden 1992a)… The length-to-width ratio of wildlife underpasses should be less

than 2.” In addition, “Underpasses targeted for deer movement should be at least 20 feet high (K. Crooks pers. communication). Measurements of the height of underpasses must consider decreased bank width over time due to high water and siltation.” (p. 6-4)

The project proposes an eight-foot high undercrossing. This is completely inadequate to accommodate larger wildlife such as mule deer. If deer cannot use the wildlife undercrossing, they will be forced to move across the street. This will result in wildlife-vehicle collisions, an outcome that should be avoided.

How can the project be modified to either eliminate the road across the creek or provide an undercrossing for wildlife of greater height than eight feet?

4. Impacts to Agua Hedionda Creek

This project will impact Agua Hedionda Creek, at its headwaters.

In addition to Co-Chairing the NC-MHCP/MSCP Task Force, I worked on the development of the Agua Hedionda Watershed Management Plan, which was produced for the City of Vista by Tetra Tech in August, 2008. This plan recommended projects to restore and enhance the watershed’s natural functions and features and proposed that the large blocks of undeveloped habitat at the headwaters of the creek be acquired for conservation.

I am aware that a good-faith effort was made by the Endangered Habitats League in the 2008 timeframe to acquire the entire Highlands site for conservation. This effort had the support of the California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, and funding was available. However, after the appraisal was completed, the property owner, Farouk Kubba, felt that the appraised value was too low, and the acquisition could not be accomplished.

Acquisition of the entire Highland site for conservation would have been the most desirable outcome. Short of that, a tremendous amount of creek restoration must be accomplished in order for the Highlands project to proceed. This mitigation for impacts to the wetlands is described in the HMMP. However, since the HMMP has not been finalized, there is some doubt that all the mitigation measures will actually be accomplished.

How can the City of San Marcos and the public be assured that all of the creek restoration and other mitigation measures for impacts to the creek detailed in the HMMP will be accomplished?

5. Conformance with the new stormwater runoff regulations of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)

The Highlands project will remove about 75 acres of natural habitat adjacent to Agua Hedionda Creek and replace it with impervious surfaces, such as roads, parking lots, building pads, etc. These two actions will increase the velocity and flow of runoff into the creek and decrease the water quality. Agua Hedionda Creek is listed as an impaired waterbody by the RWQCB. As such, it does not support designated beneficial uses under the Clean Water Act Section 303(d).

The Highlands project received its 401 certification by the RWQCB in 2005. This year, 2013, the RWQCB adopted new stormwater regulations to improve water quality in our watersheds.

How will the City of San Marcos assure the public that the Highlands project will meet the requirements of the new stormwater regulations?

CONCLUSION

As detailed above, the Highlands project does not meet the goals and objectives of the MHCP. I urge the City of San Marcos to require the impacts of the project on natural habitat, wildlife and wetlands be reduced by: reducing the size of the development; pulling the development back from the north side to create an adequate wildlife corridor; creating a 1,000 foot corridor along the creek, with adequate creek banks; and eliminating the road across the creek or increasing the height of the undercrossing to accommodate mule deer. In addition, the Highands project needs to adhere to the new RWQCB stormwater regulations.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Highlands MND. Please contact me at if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Diane Nygaard

Cc: Mary Clarke , Co-Chair MHCP/MSCP Task Force, Sierra Club, San Diego Chapter

Janet Stuckrath, USFWS

Stephanie Ponce, CA DFW

1