Item M Costco - Public Comments — Camarillo City Council, February 14, 2024

City of Camarillo
Public Comments
Friday, February 2, 2024 03:26 PMPUBLIC COMMENTS
NOTICE
This is a public document and will be posted as part of the public record. Any attachments, pictures, and information submitted will be subject to disclosure in accordance with applicable law, including the Public Records Act.

Meeting Date Wednesday, February 14, 2024
Agency City Council
Item Type Agenda Item
Item Number or Subject Costco
Position Oppose
Comments Dear City Council,
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my deep concerns regarding the approval process for a new
Costco fuel station in the city of Camarillo.

As the owner and operator of a family-owned gas station and convenience store in Camarillo for the past 15 years, I believe it is crucial to bring to your attention the potential adverse impacts this decision may have on my business. I am
vehemently opposed to this development.

Firstly, I would like to emphasize our commitment to the Camarillo community over the years. Our gas station and convenience store have proudly served the local residents, offering top-quality fuel and convenience products at
competitive prices. We have consistently strived to provide outstanding value to our customers while maintaining the highest standards of service.

I am particularly distressed by the seemingly hasty approval of a new Costco fuel station, which, as I understand, is slated to have an excessively large fuel offering. This approval process appears to have occurred without the comprehensive review and consideration that our business, and others like 1 ours, have been subjected to in the past. Furthermore, it is disheartening to note that the new Costco fuel station will be allowed to operate at a volume that is at least twice the capacity of what we are permitted. This discrepancy in
allowed volumes is not only unfair but could prove
devastating to our business and the livelihoods of our
dedicated employees. This inequity raises significant
questions about fairness and the potential impact on local businesses.

I kindly request that the city reevaluate the approval process for the Costco fuel station with a focus on fairness, thorough review, and consideration of the impact on existing
businesses like ours. It is essential to maintain a level playing field and ensure that all businesses operate under the same regulatory framework.

Furthermore, it is essential to preserve the character of what makes the City of Camarillo so special. This new
development will forever change Camarillo as we know it in a very negative way (noise, traffic, etc).

I appreciate your attention to this matter and your dedication to the well-being of Camarillo's local businesses. I am hopeful that, with your support, we can find a solution that allows all businesses to thrive in our community.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Joe Hilu
Hilu Chevron
522 N. Las Posas Rd.

Camarillo, CA
E: [email protected]
Upload Additional Information

IDENTIFICATION
Name Joe Hilu
Address 522 N Las Posas Rd
Camarillo, CA, 93010
Telephone (805) 383-1848
Email [email protected]
Public Records Acknowledgement By checking this box, I acknowledge that I understand anything I submit will become part of the public record and be subject to disclosure in accordance with applicable law, including the Public Records Act.
2 City of Camarillo
Public Comments
Sunday, February 4, 2024 05:20 PMPUBLIC COMMENTS
NOTICE
This is a public document and will be posted as part of the public record. Any attachments, pictures, and information submitted will be subject to disclosure in accordance with applicable law, including the Public Records Act.

Meeting Date Tuesday, February 6, 2024
Agency Planning Commission
Item Type Item Not On Agenda
Item Number or Subject COSTCO
Position Oppose
Comments I am opposed to the proposed COSTCO project for environmental and traffic concerns. This area is habitat for 9 resident red-tail hawks as well as numerous other wildlife species. We need to preserve their habitat and our open spaces. We don't need more development, we need more
habitat preservation. These hawks will be forced to move to airport property which is dangerous to them and to the flying public. We don't need more traffic congestion, we need less.

Please preserve the pristine open spaces we moved to
Camarillo to enjoy.

Upload Additional Information

IDENTIFICATION
Name tanny taylor
Address 1150 CORTE RIVIERA
CAMARILLO, CA, 93010
Telephone (805) 705-7830
1 Email [email protected]
Public Records Acknowledgement By checking this box, I acknowledge that I understand anything I submit will become part of the public record and be subject to disclosure in accordance with applicable law, including the Public Records Act.
2 1
Monique Martinez
From: Kristen Kessler <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 5, 2024 6:45 PM
To: City Council Internet EMAIL Group
Subject: Comments re: Camarillo Costco
Camarillo City Council
601 Carmen Drive
Camarillo, CA 93010
Dear Councilmembers,
I’m a member of Ventura Audubon Society, and drive by the proposed Costco site frequently.The site is home to various raptors, including red-tailed and red-shouldered hawks, red-winged blackbirds and most likely, burrowing owls..

Burrowing owls have been spotted in the area in recent years, as documented on eBird.org. As you may know, they are listed as a species of special concern; their populations have been declining since the early 1990’s in California (DeSante, Institute for Bird Populations).

Therefore, I was concerned when I learned that an EIR will not be required for this project. It is unacceptable that an EIR is not being required when there is a species of special concern involved.

The Biological Assessment Report prepared by Kleinfelder and Associates in 2022 states that there is a moderate likelihood that burrowing owls live within 1.3 miles of the property, and that nests have been seen on the northwestern corner of it. Yet, the report recommends that only the most basic measures be taken: conduct a pre-construction assessment of owl burrows during the breeding season, put up a 250 feet buffer zone during construction, and remove any trash from the area that may attract predators (Kleinfelder, page 10).

This implies that nests will be paved over when owls leave at the end of the breeding season.These measures are considered avoidance mitigations by the CA Department of Fish and Game (attached), and are not optimal in ensuring the long-term survival of burrowing owls. I According to the staff report, destroying burrows is considered an activity with the potential to take or impact burrowing owls (pages 6-7), and is inconsistent with burrowing owl conservation goals (page 6). It goes on to state that destruction or eviction from burrows may put increased stress on burrowing owls and “may result in significant loss of burrows and habitat for reproduction”, and “are not recommended where they can be avoided”(page 12).

Also, the ongoing construction projects at the airport may affect burrowing owl habitat if the fields are paved over. As you know, under CEQA, an assessment of local and cumulative impacts of development is required.

It is for these reasons that an EIR should be required for the Costco project. Wildlife, traffic, air pollution, and emergency response times will be significantly impacted. Therefore, I urge you to pause the Costco project until all impacts have been impartially and thoroughly studied.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Respectfully,
2 Kristen Kessler

City of Camarillo
Public Comments
Monday, February 5, 2024 06:38 PMPUBLIC COMMENTS
NOTICE
This is a public document and will be posted as part of the public record. Any attachments, pictures, and information submitted will be subject to disclosure in accordance with applicable law, including the Public Records Act.

Meeting Date Wednesday, February 14, 2024
Agency City Council
Item Type Agenda Item
Item Number or Subject Camarillo Costco
Position Oppose
Comments Camarillo City Council
601 Carmen Drive
Camarillo, CA 93010
Dear Councilmembers,
I’m a member of Ventura Audubon Society, and drive by the proposed Costco site frequently. The site is home to various raptors, including red-tailed and red-shouldered hawks, red- winged blackbirds and most likely, burrowing owls..

Therefore, I was concerned when I learned that an EIR will not be required for this project. It is unacceptable that an EIR is not being required when there is a species of special concern involved.

The Biological Assessment Report prepared by Kleinfelder and 1 Associates in 2022 states that there is a moderate likelihood that burrowing owls live within 1.3 miles of the property, and that nests have been seen on the northwestern corner of it. Yet, the report recommends that only the most basic measures be taken: conduct a pre-construction assessment of owl burrows during the breeding season, put up a 250 feet buffer zone during construction, and remove any trash from the area that may attract predators (Kleinfelder, page 10).

According to the staff report, destroying burrows is considered an activity with the potential to take or impact burrowing owls (pages 6-7), and is inconsistent with burrowing owl
conservation goals (page 6). It goes on to state that destruction or eviction from burrows may put increased stress on burrowing owls and “may result in significant loss of burrows and habitat for reproduction”, and “are not recommended where they can be avoided”(page 12).

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Respectfully,
Kristen Kessler
Upload Additional Information
PDF BUOW_MIT_StaffReport2012….pdf

IDENTIFICATION
Name Kristen Kessler
Address 10645 Vinca Lane, #102
Ventura, CA, 93004
2 Telephone
Email [email protected]
Public Records AcknowledgementBy checking this box, I acknowledge that I understand anything I submit will become part of the public record and be subject to disclosure in accordance with applicable law, including the Public Records Act.
3 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation

State of California
Natural Resources Agency
Department of Fish and Game
March 7, 20121

1 This document replaces the Department of Fish and Game 1995 Staff Report On Burrowing Owl Mitigation. 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ....................................................................................................... ...................1

DEPARTMENT ROLE AND LEGAL AUTHORITIES ..............................................................................................2

GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR CONSERVATION............................................................................................ .........3

CONSERVATION GOALS FOR THE BURROWING OWL IN CALIFORNIA .........................................................4

ACTIVITIES WITH THE POTENTIAL TO TAKE OR IMPACT BURROWING OWLS.............................................4

PROJECT IMPACT EVALUATIONS..................................................................................................... ..................5

MITIGATION METHODS............................................................................................................. ............................8

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................... ......................15

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... .................................15

Appendix A. Burrowing Owl Na tural History and Threats.......................................................................... .....20

Appendix B. Definitions ........................................................................................................ .............................24

Appendix C. Habitat Assessm ent and Reporting Details........................................................................... .....26

Appendix D. Breeding and Non-breeding Season Survey
and Re ports ................................................................................................................... ................28

Appendix E. Draft Example Components for Burrowing Owl
Artificial Burrow a nd Exclusion Plans ........................................................................................3 1

Appendix F. Mitigation Management Plan and Vegetation
Management Goals .............................................................................................................. .........33 1 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

Maintaining California’s rich biological diversity is dependent on the conservation of species and their habitats. The California Departm ent of Fish and Game (Department) has designated certain species as “species of special concern” when their population viability and survival is adversely affected by risk factors such as precipitous declines or other vulnerability factors (Shuford and Gardali 20 08). Preliminary analyses of regional patterns for breeding populations of burrowing owls ( Athene cunicularia ) have detected declines both locally in their central and southern coastal breeding areas, and statewide where the species has experienced modest breeding range retraction (Ger vais et al. 2008). In California, threat factors affecting burrowing owl populations include habitat loss, degradation and modification, and eradication of ground squirrels resulting in a loss of suitable burrows required by burrowing owls for nesting, protection from predators, and shelter (See Appendix A).

The Department recognized the need for a co mprehensive conservation and mitigation strategy for burrowing owls, and in 1995 directed staff to prepare a report describing mitigation and survey recommendations. This report, “1995 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation,” (Staff Report) (CDFG 1995), contained Department-recommended burrowing owl and burrow survey techniques and mitigation meas ures intended to offset the loss of habitat and slow or reverse further decli ne of this species. Notwiths tanding these measures, over the past 15+ years, burrowing owls have conti nued to decline in portions of their range (DeSante et al. 2007, Wilkerson and Siegel, 2010). The Department has determined that reversing declining populatio n and range trends for burrowing owls will require implementation of more effective conservati on actions, and evaluating the efficacy of the Department’s existing recommended avoidance, minimization and mitigation approaches for burrowing owls.

The Department has identified thr ee main actions that together will facilitate a more viable, coordinated, and concerted approach to conserva tion and mitigation for burrowing owls in California. These include:

1. Incorporating burrowing owl comprehensive c onservation strategies into landscape-based planning efforts such as Natural Comm unity Conservation Plans (NCCPs) and multi-species Habitat Conservation Plans ( HCPs) that specifically address burrowing owls.

2. Developing and implementing a statewi de conservation strategy (Burkett and Johnson, 2007) and local or regional conservation strategies for burrowing owls, including the development and implementation of a statewide burrowing owl survey and monitoring plan.

3. Developing more rigorous burrowing owl survey methods, working to improve the adequacy of impacts assessments; developi ng clear and effective avoidance and minimization measures; and developing mitigat ion measures to ensure impacts to the species are effectively addressed at the projec t, local, and/or regional level (the focus of this document).

This Report sets forth the Department’s recommendations for implementing the third approach identified above by revising the 1995 St aff Report, drawing from the most relevant and current knowledge a nd expertise, and incorporating the best scientific information 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 2
available pertaining to the species. It is designed to provide a compilation of the best available science for Department staff, biologists, planner s, land managers, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lead agencies, and the public to consider when assessing impacts of projects or other activities on burrowing owls.

This revised Staff Report takes into account the California Burrowi ng Owl Consortium’s Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines (CBOC 1993, 1997) and supersedes the survey, avoidance, minimization and mitigation recommendations in the 1995 Staff Report. Based on experiences gained from implementing the 199 5 Staff Report, the Department believes revising that report is warranted. This document also includes general conservation goals and principles for developing mitigation measures for burrowing owls.

DEPARTMENT ROLE AND LEGAL AUTHORITIES

The mission of the Department is to manage California's diverse fish, wildlife and plant resources, and the habitats upon which they depe nd, for their ecological values and for their use and enjoyment by the public. The Department has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitats necessary to maintain biologically sustai nable populations of those species (Fish and Game Code (FGC) §1802). The Department, as trustee agency pursuant to CEQA (See CEQA Guidelines, §15386), has jurisdiction by law over natural resources, including fish and wildlife, affected by a project, as that term is defined in Section 21065 of the P ublic Resources Code. The Department exercises this authority by reviewing and commenting on environmental documents and making recommendations to avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential negative impacts to those resources held in trust for the people of California.

Field surveys designed to detect the presence of a particular species, habitat element, or natural community are one of the tools that can assist biolog ists in determining whether a species or habitat may be significantly impact ed by land use changes or disturbance. The Department reviews field survey data as well as site-specific and regional information to evaluate whether a project’s impacts may be si gnificant. This document compiles the best available science for conducting habitat assessments and surveys, and includes considerations for developing measures to avoid impacts or mitigate unavoidable impacts.

CEQA

CEQA requires public agencies in California to analyze and disclose po tential environmental impacts associated with a project that the agency will carry out, fund, or approve. Any potentially significant impact must be mitigated to the extent feasible. Project-specific CEQA mitigation is important for burrowing owls becaus e most populations exist on privately owned parcels that, when proposed for development or other types of modification, may be subject to the environmental review requirements of CEQA.

Take

Take of individual burrowi ng owls and their nests is defined by FGC section 86, and prohibited by sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513. Take is defined in FGC Section 86 as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill.” 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 3
Migratory Bird Treaty Act

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) implem ents various treaties and conventions between the United States and Canada, Japan, Mexico, and Russia fo r the protection of migratory birds, including the burrowing owl (50 C.F.R. § 10). The MBTA protects migratory bird nests from possession, sale, purchase, barter, tr ansport, import and export, and collection. The other prohibitions of t he MBTA - capture, pursue, hunt, and ki ll - are inapplicable to nests.

The regulatory definition of take , as defined in Title 50 C.F. R. part 10.12, means to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collec t, or attempt to hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect. Only the verb “collect” applies to nests. It is illegal to collect, possess, and by any means transfer possession of any migr atory bird nest. The MBTA prohibits the destruction of a nest when it contains birds or eggs, and no possession shall occur during the destruction (see Fish and Wildlife Service, Mi gratory Bird Permit Memorandum, April 15, 2003). Certain exceptions to this prohibition are included in 50 C.F.R. section 21. Pursuant to Fish & Game Code section 3513, the Departm ent enforces the Migrat ory Bird Treaty Act consistent with rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Treaty Act.

Regional Conservation Plans

Regional multiple species cons ervation plans offer long-term assurances for conservation of covered species at a landscape scale, in exc hange for biologically appropriate levels of incidental take and/or habitat loss as defined in the approved plan. California’s NCCP Act (FGC §2800 et seq.) governs such plans at the state level, and was de signed to conserve species, natural communities, ecosystems, and ec ological processes across a jurisdiction or a collection of jurisdictions. Complementary federal HCPs are governed by the Endangered Species Act (7 U.S.C. § 136, 16 U.S.C.§ 1531 et seq. ) (ESA). Regional conservation plans (and certain other landscape- level conservation and management plans), may provide conservation for unlisted as well as listed species. Because the geographic scope of NCCPs and HCPs may span many hundreds of thousands of acres, t hese planning tools have the potential to play a significant role in cons ervation of burrowing owls, and grasslands and other habitats.

Fish and Game Commission Policies

There are a number of Fish and Game Commission policies (see FGC §2008) that can be applied to burrowing owl conservation. These include policies on: R aptors, Cooperation, Endangered and Threatened Species, Land Us e Planning, Management and Utilization of Fish and Wildlife on Federal Lands, Managem ent and Utilization of Fish and Wildlife on Private Lands, and Research.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR CONSERVATION

Unless otherwise provided in a st atewide, local, or regional conservation strategy, surveying and evaluating impacts to burrowing owls, as well as developing and implementing avoidance, minimization, and mitigation and conservation measures incorporate the following principles. These principles are a summary of Department staff expert opinion and were used to guide the preparation of this document.
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 4

1. Use the Precautionary Princi ple (Noss et al.1997), by whic h the alternative of increased conservation is deliberately chosen in orde r to buffer against incomplete knowledge of burrowing owl ecology and uncertainty about the consequences to burrowing owls of potential impacts, including those that are cumulative.

2. Employ basic conservation biology te nets and population-level approaches when determining what constitutes appropriate av oidance, minimization, and mitigation for impacts. Include mitigation effectiveness m onitoring and reporting, and use an adaptive management loop to modify measures based on results.

3. Protect and conserve owls in wild, semi-natural, and agric ultural habitats (conserve is defined at FGC §1802).

4. Protect and conserve natural nest burrows (or burrow surrogates) previously used by burrowing owls and sufficient foraging habitat and protect auxiliary “satellite” burrows that contribute to burrowing owl survivorship and natural behavior of owls.

CONSERVATION GOALS FOR THE BURROWING OWL IN CALIFORNIA

It is Department staff expert opi nion that the following goals gui de and contribute to the short and long-term conservation of burrowing owls in California:

1. Maintain size and distribution of extant burrowing owl populations (allowing for natural population fluctuations).

2. Increase geographic distribution of burrowing owls into formerly occupied historical range where burrowing owl habitat still exists, or where it can be cr eated or enhanced, and where the reason for its local disappearance is no longer of concern.

3. Increase size of existing populations wh ere possible and appropr iate (for example, considering basic ecological principles such as carrying capacity, predator-prey relationships, and inter-specific relationships with other species at risk).

4. Protect and restore self-sustaining ecosystem s or natural communities which can support burrowing owls at a landscape scale, and which will require minimal long-term management.

5. Minimize or prevent unnatur al causes of burrowing owl po pulation declines (e.g., nest burrow destruction, chemical control of rodent hosts and prey).

6. Augment/restore natural dynamics of burro wing owl populations in cluding movement and genetic exchange among populations, such that the species does not require future listing and protection under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and/or the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).

7. Engage stakeholders, including ranchers; farmers ; military; tribes; local, state, and federal agencies; non-governmental organizations; and scientific research and education communities involved in burrowing owl protection and habitat management.

ACTIVITIES WITH THE POTENTIAL TO TAKE OR IMPACT BURROWING OWLS

The following activities are examples of activi ties that have the potent ial to take burrowing owls, their nests or eggs, or destroy or degrade burrowing owl habitat: grading, disking, cultivation, earthmoving, burrow blockage, heavy equipment compacting and crushing burrow tunnels, levee maintenance, fl ooding, burning and mowing (if burrows are impacted), and operating wind turbine collisions (collectively hereafte r referred to as “projects” or “activities” 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 5
whether carried out pursuant to CE QA or not). In addition, the following activities may have impacts to burrowing owl populations: eradicati on of host burrowers; changes in vegetation management (i.e. grazing); use of pesticides and rodenticides; destruction, conversion or degradation of nesting, foraging, over-wintering or other habitats; destruction of natural burrows and burrow surrogates; and disturbance whic h may result in harassment of owls at occupied burrows.

PROJECT IMPACT EVALUATIONS

The following three progressive steps are effective in evaluating whether projects will result in impacts to burrowing owls. The informati on gained from these steps will inform any subsequent avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures. The steps for project impact evaluations are: 1) habitat assessment, 2) surveys, and 3) impact assessment. Habitat assessments are conducted to ev aluate the likelihood that a site supports burrowing owl.

Burrowing owl surveys provide information needed to determine the potential effects of proposed projects and activities on burrowing o wls, and to avoid take in accordance with FGC sections 86, 3503, and 3503.5. Impact as sessments evaluate the extent to which burrowing owls and their habitat may be impacted, directly or indirectly, on and within a reasonable distance of a proposed CEQA project ac tivity or non-CEQA project. These three site evaluation steps are discussed in detail below.

Biologist Qualifications

The current scientific literature indicates that only individuals meeting the following minimum qualifications should perform burrowing owl habitat assessm ents, surveys, and impact assessments:

1. Familiarity with the s pecies and its local ecology;

2. Experience conducting habitat asse ssments and non-breeding and breeding season surveys, or experience with these surv eys conducted under the direction of an experienced surveyor;

3. Familiarity with t he appropriate state and federal statutes related to burrowing owls, scientific research, and conservation;

4. Experience with analyzing impacts of dev elopment on burrowing owls and their habitat.

Habitat Assessment Data Collection and Reporting

A habitat assessment is the first step in the evaluation process and will assist investigators in determining whether or not occupancy surv eys are needed. Refer to Appendix B for a definition of burrowing owl habitat. Compile t he detailed information described in Appendix C when conducting project scoping, conducting a habitat assessment site visit and preparing a habitat assessment report.

Surveys

Burrowing owl surveys are the se cond step of the evaluation pr ocess and the best available scientific literature recommends that they be conducted whenev er burrowing owl habitat or sign (see Appendix B) is encount ered on or adjacent to (withi n 150 meters) a project site 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 6
(Thomsen 1971, Martin 1973). Occupancy of burro wing owl habitat is confirmed at a site when at least one burrowing owl, or its sign at or near a burrow entrance, is observed within the last three years (Rich 1984). Burrowing o wls are more detectable during the breeding season with detection probabilities being highest during the nestling stage (Conway et al. 2008). In California, the bu rrowing owl breeding season exte nds from 1 February to 31 August (Haug et al. 1993, Thompsen 1971) with some variances by geographic location and climatic conditions. Several researchers suggest three or more survey visits during daylight hours (Haug and Diduik 1993, CBOC 1997, Conw ay and Simon 2003) and recommend each visit occur at least three weeks apart durin g the peak of the breeding season, commonly accepted in California as between 15 April and 15 July (CBOC 1997). Conway and Simon (2003) and Conway et al. (2008) recomme nded conducting surveys during the day when most burrowing owls in a local area are in the laying and incubation period (so as not to miss early breeding attempts), during the nesting period, and in the late nestling period when most owls are spending time above ground.

Non-breeding season (1 Septem ber to 31 January) surveys may provide information on burrowing owl occupancy, but do not substitute for breeding season surveys because results are typically inconclusive. Burrowing owls are more difficult to detect during the non-breeding season and their seasonal residency status is di fficult to ascertain. Burrowing owls detected during non-breeding season surveys may be yea r-round residents, young from the previous breeding season, pre-breeding territorial adults, winter residents, dispersing juveniles, migrants, transients or new coloni zers. In addition, the numbers of owls and their pattern of distribution may differ during winter and breeding seasons. However, on rare occasions, non-breeding season surveys may be warranted (i.e., if the site is belie ved to be a wintering site only based on negative breeding season results). Refer to Appendix D for information on breeding season and non-breeding season survey methodologies.

Survey Reports

Adequate information about burrowing owls present in and adjacent to an area that will be disturbed by a project or activity will enabl e the Department, reviewing agencies and the public to effectively assess potential impacts and will guide the develop ment of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. The surv ey report includes but is not limited to a description of the proposed proj ect or proposed activity, includ ing the proposed project start and end dates, as well as a description of disturbanc es or other activities occurring on-site or nearby. Refer to Appendix D for details included in a survey report.

Impact Assessment

The third step in the evaluati on process is the impact asse ssment. When surveys confirm occupied burrowing owl habitat in or adjoining the project area, there are a number of ways to assess a project’s potential significant impac ts to burrowing owls and their habitat.

Richardson and Miller (1997) recommended monitori ng raptor behavior prior to developing management recommendations and buffers to determine the extent to which individuals have been sensitized to human disturbance. Monitori ng results will also provide detail necessary for developing site-specific measures. Po stovit and Postovit (1987) recommended an analytical approach to mitigation planning: define the problem (impact), set goals (to guide mitigation development), evaluate and select mitigation methods, and monitor the results. 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 7
Define the problem. The impact assessment evaluates all factors that could affect burrowing owls. Postovit and Postovit (1987) recommend ev aluating the following in assessing impacts to raptors and planning mi tigation: type and extent of distur bance, duration and timing of disturbance, visibility of dist urbance, sensitivity and ability to habituate, and influence of environmental factors. They suggest identif ying and addressing all po tential direct and indirect impacts to burrowing owls, regardless of whether or not the im pacts will occur during the breeding season. Several examples are gi ven for each impact category below; however, examples are not intended to be used exclusively.

Type and extent of the disturbance. The impact assessment describes the nature (source) and extent (scale) of potential project impac ts on occupied, satellite and unoccupied burrows including acreage to be lost (temporary or permanent), fragmentation/ edge being created, increased distance to other nesting and foraging habitat, and habitat degradation. Discuss any project activities that impact either breeding and/or non-breeding habitat which could affect owl home range size and spatial configuration, negativ ely affect onsite and offsite burrowing owl presence, increase energetic co sts, lower reproductive success, increase vulnerability to predation, and/or decrease the chance of procuring a mate.

Duration and timing of the impact. The impact assessment describes the amount of time the burrowing owl habitat wi ll be unavailable to burrowing owls (temporary or permanent) on the site and the effect of that loss on essential behaviors or life history requirements of burrowing owls, the overlap of project activities with breeding and/or non-breeding seasons (timing of nesting and/or non-breeding activities may vary with latitude and climatic conditions, which should be considered with the time line of the project or activi ty), and any variance of the project activities in intensity, scale and proximity relative to burrowing owl occurrences.

Visibility and sensitivity. Some individual burrowing owls or pairs are more sensitive than others to specific stimuli and may habituate to ongoing visual or audible disturbance. Site- specific monitoring may provi de clues to the burrowing owl’s s ensitivities. This type of assessment addresses the sensitivity of burrowi ng owls within their nesting area to humans on foot, and vehicular traffic. Other variables are whether the site is primarily in a rural versus urban setting, and whether any prior disturbance (e.g., human development or recreation) is known at the site.

Environmental factors . The impact assessment discusse s any environmental factors that could be influenced or changed by the proposed activities including nest site availability, predators, prey availability, burrowing mamm al presence and abundance, and threats from other extrinsic factors such as human disturbance, urban interf ace, feral animals, invasive species, disease or pesticides.

Significance of impacts . The impact assessment evaluates the potential loss of nesting burrows, satellite burrows, foraging habitat, dis persal and migration habitat, wintering habitat, and habitat linkages, including habitat s upporting prey and host burrowers and other essential habitat attributes. Th is assessment determines if impacts to the species will result in significant impacts to the species locally, regionally and range-wide per CEQA Guidelines §15382 and Appendix G. The signifi cance of the impact to habi tat depends on the extent of habitat disturbed and length of time the habitat is unavailable (for example: minor – several days, medium – several weeks to months, high - breeding season affecting juvenile survival, 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 8
or over winter affecting adult survival).

Cumulative effects. The cumulative effects assessment evaluates two consequences: 1) the project’s proportional share of reasonably foreseeable impacts on burrowing owls and habitat caused by the project or in combination with other projects and local influences having impacts on burrowing owls and habitat, and 2) t he effects on the regi onal owl population resulting from the project’s impacts to burrowing owls and habitat.

Mitigation goals. Establishing goals will assist in pl anning mitigation and se lecting measures that function at a desired level. Goals al so provide a standard by which to measure mitigation success. Unless specifically provi ded for through other FGC Sections or through specific regulations, take, possession or destruc tion of individual burro wing owls, their nests and eggs is prohibited under FGC sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513. Therefore, a required goal for all project activities is to avoid ta ke of burrowing owls. Under CEQA, goals would consist of measures that would avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts to a less than significant level. For individual projects, mitigation must be roughly proportional to the level of impacts, including cumulative impacts, in accordance wit h the provisions of CE QA (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4(a)(4)(B), 15064, 15065, and 16355). In order for mitigation measures to be effective, they must be specific, enforceabl e, and feasible acti ons that will improve environmental conditions. As set forth in more detail in Appendix A, the current scientific literature supports the conclu sion that mitigation for permanent habitat loss necessitates replacement with an equivalent or greater habitat area for breeding, foraging, wintering, dispersal, presence of burrows, burrow surrogat es, presence of fossorial mammal dens, well drained soils, and abundant and available prey within close proximity to the burrow.

MITIGATION METHODS

The current scientific literatur e indicates that any site-specific avoidance or mitigation measures developed should in corporate the best practices presented below or other practices confirmed by experts and the Department. The Department is available to assist in the development of site-specific avoidance and mitigation measures.

Avoiding. A primary goal is to design and implem ent projects to seasonally and spatially avoid negative impacts and disturbances that could result in take of burrowing owls, nests, or eggs. Other avoidance measures may include but not be limited to:

 Avoid disturbing occupied burrows during t he nesting period, from 1 February through 31 August.
 Avoid impacting burrows occupied during the non-breeding season by migratory or non-migratory resident burrowing owls.
 Avoid direct destruction of burrows through c haining (dragging a heavy chain over an area to remove shrubs), disking, cultivation, and urban, industrial, or agricultural development.  Develop and implement a work er awareness program to in crease the on-site worker’s recognition of and commitment to burrowing owl protection.  Place visible markers near burrows to ens ure that farm equipment and other machinery does not collapse burrows.
 Do not fumigate, use treated bait or other means of poisoning nuisa nce animals in areas where burrowing owls are known or suspected to occur (e.g., sites observed with nesting 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 9
owls, designated use areas).
 Restrict the use of treated grain to pois on mammals to the m onths of January and February.

Take avoidance (pre-construction) surveys . Take avoidance surveys are intended to detect the presence of burrowing owls on a project site at a fixed period in time and inform necessary take avoidance actions. Take avoidance surveys may detect changes in owl presence such as colonizing owls that have re cently moved onto the site, migrating owls, resident burrowing owls changing burrow use, or young of the year that are still present and have not dispersed. Refer to Appendix D for take avoidance survey methodology.

Site surveillance. Burrowing owls may attemp t to colonize or re-colon ize an area that will be impacted; thus, the current scientific literature indicates a need for ongoing surveillance at the project site during project activities is recommended. The surveillance frequency/effort should be sufficient to detect burrowing owls if they return. Subsequent to their new occupancy or return to the site, take avoidanc e measures should assure with a high degree of certainty that take of owls will not occur.

Minimizing. If burrowing owls and their hab itat can be protected in pl ace on or adjacent to a project site, the use of buffer zones, visual scr eens or other measures while project activities are occurring can minimize disturbance impacts. Conduct site-specific monitoring to inform development of buffers (see Visibility and sensitivity above). The following general guidelines for implementing buffers should be adjusted to address site-specific conditions using the impact assessment approach described above. The CEQA lead agency and/or project proponent is encouraged to consult with the Depar tment and other burrowing owl experts for assistance in developing site-specific buffer zones and visual screens.

Buffers. Holroyd et al. (2001) identified a n eed to standardize management and disturbance mitigation guidelines. For instanc e, guidelines for mitigating impa cts by petroleum industries on burrowing owls and other prairie species (Scobie and Faminow, 2000) may be used as a template for future mitigati on guidelines (Holroyd et al. 2001). Scobie and Faminow (2000) developed guidelines for acti vities around occupied burrowing owl nests recommending buffers around low, medium, and high disturbance activities, respectively (see below).

Recommended restricted activity dates and setba ck distances by level of disturbance for burrowing owls (Scobie and Faminow 2000).

Level of Disturbance
Location Time of Year Low Med High
Nesting sites April 1-Aug 15 200 m* 500 m 500 m
Nesting sites Aug 16-Oct 15 200 m 200 m 500 m
Nesting sites Oct 16-Mar 31 50 m 100 m 500 m

* meters (m)

Based on existing vegetation, human developm ent, and land uses in an area, resource managers may decide to allow hum an development or resource ex traction closer to these area/sites than recommended above. However, if it is decided to allow activities closer than 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 10
the setback distances recommended, a broad-sca le, long-term, scientifically-rigorous monitoring program ensures that burrowing owls are not detrimentally affected by alternative approaches.

Other minimization measures in clude eliminating actions that reduce burrowing owl forage and burrowing surrogates (e.g. ground squirrel) , or introduce/facilitate burrowing owl predators. Actions that could influence these factors include reducing livestock grazing rates and/or changing the timing or dur ation of grazing or vegetation management that could result in less suitable habitat.

Burrow exclusion and closure. Burrow exclusion is a technique of installing one-way doors in burrow openings during the non-breeding season to temporarily exclude burrowing owls, or permanently exclude burrowing owls and close burro ws after verifying burrows are empty by site monitoring and scoping. Exclusion in and of itself is not a take avoidance, minimization or mitigation method. Eviction of burrowing owls is a potentially significant impact under CEQA.

The long-term demographic consequences of thes e techniques have not been thoroughly evaluated, and the fate of evic ted or excluded burrowing owls has not been systematically studied. Because burrowing owls are dependent on burrows at all times of the year for survival and/or reproduction, evicting them from nesting, roos ting, and satellite burrows may lead to indirect impacts or take. Temporary or permanent closure of burrows may result in significant loss of burrows and habitat for repr oduction and other life history requirements.

Depending on the proximity and availability of alternate habitat, loss of access to burrows will likely result in varying levels of increas ed stress on burrowing owls and could depress reproduction, increase predation, increase energetic costs, and introduce risks posed by having to find and compete for available burrows . Therefore, exclus ion and burrow closure are not recommended where they can be avoided. The current scientific literature indicates consideration of all possibl e avoidance and minimization me asures before temporary or permanent exclusion and closure of burrows is implemented, in order to avoid take.

The results of a study by Tru lio (1995) in California showed that burrowing owls passively displaced from their burrows were quickly attracted to adjacent artificial burrows at five of six passive relocation sites. The su ccessful sites were all within 75 meters (m) of the destroyed burrow, a distance generally wit hin a pair's territory. This researcher discouraged using passive relocation to artificial burrows as a mitigation measure for lost burrows without protection of adjacent foraging habitat. The study results indicated artificial burrows were used by evicted burrowing owls when they we re approximately 50-100 m from the natural burrow (Thomsen 1971, Haug and Oliphant 1990). Locating artificial or natural burrows more than 100 m from the eviction burrow may greatly reduce the chances that new burrows will be used. Ideally, exclusion and burrow closure is employed only where there are adjacent natural burrows and non-impacted, sufficient habitat for burrowing owls to occupy with permanent protection mechanisms in place. An y new burrowing owl co lonizing the project site after the CEQA document has been adopt ed may constitute changed circumstances that should be addressed in a re-circulated CEQA document.

The current scientific literature indicates that burrow exclusion should only be conducted by qualified biologists (meeting the Biologist’s Qualifications above) during the non-breeding 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 11
season, before breeding behavior is exhibited and after the burrow is confirmed empty by site surveillance and/or scoping. The literature also indicates that when temporary or permanent burrow exclusion and/or burrow closure is implemented, burrowing owls should not be excluded from burrows unless or until:

 A Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan (see Appendi x E) is developed and approved by the applicable local DFG office;
 Permanent loss of occupied bur row(s) and habitat is mitigat ed in accordance with the Mitigating Impacts sections below. Temporary exclusion is mitigated in accordance with the item #1 under Mitigating Impacts below.
 Site monitoring is conducted prior to, duri ng, and after exclusion of burrowing owls from their burrows sufficient to ensure take is av oided. Conduct daily monitoring for one week to confirm young of the year have fledged if t he exclusion will occur immediately after the end of the breeding season.
 Excluded burrowing owls are documented using artificial or natural burrows on an adjoining mitigation site (if able to confirm by band re-sight).

Translocation (Active relocation offsite >100 meters). At this time, there is little published information regarding the efficacy of translocating burrowing owls , and additional research is needed to determine subsequent survival and breeding success (Klute et al. 2003, Holroyd et al. 2001). Study results for tr anslocation in Flor ida implied that hatching success may be decreased for populations of burrowing owls that undergo translocation (Nixon 2006). At this time, the Department is unable to authorize t he capture and relocation of burrowing owls except within the context of scientific research (FGC §1002 ) or a NCCP conservation strategy.

Mitigating impacts. Habitat loss and degradation from rapi d urbanization of farmland in the core areas of the Central and Im perial valleys is the greatest of many threats to burrowing owls in California (Shuford and Gardali, 2008). At a minimu m, if burrowing owls have been documented to occupy burrows (see Definitions, Appendix B) at the project site in recent years, the current scientific literature supports the conclusion that the site should be considered occupied and mitigation should be required by the CE QA lead agency to address project-specific significant and cumulative impacts. Other site-specific and regionally significant and cumulative impacts may warrant mi tigation. The current scientific literature indicates the following to be best practices. If these best practices cannot be implemented, the lead agency or lead investi gator may consult with the Depa rtment to develop effective mitigation alternatives. The Depart ment is also available to as sist in the identification of suitable mitigation lands.

1. Where habitat will be tempor arily disturbed, restore the di sturbed area to pre-project condition including decompac ting soil and revegetating. Permanent habitat protection may be warranted if there is the potential that the tempor ary impacts may render a nesting site (nesting burrow and satellite burrows) unsustainable or unavailable depending on the time frame, re sulting in reduced survival or abandonment. For the latter potential impact, see the permanent impact measures below.

2. Mitigate for permanent impacts to nesting , occupied and satellite burrows and/or burrowing owl habitat such t hat the habitat acreage, num ber of burrows and burrowing owls impacted are replaced based on the info rmation provided in A ppendix A. Note: A 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 12
minimum habitat replacement recommendation is not provided here as it has been shown to serve as a default, replacing an y site-specific analysis and discounting the wide variation in natal area, home range, foraging area, and other factors influencing burrowing owls and burrowing owl population persistence in a particular area.

3. Mitigate for permanent impacts to nesting, occupied and satellite burrows and burrowing owl habitat with (a) permanent conservati on of similar vegetation communities (grassland, scrublands, desert, urban, and agriculture) to provide for burrowing owl nesting, foraging, winteri ng, and dispersal (i.e., du ring breeding and non-breeding seasons) comparable to or bette r than that of the impact area, and (b) sufficiently large acreage, and presence of fossorial mammals. The mitigation lands may require habitat enhancements including enhancement or expansion of burrows for breeding, shelter and dispersal opportunity, and removal or control of population stressors. If the mitigation lands are located adjacent to th e impacted burrow site, ensure the nearest neighbor artificial or natural burrow clusters are at least within 210 meters (Fisher et al. 2007).

4. Permanently protect mitigation land th rough a conservation easement deeded to a non- profit conservation organizati on or public agency with a c onservation mission, for the purpose of conserving burrowing owl habitat and prohibiting acti vities incompatible with burrowing owl use. If the project is locate d within the service area of a Department- approved burrowing owl conservation bank , the project proponent may purchase available burrowing owl conservation bank credits.

5. Develop and implement a mitigation land management plan to address long-term ecological sustainability and maintenance of the site for burrowing owls (see Management Plan and Artificial Burrow sections below, if applicable).

6. Fund the maintenance and ma nagement of mitigation land through the establishment of a long-term funding mechanism such as an endowment.

7. Habitat should not be altered or destroy ed, and burrowing owls should not be excluded from burrows, until mitigation lands have been legally secured, are managed for the benefit of burrowing owls according to De partment-approved management, monitoring and reporting plans, and the endow ment or other long-term funding mechanism is in place or security is provided until these measures are completed.

8. Mitigation lands should be on, adjacent or proximate to t he impact site where possible and where habitat is sufficient to support burrowing owls present.

9. Where there is insufficient habitat on, adjac ent to, or near project sites where burrowing owls will be excluded, acquire mitigation lands with burrowing owl habitat away from the project site. The selection of mitigation la nds should then focus on consolidating and enlarging conservation areas located outside of urban and planned growth areas, within foraging distance of other conserved lands. If mitigation lands are not available adjacent to other conserved lands, increase the mitigat ion land acreage requirement to ensure a selected site is of sufficient size. Offs ite mitigation may not adequately offset the biological and habitat values impacted on a one to one basis. Consult with the Department when determining offsite mitigation acreages.

10. Evaluate and select suit able mitigation lands based on a comparison of the habitat attributes of the impacted and conserved lands, including but not limited to: type and structure of habitat being impac ted or conserved; density of burrowing owls in impacted and conserved habitat; and significance of impacted or conserved habitat to the species range-wide. Mitigate for the highest qualit y burrowing owl habitat impacted first and foremost when identifying mitigation lands, even if a mitigation site is located outside of 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 13
a lead agency’s jurisdictional boundary, particularly if the lead agency is a city or special district.

11. Select mitigation lands taki ng into account the potential hum an and wildlife conflicts or incompatibility, including but not limited to, human foot and vehicle traffic, and predation by cats, loose dogs and urban-adapted wildlif e, and incompatible species management (i.e., snowy plover).

12. Where a burrowing owl pop ulation appears to be highly adapted to heavily altered habitats such as golf courses, airports, athletic fields, and business complexes, permanently protecting the land, augmenting the site with artificial burrows, and enhancing and maintaining those areas may enhance sustainability of the burrowing owl population onsite. Maintenanc e includes keeping lands grazed or mowed with weed- eaters or push mowers, free from trees an d shrubs, and preventing excessive human and human-related disturbance (e.g., walking, jogging, off-road activity, dog-walking) and loose and feral pets (chasing and, presum ably, preying upon owls) that make the environment uninhabitable for burrowing owls (Wesemann and Rowe 1985, Millsap and Bear 2000, Lincer and Bloom 20 07). Items 4, 5 and 6 also st ill apply to this mitigation approach.

13. If there are no other feasible mitigation options available and a le ad agency is willing to establish and oversee a Burrowing Owl Mitigati on and Conservation Fund that funds on a competitive basis acquisition and perm anent habitat conservation, the project proponent may participate in the lead agency’s program.

Artificial burrows. Artificial burrows have been used to replace natural burrows either temporarily or long-term and their long-term succe ss is unclear. Artifici al burrows may be an effective addition to in-perpetuity habitat miti gation if they are augm enting natural burrows, the burrows are regularly maintained (i.e., no less than annual, with biennial maintenance recommended), and surrounding habitat patches are carefully maintained. There may be some circumstances, for example at airports, w here squirrels will not be allowed to persist and create a dynamic burrow system, where artifi cial burrows may provide some support to an owl population.

Many variables may contribute to the successful use of artificial burrows by burrowing owls, including pre-existence of burrowing owls in the area, availability of food, predators, surrounding vegetation and proximit y, number of natural burrows in proximity, type of materials used to build the burro w, size of the burrow and entra nce, direction in which the burrow entrance is facing, slope of the entranc e, number of burrow entrances per burrow, depth of the burrow, type and height of pe rches, and annual maintenance needs (Belthoff and King 2002, Smith et al. 2005 , Barclay et al. 2011). Refe r to Barclay (2008) and (2011) and to Johnson et al. 2010 (unpublished report) fo r guidance on installing artificial burrows including recommendations for placement, installation and maintenance.

Any long-term reliance on artificial burrows as natural burrow replacements must include semi-annual to annual cleaning and maintenance an d/or replacement (Barclay et al. 2011, Smith and Conway 2005, Alex ander et al. 2005) as an ongoin g management practice.

Alexander et al. (2005), in a study of the use of artificial burrows found that all of 20 artificial burrows needed some annual cleaning and maintenance. Burrows were either excavated by predators, blocked by soil or vegetation, or experienced s ubstrate erosion forming a space beneath the tubing that prevented nestlings from re-entering the burrow. 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 14

Mitigation lands management plan. Develop a Mitigation Lands Management Plan for projects that require off-site or on-site mitigation habitat prot ection to ensure compliance with and effectiveness of identified management actions for the mitigation lands. A suggested outline and related vegetation management goals and monitoring success criteria can be found in Appendix E.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting

Verify the compliance with required mitigati on measures, the accuracy of predictions, and ensure the effectiveness of all mitigation meas ures for burrowing owls by conducting follow- up monitoring, and implementing midcourse corre ctions, if necessary, to protect burrowing owls. Refer to CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 and the CEQA Guidelines for additional guidance on mitigation, monitoring and reporting. Monitoring is qualitat ively different from site surveillance; monitoring normally has a s pecific purpose and it s outputs and outcomes will usually allow a comparison wit h some baseline condition of the site before the mitigation (including avoidance and minimization) was undertaken. Ideally, monitoring should be based on the Before-After Control-Impact (BACI) prin ciple (McDonald et al. 2000) that requires knowledge of the pre-mitigation state to provide a reference point for the state and change in state after the project and mitigation have been implemented. 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 15

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Jack Barclay, Jeff Lincer, David Pl umpton, Jeff Kidd, Carol Roberts and other reviewers for their valuable comments on this r eport. We also want to acknowledge all the hard work of the Departm ent team, especially T. Bartlett, K. Riesz, S. Wilson, D. Gifford, D.

Mayer, J. Gan, L. Connolly, D. Mayer, A. Donlan, L. Bauer, L. Comrack, D. Lancaster, E.

Burkett, B. Johnson, D. Johnston, A. Gonzales, S. Morey and K. Hunting.

REFERENCES

Alexander, A. K., M. R. Sackschewsky, and C. A. Duberstein. 2005. Use of artificial burrows by burrowing owls (athene cunicularia) at the HAMMER Fa cility on the U.S.

Department of Energy Hanford Site. Pacifi c Northwest National Lab-15414. U.S.

Department of Energy, DE-AC05-76RL01830, Richland, Washington, USA.

BIOS. California Department of Fish and Ga me. The Biogeographic Information Observation System (http://bios.dfg.ca.gov/)
Barclay, J. H. 2008. A simple artificial burrow design for burro wing owls. Journal of Raptor Research. 42: 53-57.

Barclay, J. H. 2012. Albion Environmental, Inc, personal communication.

Barclay, J. H., K. W. Hunting, J. L. Lincer , J. Linthicum, and T. A. Roberts, editors. 2007.

Proceedings of the Califor nia Burrowing Owl Symposiu m, 11-12 November 2003, Sacramento, California, USA. Bird Populations Monogr aphs No. 1. The Institute for Bird Populations and Albion Environmental, Inc., Point Reyes Station, CA.

Barclay, J. H., N. Korfanta, and M. Kauf fman. 2011. Long-term population dynamics of a managed burrowing owl colony. Journal of Wildlife Management 75: 1295–1306.

Belthoff, J R., R. A. King. 2002. Nest-site characteristics of burrowing owls (athene cunicularia) in the Snake River Birds of Pr ey National Conservati on Area, Idaho, and applications to artificial burrow installation. Western North American Naturalist 62: 112- 119.

Botelho, E. S. 1996. Behavioral ecology and parental care of breedi ng western burrowing owls (Speotyto cunicularia hupugaea) in southern New Mexico, USA. Dissertation, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA.

Burkett, E. E., and B. S. Johnson. 2007. De velopment of a conservation strategy for burrowing owls in Calif ornia. Pages 165-168 in J . H . B a r c l a y , K . W . H u n t i n g , J . L .

Lincer, J. Linthicum, and T. A. Roberts , editors. Proceedings of the California Burrowing Owl Symposium, 11-12 November 2003, Sacramento, California, USA. Bird Populations Monographs No. 1. The Instit ute for Bird Populations and Albion Environmental, Inc., Point Reyes Station, CA.

CBOC (California Burrowing Owl Consortiu m). 1997. Burrowing owl survey protocol and mitigation guidelines. Pages 171-177 in Lincer, J. L. and K. St eenhof (editors). 1997.

The burrowing owl, its biology and management. Raptor Research Report Number 9.

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 1995. St aff report on burrowing owl mitigation. Unpublished report. Sacramento, California, USA.

CNDDB. California Department of Fish and Game . The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/), Sacramento, California, USA.

Catlin, D. H. 2004. Factors affecting within-season and between-season breeding dispersal of Burrowing Owls in California. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 16
Catlin, D. H., and D. K. Ros enberg. 2006. Nest destruction in creases mortality and dispersal of Burrowing Owls in the Imperial Valley, California. Southwest Naturalist 51: 406–409.

Catlin, D. H., D. K. Rosenber g, and K. L. Haley. 2005. The effects of nesting success and mate fidelity on breeding dispersal in burro wing owls. Canadian Journal of Zoology 83:1574–1580.

Conway, C. J., and J. Sim on. 2003. Comparison of detec tion probability a ssociated with burrowing owl survey methods. Journal of Wildlife Management 67: 501-511.

Conway, C. J., V. Garcia, M. D., and K. Hughes. 2008. Factors affecting detection of burrowing owl nests during standardized surve ys. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:
688-696.

Coulombe, H. N. 1971. Behav ior and population ecology of the burrowing owl, Speotyto cunicularia, in the Imperial Valley of California. Condor 73: 162–176.

Dechant, J. A., M. L. Sondreal, D. H. Johnson, L. D. Igl, C. M. Goldade, P. A. Rabie, and B.

R. Euliss. 2003. Effects of management practices on grassl and birds: burrowing owl.

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, North Dakota. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online.
<http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/buow/buow.htm>.

DeSante, D. F., E. D Ruhlen, and R. Scalf. 2007. The distribut ion and relative abundance of burrowing owls in California during 1991–1 993: Evidence for a declining population and thoughts on its conservation. Pages 1-41 in J. H. Barclay, K. W. Hunting, J. L.

Lincer, J. Linthicum, and T. A. Roberts , editors. Proceedings of the California Burrowing Owl Symposium, 11- 12 November 2003 Sacramento, California, USA. Bird Populations Monographs No. 1. The Inst itute for Bird Populations and Albion Environmental, Inc., Point Reyes Station, CA.

Desmond, M. J., and J. A. Savi dge. 1998. Burrowing Owl conser vation in the Great Plains.

Proceedings of the Second International Burrowing Owl Symposium, 29-30 September 1999, Ogden, Utah, USA.

Desmond, M. J., and J. A. Savi dge. 1999. Satellite burrow use by burrowing owl chicks and its influence on nest fate. Pages 128-130 in P. D. Vickery and J. R. Herkert, editors.

Ecology and conservation of grassland bird s of the western hemisphere. Studies in Avian Biology 19.

Emlen, J. T. 1977. Estimating breeding season bird densities from transects counts. Auk 94:
455-468.

Fisher, J. B., L. A. Trulio, G. S. Biging, an d D. Chromczack. 2007. An analysis of spatial clustering and implications for wildlif e management: a burrowing owl example.

Environmental Management 39: 403-11.

Gervais, J. A., D. K. Ros enberg, and L. A. Comrack. Burro wing Owl (Athene cunicularia) in Shuford, W.D. and T. Gardali, editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservati on concern in Califor nia. Studies of Western Birds 1.

Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, Cali fornia, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California, USA.

Gervais, J. A., D. K. Rosenberg, R. G. Anthony. 2003. Space use and pesticide exposure risk of male burrowing owls in an agricultural landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 67: 155-164.

Green, G.A.; Anthony, R.G. 1989. Nesting succe ss and habitat relationships of burrowing owls in the Columbia Basin, Oregon. The Condor 91: 347-354.

Haug, E. A. 1985. Observations on the breeding ecology of burrowing owls in Saskatchewan. 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 17
Thesis, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.

Haug, E. A., B. A. Millsap, and M. S. Martell. 1993. Burrowing owl (Speotyto cunicularia), in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The Birds of North America, T he Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, P ennsylvania, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C., USA.

Haug, E. A., and L. W. Olipha nt. 1990. Movements, activity patterns, and habitat use of burrowing owls in Saskatchewan. Journal of Wildlife Management 54: 27-35.

Holroyd, G. L., R. Rodriguez-Estrella, and S. R. Sheffield. 2001. Conservation of the burrowing owl in western North America: issues, challenges, and recommendations.

Journal of Raptor Research 35: 399-407.

James, P. C., T. J. Ethier, and M. K. Toutloff. 1997. Paramete rs of a declining burrowing owl population in Saskatc hewan. Pages 34-37. in J. L. Lincer, and K. Steenhof, editors.

The burrowing owl, its biology and management: including t he proceedings of the first international symposium. 13-14 November 1992, Bellevue, WA , USA. Raptor Research Report Number 9.

Johnson, D. H., D. C. G illis, M. A. Gregg, J. L.Rebholz, J. L. Lincer, and J. R. Belthoff. 2010.

Users guide to installation of artificial burrows for burrowing owls. Unpublished report.

Tree Top Inc., Selah, Washington, USA.

Klute, D. S., A. W. Ayers, M. T. Green, W. H. Howe, S. L Jones, J. A. Shaffer, S. R. Sheffield, and T. S. Zimmerman. 2003. Status a ssessment and conservation plan for the western burrowing owl in the Un ited States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Technical Publication FWS/BTP-R6001-2003, Washington, D.C, USA.

Koenig, W. D., D. D. Van Vuren, and P. N. Hooge. 1996. Detectability, philopatry, and the distribution of dispersal distances in vertebr ates. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11:
514–517.

LaFever, D. H., K. E. LaFever, D. H. Catlin, and D. K. Rosenberg. 2008. Diurnal time budget of burrowing owls in a resident popul ation during the non-breeding season.

Southwestern Naturalist 53: 29-33.

Lincer, J. L., and P. W. Bloom. 2007. The status of the burrowing owl (A thene cunicularia) in San Diego County, CA. Pages 90-102 in Proceedings of the California Burrowing Owl Symposium, 11-12 November 2003, Sacramento, California, USA. Bird Populations Monographs No. 1. The Institute for Bird P opulations and Albion Environmental, Inc., Point Reyes Station, CA.

Lutz, R. S. and D. L. Plumpton. 1999. Philopatry and nes t site reuse by burrowing owls:
implications for management. Journal of Raptor Research 33: 149-153.

MacCracken, J. G., D. W. Uresk, and R. M. Hansen. 1985a. Vegetation and soils of burrowing owl nest sites in Conata Basin, South Dakota. Condor 87: 152-154.

Manning, J. A., and R. S. A. Kaler. 2011. Effects of su rvey methods on burrowing owl behaviors. Journal of Wildlife Management 75: 525-30.

McDonald, T. L., W. P. Eri ckson, and L. L. McDonald. 2000. Analysis of count data from before-after control-impact studies. Jour nal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics 5: 262-279.

Millsap, B. A., and C. Bear. 2000. Density and reproduction of burrowing owls along an urban development gradient. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:33-41.

Nixon, P A. 2006. Effects of translocation on the Florida burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia floridana). Thesis. University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA.

Noss, R. F., M. A. O’Connell, and D. D. Murphy. 1997. The science of conservation planning:
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 18
habitat conservation under the Endangered Species Act. Island Press, Washington D.C., USA.

Postovit, H. R., and B. C. Postovit. 1987. Im pacts and mitigation techniques. Pages 183-213 in Raptor management techniq ues manual scientific technical series number 10, National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D. C., USA
Remsen, J. V., Jr. 1978. Bird species of specia l concern in California: An annotated list of declining or vulnerable bird species. California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Wildlife. Investigations, Wildlif e Management Branch Administrative Report 78-1, Sacramento, California, USA.

Rich, T. 1984. Monitoring burrowi ng owl populations: implications of burrow re-use. Wildlife Society Bulletin 12: 178-189.

Richardson, C. T. and C. K. Miller. 1997. Recommendations for protecting raptors from human disturbance: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25: 634-38.

Ronan, N. A. 2002. Habitat selection, reproductive success, and site fidelity of burrowing owls in a grassland ecosystem. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.

Rosenberg, D., 2009 Oregon State University, Corvallis, personal communication.

Rosenberg, D. K., J. A. Gerv ais, D. F. DeSante, and H. O ber. 2009. An updated adaptive management plan for the burrowing owl popul ation at NAS Lem oore. The Oregon Wildlife Institute, Corvallis, OR and The In stitute for Bird Populations, Point Reyes Station, CA. OWI Contribution No. 201 and IBP Contribution No. 375.

Rosenberg, D. K., J. A. Gervais, H. O ber, and D. F. DeSante. 1998. An adaptive management plan for the burrowing owl populat ion at Naval Air Station Lemoore, California, USA. Publicati on 95, Institute for Bird Po pulations, P.O. Box 1346, Pt.

Reyes Station, CA 94956.

Rosenberg, D. K., and K. L. Haley. 2004. The ecology of burrowing owls in the agroecosystem of the Imperial Valley, California. Studies in Avian Biology 27:120-135.

Rosenberg, D. K., L. A. Trulio, D. H. Catlin, D. Chromczack, J. A. Gervais, N. Ronan, and K.

A. Haley. 2007. The ecology of the burrowi ng owl in California, unpublished report to Bureau of Land Management.

Rosier, J. R., N. A., Ronan, and D. K. Rosenberg. 2006. Post-breeding dispersal of burrowing owls in an extensive California grassland. American Midland Naturalist 155: 162–167.

Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-Wol f, and J. M. Evens. 2009. A manual of California vegetation, Second edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California, USA.

Scobie, D., and C. Faminow. 2000. Development of standardized guide lines for petroleum industry activities that affect COSEWIC Prairie and Northern Region vertebrate species at risk. Environment Canada, Prairie and Northern Region, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Shuford, W. D. and T. Gardali, editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in Californ ia. Studies of Wester n Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarill o, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Gervais, J. A., D. K. Rosenberg, and L. Comrack. 2008.

Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia).

Smith, M. D., C. J. Conway , and L. A. Ellis. 2005. Burrowi ng owl nesting productivity: a comparison between artifici al and natural burrows on and off golf courses. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33: 454-462.

Thelander, C. G., K. S. Smallwo od, and L. Rugge. 2003. Bird risk behaviors and fatalities at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Ar ea, period of performance: March 1998– 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 19
December 2000. U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado, USA.

Thomsen, L. 1971. Behavior and ecology of burrowing owls on the Oakland Municipal Airport.

Condor 73: 177-192.

Thompson, C. D. 1984. Selected aspects of burrowing owl ecology in central Wyoming.

Thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, USA.

Trulio, L. 1995. Passive reloca tion: A method to preserve burro wing owls on disturbed sites.

Journal of Field Ornithology 66: 99–106.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servic e (USFWS). 2002. Birds of c onservation concern 2002. U.S.

Department of Interior, Division of Migrat ory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. U.S.

Department of Interior, Division of Migr atory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Wesemann, T. and M. Rowe. 1985. Factors infl uencing the distributi on and abundance of burrowing owls in Cape Cora l, Florida. Pages 129-137 in L. W. Adams and D. L.

Leedy, editors. Integrating Man and Na ture in the Metropolitan Environment.

Proceedings National Sympos ium. on Urban Wildlife, 4-7 November 1986, Chevy Chase, Maryland, USA.

Wilkerson, R. L. and R. B. Siegel. 2010. Assessing chan ges in the distribution and abundance of burrowing owls in California, 1993-2007. Bird Populations 10: 1-36.

Zarn, M. 1974. Burrowing owl. U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

Technical Note T-N-250, Denver, Colorado, USA.

03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 20
Appendix A. Burrowing Owl Natural History and Threats

Diet

Burrowing owl diet includes arthropods, small rodents, birds, amphi bians, reptiles, and carrion (Haug et al. 1993).

Breeding

In California, the breeding seas on for the burrowing owl typically occurs between 1 February and 31 August although breeding in Decem ber has been documented (Thompson 1971, Gervais et al. 2008); breeding behavior includes nest site selection by the male, pair formation, copulation, egg layi ng, hatching, fledging, and post-fledging care of young by the parents. The peak of the breedi ng season occurs between 15 Apr il and 15 July and is the period when most burrowing owls have active nes ts (eggs or young). The incubation period lasts 29 days (Coulombe 1971) and young fledge after 44 days (Haug et al. 1993). Note that the timing of nesting activities may vary with la titude and climatic conditions. Burrowing owls may change burrows several times during the breeding season, starting when nestlings are about three weeks old (Haug et al. 1993).

Dispersal

The following discussion is an excerpt from Gervais et al (2008):

“The burrowing owl is often considered a sedentary species (e.g., Thomsen 1971).

A large proportion of adults sh ow strong fidelity to their nes t site from year to year, especially where resident, as in Florida (7 4% for females, 83% for males; Millsap and Bear 1997). In California, nest-site fidelity rates were 32%–50% in a large grassland and 57% in an agricultural environment (Ronan 2002, Catlin 2004, Catlin et al. 2005). Differences in these rates among sites may reflect differences in nest predation rates (Catlin 2004, Catlin et al . 2005). Despite the high nest fidelity rates, dispersal distances may be considerabl e for both juveniles (natal dispersal) and adults (postbreeding dispersa l), but this also varied with location (Catlin 2004, Rosier et al. 2006). Distances of 53 km to roughly 150 km have been observed in California for adult and natal dispersal, respectively (D. K. Rosenberg and J. A.

Gervais, unpublished data), despite the di fficulty in detecting movements beyond the immediate study area (Koenig et al. 1996).”

Habitat

The burrowing owl is a small, long-legged, gr ound-dwelling bird species, well-adapted to open, relatively flat expanses. In California, preferred habitat is gener ally typified by short, sparse vegetation with few shrubs, level to gent le topography and well-drained soils (Haug et al. 1993). Grassland, shrub step pe, and desert are naturally o ccurring habitat types used by the species. In addition, burrowing owls may occur in some agricultural areas, ruderal grassy fields, vacant lots and pastures if the vegetati on structure is suitable and there are useable burrows and foraging habitat in proximity (G ervais et al 2008). Unique amongst North 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 21
American raptors, the burrowin g owl requires underground burrows or other cavities for nesting during the breeding season and for roosting and cover, year round. Burrows used by the owls are usually dug by other species term ed host burrowers. In California, California ground squirrel ( Spermophilus beecheyi ) and round-tailed ground squirrel ( Citellus tereticaudus) burrows are frequently used by burrowing owls but they may use dens or holes dug by other fossorial s pecies including badger ( Taxidea taxus), coyote ( Canis latrans), and fox (e.g., San Joaquin kit fox, Vulpes macrotis mutica; Ronan 2002). In some instances, owls have been known to excavate their own burro ws (Thompson 1971, Barclay 2007). Natural rock cavities, debris piles, culverts, and pipes also are used for nesting and roosting (Rosenberg et al. 1998). Burrowing owls have bee n documented using artificial burrows for nesting and cover (Smith and Belthoff, 2003).

Foraging habitat. Foraging habitat is essential to burrowing owls. The following discussion is an excerpt from Gervais et al. (2008):

“Useful as a rough guide to evaluating project impacts and appropriate mitigation for burrowing owls, adult male burrowing owls home ranges have been documented (calculated by minimum convex polygon) to comprise anywhere from 280 acres in intensively irrigated agroec osystems in Imperial Valley (Rosenberg and Haley 2004) to 450 acres in mixed agri cultural lands at Lemoore Naval Air Station, CA (Gervais et al. 2003), to 600 acres in pasture in Saskatchewan, Canada (Haug and Oliphant 1990). But owl home ranges may be much larger, perhaps by an order of magnitude, in non- irrigated grasslands such as at Carrizo Plain, California (Gervais et al. 2008) , based on telemetry studies and distribution of nests. Foraging occurs primarily within 600 m of their nests (within approximately 300 acres, based on a circ le with a 600 m radius) during the breeding season.”

Importance of burrows and adjacent habitat. Burrows and the associated surrounding habitat are essential ecological requisites for burro wing owls throughout t he year and especially during the breeding season. During the non-breeding season, burrowing owls remain closely associated with burrows, as they continue to use them as refuge from predators, shelter from weather and roost sites. Resi dent populations will remain near the prev ious season’s nest burrow at least some of the time (Coulombe 1971, Thomsen 1971, Botelho 1996, LaFever et al. 2008).

In a study by Lutz and Plum pton (1999) adult males and females nested in formerly used sites at similar rates (75% and 63%, respec tively) (Lutz and Plumpt on 1999). Burrow fidelity has been reported in some areas; however, more frequently, burrowing owls reuse traditional nesting areas without necessarily using the same burrow (Haug et al. 1993, Dechant et al. 1999). Burrow and nest sites are re-used at a higher rate if the burrowing owl has reproduced successfully during t he previous year (Haug et al . 1993) and if the number of burrows isn’t limiting nesting opportunity.

Burrowing owls may use “satellite” or non-nesting burrows, moving young at 10-14 days, presumably to reduce risk of predation (Desmond and Savidge 1998) and possibly to avoid nest parasites (Dechant et al. 1999). Successful nests in Nebraska had more active satellite burrows within 75 m of the nest burrow than unsuccessful nests (Desmond and Savidge 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 22
1999). Several studies have documented the number of satellite burrows used by young and adult burrowing owls during the breeding season as between one and 11 burrows with an average use of approximately five burrows (Thompsen 1984, Haug 1985, Haug and Oliphant 1990). Supporting the notion of selecting for nest sites near potential satellite burrows, Ronan (2002) found burrowing owl families would move away from a nest site if their satellite burrows were experimentally removed through blocking their entrance.

Habitat adjacent to burrows has been docum ented to be important to burrowing owls.

Gervais et al. (2003) found that home range size s of male burrowing owls during the nesting season were highly variable with in but not between year s. Their results also suggested that owls concentrate foraging effort s within 600 meters of the nest burrow, as was observed in Canada (Haug and Oliphant 1990) and southern California (Rosenberg and Haley 2004).

James et al. (1997), reported habitat modifi cation factors causing local burrowing owl declines included habitat fragmentation and loss of connectivity.

In conclusion, the best available science indicate s that essential habitat for the burrowing owl in California must include su itable year-round habitat, primar ily for breeding, foraging, wintering and dispersal habitat consisting of short or sparse vegetation (at least at some time of year), presence of burrows, burrow surrogat es or presence of fossorial mammal dens, well-drained soils, and abundant and available prey within close proximity to the burrow.

Threats to Burrowing Owls in California

Habitat loss . Habitat loss, degradati on, and fragmentation are th e greatest threats to burrowing owls in California. According to DeSante et al. (2007), “t he vast majority of burrowing owls [now] occur in the wide, flat lowl and valleys and basins of the Imperial Valley and Great Central Valley [where] for the most part,...the highes t rates of residential and commercial development in California are occurri ng.” Habitat loss from the State’s long history of urbanization in coastal counties has al ready resulted in either extirpation or drastic reduction of burrowing owl popul ations there (Gervais et al. 2008). Further, loss of agricultural and other open lands (such as graz ed landscapes) also negatively affect owl populations. Because of their need for open habitat with low vegetation, burrowing owls are unlikely to persist in agricultural lands dominat ed by vineyards and orc hards (Gervais et al. 2008).

Control of burrowing rodents. According to Klute et al. ( 2003), the elimination of burrowing rodents through control programs is a primary factor in the re cent and historic al decline of burrowing owl populations nationwide. In California, ground squirrel burrows are most often used by burrowing owls for nesting and cover; thus, ground squirrel control programs may affect owl numbers in local areas by eliminating a necessary resource.

Direct mortality . Burrowing owls suffer direct losses fr om a number of s ources. Vehicle collisions are a significant source of mortality especially in the urban interface and where owls nest alongside roads (Haug et al. 1993, Gervais et al. 2008). Road and ditch maintenance, modification of water conveyance structures (I mperial Valley) and discing to control weeds in fallow fields may destroy burrows (Rosenber g and Haley 2004, Catlin and Rosenberg 2006) which may trap or crush owls. Wind turbines at Altamont Pass Wi nd Resource Area are known to cause direct burrowing owl morta lity (Thelander et al. 2003). Exposure to 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 23
pesticides may pose a threat to the species but is poorly understood (Klute et al. 2003, Gervais et al. 2008).
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 24
Appendix B. Definitions

Some key terms that appear in this document are defined below.

Adjacent habitat means burrowing owl habitat that abuts the area wh ere habitat and burrows will be impacted and rendered non-suitable for occupancy.

Breeding (nesting) season begins as early as 1 Februar y and continues through 31 August (Thomsen 1971, Zarn 1974). The timing of breeding activities may vary with latitude and climatic conditions. The breeding season incl udes pairing, egg-layi ng and incubation, and nestling and fledging stages.

Burrow exclusion is a technique of installing one-wa y doors in burrow openings during the non-breeding season to tempor arily exclude burrowing owls or permanently exclude burrowing owls and excavate and close burrows after confirming burrows are empty.

Burrowing owl habitat generally includes, but is not limited to, short or sparse vegetation (at least at some time of year), presence of bu rrows, burrow surrogates or presence of fossorial mammal dens, well-drained soils, and abundant and available prey.

Burrow surrogates include culverts, piles of concrete r ubble, piles of soil, burrows created along soft banks of ditches and canals, pipes, and similar structures.

Civil twilight - Morning civil twilight begins when the geometric center of the sun is 6 degrees below the horizon (civil dawn) and ends at sunrise. Evening civil twilight begins at sunset and ends when the geometric center of the sun reaches 6 degrees below the horizon (civil dusk).

During this period there is enough li ght from the sun that artificial sources of light may not be needed to carry on outdoor activities. This conc ept is sometimes enshrined in laws, for example, when drivers of automobiles must turn on their headlights (called lighting-up time in the UK); when pilots may exercise the rights to fly aircraft. Civil t wilight can also be described as the limit at which twilight illumination is sufficient, under clear weather conditions, for terrestrial objects to be clearly distinguished; at the beginning of morning ci vil twilight, or end of evening civil twilight, the horizon is clearly defined and t he brightest stars are visible under clear atmospheric conditions.

Conservation for burrowing owls may include but may not be limited to protecting remaining breeding pairs or providing fo r population expansion, protecting and enhancing breeding and essential habitat, and amending or augmenting l and use plans to stabili ze populations and other specific actions to avoid the need to list the species pursuant to California or federal Endangered Species Acts.

Contiguous means connected together so as to form an uninterrupted expanse in space.

Essential habitat includes nesting, foraging, wintering, and dispersal habitat.

Foraging habitat is habitat within the estimated home range of an occupied burrow, supports suitable prey base, and allows for effective hunting.
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 25
Host burrowers include ground squirrels, badgers, foxes, coyotes, gophers etc.

Locally significant species is a species that is not rare fr om a statewide perspective but is rare or uncommon in a local c ontext such as within a county or region (CEQA §15125 (c)) or is so designated in local or regional plans, policies, or ordinanc es (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G). Examples include a species at the outer limits of its known range or occurring in a unique habitat type.

Non-breeding season is the period of time when nesting activity is not occurring, generally September 1 through January 31, but may vary with latitude and climatic conditions.

Occupied site or occupancy means a site that is assume d occupied if at least one burrowing owl has been observed occupying a burrow within the last three years (Rich 1984).

Occupancy of suitable burrowing owl habitat may also be indicated by owl sign including its molted feathers, cast pellets, pr ey remains, eggshell fragments, or excrement at or near a burrow entrance or perch site.

Other impacting activities may include but may not be limit ed to agricultural practices, vegetation management and fire control, pes t management, conversion of habitat from rangeland or natural lands to more intensive agricultural uses that could result in “take”.

These impacting activities may not meet the definition of a project under CEQA.

Passive relocation is a technique of installing one-way doors in burrow openings to temporarily or permanently evict burrowing owls and prevent burrow re-occupation.

Peak of the breeding season is between 15 April and 15 July.

Sign includes its tracks, molted f eathers, cast pellets (defined as 1-2” long brown to black regurgitated pellets consisting of non-digestible port ions of the owls’ diet, such as fur, bones, claws, beetle elytra, or feat hers), prey remains, egg shell fragments, owl white wash, nest burrow decoration materials (e.g., paper, foil, pl astic items, livestock or other animal manure, etc.), possible owl perches, or other items.

03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 26
Appendix C. Habitat Assessment and Reporting Details

Habitat Assessment Data Collection and Reporting

Current scientific literature indicates that it would be most effective to gather the data in the manner described below when conducting project scoping, conducting a habitat assessment site visit and preparing a habitat assessment report:

1. Conduct at least one visit covering the entir e potential project/activity area including areas that will be directly or indirectly impacted by the project. Survey adjoining areas within 150 m (Thomsen 1971, Martin 1973), or more w here direct or indirect effects could potentially extend offsite. If lawful access cannot be achieved to adjacent areas, surveys can be performed with a spotting scope or other methods.

2. Prior to the site visit, comp ile relevant biological informat ion for the site and surrounding area to provide a local and regional context.

3. Check all available sources for burrowing o wl occurrence information regionally prior to a field inspection. The CNDDB and BIOS (see References cited) may be consulted for known occurrences of burrowing owls. Other sources of information include, but are not limited to, the Proceedings of the California Burrowing Owl Sy mposium (Barclay et al. 2007), county bird atlas projects, Breeding Bird Survey records, eBIRD (http://ebird.org), Gervais et al. (2008), local reports or expert s, museum records, and other site-specific relevant information.

4. Identify vegetation and habita t types potentially supporting bu rrowing owls in the project area and vicinity.

5. Record and report on t he following information:
a. A full description of the proposed project, including but not limited to, expected work periods, daily work schedules, equipment used, activities performed (such as drilling, construction, excavation, etc.) and whether the expected activities will vary in location or intensity over the project’s timeline;
b. A regional setting map, s howing the general project location relative to major roads and other recognizable features;
c. A detailed map (preferably a USGS topo 7.5’ quad base map) of the site and proposed project, including the f ootprint of proposed land and/or vegetation-altering activities, base map source, identifying topography, landscape features, a north arrow, bar scale, and legend;
d. A written description of t he biological setting, including location (Section, Township, Range, baseline and meridian), acreage, topography, soils, geographic and hydrologic characteristics, land use and management hi story on and adjoining the site (i.e., whether it is urban, semi-urban or rural; whether there is any evidence of past or current livestock grazing, mowing, disking, or other vegetation management activities); e. An analysis of any relevant, historical information concerning burrowing owl use or occupancy (breeding, foraging, over-wintering) on site or in the assessment area; f. Vegetation type and structur e (using Sawyer et al. 2009), vegetation height, habitat types and features in the surrounding area pl us a reasonably sized (as supported with logical justification) assessment area; (Not e: use caution in di scounting habitat based on grass height as it can be a temporary condition variable by season and conditions (such as current grazing regime) or may be distributed as a mosaic). 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 27
g. The presence of burrowing owl individ uals or pairs or sign (see Appendix B); h. The presence of suitable burrows and/or burrow surrogates (>11 cm in diameter (height and width) and >150 cm in depth) (Johnson et al. 2010), regardless of a lack of any burrowing owl sign and/or burrow surrogates; and burrowing owls and/or their sign that have recently or historically (within the last 3 year s) been identified on or adjacent to the site.

03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 28
Appendix D. Breeding and Non-breeding Season Surveys and Reports

Current scientific literature indi cates that it is most effective to conduct breeding and non- breeding season surveys and report in the manner that follows:

Breeding Season Surveys

Number of visits and timing . Conduct 4 survey visits: 1) at least one site visit between 15 February and 15 April, and 2) a minimum of three survey visits, at least three weeks apart, between 15 April and 15 July, with at least one vi sit after 15 June. Note: many burrowing owl migrants are still present in southwestern Califo rnia during mid-March, therefore, exercise caution in assuming breeding occupancy early in the breeding season.

Survey method. Rosenberg et al. (2007) confirmed walking line transects were most effective in smaller habitat patches. Conduct surv eys in all portions of the project site that were identified in the Habitat Assessment and fit the description of habitat in Appendix A.

Conduct surveys by walking straight-line transec ts spaced 7 m to 20 m apart, adjusting for vegetation height and density (Rosenber g et al. 2007). At the star t of each transect and, at least, every 100 m, scan the enti re visible project area for burro wing owls using binoculars.

During walking surveys, record all potential burrows used by burrowing owls as determined by the presence of one or more burrowing owls , pellets, prey remains, whitewash, or decoration. Some burrowing owls may be detect ed by their calls, so observers should also listen for burrowing owls while conducting the survey.

Care should be taken to minimize disturbance near occupied burrows during all seasons and not to “flush” burrowing owls especially if pr edators are present to reduce any potential for needless energy expenditure or bu rrowing owl mortality. Bu rrowing owls may flush if approached by pedestrians within 50 m (Conway et al. 2003). If raptors or other predators are present that may suppress burrowing owl activity, return at another time or later date for a follow-up survey.

Check all burrowing owls detected for bands and/or color bands and report band combinations to the Bird Bandin g Laboratory (BBL). Some site-specific variations to survey methods discussed below may be developed in coordination with species experts and Department staff.

Weather conditions. Poor weather may affect the surv eyor’s ability to detect burrowing owls, therefore, avoid conducting surveys when wind speed is >20 km/hr, and there is precipitation or dense fog. Surveys hav e greater detection probability if conducted when ambient temperatures are >20º C, <12 km/hr winds, and cloud cover is <75% (Conway et al. 2008).

Time of day . Daily timing of surveys varies accordin g to the literature, latitude, and survey method. However, surveys between morning civil twilight and 10: 00 AM and two hours before sunset until evening civil twilight provide the highest detec tion probabilities (Barclay pers. comm. 2012, Conway et al. 2008).

03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 29
Alternate methods. If the project site is large enough to warrant an alternate method, consult current literature for generally accepted survey methods and consult with the Department on the proposed survey approach.

Additional breeding season site visits. Additional breeding season site visits may be necessary, especially if non-breeding season exclusion methods are contemplated. Detailed information, such as approximate home ranges of each individual or of family units, as well as foraging areas as related to the proposed pr oject, will be important to document for evaluating impacts, planning avoidance measur e implementation and fo r mitigation measure performance monitoring.

Adverse conditions may prevent investigators from determining presence or occupancy.

Disease, predation, drought, high rainfall or site disturbance may preclude presence of burrowing owls in any given year. Any such conditions should be identified and discussed in the survey report. Visits to the site in more than one year may increase the likelihood of detection. Also, visits to adjacent known o ccupied habitat may hel p determine appropriate survey timing.

Given the high site fidelity shown by bu rrowing owls (see Appendi x A, Importance of burrows), conducting surveys over several year s may be necessary when project activities are ongoing, occur annually, or start and stop seasonally. (See Negative surveys).

Non-breeding Season Surveys

If conducting non-breeding season surveys, follow the methods described above for breeding season surveys, but conduct at least four (4 ) visits, spread evenly, throughout the non- breeding season. Burrowing owl experts and local Department sta ff are available to assist with interpreting results.

Negative Surveys

Adverse conditions may prevent investigators from documenting presence or occupancy.

Disease, predation, drought, high rainfall or site disturbance may preclude presence of burrowing owl in any given year. Discuss such conditions in the Survey Report. Visits to the site in more than one year incr ease the likelihood of detection and failure to locate burrowing owls during one field season does not constitute evidence that the site is no longer occupied, particularly if adverse conditions influenced the su rvey results. Visits to other nearby known occupied sites can affirm whether the survey timing is appropriate.

Take Avoidance Surveys

Field experience from 1995 to present supports t he conclusion that it would be effective to complete an initial take avoidance survey no less than 14 days prior to initiating ground disturbance activities using the recommended me thods described in the Detection Surveys section above. Implementation of avoidance and minimization measures would be triggered by positive owl presence on the site where projec t activities will occur. The development of avoidance and minimization approaches would be informed by monitoring the burrowing owls.
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 30

Burrowing owls may re-colonize a site after onl y a few days. Time lapses between project activities trigger subsequent take avoidance surveys including but not limited to a final survey conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance.

Survey Reports

Report on the survey methods us ed and results including the information described in the Summary Report and include the reports within the CEQA documentation:

1. Date, start and end time of surveys includi ng weather conditions (ambient temperature, wind speed, percent cloud cover, precipitation and visibility);

2. Name(s) of surveyor(s) and qualifications;

3. A discussion of how the timing of the survey affected the comprehensiveness and detection probability;

4. A description of survey methods used incl uding transect spacing, point count dispersal and duration, and any calls used;

5. A description and justification of the ar ea surveyed relative to the project area;

6. A description that includes: num ber of owls or nesting pairs at each location (by nestlings, juveniles, adults, and those of an unknown age), number of burrows being used by owls, and burrowing owl sign at burrows. Include a descr iption of individual markers, such as bands (numbers and colors), transmitters, or unique natural identifyi ng features. If any owls are banded, request documentation from the BBL and bander to report on the details regarding the known history of the banded burrowing owl(s) (age , sex, origins, whether it was previously relocated) and provide with the report if available;

7. A description of the behavior of burrowing owls during the su rveys, including feeding, resting, courtship, alarm, territorial defense, and those indicative of parents or juveniles;

8. A list of possible burrowing owl predators present and documen tation of any evidence of predation of owls;

9. A detailed map (1:24,000 or closer to show details) showing loca tions of all burrowing owls, potential burrows, occupied burrows, areas of concentrated burrows, and burrowing owl sign. Locations documented by use of global positioning system (GPS) coordinates must include the datum in which they were collected. The map should include a title, north arrow, bar scale and legend;

10. Signed field forms, photos, etc., as appendices to the field survey report;

11. Recent color photographs of the proposed project or activity site; and

12. Original CNDDB Field Survey Forms should be sent directly to the Department’s CNDDB office, and copies should be included in the env ironmental document as an appendix. (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/bdb/html/cnddb.html ).

03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 31
Appendix E. Example Components for Burrowing Owl Artificial Burrow and Exclusion Plans

Whereas the Department does not recommend exclusion and burrow closure, current scientific literature and experience from 1995 to present, indicate that the following example components for burrowing owl artificial burrow and exclusion plans, combined with consultation with the Department to further develop these plans, would be effective.

Artificial Burrow Location

If a burrow is confirmed occupied on-site, arti ficial burrow locations should be appropriately located and their use should be documented taking into consideration:

1. A brief description of the projec t and project site pre-construction;

2. The mitigation measures that will be implemented;

3. Potential conflicting site uses or encumbrances;

4. A comparison of the occupied burrow site (s) and the artificial burrow site(s) (e.g., vegetation, habitat types, fossorial species use in the area, and other features);

5. Artificial burrow(s) prox imity to the project activities, roads and drainages;

6. Artificial burrow(s) proximity to other burrows and entrance exposure;

7. Photographs of the site of the occ upied burrow(s) and the artificial burrows;

8. Map of the project area that identifies the burrow(s) to be excluded as well as the proposed sites for the artificial burrows;

9. A brief description of the artificial burrow design;

10. Description of the monitori ng that will take place during and after project implementation including information that will be provided in a monitoring report.

11. A description of the frequency and type of burrow maintenance.

Exclusion Plan

An Exclusion Plan addresses the following including but not limited to:

1. Confirm by site surveillance that the bu rrow(s) is empty of burrowing owls and other species preceding burrow scoping;

2. Type of scope and appropriate ti ming of scoping to avoid impacts;

3. Occupancy factors to look for and what will guide determination of vacancy and excavation timing (one-way doors should be left in place 48 hours to ensure burrowing owls have left the burrow before excavation, visited twice daily and monitored for evidence that owls are inside and can’t esc ape i.e., look for sign immediately inside the door).

4. How the burrow(s) will be excavated. Excava tion using hand tools with refilling to prevent reoccupation is preferable w henever possible (may include us ing piping to stabilize the burrow to prevent collapsing until the entir e burrow has been excavated and it can be determined that no owls reside inside the burrow);

5. Removal of other potential owl burrow surrogates or refugia on site;

6. Photographing the excava tion and closure of the burro w to demonstrate success and sufficiency;
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 32

7. Monitoring of the site to evaluate su ccess and, if needed, to implement remedial measures to prevent subsequent owl use to avoid take;

8. How the impacted site wil l continually be made inhospitable to burrowing owls and fossorial mammals (e.g., by allowing vegetation to grow tall, heavy disking, or immediate and continuous grading) until development is complete.
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 33
Appendix F. Mitigation Management Plan and Vegetation
Management Goals

Mitigation Management Plan

A mitigation site management plan will help ensure the appropriate implementation and maintenance for the mitigation site and persistence of the burrowing owls on the site. For an example to review, refer to Rosenberg et al. (2009) . The current scientific literature and field experience from 1995 to present indicate t hat an effective management plan includes the following:

1. Mitigation objectives;

2. Site selection factors (including a compar ison of the attributes of the impacted and conserved lands) and baseline assessment;

3. Enhancement of the conserved lands (enhancement of reproductive capacity, enhancement of breeding areas and dispersal opportunities, and removal or control of population stressors);

4. Site protection method and prohibited uses;

5. Site manager roles and responsibilities;

6. Habitat management goals and objectives:
a. Vegetation management goals,
i. Vegetation management tools:

1. Grazing

2. Mowing

3. Burning

4. Other
b. Management of ground squirrels and other fossorial mammals, c. Semi-annual and annual artifici al burrow cleaning and maintenance, d. Non-natives contro l – weeds and wildlife,
e. Trash removal;

7. Financial assurances:
a. Property analysis record or other financial analysis to determine long-term management funding,
b. Funding schedule;

8. Performance standards and success criteria;

9. Monitoring, surveys and adaptive management;

10. Maps;

11. Annual reports.

Vegetation Management Goals

 Manage vegetation height and dens ity (especially in immediat e proximity to burrows).

Suitable vegetation structur e varies across sites and vegetation types, but should generally be at the average effe ctive vegetation height of 4.7 cm (Green and Anthony 1989) and <13 cm average effective vegetation height (MacCracken et al. 1985a).  Employ experimental prescribed fires (contro lled, at a small scale ) to manage vegetation structure;
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 34
 Vegetation reduction or ground disturbance timing, extent, and configuration should avoid take. While local ordinances may require fire prevention through vegetation management, activities like disking, mowi ng, and grading during the breeding season can result in take of burrowing owls and collapse of burrows, c ausing nest destruction. Consult the take avoidance surveys section above fo r pre-management avoidance survey recommendations;
 Promote natural prey dist ribution and abundance, especially in proximity to occupied burrows; and
 Promote self-sustaining populat ions of host burrowers by limiting or prohibiting lethal rodent control measures and by ensuring food availability for host burrowers through vegetation management.

Refer to Rosenberg et al. (2009) for a good di scussion of managing grasslands for burrowing owls.

Mitigation Site Success Criteria

In order to evaluate the success of mitigation and management strategies for burrowing owls, monitoring is required that is specific to the burrowing owl ma nagement plan. Given limited resources, Barclay et al. (2011) suggests managers focus on accurately estimating annual adult owl populations rather than devoting time to estimating reproduction, which shows high annual variation and is difficult to accurately es timate. Therefore, the key objective will be to determine accurately the numbe r of adult burrowing owls and pa irs, and if the numbers are maintained. A frequency of 5-10 years for surve ys to estimate population size may suffice if there are no changes in the management of the nesting and foraging habitat of the owls.

Effective monitoring and evaluation of off-site and on-site mitigation management success for burrowing owls includes (Barclay, pers. comm.):

 Site tenacity;
 Number of adult owls present and reproducing;
 Colonization by burrowing owls from elsewhere (by band re-sight);  Evidence and causes of mortality;
 Changes in distribution; and
 Trends in stressors.

1 Monique Martinez
From: Kristen Kessler <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 5, 2024 6:51 PM
To: City Council Internet EMAIL Group
Subject: Comment letter from Ventura Audubon Society re: Camarillo Costco Attachments: Ventura Audubon - Costco Development_Final Letter Feb.4,2024.docx.pdf Dear Councilmembers,

Attached is a comment letter from the Ventura Audubon Society regarding the proposed Costco project.

Thank you,
Kristen Kessler
Ventura Audubon Society
February5, 2024Re: CamarilloCostco
DearCouncilmembers,
TheVenturaAudubonSocietytakesissuewiththeproposedCamarilloCostcodevelopment. Weareconcernedabouttheimpacttheprojectwill haveonlocal wildlifeandlossofopenspace. Birdpopulationsarefallingall overtheUnitedStates; threebillionbirdshavebeenlostintheU.S. andCanadasincethe1970’s(StateofBirdsReport2022; StateoftheBirds.org).

TheproposedCostcositeisaforaginggroundforred-tailedhawksandotherraptors, habitatforred-wingedblackbirdsandsongbirds(sparrows, pipits, goldfinch, etc.)andothergroundbirds(doves,pigeons)thatforageandpotentiallynestthere. Itisknowntoprovidehabitatforspecial statusspecies,includingwesternburrowingowl andhornedlark(ebird.org). Becauseofthedevelopmentthatisalreadyinprogressnorthofthe101, andtheeventual developmentofthesecondfieldonSpringvilleDriveandVenturaRoad, weareconcernedthatbirdswill abandontheareaandtheincreasinglossofopenspace.

WecontenditisinadequatetorelyontheEIRconductedin2008toaddresscurrentbiological impactsoftheproposedprojectbecausethebiological surveyuponwhichtheassessmentisbasedis19yearsold(conductedinJanuary2004). Furthermore, itprovidesinadequatedatabecauseitwasconductedinwinterwhentherearethelowestlevelsoffloraandfaunaactivity. Springistheoptimal seasonforbiological fieldsurveysforprojectswhereonlyonesurveyisconducted. Additionally, listingstatusofplantsandanimalshavechangedinthenearly2decadessince2004andthisinformationneedstobeupdatedintheassessment.

AnewCEQA-level assessmentisnecessarytodeterminepotential impactstoandmitigationforbiological resources. Thisassessmentmustbebasedonacurrentfieldsurveyalongwithupdatedliteraturereviewandregulatoryanalysis. Additional issuesincludinghabitatloss, greenhousegases,nightlighting, traffic, airpollution, andcumulativeimpactsmustalsobestudied. WeaskthatafocusedEIRormitigatednegativedeclarationbeconductedtostudytheseimpacts. Ataminimum, anewinitialstudyshouldbeprepared.

Thankyouforyourtimeandconsideration.

CynthiaHartley Rachel AmecheConservationCommitteeChair [email protected] [email protected] venturaaudubon.org/P.O. Box24198Ventura,California93002

1 Monique Martinez
From: joan handzel <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 5, 2024 9:20 PM
To: City Council Internet EMAIL Group
Subject: Need For Independent Environmental Impact Statement re Costco The City rezoned the parcel in question from farmland back in 2007. Since then, several commercial projects were proposed and approved but were never finalized. No prior approvals ever entailed the construction of any gas station, let alone a supersized 32-pump gas station. Moreover, the City never required an in-depth Environmental Impact Report in all the years it considered various proposals.

As you know. on December 5, 2023, the Planning Commission approved Costco’s proposal for its mega 32-pump station; rather than requiring an Environmental Impact Report, the Commission based its decision on a Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration requiring minimum study and analysis. The Planning Commission's approval was not unanimous. One of the members with apparent expertise in environmental matters had carefully analyzed Costo’s proposal and questioned Costco’s spokesman on potential environmental harm. The incisive questioning raised enough doubt to conclude
that it is not only reasonable but responsible that the City conduct an independent, unbiased Environmental Impact Report. Costco's own consultant concluded that the Costco project and an anticipated Amara shopping center next to Costco would result in 31, 157 daily vehicle trips. The inhabitants of this city have a right to find out how this increase in traffic and resultant vehicle emissions
will affect emergency response times, pollution, and public safety. The City can fulfill its duty to protect us by requiring an independent Environmental Impact Report.

City of Camarillo
Public Comments
Monday, February 5, 2024 01:40 PMPUBLIC COMMENTS
NOTICE
This is a public document and will be posted as part of the public record. Any attachments, pictures, and information submitted will be subject to disclosure in accordance with applicable law, including the Public Records Act.

Meeting Date Wednesday, February 14, 2024
Agency City Council
Item Type Agenda Item
Item Number or Subject Camarillo Costco
Position Oppose
Comments
Attached is a comment letter submitted by Ventura Audubon Society.

Thank you
Upload Additional Information
PDF Ventura Audubon - Costco De….pdf

IDENTIFICATION
Name Cynthia Hartley
Address P.O. Box 24198
Ventura, CA, 93002
Telephone
1 Email [email protected]
Public Records AcknowledgementBy checking this box, I acknowledge that I understand anything I submit will become part of the public record and be subject to disclosure in accordance with applicable law, including the Public Records Act.
2 February5, 2024Re: CamarilloCostco
DearCouncilmembers,
TheVenturaAudubonSocietytakesissuewiththeproposedCamarilloCostcodevelopment. Weareconcernedabouttheimpacttheprojectwill haveonlocal wildlifeandlossofopenspace. Birdpopulationsarefallingall overtheUnitedStates; threebillionbirdshavebeenlostintheU.S. andCanadasincethe1970’s(StateofBirdsReport2022; StateoftheBirds.org).

Thankyouforyourtimeandconsideration.

CynthiaHartley Rachel AmecheConservationCommitteeChair [email protected] [email protected] venturaaudubon.org/P.O. Box24198Ventura,California93002

City of Camarillo
Public Comments
Wednesday, February 7, 2024 08:27 AMPUBLIC COMMENTS
NOTICE
This is a public document and will be posted as part of the public record. Any attachments, pictures, and information submitted will be subject to disclosure in accordance with applicable law, including the Public Records Act.

Meeting Date Wednesday, February 7, 2024
Agency City Council
Item Type Agenda Item
Item Number or Subject costco location/development
Position Oppose
Comments burrowing owl & hawks are in significant decline .

Can you use an already existing building & maintain open spaces .

Upload Additional Information

IDENTIFICATION
Name jean luc guionnet
Address
Telephone
Email [email protected]
Public Records AcknowledgementBy checking this box, I acknowledge that I understand anything I submit will become part of the public record and be subject to disclosure in accordance with applicable law, including the Public Records Act.
1 Monique Martinez
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2024 10:37 AM
To: City Council Internet EMAIL Group
Cc: Monique Martinez
Subject: Website contact form All Council Members
Subject = COSTCO building on Springville and Ventura
Name = Julie Soske
Phone =
Email = [email protected]
Comments = I am concerned that an Environmental Impact Report is not being required for this building.

I would like to see how this new site might impact the burrowing owls and hawks that live in this territory.

Why is this not being required?
Client IP = 76.90.52.105
City of Camarillo
Public Comments
Sunday, February 11, 2024 02:55 PMPUBLIC COMMENTS
NOTICE
This is a public document and will be posted as part of the public record. Any attachments, pictures, and information submitted will be subject to disclosure in accordance with applicable law, including the Public Records Act.

Meeting Date Wednesday, February 14, 2024
Agency City Council
Item Type Agenda Item
Item Number or Subject Costco and Amara shopping center Position Oppose
Comments I am asking the City Council to order a new EIR for the proposed Costco/Amara development. It has been too many years since the last EIR was performed, and since then, development has occurred at Springville, the adjacent community and Camarillo airport. While these developments are across the freeway from the proposed development, they illustrate the traffic study is flawed. The study may show a reduction in trip hours, but the number of cars will increase exponentially and increase the amount of pollution with cars idling while waiting for gas and the number of cars. Furthermore, the EIR should account for the number of people who live out of town who already visit Target, Ross and Walmart.

The EIR should also take into account the birds of prey and other animals that occupy the area. These animals will be displaced as a result of the development.

I am assuming the City Council will approve the development without a new EIR in the interest of receiving additional sales tax revenue, but that will be offset by the costs of road repair and the increase in response from police and fire. If
development were approved, it should be stores or attractions that are not in the vicinity, such as Ikea, which typically has a footprint between 250,000 and 500,000 sq feet or solely the Amara development with stores such as Kohl's, and other shops 1 not found at the outlet mall.

Upload Additional Information

IDENTIFICATION
Name Charles Wallace
Address 190 Stage Trail Rd
Camarillo, CA, 93010
Telephone
Email
Public Records AcknowledgementBy checking this box, I acknowledge that I understand anything I submit will become part of the public record and be subject to disclosure in accordance with applicable law, including the Public Records Act.
2 1
Kristy Buxkemper
From: M Valle <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 8:14 PM
To: City Council Internet EMAIL Group
Subject: Public Hearing Weds. Feb.14,2024
To City Council
Re: Costco Wholesale
My name is Maritza Valle and I live in Camarillo. I am writing to let you know that I totally support the project. I am so excited with the proposed plan. I usually don't get involved but I am tired of seeing this flyer from VCCAgainstMegasGas and thought I speak up. I don't know who is behind the opposition but I wholeheartedly Support your plans for the Costco. I love, love the idea of jobs, the location right off the freeway and away from the houses. It is the perfect site for the shopping center. It complements the shops around the area. The way you guys have planned all the stores and shopping on that side. Please approve the building of Costco without any further reviews. Thanks, Maritza Valle City of Camarillo
Public Comments
Monday, February 12, 2024 03:56 PMPUBLIC COMMENTS
NOTICE
This is a public document and will be posted as part of the public record. Any attachments, pictures, and information submitted will be subject to disclosure in accordance with applicable law, including the Public Records Act.

Meeting Date Wednesday, February 14, 2024
Agency City Council
Item Type Agenda Item
Item Number or Subject CPD-226M(5)/CUP-422 Costco
Position Oppose
Comments Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Final Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) 2023-4 for the Costco project. I am a wildlife biologist by profession and will be providing comments on the Biological Resources of the MND. Additional CEQA analysis, preferably in the form of an updated EIR is warranted, as the MND is inadequate. Here are some pertinent points:
• In the MND’s Evaluation of Environmental Impacts the
document correctly notes that Burrowing Owls utilize
abandoned California ground squirrel (page 46). The
discussion goes on to say that “No raptor nests, wildlife dens, or burrows were incidentally observed during the field survey” and “No common mammals, amphibians or reptiles were detected during the field survey” that occurred almost two years ago on April 25, 2022. However, during my site visits on February 2 on 11, 2024, I scanned the project site with binoculars and a spotting scope and observed approximately 25 ground
squirrels, with more likely out of view. Ground squirrels were observed darting down into their burrows. Burrowing owl surveys consistent with the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines (see attachment) are warranted to fully access potential impacts to the Burrowing Owl that may be utilizing one or more of the many ground squirrel burrows that 1 occur on the project site.
• The ground squirrel population on the project site is the prey base for predators such as red-tailed hawks, which were observed foraging over the project site during both of my observations. Also, coyotes utilize the project site as coyote tracks were observed at an opening in the fencing. The project site is a nursery site for ground squirrels (see Initial Study Biological Resources Question D). The loss of open grassland habitat for these species should be more seriously evaluated and considered. Mitigation measures such as having the project proponent contribute to a fund to purchase and preserve off site grassland habitat should be considered and evaluated. • The MND (page 47) discusses having a nesting bird
preconstruction survey conducted no earlier than one week prior to any construction as a Condition of Approval. However, there is no mention of this condition of approval in Appendix K – Revised Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. A large flock of Western Meadowlarks were observed on the project site and may nest later this spring in well-hidden ground nests covered by vegetation. Further evaluation of the accuracy of a nesting bird survey just prior to land clearing is warranted as it is extremely difficult to find active ground nests in dense grasses and forbs. To ensure full compliance with the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code 3503.5, land clearing of the Costco site should be confined to the time period outside of the nesting bird season. The May 2022 Biological Resources Assessment by Kleinfelder also
recommends removing habitat outside of the nesting season.

An updated EIR would better assess, evaluate, and mitigate the biological impacts of the proposed project and should be required by the City of Camarillo. Thank you for your time and service to the public.

Sincerely,
David Wappler, Wildlife Biologist
Upload Additional Information
PDF Burrowing Owl Survey Protoc….pdf

IDENTIFICATION
Name David Wappler
Address 6250 Telegraph Road, Apt 1210
Ventura, CA, 93003
Telephone
Email [email protected]
Public Records Acknowledgement By checking this box, I acknowledge that I understand anything I submit will become part of the public record and be subject to disclosure in accordance with applicable law, including the 2 Public Records Act.
3 BURROWING OWL SURVEY PROTOCOL

AND MITIGATION GUIDELINES
Prepared by:

The California Burrowing Owl Consortium
April 1993

INTRODUCTION
The California Burrowing Owl Consortium developed the following Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines to meet the need for uniform standards when surveying burrowing owl (Speotyto cunicularia) populations and evaluating impacts from development projects. The California Burrowing Owl Consortium is a group of biologists in the San Francisco Bay area who are interested in burrowing owl conservation. The following survey protocol and mitigation guidelines were prepared by the Consortium’s Mitigation Committee. These procedures offer a decision-making process aimed at preserving burrowing owls in place with adequate habitat.

California’s burrowing owl population is clearly in peril and if declines continue unchecked the species may qualify for listing. Because of the intense pressure for development of open, flat grasslands in California, resource managers frequently face conflicts between owls and development projects. Owls can be affected by disturbance and habitat loss, even though there may be no direct impacts to the birds themselves or their burrows. There is often inadequate information about the presence of owls on a project site until ground disturbance is imminent.

When this occurs there is usually insufficient time to evaluate impacts to owls and their habitat.

The absence of standardized field survey methods impairs adequate and consistent impact assessment during regulatory review processes, which in turn reduces the possibility of effective mitigation.

These guidelines are intended to provide a decision-making process that should be implemented wherever there is potential for an action or project to adversely affect burrowing owls or the resources that support them. The process begins with a four-step survey protocol to document the presence of burrowing owl habitat, and evaluate burrowing owl use of the project site and a surrounding buffer zone. When surveys confirm occupied habitat, the mitigation measures are followed to minimize impacts to burrowing owls, their burrows and foraging habitat on the site.

These guidelines emphasize maintaining burrowing owls and their resources in place rather than minimizing impacts through displacement of owls to an alternate site.

Each project and situation is different and these procedures may not be applicable in some circumstances. Finally, these are not strict rules or requirements that must be applied in all situations. They are guidelines to consider when evaluating burrowing owls and their habitat, and they suggest options for burrowing owl conservation when land use decisions are made.

Section 1 describes the four phase Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol. Section 2 contains the Mitigation Guidelines. Section 3 contains a discussion of various laws and regulations that protect burrowing owls and a list of references cited in the text.

We have submitted these documents to the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) for review and comment. These are untested procedures and we ask for your comments on improving their usefulness.

Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol California Burrowing Owl Consortium and Mitigation Guidelines April 1993
i
SECTION 1 BURROWING OWL SURVEY PROTOCOL
PHASE I: HABITAT ASSESSMENT
The first step in the survey process is to assess the presence of burrowing owl habitat on the project site including a 150-meter (approx. 500 ft.) buffer zone around the project boundary (Thomsen 1971, Martin 1973).

Burrowing Owl Habitat Description
Burrowing owl habitat can be found in annual and perennial grasslands, deserts, and scrublands characterized by low-growing vegetation (Zarn 1974). Suitable owl habitat may also include trees and shrubs if the canopy covers less than 30 percent of the ground surface. Burrows are the essential component of burrowing owl habitat: both natural and artificial burrows provide protection, shelter, and nests for burrowing owls (Henny and Blus 1981). Burrowing owls typically use burrows made by fossorial mammals, such as ground squirrels or badgers, but also may use man-made structures, such as cement culverts; cement, asphalt, or wood debris piles; or openings beneath cement or asphalt pavement.

Occupied Burrowing Owl Habitat
Burrowing owls may use a site for breeding, wintering, foraging, and/or migration stopovers.

Occupancy of suitable burrowing owl habitat can be verified at a site by an observation of at least one burrowing owl, or, alternatively, its molted feathers, cast pellets, prey remains, eggshell fragments, or excrement at or near a burrow entrance. Burrowing owls exhibit high site fidelity, reusing burrows year after year (Rich 1984, Feeney 1992). A site should be assumed occupied if at least one burrowing owl has been observed occupying a burrow there within the last three years (Rich 1984).

The Phase II burrow survey is required if burrowing owl habitat occurs on the site. If burrowing owl habitat is not present on the project site and buffer zone, the Phase II burrow survey is not necessary. A written report of the habitat assessment should be prepared (Phase IV), stating the reason(s) why the area is not burrowing owl habitat.

PHASE II: BURROW SURVEY

1. A survey for-burrows and owls should be conducted by walking through suitable habitat over the entire project site and in areas within 150 meters (approx 500 ft.) of the project impact zone. This 150-meter buffer zone is included to account for adjacent burrows and foraging habitat outside the project area and impacts from factors such as noise and vibration due to heavy equipment which could impact resources outside the project area.

Burrowing Owl Survey California Burrowing Owl Consortium and Mitigation Guidelines April 1993
1 2. Pedestrian survey transects should be spaced to allow 100 percent visual coverage of the ground surface. The distance between transect center lines should be no more than 30 meters (approx. 100 ft.), and should be reduced to account for differences in terrain, vegetation density, and ground surface visibility. To efficiently survey projects larger than 100 acres, it is recommended that two or more surveyors conduct concurrent surveys. Surveyors should maintain a minimum distance of 50 meters (approx. 160 ft.) from any owls or occupied burrows. It is important to minimize disturbance near occupied burrows during all seasons.

3. If burrows or burrowing owls are recorded on the site, a map should be prepared of the burrow concentration areas. A breeding season survey and census (Phase III) of burrowing owls is the next step required.

4. Prepare a report (Phase IV) of the burrow survey stating whether or not burrows are present.

5. A preconstruction survey may be required by project-specific mitigations no more than 30 days prior to ground disturbing activity.

PHASE III: BURROWING OWL SURVEYS, CENSUS AND MAPPING
If the project site contains burrows that could be used by burrowing owls, then survey efforts should be directed towards determining owl presence on the site. Surveys in the breeding season are required to describe if, when, and how the site is used by burrowing owls. If no owls are observed using the site during the breeding season, a winter survey is required.

Survey Methodology
A complete burrowing owl survey consists of four site visits. During the initial site visit examine burrows for owl sign and map the locations of occupied burrows. Subsequent observations should be conducted from as many fixed points as necessary to provide visual coverage of the site using spotting scopes or binoculars. It is important to minimize disturbance near occupied burrows during all seasons. Site visits must be repeated on four separate days.

Conduct these visits from two hours before sunset to one hour after or from one hour before to two hours after sunrise. Surveys should be conducted during weather that is conducive to observing owls outside their burrows. Avoid surveys during heavy rain, high winds (> 20 mph), or dense fog.

Nesting Season Survey. The burrowing owl nesting season begins as early as February 1 and continues through August 31 (Thomsen 1971, Zam 1974). The timing of nesting activities may vary with latitude and climatic conditions. If possible, the nesting season survey should be conducted during the peak of the breeding season, between April 15 and July 15. Count and map all burrowing owl sightings, occupied burrows, and burrows with owl sign. Record numbers of pairs and juveniles, and behavior such as courtship and copulation. Map the approximate territory boundaries and foraging areas if known.

Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol California Burrowing Owl Consortium and Mitigation Guidelines April 1993
2 Survey for Winter Residents (non-breeding owls). Winter surveys should be conducted between December 1 and January 31, during the period when wintering owls are most likely to be present. Count and map all owl sightings, occupied burrows, and burrows with owl sign.

Surveys Outside the Winter and Nesting Seasons. Positive results, (i.e., owl sightings)- outside of the above survey periods would be adequate to determine presence of owls on site. However, results of these surveys may be inadequate for mitigation planning because the numbers of owls and their pattern of distribution may change during winter and nesting seasons. Negative results during surveys outside the above periods are not conclusive proof that owls do not use the site.

Preconstruction Survey. A preconstruction survey may be required by project-specific mitigations and should be conducted no more than 30 days prior to ground disturbing activity.

PHASE IV: RESOURCE SUMMARY, WRITTEN REPORT
A report should be prepared for CDFG that gives the results of each Phase of the survey protocol, as outlined below.

Phase I: Habitat Assessment

1. Date and time of visit(s) including weather and visibility conditions; methods of survey.

2. Site description including the following information: location, size, topography, vegetation communities, and animals observed during visit(s).

3. An assessment of habitat suitability for burrowing owls and explanation.

4. A map of the site.

Phase II: Burrow Survey

1. Date and time of visits including weather and visibility conditions; survey methods including transect spacing.

2. A more detailed site description should be made during this phase of the survey protocol including a partial plant list of primary vegetation, location of nearest freshwater (on or within one mile of site), animals observed during transects.

3. Results of survey transects including a map showing the location of concentrations of burrow(s) (natural or artificial) and owl(s), if present.

Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol California Burrowing Owl Consortium and Mitigation Guidelines April 1993
3 Phase III: Burrowing Owl Surveys, Census and Mapping

1. Date and time of visits including weather and visibility conditions; survey methods including transect spacing.

2. Report and map the location of all burrowing owls and owl sign. Burrows occupied by owl(s) should be mapped indicating the number of owls at each burrow. Tracks, feathers, pellets, or other items (prey remains, animal scat) at burrows should also be reported.

3. Behavior of owls during the surveys should be carefully recorded (from a distance) and reported. Describe and map areas used by owls during the surveys. Although not required, all behavior is valuable to document including feeding, resting, courtship, alarm, territorial, parental, or juvenile behavior.

4. Both winter and nesting season surveys should be summarized. If possible include information regarding productivity of pairs, seasonal pattern of use, and include a map of the colony showing territorial boundaries and home ranges.

5. The historical presence of burrowing owls on site should be documented, as well as the source of such information (local bird club, Audubon society, other biologists, etc.).

Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol
and Mitigation Guidelines
California Burrowing Owl Consortium
April 1993
4 Burrowing: Owl Survey Protocol
April 1993
Phase I
Habitat Assessment
Project Area Plus 150 m
Phase II
Burrow Survey
project Area Plus 150 m
l 100% coverage of
suitable habitat
l maximum 30 m
transect spacing
Figure 1.

Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol
and Mitigation Guidelines
5 California Burrowing Owl Consortium
April 1993
SECTION 2 BURROWING OWL MITIGATION GUIDELINES
The objective of these mitigation guidelines is to minimize impacts to burrowing owls and the resources that support viable owl populations. These guidelines are intended to provide a decision-making process that should be implemented wherever there is potential for an action or project to adversely affect burrowing owls or their resources. The process begins with a four-step survey protocol (see Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol) to document the presence of burrowing owl habitat, and evaluate burrowing owl use of the project site and a surrounding buffer zone. When surveys confirm occupied habitat, the mitigation measures described below are followed to minimize impacts to burrowing owls, their burrows and foraging habitat on the site. These guidelines emphasize maintaining burrowing owls and their resources in place rather than minimizing impacts through displacement of owls to an alternate site.

Mitigation actions should be carried out prior to the burrowing owl breeding season, generally from February 1 through August 31 (Thomsen 1971, Zarn 1974). The timing of nesting activity may vary with latitude and climatic conditions. Project sites and buffer zones with suitable habitat should be resurveyed to ensure no burrowing owls have occupied them in the interim period between the initial surveys and ground disturbing activity. Repeat surveys should be conducted not more than 30 days prior to initial ground disturbing activity.

DEFINITION OF IMPACTS

1. Disturbance or harassment within 50 meters (approx. 160 ft.) of occupied burrows.

2. Destruction of burrows and burrow entrances. Burrows include structures such as culverts, concrete slabs and debris piles that provide shelter to burrowing owls.

3. Degradation of foraging habitat adjacent to occupied burrows.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

1. Occupied burrows should not be disturbed during the nesting season, from February 1 through August 31, unless the Department of Fish and Game verifies that the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation or that the juveniles from those burrows are foraging independently and capable of independent survival at an earlier date.

2. A minimum of 6.5 acres of foraging habitat, calculated on a 100-m (approx. 300 ft.) foraging radius around the natal burrow, should be maintained per pair (or unpaired resident single bird) contiguous with burrows occupied within the last three years (Rich 1984, Feeney 1992). Ideally, foraging habitat should be retained in a long-term conservation easement.

Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol
and Mitigation Guidelines
6 California Burrowing Owl Consortium
April 1993

3. When destruction of occupied burrows is unavoidable, burrows should be enhanced (enlarged or cleared of debris) or created (by installing artificial burrows) in a ratio of 1:1 in adjacent suitable habitat that is contiguous with the foraging habitat of the affected owls.

4. If owls must be moved away from the disturbance area, passive relocation (see below) is preferable to trapping. A time period of at least one week is recommended to allow the owls to move and acclimate to alternate burrows.

5. The mitigation committee recommends monitoring the success of mitigation programs as required in Assembly Bill 3180. A monitoring plan should include mitigation success criteria and an annual report should be submitted to the California Department of Fish and Game.

AVOIDANCE
Avoid Occupied Burrows
No disturbance should occur within 50 m (approx. 160 ft.) of occupied burrows during the non- breeding Season of September 1 through January 31 or within 75 m (approx. 250 ft.) during the breeding Season of February 1 through August 31. Avoidance also requires that a minimum of

6.5 acres of foraging habitat be preserved contiguous with occupied burrow sites for each pair of breeding burrowing owls (with or without dependent young) or single unpaired resident bird (Figure 2).

MITIGATION FOR UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
On-site Mitigation
On-site passive relocation should be implemented if the above avoidance requirements cannot be met. Passive relocation is defined as encouraging owls to move from occupied burrows to alternate natural or artificial burrows that are beyond 50 m from the impact zone and that are within or contiguous to a minimum of 6.5 acres of foraging habitat for each pair of relocated owls (Figure 3). Relocation of owls should only be implemented during the non-breeding season. On-site habitat should be preserved in a conservation easement and managed to promote burrowing owl use of the site.

Owls should be excluded from burrows in the immediate impact zone and within a 50 m (approx. 160 ft.) buffer zone by installing one-way doors in burrow entrances: One-way doors should be left in place 48 hours to insure owls have left the burrow before excavation. One alternate natural or artificial burrow should be provided for each burrow that will be excavated in the project impact zone. The project area should be monitored daily for one week to confirm owl use of alternate burrows before excavating burrows in the immediate impact zone.

Whenever possible, burrows should be excavated using hand tools and refilled to prevent reoccupation. Sections of flexible plastic pipe or burlap bags should be inserted into the tunnels Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol California Burrowing Owl Consortium and Mitigation Guidelines April 1993
7 AVOIDANCE
No impacts within
50 m of occupied
burrow
Occupied
burrow
Maintain
at least 6.5 acres
foraging habitat
Non-breeding season Breeding season
1 Sept. - 31 Jan. 1 Feb. - 31 Aug.

No impacts within
75 m of occupied
burrow
Occupied
burrow
Maintain
at least 6.5 acres
foraging habitat
Figure 2. Burrowing owl mitigation guidelines.

Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol
and Mitigation Guidelines
California Burrowing Owl Consortium
April 1993
8 ON-SITE MITIGATION

IF AVOIDANCE NOT MET
(More than 6.5 acres suitable habitat available)
Occupied
burrow
Passively relocate
at least 50 meters
from Impact Zone
Maintain at least 6.5 acres
suitable habitat per pair
or resident bird
Figure 3. Burrowing owl mitigation guidelines.

Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol
and Mitigation Guidelines
9 California Burrowing Owl Consortium
April 1993
during excavation to maintain an escape route for any animals inside the burrow.

Off-site Mitigation
If the project will reduce suitable habitat on-site below the threshold level of 6.5 acres per relocated pair or single bird, the habitat should be replaced off-site. Off-site habitat must be suitable burrowing owl habitat, as defined in the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol, and the site approved by CDFG. Land should be purchased and/or placed in a conservation easement in perpetuity and managed to maintain suitable habitat. Off-site mitigation should use one of the following ratios:

1. Replacement of occupied habitat with occupied habitat: 1.5 times 6.5 (9.75) acres per pair or single bird.

2. Replacement of occupied habitat with habitat contiguous to currently occupied habitat:
2 times 6.5 (13.0) acres per pair or single bird.

3. Replacement of occupied habitat with suitable unoccupied habitat: 3 times 6.5 (19.5) acres per pair or single bird.

Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol California Burrowing Owl Consortium and Mitigation Guidelines April 1993
10 SECTION 3 LEGAL STATUS
The burrowing owl is a migratory bird species protected by international treaty under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-711). The MBTA makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter, any migratory bird listed in 50 C.F.R.

Part 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing regulations (50 C.F.R. 21). Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800 of the California Department of Fish and Game Code prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs. Implementation of the take provisions requires that project-related disturbance at active nesting territories be reduced or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting cycle (March 1 - August 15, annually). Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (e.g., killing or abandonment of eggs or young) or the loss of habitat upon which the birds depend is considered “taking” and is potentially punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. Such taking would also violate federal law protecting migratory birds (e.g., MBTA).

The burrowing owl is a Species of Special Concern to California because of declines of suitable habitat and both localized and statewide population declines. Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provide that a species be considered as endangered or “rare” regardless of appearance on a formal list for the purposes of the CEQA (Guidelines, Section 15380, subsections b and d). The CEQA requires a mandatory findings of significance if impacts to threatened or endangered species are likely to occur (Sections 21001(c), 21083. Guidelines 15380, 15064, 15065). Avoidance or mitigation must be presented to reduce impacts to less than significant levels.

CEQA AND SUBDIVISION MAP ACT
CEQA Guidelines Section 15065 directs that a mandatory finding of significance is required for projects that have the potential to substantially degrade or reduce the habitat of, or restrict the range of a threatened or endangered species. CEQA requires agencies to implement feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives identified in EIR’s for projects which will otherwise cause significant adverse impacts (Sections 21002, 21081, 21083; Guidelines, sections 15002, subd. (a)(3), 15021, subd. (a)(2), 15091, subd. (a).).

To be legally adequate, mitigation measures must be capable of “avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action”; "minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation”; "rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the impacted environment”; "or reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action.” (Guidelines, Section 15.370).

Section 66474 (e) of the Subdivision Map Act states “a legislative body of a city or county shall deny approval of a tentative map or parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, if Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol
and Mitigation Guidelines
11 California Burrowing Owl Consortium
April 1993
it makes any of the following findings:... (e) that the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat”. In recent court cases, the court upheld that Section 66474(e) provides for environmental impact review separate from and independent of the requirements of CEQA (Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, 263 Cal. Rptr. 214 (1989).). The finding in Section 66174 is in addition to the requirements for the preparation of an EIR or Negative Declaration.

Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol California Burrowing Owl Consortium and Mitigation Guidelines April 1993
12 LITERATURE CITED
Feeney, L. 1992. Site fidelity in burrowing owls. Unpublished paper presented to Raptor Research Annual Meeting, November 1992. Seattle, Washington.

Haug, E. A. and L. W. Oliphant. 1990. Movements, activity patterns, and habitat use of burrowing owls in Saskatchewan. J. Wildlife Management 54:27-35.

Henny, C. J. and L. J. Blus. 1981. Artificial burrows provide new insight into burrowing owl nesting biology. Raptor Research 15:82-85.

Martin, D. J. 1973. Selected aspects of burrowing owl ecology and behavior. Condor 75:446- 456.

Rich, T. 1984. Monitoring burrowing owl populations: Implications of burrow re-use. Wildlife Society Bulletin 12: 178- 180.

Thomsen, L. 1971. Behavior and ecology of burrowing owls on the Oakland Municipal Airport. Condor 73: 177-192.

Zam, M. 1974. Burrowing owl. U. S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

Technical Note T-N 250. Denver, Colorado. 25pp.

Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol
and Mitigation Guidelines
13 California Burrowing Owl Consortium
April 1993
City of Camarillo
Public Comments
Monday, February 12, 2024 09:12 AMPUBLIC COMMENTS
NOTICE
This is a public document and will be posted as part of the public record. Any attachments, pictures, and information submitted will be subject to disclosure in accordance with applicable law, including the Public Records Act.

Meeting Date Wednesday, February 14, 2024
Agency City Council
Item Type Agenda Item
Item Number or Subject M. Costco
Position Oppose
Comments The proposed Costco project raises serious concerns for our small city. While some may be fixated on "cheap gas," the true cost will be far greater than any immediate savings. As someone who's experienced the negative impacts of Costco in congested cities, I urge you to demand a comprehensive
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) before this project moves forward. Although the Costco project team has reiterated that the pollution and traffic congestion thresholds for this project are below limits to require an EIR, are we that naïve to believe that a Costco with 32 pump gas station will not negatively impact traffic and pollution and reduce the quality of life for those who have to live in close proximity to the site?
• The "cheap gas" narrative ignores the long-term costs of increased pollution, traffic congestion, and public health issues.

An EIR will expose these hidden costs and inform responsible decision-making.
• Adding a 32-pump station to our already gas station-heavy city is irresponsible. It fuels air pollution, especially harmful for children and those with respiratory illnesses. Four existing gas stations within a mile, including one just on the other side of the future Costco site, make this project redundant.
• Focusing solely on short-term convenience ignores the long-term impact on our community's health and environment. 1 Why not prioritize sustainable solutions like solar energy, aligning with the state's electric vehicle shift?
An EIR is crucial for assessing the project's true impact on:
• Air and water quality: Increased traffic and gas pumps contribute to harmful emissions impacting our health and environment.
• Traffic congestion: Increased traffic leads to longer commutes, noise pollution, and decreased quality of life. • Greenhouse gas emissions: Contributing to climate change harms our planet and future generations.

I recently became a resident of the Springville community 2 years ago, having moved away from the congested and polluted cities of Orange County. If I knew there was going to be a Costco with 32 pump gas station being built less than a mile away from my neighborhood I would not have become a
resident of this area.

Ignoring these factors for "cheap gas" is shortsighted. This project demands a thorough independent EIR to ensure
informed decision-making that prioritizes the well-being of our community and a sustainable future.

Upload Additional Information

IDENTIFICATION
Name Nomi Park
Address 651 Silver Sage Ct
Camarillo, CA, 93010
Telephone (805) 721-6101
Email [email protected]
Public Records AcknowledgementBy checking this box, I acknowledge that I understand anything I submit will become part of the public record and be subject to disclosure in accordance with applicable law, including the Public Records Act.
2 1
Monique Martinez
From: Nomi Park <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 12:28 PM
To: City Council Internet EMAIL Group
Subject: Stop the Shortsighted Costco Project: Demand an EIR and Prioritize Our Future Dear City Council,
The proposed Costco project raises serious concerns for our small city. While some may be fixated on "cheap gas" and tax revenue for the city, the true cost will be far greater than any immediate savings. As someone who's experienced the negative impacts of Costco in congested cities, I urge you to demand an independent and comprehensive Environmental Impact Report (EIR) before this project moves forward. Although the Costco project team has reiterated that the pollution and traffic congestion thresholds for this project are below limits to require an EIR, are we that naïve to believe that a Costco with 32 pump gas station will not negatively impact traffic and pollution and reduce the quality of life for those who have to live in close proximity to the site?

Consider these critical points:
 Beyond Cheap Gas: The "cheap gas" narrative ignores the long-term costs of increased pollution, traffic congestion, and public health issues. An EIR will expose these hidden costs and inform responsible decision-making.
 Gas Station Saturation: Adding a 32-pump station to our already gas station-heavy city is irresponsible. It fuels air pollution, especially harmful for children and those with respiratory illnesses. Four existing gas stations within a mile, including one just on the other side of the future Costco site, make this project redundant.
 Shortsighted Convenience vs. Long-term Sustainability: Focusing solely on short-term convenience ignores the long-term impact on our community's health and environment. Why not prioritize sustainable solutions like solar energy, aligning with the state's electric vehicle shift?

An EIR is crucial for assessing the project's true impact on:
 Air and water quality: Increased traffic and gas pumps contribute to harmful emissions impacting our health and environment.
 Traffic congestion: Increased traffic leads to longer commutes, noise pollution, and decreased quality of life.
 Greenhouse gas emissions: Contributing to climate change harms our planet and future generations.

I recently became a resident of the Springville community 2 years ago, having moved away from the congested and polluted cities of Orange County. If I knew there was going to be a Costco with 32 pump 2 gas station being built less than a mile away from my neighborhood I would not have become a resident of this area.

Ignoring these factors for "cheap gas" is shortsighted. This project demands a thorough independent EIR to ensure informed decision-making that prioritizes the well-being of our community and a sustainable future.

Please take these concerns into consideration when reviewing the Costco project. It would be devastating to lose our little gem of a town so we can have "cheap gas".

Sincerely,
Nomi Park
Springville Community Resident
City of Camarillo
Public Comments
Monday, February 12, 2024 09:28 AMPUBLIC COMMENTS
NOTICE
This is a public document and will be posted as part of the public record. Any attachments, pictures, and information submitted will be subject to disclosure in accordance with applicable law, including the Public Records Act.

Meeting Date Wednesday, February 14, 2024
Agency City Council
Item Type Agenda Item
Item Number or Subject M (Costco Project)
Position Support
Comments Please see attached letter withdrawing SAFER's appeal.

Upload Additional Information
PDF 2024.02.12 SAFER Withdraw… .pdf

IDENTIFICATION
Name Brian Flynn
Address 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California, 94612
Telephone (510) 836-4200
Email [email protected]
1 Public Records Acknowledgement By checking this box, I acknowledge that I understand anything I submit will become part of the public record and be subject to disclosure in accordance with applicable law, including the Public Records Act.
2 February 12, 2024

Via email and cityofcamarillo.org/publiccomment

Tony Trembley, Mayor
Kevin Kildee, Vice Mayor
David Tennessen
Susan Santangelo
Martita Martinez-Bravo
City Council
City of Camarillo
601 Carmen Drive
Camarillo CA 93010

Kristy Buxkemper, City Clerk
City of Camarillo
601 Carmen Drive
Camarillo, California, 93010
[email protected]

Jaclyn Lee, Planning Manager
Department of Community Development
City of Camarillo
601 Carmen Drive
Camarillo, California, 93010
[email protected]

Re: SAFER - Withdrawal of Appeal
Costco Wholesale Project (CPD-226M(5), CUP-422)
AGENDA ITEM M (February 14, 2024)

To the City of Camarillo City Council, City Clerk Buxkemper, and Planning Manager Lee,

This letter is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) to withdraw SAFER’s appeal (filed December 14, 2023) of the Planning Commission’s December 5, 2023 decision to approve the Costco Wholesale Project (CPD-226M(5), CUP-422) (“Project”) and to adopt the Project’s Second Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration. SAFER’s appeal is scheduled to be heard as Agenda Item M at the City Council’s February 14, 2024 meeting.

SAFER is pleased to inform you that we have resolved our environmental concerns through negotiations and an environmental agreement with the developer of the Project. As a result, SAFER withdraws its appeal and fully supports the Project.

Sincerely,

Brian B. Flynn
Lozeau Drury LLP

cc: Dale Goldsmith ([email protected])
1 Monique Martinez
From: Merrill Berge <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 9:10 PM
To: City Council Internet EMAIL Group
Subject: Costco comment - 2/14/24 City Council meeting, agenda item M Good evening City Councilmembers.

I shop at Costco. I admire the high-standards of their product offerings and employee programs. I urge the City of Camarillo to hold themselves to similar high-standards in their development review process.

This Costco proposal is the definition of a Big Box warehouse, not a shopping center. No one can deny the magnitude of this proposed Costco warehouse (163,000 square feet), the parking lot it will require (over 900 parking spaces, 100 more than city code), and the addition of a mega gas station (36 pumps, 12 more than Oxnard) with a 42 car idling "stacking" line, three 40,000 underground gasoline storage tanks, and thousands of shoppers generating over 16,000 daily car trips.

Over the last two decades, a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has never been done for any of the projects proposed for this 48-acre parcel. Only Mitigated Negative Declarations have reviewed various shopping center proposals. None of these shopping center proposals included a mega gas station. None evaluated the cumulative impacts on the recently developed Springville community, identified as an adjacent sensitive receptor. The description of this Costco warehouse proposal is a substantive change from descriptions in previous MND shopping center proposals, and as a result requires a full, independent EIR.

On February 8th, Costco's stock hit an all time high of $728/share for a net worth of $320.99 Billion. Costco is #12 on the Fortune 500 list with 2023 revenues of $246.6 Billion and net income of $6.29 Billion. It is beyond comprehension why the City would agree to a one-time payment of less than $250,000 (to a county-wide mitigation fund) to offset the 42 lbs/day (far exceeding the allowed 25 lbs/day) VOC emissions this Costco project would generate.

This pittance of a mitigation is an affront and an environmental injustice for those residents of the 1350 home Springville neighborhood who will bear the brunt of these emissions. An EIR would identify the cumulative environmental impacts of this warehouse project and provide a comprehensive basis for a mitigation contribution that accurately reflects Costco's responsibility to off-set the long-term health and safety consequences of this project.

Costco can certainly afford to be a good neighbor...an EIR is the basis for an equitable partnership that prioritizes the health and safety of the community.

I urge you not to approve CPD-226M(5) and CUP-422 until a full environmental impact review is completed.

Thank-you.

Merrill Berge

City of Camarillo
Public Comments
Tuesday, February 13, 2024 09:00 PMPUBLIC COMMENTS
NOTICE
This is a public document and will be posted as part of the public record. Any attachments, pictures, and information submitted will be subject to disclosure in accordance with applicable law, including the Public Records Act.

Meeting Date Wednesday, February 14, 2024
Agency City Council
Item Type Agenda Item
Item Number or Subject M
Position Oppose
Comments I shop at Costco. I admire the high-standards of their product offerings and employee programs. I urge the City of Camarillo to hold themselves to similar high-standards in their
development review process.

Over the last two decades, a full EIR has never been done for any of the projects proposed for this 48-acre parcel. Only Mitigated Negative Declarations have reviewed various
shopping center proposals. None of these shopping center proposals included a mega gas station. None evaluated the cumulative impacts on the recently developed Springville community, identified as an adjacent sensitive receptor. The description of this Costco warehouse proposal is a substantive change from descriptions in previous MND shopping center 1 proposals, and as a result requires a full, independent EIR.

This pittance of a mitigation is an affront and an environmental injustice for those residents of the 1350 home Springville neighborhood who will bear the brunt of these emissions. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would identify the
cumulative environmental impacts of this warehouse project and provide a comprehensive basis for a mitigation contribution that accurately reflects Costco's responsibility to off-set the long-term health and safety consequences of this project.

Costco can certainly afford to be a good neighbor...an EIR is the basis for an equitable partnership that prioritizes the health and safety of the community.

Upload Additional Information

IDENTIFICATION
Name Merrill Berge
Address 11 Natalie Way8052086058
Camarillo, CA, 93010
Telephone (805) 208-6058
Email [email protected]
Public Records AcknowledgementBy checking this box, I acknowledge that I understand anything I submit will become part of the public record and be subject to disclosure in accordance with applicable law, including the Public Records Act.
2 City of Camarillo
Public Comments
Tuesday, February 13, 2024 05:30 PMPUBLIC COMMENTS
NOTICE
This is a public document and will be posted as part of the public record. Any attachments, pictures, and information submitted will be subject to disclosure in accordance with applicable law, including the Public Records Act.

Meeting Date Wednesday, February 14, 2024
Agency City Council
Item Type Agenda Item
Item Number or Subject Costco development and gas station Position Support
Comments I fully support the construction of a Camarillo Costco, including the gas station.

Upload Additional Information

IDENTIFICATION
Name Adrienne Denny
Address 303 Nueve Court
Camarillo, CA, 93012
Telephone
Email [email protected]
Public Records AcknowledgementBy checking this box, I acknowledge that I understand anything I submit will become part of the public record and be subject to disclosure in accordance with applicable law, including the Public Records Act.

City of Camarillo
Public Comments
Tuesday, February 13, 2024 06:50 PMPUBLIC COMMENTS
NOTICE
This is a public document and will be posted as part of the public record. Any attachments, pictures, and information submitted will be subject to disclosure in accordance with applicable law, including the Public Records Act.

Meeting Date Wednesday, February 14, 2024
Agency City Council
Item Type Agenda Item
Item Number or Subject M. Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision to Approve CPD-226M(5) and CUP-422
and its Adoption Approving Second Subsequent MND 2023-4 for the Construction of a Costco Wholesale with Off-Sales of Alcoholic Beverages and Free-Standing Fuel Facility, Located South of U.S. 101, North of West Ventura Boulevard,
Approximately 980 Feet East of Springville Drive
Position Oppose
Comments The failure of the unelected planning commission to thoroughly evaluate the proposed community and environmental impacts of the proposed Costco needs to be reviewed and remedied by the elected City Council.

To start, I am not against a new Costco development in
Camarillo.

However, the impacts of such a development need to be fully addressed, both as applies to statute and as applies to community engagement. For months, the Planning Department and its staff has run interference on behalf of the developer, hiding documents and development plans from city residents, the core constituency the City is obliged to serve. They have made it difficult or impossible to thoroughly review planning submittals, have been vague and obfuscated access to meeting agendas and public information used to make their case to 1 oppose a revise EIR for this project. They have failed to critically evaluate claims made by the developer about the impacts of the proposed development. They have refused to allow community members to even navigate submitted documents independently at the counter, instead requiring a perverse game of having a planning staff member scroll and navigate plans and
documents on the verbal direction of the community member requesting the review. This itself is a horrendously poor use of city resources and only serves to demonstrate that Planning cannot behave with impartiality. They have conducted a
masterclass in poor governance.

To apply the findings of an old EIR (10 years old, I believe) for the previous Amara development appears to intentionally misunderstand the differences in community-wide impacts from the 2 developments. Costco warehouses drive large
volumes of traffic throughout all of their open hours. The addition of 32 gas pumps only serves to extend the impacts beyond warehouse hours. Upon a review of the developer's plans at an overly limited counter session, the developer makes no effort to mitigate this impact.

Since the opening of the Springville Road interchange, traffic (and the attendant noise, pollution, and safety issues) has steadily grown along West Ponderosa Rd and Earl Joseph Dr.

With the further development of the Springville neighborhood, this has only intensified, though a reasonable offset by the addition of much-needed housing inventory in the city. Currently, the increase in traffic through this corridor is almost exclusively local, whether residents or to serve businesses with employees coming from further west in the county. Dangerous speeding, insufficient traffic controls, and noise and light pollution have increased, placing the neighborhood community at greater risk.

The abject failure of Planning to fully study the effects of the proposed Costco would not only exacerbate this problem, but are more akin to pouring fuel on a fire.

The constituents of Camarillo, whom the City Council is obligated to serve, are owed a full, public review of the proposed development. An open dialogue with residents,
initiated by the City and other community organizations, is needed. The hidebound, un-democratic behavior of the Planning Department needs to stop. Community trust needs to be
earned. If the developer, Costco, and the City really want this project to proceed, these are not hurdles to overcome; these are signs of good governance and neighborly concern that
Camarillo residents deserve.

Upload Additional Information

IDENTIFICATION
Name Taylor Woods
2 Address 134 Green Vale Dr
Camarillo, CA, 93010
Telephone
Email
Public Records AcknowledgementBy checking this box, I acknowledge that I understand anything I submit will become part of the public record and be subject to disclosure in accordance with applicable law, including the Public Records Act.
3 City of Camarillo
Public Comments
Monday, February 12, 2024 08:59 PMPUBLIC COMMENTS
NOTICE
This is a public document and will be posted as part of the public record. Any attachments, pictures, and information submitted will be subject to disclosure in accordance with applicable law, including the Public Records Act.

Meeting Date Wednesday, February 14, 2024
Agency City Council
Item Type Agenda Item
Item Number or Subject M
Position Oppose
Comments
Upload Additional Information
PDF Agenda Item M_CFROG_021… .pdf

IDENTIFICATION
Name Haley Ehlers
Address
Telephone
Email [email protected]
Public Records AcknowledgementBy checking this box, I acknowledge that I understand anything I submit will become part of the public record and be subject to disclosure in accordance with applicable law, including the Public Records Act.

Page1of2
February12,2024
CamarilloCityCouncilSubmittedviaonlinepubliccommentform Re:AgendaItemM
DearCouncilmembers,
ClimateFirst:ReplacingOil&Gas(CFROG)isagrassrootsenvironmentalnonprofitdedicatedtocombatingtheclimatecrisisbyworkingtoshapethetransitionawayfromfossilfuelstoacarbon-freeeconomyinVenturaCounty.Weadvocatefortransparentandpublicenvironmentaldecision-makingprocessesthatappropriatelyconsiderpublichealthandtheclimatecrisis. CFROGstronglyurgestheCityofCamarillotonotapproveCPD-226M(5)andCUP-422permitsuntil afull environmental impactreviewiscompleted.

Since1970,theCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA)hasrequireddeveloperstoidentifyandmitigatetheenvironmental,climate,andpublichealthimpactsofproposedprojects.CEQAhelpstoempowerlocalcommunities–mostnotablydisadvantagedcommunitiesandcommunitiesofcolor–bygivingresidentsavoiceinlandusedecisions,fromoilwellstowarehousestofreeways.CEQAiscentraltoadvancingstateandlocalgoalsofenvironmentalandclimatejustice.Toensureequitable,forward-thinking,andprogressivelandusedecisionsarebeingmade,CEQAmustbeenforcedappropriately.

Theuseofamitigatednegativedeclaration(MND)forthenewdevelopmentofaverylargewarehousestore,32pumpgasstation,acresofparkinglot,andassociatedcartrafficandpollutioniswoefullyinadequatetoassesstheenvironmentalimpacts.Theproposedplantooffsetpollutionimpactswithaone-timepaymentoflessthan$250,000toamitigationfunddoesnothingtomitigatethedirectpollutionresidentsofCamarillowillexperience.Withoutafullenvironmentalreview,wedon’tevenknowtheamountofdirectpollution.Thismulti-billiondollarcompanyshouldnotbeallowedtopolluteanunidentifiedamountbypayingafeelessthanhalfthemediansalepriceofahouseinCamarillo.

OtherCaliforniacitieshaverecognizedthedamagingenvironmentalandeconomicimpactsofgasstations–withfivecitiesbanningnewgasstations,andLosAngelesandSacramentocurrentlyconsideringsimilarbans.

POBox23003
● Ventura, CA93002
● (805)263-7408
● [email protected]
● www.cfrog.org

Page2of2
Thankyouforprioritizingforward-thinkingandgooddecision-makingprocesses. CFROGstronglyurgestheCityofCamarillotonotapproveCPD-226M(5)andCUP-422permitspermituntil afullenvironmental impactreviewiscompleted.

Withurgency,
HaleyEhlers,ExecutiveDirector

City of Camarillo
Public Comments
Tuesday, February 13, 2024 07:44 PMPUBLIC COMMENTS
NOTICE
This is a public document and will be posted as part of the public record. Any attachments, pictures, and information submitted will be subject to disclosure in accordance with applicable law, including the Public Records Act.

Meeting Date Wednesday, February 14, 2024
Agency City Council
Item Type Agenda Item
Item Number or Subject M. Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision to Approve CPD-226M(5) and CUP-422
and its Adoption Approving Second Subsequent MND 2023-4 for the Construction of a Costco Wholesale with Off-Sales of Alcoholic Beverages and Free-Standing Fuel Facility, Located South of U.S. 101, North of West Ventura Boulevard,
Approximately 980 Feet East of Springville Drive
Position Oppose
Comments It seems like the VMT values were compared against the 2016 project, when VMT was not tracked, as opposed to being
evaluated on its own merits. Which I presume is legally allowed, but does feel like it is trying to bypass the point of making VMT the primary metric of analyzing the traffic impact of a project.

Upload Additional Information

IDENTIFICATION
Name Nash Dingman
Address Rockhampton Drive
Camarillo, ca, 93012
1 Telephone
Email [email protected]
Public Records AcknowledgementBy checking this box, I acknowledge that I understand anything I submit will become part of the public record and be subject to disclosure in accordance with applicable law, including the Public Records Act.
2 City of Camarillo
Public Comments
Wednesday, February 14, 2024 12:43 PMPUBLIC COMMENTS
NOTICE
This is a public document and will be posted as part of the public record. Any attachments, pictures, and information submitted will be subject to disclosure in accordance with applicable law, including the Public Records Act.

Meeting Date Wednesday, February 14, 2024
Agency City Council
Item Type Agenda Item
Item Number or Subject M - Costco
Position Oppose
Comments It is irresponsible to not have a new Environmental Impact Report be conducted! The City of Camarillo should consider alternative plans that will have less of a negative impact on our community.

We already five gas stations within two miles or less of the proposed station. Why do we need a 30-pump gas station? What happens to our small stations when they close down because they can’t compete with Costco? They will become vacant eyesore's.

It is bad enough the City of Camarillo is approving a Costco to be built. Our small businesses and others will go out of business because they can not compete with Costco. It is the City's greed for additional tax revenue! Imagine the traffic when neighboring cities such as Oxnard will shop at the Camarillo store because our city tax is less than theirs. Imagine our local businesses gone! Vacant stores and eyesores. We are turning our backs on them.

I doubt that my opinion counts because the City of Camarillo and our Planning Commission is hell bent on fast tracking the building of Costco and it's gas stations.
1 Upload Additional Information

IDENTIFICATION
Name Maureen Sterling
Address 1533 Sausalito Drive
Camarillo, CA, 93010
Telephone (805) 233-2169
Email [email protected]
Public Records AcknowledgementBy checking this box, I acknowledge that I understand anything I submit will become part of the public record and be subject to disclosure in accordance with applicable law, including the Public Records Act.
2

Camarillo City CouncilFebruary 14, 2024

Camarillo City Council
February 14, 2024