All right, the time is 301.

We're going to go ahead and call the SCPHCP coordinating committee meeting to order.

If we can start with a roll call vote for attendance.

Committee member Nino.

Committee member Garcia.

Present.

Committee member Whiton.

Present.

Committee member McGlamory.

Committee member Simper.

Present.

Chair Sparrow.

Present.

A quorum is present.

All right, thank you.

I believe we have some public comment.

If we can go ahead and call those folks in the order they were signed in, we'll do three minutes apiece.

Stewart followed by Philip Manna.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Stuart Bernbaum.

I live at 9879 Cache Mountain Road in Helotus.

Thanks for this opportunity to speak to you.

I get golden cheek wobblers at my house.

I'm about three and a half miles from the property under discussion in item two.

I walk my dog at Madel Park, which is maybe about two and a half miles.

And with my Merlin app, I record the presence of Golden Cheeks.

One of my concerns, since the committee is habitat conservation, is that habitat is being taken unnecessarily for wrong reasons.

I am concerned at the last.

One of my main drivers as a participant in many community transportation sector, including the North Sector Plan, regional plans, etc., is ensuring community engagement and their perspectives.

I have a problem with the overall premise of how developers treat the tree and conservation planning that appear contrary to the DSD mission statement.

So while it is development services name is for helping development, you know, it also includes other mission components.

And one of course is partnership, collaborating with homeowners, contractors, and neighborhood groups to build a better city.

Another one is responsible growth, guiding development through land use and zoning decisions to shape the future of the city.

When I look at this type of development going on with the with how they're treating really the conservation component, I don't think this is in favor of the future of the city, and it's not building a better one.

So thank you.

Randy Newman, followed by Susie Dickerson.

Thank you.

Members of the coordinating committee, my name is Randy Newman.

I live at 1990 Blue Hill Pass near Grey Forest.

On May 12th, I submitted 10 categories of questions regarding the Wahlodi Ranch mitigation plan to this committee.

I delivered them by email and in person.

Because no written response has been provided, I'm formally asking that the administrative record contain answers to those questions before any vote is taken on this matter.

I'm here today to summarize several issues that, based on publicly available information, may render both the phase one and phase two mitigation plan applications procedurally invalid under the SCP HCP and the Federal Incidental Take Permit TE 20440-0.

Number one, Bear County Appraisal District and Real Property Records identify Wahaloody Ranch Inc., not Lenar Homes of Texas as the legal owner of the Wahalote property.

The same is true for the Edwards property, which remains owned by Sydney and Marcy Edwards.

Under Chapter 6 of the SCP HCP, applicants must provide all information necessary to evaluate take and mitigation, and that necessarily includes proof of legal authority to apply.

Standard administrative law requires that only the property owner or the legally authorized agent may apply for a permit affecting real property.

If LENAR submitted phase one or phase two without written authorization from the owners, then the application is procedurally defective.

Any approvals issued may be voidable and any clearing under phase one may have occurred without valid incidental take coverage.

This is a potentially foundational defect that warrants clarification.

Number two, the applicant or its agents represented that no caves or carst features existed on the Wahlody Edwards properties.

That representation appears inconsistent with sworn testimony in the State Office of Administrative Hearings contested case, bear grotto mapping showing an explored cave at the center of the Wahalote property, and at least 11 more nearby caves, including one within 750 feet of the Edwards property.

USGS mapping shows caves and karst features along the creek on the property, and observed bat displacement immediately after clearing is anecdotal evidence.

Under Chapter 4 of the SCP HCP, carst features must be identified and evaluated.

If caves or karst features existed and the evidence suggests that they do, then the environmental baseline used to approve phase one may have been incomplete or incorrect.

A mitigation plan based on an inaccurate baseline cannot satisfy SCP-HCP or ITP requirements.

Number three, the applicant submitted golden cheek warbler surveys.

Under Chapter 6 of the SCP-HCP, if an applicant submits surveys, those surveys must meet U.S.

fish and wildlife service protocols.

This requirement is mandatory, it's not discretionary.

Once surveys are submitted, the committee is legally required to consider them, and the application is no longer treated as a no-survey application.

Submissions of surveys changes the application category and triggers mandatory USFWS protocol compliance.

The surveys submitted do not meet those protocols.

A September survey is invalid, a single March survey is insufficient.

U.S.

fish and wildlife protocols require five surveys between March 15th and June 1 of the same calendar year.

Now under the SCPHCP, invalid surveys require the committee to apply the higher presence assumption, and that's great.

But because the surveys fail protocol, their submission constitutes a procedural defect.

A mitigation plan containing invalid surveys may not be approved as submitted.

This is a structural requirement of the SCP-HCP, not an interpretive one.

Number four.

If phase one was approved based on an applicant lacking documented authorization, an incomplete or inaccurate environmental baseline or invalid surveys, then phase one may not have conferred lawful incidental take coverage.

The SCPHCP's federal ITP requires the committee to ensure that unauthorized take does not occur.

If caves or karst features were present and were damaged or destroyed during clearing, but could constitute unauthorized take under the Endangered Species Act.

These are questions that require investigation, not conclusions.

And number five, if phase one is invalid or incomplete, phase two cannot rely on that same baseline.

Phase two cannot rely on LENAR's standing, and phase two cannot proceed until phase one is corrected.

This is straightforward procedural requirement.

In closing, let me speak plainly but respectfully.

You saw Bear County oppose the PID on the Wahalote Ranch.

You saw the San Antonio City Council unanimously oppose the 160 million dollar MUD 11 to zero.

You understand the direction of public concern.

You understand that scientists believe this development may affect the water quality of two and a half million residents across eight counties, including perhaps yourselves.

We're only asking that you follow the SEPHCP's own rules.

You're now aware of significant issues that warrant pause and require additional scrutiny of this application and of the prior one.

Please take advantage of the opportunity to do so.

If these defects are not investigated and corrected, it may become necessary to elevate the matter to the appropriate state and federal authorities responsible for administering the ESA and the SCP HCP's federal ITP.

I hope that will not be necessary.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Next is Diana Duncan, followed by Kate Fest.

Hello, I'm Diana.

I live at 21218 Babcock Road, San Antonio.

I'm here to request.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you for giving me a chance to speak to you about this.

I'm here to request that this incidental take plan be denied.

It is not intended to be a mechanism when the scientific basis for mitigation is in question.

Under the Endangered Species Act, incidental take permits may only be granted when impacts are accurately assessed and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.

And like my colleague Randy Newman said, there are many reasons to question that addition that first take permit.

It is my belief that the biological surveys were incomplete, biased, and in effect they have failed to meet federal standards.

The Wahalote Ranch property lies within a highly sensitive watershed, which provides drinking water for 2.5 million people.

The CARS geology allows water and contaminants to move rapidly from the surface into groundwater, making the protection of recharge and contributing zones critical to public health.

Once mature wildlife habitat is destroyed and the aquifer is effectively recharged with the Wahalote Ranch wastewater, it will be too late.

For these this reason, the incidental take plan is neither minimized nor mitigated.

This undermines both the endangered species act and the integrity of the SEPHCP itself.

There are some incidental losses that cannot be mitigated away.

Thank you.

Next is Kate Fess, followed by Amy McIntyre.

And he's going to be donating her time to me.

Thank you.

Members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to speak today.

My name is Catherine Feist, and I live at 18419 Sherwood Trail in the city of Great Forest.

I'd like to bring to your attention an issue that is becoming increasingly apparent across the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone, and that directly relates to the conservation objectives of the SEPHCP.

The issue is habitat fragmentation through incremental land clearing and the consequences this practices has on the golden cheek warbler and other sensitive species.

When people think about habitat destruction, they often picture a single dramatic event, a tract of woodland cleared in preparation for development.

In practice, however, habitat degradation frequently occurs over time and in smaller increments.

Land may be cleared in stages, not necessarily to begin immediate construction, but in ways that progressively reduce the ecological value of the site.

For the golden cheek warbler, this distinction distinction matters.

The species relies on large connected tracts of mature ash juniper and oak woodland.

Scientific research has consistently shown that fragmentation and fragment fragmented habitat becomes less suitable for nesting and breeding.

As woodland patches become isolated, edge effects increase, nesting success declines, and warblers often abandon areas they once occupied.

A habitat does not need to be completely removed to become unusable.

It simply needs to be divided and degraded.

The cumulative effect of phase clearing of phased clearing can be significant.

When portions of a property are altered over a period of years, the overall habitat quality may steadily decline.

By the time biological surveys occur, species that once occupied the area may no longer be present.

Not because suitable habitat never existed, but because it was gradually diminished and before and diminished before formal review took place.

This has implications beyond a single species.

It weakens the conservation framework established under the Endangered Species Act, challenges the effectiveness, the effectiveness of the SEPHCP, and raises concerns about transparency and accountability in the development process.

It also affects the health of the Edwards Aquifer itself.

The mature woodlands that support the golden cheek warbler provide important environmental benefits, including stabilizing soils, reducing erosion, moderating runoff, and helping protect water quality.

Habitat fragmentation therefore has consequences not only for wildlife, but also for the natural systems that sustain our region's water resources.

I want to emphasize that this is not an argument against responsible growth.

Development and conservation can coexist when environmental safeguards are respected.

The concerns arise when land clearing practices effectively diminish habitat before it can be properly evaluated.

In these situations, both conservation goals and public confidence in the process are compromised.

I encourage the committee to recognize incremental clearing and habitat fragmentation as challenges that deserve greater attention.

I also encourage consideration of policy measures such as pre-clearing, biological assessments, seasonal restrictions, enhanced monitoring, or coordination with local jurisdictions that ensure habitat conditions are assessed before they are altered.

Thank you for your service, your commitment to protecting the Edwards Aquifer and your efforts to conserve the species that depends on this unique landscape.

Thank you.

That's all that's signed up.

Alright, thank you very much.

With public comment concluded, we're going to move on to our first agenda item, will be to the property all spoke on in just a second, but first a little bit of housekeeping here on the committee.

Item number one is the election of the vice chair of the SCP HCP coordinate HCP committee nominations are now open.

So at this point in time, if there's any members of the committee that would like to make a motion to nominate a member to that vice chair position, we'll entertain that.

I nominate Ken McLamley.

Any seconds?

I'll second that.

Okay, can we do a roll call vote?

Committee member Garcia.

Yes.

Committee member Simper?

Yes.

Committee member Whiton?

Yes.

Chair Sparrow.

Yes.

Motion passes.

All right, thank you.

And we'll move on to agenda item number two.

Good afternoon.

Valerie Rodriguez, senior planner with the policy administration team.

Item number two is discussion and possible action on SCP HCP for Lenar Homes of Texas Incorporated.

This project is located off of Scenic Loop Road and outside of City San Antonio City limits within Western Bear County.

Lenar Homes of Texas wishes to enroll in the SCP HCP to mitigate impacts to the SCP HCP covered species for development activities.

The project area includes 13.98 acres of golden cheek warbler habitat within the project area and 95.74 acres of GCW habitat within 300 feet of the project area.

The project area will require a total of 69 GCW conservation credits and is located over CARS Zone 3A and CARS Zone 4B.

A total of 4.78 acres occurs within CARS Zone 3A and a total of 11.21 acres occurs within CARS Zone 4B.

The project area is not located within any critical habitat units nor is it within 750 feet of an occupied feature.

Participation in the SCP HCP for this application will require the following GCW conservation credit fees of 552,000, CARSON 3 and 4 participation fee of $4,780, and a plan administration fee of $55,678.

The applicant has paid the $2,500 application fee, and the applicant will be required to pay the full mitigation fee of $612,458 prior to completing enrollment in the plan.

Staff does recommend approval and our biologist is here for questions, and we also have the applicant here to do a presentation on the project.

Okay, thank you.

We can have the applicant come up for that presentation.

I would also like to thank Logan Sparrow and Jenny Blair for providing clarification regarding the SCP HCP process and requirements that helped address questions that were raised by both committee members and the public.

We appreciate the opportunity to be here today to answer any additional questions and to provide information regarding these enrollment requests.

Next slide.

Today I would like to provide a brief overview of the project and application.

City staff has reviewed the application and determined that it is eligible for enrollment under the SCP HCP.

The biological information has been accepted.

Mitigation requirements have been established, and the required credits are available.

Our request today is approval of the enrollment application.

I would like to briefly recap several key points that were shared with the committee members during the May 12th public hearing.

During the hearing, questions were raised about whether the SCP HCP would benefit from additional federal oversight.

Jennifer Blair, the registered biologist and consultant responsible for the SCP-HCP, explained that the program and the went underwent a 10-year approval process and is already subject to extensive federal review.

This oversight includes annual reporting, expert-led application evaluations, and ongoing coordination with the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service.

Ms.

Blair also mentioned that SCP-8CP does not require presence absence surveys for project enrollment because mitigation requirements are based on habitat suitability rather than documented species observations.

However, she noted that in this particular case, the applicant voluntarily provided survey data confirming the presence of the golden cheek warbler on the property, addressing concerns that the developer had claimed no suitable habitat existed on site.

Finally, in response to questions regarding the accuracy of the mitigation calculations and mapping, Ms.

Blair stated that she had personally reviewed application materials and verified the accuracy of both the mitigation determination and the supporting documents.

Now that everybody's up to speed, I'll dive into the enrollment details.

Next slide, please.

This slide shows the current SCP-ATP enrollment areas within the Guajalote Range Development.

Two previous enrollment applications shown in red and green were approved by this committee, and the participation certificates were issued earlier this year.

The first enrollment area is shown in red and it's for 25.7 acres.

It represents a mile-long collector road that provides access for the project.

The second approved enrollment area is shown in green.

It was for 250.1 acres and represents the first phase of residential development.

The application before you today is shown in purple and it's for 16 acres.

The purpose of today's request is to enroll this area under the SCP-ATP so the planned improvements can move forward in compliance with the program requirements.

Now I would like to do a quick project overview since a few committee members were not familiar with the project during the previous meeting.

Guajalate Range is an approved master plan community consisting of approximately 1,160 acres.

The master development plan was approved in 2023 for 3,000 homes.

The development is occurring in phases, and the project has obtained the approvals needed to start construction, including the Master Tree Plan, TCQ contributing zone plan, and Bear County stormwater quality permits.

During the previous committee meeting, there were few questions regarding purvice cover, stormwater management, and open space within the overall development.

While those issues are outside of the scope of today's enrollment request, I would like to note that the project has been reviewed and approved through the applicable city, county, SAOS, and TCQ processes and is being developed in compliance with all approved plans, permits, and code requirements.

Next slide, please.

This slide shows the enrollment areas in relation to the overall development.

The project is required to maintain approximately 580 acres of open space, which represents about 50% of the property under the SAS utility service agreement requirements.

Again, here you can see the two first enrollment areas that were approved in red and green, and the one that were pursuing approval today in purple.

The enrollment area before you today covers approximately 16 acres.

The proposed improvements within this area include an amenity center, recreational facilities such as a pool, gym, trails, sports courts, and associated open space areas, as well as a overhead electric line along the project perimeter so power can be provided to the development.

Next slide.

In summary, staff has determined that this application meets the requirements for enrollment under the SCP-HCP.

Therefore, we respectfully request approval of this application.

At this time, I'll be happy to answer any questions.

We also have our biologists here, Valerie Collins and Lenora Holmes representatives.

Thank you for your time.

Okay, thank you very much.

Uh we'll start off with any commissioner comments to my left.

I should say comments or questions.

I don't have any.

I don't have any either.

To my right.

I have none, Chair.

I have a couple questions if I can for the SCP biologist, Ms.

Blair.

Good afternoon.

There was uh thank you.

Good afternoon.

There was some testimony given about I guess calling into question the surveys that were submitted, the presence of caves.

Can you just give the committee a rundown of your review of this application and if everything submitted was acceptable and appropriate?

Absolutely.

So everything that was submitted for this application and the prior two applications was actually beyond what we require for an application to get approved.

As their representative just stated, they provided uh presence absence surveys, and in the case of this application and the prior two applications, by submitting those surveys demonstrating occupancy of the bird, actually more habitat was mitigated for than would have otherwise just been identified based on the models and information that we had on suitable habitat presence there.

In addition to with respect to the caves and Karsk, they had full U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service presence absence surveys performed across the entire property.

No caves or features were uh present or known to occur, and that's both as well as within our own database that we check against uh from Fish and Wildlife Service that's provided uh within any of the proposed enrollment areas, and there were no occupied caves that occurred within 750 feet of the proposed enrollment areas.

Another point was brought up questioning the legitimacy of the application itself and potentially lacking the property owners' signatures.

When you I believe two names were mentioned, did the application include the signatures from the property owners?

As to my knowledge, yes, and the final um agreements both for the that were recorded uh were signed by the current uh property owners.

Those uh they were pre they and their representatives were also present on our required um pre-participation certificate or pre-participation agreement briefing uh meeting that we have with every applicant as well.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh I think that's all of my questions, so at this time I'll open it up for a motion.

Motion to approve.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

We'll take a roll call vote.

Committee member Garcia.

Yes.

Committee member Whitten?

Yes.

Committee member simper?

Yes.

Chair Sparrow.

Yes.

Motion passes.

Okay, we're gonna move on to agenda item number three, which is approval of the minutes from the May 12th meeting.

Did any member of the committee have corrections to the minutes?

And if not, we'll do a motion.

I'll make a motion to approve.

Second.

I'll second.

Okay, and a roll call vote as well, please.

Committee member simper?

Yes.

Committee member Witten?

Yes.

Committee member Garcia?

Yes.

Chair Sparrow.

Yes.

Motion passes.

All right, the time is 3 32, and that concludes the SCP meeting.

Thank you.