HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-09-15; City Council; 19964 Part 2; Part 2 - Desalination Project Changes - EIR 03-05A |DA 05-01A|HMP 05-08A|PDP 00-02B|RP 05-12A|SP 144J|EXHIBIT 9
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No.
P.C. AGENDA OF: August 19, 2009
Application complete date: July 30, 2009
Project Planner: Scott Donnell
Project Engineer: Jeremy Riddle
SUBJECT: EIR 03-05fAVPDP 00-02(BVSP 144(JVDA 05-OKAVRP 05-12(AVHMP 05-
08(A) - DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES - Request for
recommendation of approval of an addendum to Environmental Impact Report
EIR 03-05 and approval of amendments to the Precise Development Plan, Encina
Specific Plan, Development Agreement, Redevelopment Permit and the Habitat
Management Plan Permit. The Carlsbad City Council and Housing and
Redevelopment Commission certified EIR 03-05 and approved these various
applications and permits in 2006 to (1) establish a Precise Development Plan for
the Encina Power Station (EPS), (2) approve a 50 million gallon a day Carlsbad
Seawater Desalination Plant at the EPS, and (3) approve a network of desalinated
water delivery pipelines in Carlsbad, Oceanside, and Vista. The amendments
proposed would reconfigure the approved desalination plant site, modify plant
building and structure sizes and locations, consolidate plant uses, and
underground related plant facilities, all on the EPS property. The proposed
changes would also modify the delivery pipeline network, located off of the EPS
property, by (1) identifying the general locations of flow control facilities, (2)
making minor adjustments to the alignment, and (3) adding new pipelines south
of Palomar Airport Road in Melrose Drive and east of Melrose Drive into San
Marcos primarily via streets in Carlsbad, San Marcos and Vista. The approved
and proposed pipelines would connect to existing water facilities and would be
located in street rights of way and already developed and disturbed properties.
Portions of the development are located in the Coastal Zone. The Addendum to
EIR 03-05 would analyze all changes proposed. An addendum is appropriate for
minor, post-approval changes that do not warrant preparation of a supplemental or
subsequent EIR.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission 1) ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 6631,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of an Addendum to Environmental Impact Report EIR 03-
05, as contained in application EIR 03-05(A); and 2) ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions
No. 6632, 6633, 6634, 6635, and 6636 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of Precise
Development Plan Amendment PDF 00-02(B), Specific Plan Amendment SP 144(J),
Development Agreement Amendment DA 05-01 (A), Redevelopment Permit Amendment RP 05-
12(A), and Habitat Management Plan Permit Amendment HMP 05-08(A) based on the findings
and subject to the conditions contained therein.
EIR 03-05(A)/PDP 00-02(B)/SP 144(J)/DA 05-01(A)/RP 05-12(A)/HMP 05-08(A) -
DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES
August 19, 2009
Page 2
II. INTRODUCTION
In 2000, Cabrillo Power I LLC submitted a Precise Development Plan (POP 00-02) for the
Encina Power Station (EPS). The PDF documents existing uses at the EPS and establishes basic
land use standards and is somewhat similar to a specific plan. While still in draft form, the POP
was amended in 2002 through a joint application by Cabrillo Power I LLC ("Cabrillo") and
Poseidon Resources (Channelside) LLC ("Poseidon") to propose the Carlsbad Seawater
Desalination Plant within the boundaries of the EPS. The plant would be located in place of an
oil storage tank over 800 feet east of Carlsbad Boulevard.
Four years later, in June 2006, the City certified an environmental impact report (EIR) and
approved a series of permits to allow Poseidon to develop the 50 million gallon per day (MOD)
desalination facility. Since, the applicant has sought and obtained approvals and permits from
other agencies and has secured purchasers for all desalinated water to be produced. As the
project has entered its engineering and construction design phase, the applicant has requested
modifications to the desalination project, through the several amendments noted above. The
proposed project changes at the EPS would consolidate uses, better utilize the desalination plant
site, and obtain efficiencies in project construction and plant operations. .Because of the
consolidation of uses and other enhancements, staff believes the proposal represents an overall
improvement to the approved project and a benefit to any future redevelopment of the EPS.
As proposed, the approved locations of plant buildings and processing areas would be revised; in
some cases, facilities, such as the pretreatment area, would be expanded and reconfigured, along
with the undergrounding and realigning of intake and discharge pipelines. Also proposed is an
increase of the plant site acreage from 3.2 to 5.7 acres, due to the reconfiguration of the site, and
consolidation of uses into one area that were previously spread throughout the EPS in the
original approval. Despite the consolidation of uses and increase in plant site acreage, the
overall footprint of the project remains substantially the same. A comparison of the originally
approved project and proposed reconfiguration is shown as Attachment 8 to the staff report.
Proposed changes would also affect the network of pipelines planned to deliver desalinated water
to Carlsbad and surrounding communities. Of the numerous alignments considered in the
certified EIR, a primary alignment has been selected for construction with the addition of new
alignments not previously considered. The approved delivery system was planned to cover 17.4
miles and the revised alignment has been reduced to 16.16 miles. These new pipeline routes
would extend east of Melrose Drive into the City of San Marcos and south of Palomar Airport
Road to Alga Road. The combination of the primary and new alignments would enable the
applicant to serve all agencies that have agreed to purchase water from the desalination plant.
When complete, Poseidon estimates the project will provide water to 300,000 people.
The recommended Planning Commission actions would recommend approval of these
amendments and recommend adoption of an addendum to the certified EIR. An addendum is
appropriate for minor, post-approval changes that do not warrant a supplemental or subsequent
EIR. An addendum needs to document project changes and demonstrate that they do not have
the potential to cause significant impacts not already considered and mitigated in the EIR. The
Addendum is an attachment to this staff report and is referenced by recommended Planning
Commission Resolution 6631.
EIR 03-05(A)/PDP 00-02(B)/SP 144(J)/DA 05-01(A)/RP 05-12(A)/HMP 05-08(A) -
DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES
August 19,2009
Page 3
As noted above, the Planning Commission actions are recommendations. All proposed
amendments and the EIR addendum proposed require final action by the City Council and the
Housing and Redevelopment Commission as portions of the project are in the South Carlsbad
Coastal Redevelopment Area.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The City of Carlsbad has consistently strived to provide its citizens with a high quality of life by
planning ahead for growth and change using growth management and economic development
strategies that apply the principles of balance, sustainability, environmental protection, self
reliance and economic vitality. Using these principles, strategic goals and a 5-year vision
statement were put in place to guide staff in the development of projects and infrastructure
necessary to meet the City Council's vision. The City Council's strategic goal on water supply
states:
Ensure, in the most cost-effective manner, -water quality and reliability to the maximum
extent practical, to deliver high quality potable water and reclaimed water incorporating
drought resistant community principles.
To achieve the City Council's water supply goals the City has pursued a diversification of its
water supply portfolio by undertaking significant water conservation efforts, maximizing the
availability and use of recycled water, and the pursuit of new potable water supplies. To this end,
the City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Commission approved the project to reduce
Carlsbad's reliance on imported water and provide residences and businesses with a drought
proof potable supply. Following Carlsbad's approval, Poseidon received permits and approvals
from the California Coastal Commission, State Lands Commission, and San Diego Regional
Water Quality Control Board. The most recent action, by the Regional Water Quality Control
Board, occurred in May 2009. The applicant does not anticipate the amendments it is currently
pursuing will require revisions to the permits and approvals received from the other agencies.
Proposed Desalination Plant Changes
Attachments 7a. and 7b. consist of the approved and proposed site plans for the desalination
plant. Enlargements of the proposed site plan are provided in attachments 20 and 22. Along with
the two attachments, the following list outlines the changes proposed by Poseidon to the
desalination plant, excluding the revisions planned to the water delivery pipelines, which are
located offsite of the EPS and described below.
• Desalination plant site reconfiguration and expansion: As approved, the plant has an
east-west orientation that would occupy a 3.2 acre oil storage tank and surrounding
containment berm. The tank, to be demolished, is the southernmost of three tanks nearest
and visible to Carlsbad Boulevard. As proposed, the desalination plant site would expand
to the south of its current location and away from Agua Hedionda Lagoon, due to the
consolidation of uses into one area that were previously spread throughout the EPS in the
original approval. The new plant site would have a north-south orientation spread over
5.7 acres and parallel with the railroad tracks.
EIR 03-05(A)/PDP 00-02(B)/SP 144(J)/DA 05-01 (A)/RP 05-12(A)/HMP 05-08(A) -
DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES
August 19, 2009
Page 4
• Modification of desalination plant equipment and building locations and sizes:
Attachment 8 provides comparative information on square footages, building heights, and
other aspects of the approved and proposed plants. Plant components, such as the
pretreatment area, reverse osmosis building ("RO building"), and chemical storage area
would relocate on the newly expanded site. Landscape areas, number of parking spaces,
and the capacity of on-site underground product water storage would increase. The
structure containing the pretreatment area and the RO building would each enlarge by
several thousand square feet. While some structures would also realize a height increase
when compared to the approved project as Attachment 8 shows, no plant component
would exceed the maximum permitted height of 35 feet.
• Consolidation of uses: The approved project features appurtenant facilities located on the
EPS grounds but away from the desalination plant site. These facilities include three
electrical transformers and a solids handling building. These facilities would be relocated
on the desalination plant site so that all uses involved in the treatment and production of
seawater are together. This contributes to the expansion and reorientation of the site.
• Relocation and underground installation of on-site pipelines and pump station: Other
appurtenant facilities at the EPS include intake and discharge pipelines and an intake
pump station to convey seawater from the power plant's seawater cooling discharge
channel to the desalination plant and vice versa. As approved, these facilities are above
ground and the pipelines connect the discharge channel to the desalination plant in a
circuitous fashion. As proposed, the pipeline route would be shortened by approximately
2,000 feet and realigned in a much more direct manner. Also, the pipelines and the pump
station would be undergrounded. The discharge pipe is also proposed to increase in
diameter from 48 inches to 72 inches, the same diameter as the intake pipe. The applicant
indicates this increase is needed to allow for full capacity testing of the desalination plant
during project start-up and following maintenance.
The proposed undergrounding of the intake pump station and intake and discharge pipeline and
consolidating of uses onto the desalination plant site serves to reduce the overall visible footprint
of the project.
No changes in the operational characteristics of the desalination plant are proposed. Further, the
proposed modifications do not amplify impacts to marine life as no increase in plant
seawater intake or discharge or change to the desalination process is proposed.
Additionally, plant capacity would also remain the same, with both the approved and proposed
plants producing approximately 50 million gallons per day (MOD) of potable water from 104
MOD of seawater with no change in capacity.
Attachment 9 describes the desalination process proposed.
Proposed Offsite Pipeline Changes
Modifications are also proposed to the extensive pipeline network offsite of the EPS. This
network would carry desalinated water into the surrounding communities by connecting to
12.
EIR 03-05(A)/PDP 00-02(B)/SP 144(J)/DA 05-01(A)/RP 05-12(A)/HMP 05-08(A) -
DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES
August 19,2009
PageS
existing water agency and municipal pipelines. Of the several alignments and sub-alignments
identified in the EIR, one primary alignment, along Cannon Road, Faraday Avenue, and Melrose
Avenue into the City of Vista, has been selected for construction.
At the west end of this alignment, upon leaving the EPS property, the pipeline is proposed to
shift slightly to the east from that shown in the EIR and into Avenida Encinas north of Cannon
Road, by the West Resort. Nearly 6.5 miles east, at the opposite end of this alignment in Melrose
Drive, additional pipelines are proposed that would extend south of Palomar Airport Road into
La Costa (requested by the City of Carlsbad) and east of Melrose Drive into San Marcos. The
slight pipeline shift and these additional pipelines were not considered in the EIR.
The approved and proposed pipeline network enables not only all of the Carlsbad Municipal
Water District service area (approximately 80% of the City) to receive desalinated water, but
also eight other agencies in San Diego County as well. These other agencies would be primarily
served through the proposed pipeline that would extend into San Marcos to connect to the San
Diego County Water Authority's Second Aqueduct.
In addition to alignment modifications, diameters of some pipes would change. The main
transmission line for desalinated water, extending from the desalination plant in Carlsbad to the
Water Authority's Second Aqueduct over eleven miles away, would have a diameter of 54
inches. The largest diameter pipe considered in the EIR was 48 inches. The applicant indicates
the increase is preferable as it results in a reduction of head loss and energy requirements. A 30
inch diameter pipeline analyzed in the EIR to connect to a Carlsbad Municipal Water District
transmission main in Palomar Airport Road would enlarge to 36 inches. This increase in
diameter is due to changes in flow apportionment between delivery points within the desalinated
water delivery system. Finally, the previously studied primary alignment that extends into the
City of Vista from Carlsbad would realize a pipe diameter decrease from 42 inches to 36 inches.
The size of this section of the pipeline has been reduced because part of the flow within this
segment of pipe has being redirected east to the San Marcos Alignment.
Attachment 10 is a map showing all pipeline alignments studied in the EIR, the primary
alignment studied in the EIR and selected for construction, and the additional alignments
proposed that are considered in the Addendum to the EIR. Attachment 11 is a text description of
the selected and proposed additional alignments. The originally approved pipeline alignment
covered 17.4 miles, while the revised alignment has been reduced to 16.16 miles.
Permitting of Proposed Changes
Changes to the desalination plant and onsite appurtenant facilities would be permitted through
the proposed amendments to the Precise Development Plan (PDF) and Redevelopment Permit.
The POP regulates land use and development for the entire EPS and the EPS is located within a
redevelopment area. Furthermore, any amendment proposed to the PDF also triggers an
amendment to the Encina Specific Plan, SP 144. The amendments proposed would not change
any standards or requirements of the PDF or the Specific Plan. Changes to the PDF and Specific
Plan would consist of updated text and graphics to recognize the proposed changes.
EIR 03-05(A)/PDP 00-02(B)/SP 144(J)/DA 05-01 (A)/RP 05-12(A)/HMP 05-08(A) -
DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES
August 19, 2009
Page 6
The amendment to the Habitat Management Plan Permit, which was required for potential
impacts to sensitive habitat by pipelines within and outside the EPS, is merely requested to
recognize the change in project plans. Proposed project changes, including new pipeline
alignments, do not impact any additional habitat or require additional mitigation.
When the desalination project was originally approved, the City issued a Special Use Permit
(floodplain) and Coastal Development Permit (outside the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan, which
is explained below) for portions of the pipeline network. These permits do not need amendment
as they are not affected by any of the changes proposed. Otherwise, no permits were required for
the pipeline network. The applicant may be required, however, to obtain permits for pipelines
that would extend into other cities.
Attachment 12 is a map showing the Agua Hedionda Lagoon area and the boundaries of the
South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Plan, Encina Specific Plan, Precise Development Plan,
Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan (AHLUP) and the Coastal Zone. The AHLUP is a segment of the
City's Local Coastal Program in which the Coastal Commission has retained permit authority.
The AHLUP encompasses the EPS and Encina Specific Plan.
In addition to physical changes to the plant and pipelines, the applicant and the City have also
proposed revisions to the approved Development Agreement to reflect the amendments to the
PDF, revised alignments for product water pipelines, and to provide additional detail on how the
applicant will access City right-of-way during pipeline construction.
All requested actions are subject to environmental review, and the recommended Addendum to
EIR 03-05 documents the proposed project changes and finds they are consistent with the
analysis and mitigation contained in the EIR.
Subsequent Coastal Commission Action and Construction Schedule
Since the City lacks coastal permit authority inside the AHLUP, a Coastal Development Permit
from the California Coastal Commission was required for the desalination plant, appurtenant
facilities, and portions of pipelines within the AHLUP. The Coastal Commission has approved
the Coastal Development Permit.
Poseidon believes the proposed project changes will not warrant an amendment to the Coastal
Development Permit due to the nature of the changes.
The Carlsbad Energy Center Project
In September 2007, Carlsbad Energy Center LLC made application to the California Energy
Commission to construct a 558 megawatt combined cycle power plant at the EPS. The Carlsbad
Energy Center Project or "CECP" would be constructed east of the desalination plant, on a 23-
acre site currently occupied by large oil storage tanks and between the railroad tracks and
Interstate 5. The California Energy Commission, not the City of Carlsbad, has the authority over
power plants of 50 megawatts or greater. It is anticipated the Energy Commission may decide on
the proposed CECP in 2010. However, the two projects do not conflict with one another.
EIR 03-05(A)/PDP 00-02(B)/SP 144(J)/DA 05-01(A)/RP 05-12(A)/HMP 05-08(A) -
DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES
August 19,2009
Page 7
In addition to its filing with the California Energy Commission, the CECP applicant also filed
amendments to the Precise Development Plan (POP 00-02(A)) and Encina Specific Plan (SP
144(1)). These applications remain open though decisions on them have yet to be made.
IV. ANALYSIS
The project is subject to the following regulations and requirements:
A. General Plan;
B. Encina Specific Plan (Specific Plan 144);
C. Zoning Ordinance and Precise Development Plan PDP 00-02;
D. South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Plan;
E. Development Agreement (Chapter 21.70 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code);
F. Coastal Development regulations for the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone,
Mello II segment, and the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Land Use Plan segment (Chapters
21.201 and 21.203 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the Agua Hedionda Land Use
Plan);
G. Habitat Management Plan; and
H. Growth Management (Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code).
The recommendations for approval of this project were developed by analyzing the project's
consistency with the applicable City regulations and policies. The project's compliance with
each of the above regulations is discussed in detail in the sections below.
A. General Plan
The General Plan designates the Encina Power Station for Public Utility (U) uses. The Land Use
Element also states that U designation's "primary functions include such things as the generation
of electrical energy, treatment of waste water, public agency maintenance storage and operating
facilities, or other primary utility functions designed to serve all or a substantial portion of the
community." The desalination plant and the changes proposed to it are consistent with this
description particularly in that the plant and offsite pipelines would serve most or all of Carlsbad.
The various pipelines proposed throughout the City are located in several different land use
designations. Installation of pipelines is considered to be consistent with the Land Use Element
in that pipelines are allowed in all General Plan land use designations. Further, since they would
be placed underground, would be generally located in street right of ways, and would cause only
limited, temporary impacts to sensitive native habitats, the proposed pipelines are consistent with
General Plan policies requiring development to protect and enhance the City's environment,
character, and image.
From a broad policy standpoint, the proposed amendments maintain project consistency with the
General Plan in that they continue to implement goals stated in the land use document's Vision
section. The desalination project, with proposed modifications, will provide a high-quality,
reliable water supply to the residents of Carlsbad thereby fulfilling the General Plan vision
statement, "A City which provides adequate public facilities to preserve the quality of life of its
residents." Additionally, a reliable drinking water supply is a major issue for all Southern
California jurisdictions. The project addresses this issue by not only supplying desalinated water
EIR 03-05(A)/PDP 00-02(B)/SP 144(J)/DA 05-01(A)/RP 05-12(A)/HMP 05-08(A) -
DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES
August 19,2009
PageS
to Carlsbad but other agencies as well, thereby helping reduce San Diego County's reliance on
imported water. This fulfills another General Plan vision statement, "A City which recognizes its
role as a participant in the solution of regional issues."
The project also helps to fulfill the vision goal of "A City committed to economic growth of
progressive commercial and industrial businesses to serve the employment, shopping, recreation,
and service needs of its residents." The proposed revisions will not diminish the project's ability
to create new jobs and new economic activity in Carlsbad and provide a reliable water supply
that businesses can count on for sustainable economic activity.
More specifically, changes proposed to the desalination plant, particularly its RO building,
maintain a modern office/industrial building design, similar to the approved project. Other
significant, visible structures on the desalination plant site, the pretreatment and chemical storage
areas, feature screen walls with a building-like facade. The desalination plant changes proposed
comply with the sensitive design objective of Overall Land Use Pattern Policy C.6, which states,
"Review the architecture of buildings with the focus on ensuring the quality and integrity of
design and enhancement of the character of each neighborhood."
Finally, the proposed relocating of on-site appurtenant facilities, including the undergrounding of
pipelines and a pump station and consolidating of equipment and uses to the desalination plant
site, contribute to a more efficient use of the EPS as compared to the approved project.
Relocating complies with Overall Land Use Pattern Policy C.I, which states, "Arrange land uses
so that they preserve community identity and are orderly, functionally efficient, healthful,
convenient to the public, and aesthetically pleasing."
B. Encina Specific Plan (SP 144)
Adopted in 1971 and amended several times since, the Encina Specific Plan encompasses 680
acres and spans a two-mile distance from the Pacific Ocean to just east of Cannon Road near its
intersection with Faraday Avenue. Within its boundaries are the Encina Power Station, Agua
Hedionda Lagoon east and west of Interstate 5, and adjacent areas.
Specific Plan 144(H), an action approved with the desalination project in 2006, incorporated
PDF 00-02 by reference. The Specific Plan states that it must be amended if the POP is amended.
Thus, SP 144(J) has been proposed. The proposed amendment proposes no changes to any
Specific Plan requirements or conditions or to General Plan land use or zoning designations
within its boundaries. Instead, changes proposed to Specific Plan 144 because of the proposed
project are minor and consist of the following:
• References to proposed amendment case file numbers "SP 144(J)" and "PDF 00-02(8)."
• Clarification regarding the status of SP 144(1), the amendment filed for the proposed
Carlsbad Energy Center Project.
• Addition of Local Facilities Management Zone 1 to note that this zone is also within the
boundaries of SP 144.
• Replace the word "major" with the word "formal" to correctly describe the amendment to
PDP 00-02 that triggers an amendment to SP 144. This change ensures consistency in
terminology between the Precise Development Plan and Specific Plan.
EIR 03-05(A)/PDP 00-02(B)/SP 144(J)/DA 05-01(A)/RP 05-12(A)/HMP 05-08(A) -
DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES
August 19, 2009
Page 9
These minor text changes described are highlighted in Attachment 21, proposed Encina Specific
Plan 144(J). There are no changes proposed to Specific Plan graphics.
Generally, the conditions of Specific Plan 144 have regulated only the Encina Power Station and
not other properties within the Specific Plan area. As improvements to the power plant were
made, particularly through the 1970s with the addition of the existing emissions stack for
example, Specific Plan 144 was amended through the addition of new conditions addressing the
particular improvement and in some cases establishing standards for future development.
Requirements to Specific Plan properties outside the EPS regard the potential for a future power
station east of Interstate 5, leasing of park lands, and infrastructure improvements.
In 2002, the City Council, in Agenda Bill 16,790, directed that any applicant of a proposed
project within the Specific Plan area be required to prepare a comprehensive update of the
specific plan. This direction was revised in 2003, when the City Council passed Resolution
2003-208, allowing the Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant project to be processed
as an amendment to the Encina Specific Plan 144 rather than through a comprehensive update of
the specific plan. As the subject project does not modify the capacity, operations, or use of the
desalination plant and proposed changes primarily regard the layout of plant components, staff
believes an amendment, rather than comprehensive update, again is appropriate. The resolution
adopting SP 144(J) contains wording to this effect.
The proposed changes to the desalination plant comply with applicable Specific Plan standards
and requirements adopted over the years regarding architectural review, building height, exterior
lighting, and rooftop mechanical equipment is discussed in detail under the Precise Development
Plan analysis and Attachment 13.
C. Title 21 (Zoning) and Precise Development Plan (PDF 00-02)
Background
The EPS site has a Public Utility (P-U) zoning, which implements the corresponding General
Plan U land use designation. Section 21.36.020 of the Public Utility Zone lists permitted uses
and structures, including the processing, use, and storage of domestic and agricultural water.
Accordingly, since it entails processing, use and storage of domestic water supplies, the
desalination plant is a permitted use in the P-U Zone.
Section 21.36.030 of the P-U Zone prevents the issuance of any building permits or entitlements
"until a precise development plan has been approved for the property." Consistent with this
requirement, POP 00-02 was reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the City
Council in 2006. The PDP serves as the primary entitlement for the desalination facility. As
explained more below, the PDP also functions as a master or specific plan for the EPS, as
explained below. A precise development plan is adopted and amended by ordinance.
The P-U Zone requirements provide little in the way of development standards for the zone or
content requirements for a PDP. Basic standards are provided for minimum lot area, lot
coverage, parking and loading area locations, and landscaping. While no building setbacks or
height standards are established by the P-U Zone, Section 21.36.050 states the City Council may
EIR 03-05(A)/PDP 00-02(B)/SP 144(J)/DA 05-01 (A)/RP 05-12(A)/HMP 05-08(A) -
DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES
August 19, 2009
Page 10
impose conditions as it determines necessary and consistent with the P-U Zone, General Plan,
and the Encina Specific Plan. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, provisions
for setbacks, landscaping, fences and walls, special height and bulk of building regulations, and
parking. Accordingly, the proposed PDF includes requirements in addition to the basic standards
already required by the P-U Zone.
Consistent with this and other sections of the P-U Zone, the proposed PDF functions as a specific
or master plan to regulate development at the Encina Power Station and contains six major
sections:
• Precise Development Plan purpose
• Physical Setting, including existing uses and the proposed desalination facility
• Incorporation of Applicable Regulations and Documents, including the General Plan,
Encina Specific Plan, and Redevelopment Plan
• Development Standards
• Public Improvements
• Procedures and Amendments
Among other things, the standards of the PDF:
• Provide basic parameters to guide the development and siting of minor improvements;
significant changes to the Power Station would require an amendment to the Precise
Development Plan;
• Recognize that the majority of the Power Station is not readily visible to its surroundings
and that application of a development standard may be unnecessary if a project is
proposed, for example, near the center of the property;
The proposed changes to the desalination plant and appurtenant facilities require amendment to
the PDF. However, these amendments are relatively minor and consist of updating PDF text and
graphics to recognize the new, proposed configuration of the desalination plant and appurtenant
facilities, changes in building and structure coverage, increase in parking spaces, and recognition
of the Addendum to the EIR 03-05 and amendment to SP 144. No standards of the PDF would
be changed by the proposal.
Detailed Description of Proposed Project Changes
Attachments 8 and 13, along with the attached project plans, will assist in the review of this
section.
As approved in 2006, the desalination facility would occupy the site of the southernmost of three
oil storage tanks (Oil Tank #3) closest to and partially visible from Carlsbad Boulevard and its
surrounding containment berm. Each of the three tanks has a diameter of 140-feet and a height
of 38-feet as measured from the tops of the containment berms, which have a rectangular shape
and are much larger than the footprint of the tanks. Access to the site, as approved and proposed,
would be from Carlsbad Boulevard
:i
EIR 03-05(A)/PDP 00-02(B)/SP 144(J)/DA 05-01(A)/RP 05-12(A)/HMP 05-08(A) -
DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES
August 19, 2009
Page 11
In the approved configuration, the pretreatment filter area occupied the west half of the 3.2 acre
site and the RO building, administrative offices and other functions, chemical storage area, and
parking lot occupied the east half of the site. Some features, such as the product water pump
station and storage tank, would be constructed under the RO building. With the exception of the
three substations and solids handling building, the approved desalination plant would be
essentially contained within the boundaries of the berm. Under the approved and proposed plant
configurations, the RO building primarily houses thirteen "trains" of reverse osmosis
membranes. Before seawater enters these membranes, it is first run through sand filtration in the
pre-treatment area.
The revised project steps back the desalination facility from the lagoon and most public views,
effectively making a more slender facility that parallels the railroad right of way in a north to
south orientation. Rather than remain confined to the area bordered by the containment berm
surrounding Oil Tank #3, the proposed project would expand 450 feet to the south of Oil Tank
#3 onto an already developed area for a total plant site of 5.7 acres. Oil tank #3, associated
piping, and existing facilities in the expanded area would be relocated or demolished as
necessary. A portion of the containment berm located west of the proposed project would
remain.
At its closest point, the project would be about 300 feet from Agua Hedionda Lagoon and
approximately 900 feet from Carlsbad Boulevard. The proposed project easily complies with the
Precise Development Plan lagoon setback requirement of 50-feet from the property line along
the shoreline. No other required setbacks apply to the project.
In the revised site plan, the RO building is now located on the west side of the site while the
pretreatment filter area is on the east side, a reversal of the approved plan. The pre-treatment
pump area has been placed in a sub-grade pit and moved to the north-western corner of the site
with parking spaces and landscaping that will effectively screen it from the west. The
administrative offices and electrical room have been consolidated into a small portion of the RO
building in a two story configuration. The rest of the RO building is single story with a high
ceiling over the reverse osmosis process area. The pretreatment area, although unroofed and not
within a building, is surrounded by tall screen walls designed with a building-like fa9ade.
As viewed from all elevations, particularly the south and west, the entire plant, including those
features hidden by screen walls, has the appearance of a modern office or industrial building.
The elevations match the quality and design of elevations originally approved in 2006, and
materials and colors are more varied and interesting. For example, all elevations feature cast-in
place concrete, opaque glazing, and corrugated, smooth, and perforated metal and aluminum
panels. Perforated panels, proposed on the upper half of building or screen walls, are so
positioned above eye level so views into buildings or equipment areas are not possible. At the
same time, the perforations, because they permit light through the panel, allow portions of the
building to take on a different appearance depending on the time of day.
Along the west elevation of the RO building large equipment access doors providing interior
access are carefully disguised. Furthermore, because of the west elevation's prominence and
orientation toward the lagoon, it features more extensive use of glazing and tinted glass at both
the upper and lower levels of the building. At the RO building's southwest corner and continuing
EIR 03-05(A)/PDP 00-02(B)/SP 144(J)/DA 05-01(A)/RP 05-12(A)/HMP 05-08(A) -
DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES
August 19, 2009
Page 12
along its south elevation, additional architectural interest is proposed to demarcate the building's
front elevation and primary entrance.
Because the two fuel oil storage tanks and adjacent vegetation to the north of the project site
would remain, plant structures would be partially obscured from residential areas along the
lagoon's north shore. Similarly, existing vegetation between the project site and Agua Hedionda
Lagoon would partially hide the plant from Carlsbad Boulevard.
The nearly 50,000 square foot, RO building (an increase from the approved 44,552 square-feet)
is proposed with a flat roof and features a second story element at its south end. The roof would
reach a maximum height of 35-feet above existing grade, excluding rooftop mechanical
equipment and surrounding screen. This maximum height is consistent with the 35-foot height
maximum stated in the Encina Specific Plan and Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan. Neither plan
establishes a limit on the number of stories. The approved RO building also had a two story
element and reached a maximum height of 33 feet, excluding parapets.
The 60,000 square foot pretreatment area is surrounded by screen walls with heights ranging
from 27 to 30.5 feet. The height varies to permit architectural interest and the same materials and
exterior colors proposed for the RO building would also be used on the screen walls. The
chemical storage area is bordered on its east and south sides by screen walls 20-feet high. The
adjacent solids handling building has a maximum height of 25 feet, compared to the 19.5 foot
height approved for the facility when it was located off-site.
The chemical storage area, solids handling building, and other equipment such as electrical
transformers also would not be visible from the north, east and west due to the proposed RO
building and pretreatment area and screening walls. However, this central equipment area, and
maintenance or delivery activities associated with them, may be visible to the south and
southwest. This area is more than 200 feet from the desalination plant's south boundary and will
be partially screened by proposed perimeter trees. Though screening of this area is not a concern
now as it is on the property of an active power plant, it may be if the EPS ever redevelops.
Therefore, staff recommends a condition be applied to the amended redevelopment permit that
states the following:
a. Proposed planter areas along the west and south perimeters of the desalination
plant site as shown on approved plans shall be landscaped with, at a
minimum, trees, shrubs, and groundcover consistent with the Landscape
Manual. Furthermore, the retaining wall along the west perimeter shall be
enhanced with vines.
b. As part of the review of the Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans, the need for
screening of the loading, trash, equipment and service areas of desalination
plant site, as viewed from vantage points within the Encina Power Station,
shall be evaluated. If the Planning Director determines screening of these
areas is necessary, Developer shall revise plans for the perimeter planters as
needed. Furthermore, the Planning Director also reserves the right to
determine the need for said screening during final inspection of the
desalination plant site.
r
I
EIR 03-05(A)/PDP 00-02(B)/SP 144(J)/DA 05-01(A)/RP 05-12(A)/HMP 05-08(A) -
DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES
August 19,2009
Page 13
The purpose of this condition is not to mitigate a significant visual impact as
identified in EIR 03-05; rather, it is to reasonably screen those specified areas
from future public uses that may locate on the Encina Power Station (EPS)
property if it redevelops. Considering the current use of the EPS, it is the
screening capability of plants, rather than their size at time of planting that is
important.
Additionally, because of the need to provide a level building pad in an area of uneven
topography, a 600-foot long retaining wall, in some places nearly ten feet tall, is planned along
the proposed west lease boundary. This wall was not a feature of the approved project as the
project was generally confined within Oil Tank #3 containment berm. More than half the
proposed wall's length is within the boundaries of the oil tank's containment berm and east of
the berm's west edge, which is topped by an access road; this means that elevations at the top of
the adjacent berm are similar to and in some cases higher than the top of the proposed wall. This
wall is proposed to have a split face design and be planted with vines, as the recommended
condition above ensures.
Staff believes the height of the retaining wall is acceptable because of the current utilitarian, non-
publicly accessible status of the surrounding property. Furthermore, it will not be readily visible
to nearest public viewpoints along Carlsbad Boulevard because of distance, intervening
vegetation, and topography. Further, any future redevelopment of the site will establish new
grades, smoothing out the uneven topography to which the containment berms contribute and
grading with the retaining wall in mind.
The one-million gallon subsurface product water tank in the approved Project has been moved to
the southern area of the site and increased to 3.4 million gallons at the request of the Carlsbad
Municipal Water District to allow for more time to modify water service deliveries to the City of
Carlsbad in the event the Project is required to shut down. The new tank continues to be
underground, but will provide an additional 30 minutes for the Carlsbad Municipal Water
District to compensate for a change in water delivery if the plant were to shut down, therefore
enhancing the health and safety of the system. Adjacent to the east side of the tank is the
underground product water pump station; in the approved project, the pump station was located
in the RO building.
The desalination plant will receive electricity from the regional power grid (SDG&E) as
discussed in the EIR. SDG&E will service the facility by adding additional banks of
transformers to the existing SDG&E substation, southeast of the desalination plant and separated
from it by the railroad tracks. Transmission lines will be placed in the existing utility tunnel
under the railroad tracks which will supply energy from the substation to the desalination plant.
Sewer facilities will be placed in the same existing utility tunnel.
Attachment 13 provides a detailed analysis of project compliance with applicable development
standards. The attachment demonstrates project compliance with Precise Development Plan,
Specific Plan, and Local Coastal Program requirements.
An alignment under consideration for the relocation of proposed underground seawater intake
and discharge pipelines at the Encina Power Station would result in demolition of the existing
EIR 03-05(A)/PDP 00-02(B)/SP 144(J)/DA 05-01 (A)/RP 05-12(A)/HMP 05-08(A) -
DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES
August 19, 2009
Page 14
EPS administration building. If this alignment is chosen, any reconstruction of the administration
building at the EPS would be subject to separate review.
D. South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Plan
The South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Plan (SCCRP), adopted in 2000, establishes a 555-
acre redevelopment area that includes the PDF area. The SCCRP is in effect through 2045. An
amendment to the project's Redevelopment Permit is needed because of the changes proposed.
The stated goals of the SCCRP that are applicable to the project include:
• Eliminating blight and environmental deficiencies in the Redevelopment Project Area.
• Facilitating the redevelopment of the Encina power generating facility to a smaller, more
efficient power generating plant.
• Strengthening the economic base of the Project Area and the community by the
installation of needed on- and off-site improvements to stimulate new
commercial/industrial expansion, employment and economic growth.
• Developing new beach and coastal recreational opportunities.
• Increasing parking and open space amenities.
The SCCRP identifies the existing power plant as a blighting influence; consequently, including
the Power Station within the Redevelopment Plan allows the Carlsbad Housing and
Redevelopment Commission to assist the property owner in eliminating this condition. It also
allows the Housing and Redevelopment Commission to assist with the possible future
decommissioning of the existing power plant and construction of a smaller power generating
plant as well as help with other public improvements and redevelopment of the site.
SCCRP Section 527 requires all property within the Redevelopment Plan boundaries to be
developed, redeveloped, or rehabilitated in conformance with the goals and provisions of the
Plan and the requirements and regulations of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and any other
state or local requirements, such as guidelines and specific plans. Further, Section 601 indicates
the permitted land uses within the Plan boundaries are those permitted by the General Plan,
Zoning Ordinance and all other state and local requirements. The SCCRP contains no
development standards of its own.
An amendment to SCCRP Section 601, passed and adopted in November 2005, states that
specific uses, including a "desalination plant" and "generation and transmission of electrical
energy" may be permitted in the Redevelopment Plan only if the Housing and Redevelopment
Commission finds all of the following are satisfied:
• The Commission approves a finding that the land use serves an extraordinary public
purpose;
• That the Commission approves a precise development plan or other appropriate planning
permit or regulatory document; and
• That the Commission has issued a Redevelopment Permit.
EIR 03-05(A)/PDP 00-02(B)/SP 144(J)/DA 05-01(A)/RP 05-12(A)/HMP 05-08(A) -
DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES
August 19,2009
Page 15
These findings were made with the desalination project approval of PDP 00-02 and
Redevelopment Permit RP 05-12 in 2006. To support the finding that the desalination plant
serves "an extraordinary public purpose," Planning Commission Resolution 6091, which
recommended approval of the RP 05-12, provided substantial evidence. The evidence included
that approval of the plant and PDP provide:
• A reliable, redundant, and higher quality water supply;
• Economic benefits, and;
• Acquisition of land for public purposes through land dedications.
The above examples of evidence to support the finding of extraordinary public purpose also
demonstrate compliance with the applicable SCCRP goals stated above. The proposed project
changes do not interfere with the attainment of these goals. Furthermore, proposed modifications
do not hinder the project's ability to comply with the SCCRP goal of "facilitating the
redevelopment of the Encina power generating facility to a smaller, more efficient power
generating plant." Proposed reconfiguration of the desalination plant site does not preclude use
of the EPS property east of the railroad tracks for a generating station, as evidenced by the
submittal of the CECP. Moreover, the proposed reconfigured desalination plant site still leave a
majority of the Encina Power Station open for potential redevelopment at some future date.
Finally, the consolidation of appurtenant facilities onto the desalination plant site as well as
undergrounding and relocating of the pipelines and intake pump station further enhances
redevelopment opportunities when compared to the approved project.
Overall, the proposed changes do not hinder the project's ability to comply with the applicable
goals and requirements of the SCCRP, including the finding of extraordinary public purpose.
E. Development Agreement
To strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive
planning and reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the State of California
adopted the Development Agreement Act, California Government Code sections 65864 et seq.
The Development Agreement Act authorizes any city to enter into binding development
agreements establishing certain development rights in real property with persons having legal or
equitable interests in such property. California courts have held that development agreements
are lawful and legitimate exercises of legislative power that properly deal with complex and
recurring land use issues.
A development agreement is a contract that binds both the City and the developer, setting forth
the applicable terms and conditions under which the project may proceed. So long as the
developer is not in default, the City may not change the City's land use rules applicable to the
project (except as provided in the development agreement). In return, the developer is obligated
to perform its obligations as set forth in the development agreement.
Normally, rights for a project vest when a building permit is issued and substantial expenditures
are made in reliance on the permit. With a development agreement, however, rights to develop
the project for the length (term) of the agreement are vested when the project approvals are given
(assuming these approvals include the approval of the proposed development agreement).
EIR 03-05(A)/PDP 00-02(B)/SP 144(J)/DA 05-01(A)/RP 05-12(A)/HMP 05-08(A) -
DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES
August 19, 2009'
Page 16
Pursuant to the authority conferred in the Development Agreement Act, the City has adopted
Chapter 21.70 of its Municipal Code, establishing procedures and requirements for the
consideration of development agreements. In addition, the City Council has adopted Policy No.
56, establishing a policy regarding the requirements which must be met before the City Council
will approve a development agreement.
As part of project actions in 2006, a Development Agreement was approved to provide both
Poseidon Resources and the City with assurances concerning the conditions of development and
public benefits related to the project. This is the only development agreement to be considered by
the City since the Legoland development agreement was adopted in January, 1996. Prior to the
Legoland development agreement, the City had not entered into any development agreements
that were not related to affordable housing projects.
In this case, the approved Development Agreement applies to only that portion of the project, as
defined by a leasehold agreement between Cabrillo Power and Poseidon Resources, related to the
construction of a desalination facility. The Development Agreement would give Poseidon
Resources the "vested" right to develop a desalination facility in accordance with the General
Plan, Specific Plan, the Precise Development Plan covering the Cabrillo Power property, all
related approvals and the conditions imposed on those approvals in return for certain
commitments being made to the City.
The project will have significant impacts on City operations and rights of way, the Carlsbad
Municipal Water District, and the Redevelopment Agency. The Agreement defines for Poseidon
Resources the development standards that will be applied for the project, while defining for the
City, CMWD and RDA the economic benefits that will be received from the project. The project
is expected to cost $250 million, or more, to construct. Assuming that the assessed value applied
to the project reflects the cost of construction, the annual property tax payment will be
approximately $2.5 million. Roughly 80% (about $2 million) of the tax revenue from the project
will go to the RDA. This revenue will be used to fund projects within the RDA including road
improvements, water distribution facilities, sewer facilities, and support of affordable housing
programs. These projects are more specifically defined and identified in Exhibit C of the South
Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Plan. Therefore, the proposed project is in the interests of the
City.
Many of the terms and conditions of the proposed Agreement are intended to preserve for the
benefit of the City, CMWD, and RDA the property tax revenues that will be paid by the project.
The Agreement establishes a mitigation fee that will be paid by Poseidon, or its successors in
interest, in the event that property taxes are not paid by the owners of the project, such as in the
event of the purchase of the plant (either through voluntary sale or condemnation) by a
governmental body. This mitigation fee is sufficient to fund all, or a significant portion, of the
most beneficial of the Redevelopment Plan projects to be undertaken.
The mitigation fee and property tax revenue have been secured for the City, CMWD and RDA
through the proposed Development Agreement, the Water Purchase Agreement between the
CMWD and Poseidon (September 2004). Therefore, the proposed Development Agreement
includes legally binding commitments by Poseidon to provide substantial public benefits over
EIR 03-05(A)/PDP 00-02(B)/SP 144(J)/DA 05-01(A)/RP 05-12(A)/HMP 05-08(A) -
DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES
August 19, 2009
Page 17
and above those which Poseidon otherwise would be obligated to provide as a condition of
approval in the absence of the Development Agreement.
The project would amend and restate the Development Agreement as follows:
1. Revised leasehold area for the desalination facility. The applicant has entered into a
revised lease with Cabrillo Power to reflect the revised area of the desalination
facility. The Development Agreement will be amended to reflect the new area and
will be recorded against Poseidon's leasehold interest.
2. Use of Public Right-Of-Way. The original Development Agreement provided the
applicant access to City rights of way needed for the delivery of product water from
the desalination facility to Carlsbad and other water purchasers. As noted above, the
rights of way necessary for product water pipelines have been modified. The
modified pipeline alignment will be referenced in the amended development
agreement.
In addition, the amendment provides language for implementing construction of
pipelines in public rights of way, modifying approved public rights of way,
construction standards, restoration of property (including without limitation trench
cuts and repaying) and requirements for communication between the applicant and
the City.
3. Public Agency Encroachment Agreements. The amended Development Agreement
provides that the City of Carlsbad will act as the applicant to enable the granting of
easements and encroachments into public rights of way owned by other public
agencies. Certain rules preclude private party access to these rights of way, and in
these instances, the City will act as the applicant and then allow Poseidon the use of
the applicable encroachment permit for the construction, operation, repair,
maintenance or removal of facilities.
The proposed amendment to the Development Agreement provides more certainty that the
project will be built and furthers the applicant's ability to proceed with the project. Furthermore,
it is unlikely the proposed project, including the public benefits to be derived therefrom, would
occur when and as provided in the proposed Development Agreement in the absence of the
vesting assurances incorporated in the proposed Development Agreement. Accordingly, staff
finds the amendment is justified.
F. Local Coastal Program
As noted at the beginning of this report the original City approvals included a Coastal
Development Permit (outside the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan) for portions of the pipeline
network in the Coastal Zone. The Coastal Development Permit issued by the City does not need
amendment as it is not affected by any of the changes proposed. The following analysis provides
context for the project's compliance with Coastal Zone policies.
EIR 03-05(A)/PDP 00-02(B)/SP 144(J)/DA 05-01(A)/RP 05-12(A)/HMP 05-08(A) -
DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES
August 19,2009
Page 18
The project affects two parts of the City's Coastal Zone: the Mello II segment and the Agua
Hedionda Land Use Plan segment. The latter segment encompasses the Encina Power Station,
the lagoon, and property around the lagoon. The desalination plant and appurtenant facilities
located onsite of the Power Station, as well as water conveyance pipelines proposed in Avenida
Encinas and Cannon Road, are located in the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan segment. Pipelines
proposed on Faraday Avenue are in the Mello II segment. Municipal Code Chapter 21.203,
Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone, is also applicable to the project since the Overlay
applies to all Coastal Zone properties.
While he City has authority to issue the necessary coastal development permit for pipelines in
the Mello II segment, the Coastal Commission has retained the authority to issue the coastal
development permit for pipelines and the desalination facility in the Agua Hedionda Land Use
Plan segment. As noted earlier, the Coastal Commission approved this permit in 2007.
Nevertheless, staffs analysis of the project's compliance with the Local Coastal Program
includes review of this segment.
As with the original approval of the desalination project in 2006, staff finds the proposed
amendments are consistent with applicable Local Coastal Program policies as follows:
• Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan Segment:
o The Precise Development Plan regulates uses, including the proposed desalination
plant that is consistent with those uses shown on the Agua Hedionda Land Use
Plan's Land Use Map.
o The dedication of a public access easement for the Fishing Beach is consistent
with Plan policies 6.5 and 6.7, which encourage the Encina fishing area on the
Outer Lagoon to be maintained and present recreational uses of the lagoon to be
expanded where feasible.
o The desalination plant RO building complies with the Plan's building height
maximum of 35-feet.
• Mello II Segment
o The project complies with Policy 2-6 - City Support of Efficient Agricultural
Water Usage, which states: "The City will take measures to reduce the reliance of
agricultural users on imported water." This project provides the city and region
with an innovative and alternative source of water that does not rely on imported
water. While reclaimed water will also serve non-agricultural users, the fact that
another source of water will be available to the various water users in the city that
is not part of imported water supplies, makes this project consistent with this
coastal policy.
o The project complies with Policy 3-1 - Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan,
which states: "The Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan is a comprehensive,
citywide program to identify how the city, in cooperation with federal and state
agencies, can preserve the diversity of habitat and protect sensitive biological
resources within the city and the Coastal zone". This project is in compliance with
the provisions of the HMP, as outlined in EIR 03-05, the Addendum to the EIR,
and also as reflected in the findings for Planning Commission Resolution No.
6636 approving HMPP 05-08(A).
EIR 03-05(A)/PDP 00-02(B)/SP 144(J)/DA 05-01(A)/RP 05-12(A)/HMP 05-08(A) -
DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES
August 19, 2009
Page 19
• Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone
o The project complies with Municipal Code Section 21.203.040 A. regarding
preservation of steep slopes with native vegetation as it does not impact any such
features. Instead, pipelines are generally proposed in roadways or already
disturbed or developed areas.
o The project complies with Municipal Code Section 21.203.040 B. regarding
drainage and erosion as the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
includes mitigation measures to address drainage, erosion control, sediment
control and storm water quality, as set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit and other required standards and permits.
• Coastal Act
o The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of
Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act in that project pipelines will be installed
underground and therefore will not impact public access opportunities or
recreational resources.
o Public dedications in the vicinity of Agua Hedionda Lagoon and the Pacific
Ocean are consistent with Coastal Act Policies regarding public access to
coastline and recreational features.
o The project is subject to the Mitigation and Monitoring Program for EIR 03-05,
which provides mitigation to assure consistency with Local Coastal Program
policies regarding environmentally sensitive habitats, geology, and water quality.
G. Habitat Management Plan (HMP)
All potential project impacts to HMP covered species are temporary. In the City of Carlsbad,
potential native resource impacts are associated with isolated patches of coastal sage scrub
(disturbed and undisturbed) within the EPS that may be temporarily impacted by construction of
the plant and installation of the product water pipeline, the latter from the desalination plant
south to the boundary of the EPS near Avenida Encinas, north of Cannon Road. No other
pipeline alignments proposed for construction would potentially impact native habitat, a
reduction in the potential habitat impacts reported in EIR 03-05, as pipelines and related flow
control facilities proposed for construction would be located in roadways or already disturbed or
developed areas.
Through design and mitigation, the project avoids and minimizes impacts to habitat. The
proposed changes to the project, whether plant or pipeline modifications, do not alter this
conclusion and do not impact any additional habitat or require any new mitigation.
The amendment to the Habitat Management Plan Permit is needed because condition of approval
number 3 of the original approving resolution (Planning Commission Resolution 6094) requires
an amendment to the permit for any project changes. Because changes are proposed (although
the changes have no habitat impacts), this amendment has been proposed.
H. Growth Management
The original approval of the desalination plant was found consistent with the Local Facilities
Management Plans for Zones 1 and 3, the two LFMPs in which the EPS is located. As the
EIR 03-05(A)/PDP 00-02(B)/SP 144(J)/DA 05-01(A)/RP 05-12(A)/HMP 05-08(A) -
DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES
August 19,2009
Page 20
proposal does not change the plant's capacity or operational characteristics, the proposed
changes would be consistent with the Growth Management Plan and a reevaluation of
compliance between the proposed project and Growth Management is unnecessary.
The proposed pipelines cross several different facilities zones. However, they do not generate
any facility plan improvement requirements or funding.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
To provide environmental review consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), the City consulted with environmental firm Dudek and Associates to determine if the
revisions to the Project would trigger a supplemental or subsequent EIR, or if a simpler
document, an addendum, could be prepared. Dudek and Associates prepared the project's
Environmental Impact Report that the City certified in 2006. Supplemental and subsequent EIRs
require public noticing and review periods similar to that required for Draft EIRs. Unlike
addenda, they are necessary to use when a previously certified EIR is no longer adequate to
cover the impacts of the changed project.
As explained below, staff has reviewed the project changes and found that none of the
requirements in CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 or 15163 for supplemental or subsequent EIRs
have been triggered. Therefore, the revised project is within the scope of the certified EIR and
use of an addendum to document the project changes is appropriate.
CEQA Guideline Section 15162 requires a subsequent EIR if:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the Project which will require major revisions to
the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project
is undertaken which will require major revisions to the previous EIR; or
3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have
been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR
was certified.
CEQA Guideline Section 15163 requires a supplemental EIR if:
1. Any of the conditions described in Section 15162 would require the preparation of a
subsequent EIR, and
2. Only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR
adequately apply to the project in the changed situation.
In preparing the recommended Addendum, staff determined none of the conditions warranting a
subsequent or supplemental EIR were met as the following findings show:
EIR 03-05(A)/PDP 00-02(B)/SP 144(J)/DA 05-01 (A)/RP 05-12(A)/HMP 05-08(A) -
DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES
August 19, 2009
Page 21
1. There are no significant new environmental effects and no substantial increase in the
severity of a previously identified significant effect. The analysis and mitigation
contained in EIR 03-05 remain adequate to address all modifications proposed,
whether to the desalination plant and appurtenant on-site facilities or the off-site
pipeline alignments. The modifications, for example, do not amplify impacts to
marine life as no increase in plant seawater intake or discharge or change to the
desalination process is proposed. Additionally, the plant revisions proposed consist
primarily of physical changes to plant components, whether in size or location, not
operational modifications. Furthermore, although new pipeline alignments are
proposed that were not considered in the EIR, they do not present new impacts not
already considered or addressed as necessary by existing mitigation measures.
2. There has been no substantial change with respect to the circumstances under which
the Project is being undertaken which would require major revisions to EIR 03-05.
3. There is no new information of substantial importance that was not known and
could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time EIR
03-05 was certified.
4. The Project will not have any significant effects not discussed in the EIR 03-05.
5. There are no new or additional mitigation measures that need to be added and there
are no mitigation measures previously found not to be feasible that are now found to
be feasible that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the
Project.
The recommended Addendum to the previously certified EIR documents the minor technical
changes included in the permit amendments and documents the revised product water pipeline
alignments. CEQA Guideline Sectionl5164 states that "the lead agency...shall prepare an
addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of
the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or
negative declaration have occurred."
Guideline 15164 also notes an addendum need not be circulated for public review but may
simply be attached to the Final EIR. While the proposed Addendum was not circulated as is
required for Draft EIRs, staff has made the proposed document known and available for public
review by identifying it in the project's public hearing notice, distributing it to neighboring
jurisdictions and agencies affected by the project, and including it as part of the staff report.
Those jurisdictions and agencies receiving the Addendum include the cities of Oceanside, San
Marcos, and Vista as well as the Carlsbad Municipal Water District, Encina Wastewater
Authority, San Diego County Water Authority.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6631 (EIR)
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6632 (PDP)
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6633 (SP)
EIR 03-05(A)/PDP 00-02(B)/SP 144(J)/DA 05-01 (A)/RP 05-12(A)/HMP 05-08(A) -
DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES
August 19, 2009
Page 22
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6634 (DA)
5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6635 (RP)
6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6636 (HMP)
7. (Attachments la. and 7b.) Approved and proposed desalination site plans, including
onsite appurtenant facilities
8. Table comparing approved and proposed projects, excluding offsite pipelines
9. Description of the desalination process
10. Desalination Plant and Pipelines Map
11. Text description of pipeline alignments
12. Land Use Plans - Agua Hedionda Lagoon Area
13. Project compliance with applicable development standards
14. Background Data Sheet
15. Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
16. Disclosure Statements
17. Addendum to EIR 03-05*
18. Certified Final Environmental Impact Report EIR 03-05*
19. Approved City Council Resolution 2006-156, which includes:*
a. Additional responses to comments on Final EIR 03-05, dated June 13, 2006;
b. Amendment to add Section 5.5 to the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
20. Approved Planning Commission Resolution No. 6087, incorporated by reference into
City Council Resolution 2006-156 and which includes:*
a. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations;
b. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
21. Proposed Encina Specific Plan 144(J)*
22. Proposed Precise Development Plan PDF 00-02(B)*
23. Exhibits "A" through "P" dated August 19, 2009
* Denotes previously distributed document.
FAcaLmr
AGUA HED10NDA
IN M&OCMTRH
PAC1WC
Sunlftn
M(ni«lm
1*0 s 11 a Q K K i s o ff t c i sEiicina Generatijie StationPrecise Development Plan srra run
TJ•o
O
CDQ.
D
CD
0)
Q)
m
73
oCO
o
Ol
TlD-0
oo
CO
Tl
m en
Oo~Z. en
N)
> m
COPY
._/
A8UA HBDrONBA
M.
~
**.*—/*? %
V T.
\\
llrita iMT
PAC1WC OCEAN
SO**
CARLS8AD GESAMHJWON
P«0fSCT »WH.AN
BEST
COPY
-o
O
(D
O(D(f)
Q)
m
oCO
6en;>
^Tl
o
r\j
CO
T)
Q)a m en
_j ^
Oo
O^> m i ^
(§ 9^^
C ^ Tl Q)
J2- O o "
CD
NJ
0 mȤ
§ 0)T P"
Attachment 8
EIR 03-05(A)/PDP 00-02(B)/SP 144(J)/DA 05-01 (A)/RP 05-12(A)/HMP 05-08(A) - DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES
August 19, 2009
Comparison between Approved and Proposed Desalination Plant
Feature
Desalination Plant Site
Overall dimensions
Area
Pretreatment Area
Location
Height
Dimensions
Area
RO Building
Location
Height
Dimensions
Area
Intake and discharge pipes
Intake pump station
Transformers
Solids handling building
Location
Height
Area
Chemical Storage Area
Location
Area
Screen Walls
Colors and materials
Product Water Storage
Retaining walls
Landscape area
Parking spaces
All features
Visible Project features*
Footprint, all features
Approved (POP 00-02/RP 05-12)
310' (n-s) x 440' (e-w) approx
3.2 acres, excludes transformers & solids bldg
West half of desal plant site
Mostly below grade structure surrounded by 3' high wall; short stretch of wall is 7.5' high
150' (east to west) by 280' (north to south)
42,632 square feet (sf)
East half of desal plant site
35'
230' (e-w) x175' (n-s), 80'x50' (2 parts, longest dimension is 225', which is visible from west)
44, 552 sf
Above and underground, approx 3,000 feet long, and along west, south and east (railroad
tracks) boundaries of site
Aboveground, near southwest corner of EPS along Carlsbad Boulevard
External to desalination plant site (but within EPS boundaries)
External to desalination plant site (but within EPS boundaries)
19.5'
One structure, 2,500 sf
Along back of RO building, east boundary of site (facing railroad tracks)
5,200 sf
Use limited to screening of chemical storage area
Cast-in-place concrete, and extensive use of metal and translucent panels, glazing, and steel
and metal accents
Underground tank, 1.0 million gallons
Internal to desalination plant site (not visible beyond plant) and along aboveground intake and
discharge pipes in the EPS site
5,000 sf
14
3.969 acres
5.669 acres
•Decrease in visible project structures due to undergrounding of intake and discharge pipes and intake pump station
Proposed (POP 00-02(B)/RP 05-1 2(A)
800' (n-s) x 290' wide (e-w,avg) approx
5.7 acres, includes transfomers & solids bldg
NE quarter of expanded desalination plant site
Entirely above grade (approx 27' high) and surrounded by decorative screen walls
150' (east to west) by 300' (north to south)
60,000 sf
West central part of expanded desalination plant site
35'
120' (e-w) x 380' (n-s) = 380' visible from west
49,700 sf
Underground, approx 1,100 feet long, in central portion of site from near Carlsbad
Blvd to desalination plant
Underground, west central part of site along Carlsbad Boulevard
Internal to desalination plant site
Internal to desalination plant site
25'
Two structures, 5,000 sf (internal to desal plant site)
Freestanding, east central part of expanded site (facing railroad tracks)
6,000 sf
Extensively use to hide pretreatment and chemical storage areas; 20-30.5' high;
appearance matches RO Building with many design features
Similar, but more varied use of colors and materials
Undergound tank, 3.4 million gallons
600' long wall along west boundary of desalination plant; nearly 10' tall along much
of its length; decorative split face block with vines
6,500 sf
23
2.957 acres
5.25 acres
Attachment 9
EIR 03-05(A), PDP 00-02(B), SP 144(J), DA 05-01 (A), RP 05-12(A), HMP 05-08(A) -
DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES
August 19, 2009
The Proposed Desalination Process
Source water for the desalination plant will come from seawater currently used to cool
steam turbines at the Encina Power Station. Up to 104 million gallons per day (mgd) of
seawater that has passed through the Encina power plant condensers will be diverted
from the power plant discharge to the desalination plant. An intake structure consisting of
a pump station and a wet well tied in to the power plant discharge channel will pump
water through a 72-inch pipeline to be constructed from the power plant to the
desalination plant. The 72-inch intake pipe will be constructed in parallel with a 48-inch
seawater concentrate discharge pipe. Under the proposed amendments, this discharge
pipe would be increased to a 72-inch diameter. This increase is needed, according to the
applicant, to allow for full capacity testing during project start-up and following
maintenance.
The concentrate discharge pipeline will convey the brine discharge from the desalination
plant as a by-product of the reverse osmosis filtration process into the existing discharge
channel from the power plant at a location that is approximately 850 feet downstream of
the desalination intake structure to avoid intermixing of the concentrate discharge with
the desalination plant source water.
The source water will be pre-treated and filtered through reverse osmosis (RO)
membranes to produce drinking water. Two types of pretreatment system technology are
considered for implementation at the desalination plant: (1) granular media (sand)
filtration; and (2) membrane filtration. Pumps then feed the pretreated seawater to the
reverse osmosis membrane treatment trains. Among these pumps are the high pressure
reverse osmosis feed pumps, the purpose of which is to deliver the feed water to the
membranes at high-enough pressure (typically 800 to 900 psi) in order to complete the
water/salt separation process. The reverse osmosis treatment system equipment, arranged
in 13 discrete treatment trains, would have a total installed water production capacity of
54 mgd and an average capacity of 50 mgd.
The product water from the reverse osmosis system would be disinfected with chlorine
followed by an ammonia addition for chlorarnination. Control of biological growth in the
transmission pipelines and in the receiving reservoirs in the distribution system will be
accomplished by adding ammonia to the chlorinated water to form chloramines. The
product water would be stored temporarily in on-site facilities prior to transmission to
local and/or regional storage and distribution systems. The product water would also be
conditioned using lime and carbon dioxide to provide corrosion control within the
existing water delivery system. This is necessary because the RO process removes
minerals from the water and creates a condition whereby the water molecules will attract
minerals contained in the water delivery facilities, potentially causing corrosion of the
facilities.
Attachment 9
EIR 03-05(A), PDF 00-02(8), SP 144(J), DA 05-01 (A), RP 05-12(A), HMP 05-08(A) -
DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES
August 19, 2009
Concentrated seawater (concentrate) will be produced in the RO membrane separation
process. Approximately one gallon of concentrate would be created for every gallon of
potable drinking water produced; therefore, for the proposed 50-mgd desalination plant,
approximately 50 mgd of concentrate would be generated. The salinity of the concentrate
would be 57,000 parts per million (ppm), twice the concentration of the incoming
seawater (33,500 ppm). The concentrate would be conveyed to the power plant cooling
water discharge canal, using the desalination plant concentrate pipeline as previously
described, and then blended with the power plant cooling water prior to discharge into the
ocean via the power plant discharge canal. The existing 15-foot wide concrete discharge
channel presently conveys the cooling water into an on-site discharge pond by gravity.
From there, the cooling water travels through box culverts under Carlsbad Boulevard into
a riprap-lined channel leading across the beach and into the Pacific Ocean.
Besides the concentrate, the pretreatment and reverse osmosis systems produce waste
from the desalination process and/or cleaning requirements that require proper disposal.
Some of the material separated from the seawater during the pretreatment process would
be returned to the power plant discharge. Settled solids from the pretreatment process
would produce both solid and liquid sludge that would require disposal at a landfill or the
Encina Wastewater Pollution Control facility via sanitary sewer, as appropriate.
Cleaning of the membranes and filters will also produce sludge and chemicals that will
require similar disposal methods as appropriate. Finally, a cartridge filter system, used
for further removal of fine particles between the pretreatment and reverse osmosis steps,
produces spent filters that must be disposed of at a landfill.
A flow diagram of the desalination process is provided below. This diagram is also
provided as Figure 3-7 in the Final EIR. Note the routing of the desalination plant intake
and discharge routes shown reflect the approved project; proposed changes would
provide routes more directly between the discharge channel and the desalination plant.
)
Attachment 9
EIR 03-05(A), POP 00-02(8), SP 144(J), DA 05-01 (A), RP 05-12(A), HMP 05-08(A) -
DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES
August 19, 2009
Since 2002, the applicant has operated a seawater desalination demonstration facility near
the Power Station's discharge pond. This temporary plant, which draws and desalinates
seawater from the discharge pond, has provided the applicant with important information
such as water quality conditions in Agua Hedionda Lagoon following major storms. This
data was and continues to be used in the development of the proposed permanent
desalination plant.
BEST
COPY
)
Attachment 10 - Desalination Plant and Pipelines Map
Pipeline Alignment considered in EIR 03-05 and selected for construction
Pipeline Alignment considered in EIR 03-05 but not selected
Additional Alignments proposed and considered in EIR 03-05 addendum (EIR 03-05(A))
Approximate Location of Flow Control Facility
City of Oceanside
irf
1 , }
Attachment 11
EIR 03-05(A)/PDP 00-02(B)/SP 144(J)/DA 05-01 (A)/RP 05-12(A)/HMP 05-08(A) -
DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES
August 19, 2009
Product Water Pipeline Alignment Description
The revised delivery system proposed for construction is approximately 16.16 miles long,
compared to the approved delivery system which is 17.4 miles long ( see page 4.10-6 of FEIR).
Attachment 10 provides a comparison of the approved and revised pipeline alignment and shows
all alignments considered in EIR 03-05 and selected or not selected for construction. Attachment
10 also shows additional alignments proposed for construction but not considered in EIR 03-05.
Instead, these alignments are considered in the Addendum to EIR 03-05, EIR 03-05(A).
Generally, the revised delivery system that would be constructed follows part of the "blue
alignment" shown in the FEIR, with the modifications described below. The alignment described
would deliver desalinated water to Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD), City of
Oceanside, San Diego County Water Authority, and Vallecitos Water District facilities at various
connections points. These connection points, the approximate locations of which are also shown
on Attachment 10, are located in underground vaults known as "flow control facilities" that
would be constructed in public rights of way or properties adjacent to the pipelines.
The revised pipeline route is generally the same as the approved pipeline route for the first 6.4
miles - from the Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Plant to Melrose Drive. The primary
difference is that the new pipeline diameter has been increased to 54 inches instead of the
originally planned size of 48 inches. The reason for this change is to reduce the head loss and
energy requirements associated with the product water delivery pipelines in furtherance of
Poseidon's commitment to implement measures to reduce the Project's energy requirements and
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.1 Additionally, the revised pipeline would exit the Encina
Power Generation Station's site at Avenida Encinas, north of Cannon Road, rather than directly
into Cannon Road.
As previously analyzed, at the intersection of Faraday Boulevard and Melrose Drive, the
pipeline route branches into two opposite directions (north-south) along Melrose Drive. The
North Melrose Alignment follows the same route as was analyzed in the FEIR but has been
significantly reduced in length. The originally approved pipeline route extended 7.4 miles from
Faraday Avenue north on Melrose Drive to North Santa Fe Avenue in Oceanside. The revised
pipeline route includes only 2.3 miles of pipeline in Melrose Drive and extends as far north as
Cannon Road in Oceanside. From there, as originally analyzed, the pipeline will turn west on
Cannon Road connecting to CMWD and Oceanside facilities with the other branch going south
on Shadowridge Drive and connecting to another delivery point in the CMWD system. The size
of this section of the pipeline has been reduced from 42 inches to 36 inches in diameter because
part of the flow within this segment of pipe has being redirected east to the San Marcos
Alignment.
'Condition 10 of Poseidon's Coastal Development Permit requires Poseidon implement measures to reduce the
Project's energy requirements and GHG emissions. See Carlsbad Desalination Project Energy Minimization and
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan.
Attachment 11
EIR 03-05(A)/PDP 00-02(B)/SP 144(J)/DA 05-01 (A)/RP 05-12(A)/HMP 05-08(A) -
DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES
August 19, 2009
The South Melrose Alignment begins at the intersection of Faraday Boulevard and Melrose
Drive and continues south along Melrose Drive about 0.3 mile until it reaches Lionshead
Avenue. Here, the 54 inch pipeline continues east on Lionshead Avenue as the "San Marcos
Alignment," a new 3.6 mile pipeline not considered in EIR 03-05 that extends into the cities of
Vista and San Marcos as described below.
As shown in the EIR 03-05, the South Melrose Alignment also continues south in Melrose Drive
about 0.5 mile from Lionshead Avenue to Palomar Airport Road, where it connects with a
CMWD transmission main. The pipeline in this portion of the alignment, between Lionshead
Avenue and Palomar Airport Road, would increase in diameter from 30 inches to 36 inches due
to changes in flow apportionment between delivery points within the desalinated water delivery
system.
A new 1.9 mile southern leg, the "La Costa Alignment," has been added at the request of the
CMWD and was not studied in EIR 03-05. The La Costa Alignment would extend the pipeline
south on Melrose Drive to Alga Road in the La Costa service area from the "stub out" point
originally shown in the EIR figure 3-5 at the Palomar Airport Road CMWD transmission main.
The new pipeline alignment will be wholly within public streets and be a 24 inch diameter pipe.
From the Lionshead Avenue and Melrose Drive intersection north of Palomar Airport Road, the
new San Marcos Alignment would continue east to Business Park Drive in the City of Vista.
From the Business Park Drive and Lionshead Avenue intersection, a stub of the San Marcos
Alignment would extend south to Palomar Airport Road/San Marcos Boulevard to connect to
CMWD facilities.
At Business Park Drive, the San Marcos Alignment continues east as a 54 inch pipeline to
Poinsettia Avenue (Lionshead Avenue becomes Poinsettia Avenue east of Business Park Drive),
where it turns east on Linda Vista Drive, crosses from Vista into San Marcos, and then heads
north on Las Flores Drive to 9* Street. In 9th Street, the alignment heads east across Rancho
Santa Fe Road and continues across disturbed land (future extension of Creek Street) to Pawnee
Street where it terminates with connections to the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA)
Pipelines 3 and 4 and the Vallecitos Water District's distribution system. All pipelines are
entirely within existing street rights of way or already developed or disturbed areas.
The desalinated water is delivered at pressure matching that of the delivery points and is pumped
only once by the product water pump station located at the Carlsbad seawater desalination plant.
This simplified pumping configuration eliminates the need for the 10-MGD booster pump station
initially planned to be located in Oceanside.
Attachment 13
EIR 03-05(A)/PDP 00-02(B)/SP 144(J)/DA 05-01 (A)/RP 05-12(A)/HMP 05-08(A) -
DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES
August 19, 2009
Page 1 of 11
Compliance of Desalination Plant with Development Standards
STANDARD SOURCE of
REQUIREMENT Compliance?COMMENTS
Permitted Uses Municipal Code
Section 21.36.020;
South Carlsbad
Coastal
Redevelopment
Plan (SCCRP)
Section 601; PDF
Section IV, which
references Code
and SCCRP and
also requires PDF
consistency.
Yes • Processing, use and storage
of domestic water supplies is
a permitted use per Section
21.36.020.
• SCCRP Section 601 states
desalination plants are
permitted in Redevelopment
Area only if:
• Redevelopment Permit
approved
• Precise Development
Plan approved
• Finding of
"Extraordinary Public
Purpose" made.
• Project proposes compliance
with SCCRP requirements.
Amendments to necessary
permits filed, and evidence to
demonstrate fulfillment of
finding contained in
recommended Planning
Commission Resolution 6635.
Conditional Uses Municipal Code
Section 21.36.110;
PDF Section IV,
which references
Code and requires
PDF consistency.
N/A (no CUP
uses proposed)
* Existing CUP uses within
PDF, including cellular
facilities and aquaculture
farm, are presumed to have
valid CUPs.
Uses are subject to Municipal
Code and PDF standards per
Section IV.
Minimum Lot Area
Existing Code Standard:
• 7,500 square feet
Municipal Code
Section 21.36.070;
PDF Section IV
(PDF incorporates
Code standard).
Yes Planning Areas 1 and 3
parcel is 60 acres;
Planning Area 3 parcel is 34
acres;
Leasehold parcel for
desalination plant site is 5.7
acres.
Attachment 13
EIR 03-05(A)/PDP 00-02(B)/SP 144(J)/DA 05-01(A)/RP 05-12(A)/HMP 05-08(A) -
DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES
August 19, 2009
Page 2 of 11
Compliance of Desalination Plant with Development Standards
STANDARD
Lot Coverage
Existing Code Standard:
• All buildings and
structures shall
cover no more than
50% of the area of
the lot.
Parking, Loading, and
Refuse Collection
Areas
Existing Code Standard:
• No parking or
loading areas in a
front, side or rear
yard adjoining a
street; or within 10'
of an interior side or
rear property line.
SOURCE of
REQUIREMENT
Municipal Code
Section 21. 36.070;
Proposed PDF
Section IV (POP
incorporates this
standard).
Municipal Code
Section 21. 36.080;
PDP Section IV.
Compliance?
Yes
Yes
COMMENTS
• Lot coverage of entire 95-
acre PDP area, with
proposed desalination plant,
is approximately 15%;
• Desalination plant RO
building, solids handling
building, and pretreatment
area cover approximately
46% of the 5.7 acre
leasehold parcel.
• Coverage calculations
include buildings and major
structures such as oil storage
tanks and the pretreatment
area but do not include
smaller features and outdoor
equipment such as the
proposed chemical storage
area and existing power
plant switch yard.
• There are no yard standards
established in the Code.
• The desalination plant site is
not adjacent to any street or
within 10' of an interior
property line.
• Proposed desalination plant
parking, refuse collection
and loading areas are not
visible to the public due to
distance, existing
improvements, and existing
landscaping.
Attachment 13
EIR 03-05(A)/PDP 00-02(B)/SP 144(J)/DA 05-01 (A)/RP 05-12(A)/HMP 05-08(A) -
DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES
August 19, 2009
Page 3 of 11
Compliance of Desalination Plant with Development Standards
STANDARD
Parking, Loading, and
Refuse Collection
Areas, Cont'd.
PDF standards:
• Parking, loading,
and refuse areas
should be visually
screened from public
view by existing
fencing and
landscaping;
• Parking, loading,
and refuse areas
should be placed at
building rear and
sides;
• Outdoor refuse and
loading areas
visible from public
areas should be
visually screened,
as necessary, to a
height up to 1 0-foot
high.
SOURCE of
REQUIREMENT
Municipal Code
Section 21. 36.080;
PDF Section IV.
Compliance?
Yes
COMMENTS
• Additional landscaping is
proposed along the south
and west perimeters of the
desalination plant along
parking and refuse areas.
• The front (entrance) of the
Reverse Osmosis building
faces south toward the
parking lot; some loading
areas are proposed along
west side of building;
loading bay doors are
designed to blend with the
building elevation; trash
enclosure is south of
building near parking lot.
• Proposed parking, loading,
and refuse areas are
bordered by planters; a
condition of the
Redevelopment Permit RP
05-12(A) requires evaluation
of need for screening (by
plants) at final landscape
plan review and at final
inspection. If determined
necessary, screening would
be provided to reduce
visibility of these areas from
potential redevelopment of
the Encina Power Station.
Proposed configuration of
desalination plant site
reduces offsite views of
outdoor equipment (e.g.,
electrical transformers, post
treatment area).
Attachment 13
EIR 03-05(A)/PDP 00-02(B)/SP 144(J)/DA 05-01 (A)/RP 05-12(A)/HMP 05-08(A) -
DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES
August 19, 2009
Page 4 of 11
Compliance of Desalination Plant with Development Standards
STANDARD SOURCE of
REQUIREMENT Compliance?COMMENTS
Landscaping
Existing Code Standard:
• Except for approved
ways of ingress and
egress and parking
and loading areas, all
required yards shall
be irrigated and
permanently
landscaped with at
least one or a
combination of more
than one of the
following: Lawn,
shrubs, trees, and
flowers;
• No walls or fences
over four feet in
height may be
constructed in any
area where
landscaping is
required.
PDF standards:
• Landscaping shall
comply with existing
standards;
• Where visible to the
public, plant sizes
shall meet
minimums specified
in City landscape
manual;
Municipal Code
Section 21.36.090;
PDF Section IV.
Yes, with both
standards,
although most
standards do not
apply because
the desalination
plant is not on
the perimeter of
the Power
Station.
There are no yard
standards established in
the Code; instead the PDF
establishes setbacks, but
only along portions of the
EPS perimeter. See
discussion under
"Setbacks" below.
Perimeter landscaping is
well established along the
lagoon and Interstate 5.
Perimeter landscaping is
not continuous and is
lacking along Carlsbad
Boulevard, although
existing improvements and
topography limit
landscaping of some areas;
A landscape plan for
Carlsbad Boulevard is a
recommended condition of
approval;
Existing parking areas are
adequately screened.
Landscaping along the
NCTD corridor is
acceptable.
Attachment 13
EIR 03-05(A)/PDP 00-02(B)/SP 144(J)/DA 05-01 (A)/RP 05-12(A)/HMP 05-08(A) -
DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES
August 19, 2009
Page 5 of 11
Compliance of Desalination Plant with Development Standards
STANDARD SOURCE of
REQUIREMENT Compliance?COMMENTS
Landscaping, Cont'd.
• Landscaping
adjacent to Carlsbad
Boulevard and the
NCTD railroad
corridor shall be
consistent with
scenic corridor
guidelines to
enhance the area's
visual character;
• Parking visible from
Carlsbad Boulevard
shall be screened;
• Removed, dying, or
diseased perimeter
trees and shrubs
shall be replaced
with equivalent
material.
Municipal Code
Section 21.36.090;
PDP Section IV.
Yes, with both
standards,
although most
standards do not
apply because
the desalination
plant is not on
the perimeter of
the Power
Station.
As detailed below, the
desalination plant exceeds
setback requirements of
the PDP.
The desalination plant
provides landscaping along
portions of its perimeter.
Desalination plant parking
would not be visible from
Carlsbad Boulevard or any
other public way.
Grading
Existing Code Standard:
• None, except City
may impose special
grading instructions
per Code section
cited.
PDP standards:
• Grading in visible
areas should utilize
natural contour
grading to preserve
and enhance the
natural appearance;
• Grading shall comply
with all City and
Coastal Commission
requirements.
Municipal Code
Section
21.36.050(6);
PDP Section IV.
Yes Desalination Plant site is
not in an area visible to
public.
Proposed grading is
conditioned to comply with
all requirements.
Attachment 13
EIR 03-05(A)/PDP 00-02(B)/SP 144(J)/DA 05-01 (A)/RP 05-12(A)/HMP 05-08(A) -
DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES
August 19, 2009
Page 6 of 11
Compliance of Desalination Plant with Development Standards Continued
STANDARD SOURCE of
REQUIREMENT Compliance?COMMENTS
Architecture and
Building Materials
Existing Code Standard:
• None, except City
may impose special
requirements per
Code section cited.
Existing Encina Specific
Plan Standard:
• All buildings shall be
subject to
architectural review
to assure a maximum
amount of design
compatibility with
the neighborhood
and existing
facilities.
PDF standards:
• Form and design of
any new buildings to
be largely
determined by
visibility from
locations
surrounding the
Power Plant and
applicable
government
requirements;
Municipal Code
Section
21.36.050;
Encina Specific
Plan 144;
POP Section IV.
Yes Reverse Osmosis building
and pretreatment area would
be somewhat visible to
surrounding areas, although
at a significant distance. The
desalination plant overall has
a modern office or industrial
building appearance.
Proposed materials and
colors are subdued and blend
with the existing industrial
uses; likely, they also would
be compatible with uses
resulting from any
redevelopment of the power
plant.
Attachment 13
EIR 03-05(A)/PDP 00-02(B)/SP 144(J)/DA 05-01(A)/RP 05-12(A)/HMP 05-08(A) -
DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES
August 19, 2009
Page 7 of 11
Compliance of Desalination Plant with Development Standards
STANDARD SOURCE of
REQUIREMENT Compliance?COMMENTS
Architecture and
Building Materials,
Cont'd.
• Building materials and
finish should also
reflect neighborhood
compatibility;
• Planning Director may
determine compliance
with standards is
unnecessary based on
other agency
requirements or
function, nature, and
location of project.
Municipal Code
Section
21.36.050;
Encina Specific
Plan 144;
PDP Section IV.
Yes
Setbacks
Existing Code Standard:
• None, except City may
impose setbacks, yards,
and open space per
Code section cited.
Proposed PDP standards:
• Minimum 50-foot
setback from Carlsbad
Boulevard right of way;
• Minimum 50-foot
setback from property
line along Agua
Hedionda Lagoon
shoreline; if blufftop is
greater than 50-feet
from property line, the
top of the bluff shall
mark the minimum
lagoon setback;
Municipal Code
Section
21.36.050(1);
PDP Section IV.
Yes • The PDP establishes
minimum yard or setback
requirements of 50-feet
from property lines along
Carlsbad Boulevard and
Agua Hedionda Lagoon
shoreline and 25-feet from
Interstate 5. These proposed
setbacks establish yards
along the north, east, and
west PDP boundaries. There
is no setback established
along the south property line
(common with the San
Diego Gas and Electric ,
Operations Center) or along
the railroad corridor.
Attachment 13
EIR 03-05(A)/PDP 00-02(B)/SP 144(J)/DA 05-01 (A)/RP 05-12(A)/HMP 05-08(A) -
DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES
August 19, 2009
Page 8 of 11
Compliance of Desalination Plant with Development Standards
STANDARD SOURCE of
REQUIREMENT Compliance?COMMENTS
Setbacks, Cont'd.
• Minimum 25-foot
setback from Interstate
5 right of way;
• No setbacks established
from the south Power
Station boundaries or
from interior property
lines;
• Planning Director may
determine compliance
with standards is
unnecessary based on
other agency
requirements or
function, nature, and
location of project;
• Setback requirements
do not apply to
potential Coastal Rail
Trail alignments,
desalination facility
pipeline alignments, or
reasonable
modifications or
expansions of existing
minor structures (e.g.,
utility poles, guard
station) unless
determined necessary
for public health,
safety, and welfare
purposes by the
Planning Director.
Municipal Code
Section
21.36.050(1);
PDF Section IV.
Yes Desalination Plant complies
with setback requirements;
the plant site at its closest
points are approximately
300 feet from Agua
Hedionda Lagoon shoreline,
about 900-feet from
Carlsbad Boulevard, about
700 feet from Interstate 5,
and over 1,700 feet from
Cannon Road.
Proposed underground
intake and discharge
pipelines and the intake
pump station are not subject
to setbacks.
t )
Attachment 13
EIR 03-05(A)/PDP 00-02(B)/SP 144(J)/DA 05-01 (A)/RP 05-12(A)/HMP 05-08(A) -
DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES
August 19, 2009
Page 9 of 11
Compliance of Desalination Plant with Development Standards
STANDARD
Parking
Existing Code Standard:
• None, except City may
impose parking
requirements per Code
section cited.
PDF standards:
• Because of unique
uses at Power Station,
parking needs may
require case-by-case
analysis based on
number of employees,
hours of operation, etc;
• When applicable,
Zoning Ordinance
parking standards shall
be followed.
Building Height
Existing Code Standard:
• None, except City may
impose height
requirements per Code
section cited.
SOURCE of
REQUIREMENT
Municipal Code
Section
21.36.050(11);
POP Section IV.
Municipal Code
Section
21.36.050(2);
Encina Specific
Plan 144;
Agua Hedionda
Land Use Plan
Compliance?
Yes
Yes
COMMENTS
• Based on a 2001 parking
study of the Encina Power
Station, maximum parking
demand is 135 spaces (23 of
which are occupied by the
desalination demonstration
facility, a temporary use)
and existing parking supply
is 174 spaces.
• The desalination plant has
22 parking spaces but
generates a parking
requirement of only 1 3
spaces.
• Parking provided for the
desalination plant is more
than adequate and does not
affect parking provided for
the power plant.
• * Agua Hedionda Land Use
Plan height standard
adopted in 1982, after
completion of the Power
Plant generating building
and 400-foot tall emissions
stack.
Attachment 13
EIR 03-05(A)/PDP 00-02(B)/SP 144(J)/DA 05-01 (A)/RP 05-12(A)/HMP 05-08(A) -
DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES
August 19, 2009
Page 10 of 11
Compliance of Desalination Plant with Development Standards
STANDARD SOURCE of
REQUIREMENT Compliance?COMMENTS
Building Height, Cont'd.
Existing Encina Specific
Plan Standard:
• 35-feet.
Existing Agua Hedionda
Land Use Plan Standard:
• 35-feet.
PDP standard:
• None.
Note: No standard
includes a maximum
number of building stories.
Municipal Code
Section
21.36.050(2);
Encina Specific
Plan 144;
Agua Hedionda
Land Use Plan
Yes • Specific Plan 144 states:
The heights of future power
generating buildings and
transmission line tower
structures shall be of
heights and of a
configuration similar to
existing facilities. All
storage tanks shall be
screened from view. No
other structure or building
shall exceed thirty five
(35') feet in height unless a
specific plan is approved at
a public hearing.
The tallest component of
the desalination plant, the
Reverse Osmosis building,
features a basement, two
stories above ground, and
is 35 feet high, excluding
rooftop mechanical
equipment and screen.
Equipment and Storage
Tank Screening
Existing Code Standard:
• None, except City may
impose screening
requirements per Code
section cited.
Existing Encina Specific
Plan Standard:
• Roof mounted
equipment shall be
screened; oil storage
tanks shall be recessed
and screened.
Municipal Code
Section
21.36.050;
Encina Specific
Plan 144;
Yes • The desalination plant is
conditioned to have all
mechanical equipment
screened.
-.1 0
Attachment 13
EIR 03-05(A)/PDP 00-02(B)/SP 144(J)/DA 05-01 (A)/RP 05-12(A)/HMP 05-08(A) -
DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES
August 19, 2009
Page 11 of 11
Compliance of Desalination Plant with Development Standards
STANDARD
PDF standards:
None.
Lighting
Existing Code Standard:
• None, except City may
impose lighting
standards per Code
section cited.
Existing Encina Specific
Plan Standard:
• Exterior lighting shall
be oriented so that
adjacent properties
shall be screened from
glare or a direct light
source; all ground
lighting shall be
arranged to reflect
away from adjoining
properties and streets.
PDP standards:
• None.
SOURCE of
REQUIREMENT
Municipal Code
Section
21.36.050;
Encina Specific
Plan 144;
Municipal Code
Section
21.36.050;
Encina Specific
Plan 144;
Compliance?
Yes
Yes
COMMENTS
• Lighting Plan approval is
required prior to building
permit issuance.
Note: "SCCRP " stands for South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Plan
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: EIR 03-05(AVPDP 00-02(BVSP 144QVDA 05-01 (AVRP 05-12(AVHMPP 05-
08(A)
CASE NAME: DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES
APPLICANT: Poseidon Resources (Channelside) LLC
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request for: 1) adoption of an addendum to Environmental
Impact Report 03-05; and 2) approval of amendments to the Precise Development Plan, Encina
Specific Plan, Development Agreement, Redevelopment Permit, and Habitat ManaRement Plan
Permit. Certification of EIR 03-05 and approval of the various applications above occurred in
2006 and established a Precise Development Plan for the Encina Power Station (EPS) and
approved a 50 million gallon a day Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Plant at the EPS as well as
desalinated water delivery pipelines in Carlsbad. Oceanside, and Vista.
The requested actions would modify the desalination project through the several amendments
noted above. The modifications would affect the configuration and location of the desalination
plant and appurtenant facilities at the EPS and of the pipeline network planned to deliver
desalinated water to Carlsbad and surrounding communities. The changes would not affect the
capacity or operations of the approved desalination project.
The project locations are: 1) the Encina Power Station located at 4600 Carlsbad Boulevard and
west of Interstate 5; 2) the 680-acre Encina Specific Plan, which encompasses the Power Station
and all of Agua Hedionda Lagoon; and 3) miscellaneous locations in Carlsbad, generally in street
right of ways, where desalinated water pipeline alignments are proposed. Additional
desalination pipeline alignments are proposed in the cities of Oceanside, San Marcos, and Vista,
primarily in existing street rifihts of way, and are subject to the review and permitting
requirements of those cities.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Multiple properties and locations in the cities of Carlsbad.
Vista, San Marcos, and Oceanside are involved.
APN: Varies Acres: The Precise Development Plan affects the Encina Power Station, which is
approximately 95 acres. The Encina Specific Plan, which encompasses the Power Station,
affects 680 acres. The acreages of the various pipeline alignments are not known.
Proposed No. of Lots/Units: N/A
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Existing Land Use Designation: Encina Power Station has a Public Utilities designation: other
project components have other designations
Proposed Land Use Designation: N/A
Density Allowed: N/A Density Proposed: N/A
Existing Zone: Encina Power Station has a Public Utilities zoning; other project components
have other zonings Proposed Zone: N/A
Revised 01/06
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use (Encina Power Station only):
ZoninR General Plan Current Land Use
Site
North
South
East
West
P-U
0-S
P-U
P-U
0-S
U
OS
U
T-R
OS
Power Station
Open Space (lagoon)
Industrial
Vacant (across 1-5)
Open Space (beach)
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (for portions of project in Carlsbad only)
Coastal Zone: IXI Yes I I No Local Coastal Program Segment: Mello II. Agua Hedionda Land
Use Plan
Within Appeal Jurisdiction: IXI Yes | | No Coastal Development Permit: IXI Yes* I I No
(*Portion of project within Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan segment of the City's Local Coastal
Program requires a Coastal Development Permit from the Coastal Commission.)
Local Coastal Program Amendment: I I Yes [XI No
Existing LCP Land Use Designation: U* Proposed LCP Land Use Designation: N/A
Existing LCP Zone: P-U* Proposed LCP Zone: N/A
(* Encina Power Station only)
PUBLIC FACILITIES (for portion of project in Carlsbad only)
School District: Carlsbad Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): 909
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
I I Categorical Exemption,
I I Negative Declaration, issued_
Final Environmental Impact Report, certified June 13, 2006
Other, Addendum to Certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR 03-05 (A)) - pending
Revised 01/06
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: Desalination Project Changes - EIR Q3-05CAVPDP 00-02(BVSP
144CJVDA 05-OUAVRP OS-12(AVHMPP 05-08(A)
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONES: 1. 3 - Encina Power Station only; project
pipelines are also located in Zones 5, 6, 8,13, 16, 17 and 18
GENERAL PLAN: Public Utilities (U) - Encina Power Station only
ZONING: Public Utilities (P-IT) - Encina Power Station only
DEVELOPER'S NAME: Poseidon Resources (Channelside) LLC
ADDRESS: Poseidon: 501 W. Broadway. Suite 2020, San Diego, CA 92101
PHONE NO.: Poseidon: (619) 595-7802: Cabrillo: (760) 710-2147 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NO.: 210-010-41 and -43 (Encina Power Station only): delivery pipelines generally in streets
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): Desalination Plant site is
approximately 5.7 acres and features miscellaneous buildings, facilities and pipelines both on
and off the plant site but within the Encina Power Station. Water delivery pipelines extend from
the plant and into Carlsbad and surrounding cities to connect to existing water systems.
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: 2012
Demand in Square Footage = N/A
18CFS
B
120
A. City Administrative Facilities:
B. Library: Demand in Square Footage = N/A
C. Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) = 909 EDU max.
D. Park: Demand in Acreage = N/A
E. Drainage: Demand in CFS =
Identify Drainage Basin =
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
F. Circulation: Demand in ADT =
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
G. Fire: Served by Fire Station No. =
H. Open Space: Acreage Provided =
I. Schools:
(Demands to be determined by staff)
J. Sewer: Demands in EDU
Identify Sub Basin =
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
K. Water: Demand in GPD =
— i
N/A
CUSP
909 EDU max.
3A
10,246*
^Project will produce approximately 50 million gallons per day of potable water; thus, no
increased water demand results from this project.
J
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require
discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee.
The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot
be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print.
Note:
Person is denned as "Any individual, fern, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal
organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county,- city
municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group- or combination acting as a unit"
Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be
provided below.
1.
2.
APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent)
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having a financial
interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership, include the--
names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF- NO
INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-
APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW If a publicly-owned corporation, include the
names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if
necessary.) |
Person-EetoFMocb.QggQn^Mrt J)*^. 7y£?/dfcorp/Part Poseidon Resources US-
Title Title
• Address Address 501 W. Broadway. Suite 2020
San Diego, Ca 921 01
OWNER (Not the owner's agent) , . '
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any ownership
interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e,
partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a
corporation or partnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more
than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES,
PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publicly-
owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate
page may be attached if necessary.)
Person.
Title
Corp/Part Cabrillo Power I LLC
Title
Address Address 4600 Carlsbad Boulevard
Carlsbad, ca
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad. CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-46OO • FAX (760) 602-8559
NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit organization or a trust, list the
names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the,
Non Profit/Trust
Title
Non Profit/Trust,
Title
Address Address
Have you had more than S250- worth of business transacted with any member of City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months?
Yes If yes; please indicate person(s):_
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Signature of owner/date
Keith Richards or Authorized Agent
Print or type name of owner
Signature of applicant/date
Peter MacLaggan
Print or type name of applicant
Signature of owner/applicant's agent if applicable/date
Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent
H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5V98 Page 2 of 2
LATHAM&WATKINS^
July 31,2009
Scott Donnell
City of Carlsbad Planning Dept.
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
San Diego, California 92101-3375
Tel:+1.619.236.1234 Fax:+1.619.696.7419,
www.lw.com
FIRM/AFFILIATE OFFICES
Abu Dhabi
Barcelona
Brussels
Chicago
Doha
Dubai
Frankfurt
Hamburg
' Hong Kong
London
Los Angeles
Madrid
Milan
Moscow
Munich
New Jersey
New York
Orange Coi
Paris
Rome
San Diego
San Francisco
Shanghai
Silicon Valley
Singapore
Tokyo
Washington, D.C.
Re: Ownership Disclosure Statement
To Whom It May Concern:
We represent Poseidon Resources (Channelside) LLC concerning its recent applications.
This letter is to clarify that the Applicant for the proposed amendments to these development
permits is Poseidon Resources (Channelside) LLC. Poseidon Resources is represented in the
Proj.ect by Mr. Peter MacLaggan. As noted on the Disclosure Statement, Poseidon Resources
has indicated "N/A" in the line titled "person" because no individuals own more than \Q% of the
company shares.
If you need additional information, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
of
ipher W. Garrett
'ATHAM & WATKINS LLP
cc: JanDriscoll
SD\689274.1
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require
discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee.
The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot
be reviewed until this information is contpkted. Please print.
Note:
Person is defined as "Any individual, firm, co-pannership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal
organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county,- city
municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting a; a unit"
Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must b«
provided below.
1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent)
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having a financial
interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership, include the -
names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF- NO
INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-
APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW If a publiclv-owned corporation, include die
names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if
necessary.)
Person Peter MacLaggan Corp/Tan Poseidon Resources
Title Title ,
Address : Address 501 W. Broadway, Suite 2020
San Diego, Ca 92101
2. OWNER (Not the owner's agent) '
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any ownership
interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e,
partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a
corporation or partnership, inclue'e the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more
than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHAKES,
PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publierv-
owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate
page may be attachediif necessary.)
Person N / £\ Corp/Pan CabriBo Power I LLC
Title Title
Address Address 4600 Carlsbad Boulevard
;Carlsbad,
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4SOO • FAX (760) 602-8559
NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit organization or a trust, list the
names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit
organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the.
Non Profit/Trust.
Title
Non Profit/Trust.
Title
Address Address,
4. Have you had more than S250-worth of business transacted with any member of City staff,
Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months?
Yes [No If yes, please indicate person(s):_
NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary.
I certify that all the above information is tone and correct to the best of my knowledge..
Signature of owner/date
Keith Richards or Authorized Agent
Print or type name of owner
Signature of applicant/date
Peter MacLaggan
Print or type name of applicant
Signature of owner/applicant's agent if applicable/date
Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent
H:ADMIN\COUNTemOISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/9B Page 2 of 2
SIGNATURE ATTACHMENT
Poseidon Resources ("Poseidon") applicant, has requested Cabrillo Power I, LLC
("Cabrillo") sign the Application required by the City of Carlsbad to undertake limited modifications
to certain approvals for the purpose of modifying the site plan/footprint of Poseidon's desalination
facility. Cabrillo is the fee landowner of Poseidon's proposed leasehold parcel and is signing the
application as an accommodation to Poseidon and on the following terms and conditions:
1. By signing the application, Cabrillo is not authorizing any of the permits, approvals
or actions to be re-opened for any modification other than for the purpose of the proposed
modification of the site plan/footprint of the desalination facility,
2. By signing the application, Cabrillo is not consenting, directly or indirectly, in
advance to any new or revised conditions, exactions or other changes to the underlying permits and
approvals affecting Cabrillo directly or indirectly.
3. As the desalination site is within a secure area associated with the Encina Power
Generating Station, it will be necessary to contact the undersigned in advance of any "inspection or
entry" on Cabrillo's property per Section 25 of the Application.
Please note, use the contact information and address set forth below for all communications.
Thank you.
Dated: 7 / £) ! 3.00? CABRILLO POWER I, LLC~^~^
By:
Name: Kerm- S.
Title:
Address: (617 -A^-rr*j Ave & ( 04-
Phone:
OS1IDOH RESOURC JEXKflBIT 10
August 18,2009
Mr. Don Neu
Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mr. Neu:
Thank you for your consideration of the minor and immaterial amendments to our local
use permits. Poseidon has entered the final engineering stages of this exciting Project
and further technical refinement has led to improvements in the overall Project that will
consolidate uses, reduce the visual footprint of the site, and allow us to better serve water
to our customers, most notably the City of Carlsbad. In addition, we feel, and your staff
agrees, that the consolidation of uses, and undergrounding of major infrastructure will
help facilitate the City's future goal of redeveloping the EPS site. We are pleased that as
we get closer to construction, these minor refinements have been able to provide
additional benefits.
As you are aware, Poseidon has voluntarily entered into a greenhouse gas reduction and
energy efficiency plan with the State Land Commission and the California Coastal
Commission. Poseidon has voluntarily committed itself to a first of its kind program to
reduce energy use, and engineer our project to allow for maximum efficiency in the
creation and delivery of water to the region. To this end we fully support City staffs
inclusion of a condition in the Redevelopment Permit 6635 which would allow us to
extend parapet walls on the reverse osmosis building to accommodate a possible solar
energy installation. Including solar energy generation as part of the Project is a goal that
we intend to aggressively pursue as part of our commitment to using cutting edge
technologies to maximize Project efficiency.
We appreciate your past support of our Project and look forward to providing water to the
City in the near future. If you have any questions about the minor amendments proposed,
or any other aspect of the Project, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Peter M. MacLaggan
Poseidon Resources
Poseidon Resources
501 West Broadway. Suite 2020, Sao Diego, CA 92101, USA
619-595-7802 Fax: 619-595-78B2
)
CARLSBAD^> CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
EXHIBIT 11
August 18, 2009
Farrah Douglas
Acting Chairman,
City of Carlsbad Planning Commission
Dear Chairman Douglas:
I am writing to support the approval of the addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the
Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Plant to be constructed by Poseidon Resources. The Chamber has a
membership of more than 1600 companies that represent more than 75,000 employees whose jobs
would be in jeopardy without the availability of a secure water resource.
For the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce, securing a reliable and affordable potable water supply is
one of our top priorities. We have been actively supporting the Carlsbad Desalination project
through the permitting process for the last 5 years.
Tonight, we urge the planning commission to recommend approval of the Addendum to the EIR
and other land use approvals before you today. The proposed project changes would consolidate
the uses on the plant site in the back of the Encina Power Station property resulting in a more
efficient and less-visible project. The changes are minor, cosmetic and relatively immaterial and
your approval will expedite the process of beginning construction.
The sooner the plant is built the quicker the new water's impact will have on helping solve the
water shortage region wide. We applaud the City of Carlsbad for taking an important step towards
finding water solutions for the region.
Thank you for your time and consideration on this project.
Sincerely,/
Ted Owen
President and CEO
CC: Montgomery, Baker, Boddy, Dominguez, L'Heureux, Nygaard
5934 Priestly Drive • Carlsbad, California 92008
Phone: (760) 931-8400 • Fax: (760) 931-9153 • E-mail: chamber@carlsbad.org • Web: www.carlsbad.org
EXHIBIT 12
1140 S Coast Hwy 101
Encinitas, CA 92024
COAST LAW GROUP tel 760-942-8505
fax 760-942-8515
www.coasilawgroup.com
August 19, 2009
Scott Donnell Via Electronic Mail and Hand Delivery
Planning Department Scott.Donnell@carlsbadca.gov
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: EIR 03-05(A)/PDP 00-02(B)/SP 144(J)/DA 05-01(A)/RP 05-12(A)/HMP 05-08(A) -
DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES (Resolutions No. 6631, 6632, 6633, 6634, 6635,
6636)
Dear Mr. Donnell:
Please accept these comments on behalf of San Diego Coastkeeper and the California
Environmental Rights Foundation (collectively "Environmental Groups"), non-profit environmental
organizations protecting San Diego County's bays, beaches, watersheds and ocean. Environmental
Groups have serious concerns regarding the City of Carlsbad's ("City") California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Addendum, to the City's Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant
Project Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 03-05) ("Addendum").
Inappropriate Public Process
As a preliminary matter, Environmental Groups, as well as the general public, have been given little
to no opportunity to review the City's Addendum and supporting documents. The City made
documents available to the public three business days before the Planning Commission hearing,
thus ensuring the public would not have sufficient time to read and respond in writing to relevant
materials. Though the newly prepared documents alone are voluminous, the Addendum also cross-
references relevant sections in the FEIR, requiring additional review of the massive FEIR for
comparison. That the City has not identified any rationale for such a truncated public process is not
surprising given its unwavering, bend-over-backwards support for the Project thus far.
Please also accept this correspondence as formal notice of the City's inappropriate and illegal
evasion of public review and comment requirements of CEQA by preparing an Addendum, as
opposed to a subsequent or supplemental EIR (collectively, "SEIR"). As you should be aware, a
SEIR would require a formal notice and comment period of at least 30 days. The lack of opportunity
for public input only speaks to the predetermined approval process for the Carlsbad Desalination
Project ("Project") at every level of review.
In light of the enormity of the Project and its implications, it is unreasonable to expect the public to
provide anything resembling meaningful comment within such a short time frame. As such, please
expect that Environmental Groups will appeal an approval by the Planning Commission to the City
Council, where extensive additional comments will be provided.
Nonetheless, Environmental Groups would like to highlight the following concerns with the
proposed EIR Addendum:
EIR 03-05(A); Related Permit Modifications
Environmental Groups' Comments
August 19,2009
Page 2 of 4
inadequate EIR Addendum
The City Is Required to Prepare a SEIR: Substantial changes to the Project and in
circumstances surrounding the Project require preparation of a SEIR. More than two years
have passed since the City certified the FEIR for the Project. Since that time, several
agencies have reviewed the Project and found the FEIR inadequate, supplementing the
document with new information. These efforts have revealed the Project's significant
negative impacts. Importantly, none of the newly discovered impacts or mitigation measures
was the subject of CEQA review or appropriate public process before any agency
subsequently reviewing the Project. In light of the EPS's planned shutdown, as well as the
State Water Resources Control Board's Proposed Water Quality Control Policy on the Use of
Coastal and Estuarine Waters for Power Plant Cooling, previously deemed infeasible
alternatives now also require consideration or reconsideration.
Marine Life impacts Require Evaluation of Alternatives: The Regional Water Quality
Control Board ("Regional Board"), California Coastal Commission ("CCC"), and State Lands
Commission ("SLC"), imposed various mitigation measures to address the newly discovered
and significant marine life impacts of the Project. Though the Addendum easily discounts
mitigation measures as the result of different statutory regimes, these requirements signal
the need to prepare subsequent CEQA documentation evaluating the feasibility of alternative
intakes in light of the significance of the Project's impacts.
' Growth Inducement impacts Have Increased; The FEIR did not discuss growth inducing
impacts to any level of detail, purportedly because the water supply projection for
desalination was considered in the San Diego County Water Authority ("SDCWA") PEIR for
the Regional Water Facilities Master Plan. However, at a programmatic level, this document
did not discuss the project's growth inducement potential with any level of detail, and
specifically did not address the pipeline connection to the SDCWA system pipelines. Further,
the SDCWA is now planning construction of a 150 MGD desalination plant, adding to the
cumulative growth inducement potential of desalinated water, and requiring further
mitigation.
* Impacts to Geology and Soils Have Increased: The potential for erosion will increase due
to proposed undergrounding of additional Project components, as well as increase in the size
of the delivery pipelines. Significant additional excavation and dirt hauling will also result from
these activities, which have not been addressed in the addendum.
Noise will Increase: The installation of new pipelines along busy streets and rights of way
will cause increased noise impacts, potentially both with respect to instantaneous
maximums, as well as weighted hour averages. This is particularly relevant to sensitive
receptors such as the residential areas along Linda Vista and 9lh Streets.
Traffic Impacts will Increase: The reduction in cut/fill hauling is unsubstantiated in light of
the increase in underground Project components. Moreover, the new pipeline installation in
busy, residential and commercial neighborhoods will increase traffic impacts.
Use of Public Utilities will Increase: By operating at the FEIR's "historical extreme" more
frequently (and continuously upon EPS shutdown) the Project will require more energy to
operate to draw 304 MG of water instead of 104 as anticipated.
EIR 03-05(A); Related Permit Modifications
Environmental Groups' Comments
August 19, 2009
Page 3 of 4
Aesthetic and Coastal-Related Impacts Have Increased: The Project's connection to the
SDCWA pipeline system enables physical movement of Project water throughout the
County. The Project's intake of seawater, whether via the existing powerplant intake or
otherwise, does not require location of the physical desalination plant on the coast.
Therefore, the Project is no longer to be considered coastal dependent and should be re-
located to an inland location.
Air Quality/Global Warming Impacts Have Increased: The original Project proposal's
energy requirements will contribute to increased regional GHG emissions, which will
incrementally exacerbate global climate destabilization. As currently proposed and mitigated
by other agencies, the Project will still annually contribute more than 60,000 metric tons of
CO2 to the atmosphere.
Mandatory Significance Finding: Global Warming and Marine Life impacts result in a
mandatory finding of significance pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15065(a).
Cumulative Impacts: The future CECP, LOSSAN Rail Corridor, Coastal Rail Trail, I-5
Widening, and concurrent construction of a development near the Rancho Santa Fe Drive
and Pawnee Street pipeline segment, constitute substantially changed circumstances
surrounding the Project which will involve new or increased significant environmental
impacts, including:
- Growth Inducement
- Air Quality and Global Warming
- Geology and Soils
- Hydrology and Water Quality
- Land Use Planning
- Traffic and Circulation
- Public Utilities and Service Systems
Potential Increased Production Capacity: The addition of increased product water storage
tanks and increased diameter delivery pipelines; new configuration and increased discharge
capacity of the intake and discharge pipes; and the exchange and wheeling agreement with
the SDCWA all point to Poseidon's intention to increase production capacity. If Poseidon
intends to increase production capacity, such an intention must be disclosed and evaluated
during the City's CEQA review process.
Development Standards/Lot Coverage: The smaller facilities should be used in the
calculation of coverage. The 46 percent coverage is underestimated currently to meet the 50
percent coverage maximum limitation.
Coastal Development Permit Revision: Changes to configuration of the Project, intake and
discharge pipes, and increased storage tank capacity all have implications to the Project's
Coastal Development Permit, issued by the Coastal Commission. Though Poseidon claims
such changes will not affect the previous approval, such changes will require subsequent
approval by the Coastal Commission.
Cumulative Impacts: The addendum fails to identify significant additional projects within the
proposed revised pipeline routs.
EIR 03-05(A); Related Permit Modifications
Environmental Groups' Comments
August 19, 2009
Page 4 of 4
Claim of Benefits does not abrogate need for SEIR: Staff's claims that proposed changes
to CDP result in net benefit to any future redevelopment of the EPS is not sufficient rationale
to avoid disclosure of impacts and necessary mitigation impacts in the SEIR.
Wildlife Impacts: Because the habitat surrounding the project site includes a significant
stopover for migrating waterfowl, the alignment of project buildings may provide new or
enhanced perching opportunities for foraging raptors. This impact is nowhere identified in the
addendum or accompanying documents.
Incomplete Staff Report: At page 3, at bottom of the page, the paragraph ends mid-
sentence and does not continue on to page 4 and therefore the document is incomplete.
• Neighboring City impacts: The addendum to the EIR identifies that pipelines will or may
extend into neighboring cities, but fails to address the impacts associated with those
extensions.
In light of the foregoing, we urge the Planning Commission to deny approval of the proposed
addendum, and instead recommend production of a SEIR.
Please do not hesitate to contact us with questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
COAST LAW GROUP L
MARCO A. GONZALEZ
Attorney for San Diego Coastkeeper
Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation
End.:
• March 27, 2009 San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Staff Report
April 1, 2009 Statement of Dr. Peter Raimondi to San Diego Regional Water Quality Control
Board
• April 7, 2009 Environmental Groups' Supplemental Technical Comments - Response to Scott
Jenkins' Note on Regional Board Staff Concerns Regarding Rainfall Effects on Impingement
per RWQCB Staff Report of March 27, 2009
April 7, 2009 Environmental Groups' Appendix A to: Response to Scott Jenkins' Note on
Regional Board Staff Concerns Regarding Rainfall Effects on Impingement per RWQCB Staff
Report of March 27, 2009
• April 6, 2009 Environmental Groups' Comment Letter with Exhibits
May 6, 2009 Letter from California Coastal Commission to San Diego Regional Water Quality
Control Board
May 7, 2009 Environmental Groups' Comment Letter
May 12, 2009 Environmental Group Objections to Flow, Entrapment and Impingement
Minimization Plan
Linda S. Adams
Secrttaryfor
Environmental Protection
0 • C
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Diego Region
Over SO Years Serving Sin Diego, Orange, anil Riverside Counties
Recipient of (he 2004 Environmental Award Tar Outstanding Achievement from USGPA
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Governor
TO:
FROM:
9174 Sky Park Court. Suiw 100, San Diego, California 921234353
(858) 467-2952 • Fax (858) 371-6972
http://www.watctboards.ca.gov/sajidi5go
John H. Robertas
Executive Officer
SAN DIEGO REGIONAL'WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
DATE:
SUBJECT:
rian Kelley, Senior WatefResource Control Engineer
Chiara Cleniente, Senior Environmental Scientist
Deborah Woodward, PhD, Environmental Scientist
Michelle Mata, Water Resource Control Engineer
SAN DIEGO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
March 27, 2009
STAFF REPORT: REVIEW OF POSEIDON'S FLOW ENTRAPMENT
AND IMPINGEMENT MINIMIZATION PLAN DATED MARCH 9, 2009
WITH SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS; ORDER NO. R9-2006-0065,
NPDES NO. CA01 09223, WASTE DISHCARGE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE POSEIDON RESOURCES CORPORATION, CARLSBAD
DESALINATION PROJECT, DISCHARGE TO THE PACIFIC OCEAN VIA
THE ENCINA POWER STATION DISCHARGE CHANNEL
This memorandum is a summary of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control
Board (Regional Board} technical staffs conclusions based on their analysis of the
March 9, 2009 Flow, Entrapment and Impingement Minimization Plan as
supplemented1 (March 9, 2009 Minimization Plan) for Poseidon Resources
•Corporation's (Poseidon, or Discharger) Carlsbad Desalination Project (CDP). While
Poseidon has predicted that most of the time, the Encina Power Station (EPS) will
discharge sufficient volumes of water to meet CDP's intake needs of 304 million gallons
per day (MOD), Regional Board Order No. R9-2006-0065 (NPDES No. CA0109223)
(Order No. R9-2006-0065) requires that the CDP comply with California Water Code
(CWC) section 13142.5(b) during times when EPS is either temporarily shutdown or is
operating but not at a level that will result in sufficient discharge volumes to meet CDP's
projected intake needs of 304 MOD. For clarity, staff refers to these operating
conditions as co-location operation for CDP benefit.
Although in some instances the March 9, 2009 Minimization Plan refers to stand-alone
operations in evaluating compliance with CWC section 13142,5(b), staffs evaluation is
focused on minimization efforts applicable only to co-location operation for CDP benefit,
1 Poseidon submitted a revised statement of Chris Nordby on March 18,2009, and statements from
Howard Chang, PhD, and Scott Jenkins, PhD, on March 20, 2009. This staff report will be revised or
'Supplemented to address additional expected revisions from Poseidon.
California Environmental Protection Agency
. ' £| Recycled Paper
Poseidon Minimization Plan March 27, 2009
Regional Board Staff Report - 2 -
consistent with the description of Poseidon's proposed CDP operation in their Report of
Waste Discharge for Order No. R9-2006-0065. As reflected in Tentative Order No. R9-
2009-0038 (Tentative Order), additional evaluation of CDP's operations for compliance
with CWC section 13142.5(b) will be necessary if EPS ceases power generation
operations2 and Poseidon proposes, through a new Report of Waste Discharge, to
independently operate EPS's seawater intake and outfall for the benefit of the CDP
("stand-alone operation").
Furthermore, staffs evaluation.does not include an assessment of incremental,
impingement'and entrainment effects of the CDP operation under the conditions when
EPS is operating and producing sufficient discharge volumes to meet the CDP's intake
needs. The Regional Board has already made a determination that these impacts are
de minimis (see Order No. R9-2006-0065, Pages F-49 to F-50).
This memorandum is intended to assist the Regional Board in making a determination
as to whether Poseidon's implementation of the Minimization Plan will result in the "use
[of] the best available site, design, technology, and mitigation measures feasible to
minimize the intake and mortality of all forms of marine life," as required by California
Water Code (CWC) section 13142.5(b) and Order No. R9-2006-0065, under conditions
of co-location operation for CDP benefit.
Background
On August 11, 2006, the Regional Board adopted Order R9-2006-0065 (NPDES No.
CA0109223) establishing waste discharge requirements for Poseidon Resources
Corporation to discharge up to 57 MGD of a combined waste stream comprised of
concentrated saline waste seawater and filter.backwash wastewater from the CDP into
the Pacific Ocean via the EPS cooling water discharge channel. Intake source water
from Agua Hedionda Lagoon is to be drawn in through the existing EPS intake
structure. The total flow rate of source water needed to operate the CDP at full
production is determined to be 304 MGD, in order to produce 50 MGD of potable water.
Of this source water, 107 MGD would be used for the production of 50 MGD of potable
water (and 57 MGD of wastewater). The remaining 197 MGD of source water not used
2 On August 18, 2008, the Regional Board received a Report of Waste Discharge from the Carlsbad
Energy Center LLC requesting an NPDES discharge permit for the proposed discharge of brine
(associated with Reverse Osmosis) from a new power plant to be constructed near the existing Encina
Power Station. The Information provided to date (California Energy Commission Preliminary Staff
Assessment Carlsbad Energy Center Application For Certification (07-AFC-06), December 2008)
indicates that the EPS intends to retire power generating Units 1, 2, and 3 (including the associated pump
and screens with the same number) and continue producing electricity through power generating Units 4 &
' 5 (with similar pump and screen numbers) at an approximate maximum flow rate of 638.5 MGD. Based
on this information It is possible, if not likely, that co-located operation, may occur over an extended period
of time.
California Environmental Protection Agency
Recycled Paper
Poseidon Minimization Plan . . March 27,2009
Regional Board Staff Report - 3 -
for production is needed as dilution water to comply with the salinity requirements of the
NPDES Permit. This results in a total discharge flow rate of 254 MGD (57 MOD of
wastewater and 197 MGD of dilution water).
Section 13142,5(b) of the CWC requires new or expanded coastal industrial facilities
using seawater for cooling, heating, or industrial processing, to use the best available
site, design, technology, and mitigation measures feasible to minimize the intake and
mortality of all forms of marine life. The term "site" refers to the location of the facility
along with the associated location of the seawater intake structure(s). Consistent with
CWC section 13142.5(b), section VI.C.2.e of Order No. R9-2006-OQ65 requires
Poseidon to submit, within 180 days of adoption a Flow, Entrainment and Impingement
Minimization Plan that "shall assess the feasibility of site-specific plans, procedures,
and practices to be implemented and/or mitigation measures to minimize the impacts to
marine organisms when the CDP intake requirements exceed the volume of water
being discharged by the EPS." The Order requires an approved Minimization Plan to
ensure that the CDP complies with section 13142.5(b) of the Water Code when under
conditions of co-location operation for CDP benefit. To approve the Minimization Plan,
the Regional Board must determine that the Plan uses the best available site, design,
technology, and mitigation to minimize intake and mortality of all forms of marine life
under these operating conditions. Under Order No. R9-2006-0065, approval of the
Plan is not a condition for commencement of the discharge from the CDP,
On February 13, 2007, and June 29, 2007, the Discharger submitted draft versions of a
Minimization Plan intended to comply with Order R9-2006-0065 under the conditions
when. EPS is not supplying the 304 MGD needed by the CDP. In order to address
outstanding concerns of staff, the Discharger thereafter submitted an updated version
of the revised Minimization Plan, dated March 6, 2008. At a public meeting on April 9,
2008, the Regional Board considered the March 6,2008 Plan and adopted Resolution
No. R9-2008-0039 ("Conditional Approval of Revised Flow, Entrainment and
Impingement Minimization Plan"). While the Regional Board determined that the
revised Minimization Plan did not satisfy all of the requirements in Section VI.C.2.e. of
Order No. R9-2006-0065, it conditionally approved the Plan subject to the conditions (1)
that within six months, the Discharger submit an amended Minimization Plan that
includes a specific proposal for mitigation of the impacts, by impingement and
entrainment upon marine organisms resulting from the intake of seawater from Agua
Hedionda Lagoon and (2) that the amended Plan address the items outlined in the
February 19, 2008 letter to Poseidon and the following additional concerns:
a) Identification of impacts from impingement and entrainment;
b) Adequate monitoring data to determine the impacts from impingement and
entrainment;
c) Coordination among participating agencies for the amendment of the Plan as
required by Section 13225 of the California Water Code;
California Environmental Protection Agency
iQ Recycled Paper
Poseidon Minimization Plan March 27,2009
Regional Board Staff Report - 4 - •
d) Adequacy of mitigation; and
e) Commitment to fully implement the amendment to the Plan,
In response to Resolution No. R9-2008-0039, on November 18, 2008, Poseidon
submitted an amendment to the March 6,2008, Minimization Plan, titled the Marine Life
Mitigation Plan (MLMP). Poseidon intended the MLMP, dated November. 14, 2008, to
satisfy the conditions in Resolution No. R9-2008-0039. In a letter dated December 2,
2008, the Executive Officer informed the Discharger that the amended Plan did not
satisfy the requirements established in Resolution No. R9-2008-0039 since it did not
propose a specific mitigation site or specific proposal for mitigation at an identified site,
did not fully address the issues raised in the Regional Board's February 19, 2008 letter,
and was submitted past the due date of October 6, 2008; On December 9, 2008, the
Discharger submitted a response to the December 2, 2008 letter disagreeing and
asserting that the amendment to the plan and previous submittals satisfied the Regional
Board's conditions set forth in Resolution No. R9-2008-0039.
At its February 11, 2009 meeting, the Regional Board was scheduled to consider
whether the MLMP satisfied the conditions established in Resolution No. R9-2008-0039
or whether failure to satisfy the conditions rendered the Resolution inoperative by its
own terms. At the commencement of the February 11 item, the Executive Officer, with
concurrence by the Discharger, recommended postponing aqtion on the matter and
identified a list of outstanding issues concerning the March 6, 2008 Minimization Plan,
as supplemented by the MLMP. The Executive Officer identified the outstanding issues
as follows: "(1) Placing Regional Water Board and its Executive Officer on equal
footing, including funding, with Coastal Commission and its Executive Director, in the
.MLMP, while minimizing redundancies (e.g., only one Scientific Advisory Panel).
Details of dispute resolution process to be worked out; (2) Reducing the number of sites
to five, in consultation with the Coastal Commission, with the existing proviso that other
sites within the Regional Board boundaries could be added; (3) Poseidon to provide the
flow-proportioned calculations for Poseidon's impacts due to impingement, to help
support the Board's determination that these impacts are de minimis; and (4) Poseidon
to provide a consolidated set of all requirements imposed to date by the various
agencies."
The Regional Board continued the matter to Its April 8, 2009 meeting, directed staff to
work with the Discharger to expeditiously address the list of the outstanding issues
identified by the Executive'Officer, and further directed staff to prepare for Regional
Board consideration a resolution or order approving the Flow, Entrainment, and
Impingement Minimization Plan required by Order No. R9-2006-0065,
Since the February 11, 2009 meeting, Regional Board staff and the Discharger have
met on numerous occasions to address the outstanding Issues. By separate submittal
on February 26, 2009, the Discharger substantially resolved outstanding issue (4) by
California Environmental Protection Agency
& Recycled Paper
r* r
Poseidon Minimization Plan March 27, 2009
Regional Board Staff Report - 5 -
submitting six documents reflecting various agencies' regulatory requirements
concerning the CDP.3 On March 9, 2009, the Discharger submitted an extensively
revised Minimization Plan, including the November 14, 2008 MLMP, for Regional Board
consideration. The March 9, 2009 Minimization Plan substantially resolves outstanding
issue (1) by incorporating revisions to effect the placement of Regional Board and
Executive Officer on equal footing with Coastal Commission and its Executive Director
in the MLMP. It also substantially resolves issue (2) by affirming that among the eleven
candidate sites identified in the MLMP, Poseidon will consider the five sites within the
Regional Board's boundaries as priority sites for selection.
The most extensive discussions between staff and Poseidon since the February 11,
2009, meeting have revolved around resolution of issue (3) ("Poseidon to provide the
flow-proportioned calculations for Poseidon's impacts due to impingement, to help
support the Board's determination that these impacts are de minimis"). By reviewing
calculations, it became apparent that a calculation error that substantially understated
the 2004-2005 impingement impacts from EPS's operations and therefore had
substantially understated the CDP's projected impacts. Poseidon had described these
impacts as de minimis, both in earlier versions of the Minimization Plan and in
proceedings before the Coastal Commission last year.4 As a result of these
discussions, the March 9, 2009, Minimization Plan reflects corrected 2004-2005
impingement data and has been significantly revised to present several alternative
projections, including flow-proportioned projections, to quantify estimated impingement
impacts associated with CDP's operations.
Based upon the corrected impingement calculations, staff believes the projected
impingement cannot be appropriately characterized as de minimis, and notes that
Poseidon no longer proposes that the Board consider these impacts to be de minimis.
3 The six documents are: (1) City of Carlsbad Development Agreement, (DA 05-01) (2) City of Carlsbad
Redevelopment Permit, (RP 05-12) (3) City of Carlsbad EIR Exhibit B, Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, and (4) City of Carlsbad Precise Development Plan (POP 00-02); (5) State Lands
Commission Lease Amendment (PRC 8727.1), and (6) California CoastaJ Commission Condition
Compliance for CDP No. E-06-013 -Special Condition 8.
4 The March 9, 2009 Minimization Plan presents impingement losses from CDPs projected operation at
levels higher than were presented to the California Coastal Commission (CCC); It appears that the
CCC did not have the'benefit of accurate information regarding the EPS (or CDP projected)
impingement impacts prior to determining those impacts were d& minimis, For the EPS impact, the
CCC finding is based on an average of about 55 fish (-12 ibs) per day, with 80% of this impact due to
EPS heat treatments. For the CDP projected impact under stand-alone operation, the CCC appears to
have considered an average of about 11 fish per day (i.e., 55 fish, less 80% since CDP would not be
conducting heat treatments) and less than 2.5 Ibs (~1 kg) fish biomass per day (i.e., 12 Ibs, less 80%).
Actual EPS impingement values based on the 2004-05 study are an average of 374 fish per day
weighing a total of about 7.1 kg (15.7 Ibs) per day, and the actual proportion of the total fish
impingement attributable to heat treatment is about 50%. The CDP projected impact, as presented in
Section 5.2.2 is an average of 232 fish (4.7 kg).
California Environmental Protection Agency
ffi Recycled Paper
Poseidon Minimization Plan March 27, 2009
Regional Board Staff Report - 6 -
Poseidon presents expert opinion that the mitigation It will implement to compensate for
the effects of entrapment (as required by the Coastal Commission through approval of
the November 14, 2008 MLMP, now incorporated in Poseidon's Minimization Plan) will
also adequately compensate for impingement impacts, and thus serve as best feasible
mitigation under CWC section 13142.5(b) for purposes of minimizing intake and
mortality caused by impingement. As submitted on March 9, 2009 and supplemented
by a revised expert opinion on March 18, 2009, Poseidon offered a bare conclusion that
the mitigation for entrainment to be accomplished through the MLMP would also fully
compensate for the effects of impingement. For this reason, the Regional Board
engaged an expert to assist the Regional Board in evaluating the reasonableness of the
various approaches to projecting the impacts from impingement presented by Poseidon
and to evaluate the adequacy of the proposed mitigation for these impacts. Poseidon
agreed to staffs request to have Dr. Raimondi assist the Board for this purpose and is
compensating Dr. Raimondi for his efforts.
The impingement data, methods of projecting impingement associated with CDP's
operations, and evaluation of the mitigation necessary to adequately compensate for
intake and mortality caused by impingement, as well as through entrainment, are
discussed in detail both in the March 9, 2009 Plan and in this staff report, below.
With the Board's outstanding issues as identified on February 11, 2009 addressed, staff
is able to substantively evaluate the adequacy of the March 9, 2009 Minimization Plan,
as supplemented to March 25,2009, and whether its implementation will result in the
compliance with CWC section 13142.5(b) and Order No. R9-2006-Q065. Staffs
analysis and recommendations are set forth below. Staffs analysis and
recommendations may be modified or supplemented as staff evaluate newly submitted
information.
Evaluation of Project Compliance with CWC 13142.5(b)
A. Best Available Site
The March 9, 2009 Minimization Plan evaluated three possible sites, within the City of
Carlsbad, that could potentially serve as alternative sites for the GDP. All three sites
involve the use of coastal waters as the source water for the project. These were: (1)
other locations within the EPS property; (2) a site within the Encina Water Pollution
Control Facility (EWPCF) property; and (3) a site adjacent to Maerkle Reservoir, located
10.6 miles from the proposed project site. Sites were evaluated based on proximity to
seawater intake, outfall, and key distribution points, infrastructure needs and production
capacity, capital and operating costs, planning and zoning, environmental impacts of
construction and operation, and preservation of Agua Hedionda Lagoon5.
1 Poseidon addresses alternative Intake structures, related to site, in Chapter 4 of the Minimization Plan.
California En vironmental Protection Agen cy
<f^i Recycled Paper
Poseidon Minimization Plan March 27, 2009
Regional Board Staff Report - 7 -
Poseidon determined that all three alternatives were found to be infeasible for the
following reasons6:
(1) Other locations within the EPS property: Alternative sites within the EPS
property were infeasible because the power plant owner has reserved the
remaining portion of the site to accommodate future power plant modifications,
upgrades or construction of new power plant facilities.
(2) Encina Water Pollution Control Facility (EWPCF): This site could only
accommodate a desalination plant with a 10 MGD production capacity, due to
the outfall constraints. Use of this site would also require the construction of an
intake pipeline to convey source water from the power plant cooling canal; and
(3) Maerkle Reservoir. The public rights-of-way between the reservoir and the
Pacific Ocean do not have sufficient space to accommodate an intake pipeline
and concentrate line. Use of this site would also require the pumping of over 100
MGD of seawater to an elevation of 531 feet (compared to 70 feet at the .
proposed site) for processing. This area has also been zoned as "Open Space".
The Minimization Plan .concluded the proposed location for the CDP at the EPS (as
proposed in NPDES Permit No. R9-2006-0065) is the best available site for the Project
because there are no feasible and less environmentally damaging alternative locations.
The Project EIR* certified by the City of Carlsbad on June 13, 2006, only evaluated
alternative 2 above, and concluded the alternative site (site 2 above) would not be as
effective as the proposed location in satisfying the objectives of the project. The EIR
did not evaluate other locations within the EPS since other locations within the EPS
were determined to be substantially the same as the proposed site.
Based on available information for the 3 sites evaluated within the City of Carlsbad,
staff concurs that the location within the property leased by the EPS, using the existing
EPS intake structure to obtain source water, is the best site for the proposed CDP. The
Report of Waste Discharge submitted by Poseidon identified the EPS site as the final
project site. The Regional Board evaluated the application on the basis of this location
when it adopted Order No. R9-2006-0065, NPDES No. CA0109223 on August 16,
2006, and thus, has already determined by implication that the site is the best available
for purposes of CWC section 13142.5(b).
B. Best Available Design
A key feature of the proposed design is the direct connection of the desalination plant
intake and discharge facilities to the intake channel and discharge cana! of the power
March 9,2009 Minimization Plan, Chapter 2, Section 2.27 December 2005 EIR, Section 6.2
California Environmental Protection Agency
I Recycled Paper
Poseidon Minimization Plan March 27, 2009
Regional Board Staff Report - 8 - ,
generation plant. This approach allows the CDP to use the power plant cooling water
as both source water for the seawater desalination plant and as a blending water to
reduce the salinity of the desalination plant concentrate prior to the discharge to the
ocean. Under the State Lands Commission conditions of co-location with the EPS8,
however, Poseidon has little control over the intake structure.
As stated above, Poseidon must implement its-Plan at the CDP to minimize impacts
and mortality to marine life during conditions of co-located operation for the benefit of
the CDP. This.includes the conditions of (1) temporary shutdown and (2) when EPS is
generating power but would not otherwise produce adequate discharge volumes to
meet CDP's intake needs. Poseidon proposes to incorporate features in the
desalination plant design to reduce impingement, entrainment and flow collection under
the first condition, when EPS is temporarily shut down. Design features that will be
implemented during temporary shutdowns include operation of a modified (EPS) pump
configuration to reduce both inlet (bar racks) and fine screen velocity, and ambient
temperature processing9. Poseidon has not provided a definition of "temporary
shutdown", with specified time frame conditions. Therefore tt remains unclear whether
Poseidon will implement these features during any period of temporary shut down,
regardless of length, or whether the temporary period must exceed some specified
number of days before Poseidon can or will do so. Staff believes the Plan should
clarify whether these features will be implemented under all temporary shut down,
regardless of duration, or whether constraints to implementation will apply.
Additionally, The March 9, 2009 Minimization Plan states that at 304 MOD, the velocity
of the seawater entering the inlet channel would be at or below 0.5 feet per second
(fps), resulting in impingement losses at the inlet screens (bar racks) being reduced to
an insignificant level. It should be noted, however, most intake and mortality from
impingement do not'occur at the bar rack but rather on the rotating screens. Reduced
velocity at the bar rack will not.necessarily minimize impingement losses on the rotating
screens.
Poseidon does not quantify the reduction in intake or mortality that it anticipates
achieving through implementation of these features. However, Poseidon proposes to
minimize for all of the projected entrainment and impingement impacts associated with
its operations through mitigation. In other words, Poseidon does not purport to "take
credit" for any reductions achieved through implementation of design features.
C. Best Available Technology
The March 9, 2009 Minimization Plan contains the results of Poseidon's feasibility
assessment of the best available intake, screening, and treatment technology to
minimize intake and mortality of marine organisms from entrainment and impingement.
8 CA State Lands Commission Amendment of Lease PRO 8727.1
9 March 3,2009 Minimization Plan, Chapter 3, Sections 3.5-3.7
California Environmental Protection Agency
>\ Recycled Paper
Poseidon Minimization Plan March 27, 2009
Regional Board Staff Report - 9 -
In the Minimization Plan, Poseidon identifies technology alternatives as well as
constraints associated with each alternative. When co-located with the EPS, any
technology modifications to the existing EPS intake channel must be compatible with
both CDP and EPS operations. In addition, the amendment of the EPS intake and
outfall lease to authorize use of these facilities by the CDP (by the State Lands
Commission) recognized that entrainment and impingement minimization measures
cannot interfere with, or interrupt ongoing power plant operations10.
Poseidon analyzed and investigated a number of alternative seawater intake, screening
and treatment technologies prior to selecting the desalination plant intake, screening
and seawater treatment technologies planned for the CDP.
1) Poseidon analyzed the following intake alternatives:
Subsurface intake (vertical and horizontal beach wells, slant wells, and
infiltration galleries);
New open ocean intake;
• Modifications to the existing power plant intake system; and
Installation of variable frequency drives (VFDs) on existing power plant
seawater intake pumps.
2) Poseidon compared screening technologies to identify the best available technology
feasible including:
Fish net, acoustic and air bubble barriers upstream of the existing intake
inlet mouth;
New screening technologies to replace the existing inlet screens (bar
racks) and fine vertical traveling screens;
Poseidon concluded, that implementation of the alternatives associated with the
modification of the existing power plant intake and screening technology were infeasible
alternatives because they would interfere with, or interrupt, power plant scheduled
operations.11 Poseidon also concluded that taking into account economic,
environmental and technological factors, the power plant intake screening alternatives
are not capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable
period of time.12
10 CA State Lands Commission Amendment of Lease PRO 8727,1, Finding No. 12
11 CA State Lands Commission Amendment of Lease PRC 8727,1, Finding No. 12.
12 March 9, 2009 Minimization Plan, p. 4-27.
California Environmental Protection Agency
<£^ Recycled Paper
Poseidon Minimization Plan . March 27,2009
Regional Board Staff Report -10 -
Regional Board staff acknowledge that under the conditions of co-location operation for
CDP's benefit, Poseidon likely has limited control over the technology of the EPS
intake.13
It is.important to note that the March 6,2008 version of the Plan'included a combination
of intake, screening and treatment technologies that were found to be feasible
impingement, entrainment and flow reduction technology measures for the site specific
conditions of the CDP. These technologies included:
• Installation of VFDs on Desalination Plant Intake Pumps - to reduce the
total intake flow for the desalination facility to no more than the needed at
any given time, thereby minimizing the entrainment of impinged
organisms;
• Installation of micro-screens - to minimize entrainment and impingement,
impacts to marine organisms by screening the fish larvae and plankton
from the seawater;
• installation of low-impact pretreatment technology - low pressure,
chemical free membrane pretreatment filtration technology; and
• Return to the ocean of marine organisms captured by the screens and
filters.14
In the March 9, 2009 Plan, Poseidon proposes to install VFDs on the desalination plant
intake pumps (not the EPS intake structure), but no longer proposes as feasible
technology alternatives the installation of micro-screens, installation of low impact
pretreatment technology, and return to the ocean of marine organisms captured by the
screens and filters.15
When Order.No. R9-2006-0065 was adopted, Poseidon was considering granular
media filtration and membrane filtration as the two options for pretreatment
technologies. Limitations on flow rate in Order No. R9-2006-0065 were based on these
two allowable pretreatment technologies. The March 9, 2009 Minimization Plan no
longer contains the discussion of installation of low impact pretreatment technology,
therefore it can only be assumed that granular media filtration continues to be the
intended pretreatment technology. Poseidon's March 9, 2009 Minimization Plan does
not explain why these previously feasible features are no longer considered feasible.
It is unclear what type of screening, if any, will be installed prior to pretreatment, or if
pretreatment will be applied. •
13 Staff has not attempted to independently verify, nor has the EPS operator indicated which of the
alternatives EPS would consider to interfere with, or interrupt EPS operations.
" March 6,2008 Minimization Plan, pp. 4-25-4-30.15 See March 9, 2009 Minimization Plan, p.4-24-4-27.
California Environmental Protection Agency
Recycled Paper
Poseidon Minimization Plan March 27, 2009
Regional Board Staff Report -11-
As with the design features Poseidon will implement, Poseidon does not quantify the
reduction in intake and mortality it expects to achieve through the installation of VFDs
on the desalination plant intake pumps. However, Poseidon proposes to minimize for
all of the projected entrainment and impingement impacts associated with its operations
through mitigation. In other words, Poseidon does not purport to "take credit" for any
reductions achieved through installation of the VFDs.
D. Best Available Mitigation
Poseidon proposes to reduce entrainment and impingement through the above-
described methods, but also asserts that mitigation, through the creation of wetland
habitat, will adequately compensate for any entrainment and impingement of marine
organisms that is not avoided by use of best site, design and technology in operation of
the CDP under conditions of co-location operation. Thus, Poseidon proposes to rely in
large part on mitigation as a form of minimization, as allowed by the terms of CWC
section 13142.5(b)..
The Minimization Plan quantified impacts from impingement and entrainment in terms
of stand-alone operation. Although staff is not evaluating the adequacy of mitigation in
terms of impacts incurred from stand-alone conditions, it is appropriate to evaluate the
sum of the impacts (i.e. impacts due to. intake at 304 MGD) because during co-location
operation for the benefit of CDP, the existing NPDES permit essentially allows for
incremental impacts up to the same amount as stand-alone operating conditions.
The withdrawal of seawater by the EPS once-through cooling system affects marine life
through impingement and entrainment. Impingement impacts occur when fish and
invertebrates enter the EPS intake facility,, become .trapped against the primary or
secondary screening devices of the circulating water system, and are killed against the
screens as a result of pressure exerted from the flow of water. Entrainment impacts
occur when organisms too small to be blocked by the screens are drawn into the
circulating water system and killed as a result of pressure changes, temperature
changes, turbulence, and mechanical damage as they pass through the plant,
Entrainment affects the smaller, early life stages of marine organisms (i.e., eggs,
larvae), whereas impingement affects the larger, later life stages (i.e., juveniles and
adults).
(1) Quantification of Impacts from Impingement
Chapter 5 of the March 9, 2009 Minimization Plan quantifies the projected impacts on
marine life due to impingement for co-located operation, as well as for operation of the
CDP when EPS is permanently non-operational
When the EPS is operating for the benefit of CDP, the CDP could cause a non-cte
minimis incremental increase in impingement. When the EPS is temporarily powered
down, Poseidon anticipates that impingement rates at the EPS intake screens will be
California Environmental Protection Agency
, Recycled Paper
Poseidon Minimization Plan March 27, 2009
Regional Board Staff Report -12 -
lower than those of EPS operations at 304 MGD due to the use of a modified pump
configuration that is expected to reduce intake velocities through the screens .
The projected CDP impingement impact in terms of the number and biomass of marine
organisms is based on the results of an impingement study conducted at EPS from
June 24, 2004 to June 15, 2005 (Tenera, January 200817). During this study,
impingement was surveyed one day per'week in order to quantify impingement rates
typical of EPS normal operations (52 surveys, each representing 24 hours). In addition,
to quantify impingement rates typical of EPS heat treatment operations, impingement
was surveyed during each heat treatment conducted that year (6 surveys, each
representing one heat treatment event).
The 2004-05 study found that, during EPS normal operations, impinged organisms
represented approximately 100 taxa of fish18 and 40 taxa of invertebrates (e.g.,
octopus, squid, crabs, lobsters).19 No State- or Federally-listed threatened or
endangered species were impinged.20 The 52 surveys throughout the year showed a
range of daily impingement from relatively low to relatively high; for fish; the range per
survey was 17 to 5,001 individuals (0.1 kg to 109.5 kg) and, for invertebrates, the range
per survey was 1 to 714 individuals (0.03 kg to 4.2 kg).21 The 52 surveys showed an
average daily impingement of 374 fish (7.1 kgs) and 38 invertebrates (0.3 kg).22
Under EPS heat treatment operations,23 the study found that impinged organisms
represented approximately 70 taxa of fish24 and 20 taxa of invertebrates. No State- or
Federally-listed threatened or endangered species were impinged.26 The six heat
16 If EPS intends to decommission Units 1 -3, and leave Units 4 & 5 operational, this could limit the
alternatives for operating under a modified pump configuration.17 Tenera Environmental. 2008. Cabrillo Power I LLC, Encina Power Station Clean Water Act 316(b)
Impingement Mortality and Entralnment Characterization Study: Effects on the Biological Resources of
Agua Hedionda Lagoon and the Nearshore Ocean Environment. Prepared for Cabrillo Power I LLC,
Carlsbad, CA.
fhttp://www.enerqy.ca.qov/sitingcases/carlsbad/documents/applicant/appendices/5.2D 2008 Impinqem
ent Entrapment Study 316(b).doc.odf)18 March 9,2009 Minimization Plan, Attachment 8, Table A. See also Attachment 3 for fish impinged
during each survey. See also Tenera 2008, Table 4-2.19 March 9,2009 Minimization Plan, Attachment 8, Table B. See also Attachment 3 for invertebrates
impinged during each survey. See also Tenera 2008, Table 4-5.20 Tenera 2008, Section 5-4, page 5-48.21 March 9, 2009 Minimization Plan, Table 5-1.22 March 9, 2009 Minimization Plan, Table 5-1.23 During a heat treatment, the intake channel is closed off from the lagoon, and heated discharge water is
circulated back through the cooling water circulation system for several hours to kill organisms that are
growing in the conduits. All fish and invertebrates in the intake channel are killed and, when the pumps
return to normal operation, the organisms end up on the rotating screens as impinged organisms,24 Tenera 2008, Table 4-2.25 Tenera 2008, Table 4-5.28 Tenera 2008, Section 5-4, page 5-48. •
Calif "ornia Environmental Protection Agency
Recycled Paper
Poseidon Minimization Plan March 27, 2009
Regional Board Staff Report -13-
treatments showed a range of impingement per heat treatment. For fish, the range per
heat treatment was 7,127 to 24,037 individuals (192 kg to 537 kg) and, for
invertebrates, the range per heat.treatment was 72 to 525 individuals (1 kg to 7 kg).27
The six heat treatments, resulted in an average impingement of 15,832 fish (339 kg),
and 231 invertebrates (3.3 kg).28
The March 9, 2009 Minimization Plan indicates that, had the CDP been in operation in
2008, the EPS discharge would have met approximately 89% of its 304 MGD feed
water requirement An estimate of the 2008 incremental impact in terms of the number
and weight of marine organisms associated with the 11% additional CDP need is not
provided. The 2008 CDP incremental impact can be estimated in a number of ways.
For example, 2004-05 impingement rates could be applied to the number of million
gallon pumped by EPS solely for the benefit of the CDP (~12,712 MG), the proportion
of the total EPS flow pumped for the benefit of the CDP (~8%), the proportion of the
CDP required flow pumped for the benefit of the CDP (~11 %), or the number of days on
which the EPS pumped for the benefit of the CDP (~33 to 112 days depending on the
deficit threshold chosen). In addition, if operation of the CDP in 2008 would have led to
the need for more frequent heat treatment of the EPS intake facility, then it would be
.reasonable to include in the CDP incremental impact a corresponding portion of the
impingement impacts due to heat treatments.
Dr. Peter Raimondi, of University of California, Santa Cruz, has agreed to assist the
Board with regard to the estimation of impingement impacts that may be associated
with operation of the CDP. Poseidon agreed to this request and is compensating Dr.
Raimondi for his efforts. Dr. Raimondi has been asked to provide an opinion on
whether the approaches to estimating impingement effects presented in the March 9,
2009 Minimization Plan (e.g., Chapter 5, Attachment 5) provide reasonable estimates of
projected impingement for CDP's operations under co-location conditions. Dr.
Raimondi's opinion is expected to be available by March 31, 2009. Once staff has
received this opinion, the impingement section of this staff report may be updated.
The March 9, 2009 Minimization Plan provides a projection for the COP impingement
impact when the CDP is operating independently (Section 5.2.2). Although the
Regional Board is not considering independent operation of the CDP at this time, the
impingement projection for independent operation is discussed below because two
topics warrant additional comment: (a) two days of unusually high impingement, which
have bearing on the CDP projection for independent .(and co-located) operation, and (b)
heat treatment impacts, which will not apply to the CDP projection for independent
operation.
27 March 9, 2009 Minimization Plan, Attachment 3 (staff calculations from survey data).28 Tenera 2008, Table 5-2.
California Environmental Protection Agency
^ Recycled Paper
Poseidon Minimization Plan March 27, 2009
Regional Board Staff Report -14 -
The CDP impingement projection for independent operation can be derived from the
results of the EPS 2004-05 impingement study using a number of approaches.
Poseidon provides a comparison of three general approaches,, each with two specific
options (Attachment 5 of the March 9, 2009 Minimization Plan). The six approaches
differ mainiy with respect to (1) whether the CDP projection is flow-proportioned, i.e.,
whether the EPS impingement results for each survey are prorated ("discounted"} to the
CDP flow volume of 304 MOD, and (2) whether the CDP projection includes, excludes,
prorates, or weights the results from two days of unusually high impingement. In
Section 5.2.2 of the March 9, 2009 Minimization Plan, Poseidon uses one approach to
derive a projected CDP stand-alone impingement of 232 fish (4.7 kg) and 22
invertebrates (0.2 kg) per day. Poseidon will be submitting revisions relating to the CDP
projected impingement impact. Once staff has reviewed the revised materials, the
impingement section of the staff report may be updated.
During the 2004-05 impingement study, two of the 52 surveys had relatively high
impingement, especially in terms of fish biomass (weight). On January 12, 2005, fish
weighing 109.5 kg were impinged (5,001 individuals) and on February 23, 2005, fish
weighing 29.5 kg were impinged (1,274. individuals): Poseidon concludes that the
January 12, 2005 and February 23, 2005 surveys are outliers due to their greater
biomass and higher numbers compared with the means of the other 50 surveys (per
Attachment 5, Section 111.1).
It is important to thoroughly explore and try to understand the cause of the relatively
high impingement on these two days (and of high impingement in general) because, if
the cause is understood, then it might be possible to'address the cause and
prevent/avoid similar high impingement mortality in the future.
Poseidon suggests that the high biomass impinged on January 12 and February 23,
2005 is somehow related to the heavy rains that preceded the two surveys. They
suggest that freshwater fish may have died in the lagoon due to rain-associated urban
runoff, or died as a result of being flushed into more saline waters, after which they
drifted, dead, onto the intake screens (Attachment 5, Section III.2). Poseidon's experts
underscore the scale and nature of the heavy rainfall (statements from Dr. Jenkins and
Dr. Chang, received March 20, 2009).
Staff is concerned that heavy rainfall may not be the underlying cause of the high
impingement on January 12 and February 23, 2005 (or at least not the only cause) as it
does not explain certain aspects of the 2004-05 data. First, if heavy impingement is
associated with heavy rainfall, then one might expect the heavy rainfall in October 2004
to have led to a spike in impingement comparable to the ones seen on January 12 and
February 23, 200529. However, the October surveys show no such spike. Second, the
surveys that had the third, fourth and fifth greatest amount of impinged fish biomass are
29 e.g., March 20,2009 statement by Dr. Jenkins, Figure 2 indicates peak runoff event in October 2004.
California Environmental Protection Agency
1/5 Recycled Paper
Poseidon Minimization Plan March 27, 2009
Regional Board Staff Report . -15 -
hot associated with rainfall (i.e., July 14, 2004, August 11, 2004, and April 13, 2005).
Third, the mechanism by which heavy rainfall might translate to high impingement is
unclear; the suggested flushing of freshwater fish into the lagoon and onto the intake
screens can account for a portion of the impinged biomass on January 12 and February
23, but most of the impinged fish (and fish biomass) were marine species.
A plausible alternative explanation is that the biomass impinged on January 12 and
February 23, 2005 is related, in part or entirely, to EPS intake operations and not to
heavy rainfall. The 2004-05 daily flow data30 indicates that the January 12 survey may
have been associated with a unique operational circumstance, i.e., the survey was'
preceded by four days for which intake pump records are not available, the only such
week during the year.31 Furthermore, the January 12 survey is associated with the
lowest minus-tide series of the year. Velocities through the intake screens are
greatest during low tides due to the reduced screen area through which the flow volume
must pass. Velocity through the screens during the minus tide on the afternoon of the
January 12 survey may have been unusually high and have exceeded the ability of
even the largest fish to swim away. [Many fish are drawn into and concentrated within
the intake channel, as shown by the relatively high number {and bio.mass) offish
impinged during heat treatments. On January 12, 2005, there likely would have been
many fish in the intake channel at risk of impingement because there had been no heat
treatment for almost 12 weeks; the usual interval is about 8 weeks.]
The 2004-05 flow data indicate that the February 23, 2005 survey also may have been
associated with a unique operational circumstance, i.e., the survey was preceded by six
days of reduced daily flows (306 - 407 MOD), the only such week during the year. The
volume on the sample day, 307 MOD, appears to be typical of Unit 4 (per Section 3.5.3,
p. 3-7), Velocities through the Unit 4 screens are the highest of all five units.33 If Unit 4
was in operation on February 23, then, despite the low flow volume, the through-screen
velocities may have been relatively high, especially during that afternoon's minus tide.
2004-05 calculated intake flow submitted March 5, 2009.30
31 The 2004-05 Intake flow data (submitted March 5; 2009) indicate that, in the week prior to the January
12,2005 survey, there are four days recorded as zero intake (1/7/05 through 1/10/05), and two days of
low intake flow (1/6/05 and 1/11/05). EPS monitoring reports show discharges of between 580 MOD to
660 MGD on those days so presumably there was intake. On March 25, 2009, staff requested
clarification and was informed that days assigned values of 0 MGD intake are days for which flow data
from the plant were not available.
32 January 7 through January 12 had minus tides of -1,1, -1.6, -2.0, -2.1, -1.9, and -1.6, respectively, all in
feet relative to Mean Lower Low Water according to 2005 NOAA Tide Predictions for La Jolla (Scripps
Pier). Based on the predicted tides, the -2.1 ft tide on January 10,2005 is the lowest of the year. Of all
52 surveys, it appears to staff that the January 12,2005 survey had the second lowest tide (-1.6 ft); the
February 9, 2005 survey had the lowest (-1.7 ft). [Staff acknowledges that actual tidal heights may
differ slightly from the predicted heights.]
33 E.g., February 12, 2007, Minimization Plan, Table 3-1; also Tenera 200B, Table 2-2.
California Environmental Protection Agency
, Recycled Paper
Poseidon Minimization Plan March 27, 2009
Regional Board Staff Report -16-
Staff has not seen an analysis of the 2004-05 EPS impingement data in terms of
through-screen velocities. Such an analysis might provide insight into the high
impingement on those days, as it would take into account velocity changes due to tidal
height, units in operation, screens, in use.'and degree of screen occlusion,34 An
examination of other information relevant to lagoon conditions (e.g., salinities in the
three lagoon basins, any evidence offish kills unrelated to EPS) and EPS plant
operations (e.g., intake flow volumes, time since heat treatments, field notes taken on
survey days) might also shed light on the conditions that led to high impingement on
those two days.
The March 9, 2009 Minimization Plan indicates that heat treatments will be eliminated
when the CDP is operating independently (e.g., Section 5-1). For fish, the six heat
treatments conducted during the 2004-05 sampled year accounted for almost 50% of
the total mortality (44% offish individuals and 47% offish weight). For invertebrates,
the numbers were lower; the six heat treatments accounted for about 15% of the total
mortality (10% of individuals and 14% of biomass). Staff concurs that the elimination of
heat treatments would result in a substantial reduction in mortality due to impingement,
i.e., approximately 50% reduction. It should be noted, however, that additional
evaluation of the CDP's operations will be necessary if/when Poseidon proposes to .
operate independently, In particular, the proposed alternative to heat treatments, i.e.,
the use of scrubber balls, will need to be evaluated in terms of potential impacts to
marine organisms.
(2) Quantification of Impacts from Entrainment
Chapter 5 of the Minimization Plan also quantifies the impacts on marine life due to
entrainment for operation of the CDP when the EPS'is temporarily or permanently non-
operational.
Poseidon calculated the entrainment mortality of the most commonly entrained larval
fish living in Agua Hediona Lagoon by applying the Empirical Transport Model (ETM),
and using entrainment.data collected from June 1, 2004 to May 31, 2005. The estimate
was computed using the total flow for stand-alone operation (i.e. 304 MGD; 104 MOD
for desalination and 200 MGD for dilution), and the analysis assumes no changes
would be made to minimize impacts from site, design, and technology. Chapter 5,3.3 of
the Minimization Plan provides justification for the source water volumes applied to the
ETM.
The ETM results in the Minimization Plan indicate that the proportional mortality (Pm)
for the three most common entrained species offish in Agua Hedionda Lagoon is 0.122
34 When screens become occluded (blocked) by Impinged organisms or debris, velocities increase
• through remaining clear areas.
California Environmental Protection Agency
Recycled Paper
Poseidon Minimization Plan
Regional Board Staff Report -17-
March 27, 2009
(i.e. on average, 12.2% of the three most common fish species in the source water
would be entrained).
The Pm, multiplied by the area of the source water body (i.e. 302 acres) can be
translated to Acres of Production Foregone (APF); which in turn can be used to
determine appropriate compensatory mitigation (in terms of acres of like:-wetland
creation). .
The California Coastal Commission (CCC), in consultation with Dr. Peter Raimondi,
evaluated the data provided by Poseidon, and determined it appropriate to apply a
standardized margin of error to the results. Additionally, because Poseidon's analysis
did not include APF for the area of nearshore ocean waters that would be affected, the
CCC also imposed additional mitigation requirements for nearshore impacts and
allowed for the conversion of nearshore mitigation to wetland mitigation, on the basis
that wetland habitat would be ten times more productive than nearshore habitat.
The following table35 is an excerpt summarizing CCC's evaluation of APF for
entrainment impacts at various confidence intervals.
Habitat
Type
Estuarine
Nearshore
Total
Mitigation
APF (acres) at three levels
of confidence
50%
37
55
80%
49
64
95%
61
72
Conversion
ratio.
1:1
10:1
Resulting APF (in acres) at
three levels of confidence
50%
37 .
5.5
42.5
80%
49
6.4
55.4
95%
61
7.2
68.2
The CCC evaluated the information contained in the table above and concluded that
55.4 acres of wetland mitigation, to be implemented in two phases (an initial 37 acres,
followed by an additional 18.4 acres), would adequately compensate for entrainment
impacts for operation of the CDP at 304 MOD.
Assuming no new entrainment data has been generated since evaluation by the CCC in
November, it .is appropriate for the Regional Board to rely on the CCC's findings with
regards to the adequacy of mitigation for entrainment impacts.
(3) Proposed Mitigation for Combined Impacts
Chapter 6 of the March 9, 2009 Minimization Plan describes the mitigation measures
associated with the CDP and incorporates the Marine Life Mitigation Plan (MLMP) as
35 Table 2, adjusted APF totals, from the November 21,2008 revised CCC condition compliance findings
for Special Condition No. 8
California Environmental Protection Agency
tf% Recycled Paper
u
Poseidon Minimization Plan March 27, 2009
Regional Board Staff Report -18 -
an attachment. By incorporating the MLMP into the Minimization Plan, and requiring its
implementation as a permit condition, the MLMP would be enforceable by the Regional
Board. The MLMP is a plan for mitigation and monitoring of impacts due entrainment ,
from the CDP. It was developed by Poseidon in consultation with multiple resource
agencies including the Regional Board, and has been approved by the CCC. The
MLMP was written for stand-alone operation, and proposes phased implementation of
up to 55,4 acres of wetland mitigation within the Southern California Bight. Phase I
requires the creation of 37 acres, and Phase II requires an additional 18.4 acres.
Staff interprets 13142.5(b) requirements for best available mitigation to require
mitigation that would fully compensate for all remaining impacts due to impingement
and entrainment mortality that are not minimized through site, design, and/or
technology. It would be beneficial to know the specifics of the mitigation (i.e. location,
and nature of restoration work proposed) to accurately evaluate whether these efforts
fully mitigate for anticipated losses. In lieu of that, the MLMP sets forth some standards
for selection (Section 3.1), and objectives for the selected mitigation site(s) (Section
3.2).
The MLMP proposes mitigation at 11 potential sites in southern California; 5 of which
are in.the San Diego region. These sites are Tijuana Estuary, San Dieguito River
Valley, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, San Elijo Lagoon, Buena Vista Lagoon, Huntington
Beach Wetland, Anaheim Bay, Santa Ana River, Los Cerritos Wetland, Ballona
Wetland, and'Ormond Beach. Additional sites maybe incorporated if appropriate. The
March 9, 2009 Minimization Plan clarifies, as the Board requested on February 11, that
sites within the boundaries of the San Diego Region shall be given priority
consideration. If appropriate, additional sites may be added to the list, in consultation
with the CCC Executive Director, and the Regional Board Executive Officer. Restriction
3.3.c of the MLMP proposes to divide the mitigation between .a maximum of two
wetland restoration sites, unless there is a compelling argument to do otherwise.
Within nine months of receiving the Coastal Development Permit, Poseidon must
submit to the CCC and Regional Board a list of the selected mitigation site or sites and
corresponding preliminary restoration plans, for review and agency approval. Six
months following the CCC's approval of the selected sites and proposed restoration,
pending necessary permits, Poseidon must begin wetland construction. Poseidon must
submit similar plans for Phase II implementation, if Phase II implementation is required,
within five years of receiving the Coastal Development Permit for Phase I
implementation. As stated in the CCC-approved MLMP, "Poseidon may also choose
during Phase II to apply for a Coastal Development Permit to reduce or eliminate the
required 18.4 acres of mitigation and instead conduct alternative mitigation by
implementing new entrainment reduction technology or obtaining mitigation credit for
conducting dredging." It is anticipated that if such an alternative were sought, Poseidon
California Environmental Protection Agency
tffi Recycled Paper
Poseidon Minimization Plan . March 27, 2009
Regional Board Staff Report -19 -
would be required to seek approval by the Regional Board, as well, and those
alternatives would be evaluated at that time,
The MLMP also contains monitoring requirements, and criteria for performance
standards similar to those required of Southern California Edison's mitigation for
SONGS at San Dieguito lagoon. The MLMP provides for the oversight of such
monitoring by a scientific advisory panel (SAP), and commits to public availability of
monitoring results, .The March 9, 2009 Minimization Plan provides for the resources
and interaction of the SAP and Regional Board staff.
The performance standards listed in section 5.4 of the MLMP seek to achieve
establishment of physical and biological criteria as compared to yet-unspecified wetland •
reference stations, within a 95% confidence interval. Mitigation will be successful when
all performance standards have been met each year for a three-year period. However,
there are minimal36 commitments as to how long it is anticipated to achieve such
success. Failure to obtain sites and implement mitigation in accordance with the
schedule in the MLMP would result in an increased period of time where impacts are
occurring and required mitigation has not been established. Under such circumstances,
the appropriateness of additional compensatory mitigation for "temporal losses" should
be considered. :
There is currently no monitoring requirement for the discharger to conduct periodic
analyses on the impacts from impingement and entrainment from CDP, once
operational, and how they relate to the productivity of the compensatory mitigation (in
terms of species, number, and bjomass). Such studies would not only validate the
impacts estimated to date, but would also allow for the direct comparison of
productivity created against productivity lost due to impingement and entrainment from
operation of the EPS intake for CDP benefit. This would be useful information for the
Board's review of a) renewal of Order No. R9-2006-0065, b) evaluation of the need for
implementation of Phase II mitigation, versus alternative treatments proposed, and c)
evaluation of Poseidon's Report of Waste Discharge for stand-alone operation if EPS
becomes non-operational.
Chapter 6 of the March 9, 2009 Minimization Plan states that the "estimated
impingement and entrainment impacts will be fully offset by the mitigation wetlands, not
taking into consideration the design and technology measures that will diminish marine
life mortality further," and adds, in the March 18, 2009 supplemental statement by C.
Nordby that, "In addition to mitigation for entrainment the mitigation project will provide
the additional benefit of offsetting CDP's estimated stand -atone impingement. That is,
the MLMP accomplishes two objectives: it mitigates fully for all entrainment and
mitigates fully for all impingement that may result from CDP's stand-alone operations."
36 5.4.b.1 of the MLMP does require that, within 4 years of (wetland) construction, the total densities and
numbers of species of fish, macroinvertebrates, and birds shall be similar to the reference wetlands.
California Environmental Protection Agency
Recycled Paper
Poseidon Minimization Plan March 27, 2009
Regional Board Staff Report - 20 -
However, the March 9, 2009 Minimization Plan does not specify the mitigation proposed
for impacts due impingement in addition to those already required by the CCC for
entrainment. Therefore, staff cannot determine whether the proposed mitigation
adequately compensates for impacts from impingement-and entrainment.
Dr. Raimondi will also assist the Board in evaluating the adequacy of mitigation in light
of the impingement and entrainment assessments in the March 9, 2009 Minimization
Plan. He has been asked to provide an opinion on whether the proposed mitigation
adequately accounts for the effects of both impingement and entrainment Dr.
Raimondi's evaluation of mitigation adequacy will focus on the co-location conditions
and will consider a range of operations, from EPS operating to meet approximately 89%
of CDP's intake needs (as in 2008), to more conservative projections of EPS operating
to meet 75%, 50%, and 25% of CDP's intake needs. Dr. Raimondi's opinion is
expected to be available by March 31, 2009. This section of the staff report may be
updated shortly thereafter.
Conclusions
Staff anticipates evaluating additional submittals by Poseidon and Dr. Raimondi and
presenting conclusions and recommendations in a supplemental staff report.
California Environmental Protection Agency
rTi Recycled Paper
Tentative Order No. R9-2009-0038
Amending
Order No. R9-2006-0065 (NPDES No. CA0109223)
Waste Discharge Requirements for
The Poseidon Resources Corporation
Carlsbad Desalination Project
Discharge to the Pacific Ocean Via
The Encina Power Station Discharge Channel
April 1, 2009 Statement of Dr. Peter Raimondi
(with curriculum vitae attached)
Prepared for the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, with funding
provided by Poseidon Resources Corporation.
Review of Impingement study and mitigation assessment April 1,2009
Review of Impingement study and mitigation assessment- Carlsbad Seawater Desallnlzatlon Project
Pete Raimond!
04-01-09
I have restricted the following review to those issues that affect the estimation of impact resulting from
impingement. Specifically, Poseidon has used an approach based on work by Nordby (appendix 7) as
the basis for their conclusion that any impingement impacts will be compensated by the mitigation
already required for entrainment impacts. Poseidon discusses the merits of their impingement
reduction technologies but nowhere quantifies the effect. This lack of quantification was also noted In
Nordby appendix 7. This is important because the argument that impingement attributable to CDP is
negligible or already compensated hence rests on the assessment of benefit conferred by the wetland
mitigation for entrainment impacts. Therefore my review is directed at that approach presented by
Nordby and the parameters that are used in the calculations in that approach. Generally I think this
approach is a very interesting and potentially an appropriate method for comparison of impingement
losses (or any sort of loss) to gains in production provided by the creation or restoration of wetland
habitats. However, I have questions with respect to the appropriateness of the approach for this
particular assessment
In the Nordby appendix 7 replacement document, the argument is made that that CDP impingement will
be compensated for by the mitigation required for entrainment impacts (55.4 wetland acres restored or
created). This argument rests on a series of explicit and implicit assumptions or calculations:
a. That there is compensatory mortality.
b. That estimates offish production from a paper by Larry Allen (1982), may be
extrapolated to an estimate of 151.36 kg (wet weight-WW- per acre),
c. That wetland restoration or creation will occur as required and that those restored or
created acres have NO current level of production
d. That all restored or created acres will lead to the production levels estimated in the
Allen paper.
e. That If a-d are true then per acre productivity from the entrainment mitigation acreage
is a simple product (e.g. 151.36 kg per acre x 55.4 acres = 8385 kg per year).
f. That the estimation of the impingement losses resulting from water use of 304 MGD of
seawater is without error and that this estimate Is best approximated using the average
daily impingement loss of 4.7 kg per day (based on all data including non flow related
events) yielding an annual loss of "1715 kg per year.
These calculations and assumptions led Poseidon to conclude that impingement losses are fully offset by
the mitigation already required to compensate for entrainment impacts. I disagree with this conclusion
for the following reasons.
1) This conclusion rests on the assumption of compensation. Compensation is another name for
density dependent mortality. As applied here it means that reduction in larval numbers due to
entrainment has no effect on adult numbers. An example will be useful. Assume that a 100
Review of Impingement study and mitigation assessment April l, 2009
acre wetland can naturally support 10000 kg of (non-larval) fish. Now assume that a power
plant is built and that the modeling of entrainment yields an estimate of the loss of 20% of the
larval pool in the wetland. If fully compensatory mortality Is assumed then there will be no
change to the 10000 kg of non-larval fish. Now let's assume that no such compensation occurs
(note that the use of compensatory mortality has not been allowed in any recent entrainment
assessments (316B or equivalent)) - here the 10000 kg will decrease to 8000kg (assuming only a
change in numbers offish and no change in size structure). If there is impingement of say 1000
kg offish per year, the overall biomass will decrease to 7000 kg. Assume an assessment is made
of entrainment and mitigation is required that will produce the same number of larvae as that
lost to entrainment. Further assume this is in the form of ~20 new wetland acres. Again we
make the mandated assumption of no compensatory mortality and we conclude that the non-
larval biomass for the wetland will go up 2000kg yielding 9000kg (7000+2000). What about the
missing 1000kg? That amount is still missing due to impingement. Based on the logic and math
above another 10 acres of new wetland would be needed to produce the biomass lost to
impingement.
*The bottom line is that wetland acreage created or restored based on entrainment impacts
cannot be also used to mitigate for impingement impacts unless one invokes compensatory
mortality, which is specifically not done in I&E determinations.
2) The arguments made by Poseidon do not address the "double counting" problem. After
receiving an the initial review, Poseidon responded that because Goby and Blennies make up
95% of entrainment there is little overlap between entrained and impinged species. They
further argued that this lack of overlap meant that the acreage created or restored to
compensate for entrainment effects would also compensate for impingement effects because .
there would be no double counting (see point 1 above). I think this argument is flawed because:
a. While gobies and blennles are the most commonly entrained species, virtually all
species that can be entrained (those that produce larvae) including anchovies and
Atherinops are both entrained and impinged
b. The argument made by Poseidon assumes, incorrectly, that the number of larvae
entrained, represents the impact of entrainment. It does not. The impact from
entrainment on adult populations {assuming no compensation) will depend on a
number of (mainly) life history factors such as lifetime reproduction, age at entrainment
(i.e. older individuals are more valuable than younger ones, and adult stock).
c. Poseidon suggests that "this 1715.5 kg per year of predicted fish biomass productivity
shall be calculated in a manner which excludes the predicted biomass for entrained
lagoon fish species" . Presumably this means those species that have no larval phase
(sharks, rays, surfperch). The problem here is that the estimate of productivity that is
the basis of the Poseidon productivity calculation is based on species that are entrained
by the Encina Power Station (EPS) and completely excludes species that have no larval
phase (see Allen 1982}. Hence there is no basis to estimate increased productivity (if
any) of the created or restored wetland areas for species not entrained.
Review of Impingement study and mitigation assessment April 1,2009
3) The estimates used by Nordby to calculate Impingement losses rely entirely on averages.
There is nothing wrong with the use of averages as one estimate of effect, however the use of
averages as the only estimate of effect relies on the Idea that estimates are made without error,
which should not be done and Is counter to ordinary statistical methodology. I think that a
better approach is one based on degree of confidence (or certainty), Here estimates are
expressed as the confidence that one has the real average is no higher that some value X. As an
example if the average Impingement is 4.7 kg per day, then the equivalent statement using
confidence limits is that we are 50% confident that the true average is no greater than 4.7 kg per
day. In typical inferential statistics, confidence limits of 95% are generally used (see graphs
below). In mitigation evaluations, higher confidence levels are used to provide greater certainty
that there is full compensation for impacts.
4) The estimates of fish production used by Nordby are based on the assumption that the
mitigation wetland will be made up entirely of intertidal mudflats. The estimate offish
production (151.36 kg per acre per year) is based on Larry Allen's work, which specifically Is
restricted to mudflats and not to vegetated marsh or even subtidai areas. The most recent
wetland design (presented to the CCC by Poseidon) includes 60% vegetated marsh. Note also
that Poseidon specifically did not include vegetated marsh in its estimate of area impacted by
intake operations (Flow, entrainment and impingement minimization plan - March 9,2009 page
6.3). .
5) The estimates of fish production used by Nordby are based on the assumption that there is no
current'level of fish production in acres to be restored or created. This would be true for
created acres and not true for acres to be restored. Without a detailed description of the
restoration or wetland creation plan, there is no way to assess current level of productivity, or
an calculate the net gain in productivity - if any.
To understand impingement impacts using the logic of the Poseidon approach, I made corrections
related to the points I made above. I then recalculated the estimates for fish production and
impingement and the acres required to offset the losses under differing scenario of the amount of water
required (the percent of water required by CDP that is not provided by operations of Power Plant). The
results are shown below.
Review of Impingement study and mitigation assessment April 1,2009
First, impingement losses are shown as a function of the percent of water required (not supplied by the
power plant operations).
4,000
k3,500
J
^3,000
P2,500
^,000
e
1,500
ITl.OOO
3
r 500
I I I i l
Confidence Limit
—— 95%
80%
- 50% (mean)
Water required (percent)
Like the estimate produced by Poseidon and used by Nordby, if CDP requires 100% new water the
estimate of impingement based on the arithmetic mean is ~1715 kg. Note though that if the 80 or 95%
confidence limit is used the value Increases to 2700 kg (80% CL) or 3250 kg (95% CL).
Review of Impingement study and mitigation assessment April l, 2009
Next I estimated the production offish as a result of the restoration or creation of new wetland habitat
(not the acreage to be restored or created as a result of entrainment mitigation), under two scenarios:
(1) assuming the new wetland would be all intertida! mudflat or subtidal habitats, (2) using a mixture of
habitats of which 40% is intertidal mudflats or subtidal.
ro
OV-"
O-a
rv
LL
10,000
I 9,000
' 8,000
, 7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
i r
All intertidal
mudflats and
subtidal habitat
Proposed mixture
of habitats
(Poseidon to CCC)
{III
#
Acres restored or created
Review of Impingement study and mitigation assessment April 1, 2009
Finally I combined, production and loss to investigate the acreage needed to mitigate impingement
losses over a range in values for water required above that provided by operations of the power plant.
125-°
<H 22.5Ou. 20.0O-a 17.5
§ 15.0
O 12.5
10.0
7.5
5.0
2.5
0.0
TJ<D
'5cr•
2o
I I l i II 1 i r
.All intertidai mudflats and subtidal habitat _
•-'i i i i i i i i i
<§> <§>
60
54
48
42
36
30
24
18
12
6
0
- Proposed mixture of habitats
" (Poseidon to CCC)
iii i r T i i i
Water required (percent)Confidence Limit
95%
80%
"-'-—'- .5,0% (mean)
In both graphs there are three estimates of acreage required. These are based on the three confidence
limits (see figure 1). The left and right graphs differ based on the design of habitats in the mitigation
wetland. If 100 percent of water is needed (304 mgd) then the acreage need to mitigate Impingement
ranges from ~11-21 (if all the acres are intertidai mudflats or subtidal) to 28-54 (if the wetland is a
mixture of habitats -40% of which are intertidai wetlands or subtidal). Following the 80% CL precedent
(from the entrapment assessment) the range in values would be 18 -45 acres depending on the wetland
mix of habitats.
It is important to note the following:
1) In all calculations shown here I used the value for estimated annual production of fish that was
used by Nordby and Poseidon (based an a paper by Larry Allen (1982), extrapolated to an
estimate of 151.36 kg (wet weight - WW- per acre)}.
2) In all calculations used to produce the graphs, I assumed the wetland acreage was new and not
restored.
3) In all calculations shown here I used the value for average annual impingement of 1715 kg,
which was also used by Poseidon and Nordby for their comparison of impingement losses to
productivity gains. This value is based on what Poseidon calls the Proportional (3-B) model,
Review of Impingement study and mitigation assessment April 1, 2009
specifically using the 4.7 kg value. Poseidon argues that a more conservative value (2.24 kg/day)
is warranted based on the idea that two observations were outliers that should be weighed by
some probability of occurrence (Poseidon proposes 5%). I think this argument is flawed. First,
Poseidon is confusing outliers with respect to storm events with outliers with respect to
impingement. This is a logical error (false converse). Let's assume that there was higher
impingement than typical fn the storm'events and the storm events were outliers. This does not
allow the conclusion that higher than typical impingement only occurs associated with storm
events, which is the basis of the argument by Poseidon. There may be all sorts of other causes
of higher than typical impingement. Indeed a few such high impingement events may be typical
each year. The problem is that unlike the historical record for storm or flow events we have no
such record for impingement that would allow assessment as to how common or rare such high
impingement events are. Simply put - in adequate sampling is no reason to discount data.
Hence the only reasonable approach is to use the flow proportioned average without
adjustment, that is, model 3-B with no discounting.
4) Based on the Information provided by Poseidon and my review, it is my conclusion that if
wetland acres are going to be used to mitigate impingement impacts they need to be new acres
not those already required by the entrainment mitigation.-'
5) The approach taken here is based entirely on the approach proposed by Poseidon. There may
be other ways to estimate impingement and impacts due to Impingement that do not rely on
conversion to wetland acreage. As one example, there is almost certainly a non-linear
relationship between flow per second (Intake velocity) and impingement probability. If intake
velocity is reduced, as stated, after the power plant stops operating there may be a substantial
reduction in impingement. I think this could be quantified or at least modeled. If such an
approach was used there would have to be language in the CDP operating permit limiting intake
velocity.
6) As calculated, the impacts of impingement are substantial and not offset by mitigation
proposed for entrainment impacts.
PETER T. RAIMONDI
Professor of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, UC Santa Cruz
EMPLOYMENT
2003-current Chair, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz
2002 Professor, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Santa
Cruz
1999 Associate Professor, Department of Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz
1996 Assistant Professor, Department of Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz
1992-95 Assistant Research Biologist, Marine Science Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara
1989-91 Research Fellow, Australian Research Council Fellowship, University of Melbourne
1988-89 Research Fellow, University of Melbourne Research Fellowship
1987-88 Post-Doctoral Researcher, University of California, Santa Barbara
EDUCATION
1982-88 University of California, Santa Barbara, Ph.D. (Biology)
1980-82 University of Arizona
1972-76 Northern Arizona University, B.A., (Philosophy)
MEMBERSHIP IN HONORARY SOCIETIES
Ecological Society of America
(Editorial Board 2001-Current)
American Society of Naturalists
Western Society of Naturalists
HONORS, AWARDS AND GRANTS (since 1994)
2008 OPC, 5200,000 "Baseline data collection for central coast rocky intertidal MPA's, year 2",
David and Lucille Packard Foundation, $1,400,000. "Adaptive management of fishery
resources in the northern Gulf of California (PANGAS) - Phase II". Co PI at UCSC: Giacomo
Bernardi. US Department of Interior, $26,000, "Monitoring of Redwoods National Park",
University of California, $45,000, Match for PISCO. California Fish and Game, $35,000
"Cosco Busan Oil spill assessment", OPC, $20,000 "Biological issues related to Wave Energy",
County of Mnrin, $15,000 "ASBS evaluation of Alder Creek"
2007 Sea Grant, $ 170,000, "Baseline data collection for central coast rocky intertidal MPA's"
University of California, $45,000, Match for PISCO. California Environmental Quality
Initiative, $400,000 "Community genetics and marine protected areas of the California and Baja
California mainland and island array".
Minerals Management Service, $933,000. Shoreline Inventory of Coastal Resources
NOAA Fisheries, $15,000. "Black abalone population estimates"
US Department of Interior, $26,000, "Monitoring of Redwoods National Park"
2006 University of California, $45,000, Match for PISCO.
California Environmental Quality Initiative, "Assessing the assessment: new models for
informing the design of monitoring and evaluation programs for kelp forest ecosystems in
California's MPAs" $500,000.
US Department of Interior, 546,000, "Monitoring of Point Reyes National Park"
US Department of Interior, $26,000, "Monitoring of Redwoods National Park"
Rnimondi CV, page 2
2005 University of California, $45,000, Match for PISCO.
Minerals Management Service, $415,000. Shoreline Inventory of Coastal Resources
David and Lucille Packard Foundation, $1,250,000. Adaptive management of fishery
resources in the northern Gulf of California (PANGAS), Co PI at UCSC: Giacomo Bernardi
David and Lucille Packard Foundation and Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.
"Partnership for Interdisciplinary Study of Coastal Oceans- PISCO", renewal - 5 years
$25,400,000. Co-Pi at UCSC, Mark Can-
US Department of Interior, $26,000, "Monitoring of Redwoods National Park"
2004 Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary "Researcher of the Year Award"
David and Lucille Packard Foundation. "Consortium for Excellence in Marine Conservation
Science" $1,300,000 renewal for 2004, Co-Pi: MarkCarr.
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. "Effects of sedimentation on nearshore '
communities: recommendations for disposal of landslide material" Co-Pi Mark Carr. $88,000
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. "Monitoring of Black abalone populations along
the central coast." $25,000
Long Marine Lab. "Genetics of Black abalone populations" co-Pi: Giacomo Bernardi, $25,000
David and Lucille Packard Foundation. "Ecosystem based management of small scale
fisheries in the gulf of California: a planning grant". $25,000.
2003 California Environmental Quality Initiative. "Collaboration on Ecosystem Functioning in
Giant Kelp Forests: Linking Hydrodynamics to an Essential Forage Species and its Benthos"
$104,979.
US Department of Interior: "The shoreline assessment of changes in rocky intertidal
communities" renewal $999,000.
NSF: The effects of dispersal, gene flow and local adaptation on Silvetia compressa's
distribution in the tntertidal zone. Co-Pi Ingrid Parker. This is a dissertation improvement grant
for Cynthia Hays
2002 US Department of Interior: "The shoreline assessment of changes in rocky intertidal
communities" $997,000.
California Environmental Quality Initiative. "Larval pathway and population connectivity in
nearshore marine organisms" $135,000. Cc-PI: MarkCarr
UCMEXUS. "Intertidal surveys in the Northern Gulf of CA." $15,000
2001 David and Lucille Packard Foundation. "Consortium for Excellence in Marine Conservation
Science" $2,300,000 in additional funding. Co-Pi: Mark Carr..
Spatial .and temporal variation in recruitment to rocky shores: relationship to intertidal
communities.
UCSB/MMS Coastal Marine Institute. $140,877
California Department of Fish and Game. "Squid population genetics." $36,000
UCMEXUS. "Eradiction of Rats at Isla San Jorge." $15,000
2000 PISCO University Match for Molecular Genetics. $200,000
UC Toxics Program - Coastal Toxicology Program, "Effects of effluents on complex
invertebrate behavioral traits of invertebrate larvae and algal zoospores." Renewal, $30,000
Inventory of coastal ecological resources at San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara counties,
UCSB/MMS Coastal Marine Institute. $61,447
Determining the importance of estuarine and open coast nursery habitats to adult flatfish
populations. NOAA National Estuarine Program. $44,000
UCMEXUS. "Field Guide to the Common Marine Plants of the Gulf of California." $15,000
MMS-Coastal Marine Institute. "Inventory of coastal ecological resources at San Luis Obispo,
Santa Barbara counties." renewal. $65,236
UC Toxics Program - Coastal Toxicology Program. "Effects of effluents on complex
invertebrate behavioral traits of invertebrate larvae and algal zoospores." Renewal, $25,000
Elected to the California Academy of Sciences
National Science Foundation. "Upgrading the Long Marine Lab Diving and Small Boating
Programs." $200,000. Co-Pi's Mark Carr and James Estes
UCMEXUS-CONACYT. "Archives of global climate change: a novel use of coralline red algae
for reconstructing annual to centennial scale environmental variability." $25,000
Raimondi CV, page 3
1999 David and Lucille Packard Foundation. "Consortium for Excellence 5n Marine
Conservation Science." $3,200,000 (UCSC part of a 17.5 million dollar award OSU UCSB, and
Stanford University). Co PI Mark Can-
California Department of Fish and Game. "Squid population genetics." $27,000.
UC Toxics Program - Coastal Toxicology Program. "Effects of effluents on complex
invertebrate behavioral traits of invertebrate larvae and algal zoospores." Renewal, $25,000
1998 Southern California Educational Initiative. " Inventory of coastal ecological resources at San
Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara counties." $164,000
1997 UC-MMS-Southern California Educational Initiative. "Effects of an oil spill on multispecies
interaction that structure intertidal communities." $110,453.
National Science Foundation. "Variability in spore dispersal and its role in kelp population
dynamics." $60,000.
National Science Foundation. "Variability in spore dispersal and its role in kelp population
dynamics." Co-Pi's Dan Reed and Libe Washburn. 5380,000.
UC-MMS-Coastal Marine Institute. "Effects of temporal and spatial separation of samples on
•estimation of impacts." $68,586
National Science Foundation. "Biochemical control of larval settlement and recruitment of the
major reef building coral, Acropora palmata." Daniel and Aileen Morse, Co-Pi's. $375,000.
UC Presidential Mentorship (support for a UC Presidential Postdoctoral Associate).
Approximately $70,000
UC Toxics Program - Coastal Toxicology Program. "Effects of effluents on complex
invertebrate behavioral traits of invertebrate larvae and algal zoospores." Renewal, $25,000
UCSC Instructional Improvement Grant. "Planning and logistical development of the new
field course in Biology: Biology 162-Marine Biology of the Gulf of California." $4,700.
UC MEXUS. "Potential effects of global change on the intertidal communities in the northern
Gulf of California." $1000.00
UCSC COR Faculty Research Grant. "Potential Effects of Global Warming on Intertidal
Communities in the Gulf of California." $2500
Minerals Management Service, "Interagency Rocky Intertidal Monitoring Network
Workshop." $36,942.
1996 Coastal Marine Institute and Southern California Educational Initiative. "Effects of
produced water on complex invertebrate behavioral traits of invertebrate larvae and algal
zoospores." $122,729
UC MEXUS - "Ecological and economic importance of rhodolith beds in the Gulf of." 59,500,
UC Toxics Program - Coastal Toxicology Program. "Effects of effluents on complex
invertebrate behavioral traits of invertebrate larvae and algal zoospores." $35,000
1995 • Southern California Educational Initiative. " Inventory of coastal ecological resources at San
Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Orange counties. " Rich Ambrose and Jack Engle, Co-Pi's.
$150,000
California Coastal Commission. "San Onefre nuclear power generating station mitigation
project." Dan Reed, Co-Pi. $190,000
1994 California Coastal Commission. " Inventory of coastal ecological resources at Ventura and
Los Angeles counties." Rich Ambrose and Jack Engle, Co-Pi's. $18,616
California Coastal Commission. "Inventory of coastal ecological resources at the Northern
Channel Islands." Rich Ambrose and Jack Engle, Co-Pi's. $273,500
California Department of Fish and Game. "Enhancement of Red Abalone Populations Using
a Population Based Approach." $110,608
California Coastal Commission. "San Onofre nuclear power generating station mitigation
project," Dan Reed, Co-Pi. $119,087
Refereed PUBLICATIONS (only submitted, in press or in print shown)
Beldade, Ricardo; Cudney-Bueno, Richard; Raimondi, Peter; Bemardi, Giacomo. Isolation and characterization
of 13 polymorphic microsatellite markers from the Gulf coney, Epinephelus acanlhistius. Submitted: Molecular
Ecology Resources
Raimondi CV, page 4
Alberto F, A. Whitmer, N. C. Coeiho, M. Zippay, E. Varela-Alvarez, P.T., Raimondi, D. C. Reed and E. Serrap
Micr9satellite markers for the giant kelp Macrocystis pyrifera In Press Conservation Genetics
Lane JQ, PT. Raimondi2, RM. Kudela. Development of a logistic regression model for the prediction of
toxigenic Pseudo-nitzschia blooms in Monterey Bay, California, In press, Marine Ecology Progress Series
Cudney-Bueno R, MF Lavin4,' SG. Marinone, PT Raimondi and WW. Shaw, 2009. Rapid Effects of Marine
Reserves viaLarval Dispersal. PLoS One: 4(1): e4140(l-7).
Raimondi, PT. Variation in impact estimation based on different measures of acceptable uncertainty. In Press:
California Energy Commission Reports
Beldade R; R Cudney-Bueno; PT. Raimondi; and G Bernard! Isolation and characterization of nine polymorphic
microsatellite markers from the Gulf coney, Epinephelus acanthistius. In Press Molecular Ecology Research
Crawford G., R Gaddam, PT Raimondi, P Nelson and W Sydeman. 2008. Tools and Approaches for Detecting
Ecological Changes Resulting from WEC Development In: DEVELOPING WAVE ENERGY IN COASTAL
CALIFORNIA: POTENTIAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS. PIER Project Report
CEC-500-2008-083: Pages 165-183.
Lohse DP, RN Gaddam, PT Raimondi. 2008. Predicted effects of WEC on communities in the nearshore
environment. In: DEVELOPING WAVE ENERGY IN COASTAL CALIFORNIA: POTENTIAL SOCIO-
ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS. PIER Project Report CEC-500-2008-083: Pages 83-109
Blanchette CA, CM Miner, PT Raimondi, D Lohse, KEK. Heady and BR. Broitman. 2008, Biogeographical
patterns of rocky intertidal communities along the Pacific coast of North America. Journal of Biogeography,
35:1593-1607
Blaachette C.A., P.T.Raimpndi and B.R Broitman.' SPATIAL PATTERNS OF INTERTIDAL COMMUNITY
STRUCTURE ACROSS THE CALIFORNIA CHANNEL ISLANDS AND LINKS TO OCEAN .
TEMPERATURE. Submitted Channel Islands Symposium proceedings
Broitman1 ,B.R., C.A. Blanchette2, B.A. Menge3, J. Lubchenco3, M. Poley*, P.A. Raimondi'', C. Krenz3, D.
Lohse4 and S.D. Gaines2 2008. Spatial and temporal variability in the recruitment of intertidal invertebrates
along the West coast of the U.S.. Ecological Monographs, Vol. 78, No. 3, pp. 403-421
Steinbeck J, J Hedgepeth, P Raimondi, G Cailliet, and D Mayer, Assessing power plant cooling water intake
system entrainment impacts. In Press: California Energy Commission reports
Pfeiffer-Hoyt, AS, MA. McManus, PT Raimondi, and Y Chao. 2007. Dispersal of barnacle larvae along the
central California coast: A modeling study. Limnology and Oceanography 52:1559-1569
Gaylord B, JH. Rosman, DC. Reed, JR. Koseff, J Fram, S Maclntyre, K Arkema, C McDonald, JL, Largier, MA.
Brzezinski, PT. Raimondi, SG. Monismith, and B Mardian, 2007. Spatial patterns of flow and their modification
within and around a giant kelp forest, Limnology and Oceanography52(5), 2007, 1838-1852
Lohse D. P. and P. T. Raimondi. The life of an intertidal barnacle. Encyclopedia of Tidepools, UC Press. Mark
W, Denny and Steven D. Gaines, Editors-in-Chief. In Press
Raimondi, PT, R Sagarin, R Ambrose, C Bell, M George, S Lee, D Lohse, CMiner, S Murray. 2007.
Conspicuous color patterns in the sea star Plsaster ochraceus, PACIFIC SCIENCE 61 (2): 201-210.
Raimondi CV, page 5
Sagarin, R.D., R.F. Ambrose, B,J. Becker, J.M. Engle, J, Kido, S.F. Lee, S.M, Miner, S.N. Murray, P.T.
Raimondi, D. Richards, and C. Roe., 2007. Population size structures of the exploited limpet Lottia gigantea
across a wide latitudinal range. MARINE BIOLOGY 150 (3): 399-413
Luengen AC, PT Raimondi and AR Flegal, 2007 Contrasting biogeochemistry of six trace metals during the rise
and decay of a spring phytoplankton bloom in San Francisco Bay. LIMNOLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY 52
(3): 1112-1130
Miner Miner CM, JM Altstatt, PT Raimondi, and TE Minchinton. 2007. Recruitment failure and shifts in
community structure following mass mortality of black abalone limit its prospects for recovery. MARINE
ECOLOGY-PROGRESS SERIES 327: i 07-117
Gaylord, B., D,C, Reed, L. Washburn and P.T. Raimondi. 2006. Macroalgal spore dispersal in coastal
environments: Mechanistic insights revealed by theory and experiment. Ecological Monographs, 76: 481-502
Reed DC, Raimondi PT, Washburn L, Gaylord B, Kinlan BP and PT Drake. 2005. A metapopulation
perspective on patch dynamics and connectivity in giant kelp. In: P, Sale and J Rritzer eds. Marine
metapopulations. Academic Press.
Raimondi, P.T., Reed, D.C., Wasburn L. and Gaylord, B: 2004. Effect of self-fertilization in the giant kelp
Macrocystispyrifera. Ecology, 85: 3267-3276
Menge B.A., Blanchette C, Raimondi P.T., Gaines S., Lubchenco J, Lohse D., Hudson G,, Foley M., and J.
Paraplin. 2004. Geographic variation in keystone predation: a whole-coast experiment. Ecological Monographs,
74:663-684
Reed, D.C., S.C. Schroeter.and P.T. Raimondi. 2004. Spore supply and habitat availability as sources of
recruitment limitation in giant kelp, Macrocystis Pyrifera. Journal of Phycology 40:275-284
Forde, S.E. and P.T. Raimondi. 2004, An experimental test of the effects of variation in recruitment intensity on
intertidal community structure. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 301:1-14
Luengen, A.C., Friedman, C.S., Rairaondi, P.T., and Flegal, A.R. 2004. Evaluation of immune responses as
indicators of contamination in San Francisco Bay, CA; Development of a novel phagocytosis and phagoc'ytic
index method fpr mussels. Marine Environmental Research. 57(3): 197-212
Gaylord, B., D.C. Reed, L. Washburn and P.T. Raimondi. 2004 Physical-biological coupling in spore dispersal
of kelp forest macroalgae. Journal of Marine Systems, 49:19-39
Raimondj, P.T.;Lohse, D; Blanchette, C. 2003. Unexpected dynamism in zonation and abundance revealed by
long-term monitoring on rocky shores. Ecological Society of America Annual Meeting. 88:275.
Raimondi, P.T., Wilson, C.M., Ambrose, R.F., Engel, J.M., and Minchinton, T.E. 2002. El Nino and the
continued declines of black abalone along the coast of California. Marine Ecology Progress Series 242:143-152
Menge Bruce A; Blanchette Carol A; Freidenburg Tess L; Gaines Steven D; Lubchenco Jane ; Lohse David;
Raimondi Peter. Cross-scale linkages between bottom-up factors and interaction strength in rocky intertidal
communities. [Meeting] Ecological Society of America Annual Meet ing Abstracts, [print] 86. 2001. 157.
Gaylord, B., Reed, D.C., Raimondi, P.T., Washburn, L., and McLean, S.R. 2002. A physically based model of
macroalgal spore dispersal in the wave and current dominated nearshore. Ecology. 83: 1239-1251
Reed, D.C., Raimondi, P.T., Washburn, L, Phycologica! Society of America. (54th Annual Meeting of the
Phycological Society of America, San Diego, California, USA. July 15-19,2000). Patterns and consequences of
spore dispersal in the giant kelp, Macrocystis pyrifera. Journal of Phycology June, 2000. 36 (3 Supplement): 56.
Raimondi CV, page 6
Raimondi, P.T., Forde, S., Delph, L. and Lively, C.M. 2000. Processes structuring communities: evidence for
trait mediated interactions through induced polymorphisms. Oikos. 91:353-361,
Raimondi, P.T. and Morse, A.N.C. 2000, Complex larva] behavior and the vertical distribution and orientation
of Agaricia humilis (Scleractinia). Ecology. 81:3193-3211.
Reed, D.C., Carr M.H., Goldwasser, L. and Raimondi, P.T. 2000. Role of dispersal potential in determining the
spatial structure of an assemblage of sedentary marine organisms. Ecology. 81:2011-2026.
Carr, M.H. and Raimondi, P.T. 1999. Marine protected areas as a precautionary approach to management.
California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations Reports 40:1-6,
Carr, M.H. and Raimondi, P.T. 1998. Concepts relevant to the design and evaluation of harvest reserves,
Proceedings of workshop on rockfish refugia.
Raimondi, P.T., Bamett, A.M. and Krause, P.R. 1997. The effects of drilling muds on marine invertebrate larvae
and adults. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry V16 N6:1218-1228.
Ambrose, R.A., Altstatt J.A., Raimondi, P.T., Lafferty, K,D. and Engel, J. 1996. Recent declines in black
abalone Haliotis cracherodii in the mainland coast of centra! California. MEPS 142: 185-192,
Keough, M.J., and Raimondi, P.T. 1996. Responses of settling invertebrate larvae to microbial films: effects of
large scale variation in films. JEMBE 207: 59-78,
'Morse, D.E., Morse A.N.C. and Raimondi, P.T. 1995 Molecular cues from the environment controlling site-
specific recruitment: Morphogen-based "flypaper" for larvae as a tool for manipulative experiments. Journal of
Cellular Biochemistry Supplement, n.!9B (1995): 332.
Ambrose, R.A., Boland J., Murdoch, W., Raimondi, P.T., and Reed, D.C. 1995. The San Onofre nuclear
generating station mitigation reef; monitoring issues. Proceedings ECOSET '95 International conference on
ecological system enhancement technology for aquatic environments. 587- 592.
Keough, M.J.j and Raimondi, P.T. 1995. Responses of settling invertebrate larvae to microbial films, II: Effects
of different types of films. JEMBE 185:235-253.
Raimondi, P.T., Barnett, A.M. and Krause, P.R. 1995. Effects of offshore oil and gas development on marine
larval settlement: in situ manipulated field experiments. IK: Monitoring Assessment of long-term changes in
biological communities in the Santa Maria Basin: Phase III. Minerals Management Service (MMS 95-0049) Cl:
1-23.
Barnett, A. M., Raimondi, P.T., and Krause, P.R. 1995. Effects of offshore oil and gas development on marine
larval settlement: field experiments on the outer continental shelf off Point Arguello, California. In: Monitoring
Assessment of long-term changes in biological communities in the Santa Maria Basin: Phase HI. Minerals
Management Service (MMS 95-0049) C2: 1-40.
Morse, D.E., Morse, A., Hooker, N. and Raimondi, P.T. 1994. Morphogen-based chemical flypaper for Agaricia
humilis larvae. Biological Bulletin 186:172-181.
Keough, M.J and Raimondi, P.T. 1993. Robustness of estimates of recruitment for sessile invertebrates. Bur.
Rural. Res. Proc, 16:33-39.
Lively, C.M., Raimondi, P.T. and Delph, L.F, 1993. Intertidal community structure: space-time interactions in
the Northern Gulf of California. Ecology 74:162-173.
Raimondi, P.T. 1992. Adult plasticity and rapid larval evolution in a recently isolated barnacle population.
Biological Bulletin 182:210-220.
Raimondi CV, page 7
Raimondi, P.T. 1991. The settlement behavior of Chthamalus anisopoma largely determines its adult
distribution. Oecologia 85:349-360.
Raimondi, P.T. and Martin, I.E. 1991. Evidence that mating group size affects allocation of reproductive
resources in a simultaneous hermaphrodite. The American Naturalist 138:1206-1217.
Raimondi, P;T, and Keough, MJ. 1990. Behavioural variability in marine larvae. Australian Journal of Ecology
15:427-437.
Raimondi, P.T. 1990. Patterns, mechanisms, and consequences of variability in settlement and recruitment in an
intertidal barnacle. Ecological Monographs 60:283-3 09.
Raimondi, P.T. 1988. Rock type affects settlement, recruitment, and zonation of the barnacle Chthamalus
anisopoma (Pilsbry). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 123:253-267.
Raimondi, P.T, 1988. Settlement cues and determination of the vertical limit of an intertidal barnacle. Ecology
69: 400-407.
Lively, C.M. and Raimondi, P.T. 1987. Desiccation, predation, and mussel-barnacle interactions in the northern
Gulf of California. Oecologia 74: 304-309.
Raimondi, P.T. and Lively, C.M. 1986, Positive abundance and negative distribution effects of a gastropod on
an intertidal hermit crab. Oecologia 69: 213-216.
Book Chapters
Reed DC, Raimondi PT, Washbura L, Gaylord B, Kinlan BP and PT Drake. 2004. A metapopulation
perspective on patch dynamics and connectivity in giant kelp. In: P. Sale and J Kritzer eds. Marine
metapopulations. Academic Press.
Raimondi, P.T. and Reed, D.C, 1995, Determining the spatial extent of ecological impacts caused by local
anthropogenic disturbances in coastal marine habitats. In: Detecting Ecological Impacts: Concepts and
Applications in Coastal Habitats. RJ. Schmitt and C. Osenberg, eds. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Chapter
10, pages J77-196.
Raimondi, P.T. and Schmitt, R.J. 1993. Effects of produced water on settlement of larvae: field tests using red
abalone. In: Produced Water— Tecfmological /Environmental Issues and Solutions. J.P. Ray and F.R,
Engelhardt, eds. Plenum Press, New York, pp 415-430.
Technical Reports
Conway-Cranos T, PT Raimondi. Spatial and temporal variation in recruitment to rocky shores: Relationship to
recovery rates of intertidal communities. 53 pages; In Press. Minerals Management Service.
Raimondi PT, 2006. Data assessment for ASBS/Ocean Plan for Cal Trans. California State Water Board. 284
pages.
Raimondi PT. 2006. Written summary of MARINe / PISCO intertidal biological data for
Hopkins Marine Station, Fall 1999 through Spring 2006: Data assessment for ASBS/ Ocean Plan. California
State Water Board. 179 pages.
Rnimondi CV, page 8
Miner M, PT. Raimondi, R Ambrose, J Engie and S. Murray, 2005. Monitoring of Rocky Intertidal Resources
Along the Central and Southern California Mainland: Comprehensive Report (1992-2003) for San Luis Obispo,
Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, and Orange Counties. OCS Study MMS-2005-071
Strange E., Allen D., Mills D., and P.T. Raimondi, 2004. Research on estimating environmental benefits of
restoration to mitigate or avoid environmental impacts caused by California Power Plant Cooling Water Intake
Structures. PIER report 500-04-091, California Energy Commission, Oct 2004.
Minchinton T.E and P.T Raimondi. 2004. Effect of temporal and spatial separation of samples on estimation of
Impacts. Coastal Research Center, Marine Science Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara,
California, MMS Cooperative Agreement Numbers 14-35-0001-30758. 89 pages.
Carr M. H., McGinnis M.V., Forrester G.E., Harding G. and P.T. Raimondi. 2003. Consequences of alternative
decommissioning options to reef fish assemblages and implications for decommissioning policy. MMS OCS
Study 2003-053. Coastal Research Center, Marine Science Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara,
California. MMS Cooperative Agreement Numbers 14-35-0001-30758. 104 pages.
Donlan C. Josh , Hector Avila-Villegas, Daniel Bercovich Ortega, Noah Biavaschi, Natasha Bodorff, Rick Boyer,
Tosha Comendantl, Donald A. Croll, Richard Cudney-Bueno, Ricardo Golvan de la Rosa, Gregg R. Howald,
Luis Felipe Lozano-Romdn, Carlos Morales, Olegario Morales, Zaid Morales-Gonzalez, Pete Raimondi, Jose
Angel Sanchez, Diana Steller, Bernie R. Tershy, Peggy Turk-Boyer. 2003, tilack Rat (Rattiis rattus) Eradication
from the San Jorge Islands, Mexico,- ICEG Technical Report: 26 pages
Roe, C. A., Raimondi, P. T,, and S. E, Forde. 2003. Variability in the accumulation and persistence of tar in four
intertidal communities along the central and southern California coast. MMS OCS Study 2003-033. Coastal
Research Center, Marine Science Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara, California. MMS
Cooperative Agreement Numbers 14-35-0001-30761. 44 pages.
Boxshall A and P.T. Raimondi. 2002. Effects of produced water on complex behavior traits of invertebrate
larvae. Final Report MMS-CMI. 41 pages
Raimondi, P.T, 2001. Determination that fish behavioral barriers tested at San Onofre Nuclear Generating
Station are ineffective. A report to the California Coastal Commission. 24 pages.
Holbrook, S.J., Ambrose, R.F., Botsford, L., Carr, M.H., Raimondi, P.T., and Tegner, M.J. 2000. Ecological
issues related to decommissioning of California's offshore production platforms. Report to the University of
California Marine Council. 41 pages. .
Raimondi, P.T., Engel, J,, Ambrose, R.A., Murray, S.N,, Wilson, M. and Sapper, S. 1998. Rocky Intertidal
resources in San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Orange Counties, 3 year Report. Minerals Management
Service. OCS Study 98-0000. 103 pages.
Engel, J, Ambrose, R.A., Raimondi, P.T., Murray, S.N., Wilson, M. and Sapper, S. 1998. Rocky Intertidal
resources in San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Orange Counties, 1997 Annual report. Minerals Management
Service. OCS Study 98-0011. 73 pages.
Engel, J., Ambrose, R.A. and Raimondi, P.T. 1997. Synopsis of the interagency rocky intertidal monitoring
network workshop. Minerals Management Service, OCS Study 97-0012.
Ambrose, R.A., Raimondi, P.T., Engel, J., Wilson, M. and Altstatt, J. 1995., Inventory of shoreline resources of
Santa Barbara county. Minerals Management Service. 120 pages.
Raimondi CV, page 9
Raimondi, P.T. 1995. A model for determining wetland enhancement credit. California Coastal Commission.
30 pages.
Engle, J., Alstatt, J., Raimondi, P.T. and Ambrose, R.A. 1994. Rocky intertidal monitoring handbook for
inventory of intertidal resources in Santa Barbara County. U.S. Minerals Management Service, Pacific DCS
Region, Camarillo, CA. 92 pages.
Schmitt, R.J., Raimondi P.T. and Williamson, B. 1994. Abandonment and removal of offshore oil and gas
facilities: education and information transfer - summary of workshop proceedings. Southern California
Educational Initiative, Coastal Research Center, Marine Science Institute, UC Santa Barbara. 41 pages.
Ambrose, R.A., Raimondi, P.T. and Engel, J. 1994. Final Study.Plan for inventory of coastal ecological
resources of the Northern Channel Islands. California Coastal Commission. 28 pages.
Raimondi, P.T. and Reed, D.C. 1994, Proposed methods for determining success of wetland restoration using
concurrent monitoring. California Coastal Commission, San Fransisco, CA. 5 pages.
Raimondi, P.T., Reed, D.C. and Boland, J. 1994, Comments on use of behavioral barriers to mitigate for fish
losses at San Onofre Nuclear Power Generating Station, California Coastal Commission, San Fransisco, CA. 5
pages.
Barnett, A.M. and Raimondi, P.T. 1994. Monitoring of long term changes in biological communities in the
Santa Maria Basin: Phase 3 final one year report. Minerals Management Service: 93-0040. Sections on larval
experiments and integration.
Scientific advisory Panels leading to NEPA 316B reports
Regional Water Quality Control Board: Diablo Canyon 316B Demonstration Report: Entrainment and
impingment effects at Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Station. 624 pages.
Regional Water Quality Control Board: Moss Landing 316B Demonstration Report: Entrainment and
impingment effects at Moss Landing Power Plant 531 pages.
Regional Water Quality Control Board: Morro Bay 316B Demonstration Report: Entrainment and impingment
effects at Morro Bay Power Plant. 545 pages.
Raimondi CV, page 10
Papers resulting from lab members from grant activities (at least in part). These are intended to show the
productivity of our lab members or productivity resulting from our grants.
2006-2007
Hays, CG. 2007. Adaptive phenotypic differentiation across the intertidal gradient in the alga Silvetia
.compressa. Ecology. 88(1): 149-157.
Springer, Y, Hays, CG, and MC Carr, .2006, Ecology and Management of the bull ke>lp,Nereocystis leutkeana:
z. synthesis and recommendations for future research. Report for the Pacific Marine Conservation Council and
Lenfest Ocean Program.
Barn ett- Johnson, R.C., Grimes, C.B., Royer, C.F. and Donohoe, C.J. (submitted) Discrimination of hatchery .
and wild chinook salmon (Onchorynchus tshawysha) using otolith microstructure. Canadian Journal of Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences,
Bond, 3VLH., Hayes, S.A., Hanson, C.V., and MacFarlane, R.B. (in review) Movement patterns of steelhead in a
central California stream: using passive integrated transponders to monitor fish behavior. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society
Brown, J.A. 2006. Using the chemical composition of otoliths to evaluate the nursery role of estuaries for
English sole Pleuronectes vetulus populations Marine Ecology Progress Series, 306:269-281.
Brown, J.A. 2006. Classification of juvenile flatfishes to estuarine and coastal habitats based on the elemental
composition of otoliths. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 66: 594-611
Burford, M. and Larson, RJ. In press Genetic heterogeneity in a single year-class from a panmictic population
of adult blue rockfish (Sebasles mystinus'). Marine Biology.
Johnson, D.W. 2006. Density dependence in marine fish populations revealed at smaH'and large spatial scales.
Ecology. 87: 319-325.
Johnson, D.W. 2006. Predation, habitat complexity, and variation in density dependent mortality of temperate
.reef fishes. Ecology. 87:1179-1188
Hitter, A.F. and Preisler, R.K. 2006. Spatial variation in structure of an intertidal fish
assemblage reflects daily settlement patterns. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 317:211-223,
Ritter, A.F. (In review). Habitat variation influences movement rates and population structure of an intertida!
fish, Oecologia.
Springer, Y. In Press. Oecologia.
2005
Barnett-Johnson, R.C., Ramos, F.C., Grimes, C.B. and MacFarlane, R.B., 2005. Validation of Sr isotopes in
otoliths by laser ablation multicollector inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA-MC-ICPMS):
opening avenues in fisheries science applications. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 62:
2425-2430.
Raimondi CV, page 11
McManus, M.A., Cheriton, O.M., Drake, P.T., Holliday, D. V., Storlazzi, C.D., Donaghay, P.L., and Greenlaw,
C.E. 2005. The effects of physical processes on the structure and transport of thin zooplankton layers in the
coastal ocean, Marine Ecology Progress Series. 301:199-215.
Drake, P.T., McManus, M., and Storlazzi, C. 2005 .Local wind forcing of the Monterey Bay area inner shelf.
Continental Shelf Research, 25(3), 397-417.
2003-2004:
Ammann, A.J. 2004. SMURFs: standard monitoring units for the recruitment of temperate reef fishes. Journal
of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 299:135-154
Hayes, S.A., Bond, MJEL, Hanson, C.V., and MacFarlane, R.B. 2004. Interactions between endangered wild and
hatchery salmonids; can the pitfalls of artificial propagation be avoided in small coastal streams? Journal
of Fish Biology 65(Supplement A):101-121.
Halpern, B.S., S.D. Gaines, and R.R. Warner. 2004. Export of production from marine reserves; effects on
fisheries and monitoring programs. Ecological Applications 14:1248-1256.
Halpern, B.S., S.D. Gaines, and R.R. Warner. 2004. Moving the discussion about marine reserve science
forward: a response to Willis et al. MPANews 5(7): 1-2.
Halpern, B.S., S.D. Gaines, and R.R. Warner, in review. Habitat size, recruitment, and longevity as factors
limiting population size in stage-structured species. American Naturalist.
Halpern, B.S;, E.T. Borer, E.W. Seablootn, and J.B. Shurin. in review. Predator effects on ecosystem stability.
Ecology Letters.
Halpern, B.S., C. Pyke, C. Haney, P. Zaradic, H. Fox, and M. Schlapfer,. in review. Gaps and mismatches
between global conservation priorities and spending. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.
Hays, C.G. The effects of nutrient level, grazer community and source population on seagrass-epiphyte
interactions. In press, Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology.
Heck, K.L., Hays, C.G., and Orth, R.J. 2003. A critical evaluation of the nursery role hypothesis for seagrass
meadows. Marine Ecology Progress Series 253:123-136.
Sheridan P.F., and Hays, C.G. 2003. Are mangroves nursery habitat for transient fish and decapods? Wetlands
23(2):449-458.
Micheli, F., B.S. Halpern, L.W. Botsford, and R.R. Warner, in press. Trajectories and correlates of community
change in no-take marine reserves. Ecological Applications.
Minello, T.J., Able, K.W., Wetnstein, M.P., and Hays, C.G. 2003. Salt marshes as nurseries for nekton: testing
hypostheses on density, growth, and survivorship though meta-analysis. Marine Ecology Progress Series.
246:39-59.
Planes, S., Doherty, P., and Bernardi, G. 2001. Unusual case of extreme genetic divergence in a marine fish,
Acanthochromis polyacanthus, within the Great Barrier Reef and the Coral Sea. Evolution. 55:2263-2273.
Storlazzi, C and McManus, M.A.. 2003. Long-term, high-frequency current and temperature measurements
along central California: Insights into upwelling relaxation and internal waves on the inner shelf. Continental
RnimondiCV,pagel2
Shelf Research. 23: 901-918.
Syms, C, and G. P. Jones. 2004. Habitat structure, disturbance and the composition of sand-dwelling goby
assemblages in a coral reef lagoon. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 268:221-230.
Barnett-Johnson. Sources of Salmon. In PISCO Coastal Connections 2004: 3:13.
Beck MW, Heck KL, Able KW, Childers DL, Eggleston DB, Gillanders BM, Halpern B, Hays CO, Hoshino K,
Minello TJ, Ortli RJ, Sheridan PF, and MR Weinstein. 2001. The identification, conservation, and management
of estuarine and marine nurseries for fish and invertebrates. Bioscience 51(8):633-641.
Brown, J. A. 2003. An Evaluation of the Nursery Role of Estuaries for Flatfish Populations in Central California.
Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California, Santa Cruz. 138 pages.
Brown, J. A. 2002, A Plan for Monitoring the Fish Assemblage in Elkfaorn Slough. Elkhorn Slough Technical
Report Series 2002:1. (Download from http://www.elkhornslough.org/research/bibliography_tr.htm)
Brown, J.A. 2001. A Review of Marine Zones in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Marine
Sanctuaries Conservation Series MSD-01-2. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Marine Sanctuaries Division, Silver Spring, MD. 137pp. (Download from
http://www.sancruaries.nos.noaa.gov/special/zoning/zones.litml)
Gillanders, B. M., K. W. Able, J. A. Brown, D. B. Eggleston, and P. F. Sheridan. 2003. Evidence of connectivity
between juvenile and adult habitats for mobile marine fauna: an important component of nurseries. Marine
Ecology Progress Series 247:281-295.
Heck KL, Hays CG, and RJ Orth. 2003. A critical evaluation of the nursery role hypothesis for seagrass
meadows. Marine Ecology Progress Series 253:123-136.
McManus MA, OM Cheriton, PJ Drake, DV Holliday, CE Greenlaw, CD Storlazzi and PL Donaghay. submitted.
Thin Layers and the Transport and Retention of Marine Plankton in Coastal Systems. Marine Ecology Progress
Series.
MinelloTJ, Able'KW, Weinstein MPf and CG'Hays. "2003. Salt marshes as nurseries for nekton: testing ~ "
hypostheses on density, growth, and survivorship though meta-analysis. Marine Ecology Progress Series 246:39-
59. .
Sheridan PF, and CG Hays. 2003. Are mangroves nursery habitat for transient fish and decapods? Wetlands
23(2):449-458. . • .
Storlazzi C and MA McManus. 2003. Long-term, high-frequency current and temperature measurements along
central California: Insights into upwelling relaxation and internal waves on the inner shelf. Continental Shelf
Research. 23:901-918.
UNIVERSITY SERVICE
Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology
2005- current Hosted ACE students as summer interns
2004-current Led.Marine lab tours for prospective undergraduates t
2003 - current Chair Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
2001-2003 Executive Committee
Personnel Committee
Graduate Advisory Committee
1999-2001 Personnel Committee EEB
RaimondlCV.pogcO
2000- Executive Committee
Personnel Committee
Graduate Advising Committee (GAC)
Space Committee (EMS & COH)
Department of Biology
1999-2000 Executive Committee
Graduate Advising Committee (GAC)
1998 - Chair,-Evolutionary Biology/Ecology Search (Associate/Full Level)
OPB Graduate Advising Committee (GAC)
1997-1999 Member UC-MEXUS Advising Panel (Systemwide)
1997-1998 OPB Graduate Advising Committee
1996-1997 Member, Marine Ecology Search Committee
Member, Plant Ecology Search Committee
1995-1996 Member, Behavioral Ecology Search Committee
1996- Member, Research Committee
1996-2001 Member, Graduate Advising Committee (GAC)
1995-1996 Behavioral Ecology Search Committee
Division of Physical and Biological Sciences (start 2003)
2003- current Chair, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
2000- current Faculty Manager - Big Creek Ecological Reserve
1998-current Member, UC Natural Reserves Committee
1998-current Member, Conservation Biology Search (Environmental Studies)
Multiple ad hoc committees
UC Svstemwide
2004- White Mountain Reserve Station Advisor
1996-2004 UCTOXICS program (teaching the UCTOXICS field course at Bodega Bay)
2004- UCMEXUS review committee
2000- University Select Committee on Marine Issues
1999-2000 Select Scientific Advisory Committee to the University of California Marine Council
(UCMC). Systemwide committee
PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES
Consultative or Other Service to Civic. State or National Governmental Agencies
2007- current Scientific Advisory Team to the State of CA Marine Protected Area process
2005-current California Energy Commission (scientific advisory committee examining effects of Huntington
beach and El Segundo Power Plants
2004-current Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Desal working Group
EPA review of draft 316 A & 316B regulations
2003-current Statewide Desalinization Task Force
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Action Plan Working Groups (Tidepools and
Desalinization)
NCEAS working group on Central California Nearshore Plan
Raimondi CV, page 14
California Energy Commission (Scientific advisor for Power Plant Impacts at El Segundo and
Huntingdon Beach operations)
2002-current National Marine Sanctuary Working Group on Monitoring Programs
National Marine Sanctuary Program (NOAA). Scientific Advisor to National Monitoring
programs
County of San Luis Obispo. Scientific Advisor to Mitigation for cleanup at Guadalupe Dunes
Scientific advisor to Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary "Sanctuary Integrated Monitoring
Network (SIMoN)'
2001 Workshops on the design of monitoring programs for California State Agencies.
2000-ciirrent California Energy Commission. Scientific Advisory Panel (for power plant impacts to the
marine environment)
1996-current State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Scientific Advisory Panel (for power
plant impacts to the marine environment)
US Department of the Interior. Minerals Management Service. Management of Data for
Inventory Programs
US Department of the Interior. Minerals Management Service, Production of a model to assess
the success of mitigation programs.
California Coastal Commission, San Francisco, CA: Mitigation of the effects of the San Onefre
Nuclear Generating Station - Scientific Advisory Panel,
1995-current California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Technical Advisory Committee. Effects of
Entrainment of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Facility on larval fish.
1994-1996 County of Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA. Reviewer of marine related deliverables and
documents.
1991-1995 MEC Analytical, Carlsbad, CA: Determine effects of oil drilling on. benthic communities
1991 -1992 Marine Review Committee, Santa Barbara, CA: Analysis of impact of San Onofre Nuclear
Power'Generating Station
1990 Dames and Moore, Melbourne, Australia: Evaluation of potential impact of marina renovation
Dames and Moore, Melbourne, Australia: Review of EIR for Tin Smelter in Northern Australia
1988 Marine Review Committee, Santa Barbara, CA: Analysis of impact of San Onofre Nuclear
Power Generating Station
1988-1990 Dames and Moore, Melbourne, Australia: Design of water quality monitoring program for the
coastal areas of Tasmania
1985-19S8 Chambers Group, Los Angeles, CA: Effects construction of oil pipelines on intertidal reefs
Service to the Staff or Editorial Board of Scholarly Journals or other Publications (since 1994)
Reviews (Journals of agencies where I regularly review manuscripts)
Nature
Science
Ecology, Ecological Monographs - editorial board
Evolution
American Naturalist
Coral Reefs
Oecologia
JEMBE
Marine Biology
Marine Ecology Progress Series
Invertebrate Biology
Australian Journal of Ecology
Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research
National Science Foundation
Sea Grant
Participation in Public Lectures or Forums
Raimondi CV, page 15
2006 International Temperate Reef Symposium 2006-"LatitudinaJ Variation In Rocky Intertidal
Community Structure Along The West Coast Of North America" (Blanchette, Miner, Raimondi,
Broitman)
Society for Conservation Biology - Long-term moaitoring of intertidal resources and implications
for the management of coastal ecosystems (Readdie, Raimondi,'Blanchette, Menge)
2004 Ecological Society of America Invited Symposium Talk. "Interhemispheric variation in keystone
predation rate and impact in upwelling ecosystems", presented by Bruce Menge.
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Desalinization symposium. "Entrainment effects
resulting from desalinization"
National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS). "Central Coast Marine
Initiative"
2003 Ecological Society of America Invited Symposium Talk (I was the organizer) ". "Unexpected
dynamism in zonation and abundance revealed by long-term monitoring on rocky shores"
2003 Moss landing Marine Laboratories "Unexpected dynamism in zonation and abundance revealed
by long-term monitoring on rocky shores"
2003 State of California Desalinization working Group "Ecological effects due to impingement and
• entrainment"
2003 Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation "Overview of PISCO"
2003 Marine Interest Group 'Unexpected dynamism in zonation and abundance revealed by long-term
monitoring on rocky shores"
2003 Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary "Unexpected dynamism in zonation and abundance
revealed by long-term monitoring on rocky shores"
2002 PISCO Symposium "Intertidal monitoring: its uses and abuses"
2002 Research Activity Panel to Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary "Techniques of and lessons
from Intertidal Monitoring"
2001 Inivited Symposium talk Western Society of Naturalists "Intertidal 'Community Structure: Stasis
is not the Norm"
2000 Chair and organizer of the 4th International Larval Biology Conference, UC Santa Cruz
Southern California Academy of Sciences, Los Angeles, Invited syposium speaker
Phycological Society of America, San Diego, Invited symposium speaker
Fifth'Interhational Temperate Reef Symposium, Capetown,'South'Africa,'contributed talk
1999 Mexican Phycological Congress, La Paz, Mexico, Invited Plenary speaker
1998 Symposia Organiser and Speaker, Larval Biology Conference. Melbourne, Australia .
1997 Platform Abandonment Symposium, Ventura California. "Water Quality Issues Associated with
Platform Abandoment,"
Interagency Rocky Intertidal Monitoring Workshop, Conference Organizer. Santa Barbara
1996 8th International Coral Reef Symposium, Panama City, Panama, "Flypaper for Coral Larvae."
8th International Coral Reef Symposium, Panama City, Panama. "Complex Larval Behavior and
the Distribution and the Vertical Distribution and Orientation of Agaricia humilis."
1995 Sensory Ecology and Physiology of Zooplankton., Honolulu, Hawaii. "The use of a novel cbetno-
inductive substrate resolves factors involved in recruitment of coral larvae." with Morse, A.N.C.
2nd Bienial Larval Biology Meetings, HBOI, Fort Pierce, Florida. "A chemo-inductive substrate
for coral larvae; A new tool for ecological studies." with Morse, A.N.C.
Southern California Academy of Sciences, Fullerton, CA. "Counts per Unit Area, Size
Frequency Measurements."
Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vancouver, British Columbia. "Effects of
oil and gas development activities in southern California on larval settlement."
Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vancouver, British Columbia. "A field
investigation to determine the impact of offshore drilling activities on natural larval settlement,"
1994 Platform Abandonment Symposium, Santa Barbara, CA. Symposium Chairman
1993 Seventh Annual Research Symposium, University of California Toxic Substances Research and
Teaching Program, Santa Cruz, CA. "Some consequences of alteration of swimming behavior in
abalone larvae and kelp zoospores."
C\
Raimondi CV, page 16
1992 Temperate Reefs Symposium, Auckland, New Zealand: "Effects of point source pollution of the
settlement of larvae."
Sixth Annual Research Symposium, University of California Toxic Substances Research and
Teaching Program, Santa Barbara, CA. "Developmental stage-specific responses to
perturbations."
International Produced Water Symposium, San Diego, California. "Effects of produced water on
settlement of larvae: field tests using red abalone."
Australian Society of Fisheries Biologists, Hobart, Tasmania. "Robustness of estimates of
recruitment rates for sessile marine invertebrates."
1991 Western Society of Naturalists, Monterey, California, Session Chairman
Fifth Annual Research Symposium, University of California Toxic Substances Research and
Teaching Program, San Francisco, CA. "Stage-specific effects of point source pollution on
marine larvae." • '
1990 Western Society of Naturalists, Monterey, California
1989 Temperate Reefs Symposium, Melbourne, Australia. ."Are Larvae Perfect?" Invited symposium
talk
1988 Western Society of Naturalists, Long Beach, California .
1987 American Society of Limnology and Oceanography, Madison, Wisconsin. "Predator-induced
settlement of an intertidal barnacle," Invited symposium talk.
1985 Western Society of Naturalists, Monterey, California: "The effect' of a herbivorous gastropod on
an intertidal hermit crab."
N.Z. Marine Sciences Society, Christchurch, New Zealand. "The effect of a herbivorous
gastropod on an intertidal hermit crab: commensal or amensal?"
Invited Research Seminars
2006 Cal State LA, California World Oceans, National Marine Fisheries (San Diego)
2005 University of Arizona, Humboldt State University ..
2003 Hopkins Marine Lab
2002 Moss Landing Marine Lab
2001 Bodega Marine Lab, UC Davis
Cal Poly, San, Luis Obispo
-- California State University, Humboldt
.-..-. Duke. University, Raleigh, .Durham, North Carolina _ .... ..
2000 Bodega Marine Lab
1998 Moss Landing Marine Lab, Moss Landing, CA
1997 Hopkins Marine Station, Pacific Grove, CA
1995 Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA
University of California, Santa Cruz, CA
1994 University of California, Santa Cruz, CA .
1993 California Coastal Commission, Santa Barbara, CA
1992 University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon
Oregon Institute of Marine Biology, Charleston, Oregon
1991 Marine Science Consortium, Queenscliff, Victoria, Australia
California State University, Northridge, California
Hopkins Marine Laboratory, Monterey, California
1990 Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona
College of the Atlantic, Bar Harbor, Maine
1989 University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
Victorian Institute of Marine Sciences, Melbourne, Australia
, . Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
1988 California State University, Los Angeles
Scientific Expeditions and Field Work
2007 Field Research in Mexico
.40
Raimondi CV, page 17
2006 Field Research
2004 Field Research and Teaching, Moorea, French Polynesia, November - December
Field Research, Puerto Penasco Mexico, June - August
2003 Field Research, Puerto Penasco Mexico, June - August
2002 Field Research and Teaching, Moorea, French Polynesia, November- December
Field Research, Puerto Penasco Mexico, June - August
2001 Field Research, Puerto Penasco, Mexico, June
2000 Field Research and Teaching, Moorea, French Polynesia, November- December
Field Research, Puerto Penasco Mexico, June - August
1999 Field Research, Puerto Penasco Mexico, June - August
1998 Field Research, Puerto Penasco Mexico, June - August
Field Research, coastal Sonora, .Mexico, November - December
1997 Field Research, Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles, September
Field Research, Puerto Penasco, Mexico, June - August
1996 Field Research, Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles, September
Field Research, Puerto Penasco, Mexico, August
September Field Research, Moorea, French Polynesia, July
1995 Field Research, Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles, September
Field Research, Moorea, French Polynesia, July
1994 Field Research, Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles, May
Research Cruise, MV Rambo, January
1993 Field Research, Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles, July - August
Field Research, Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles, May
1992 Research Cruise, RV Independence, October
Research Cruise, RV Independence, April
Research Cruise, RV Independence, March
169 Saxony Road
Suite 204
Encinitas, CA 92024
COAST LAW GROUP i
Tel 760-942-8505
Fax 760-942-8515
www.coastlawgroup.com
April 6, 2009
Mr. John Robertus Via Electronic Mail
Executive Officer RB9agenda@waterboards.ca.gov
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Diego Region
9174 Sky Park Court, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92123-4340
RE: Carlsbad Desalination Project
April 8,2009, Agenda Item 13
Environmental Groups' Supplemental Comments
Dear Mr. Robertus:
Please accept the following supplemental comments on behalf of the Surfrider Foundation and
San Diego Coastkeeper {Environmental Groups) pertaining to Poseidon Resources LLC's
(Poseidon) proposed Carlsbad Desalination Project (CDP).
Numerous comment letters, briefs, and other documents have been submitted regarding the
inability of the CDP to comply with Porter-Cologne section (PC) 13142.5 as a stand-alone
facility utilizing the once-through-cooling (OTC) infrastructure of the Encina Power Station
(EPS). While we will endeavor not to repeat our arguments previously made, we must reiterate
certain themes in response to the expanded (though still faulty) PC 13142.5 analysis provided
in Poseidon's March 27, 2009 Flow Entrapment and Impingement Minimization Plan (Flow
Plan) and related documents.
These comments reflect review of documents provided to the public by Regional Board staff
(staff) as of April 3, 2009 at 5:35 pm, and the California Coastal Commission's letter of April 6,
2009. In light of expected last minute submissions by various parties, the Environmental Groups
reserve the right to provide additional comments orally and in writing until the matter is finally
resolved at a public hearing by the Regional Board.
Procedural Objections
The procedural irregularities of the CDP approval process must be raised at every instance,
especially as the disjointed review by agency staff and the public continues. While we certainly
appreciate the direness of drought conditions in California and the San Diego region, the
immediate need for a new source of water does not justify the reckless manner in which CDP
consideration has progressed. The fact that significant new information continues to unfold -
including evidence of applicant misrepresentation and scientifically unsound data and statistical
analyses - at such a late date indicates that prior agency approvals were likely premature, and
importantly, that a sound foundation of data for impacts assessment was never actually
generated. Without question, Poseidon chartered a course very early on with respect to EPS
co-location, and now seeks to rationalize post-hoc virtually every piece of the regulatory puzzle.
Many, if not all, of these considerations should have been resolved as a component of project
design at its outset.
Carlsbad Desalination Project
Environmental Groups' Supplemental Comments
April 6, 2009
Page 2
In this regard, the City of Carlsbad's EiR, well beyond the time for challenge, reflects an entirely
different approach to impacts assessment than now before the Board. That entrainment
impacts are to be significant is no longer reasonably in debate, yet Poseidon continues to
assert based on the EIR that any mitigation it provides is more charitable than scientifically
required to offset impacts. Based upon third-party independent review, the EIR conclusions
regarding di minimus impingement impacts are also no longer valid. The EIR should hardly be
referenced, let alone relied upon for PC compliance. Should the Environmental Groups succeed
in requiring preparation of a Supplemental EIR by the State Lands Commission, reliance upon
the faulty EIR here by the Board could render its approvals null and void.
At the Coastal Commission, Poseidon repeatedly took the position that it was the Regional
Board that had primary jurisdiction over entrainment and impingement mitigation (and PC
13142,5 compliance in general). Poseidon's implication, if not directly expressed, was that the
Commission need not worry if it missed a piece of the mitigation or environmental review puzzle
because the Regional Board would certainly ensure all potential impacts were mitigated as
legally required by the Water Code. And yet, the Board will certainly hear Poseidon repeat its
mantra that because every agency that has looked at the project thus far has approved it, the
Board should not add mitigation obligations or other project conditions beyond those already
required. This is particularly true with respect to impingement impacts, discussed further below.
Poseidon's attempts to "have its cake and eat it too" should be rebuffed by the Board, with
focus on strict PC compliance maintained.'
Because we are nearing the end of the regulatory process, these procedural problems and their
implications must be understood and appreciated by the Board. The public, unquestionably
more limited in resources than the applicant, has been told to respond to mitigation plans within
specific comment periods, only to have the plans change and significant new "expert" reports
and materials arrive at the last minute. To expect that the public, including the Environmental
Groups, have the resources to provide multiple in-depth meaningful reviews of the reams of
documents submitted by Poseidon at every twist and turn of the regulatory process is
unrealistic and contrary to the Water Code's consideration of the public's important role in water
resource issues. (See e.g. Ca. Water Code §13292) That these submissions take place within
days and even hours of final decisions should be seen as a reflection of the project's inherent
flaws, and yet further evidence of Poseidon's attempts to "game the system."
Poseidon faced significant and well reasoned staff opposition at the Coastal Commission, yet
politics prevailed and much expert analysis (including independent third-party review) was
ignored or given short shrift. Poseidon faced staff opposition at the State Lands Commission,
and again prevailed on political lobbying coupled with drought policy arguments over science. In
light of comments by Regional Board members at the February 11, 2009 hearing, we have
The Board should pay particular attention to the Coastal Commission's April 6, 2009 letter, as it
reflects the difficulties encountered by agency staff and the public in assessing the CDP and coming up
with appropriate mitigation conditions. The project is and has been, for lack of a better term, a moving
target. As the largest of its kind in the western hemisphere, and a precedent for other desalination plants
throughout the California, the CDP review and approval process should have been much cleaner. Instead,
it has been a civic embarrassment.
Carlsbad Desalination Project
Environmental Groups' Supplemental Comments
April 6, 2009
Page 3
every reason to believe a majority of the Board has already made up its mind to approve the
CDP regardless of the impacts and mitigation obligations warranted by evidence in the record.
We nonetheless implore Board members to approach this (potentially) final hearing with an
open mind, confidence in staff, and particular deference to third-party independent review of
complex scientific material beyond individual Board members' expertise. While the Board may
still be inclined to approve the project, it should do so only with appropriate conditions and
mitigation measures required.
If at the end of the day legal and scientifically sound conditions of approval render the project
economically infeasible, so be it. There will likely come a time when technology and science,
the need for and cost of water, conservation and reclamation efforts, legal frameworks, and
societal values all evolve to support appropriately designed desalination as a major source of
potable water for the San Diego Region. The CDP as proposed does not reflect such a
condition.
Co-Located Approval v. Stand-Alone Analysis
The March 9, 2009 staff report indicates the CDP is being considered for approval solely as a
co-located facility, but that assessment and mitigation of impacts at intake volumes reflecting
stand-alone operations is necessary. The rationale for this approach is founded on expectation
that there will likely be intermittent periods of CDP operation where the full 304mgd of CDP
intake requirement will be pumped solely for the benefit of CDP.
As a preliminary policy-based matter, we believe the CDP should be conditioned to allow
production of potable water only at quantities supported by EPS flow requirements. The
benefits of co-location and use of OTC infrastructure are all but lost once the CDP's needs
drive the total flows and resulting impacts. If the Board is unwilling to so constrain approval of
the co-located EPS only to those flows required for EPS operation, the Board should establish
an objective point at which the CDP would be reconsidered as a stand-alone facility. The
Tentative Order recommends additional PC 13142.5 review only when the "EPS permanently
ceases operations and the Discharger proposes to independently operate the existing EPS
seawater intake and outfall for the benefit of the CDP..." This all-or-nothing standard has many
problems.
Foremost, it incentivizes continued operation of the EPS and the environmentally undesirable
OTC infrastructure. The owners of the EPS are seeking to construct a new, more efficient
power plant adjacent to the EPS. In fact, the EPS would be entirely retired in relatively short
order but for the fact that the California Independent System Operator has determined a portion
of the EPS is necessary for electricity grid reliability (pending construction of additional energy
generating or transmitting facilities). As such, the EPS is expected to run at very low operational
capacities, with attendant reductions in intake flows. If CDP approval requires PC 13142.5
compliance reconsideration only once the EPS goes away entirely, it is certain Poseidon will
apply every bit of political leverage possible to ensure the EPS remains in place regardless of
environmental benefits associated with its demise. Hence, a different "trigger" is warranted.
Second, the all-or-nothing standard for reopening the CDP permit would prolong such
consideration in circumstances where only a relatively small portion of the CDP intake is
4
Carlsbad Desalination Project
Environmental Groups' Supplemental Comments
April 6, 2009
Page 4
required for EPS maintenance.2 The Environmental Groups therefore recommend that if for
any given quarter (3 month period), the EPS intake flows are less than 50% of the CDP's
needs (152mgd), then the CDP permit should be reopened and PC 13142.5 reassessment
required. Such a condition would accurately reflect the CDP's position in driving total intake
flows, and appropriately justify reconsideration of the project at this location. At the same time,
the benefits of co-location would be recognized only where legally and rationally justifiable.3
Notwithstanding the arguments contained herein regarding the failure to comply with various
aspects of PC 13142.5, the Environmental Groups agree that at best, the CDP can now only be
approved as a co-located facility with the EPS. While we expressly do not support such
approval, we believe that limited approval of the CDP conditioned upon continuing EPS function
most accurately reflects the factual conditions surrounding the eventual cessation of OTC
infrastructure use by the EPS. Any resolution of approval should accurately reflect the
impermanent status of CDP operations pending future PC 13142.5 site analysis once such
review is triggered.
Specifically, Poseidon should be put on notice that the site analysis conducted thus far Is
predicated upon the benefits of co-location with the EPS, and that evidence in the record
regarding site-specific infeasibility of alternative intakes may serve to preclude
continued operation of the facility at currently proposed levels once the stand-alone
review is triggered. Poseidon is clearly betting that capital investment in the construction of
the co-located facility coupled with numerous water districts' reliance4 on desalinated water to
meet demand, there will be overwhelming pressure to maintain such service regardless of EPS
OTC infrastructure availability. There should be no question that site analysis will be part of the
stand-alone reassessment under PC 13142.5. Should the Board refuse to make this point clear,
then the existing site analysis is clearly insufficient and the Project cannot be approved based
upon the current record. (See further discussion of site alternatives analysis, below)
Were the EPS recently constructed and its OTC infrastructure truly expected to persist for a
substantial period of time, or the legal framework of OTC not so heavily weighted toward
elimination of the technology, the Environmental Groups would likely agree construction of a co-
located CDP makes environmental sense. But, given (a) the overwhelming evidence indicating
relatively near term cessation of OTC throughout the country due to legal constraints and
ongoing advances in power generation technology, and (b) the site-specific circumstance of
EPS replacement and OTC phase-out, allowing the CDP to be built in a location without
2 For instance, if and when the inefficient EPS electricity generation units are not being utilized,
service water pumps remain in operation, but convey only 62.1 MOD to keep the EPS functional. (Flow
Plan at 2-3).
3 The Coastal Commission's letter reflects a related, though not identical, concern with
appropriate triggers for CDP mitigation requirements. (April 6, 2009 CCC letter at 7-8)
4 It is even more Important that the water districts be put on notice that long term reliance upon the
quantities of desalinated water currently proposed may not constitute sound public policy. While Poseidon
may well choose to risk private investors' funds to build a plant that may be considered Inappropriately
sited in the future, the same gamble by any of the water districts would be a significant breach of public
trust and fiduciary duty to ratepayers.
Carlsbad Desalination Project
Environmental Groups' Supplemental Comments
April 6, 2009
Page 5
alternative intake capabilities is much like allowing construction of a house directly within the
path of a planned future highway. Poseidon must be made aware that investment in such a
scheme carries significant inherent risk that the facility may have to be abandoned or drastically
modified once the EPS is gone.5
PC Section 13142.5 Analysis - Site
While the Environmental Groups appreciate that staff and Poseidon are finally reciting the
appropriate legal standard of review under PC Section 13142.5, we continue to disagree that
the statute is being properly applied.6 PC 13142.5 mandates that the project use the best
available site feasible to minimize marine life mortality. The first step to appropriate site analysis
for PC 13142.5 compliance is establishment of a legally viable and factually accurate project
scope, also described as the project purpose or project objective.
In the context of litigation with the CCC, Poseidon argues that alternatives need not be
considered that do not meet the project's purpose. See Surfrider Foundation et al. v. California
Coastal Commission, San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2008- 00075727-CU-WM-CTL,
Combined Memorandum of Points and Authorities of Real Parties in Interest in Opposition to
Petitioners' Motion for Writ of Mandamus, p. 18. (Poseidon's CCC Opposition Brief) The
Environmental Groups do not disagree. But, it does not follow that agency consideration of
alternatives can be limited by an artificially constrained description of project purpose.
In the Poseidon CCC Opposition Brief, Poseidon contends the CDP's primary purposes are
"delivering water to Carlsbad and the San Diego region to enhance local reliability and reduce
local dependence on imported water." (Poseidon CCC Opposition Brief at 18) Poseidon then
criticizes the Environmental Groups for failing to identify an alternative location within the City of
Carlsbad, implying that in order to meet the so-called primary purposes, the project would have
to be sited within the City. The March 27, 2009 Flow Plan is consistent with this flawed
perspective, and reflects that the only alternative sites considered were within the City's
boundaries. (Flow Plan, Chapter 2)
Poseidon's framework for restricting site alternative analysis does not take into account the
means by which water is currently conveyed to and within the San Diego region:
The CDP is intended to service water districts beyond the boundary of the
City of Carlsbad. In addition to the Carlsbad Municipal Water District, Poseidon
5 Because there exist certain scenarios under which the CDP may become taxpayer owned (e.g.
failure to perform results In plant ownership by City of Carlsbad or eventual sale to, or condemnation by,
the County Water Authority) the Board should give extra consideration to both the prudence of facility
siting and legal notice regarding possible future requirements. If the plant's limited life Is accurately
reflected in the record, it's value can more appropriately be assessed (i.e. not inflated) should Poseidon
seek to sell or otherwise have to relinquish the facility to taxpayers at a later date. At the very least, the
scope of future 13142.5 site analysis requirements should be explicitly established now.
6 Numerous prior submissions by Poseidon indicated that the CDP was designed to minimize the
impacts of marine life mortality. The correct standard requires minimization of marine life mortality in the
first instance, regardless of whether, and before, the impacts of such mortality occur.
Carlsbad Desalination Project :
Environmental Groups' Supplemental Comments
April 6, 2009
Page 6
has service contracts with Vallecitos Water District, Sweetwater Authority, Valley
Center Municipal Water District, Santa Fe Irrigation District, Olivenhein Municipal
Water District, Rincon Del Diablo Municipal Water District; Rainbow Municipal
Water District, and possibly others. While the City of Carlsbad may be able to
connect directly to the CDP, the others certainly will not. Hence, siting the project
in Carlsbad is not critical to service of the other water agencies.
The non-Carlsbad Agencies will receive water through the County Water
Authority's network of conveyance and storage. Of the SOmgd expected to
be produced by the CDP, approximately half is allocated to water agencies
outside of Carlsbad. All of these agencies are members of the County Water
Authority, and purchase varying amounts of imported water via the Authority's
conveyance and storage system. Exhibit 1, attached hereto, taken from the
County Water Authority's Draft Regional Facilities Master Plan (2002) (CWA
Master Plan) reflects the interconnectedness of the agencies and County Water
Authority infrastructure.
Desalinated water produced virtually anywhere within the areas serviced
by the Metropolitan Water District can be allocated to end users and
achieve Poseidon's stated project objective. The focus on "local" reliability
simply means an alternative to reliance on Colorado River and State Water
Project imported water. The Metropolitan Water District (MWD) sells water to the
County Water Authority, which in turn sells to local water agencies, including
those contracted to receive desalinated water. Contractual arrangements at all
levels, from regional to sub-regional to local, dictate both the quantity of an
agency's allocation, as well as its certainty. A desalination plant constructed
outside of the County Water Authority's boundary could be financed by the
Authority or its member agencies, and result in a paper-transfer of water rights
between the jurisdiction that would receive the actual desalinated water and the
financing entity, with implementation through MWD. Just as Poseidon is
proposing to build the CDP in Carlsbad and service water districts in South San
Diego County, so could it build the plant anywhere along the San Diego County
coastline and sell water back to Carlsbad and the full suite of agencies with
which it has contracted. Exhibit 2, attached hereto, also from the CWA Master
Plan shows the regional conveyance infrastructure, including MWD input
connections.
A good example of the feasibility of such water transfers is evident in the
Imperial Irrigation District (IID) agreement with the County Water Authority. The
so-called IID Water Transfer Agreement is a contract whereby the County Water
Authority will purchase up to 20,000 acre feet per year of Colorado River Water
previously allocated to agricultural uses in the Imperial Valley. Because these
flows are truly "owned" by the IID (due to historical usage), and not likely to be
significantly reduced as Colorado River use restrictions are implemented, the
agreement to transfer the water to the County Water Authority is considered
100% reliable. (See p. 2-6 of the CWA Master Plan, "Throughout the 30-year
study period, IID transfer water is considered to be 100 percent reliable.")
Carlsbad Desalination Project
Environmental Groups' Supplemental Comments
April 6, 2009
Page 7
In light of the physical connectivity between the MWD, the County Water Authority, and all of
the contracting water agencies, constraining the PC 13142.5 "best site" analysis to the City of
Carlsbad is inappropriate. Because the Flow Plan indicates alternative source water intake
options that would minimize marine life mortality are not feasible to achieve the stated
production goal of the CDP at the EPS site, the Regional Board must at the very least consider
sites outside of the City of Carlsbad where minimization of marine life mortality might be
achieved.7
Poseidon's justifications for PC 13142.5.compliance with regard to site alternatives analysis are
predicated entirely upon the benefits of co-location with the EPS. (Flow Plan, Chapter 2). As
noted above, were circumstances such that it could be credibly argued that the EPS would
remain in place and be the dominant use of OTC flows for the expected life of the desalination
facility, alternative site analysis might not be as critical. But, given the clear legal and regulatory
signals that OTC-based power plants are on their way out, compliance with PC 13142.5
requires a broader site alternatives analysis at this time.
PC Section 13142.5 Analysis - Design and Technology
PC section 13142.5 analysis of project design to minimize marine life mortality suffers from
similar failings as the site alternatives assessment.
In the Flow Plan, Poseidon presupposes that any design of the project that does not achieve
the stated 50 mgd goal of desalinated water production renders such technology infeasible.
The structure and wording of PC 13142.5 clearly demonstrate the legislature's intent that
coastal dependent industrial facilities be planned with a holistic consideration for minimization of
marine life mortality. Hence, where technologies are available to minimize marine life mortality,
industrial facilities should be designed around such opportunities. Here, the cart is leading the
proverbial horse.
First, it is a legal fallacy and mere regulatory construct that the CDP design options must be
limited to those that will produce 50 mgd of potable water. No one disagrees the needs of the
San Diego region are well beyond the 50 mgd benchmark. Nor is there disagreement that a
reliable source of water controlled by local entities would be beneficial. But, the history of the
CDP, including the involvement of the County Water Authority as a potential owner/permittee,
sheds light on how the 56,000 acre foot (approx. 50 mgd) was manufactured as a target
production floor. Such information is already in the record, and will not be repeated here. The
number could just as easily been 25 mgd, or 100 mgd. No rational basis exists in the record to
support the 50 mgd volume as the only reasonable size for the CDP, yet other sized design
options have been summarily discarded. Indeed, PC 13142.5 contemplates that the size of the
7 The Environmental Groups have previously submitted arguments and evidence supporting the
viability of desalinated water production utilizing alternative Intake structures as nearby as Dana Point.
While Poseidon has argued in litigation briefs that the Environmental Groups have proposed that the Dana
Point plant be pursued in lieu of the CDP. the true purpose for citing to the Dana Point project Is to show
that there are alternative locations with the region where alternative intakes would be viable, and as such
feasibility is more than merely speculative. Poseidon has not provided substantial evidence to prove
appropriate conditions for sub-surface intakes cannot be found within, or within a reasonable distance of,
San Diego County.
Dv.
Carlsbad Desalination Project
Environmental Groups' Supplemental Comments
April 6, 2009
Page 8
plant (i.e. the design) will be driven by minimization of marine life mortality, not a strict
adherence to an artificially identified volume goal.8
The CDP has not been designed with technologies to minimize marine life mortality as a stand-
alone facility. This much is clear. Virtually every technological option described, from alternative
intakes to impingement reduction screens are discarded because they are not feasible in
conjunction with a co-located CDP and EPS. The difficult question for the Board is when, and to
what extent, design and technological alternatives can be required for the stand-alone
condition. The Environmental Groups believe that PC 13142.5 requires assessment of these
factors for the stand-alone condition now, as relinquishment of OTC infrastructure by the EPS is
reasonably foreseeable.9 Nonetheless, as technologies evolve and alternative intake options
become available, the PC 13142.5 requires that the CDP evolve to incorporate such
opportunities to minimize marine life mortality.10
Impingement"
The March 27, 2009 Staff Report reflects significant disagreement between Poseidon and staff
regarding the recently spotlighted marine life impacts from impingement. The Environmental
Groups' staff members with scientific expertise have reviewed Poseidon's March 27th Flow
Plan, the April 1, 2009 Staff Report, and expert reviews conducted by Chris Nordby, Dr.
Jenkins, Dr. Chang, and Dr. Raimondi, and offer the following comments on the proposed
compensatory mitigation for CDP impingement impacts when CDP intake requirement exceed
EPS flows, or during periods of temporary EPS shutdown.12
General Comments
The April 1, 2009 Staff Report identifies a data discrepancy with regard to flows reported from
the EPS during the relevant sampling period. (April 1, 2009 Staff Report at 15 fn. 31). EPS
8 In this regard, the design of the CDP such that 304mgd of source water (and attendant marine
life mortality) be required to produce only 50mgd of potable water is problematic, if alternative concentrate
disposal opportunities were further explored (such as co-mingled discharge with an improved reclamation
facility outfall), the source water needs of the CDP might be drastically reduced. Reduced source water
requirements would in turn render alternative intakes more viable for a reasonable quantity of water
produced.
9 That the Coastal Commission was compelled to make findings sufficient to permit the CDP as a
stand-alone facility is compelling. The Regional Board cannot blindly accept Poseidon's assertion that the
EPS will remain indefinitely, and restrict project assessment to only a co-located facility. Unless the
entirety of the facility's approvals Is restricted to the co-located condition.
111 See related discussion in Coastal Commission's April 6, 2009 letter, at 10.
" A draft version of this section was provided to Regional Board staff on April 3, 2009. Various
changes have been made and this final version supercedes the previous submission.
'" Though just transmitted lo the Environmental Groups and not part of our most recenl
impingement impacts review, the Coastal Commission's letter is largely in accord with our perspective,
and we support the recommendations contained therein.
Carlsbad Desalination Project
Environmental Groups' Supplemental Comments
April 6, 2009
Page 9
monitoring reports also show flows consistently lower for the data set compared to that
contained in CDP/EPS consultant Tenera's flow data. (Personal communication with staff). Both
data sets should be made publicly available, and re-evaluated. If impingement rates are
calculated as mass/volume, the data set will be skewed in Poseidon's favor when flow rates are
over-estimated.
Poseidon's assertion that .5 feet/second (fps) velocity at inlet screens will reduce impingement
to insignificant levels is unsupported. We concur with Staffs determination that most
impingement intake and mortality occurs at the rotating screens rather than on the bar racks.
(April 1, 2009 Staff Report at 8). Further, installation of VFDs on CDP intake pumps to reduce
total intake flow for the desalination facility will only reduce intake flow for up to 104 MGD, as
200 MGD (dilution seawater) never flows to the desalination plant. Any reduction of
impingement through use of VFDs (which is unvalidated and unqualified) is therefore only
attributable to that portion of flows going directly to the CDP. (April 1, 2009 Staff Report at 10).
As Poseidon does not currently "take credit" for VFDs, or propose to use any design or
technology measures to reduce impingement, we offer this position to rebut any future attempts
to "take credit" for such measures. Further, because Poseidon fails to quantify the reduction in
impingement resulting from any such technological "improvements," characterization as such is
unwarranted and does not serve to meet PC section 13142.5 requirements.
Calculation Impingement Attributable to CDP Operations
Poseidon's individual sampling impingement rates are calculated as follows: average
impingement weight, divided by the associated flow volume for the sampling day, multiplied by
304 MGD. These resulting "weights" are then averaged. Two sampling events had higher
associated impingement rates. Poseidon argues for their exclusion, while Dr. Raimondi and
staff believe they should remain in the data set. We concur with Dr. Raimondi and staff: the two
data points with high associated impingement rates should not be considered outliers.
As staff correctly points out, Poseidon's proposed rainfall "flushing" theory is based on several
flawed assumptions.
High impingement rate is not always associated with heavy rainfall. (April 1, 2009
Staff Report at 14).
High impingement rate does not correlate with any rainfall. (April 1, 2009 Staff
Report at 15).
The mechanism by which heavy rainfall might cause high impingement is
unclear. (April 1, 2009 Staff Report at 15).
Poseidon's proposed theory is unsubstantiated. Moreover, the data itself beiies
the proposed "flushing" theory, as the percentage of freshwater fish impinged is
small. (April 1, 2009 Staff Report at 15).
Staff points out that several lines of evidence are missing and Poseidon has provided no actual
data to shed light on the origin of high impingement rates. Moreover, staff's proposed theories
as to the origin of the higher impingement rates on the two contested days are more persuasive
Carlsbad Desalination Project
Environmental Groups' Supplemental Comments
April 6, 2009
Page 10
than Poseidon's theory, and favor keeping the two days within the data set. (April 1, 2009 Staff
Report at 15),Without conclusive proof that the two high impingement days are truly "outliers,"
the data set must remain undisturbed.
Dr. Raimondi also argues that Poseidon's theory is flawed and based on logical error.
(Raimondi, 7). The lack of historical impingement data weighs in favor of being inclusive, rather
than considering certain data sets outliers. (Raimondi, 7).
Further, Poseidon's proposed theory, as supported by Jenkins and Chang, is flawed and
unsupported by the existing data. Indeed, Dr. Chang's analysis is flawed in and of itself. As Dr.
Chang admits, the sampling period (2004-2005) was an abnormally wet period, as total rainfall
was 26 inches as opposed to a typical average of 13 inches. However, Dr. Chang's overly
narrow focus on the two data points undermines the credibility of his entire analysis. Without
providing the rainfall data or statistical analysis of the probability of occurrence for the entire
data set, Poseidon cannot credibly argue that the two "suspect" data points are outliers.
Moreover, as Dr. Raimondi correctly points out, even if the storm events themselves are outliers
(which we cannot know without the entire data set), this does not mean the impingement
associated with those rain events is atypical. (Raimondi, 7).
Dr. Jenkins' data is equally unpersuasive. He first concludes that the rainfall data does not alter
the validity of the sampling data, because lagoon salinity was not depressed on a persistent
basis. (Jenkins, 2). He then concludes the above-average rainfall during the sampling period
was "fortuitous" because it spanned the full range of "natural hydrologic variability" and
"captured a range of conditions, including some that are not likely to re-occur in most years."
It does not follow then, that the two "statistically anomalous" extreme storm event days should
be excluded from the data set. (Jenkins, 4), If the entire data set includes a range of "natural
hydrologic variability" the entire data set must be used. The fortuitous event of capturing these
two high storm events, using Jenkins' logic, favors being inclusive rather than exclusive. Similar
to Dr. Chang's analysis, Dr. Jenkins' assertions as to the two contested data points is flawed as
well due to his overly narrow focus on those two data points. In failing to compare those two
days to the entire sampling period, he also:fails to prove why they should be excluded. Thus,
Poseidon has not met its burden of conclusively proving the two days should be considered
anomalies.
Heat Treatments
The impingement impact calculation also seems to reflect only "normal operations" and not heat
treatments. Poseidon's Flow Plan calculations (and Dr. Raimondi's calculations based on
approach 3-B) result in a weighted average impingement rate of 4.7 kg/day. This results in an
annual impingement of 1715kg (to a 50 percent confidence level). However, as pointed out in
the April 1, 2009 Staff Report, heat treatments will continue during co-located operations. The
organisms already in the intake channel are killed when the intake channel is closed off, and
the heated discharge water is circulated for hours. (April 1, 2009 Staff Report at 12 fn. 23).
These organisms end up impinged when the pumps return to normal operation. Poseidon and
Raimondi's calculations do not take into account the proportion of organisms killed during heat
treatments attributable to Poseidon's flows. If EPS intake pumps are operating for the benefit of
CDP, a larger number of organisms will be present in the intake channel than would occur if
Carlsbad Desalination Project
Environmental Groups' Supplemental Comments
April 6, 2009 ,
Page 11
CDP were not operating. Thus, a larger number of organisms will be impinged at the time of
heat treatments. The proportion of impingement due to CDP operations as opposed to EPS
operations can be calculated real-time by determining the percentage of flow attributable to
CDP operations, and multiplied by the total impingement due to heat treatments.
Poseidon's Proposed Impingement Mitigation Measures
Based on Dr. Raimondi's review of Chris Nordby's analysis, Poseidon's proposed mitigation for
impingement is wholly inadequate. We agree with Dr. Raimondi's assessment that the
approach used by Poseidon (and Nordby) is flawed for the following reasons:
Entrainment compensation cannot also be used for impingement compensation.
(Raimondi, 1-2)
Nordby's approach relies on a 27-year old study by Larrry Allen that is
inapplicable here.
Nordby's estimation of fish production is based on mudflat wetlands, which only
comprise 40 percent of Poseidon's proposed entrainment mitigation (as adopted
by the CCC).
The estimation of fish production also assumes no current production - which is
only true if wetlands are created, not restored. The MLMP contemplates
significant restoration, but because the site or sites have not been identified,
quantification of restoration and creation acreages is not possible.
Nordby's calculations are based on a 50 percent confidence level. The accepted
scientific standard is 95%, and the Coastal Commission precedent is 80% for the
MLMP mitigation calculations. (Raimondi, 3).
Nordby's calculations rely on fish production calculations (productivity of newly
created wetlands) based on species that are entrained, which results in
"double-counting".
The calculations incorrectly assume entrainment calculations equate to actual
impact of entrainment.
Entrained species are also impinged - thus the impacts are additive, and cannot
be mitigated through creation or restoration of wetlands that mitigate for
entrainment
Environmental Groups' Proposed Impingement Compensatory Mitigation13
13 The Environmental Groups maintain that compensatory mitigation is illegal pursuant to the
rationale described in the prior comment letters, based upon the R/Verfceepercase. This proposed
impingement mitigation requirement should not in any way be considered an endorsement of the
entrainment compensatory mitigation scheme approved by the CCC and contemplated in the MLMP
Carlsbad Desalination Project
Environmental Groups' Supplemental Comments
April 6, 2009
Page 12
In light of recent studies reflecting the poor performance of compensatory wetlands creation, a
very conservative approach should be taken in assigning productivity to wetland mitigation.
(See, An Evaluation of Compensatory Mitigation Projects Permitted Under Clean Water Act
Section 401 by the California State Water Resources Control Board, 1991-2002, (2007)
Ambrose, et al)(Mitigation Success Study). Two findings of the Mitigation Success Study are
particularly relevant here:
• Given the low ecological condition of most mitigation wetlands, it seems likely
that many mitigation projects did not replace the functions lost when wetlands
were impacted.
A lack of explicit consideration of the full suite of functions, values, and services
that will be lost through proposed impacts and might be gained through
proposed mitigation sites and activities is at least partly due to regulatory
agencies approving mitigation projects with conditions or criteria that are too
heavily focused on the vegetation component of wetland function, with
inadequate emphasis on hydrological and biogeochemical conditions and their
associated functions and services.
The basic premise for compensatory mitigation is that the newly created or restored wetlands
actually compensate for the loss associated with the project. Thus, the mitigation required for
CDP impingement must take into account the validity of the impact calculations and the validity
of mitigation calculations. Put another way, we cannot be certain that the impingement
calculations truly reflect actual impingement impacts. They serve as a proxy for actual
impingement assessment. Thus, the highest level of statistical certainty must be applied to
impingement impact calculations. This equates to a 95 percent confidence interval in
Raimondi's study. (Raimondi, 4)
Second, the mitigation wetland productivity calculations should be conservative, as underscored
by the lack of success in actual wetland mitigation. Thus, because wetland productivity
assumptions are based on completely newly created wetlands, Poseidon must be required to
actually create wetlands, as opposed to restoring them. Another assumption associated with
wetland productivity relates to the type of wetland created. Poseidon's MLMP presents a mix of
wetlands, comprised of 40 percent intertidal mudflats or subtidal. Dr. Raimondi's calculations
associated with this mix should be used to provide a wetland mitigation acreage. (Raimondi, 6)
The Mitigation Success Study also found "[tjhe success of compensatory mitigation depends
fundamentally on the mitigation requirements specified by the regulatory agencies." (Mitigation
Success Study at v.)14 Thus, additional requirements regarding the success of compensatory
mitigation must be imposed. Staff correctly points out that the success of MLMP entrainment
before the Regional Baord.
14 Additional documents are submitted herewith that describing factors required for consideration
prior to establishing a compensatory wetlands mitigation scheme. See Environmental Group Appendix of
Wetlands Documents.
Carlsbad Desalination Project
Environmental Groups' Supplemental Comments
April 6, 2009
Page 13
mitigation is assessed through a 95 percent confidence interval of correlation in physical and
biological criteria compared to (yet-unspecified) reference stations, for a period of three
consecutive years. {Staff Report, 19), This iterative assessment may result in a period of time
where the restored wetlands are not meeting these criteria. For those years when the criteria
are not met, the goal of compensatory mitigation-namely offsetting CDP impacts through
productivity at the restored wetiands-is not being met. Thus, the whole basis for calculating the
wetland mitigation is undermined. In order to account for this, a penalty for not meeting the
performance criteria within a specified timeframe must be included in the permit. For example, if
within 5 years of wetland restoration the 3-year benchmark is not attained, an additional 5 years
of unmitigated impingement impacts must be taken into account. This would result in a total
increased wetland restoration acreage. As the benchmark performance standards continue to
be unmet, the penalty increases.
To summarize, at a minimum, the impingement compensatory mitigation should meet the
following criteria:
1) Impingement impacts should be calculated to a 95 percent confidence interval,
as extrapolated by Dr. Raimondi from a 4,7kg/day (50 percent confidence
interval) impact assessment.
2) Impingement impacts should be calculated at a rate of 304 MGD attributable to
CDP impacts, or calculated real-time.
3) Impingement compensatory wetland productivity calculations must take into
account the type of wetland created. If Poseidon's proposed mixture in the
MLMP is applied to impingement mitigation, Dr. Raimondi's calculations should
be used at a 95 percent confidence interval.
4) Wetlands must be created, not restored.
5) Penalties should be assessed when performance criteria are not met for a given
period of time.
Using the above criteria, the required compensatory mitigation for impingement only, assuming
100 percent of CDP intake is attributable to CDP operations, a minimum of 54 additional acres
of newly created wetlands (40 percent intertidal or subtidal) should be required.
Additional Miscellaneous Comments
So that we may provide these comments as soon as possible to staff, the following are general
comments based upon various documents recently submitted:
The Board at its February 11, 2009 indicated a desire for Poseidon to narrow its
consideration of mitigation sites to 5 within the San Diego Region. Implicit in this
request was that Poseidon provide added specificity regarding the feasibility of
achieving the desired wetlands functionality criteria at these sites, not simply that
they be prioritized over those outside of the region, Given that the feasibility of
the mitigation required cannot be assured (see discussion, infra.) even at the
Carlsbad Desalination Project
Environmental Groups' Supplemental Comments
April 6, 2009
Page 14
best of sites, it is imperative that appropriate pre-selection assessment occur.
Approval of the MLMP as currently proposed violates the PC 13142.5
requirement that best available mitigation be implemented, as the Board cannot
make such assessment without baseline information about the site or sites
where wetlands will be created or restored.
Regardless of whether the impingement study design was approved by the
Regional Board staff at some time in the past, if the results are hot sufficient to
provide an accurate assessment of likely impingement impacts, additional data
should be acquired before project approval. Given the disagreements among
experts regarding the so-called outlier impingement events, additional data
collection and analysis is warranted. The fact that the Regional Board staff must
rely upon a 1979 document does not necessarily speak to the unreliability of that
document, but rather, the appropriateness of confirming its findings with
additional data now.
Poseidon's claims that the "late-arrival" of concerns regarding impingement
impacts render them in any way less valid is nonsense. The entire CDP
regulatory approval process has been a fight to acquire accurate information
from Poseidon within timeframes that allow for appropriate consideration. That
Board staff, an independent third-party reviewer, and the Coastal Commission
staff all agree (with Environmental Groups) that impingement impacts will be
greater than previously disclosed by Poseidon, that they will be significant, and
that they require mitigation in addition to that provided for entrainment impacts,
provides more than enough reason to discount Poseidon's veiled attempts to
argue such concerns were somehow waived by past actions.
Poseidon's concerns regarding expert disagreement can most appropriately be
rectified by postponing approval of the CDP and holding a public workshop so
that the matters can be aired entirely.
Poseidon, in its rebuttal of Dr. Raimondi's impingement impacts assessment
repeatedly sets up straw man arguments that are incorrect reflections of Dr.
Raimondi's position. The Board should further consider this evidence of
Poseidon's misrepresentation of facts throughout the regulatory process. (See,
for instance, Poseidon's Comments, April 2, 2009, at p.3, claiming that Dr.
Raimondi "has opined that juvenile and adult fish that will be present in the
proposed wetlands cannot be used to compensate for fish lost at the CDP," and
claiming that such assertion is "nonsensical." What is nonsensical is Poseidon's
attorneys reading Dr. Raimondi's report in this way. Dr. Raimondi's position,
consistent with that of Board staff, CCC staff, and Environmental Groups, is that
without data regarding the quality of wetlands to be restored or created, it would
be impossible to prescribe some quantity of the marine life enhancements as
accounting for anything but the entrainment impacts upon which the MLMP is
based.)
Poseidon's attempts to compare impacts of a stand-alone CDP to those of the
EPS are irrelevant. See straw man argument discussion, immediately above.
Carlsbad Desalination Project
Environmental Groups' Supplemental Comments
April 6, 2009
Page 15
Arguments that the Agua Hedionda Lagoon will revert to mudflats if the
desalination plant is not approved are laughable at this point. There is no
evidence to suggest decommission of the EPS will result in abandonment of
management measures to support marine life viability in the lagoon.
Poseidon and its experts persist in their attempts to characterize impingement
and entrainment impacts solely in terms of biomass lost. This may have
succeeded for the limited CEQA review by the City of Carlsbad, but the
regulatory agencies have made absolutely clear that the proposed compensatory
mitigation scheme seeks to account for lost ecosystem function associated with
the individuals lost to impingement and entrainment. Because the loss of
individuals will have a different impact on the ecosystem depending on their
unique characteristics, mitigation obligations must be based upon extremely
conservative impacts assumptions.
Poseidon seeks to minimize the impacts from impingement based upon
conservative assumptions built into the data collection and characterization.
Such arguments are accounted for in assessment methodology, and there is no
overarching argument regarding conservativism that is relevant to final
impingement mitigation requirements.
The repeated references to the consumption volumes of the Brown Pelican are
meaningless. Just because a Pelican consumes a certain biomass of fish does
not mean the Pelican feeds from a single location within its home range. By way
of analogy, comparing the volume of food a human consumes to the amount of
food in a supermarket is much different than comparing it to the amount in his or
her refrigerator. Simply indicating that humans eat a certain amount does not
reflect upon the impacts of consumption without specificity regarding the source
of the food.
Poseidon's claims of best design based upon assertions to the Coastal
Commission that have now been removed from consideration should be
disregarded. See CCC letter, and compare to Poseidon's assertions on page 4
of its April 2, 2009 Comment.
The 80% confidence limit applied by the Coastal Commission is not protective
enough. The Board should require mitigation acreages calculated at the 95%
confidence level. While the Board's utilization of APF calculation may be
appropriate to assess impacts, it does not follow that the same is an appropriate
for restoration scaling. (See memorandum from Dr. Liz Strange, attached hereto
as Exhibit 3)
The recently decided US Supreme Court Riverkeeper decision regarding the
application of cost-benefit analysis under Clean Water Act 316(b) does not
invalidate the lower court's ruling regarding lack of availability of compensatory
mitigation in lieu of implementation of best available technology.
Carlsbad Desalination Project
Environmental Groups' Supplemental Comments
April 6, 2009 •
Page 16
Conclusion
The CDP was originally designed and proposed to be a co-located facility. Any rationale offered
as to the benefits of it standing alone are post-hoc rationalizations that should carry little or no
weight. For stand-alone conditions, the Board must assume it has carte blanche ability to
require the best site, design, technology, and mitigation measures feasible to minimize marine
life mortality. Given that the EPS OTC infrastructure will not persist for the expected 30-year life
of the CDP, it is legally inappropriate to consider the current analysis in any way sufficient to
support a stand-alone facility. Approval of the co-located facility is bad policy, and likely illegal.
Approval of a stand-alone facility would certainly be illegal.
Thank you for your careful consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
COAST LAW GROUP LLP
Marco A. Gonzalez
Attorney for San Diego Coastkeeper
and the Surfrider Foundation
EXHIBIT 1
Figure 2-1. Schematic Representation of RegionalTreatment and Delivery System,
including ESP Projects,as Modeled by Confluence1™
om5,3
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 2
3DCWA SERVICE AREA
WITH MEMBBRAQENCV
BOUNDARIES
Figure I-I. Authority Service Area
OBDmTO
EXHIBIT 2
EXHIBIT 3
Memorandum
To: Surfrider Foundation and Coast Law Group LLP
From: Elizabeth M. Strange, PhD, Stratus Consulting Inc.
Date: 8/4/2008
Subject: Review of Poseidon Resources Marine Life Mitigation Plan for the Proposed
Carlsbad Desalination Plant
This memorandum provides a technical review of Poseidon Resources' Proposed Marine Life
Mitigation Plan (MLMP) for the Carlsbad Desalination Project. The review does not address all
details of the MLMP, but focuses on the key issues associated with the Area Production
Foregone (APF)1 method and principles of restoration scaling.
1. Use of APF As a Measure of Entrainment Impact
Conceptually, the APF is a way to express entrainment losses in terms of habitat area using data
obtained from larval sampling for the Empirical Transport Model (ETM; MacCall, 1983;
Steinbeck et al., 2007).2 The ETM is an entrainment assessment method that estimates the
proportional mortality (PM) of larvae based on the ratio of entrained larvae to the population of
larvae in the source water area (SWA) that are at risk of entrainment.
The APF is estimated by multiplying the PM by the SWA as follows:
APF = PM x SWA
For the Carlsbad MLMP, an average APF was calculated from the average PM for the species
accounting for 98% of entrainment losses at the Encina Power Station (CIQ3 gobies, blennies,
and garibaldi) and the estimated SWA of those species in the Agua Hedionda Lagoon (Poseidon
Resources, 2008a):
AFP,\vG = 0.122 x 302 acres = 37 acres
1. Also known as Habitat Production Foregone (HPF).
2. The ETM used in California is a modification of the original model developed to evaluate entrainment by
Hudson River power plants (Boreman et al., 1978).
3. Gobies of the genera Clevelandia, Uypntix, and Quietula.
SCI 1492
EXHIBITS
Stratus Consulting (8/4/2008)
Another 5.5 acres was added to this estimate by Dr. Peter Raimondi of the University of
California at Santa Cruz to account for impacts to ocean species, resulting in a total of 42.5 acres.
Subsequently, Dr. Raimondi estimated a total of 55.4 acres based on an additional uncertainty
analysis (Poseidon Resources, 2008b).4
2. Use of the APF to Scale Restoration
The APF provides a convenient way to express entrainment impacts estimated with the ETM in
terms of habitat, and the extension of the APF for restoration scaling is a logical way to make use
of the data generated by the ETM, However, ETM data and the APF method are not necessarily
the best way to scale restoration. The restoration scaling literature provides information on data
and methods that can provide a more accurate and reliable estimate of the amount of restoration
needed to offset a given loss (see especially the 2003 "Special Theme Section on Restoration
Scaling" in the Marine Environment, Marine Ecology Progress Series 264:17173-307). Under
some circumstances, the APF may provide a valid first approximation of the scale of restoration
if (Strange et al., In review):
> The SWA comprises relatively uniform habitat
> The habitat in the SWA and the habitat to be restored arp the same type and quality
> The SWA is located where organisms are at risk of entrainment is the source of larva!
production
> Larval production is habitat-limited.
As discussed in the following sections, these conditions have not been demonstrated for MLMP
restoration scaling.
2.1 Assumptions About Habitat Characteristics of Agua Hcdionda Lagoon and the
Proposed Restoration Site
The Agua Hedionda Lagoon includes a diversity of habitats (Tenera, 2008), making it
inappropriate to assume a single, average SWA for the purposes of scaling using the APF. In
addition, the MLMP states that offsite restoration is required because there are no suitable
restoration options in the Agua Hedionda Lagoon (Poseidon Resources, 2008a). If this is the
4. Note that the ETM does not consider impingement losses, and therefore these estimates apply to entrained
species only. However, a conceptually similar model was developed for impingement by Barnthouse et al.
(1979).
Page 2
SCI 1492
EXHIBIT 3
Stratus Consulting (8/4/2008)
case, then it is inappropriate to estimate potential gains from restoration using fish sampling data
from the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. If the Agua Hedionda Lagoon and the restoration site, San
Dieguito Lagoon, or any other potential restoration site, do not provide habitats of similar type
and quality, then rates of production at the two sites are unlikely to be comparable.
In fact, it has been reported that the density of adult and juvenile arrow goby, a member of the
CIQ goby complex that dominates entrainment losses at the Encina Power Station, averages
20 per square meter (m2) in the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, whereas the density of all gobies
estimated from restoration monitoring in Batiquitos Lagoon, 7 kilometers south of Agua
Hedionda Lagoon, is only 0.3 to 1.6 m2 (Tenera, 2008).5 Such potentially significant differences
in habitat quality at impacted and restored sites must be accounted for to produce a valid scaling
estimate.
A complicating factor is that even if the habitat targeted for restoration is of low quality, it may
currently support some "baseline" amount of fish production. In this case, potential restoration
gains must be assessed as the incremental change in quality, not simply the quality after
restoration (NOAA, 2006).
The implementation of APF for MLMP scaling implicitly assumes that all acres of habitat are
equal at the original and restoration sites and that there is a simple one-to-one relationship, on an
areal basis, between fish losses and gains. If this assumption is violated, the APF estimate will
inaccurately estimate the amount of restoration needed to offset entrainment losses. Assumptions
About Source of Larval Production
The MLMP does not demonstrate that the Agua Hedionda Lagoon is the source of larval
production for all entrained species. In fact, the five most abundantly entrained species at the
Encina Power Station include species associated with rocky reef habitat (garibaldi and
kelpfishes) and coastal pelagic habitats (anchovies), as well as species of bay and harbor habitats
(gobies and blennies; Tenera, 2008). It is unreasonable to assume that restoration of lagoon
habitats will lead to increased production of reef and coastal pelagic species.
2.2 Assumptions About Habitat-Limitation
The MLMP implicitly assumes that the populations of all species entrained from the Agua
Hedionda Lagoon are habitat-limited, but this is not demonstrated in the MLMP. There are
numerous factors that can limit fish populations. For example, local populations of fishery
species may be limited by fishing mortality on adults, or larvae may be limited by food
5, Both estimates are from sampling with enclosure traps, considered the most accurate sampling devices for
gobies (Sleele el al, 2006).
Page 3
SC11492
EXHIBIT 3
Stratus Consulting (8/4/2008)
availability. If such factors are limiting populations of entrained species, then restoration of
habitat may do little to increase recruitment and offset entrapment losses, even though
restoration may be beneficial to the environment in general,
3. Scaling Based on Averages
The APF scales restoration for the MLMP based on the average PM for the target species. An
argument that has been presented in favor of averaging is that each taxon can be considered an
independent sample from the collection of all taxa that are entrained, and therefore the mean of
several of these samples can be used to represent the loss rate for all entrained taxa (Steinbeck
et al., 2007). However, the average PM is difficult to interpret when the size of the SWA differs
by species. The situation is analogous to the problem of averaging several ratios when the
denominators are different. This kind of averaging strongly influences APF estimates of the area
of replacement habitat needed to offset losses.
Another consequence of averaging is that the amount of restoration may be insufficient to offset
the losses of any species requiring more habitat than the average. In these cases, it is appropriate
to scale restoration based on the species requiring the maximum.
Moreover, although it is usually possible to determine the SWA for estuarine species in enclosed
and semi-enclosed water bodies with reasonable accuracy, it is difficult to develop a reliable
estimate of the SWA for ocean species. Estimated SWAs of coastal taxa depend on the estimated
age of entrainmenl, the duration of larval exposure to entrainment, and the complex
hydrodynamics of ocean waters. The uncertainty associated with these factors can lead to
significant uncertainty in estimated SWAs and therefore APF estimates for these taxa.
4. Estimating Restoration Gains
4.1 Estimating Increase in Baseline Production in Replacement Habitat
The goal of restoration is to increase baseline production in a replacement habitat at a scale that
will augment production sufficiently to offset biological losses at the impacted site. To achieve
this, the replacement habitat must be able, as a result of restoration actions, to produce an
increase in fish production above the baseline production that would be achieved in that habitat
absent the restoration actions. Therefore, an appropriate metric to compare losses and gains for
restoration scaling includes both area and time (NOAA, 1997). Such scaling metrics include
measures of recruitment (the addition of new recruits to the population per unit area per time) or
productivity (the rate of biomass production per unit area per unit time; Strange et al., 2004a).
Page 4
SCI 1492
EXHIBITS
Stratus Consulting (8/4/2008)
Measures such as the abundance or biomass of organisms within a unit area do not take into
account time and rales of population change. The underlying data for APF scaling is catch-per-
unit-effort data from sampling conducted for the ETM. Fish per unit area is not a measure of the
rate of change in fish recruitment or productivity.
In many situations data limitations may require use of abundance or biomass estimates as a
proxy for recruitment or the rate of production. However, this will produce a valid estimate of
the amount of restoration only if:
> Those individuals observed at the time of abundance sampling are all the individuals of
the age sampled that will be produced that year
> There is no turnover
> There is no immigration or emigration
> Abundance and biomass are comparable in the habitat sampled and the habitat targeted
for restoration, or scaling can be adjusted to account for differences.
Abundance may be less than production if there is immigration, multiple spawning bouts not
covered by the sampling regime, or significant sampling inefficiency (including gear inefficiency
or failure to adequately sample a patchy habitat). Abundance may be greater than production if
there is emigration. The MLMP fails to address these issues.
4.2 The Key Habitat Services are Those Needed to Produce Replace the Fish Lost
to Entrainment
Poseidon Resources (2008a, 2008b) argue»s that because the proposed project will generate
numerous ecological benefits in addition to the production offish, credit should be assigned for
these "extra" services. However, restoration should replace the organisms lost to entrainment
(and impingement), regardless of any ancillary benefits of the restoration. The fundamental
purpose of Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act is to prevent adverse environmental impacts
such as entrainment. Replacing the same species and life stages as those lost to entrainment (and
impingement) is appropriate to address unpreventable losses with the "best technology
available."6 Restoration of other services and values may be beneficial to society but misses the
key purpose of the statute. Furthermore, even if the Clean Water Act allowed "acquisition of the
6. "Best Technology Available" or "BTA" is a term of art under the Clean Water Act, which applies under
Section 316(b) to minimizing adverse environmental impacts by cooling water intake structures.
Page 5
SCI 1492
EXHIBIT 3
Strains Consulting _ (8/4/2008)
equivalent,"7 services and values would need to be analyzed for equivalence, requiring more
complex ecological and economic analyses than provided by APF.
5. Discounting and Time Preference
The APF method does not include discounting, which is required when comparing restoration
that occurs after losses. Furthermore, it is often mistakenly assumed that there is a linear path
between an impacted and restored ecosystem state; in fact, there is usually a lag until restoration
benefits begin to accrue (Strange et al., 2002; NOAA, 2006). Indeed, the restoration plan for San
Dieguito Lagoon assumes that equivalence will not be achieved until at least four years after
restoration begins (SCE, 2005). Because of such time lags, discounting is required. Discounting
is also needed to account for restoration gains expected to continue in perpetuity (i.e., longer than
the time of the required restoration; Julius, 1999; NOAA, 1999).
Discounting converts losses and gains into "present value equivalents." This is done to account
for the fact that gains in fish production in the future as a result of restoration are less valuable to
the public than fish available now, much in the way a dollar now is worth more than a dollar
later. Both the loss and gain side of a scaling equation are discounted to express results in terms
of a common year, making it possible to compare the timing and duration of losses with the
predicted timing and trajectory of restoration gains (Julius, 1999; NOAA, 1999).
The lack of a discount term in APF scaling implies that a restoration project that begins several
years from now is as valuable as the same project beginning today. Discounting would lead to a
larger estimated restoration project because future resource gains from restoration are less
valuable (due to discounting) than the resources lost.
The discount factor is expressed as:
where:
el is the discount rate and y is the years before or after entrainment.
7. "Acquisition ol" the equivalent" is a term of art under the natural resource provisions of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, which specifically allows for scaling of natural
resources based on services and values, particularly when natural resources cannot be fixed or replaced,
practically or cost-effectively.
Page 6
SCIM92
EXHIBIT 3
Stratus Consulting _ (8/4/2008)
For example, to account for the delay between the time of entrainment loss and the time that
restoration achieves the targeted level of fish production, discounting is used to express the total
value of restoration gains over all years (TV) in terms of the year of the loss:
where:
Vv is the value >• years after the loss.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and other resource agencies
typically use a discount rate of 3% (Julius, 1999; NOAA, 1999) when discounting natural
resources or their services.
6. Alternative Scaling
Strange et al. (2004b) discuss a number of scaling metrics that can be used to estimate losses of
organisms from entrainment, and gains in restored habitat for offsetting these losses. It has been
argued that the APF approach to scaling is necessary because the data needed for other
approaches is not available. While it is true that we generally lack estimates of rates of fish
production in California's coastal habitats, some estimates are available that can be used to
illustrate a scaling approach that uses a direct estimate of annual fish production.
For example, production data for the C1Q goby complex are available in Allen (1982) from
sampling of shallow mudflat habitat in upper Newport Bay, and these data can be used to scale
the amount of goby restoration required to offset entrainment losses. For this example, scaling
proceeds as follows:
Step 1: Estimate Annual Entrainment as Numbers of Age-1 Equivalents. Page 5- 12 of
Poseidon Resources (2008b) indicates that the maximum feedwater withdrawal for the proposed
Carlsbad desalination project operated as a stand-alone facility would be 304 million gallons per
day (MOD). Multiplying this value by the estimated entrainment of CIQ gobies at the Encina
Power Station of 8,846 larvae per day yields an estimated daily entrainment of 2,689,1 84 or
981 ,552,160 goby per year.8 Converting this estimate to age-1 equivalents using the life history
data for gobies in U.S. EPA (2006), results in an estimated age-1 equivalent loss of
3,217,720 gobies per year.
8. The estimated goby loss per day is based on maximum flosv at the Encina Power Station (857 MOD)
reported in Teuera (2008). The loss rate may be different under actual flow but this flow rate was not reported.
Page 7
SO 1492
EXHIBIT 3
Stratus Consulting (8/4/2008)
Step 2: Convert Age-1 Equivalent Losses to Grams, Based on the total annual abundance
(1,419) and weight of CIQ gobies [345.9 grams wet weight (gm ww)] in Table 2 of Allen (1982),
the average weight of a goby sampled by Allen (1982) is 0.24 gm ww. Allen (1982) reports that
most of the sampled gobies were young-of-year (YOY) and juveniles. The product of the annual
entrainment of age-1 gobies (3,217,720) and the average weight of (YOY) and juvenile gobies
(0.24 gm ww) yields an estimated total weight of annual goby entrainment of 772,253 gm ww
per year or 193,063 grams dry weight (gm dw) per year.
Step 3: Determine the Present Value (PV) of the Estimated Entrainment Loss. Using a
3% discount rate and assuming a 30-year operating life of the desalination plant, the PV of the
entrainment loss is 3,784,124 gm dw. '
Step 4: Determine the PV of the Estimated Production per Littoral Zone Acre. Based on
Table 3 in Allen (1982), the estimated rate of goby production is 0.2026 gm dw per square meter
per year (gm dw m"2 yr"1) or 820 acres gm dw per year (gm dw ac"2 yr"!). Using a 3% discount
rate and assuming a 30-year operating life of the desalination plant, the PV of the production per
restored littoral zone acre is 27,331 gm dw.
Step 5: Estimate the Amount of Restoration Needed to Offset Entrainment. In the final step
of the analysis, the estimated littoral zone acres to be restored is given by the ratio of the PV dry
weight loss over 30 years and the PV dry weight produced. Thus, for this example the estimated
scale of restoration is 3,784,124 / 27,331 = 138 acres. Details of this analysis are provided in the
appendix to this review.
This example does not imply that the underlying data are without error, due to factors such as
natural variability or sampling limitations, or that the analysis does not require a formal
uncertainty analysis. Rather, it illustrates scaling using a direct measure of fish production. As
indicated by Dr. Raimondi for the APF estimates, and widely acknowledged by the scientific
community, uncertainty analysis is a critical part of restoration scaling. Approaches for
addressing scaling uncertainty are discussed at length in a report by NOAA (1999), and are
therefore not a topic of this review.
A key advantage of this alternative approach, compared to the APF is that it is based on actual
fish production rates rather than an indirect estimate that depends on the special circumstance of
relatively uniform habitat in an easily defined SWA and sampling of both larval entrainment and
the larval population at risk of entrainment,
The obvious disadvantage of the approach is that site-specific and species-specific rates of fish
production are generally lacking for estuarine habitats in California. The necessary data for
estimating rates of fish production could be obtained from restoration monitoring or ongoing
studies of reference habitats (e.g., SCE, 2005), particularly by requiring such monitoring as a
Page 8
SCI 1492
EXHIBIT 3
300
Stratus Consulting (8/4/2008)
condition of permits. Unless the need for such data is acknowledged and made explicit in
restoration scaling discussions, we will lose the opportunity to fill these important data gaps.
7. Summary
This review suggests that the scale of restoration proposed in the MLMP is not conservative, as
asserted by Poseidon Resources, for the following reasons;
> The scaling proposal does not consider impingement losses (the ETM upon which the
APF is based assesses entrainment only)
> Use of the APF to scale offsite restoration implicitly assumes that habitat quality is the
same in the Agua Hedionda Lagoon and the proposed restoration site; the available
evidence suggests that habitat quality for CIQ gobies, which make up most entrainment
losses, is much higher in Agua Hedionda Lagoon
i
> The MLMP does not demonstrate that all the species whose losses are to be offset
through habitat restoration are, in fact, habitat-limited; if this assumption is not valid for
some or all entrained species, the proposed restoration will do little to offset entrainment
losses
> The scaling proposal assumes that the production of ocean species will increase as a
result of lagoon restoration, which is highly unlikely; there is no reason to believe that
these species are limited by the availability of lagoon habitat
> The APF scaling is not based on the species requiring the maximum amount of
restoration, as is common practice for restoration scaling; therefore the proposed amount
of restoration may be insufficient to offset the losses of species requiring more than the
average
> It is incorrect to attribute restoration credit for services or values other than replacement
of the organisms lost to entrainment (and impingement)
> Lack of discounting to account for restoration "ramp up" and the net PV of the affected
resources results in an underestimate of the scale of restoration.
8. Conclusions
The APF method can be useful as a first approximation of the scale of restoration when there is a
lack of species' life history data and other information needed to estimate rates of fish
Page 9
SCI H92
EXHIBIT 3
, .. \
Stratus Consulting (8/4/2008)
production. However, when such data are available or can be obtained from habitat monitoring,
scaling based on species-specific production rates may be expected to provide a more accurate
and reliable estimate of the scale of restoration.
This points to the critical need to conduct more comprehensive studies of the life histories of
species impinged and entrained and rates offish production in both natural and restored habitats,
including as requirements in permits (particularly where restoration is part of permit
requirements). In the meantime, the use of multiple scaling methods (described in Strange et al.,
2004b) to scale restoration for the MLMP would increase confidence that the proposed
restoration will actually offset entrainment losses, at least to some extent. Mitigation ratios are
also sometimes used to provide a "safety factor" to help increase the possibility that proposed
restoration will be sufficient when habitats differ in type or quality or when there are significant
uncertainties about habitat productivity. However, if mitigation ratios are selected without a
formal analysis using suitable ecological data, uncertainties about whether a proposed restoration
will offset entrainment losses will not be resolved.
Despite such contingency measures, experience has shown that aquatic ecosystem restoration is
difficult and complex, and that success is highly uncertain (NRC, 1992, 2001). It is almost never
the case, for example, that the ecological quality of a restored salt marsh is comparable to that of
the original habitat (Strange et al., 2002). As a result, monitoring and adaptive management are
considered necessary components of any restoration plan. The MLMP contains few details of its
proposed monitoring plan, and this is a significant shortcoming. By contrast, considerable effort
has gone into the development of the monitoring plan for the proposed restoration of the San
Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SCE, 2005). This information may help in the design of
monitoring for the proposed MLMP.
Viewed together, the significant ecological uncertainties identified in this review suggest that
even if resource agencies conclude that habitat restoration has a role in offsetting "residual"
entrainment losses, the success of restoration is not assured, and preference should be given to
avoiding losses. For many years, this has been the position of agencies involved in fisheries
management and habitat restoration (e.g., agencies involved in mitigation decisions under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act).
Literature Cited
Allen, L.G. 1982. Seasonal abundance, composition, and productivity of the littoral fish
assemblage in upper Newport Bay, California. Fishery Bulletin 80:769-790.
Allen II, P.O., D.J. Chapman, and D. Lane. 2005a. Scaling environmental restoration to offset
injury using habitat equivalency analysis. In Integrating Ecologic Assessment of Economics to
Pagt 10
SCIU92
EXHIBIT 3
Stratus Consulting (8/4/2008)
Manage Watershed Problems, R.J.F. Bruins and M. Heberiein (eels.). CRC Press, Boca Raton,
FL.pp. 165-184.
Allen II, P.O., R. Rancher, E. Strange, D. Mills, and D. Beltman. 2005b. The habitat-based
replacement cost method: Building on habitat equivalency analysis to inform regulatory or
permit decisions under the Clean Water Act. In Integrating Ecologic Assessment of Economics to
Manage Watershed Problems, R.J.F, Bruins and M. Heberiein (eds.). CRC Press, Boca Raton,
FL, pp. 401-421.
Barnthouse, L.W., D.L. DeAngelis, and S.W. Christensen. 1979. An Empirical Model of
Impingement Impact. Publication ORNL/NUREG/TM-290. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak
Ridge, TN.
Boreman, J., C.P. Goodyear, and S.W. Christensen. 1978. An Empirical Transport Model for
Evaluating Entrainment of Aquatic Organisms by Power Plants. Publication FWS/OBS-78/90.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ann Arbor, MI.
Julius, B. 1999. Discounting and the Treatment of Uncertainty in Natural Resource Damage
Assessment. Technical Paper 99-1, NOAA Damage Assessment and Restoration Program, Silver
Spring, MD.
MacCall, A.D., K.R, Parker, R. Leithiser, and B. Jesse. 1983. Power plant impact assessment: A
simple fishery production model approach. Fish. Bull. U.S. 81(3):613-619.
NOAA. 1997. Scaling Compensatory Restoration Actions: Guidance Document for Natural
Resource Damage Assessment under the Oil Pollution Control Act of 1990. Prepared by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Damage Assessment and Restoration
Program, Silver Spring, MD.
NOAA. 1999. Discounting and the Treatment of Uncertainty in Natural Resource Damage
Assessment. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Technical Paper 99-1. Silver
Spring, MD.
NOAA. 2006. Habitat Equivalency Analysis: An Overview. Prepared by the Damage
Assessment and Restoration Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Department of Commerce. March 21, 1995. Revised October 4, 2000 and May 23, 2006.
NRC. 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems. National Research Council. National Academy
Press, Washington, DC.
NRC. 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses under the Clean Water Act. National Research
Council. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Page 11
SCIl 492
EXHIBIT 3
Stratus Consulting (8/4/2008)
Poseidon Resources. 2008a. Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Project Flow, Entrapment and
Impingement Mitigation Plan, Prepared for the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control
Board, Region 9, San Diego Region. Order No. R-9-20006-0065, NPDES No. CA0109223.
March 6, 2008.
Poseidon Resources. 2008b, July 3, 2008 Letter (and attached Exhibits) to the California Coastal
Commission regarding the Carlsbad Desalination Project, CDP Application No. E-06-013,
Proposed Marine Life Mitigation Plan Per Special Condition 8.
SCE. 2005. San Dieguito Wetlands Restoration Project, Final Restoration Plan. Submitted by the
Southern California Edison Company to the California Coastal Commission. November.
Steele, M., S.C. Shroeter, and H.M. Page. 2006. Sampling characteristics and biases of enclosure
traps for sampling fishes in estuaries. Estuaries and Coasts 29:630-638.
Steinbeck, J., J. Hedgepeth, P. Raimondi, G. Cailliet, and D. Mayer. 2007. Assessing Power
Plant Cooling Water System Impacts. CEC-700-2007-010. California Energy Commission.
Strange, E., D. Allen, D. Mills, and P. Raimondi. 2004a. Research on Estimating the
Environmental Benefits of Restoration to Mitigate or Avoid Environmental Impacts Caused by
California Power Plant Cooling Water intake Structures. 500-04-092. California Energy
Commission, Public Energy Research Program, Energy-Related Environmental Research.
Strange, E.M., P.O. Allen, D. Beltman, J. Lipton, and D. Mills. 2004b. The habitat-based
replacement cost method for assessing monetary damages for fish resource injuries. Fisheries
29(7); 17-23.
Strange, E.M., H. Galbraith, S. Bickel, D. Mills, D. Beltman, and J. Lipton. 2002. Determining
ecological equivalence in service-to-service scaling of salt marsh restoration. Environmental
Management 29:290-300.
Strange, E., D. Allen, D. Mills, D. Cacela, C. Donavan, and J, Lipton. In review. Restoration to
Offset Environmental Impacts of Coastal Power Plants. Prepared for the California Energy
Commission, Public Energy Research Program.
Tenera. 2008. Clean Water Act Section 3l6(b) Impingement Mortality and Entrainment
Characterization Study. Effects on the Biological Resources of Agua Hedionda Lagoon and the
Nearshore Ocean Environment. Prepared by Tenera Environmental for Cabrillo Power LLC,
Encina Power Station. January.
Page 12
SCI 1492
EXHIBIT 3
Stratus Consulting (8/4/2008)
U.S. EPA. 2006. Regional Analysis Document for the Final Rule for Cooling Water Intake
Structures at Phase III Facilities. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available:
http://vvvvw.epa.gOV/waterscience/316b/phase3/. Accessed 8/4/2008.
Page 13
SCI 1492
EXHIBIT 3
Appendix. Example of Restoration Scaling Using Entrainment Rates
for the Encina Power Station and Rates of Fish Production in
Allen (1982)
SCI14V2
EXHIBIT 3
Stratus Consulting Appendix (8/4/2008)
Table A.I. Estimated entrainment loss fur a stand-alone desalination facility in Agua
Hedinoda Lagoon based on data in Tenera (2008) for the Encina Power Station
Calculation Source of data and calculation notes
Estimated annual entrainment of
gobies, expressed as age-1 equivalents
3,217,720 Calculated as: the estimated maximum feedwaler
withdrawal for a stand-alone desalination facility
(304 MOD, from p. 5-12 of Poseidon Resources,
2008b) multiplied by the average daily entrainment of
gobies at the Encina Power Station under max flow
(8,846) = 2,689,184 larvae per day or 981,552,160
larvae per year. 981,552,160 larvae converted to age-1
equivalents based on life history data in U.S. EPA
(2006) = 3,217,720.
Average goby weight in gm ww 0.24000 Based on annual total abundance and weight of gobies
from Table 2 of Allen (1982) (1,419 gobies weighing a
total of 345.9 gm ww).
Estimated total weight of entrained
goby (gm ww)
772,253 Product of annual entrainment and average goby weight
(gm ww).
Dry weight as share of wet weight 0.25 Conversion factor.
Estimated annual entrainment
in gm dw
193,063 Product of annual enlrainment in gm ww and dry
weight conversion factor.
PV of entrainment loss over next
30 years, in gm dw
3,784,124 PV calculation for assumed 30 year operating life —
more restoration acres if longer, less if fewer years.
Page A-l
SCI 1492
EXHIBIT 3
Stratus Consulting Appendix (8/4/2008)
Table A.2. PV calculation for annual entrainment loss
(gm dw yr" ')
Years
from
present
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Total
PV factor -
year 1
discounted
0.97
0.94
0.92
0,89
0.86
0.84
0.81
0.79
0.77
0.74
0.72
0.70
0.68
0.66
0.64
0.62
0.61
0.59
0.57
0.55
0.54
0.52
0.51
0.49
0.48
0.46
0.45
0.44
0.42
0.4!
Annual
grams lost
193,063
193,063
193,063
193,063
193,063
193,063
193,063
193,063
193,063 '
193,063
193,063
193,063 '
193,063
193,063
193,063
193,063
193,063
193,063
193,063
193,063
193,063
193,063
193,063
193,063
193,063
193,063
193,063
193,063
193,063
193,063
5,791,896
PVof
grams lost
187,440
181,981
176,680
171,534
166,538
161,687
156,978
152,406
147,967
143,657
139,473
135,411
131,467
127,638
123,920
120,311
116,806
113,404
110,101
106,894
103,781
100,758
97,824
94,974
92,208
89,522
86,915
84,383
81,926
79,539
3,784,124
Page A-2
SCI 1492
EXHIBIT 3
Stratus Consulting Appendix (8/4/2008)
Table A.3. Increased production from littoral zone restoration
Calculation Source of data and calculation notes
Estimated goby production,
in gm dw m"~
0.2026 Sum of reported results for gobies from Table 3 in
Allen (1982).
Square meters per acre 4,047 Standard conversion factor for number of square
meters per acre.
Estimated production per acre
(in gm dw fish)
820 Product of square meters per acre and dry weight
production per square meter.
Discount rate for present value
calculations
3.0%3% is common discount rate assumption.
Present value multiplier for an infinite
annual series of returns that start
immediately
33.33 This multiplier is calculated at the given interest
rale as 1/r, where r is the discount rate.
PV production per restored littoral zone
acre (in gm dw per year)
27.331 PV production per acre dry weight = PV factor x
adjusted dry weight production.
Required scale of restoration work
(acres)
138 Littoral zone acres to be restored = PV dry weight
loss over 30 years / PV dry weight produced.
Page A-3
SCI 1492
EXHIBIT 3
APPENDIX A
Hydrographs
n
Appendix A: Hydrographs
Crt*k
17. :ttt4
Page 1 of 10
O(DOm
Appendix A: Hydrographs
\M-
-10 ...—,..., ...
j is *:t
n
Page 2 of 10
Appendix A; Hydrographs
SOS 1.C9 IM JOJ 199 9M )S«S
\j
OQ5Om
Page 3 of 10
Appendix A: Hydrographs
«* **
let i os
Om
TO)
Page 4 of 10
J OS I «
Appendix A: Hydrographs
g ^ _ ^
»t
««s >«a
OBOn
Stn Dt*gwflo RN*»
Dct«btf 17,1004
Page 5 of 10
1.]} << Ji
Appendix A: Hydrographs
October IT, SOW
« 01*00 W**l
riury », tWl
OQBOm
Page 6 of 10
(j
Appendix A: Hydrographs
r-
ttn Lull Rty MVK
F«bru*ry It, JOCi
I i
*.OS 504
OPOm
Page7of10
Appendix A: Hydrographs
I " -
S tO I (3 its »ic
Page 8 of 10
Appendix A; Hydrographs
I«Ol*4tCf»*lt
OfH
J«™.
LJ
r«pw» CrwliOctabW IT, 1004
Page 9 of 10
Appendix A: Hydrographs
Page 10 of 10
COAST LAW GROUP
April 7, 2009
Mr. John Robertus
Executive Officer
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Diego Region
9174 Sky Park Court, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92123-4340
RE: Carlsbad Desalination Project
169 Saxony Road
Suite 204
Encinltas, CA 92024
Tel 760-942-8505
Fax 760-942-8515
www.coasllawgroup.com
Via Electronic Mail
RB9agenda@waterboards.ca.gov
April 8, 2009, Agenda Item 13
Environmental Groups' Supplemental Technical Comments
Response to Scott Jenkins* Note on Regional Board Staff Concerns Regarding
Rainfall Effects on Impingement per RWQCB Staff Report of March 27, 2009
In the March 27'" Staff Report, staff presented three reasons why Poseidon's rainfall flushing theory
did not appear to be the cause of the elevated impingement rates on two sampling days (January
12th and February 23rd in 2005), (March 27th Staff Report at 14-15). A summary of those reasons
is also provided in the Supplemental Staff Report. (April 3rd Staff Report at 5). Staff further provided
a "plausible alternative" explanation that impingement rates were associated with unique operational
circumstances and minus tides. (March 27th Staff Report at 15). The Supplemental Staff Report
posits another, highly plausible, alternative related to dredging activities. (April 3rd Staff Report at 5),
The following comments address Scott Jenkins' latest submission on April 3, 2009, which is an
attempt to discount staff concerns and alternative theory from the March 27th Staff Report.
("Jenkins1 Response"). Jenkins' Response fails both to discredit staff comments and to bolster the
rainfall flushing theory. It should also be mentioned, even if Dr. Jenkins was able to conclusively
disprove staff's alternate theory for the two higher impingement rates, this would in no way validate
Poseidon's theory. As mentioned in our previous comment letter (Coast Law Group Supplemental
Comments, April 6, 2009), the rainfall flushing theory is unsupported. Staff reiterates, though there
may be enough data to prove abnormal rainfall on a given sampling day, the same is not true for
impingement rates, or for correlation between rainfall and impingement. (April 3rd Staff Report at 5).
Staff Concern #1
Staff points out that heavy rainfall is not always related to higher impingement rates, as seen during
the October 2004 rains. (March 27th Staff Report at 14). Dr. Jenkins presents a new theory to
explain why the heavy October rains did not cause higher impingement: the October rains were the
first rains to end the dry season and therefore the soil was able to absorb this rainfall. Thus, there
was no discharge into Agua Hedionda Creek, and subsequently Agua Hedtonda Lagoon (Jenkins
Response at 1). Dr. Jenkins states, "corresponding flow volumes in Agua Hedionda Creek were not
nearly as large as those recorded during the two five-day rain events that preceded impingement on
[January 12 and February 5, 2005]." (Jenkins Response at 1-2). The only reference given for this
assertion is Dr. Jenkins' previous submission on March 19th, 2009.
The March 19th submission ("Original Jenkins") is illuminating, but not for the reason presented by
Dr. Jenkins. The prior submission contains a diagram (Figure 3(b)) created by Dr. Jenkins to show
the relationship between precipitation and creek flows. (Original Jenkins at 8). This graph was
1
Supplemental Technical Comments
Response to Scott Jenkins' Note on Regional Board Staff Concerns Regarding
Rainfall Effects on impingement per RWQCB Staff Report of March 27, 2009
prepared using rainfall data from NOAA and discharge data from Tetratech (Original Jenkins at 8).
The graph is explained: "Note each rainfall event produces a corresponding peak discharge event in
the creek, except during a portion of the winter of 2006 when no flow data was collected." (emphasis
added)(0riginal Jenkins at 8). Thus, Figure 3(b) shows flow rate in the Agua Hedionda Creek versus
rainfall, with no qualification concerning first rains of the season or soil moisture. The next graph,
Figure 4, shows daily discharge flows from Agua Hedionda Creek during the impingement study.
(Original Jenkins at 9). This diagram (created by Dr. Jenkins) clearly shows high flow rates from
Agua Hedionda Creek in October. Id. In fact, the October rains produced the highest Agua
Hedionda Creek flow rates. Id. Moreover, the San Diego MS4 Permit copermittee sampling data
from 2004 and 2005 shows Agua Hedionda Creek actually had more flows in October than in
February, (See Appendix A: Hydrographs, submitted herewith).
Dr. Jenkins' other point, that the October rainfall was short in duration, lasting only one day, seems
incorrect. (Jenkins Response at 1-2). His reference to Figure 1 is not helpful, as the x-axis data
points are given in 2-month intervals, making it difficult to decipher exact data sets, (Jenkins
Response at 5). Further, Dr. Jenkins labeled only certain days on the graph, not including the
October rainfall event. Id. Notwithstanding these difficulties, the data seems to show the October
rain event did comprise of more than one day of rainfall and resulted in a high volume of
precipitation. Id.
Thus, Dr. Jenkins has cherry-picked the data he would like to explain (ie. higher impingement rates
on January 12th and February 5th), and designed a theory to reach the desired result (ie.
Poseidon's desired result). His own hydrographic rating curve and daily discharge diagram belie "dry
ground" theory. Either his original data set is flawed, undermining the credibility of that dataset and
his new theory; or, his new theory is flawed, undermining the "dry ground" explanation as well, Either
way, Jenkins' theories don't match up.
Staff Concern #2
Staff correctly points out that after the January 12th and February 5th sampling points, the next
three highest impingement rates correspond to dry days (ie. no rainfall). In addressing this criticism
of the rainfall flushing theory, Dr. Jenkins cannot seem to make up his mind. He first states a
comparison of the next three highest impingement days (dry days) is inappropriate because "the
amount of biomass impinged at the intake on the next three highest days was minor in relation to
the amount observed on the outlier days." (Jenkins Response at 2).
However, Jenkins then finds it entirely reasonable to take the next five highest impingement days
(which did correspond to rainfall) into account (even though they would be even less appropriate to
consider since they would be even more minor compared to the outliers). He concludes, "[i]n fact,
rainfall occurred during or immediately before 7 of the 10 highest impingement samples." (Jenkins at
2). Here, Dr. Jenkins has conveniently decided to focus on the top 10 data points (days with highest
impingement rates) to "dilute" the data.
One could just as easily narrow the focus to the top 5 highest impingement rates, resulting in an
entirely different conclusion: 3 of the 5 days highest impingement days correspond to dry weather!
Dr. Jenkins fails to discount staffs criticism, much less prove Poseidon's theory.
Supplemental Technical Comments
Response to Scott Jenkins* Note on Regional Board Staff Concerns Regarding
Rainfall Effects on Impingement per RWQCB Staff Report of March 27, 2009
Staff Concern #3
Dr. Jenkins here says staff "speculates" that tides cause higher impingement. (Jenkins at 3). Staff is
not nearly as cavalier as Jenkins in using minimal data to draw sweeping conclusions as to the
origins of impingement. In the March 27!h Staff Report, staff merely pointed out the flaws in Jenkins
theory, as other trends also lead to another "plausible alternative explanation." (March 27 Staff
Report at 15). In discounting staffs theory, Jenkins fails to account for tides and flows preceding
impingement sampling days, as impingement samples were taken about once a week. Thus/fish or
invertebrates impinged on day 1 would not be counted until day 7. Simply looking at the tides on the
sampling day is therefore uninformative. (Jenkins Response at 3, 6-7).
Here again, Dr. Jenkins asserts "a clear relationship is shown to the extreme rain events." (Jenkins
Response at 3). As explained above, there is nothing clear about the relationship, and even if the
theory "held water" it still would not prove the rainfall was the cause of the impingement. Moreover,
Jenkins assumes the two theories are mutually exclusive and if staffs tidal theory is incorrect, the
rainfall flushing theory must be correct. (Jenkins Response at 3). This frighteningly narrow
assessment discounts all other possible theories, and misses the most obvious one- EPS intake
caused the impingement. Whatever the surrounding circumstances, ultimately those organisms
were impinged by the EPS intake.
Lastly, Jenkins can't seem to explain away the correlation between higher impingement rates and
large tidal ranges, so he merely states "{to the extent this [advection of additional species into the
lagoon] is true, the relatively high impingement observed on those days may have more to do with
local fish abundance than with EPS intake operations." (Jenkins Response at 4). No further
explanation is given. Apparently Dr. Jenkins places the blame for impingement on the fish for daring
to frequent the lagoon more than usual. The fish should have known the EPS was operating intake
pumps that day.
Conclusion
As Dr. Jenkins has provided no additional insight into the rainfall flushing theory posited by Poseidon
and has failed to counter any of staff's criticisms, both staff and Dr. Raimondi's concerns remain
relevant. Poseidon's unsupported theory does not provide a basis for discounting the January 12"'
and February 23rd, 2005 impingement data.
Submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board April 7, 2009.
COAST LAW GROUP I
Marco A. Gonzalez V (s
Livia Borak
Attorneys for Surfrider Foundation and
San Diego Coastkeeper
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER. GaretHO*
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
it FREMONT, SUITE 2000
SAN FRANCISCO, CA V410J-2219
VOICE (415) 904-5300
FAX (413) 904. 3400
TDDHI3)597-S»»5
May 6,2009
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
9174 Sky Park Court, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92123-4340
RE: Proposed Order No. R9-2006-0065 / NPDES No. CAO109223 for Poseidon Resources
Corporation Carlsbad Desalination Project
VIA FACSIMILE: (858) 571-6972 and EMAIL: RB9agenda@waterboards.ca.gov
Dear Chair Wright and Board Members:
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed Order and to coordinate with you
and your staff on this important project. We understand the Board may be making a decision at
its upcoming meeting based in part on information Poseidon recently provided to you about its
proposed facility and about the mitigation plan approved by the Coastal Commission, Parts of
that information appear to be incorrect, and key portions of Poseidon's recent submittals for the
Board's May 13, 2009 hearing are based on these apparent inaccuracies. This letter focuses on
correcting the record before you on two main issues:
1) Change in Project Description - Increased Intake Velocities: Poseidon has changed
its project description so that its expected intake velocities during both standalone and co-
located operations are above the velocity range reviewed by the Coastal Commission,
The higher velocities, and the higher adverse impingement impacts that accompany them,
require Poseidon to return to the Commission for further action on its coastal
development permit, ;
2) Need For Additional Mitigation: Poseidon has incorrectly characterized the Coastal
Commission-approved Marine Life Mitigation Plan (MLMP) as being adequate to
mitigate for its recently identified higher adverse impingement impacts. The MLMP as
approved by the Commission does not include mitigation for these additional impacts,
Further, Poseidon's recent proposals to you regarding the Tentative Order would not
adequately modify the MLMP to provide sufficient mitigation for these impacts. We
expect the Commission will consider requiring additional mitigation in the MLMP as part
of its upcoming review of Poseidon's permit.
We have asked Poseidon to submit an application to amend its permit to address these issues.1
We expect that a prompt and complete reply by Poseidon will not unduly delay your decision or
the project; however, we are concerned that unless these inaccuracies are corrected, the Board
1 We understand the City of Carlsbad is reviewing a proposed change to the project that would re-orient the facility
at the project site. We anticipate handling that change as part of the permit amendment needed to address these
intake velocity and impingement-related issues.
Comments, to San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Re: Tentative Order No. R9-2006-0065 /NPDES No. CA0109223
May 6, 2009
Page 2 of 5
may inadvertently adopt a decision that may not be consistent with the Commission's approved
Findings and MLMP. It could also result in contradictory requirements that would prevent
Poseidon (or any other entity that may take on its mitigation obligations) from meeting the
required mitigation performance standards.
1) Change in Project Description - Increased Intake Velocities: Poseidon's recent
submittals to the Board describe a change in the project - i.e., an increase in intake velocities -
that will require additional action by the Coastal Commission. We have asked that Poseidon
submit with its application updated intake velocity calculations and additional proposed
mitigation to address the increased impingement effects.
During the Commission's review, both Poseidon and the project's Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) stated that Poseidon's use of 304 million gallons per day of seawater would cause intake
velocities of 0,5 feet per second or less, which is the velocity range considered "best available
technology" by the U.S. EPA. The Commission relied on characterizations by Poseidon and in
the EIR in approving the project and in determining what mitigation requirements were needed
for the project to conform to Coastal Act policies.2
As it turns out, the characterizations made both by Poseidon and in the project EIR regarding
intake velocity are incorrect. As shown in a Poseidon January 2009 submittal to the Board,3 it is
physically impossible for Poseidon (and/or the power plant operator) to pump 304 million
gallons per day through the intake at velocities of 0.5 feet per second or less. The actual
velocities at the intake bar racks range from about 40% to more than 250% higher than the
originally stated 0.5 feet per second (i.e., from a minimum of no less than 0.7 feet per second to
an as-of-yet undetermined maximum that would be several times higher).4
This change in the project appears to relate to the recently identified rate of impingement that is
substantially higher than previously disclosed and is higher than reviewed by the Commission.
The higher impact rates are based on updated impingement calculations Poseidon and Board
staff have developed during the past two months. During the Commission's review, the expected
impingement rate was about 0.96 kilograms per day of fish, but the expected impingement rates
' Poseidon stated in its April 6, 2009 letter to the Board that "Poseidon has remained consistent that the Project's
intake water flows would be 0.5 fps or less at the Project intake's bar racks". Poseidon also stated in that letter that
this velocity range "is consistent with U.S. EPA's 'best available technology1 guidance for cooling water intakes".
This April 6* letter also refers to Poseidon's November 7,2007 statement to the Coastal Commission that "Poseidon
has documented that the velocity of the water at the entrance to the bar racks is below 0,5 feet per second."
Poseidon further confirmed in its letter that the Commission relied on Poseidon's characterization when it concluded
in the Commission's permit findings that "Poseidon has documented that stand-alone operation of the facility would
result in intake water velocities at or below 0.5 feet per second".
3 See Poseidon's January 26,2009 submittal of the "Clean Water Act Section 316(b) Impingement Mortality and
Entrainment Characterization Study: Effects on the Biological Resources of Agua Hedionda Lagoon and the
Nearshore Ocean Environment", prepared by Tenera Environmental for Cabrillo Power LLC, January 2008.
4 See Attachment 1 to this letter, which provides a range of velocities under expected conditions.
Comments to San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Re: Tentative Order No. R9-20Q6-Q065 /NPDES No. CA0109223
May 6, 2009
Page 3 of 5
are now higher by about 60% to 750% (depending on which calculations are used).3 These
impingement rates exceed the range determined by the Commission to be de minimis and
represent an impact of up to almost three tons offish per year, which Poseidon and others have
calculated will require more than 11 acres of mitigation area to offset. As part of its upcoming
review, we expect the Commission will evaluate the updated velocity calculations and
impingement rates and then independently determine the appropriate basis for any additional
mitigation (see below). This review will ensure the project remains in conformity with Coastal
Act policies and will likely result in a change to the Commission's previously-approved MLMP.
2) Need For Additional Mitigation: Poseidon submitted documentation for your April and
May hearings stating that it expects to mitigate for its recently identified higher impingement rate
by using "excess" production at the mitigation site(s) required through the Commission's
MLMP. Its April 30,2009 submittal for your May hearing proposes "crediting" various
proportions offish produced in its eventual mitigation site(s) towards Poseidon's higher
impingement impacts.
However, the MLMP approved by the Commission does not include "excess" production and
does not provide for "crediting" mitigation towards an impact that the Commission was not
informed about and that was not included in its deliberations. The Commission's review focused
on determining how large an area would be needed to provide sufficient habitat for producing the
larvae lost to entrainment. The Commission's MLMP approval was based primarily on
mitigating the project's entrainment impacts, along with a relatively small amount of
impingement impacts (i.e., the above-referenced 0.96 kilograms offish per day).6 The approved
MLMP is expected to provide 80% certainty that it will fully mitigate for all entrainment
impacts. At best, the Commission-approved MLMP could provide mitigation credit for up to
0.96 kilograms per day of impingement. Poseidon's proposed "crediting" approach for
impingement impacts is not consistent with the Commission's approval and will require
additional Commission review and action.
We expect the Commission's review will rely in part on recommendations from members of a
Science Advisory Panel the Commission convened to provide independent assessment of another
similar wetland mitigation project in the San Diego region and that the Commission relied on last
J Regarding the 0.96 kilograms per day rate, the Commission during its review was aware of one correction
Poseidon made - in its conversion from kilograms to pounds, Poseidon bad originally calculated 0.96 kilograms as
being equal to 1.96 pounds and then corrected it to 2.1 pounds. However, this correction did not change the
impingement rate from 0.96 kilograms per day.
6 See, for example, the Commission's December 2008 Condition Compliance Findings for the MLMP, which state:
"The Commission determined that Poseidon's entrainment impacts resulted in a loss of marine organisms equivalent
to that produced in a 55.4-acre area of estuarine and nearshore habitat"; that requiring 55.4 acres of estuarine
wetland mitigation "provides a sufficient degree of certainty that the facility's entrainment impacts will be fully
mitigated"; and, that "implementation of the Plan will ensure the project's entrainment-related impacts will be fully
mitigated." [emphasis added.]
Comments to San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Re: Tentative Order No. R9-2QQ6-OQ6S / NPDES No, CA0109223
May 6, 2009
Page 4 of 5
year during its review of Poseidon's mitigation proposal,1 In approving the MLMP, the
Commission relied on Panel member recommendations regarding the type of mitigation needed
to address Poseidon's entrainment impacts and adopted Panel member Dr. Pete Raimondi's
recommended 80% certainty level (instead of Poseidon's suggested 50% level) and his
recommended 55.4 acres of mitigation acreage (instead of Poseidon's suggested 37 acres). To be
consistent with the Commission's previous findings and MLMP approval, we expect to have the
Panel conduct a similar review of Poseidon's updated impingement levels and proposed
mitigation approach as part of the upcoming review of Poseidon's permit amendment.
We are also concerned about Poseidon's latest submittals to the Board with suggested measures
for sampling and monitoring impingement rates and impingement mitigation. Poseidon proposes
monitoring focused largely on determining fish biomass, but as Poseidon and others have noted,
mitigation needed for impingement effects should take the form offish productivity, which
requires a substantially more involved and complex approach than monitoring for biomass.
Poseidon's proposed monitoring conditions are not likely to provide the data needed to
determine whether its eventual mitigation site(s) is capable of, and actually produces, the
necessary amount of fish. We note, too, that Poseidon's proposals would have its own
consultants determine necessary monitoring and sampling measures; however, this would not
provide the level of independent peer review and confirmation that the Commission relied on in
approving the MLMP. The Commission's Science Advisory Panel has already developed
rigorous monitoring methodologies that are completely consistent with the scientific literature,
and we expect the Commission will likely rely on the Panel to review Poseidon's proposed
monitoring approach for adequacy and to ensure consistency with the existing MLMP
monitoring requirements that the Panel developed. Please note, too, that changes the Board
might make to the MLMP will require Commission concurrence - for example, if the Board
requires Poseidon to conduct additional monitoring, the Commission will evaluate whether
Poseidon will need to provide additional funds to support that monitoring.
Closing: In sum, Poseidon has changed its project in a way that will require additional
Commission review and has proposed a mitigation approach that is not consistent with its current
Commission approval. Additionally, as noted above, we are concerned that Poseidon's proposed
Order, if adopted by the Board, may result in nonconformity with the Commission's approved
MLMP and may result in mitigation site(s) that cannot meet the performance standards required
of Poseidon (or of any other entity that may take on the mitigation obligations).
7 The Panel is a team of independent scientists that provides guidance and oversight to the Commission on
ecological issues associated with the San Dieguito Restoration Project. The Panel also reviewed Poseidon's
entrainment study last year and made recommendations to the Commission regarding necessary mitigation. The
Panel includes Dr, Richard Ambrose, Professor and Director of Environmental Science & Engineering Program,
Department of Environmental Health Sciences, University of California Los Angeles; Dr, John Dixon, Senior
Ecologist, California Coastal Commission; Dr, Mark Page, Marine Science Institute, University of California at
Santa Barbara; Dr. Pete Raimondi, Professor and Chair of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of
California at Santa Cruz; Dr. Dan Reed, Marine Science Institute, University of California at Santa Barbara; Dr.
Steve Schroeter, Marine Science Institute, University of California at Santa Barbara; and, Dr. Russ Schmitt,
Director of Coastal Research Center, University of California at Santa Barbara.
r\
Comments to San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Re: Tentative Order No. R9-2006-0065 /NPDES No. CA0109223
May 6, 2009
Page 5 of 5
To conclude, we request the Board incorporate the corrected information provided herein in its
consideration of the proposed Tentative Order. Regardless of the Board's action, Poseidon will
need to return to the Commission for additional review and action. We anticipate coordinating
with you and your staff as the Commission continues its review of the project.
Peter M. LWugi;
Executive Director!/
cc: Poseidon Resources - Peter MacLaggan
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board - John Robertus
California State Lands Commission - Paul Thayer
City of Carlsbad - Scott Donnell
Comments to Regional Board re: Poseidon Resources Tentative Order No. R9-2006-0065
and NPDES No. CA109223 - May 6, 2009
ATTACHMENT 1
IMPINGEMENT VELOCITIES AT POSEIDON / ENCINA INTAKE
FOR 304 MILLION GALLON PER DAY SEA WATER USE
Summary: Based on information Poseidon provided to the Regional Board in January 2009,'
pumping 304 million gallons per day of seavvater through the Encina intake (by either Poseidon
or the power plant operator) will always result in velocities higher than 0.5 feet per second at the
intake trash racks.
Calculations and Dimensions Used: The calculations below are based on fundamental flow
equation Q = av, where Q = discharge (or intake volume) in cubic feet per second, a = cross-
section of intake in square feet, and v = velocity in feet per second. The equation illustrates the
relationship that the larger an intake cross-section, the lower the velocity for a given intake
volume. All calculations use a Q of 304 million gallons per day, which is equal to 470 cubic feet
per second. The intake dimensions are from the document cited above, which shows the intake
consists of four sections ten feet wide and 23.5 feet high. The intake is covered with trash rack
bars approximately one inch wide and separated by gaps of about three-and-a-half inches. The
tidal range at the intake is approximately +7.2 MLLW to -2.1 MLLW, and at 0.0 MLLW, the
intake depth is about 12.3 feet.
Calculating Intake Velocities Under Expected Conditions: If the full cross-section of the
intake was available (i.e., if the intake was completely underwater), the lowest possible velocity
would be: Q = 470 cfs; a = 940 square feet, so Q = av results in a velocity of 0.5 feet per second.
However, several intake characteristics act to increase the actual velocities:
• The top of the intake is above the usual tidal range of the lagoon, so the full intake cross-
section is rarely, if ever, completely underwater, so velocities are higher than the theoretical
minimum shown above. Calculated velocities at different tidal heights are provided below.
• Trash racks occupy part of the intake opening, thereby reducing the cross-section and
increasing velocities. The calculations below assume the area occupied by trash rack bars
reduce the intake width by fifteen percent (i.e., a 1-inch bar every 3.5 inches along a 40-foot
width represents about a 16.5% reduction, which is rounded in the calculations to 15%). The
useable intake width is therefore about 34 feet (40* X 0.85) ,
• The bottom of the intake is subject to sedimentation and the trash racks are subject to fouling
with vegetation, both of which further reduce the cross-sectional area and increase velocities.
The calculations below do not include these factors, so the actual intake velocities will be
higher than shown below when the intake is fouled with sediment or vegetation.
1 See "Clean Water Act Section 3 !6(b) Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Study: Effects on
the Biological Resources of Agua Hedionda Lagoon and the Nearshore Ocean Environment", prepared by Tenera
Environmental for Cabrillo Power LLC, January 2008, provided by Poseidon to the Regional Board on January 26,
2009.
• Velocities against the trash racks will be higher during incoming tides or with a current
coming from the north (however, because the pull of the intake pumps would remain
constant, velocities will not be reduced due to outgoing tides). The calculations below do not
include these higher velocities.
• The intake structure creates turbulence, which can result in higher or lower velocities in some
areas of the intake. The calculations below do not consider turbulence.
During high tides (lowest expected velocity): High tides in Agua Hedionda range around +7.2
MLLW. At that water level, the wetted cross-section of the intake would be 19.5 feet deep by 34
feet wide, or about 663 square feet.
Solving for velocity: Q = 470 cfs; a = 663 square feet, so Q - av results in a velocity of
0.71 feet per second.
Near the midpoint of the tidal cycle: At 0.0 MLLW, the wetted cross-section of the intake is
12.3 feet deep by 34 feet wide, which equals about 418.2 square feet.
Solving for velocity: Q - 470 cfs; a = 418.2 square feet, so Q = av results in a velocity of
1,12 feet per second.
During low tides: Low tides in Agua Hedionda are approximately -2.1 MLLW. At that water
level, the wetted cross section of the intake is 10.2 feet deep by 34 feet wide, which equals about
346.8 square feet.
1 Solving for velocity: Q = 470 cfs; a = 346.8 square feet, so Q = av results in a velocity of
1.36 feet per second.
Conclusion: The velocities in all cases will exceed the EPA "best available technology" range of
up to 0.5 feet per second. As noted above, the calculations do not include sedimentation,
fouling, or effects of an incoming tide or current, all of which would result in higher velocities.
169 Saxony Road
Suite 204
Encinitas, CA 92024
COAST LAW GROUPUI'Tel 760-942-8505
Fax 760-942-8515
www.coastlawgroup.com
May 7, 2009
Via Electronic Mail
John Robertus, Executive Officer jrobertus@waterboards.ca.gov
Chiara Clemente, Senior Environmental Scientist cclemente@waterboards.ca.gov
Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
9174 Sky Park Court, Suite 100
San Diego, CA. 92123-4340
RE: Proposed Order NO. R9-2006-006S. NPDES No. CA 0109223
Poseidon Resources Corporation Carlsbad Desalination Project
Flow, Entrainment and Impingement Minimization Plan
Dear Mr. Robertus and Ms. Clemente:
Please accept the following comments on behalf of the Surfrider Foundation and San Diego Coastkeeper
(Environmental Groups) pertaining to Poseidon Resources LLC's (Poseidon) proposed Carlsbad Desalination
Project (CDP) referenced above.
At the April 8, 2009 hearing, the Regional Board directed staff to prepare responses to comments received and
make revisions to the proposed Tentative Order consistent with Board direction. However, the Regional Board
did not reach consensus on a variety of issues discussed, and in some instances was silent on key points
presented. The Revised Tentative Order, as proposed, is not consistent with the Board's intent as expressed at
the hearing.1 Moreover, the Revised Tentative Order does not meet the requirements set forth in the NDPES
Permit or Porter-Cologne section 13142.5(b).
ProceduralObjections
The Regional Board counsel specifically instructed the Board not to act at its April 8th hearing due to procedural
irregularities. Due to the systemic informational gaps and last-minute changes throughout the administrative
approval process for the CDP, the public once again suffers for Poseidon's gamesmanship. Impingement
impacts came to light shortly before the April hearing, leaving Regional Board staff and the public little time to
respond to Poseidon's calculation error. See Email correspondence between Chiara Clemente and Peter
MacLaggan from March 17 to March 30, 2009. As the Flow, Entrainment and Impingement Minimization Plan
(Minimization Plan) was due in January 2007, and has yet to be approved as of the most recent hearing on May
9th, Poseidon cannot credibly argue that expediency is an issue. Although Poseidon takes every opportunity to
stress the urgency of CDP water production, it is and has been incumbent upon Poseidon to provide the
necessary information in a timely manner. Unarguably, Poseidon has failed in this regard.
Further, staffs Response to Comments previously received has not yet been released, but is expected after
the close of the public hearing and the public comment period for the May 13th hearing. Contrary to public
policy, the closure of the comment period before the Response to Comments are produced results in a
disservice to the public, staff and to the Regional Board. Rather than a thoughtful response to legitimate
concerns, the Regional Board will now have a post-hoc rationalization of its directive, immune from public
1 Although a second Revised Tentative Order was released on the evening of May 6, 2009, the following comments reflect
page numbers in the prior version of the Revised Tentative Order, released on May 1", 2009. However, the comments
contained herein are equally applicable to the latest version of the Revised Tentative Order.
Poseidon Resources Carlsbad Desalination Project
Environmental Group Comment Letter
May 7, 2009
Page 2
scrutiny. In so far as the public notice for the May 13th hearing limits public comment to "proposed
revisions made to the Tentative Order following the April 8, 2009 meeting" and receipt by May 6lh,
this deprives the public of meaningful participation. Environmental Groups request an opportunity to
respond to the forthcoming Response to Comments at the May 13* hearing, and will be providing
written comments for the record as well.2
Poseidon's submission of proposed Findings and Order before the public release of the Regional
Board's Revised Tentative Order or any supportive findings is prejudicial to both the Board and to the
public. The Regional Board closed the comment period and is accepting only comments pertaining to
the revisions to the Revised Tentative Order, yet Poseidon has preemptively provided detailed and
extensive comments in the form of its proposed order and supporting findings. Although this type of
procedure is standard practice for Poseidon at every administrative level, it is highly prejudicial and
should not be condoned. Staff and the public must now focus their efforts on rebutting Poseidon's
proposals instead of focusing on staffs independent assessment. Poseidon is the applicant in this
process, but it is the Regional Board, with the aid of staff, that should be driving the approval process.
Poseidon's standard practice puts staff and the public on the defensive. Although this procedure results
in a "stream-lined" approval with an artfully crafted order and findings supporting Poseidon's position, it
shows a lack of trust in the Regional Board and staff to do their jobs correctly. Poseidon has
volunteered to do the Board and staffs job, and the Regional Board members and the public should be
highly suspect of any applicant doing the Board's work.
Regional Board Directive
As a preliminary matter, the Regional Board itself did not provide a transcript of proceedings, and any
reliance on the transcript prepared by Poseidon is a matter of practicality (Preliminary Transcript of
Relevant Excerpts of Regional Board's Deliberation at April 8, 2009 Regional Board Hearing, Prepared
by Latham & Watkins LLP From Audio Files, hereinafter "Poseidon Transcript"). However, it appears
that much of the Regional Board discussion, Regional Board staff and counsel comments, and public
comments relevant to the Regional Board's deliberation and direction to staff have been selectively
omitted from the transcript. Although the record is colored by these selective omissions, Environmental
Groups provide the following comments based on an assumption of accuracy in that portion of the
transcript Poseidon has chosen to provide.
The Board members who spoke at the April 8Ul hearing (and whose testimony was transcribed by
Poseidon) provided little to no testimony on several topics. Contrary to Poseidon's position, the Board
did not give anything remotely resembling "thorough consideration" to these subjects, and gave virtually
no direction to staff. Poseidon Key Points of Poseidon's Proposed Order and Supplemental Findings,
April 30, 2009, p.3. Poseidon's characterization of the Board's position is merely an attempt to insulate
the project from litigation, and a blatant mischaracterization of the administrative review process.
Poseidon should be reprimanded for its continued manipulation of agency approval processes and
admonished to more accurately represent Board action in all future submissions.
Further comments on specific issues of concern include the following:
2 See 40 C.F.R, §§ 124.17, 124.12.
Poseidon Resources Carlsbad Desalination Project
Environmental Group Comment Letter
May 7, 2009
Page 3 ,
1) The Regional Board did not discount heat treatment impingement data collection.
To the contrary, the Regional Board specifically asked for impingement real-time assessment, which
would include heat treatment data. During his public comment,, Mr. Garret specifically and repeatedly
called for impingement monitoring similar to that conducted in 2004-05 for Encina Power Station (EPS)
by Tenera. Poseidon Transcript, p. 15-16. This monitoring, which was the basis of all entrainment and
impingement assessments presented by Poseidon, included heat treatment monitoring.
2) The Regional Board did not state that 55.4 acres of wetland mitigation for entrainment would be
enough to offset impingement losses.
The Board did not decide that Poseidon's MLMP requirement to provide 55.4 acres of mitigation in two
phases was a "proper amount of wetlands mitigation acreage" and "the proper amount of wetlands
mitigation acreage needed to fully offset projected Project entrainment and impingement losses."
Poseidon Key Points of Poseidon's Proposed Order and Supplemental Findings, April 30, 2009, p.1.
The Regional Board did not find 55.4 acres sufficient, nor did it find such acreage would fully offset
impacts. As a practical matter, further impingement monitoring on a real-time basis was required in
order to accurately reflect impacts and require mitigation based on such assessment. Had the Regional
Board been convinced by Poseidon's expert testimony, it would not have found the need to require
real-time assessment.
Poseidon's own transcript shows the Board members were not convinced that enough data existed to
conclusively prove the extent of impingement impacts, and therefore required 55.4 acres as floor.
Board Member Destache: Is it important to Staff to see what the long term possibilities of a
mitigation is bv using this project as a. on a ao forward basis to look at what the mitigation of
wetlands could produce because in everything that I've heard it's either we don't have enough
empirical data or we're Just guessing. Poseidon Transcript, p,2 (emphasis added).
Board Member Loveland: I think this gives us an opportunity to go forward and learn. At the
same time taking appropriate action that takes into account the best available information that
we have right now and develop a program for monitoring of the impingement entrainment losses
and the productivity of the mitigation. And make those appropriate changes as circumstances
change when and if it becomes a stand-alone operation which everybody seems to agree is
headed in that direction. Poseidon Transcript, p. 4 (emphasis added).
Board Member Ravfield: I think at this time to close the public hearing. I think we should move
forward on Option No. 3.1 would add just a couple of points to the points that you have already
made for us. On the staff we accept Option 3.1 think the staff should come back to us with some
specific measures. The thing I like about Option 3 is that it is performance based or
performance standard based. But I think we ought to know what those standards might be and
how they might be applied. Poseidon Transcript, p. 5 (emphasis added).
Chair (this actually seems to be Board Member Thompson): OK. So, what Alternative #3
really means, because it doesn't specifically say that, is that there would be additional
monitoring required in addition to ensuring we meet the 1,715 requirement. And, on top of the
55 acres that's currently in the plan, we would have to give ... provide ... require them to
provide an additional 11 to 18 acres, but it doesn't say that. But that is what that means?
Poseidon Resources Carlsbad Desalination Project
Environmental Group Comment Letter
May 7, 2009
Page 4
Board Member Ravfield: OK. Well, I too thought Option #3 meant that roughly 55 acres in
mitigation. And if we were to go with that Option #3, that's where I would start. And that's why I
think we want the additional monitors to say, "is that or is that not adequate and should it be
adjusted upward or possibly downward?" Poseidon Transcript, p. 10.
Mr. Robertus: Then there's another... A question I have is: Does the monitoring that is
contemplated as additional monitoring in Option #3 include continued monitoring to measure the
actual impingement values in the increase?
Ms. Clemente: Yes. And I would like for it not just to be numbers; but,...Yes, the monitoring
would be to measure the impingement values and the intake as well as the mitigation ... not
the impingement and mitigation productivity of the mitigation. But, I also want to make sure that
it be not just in terms of kilograms but in terms of species and numbers.
Chair: I will clarify with board members what was just said monitoring would include monitoring
not just in mitigation production in the wetlands, in the wetlands acreage, but also continuing to
monitor to build on the database we are working with now to determine what the acreage should
be.
Chair: That's my understanding of it... Yeah ...
Board Member Ravfield: That's .. .that's mine, too. And I have ... I find myself in agreement
with Dr. Jenkins. I don't think the confidence level is very meaningful in this context at all. We
just don't know enough. So, I wouldn't... personally, I'm not persuaded by 50% or 85% or 95%
confidence level. I think we have to mitigate for whatever the effects of the impingement are.
And that's why I think it's so important to have the performance measures. Poseidon Transcript,
p. 11 (emphasis added).
Board Member Lpyeland: I think Mr. Rayfield. It's the safest thing ... is how I feel about what
the direction should be. One point of clarification, you talked about, maybe, the decrease is
moot because you wouldn't see a decrease. I actually don't think that it is moot because if we're
going to do this based on actuals, do the monitoring and make decisions based on what actually
happens, if we find out that it is more productive. I'm not holding out a great deal of hope for
that, but should it be, then I think there should be a move to release some of that for remedial
mitigation perhaps. What if in 20 years from now or 50 years from now the plant wants to i
increase the [inaudible], then some.of that could be remedial mitigation. So, I don't think
decreasing is moot... and although it's unlikely, I'm not going to... Poseidon Transcript, p. 11
(emphasis added).
Mr. Wyels: Yes, thank you. Yes there was also some discussion about....there would need to
be mitigation monitoring for these impingement impacts, whether its monitoring to determine
whether this fixed amount of 1715 kilograms per year is being met or its open-ended that
whether more equivalent production... .equivalent to what's actually beinq impinged is being
achieved. You're right. Poseidon Transcript, p. 15 (emphasis added).
Mr. Wyels: Yes, Mr. Garrett is correct. Catherine informed me that I mis-spoke. What I was
really talking about was 55.4 acres Poseidon believes they will achieve this productivity of 1715
within that 55.4 acres, if it turns out that they're incorrect. There would have to be additional
Poseidon Resources Carlsbad Desalination Project
Environmental Group Comment Letter
May 7, 2009
PageS
acreage. But if they are correct they would not have to do additional acreage. Poseidon
Transcript, p. 16 (emphasis added).
Thus, what can be gleaned from the transcript is that there was Board member uncertainty as to what
the actual impingement rate would be, and the Board members thus were inclined to require real-time
impingement monitoring. The 55.4 acres of mitigation required for entrainment would be a floor.
dependent upon the real-time impingement monitoring results. As detailed further below, in light of the
Coastal Commission Executive Director's reiteration that the entire 55.4 acres are allocated to
entrainment mitigation, using the same acreage to mitigate for impingement impacts is no longer an
option. Coastal Commission Comments to the Regional Board, May 6, 2009, p. 2-4.
3) Temporal losses need to be taken into account.
Because the Revised Tentative Order contemplates impingement monitoring after construction of the
CDP, during its first year of operation, temporal losses must be considered. First, after the impingement
monitoring data is analyzed and presented to the Board, any discrepancy between the impingement
losses attributable to CDP operations and the fish productivity of restored wetlands (to the extent there
is any allowable overlap for entrainment and impingement mitigation) will need to be addressed,
Further, before the wetlands potentially reach the required productivity to offset impingement mitigation,
losses due to impingement and entrainment need to be mitigated through further wetland restoration
acreage. The temporal loss accounting requirement is not required in the current order, and should be
included therein. The Regional Board testimony provided by Poseidon reflects, at a minimum, the
Board considered this something to be vetted by staff or the Science Advisory Panel at the time of
MLMP implementation.
Mr. Gonzalez: So, as long as it's clear that if you're doing something like that, that it might
mean that you're going to get more acres then the biomass that you're trying to replace because
you also have to replace for temporal loss. One of the other things that needs to be certain is in
the measurement of productivity of the wetlands in the scenario for the impingement for the
impinged fish is staff needs to be certain that they give direction that you can't always iust go
into a wetland and measure biomass and say here is the productivity because productivity is a
snapshot of time. So impingement data is collected as how many fish do you lose per day
whereas when you come into a wetland you don't produce a certain amount of fish per day and
you produce them based on their life cycles, and there needs to be some mechanism for
equating that in this context.
Chair: I think staff would figure it out or our experts would figure it out. Okay. Are we ready to
close the hearing. Poseidon Transcript, p. 17 (emphasis added).
Therefore, the Revised Tentative Order should include some provision that either defines a method to
account for temporal losses, or assigns this function to the Science Advisory Panel.
4) Biological productivity assessment was to be determined by the Science Advisory Panel.
The Regional Board agreed that assessment of the biological productivity of the wetlands, created as
required for entrainment impacts and as a floor for impingement impacts, would be determined by the
Science Advisory Panel. Contrary to Poseidon's contentions, the Regional Board did not agree that
55.4 acres "will more than fully offset potential stand-alone impingement." Poseidon Key Points of
Poseidon's Proposed Order and Supplemental Findings, April 30, 2009, p,2. Nor did the Regional
-
Poseidon Resources Carlsbad Desalination Project
Environmental Group Comment Letter
May 7, 2009
Page 6
Board direct staff to write a Revised Tentative Order requiring calculations of wetland productivity that
specifically contemplated Poseidon's proposed calculation method. The testimony reflects the Regional
Board's understanding that this would be determined by the Science Advisory Panel.
Chair:... Mr. Loveland's comment about... it had to do with the variety of species, monitoring
for species and varieties...
Ms. Clemente: With regards to that last comment; there's a hundred (100) different species
from day to day. We just want them to monitor it, not...we're not asking them to match every
species in terms of mitigation. But. we're asking them to collect the data in terms of numbers,
species, age, etc., so we can make an educated comparison of the two. Otherwise, we've just
got a bucket of fish.
Board Member Loveland: I would agree. Dp you have some sense of what the criteria for
making an evaluation would be?
Ms. Clemente: Actually, that's what the Scientific Advisory Panel is for. That is part of the
marine life ... MLMP is their panel of experts that can provide much more of an educated
opinion than I would. Poseidon Transcript, p. 12 {emphasis added).
Impingement Monitoring - Heat Treatments and Effect
As mentioned above, the limited transcript provides no evidence that the Regional Board intended any
impingement monitoring to exclude heat treatments. In light of the seemingly perpetual co-located
operation due to the strictly worded stand-alone trigger, EPS is likely to continue operations at minimum
flow rates, while CDP becomes the almost exclusive driver of operations. It would be illogical and
contrary to the mandates of Porter-Cologne to minimize mortality to attribute none of these heat
treatment impacts to COP operations. Revised Tentative Order, p. 11.
Though Poseidon argues that it would be more appropriate to obtain heat treatment data from EPS, this
argument is wholly without merit, The impingement data relied upon by the Regional Board and by
Poseidon was conducted based on EPS operations. The intake and discharge are operated by EPS.
The pumps are owned and operated by EPS. Using Poseidon's logic, no entrainment or impingement
should ever be attributed to Poseidon as long as EPS owns the intake and discharge channels and the
intake pumps. However, the Regional Board, along with the Coastal Commission and State Lands
Commission, has rejected such a notion. When CDP flows are the driving force, the impacts are
attributable to CDP, not EPS. Thus, heat treatments conducted by EPS for the benefit of CDP would
also be attributable to CDP. As mentioned previously by Environmental Groups and staff, CDP
operations will necessarily contribute to increased frequency and impacts of heat treatments. See
Carlsbad Desalination Project, Environmental Groups' Supplemental Comments, April 6, 2009, p. 10-
11.
Further, in light of the proposed stand-alone and new design or technology triggers proposed, the heat
treatment impingement impacts will continue regardless of EPS flow rate so long as EPS is subject to
Reliably Must Run (RMR) status by Cal-ISO. Thus, even operating at 304 MGD with 99.99% of impacts
attributable to CDP, Poseidon will never have to mitigate for heat treatments until EPS shuts down
completely.
Poseidon Resources Carlsbad Desalination Project
Environmental Group Comment Letter
May 7, 2009
Page 7
Impingement Mitigation
The Regional Board cannot refuse to make a decision as to the significance of the CDP marine life
impacts, especially under the Porter-Cologne mandate to minimize intake and mortality. Without
actually requiring the best design, site, or technology to minimize intake and mortality, the Regional
Board has chosen to rely wholly upon mitigation measures. This in and of itself is problematic and does
not comport with Porter-Cologne. A refusal to acknowledge reality and require accurate mitigation for
CDP impacts is completely inadequate.
The Regional Board, finding it "unnecessary to resolve" disputes of whether impingement rates of
1.56kg/day to 7.16kg/day are more accurate because 4.7kg/day is "a reasonable, conservative
estimate of impingement" is nonsensical. Revised Tentative Order, p. 10. First, the Regional Board
inherently makes a decision as to the reasonableness of the impingement rates by using a middle-of-
the-road number of 4.7kg/day. The Regional Board could find 4.7 kg/day supportable in light of the
range of numbers provided, or 4.7 kg/day as a good compromise position because both the low and
high end of the range are equally likely. However, merely stating that the Regional Board has found 4.7
kg/day reasonable without stating why, in light of an unresolved dispute between staff, Environmental
Groups, and Poseidon, provides no insight into the Regional Board's decision-making process.
Second, the Regional Board, by basing the wetland productivity requirement on the 4.7 kg/day
presumed impingement impacts proves that determining impingement impacts is of the utmost
importance. As written, the Regional Board's basis for impingement mitigation calculations in the order
is the assumption that a productivity of 1,715.5 kg/year will offset impingement impacts. This 1,715.5
kg/year productivity is "derived from the estimate of 4.7 kg/day" of impacts. Revised Tentative Order, p.
10. Thus, if the Regional Board truly found it unnecessary to resolve the dispute over what the CDP
impingement rate is, there would be no numerical value whatsoever assigned to such impact.
Further, the Regional Board directed staff to require, and has required through the Revised Tentative
Order, impingement monitoring once CDP operations begin. Revised Tentative Order, p. 11. Contrary
to the language currently contained in the order, this monitoring of impingement impacts is not merely
of passing interest as something "valuable to consider." Id. The order also allows the Regional Board to
require an adjustment of the annual fish productivity requirement of 1,715 kg/year dependent on these
impingement monitoring results. Thus, 1,715 kg/year is established as the benchmark from which
productivity, and by implication mitigation, is increased or decreased. If the impingement monitoring
results show an increased productivity, Poseidon will likely ask for mitigation credit. Phase I of the
MLMP requires only 37 acres of mitigation, with an additional 18.4 acres conditionally required in Phase
11. Revised Tentative Order, p. 9. Thus, if Poseidon meets productivity benchmarks imposed in the
Revised Tentative Order (i.e. 1,715 kg/year) and the real-time impingement monitoring shows impacts
less than 4.7 kg/day, Poseidon may potentially receive credit towards the required entrainment
mitigation, resulting in less than 55.4 acres of total mitigation. Thus, the 4.7 kg/day impingement
calculation is truly important, as it impacts the amount of mitigation required above and beyond 55.4
acres, and it also provides a mitigation banking mechanism where none existed before, and more
importantly, was never intended as described in more detail below. As the Coastal Commission has
reiterated, the CDP's impingement impacts have only recently come to light, and the mitigation imposed
by the Coastal Commission in the MLMP was for entrainment impacts. Coastal Commission Comments
to the Regional Board, May 6, 2009, p. 2-4, At most, Poseidon could receive credit for impingement of
.96kg/day. Id. at 4.
Poseidon Resources Carlsbad Desalination Project
Environmental Group Comment Letter
May 7, 2009
Page 8
In light of the Regional Board's requirement of real-time impingement monitoring, it is unsupportable to
include in the Revised Tentative Order an arbitrary benchmark, that only serves to benefit Poseidon. A
year-long data set of impingement impacts resulting from CDP operations, including heat treatments,
would be the best evidence of the CDP's intake and the resulting mortality. Any impingement mitigation
requirement based on this calculation would be the most defensible and scientifically supportable.
Biological Performance Standard
The biological performance standard productivity requirement of 1,715 kg/year for impingement
compensation, and the available fish biomass calculations are unsupported by the record, lack scientific
basis, and should be decided by the Science Advisory Panel. Revised Tentative Order, p. 14. As
pointed out by the Coastal Commission, the monitoring of wetland mitigation is required to take the
form of "fish productivity, which requires a substantially more involved and complex approach than
monitoring for biomass." Id. at 4. Moreover, the "Science Advisory Panel has already developed
rigorous monitoring methodologies that are completely consistent with scientific literature..." Id.
Poseidon's attempt to circumvent this process during Regional Board review is contrary to the Regional
Board directive and to the Coastal Commission's requirements in the MLMP.
Further, though biomass calculations are wholly inappropriate for determining fish productivity and
should not be applied in the manner suggested by Poseidon, the calculation methods themselves are
completely unfounded. Revised Tentative Order, p, 14. First, the premise for the calculations
themselves is the ability to create wetland mitigation for entrainment and impingement impacts within
the same acreage. This matter was not resolved by the Regional Board at its April hearing, nor was the
Regional Board clear as to how any such assessment would be made. See, Statement from Peter
Raimondi, Ph.D, April 1, 2009 ; Carlsbad Desalination Project, Environmental Groups' Supplemental
Comments, April 6, 2009, p. 11-13; Coastal Commission Comments to the Regional Board, May 6,
2009, p, 2-4. Importantly, the Coastal Commission has since expressly rejected Poseidon's assertion
that the entrainment mitigation can also be used as impingement mitigation.
However, the MLMP approved by the Commission does not include "excess" production
and does not provide for "crediting" mitigation towards an impact that the Commission
was not informed about and that was not included in its deliberations. The Commission's
review focused on determining how large an area would be needed to provide sufficient
habitat for producing the larvae lost to entrainment.
Coastal Commission Comments to the Regional Board, May 6, 2009, p. 3. The Coastal Commission, at
most, accounted for .96 kg/day of impingement in mitigation calculations. Id,
Second, the assumption that entrainment mitigation is only for the three most commonly entrained
species was not accepted by the Regional Board. The position that these three species are merely a
proxy for all entrainment impacts is supported by Dr. Raimondi (who was also the expert involved in the
Coastal Commission review process), by Regional Board staff, by contemporary scientific literature and
research, and by Environmental Groups. See Carlsbad Desalination Project, Environmental Groups'
Supplemental Comments, April 6, 2009 and Appendix. Thus, a calculation based on the assumption
that all species other than the most commonly entrained goby, blenny and garibaldi are "excess
production" would be inaccurate. Moreover, even if the calculation allowed for inclusion of species
biomass only excepting the three most commonly entrained fish, it would not support Poseidon's
proposed calculation. Not only is a biomass calculation of "all other species" overly inclusive, no basis
Poseidon Resources Carlsbad Desalination Project
Environmental Group Comment Letter
May 7, 2009
Page 9
exists to support the proposition that all other biomass can be attributable to impingement mitigation.
Even using Poseidon's logic only impinged organisms could be counted toward these impingement
productivity calculations.
However, as mentioned repeatedly, the house of cards upon which Poseidon has built its mitigation
structure topples when any of the foundational elements are removed:
1) Entrainment mitigation required in the MLMP by Coastal Commission was for entrainment
impacts. At most, the Coastal Commission considered .96 kg/day impingement.
2) Impingement impacts at the Coastal Commission were based on a premise of .5fps velocity,
now proven to be inaccurate.
3) Poseidon's impingement calculations were inaccurate, as revealed by staff shortly before the
April 2009 hearing. Real-time impingement impacts are the best basis for assessing CDP
impingement impacts. Any mitigation required to offset these impacts must be additional, over
and above the 55.4 acres required for entrainment impacts.
4) Heat treatments conducted during co-located operations are for the benefit of CDP when the
driving factor for intake is CDP, and must therefore be considered in impingement monitoring
and mitigation requirements.
5) Biological productivity of wetland mitigation is not equal to biomass, and is meant to be
determined by a Science Advisory Panel, as reiterated by the Coastal Commission.
Disagreement Between Administrative Agencies
The Coastal Commission has repeatedly spoken to the inconsistencies between the proposed
mitigation measures in the Revised Tentative Order and those adopted by the Coastal Commission in
the MLMP. Comments by the California Coastal Commission, April 6, 2009; Coastal Commission
Comments to the Regional Board, May 6, 2009. At its April 9, 2008 hearing, the Regional Board
specifically directed staff to work with other agencies in coordination, in order to comply with Section
13225 of the California Water Code. Resolution No. R9-2008-0039, p.3. Not only would adoption of the
Revised Tentative Order be contrary to this directive, it would frustrate the Coastal Commission's
requirements. Poseidon would potentially be unable to meet its MLMP performance standards as
mandated by the Coastal Commission. Coastal Commission Comments to the Regional Board, May 6,
2009, p.4-5.
Trigger for Stand-Alone Analysis
Though the Regional Board specifically asked for a trigger that would mandate stand-alone analysis,
the Board members did not give direction as to how stand-alone operations would be identified. The
proposed trigger for a new Report of Waste Discharge is EPS permanent shutdown of all generating
units. Revised Tentative Order, p. 2. This trigger does not take into account the reality of EPS current
and future operations. Though EPS is shutting down three of its five generating units, it already
operates at a reduced capacity compared to historical operations, and specifically those in 2006 at the
time of permit issuance. Once three of the five units are shut-down, EPS flows will be further reduced.
Under the current scenario, even if EPS flows are limited to the service pumps, or even to 1 MGD, the
Poseidon Resources Carlsbad Desalination Project
Environmental Group Comment Letter
May 7,2009
Page 10
CDP will not be considered a stand-alone facility. This creates a long-term scenario in which CDP is a
stand-alone facility in all but name, which not only incentivizes perpetual EPS operation, but allows
CDP to evade stand-alone Porter-Cologne section 13412.5 review.
The trigger for design or technology feature implementation to reduce intake and mortality is similarly
flawed. Only after EPS gives notice that it will not be operational for 180 days and will not be called
upon by Cal-ISO for power production will Poseidon have to evaluate possible design or technology
measures. Revised Tentative Order, p. 2. The Revised Tentative Order requires submission of a
technical report "evaluating the feasibility of any additional design or technology features within 45
days" of notification of EPS shutdown. Id.
The technical report shall include a detailed description of any feasible design or
technology measures, in addition to those identified in the [Minimization Plan] for
temporary shut down that Poseidon will use to minimize the intake and mortality of all
forms of marine life while EPS is in a period of prolonged temporary shutdown.
Revised Tentative Order, p. 17. Technology and design features that would reduce intake and mortality
during temporary periods of EPS shutdown become no more likely at the point of 180 days of shutdown
than at one day of reduced operation. Id. The proper time for technology and design feature planning
was at the time of the NPDES permit issuance, or within the 180 day timeline articulated in section
VI.C.2.(e).
The first alarming element of this provision is the requirement of notice that EPS will be shut down for
180 days before a technical report is even required. EPS must first have the foresight to know when it
will be shutdown for 180 days, and must simultaneously notify CDP (which is not required anywhere in
either the CDP or EPS permits). Then Poseidon has 45 days to develop a plan for technology or design
measures to minimize intake and mortality. This plan is subject to Executive Officer review, and is not
subject to Regional Board approval or public review. This entire provision amounts to a circumvention
of Porter-Cologne and the NPDES Permit section VI.C.2.(e). Not only are these the very measures
required by Porter-Cologne at the time of project approval, but they were required under VI.C.2(e).
Absolutely no basis exists for allowing Poseidon to formulate design or technology measures
subsequent to construction of CDP, and without public review or Regional Board approval. Moreover,
the imposition of only design or technology measures does not meet the section 13142.5(b) mandate
that "best available site, design, technology, and mitigation measures feasible shall be used to
minimize the intake and mortality of all forms of marine life." Porter-Cologne § 13142.5(b).
Another fatal flaw of the proposed requirement is the assertion that any feasible design or technology
measures are identified in the Minimization Plan. The Revised Tentative Order asserts that CDP has
little control over co-location operation and therefore the existing intake meets the best available design
criteria. Revised Tentative Order, p. 7. Thus, no design measures are required. The only measures
mentioned in the order are modified EPS pump configuration to reduce inlet and fine screen velocity
and ambient temperature processing. Id. However, with little to no explanation, these measures are
predetermined likely to be successful.
While the percentage of time EPS is temporarily shut down has not been predicted and
the Discharger has not quantified the expected reduction in impingement and
entrainment during operation under these conditions, it is reasonable to conclude that
Poseidon Resources Carlsbad Desalination Project
Environmental Group Comment Letter
May 7, 2009
Page 11
reductions in impingement and entrapment will occur when CDP implements these
features.
Id. With no information or quantification, it is unreasonable to assume any reductions in mortality will
result. Moreover, the Coastal Commission has provided evidence that Poseidon has misrepresented
intake velocities and that under all operating scenarios (with or without EPS operation) the intake
velocities will always exceed the .5 fps required as best technology by EPA. Coastal Commission
Comments to the Regional Board, May 6, 2009, p.2 and Attachment 1, »
Similarly, the Revised Tentative Order states that the proposed technology for the CDP is the best
available technology feasible under co-location operation. Revised Tentative Order, p. 8. The
alternative intakes and screening technologies were all discounted as infeasible. Specifically, the
alternative screening technologies would interfere with EPS operations. Id. Why EPS operations are
relevant in light of the requirement that EPS be shut down for 180 days before any co-located
technology requirement can even be analyzed (much less imposed) is puzzling. Further, if Poseidon is
able to discount certain technologies because of their interference with EPS operations, it would make
sense to specifically require those technologies when EPS shuts down for 180 days.
Regardless of the unexplained reason for imposition of this trigger, it does not meet section VI.2.C.(e)
requirements to require minimization of intake when EPS flows are insufficient to meet CDP needs, as
explained below.
NPDES Permit and Porter-Cologne Section 13142.5 Compliance
The Regional Board cannot adopt the Revised Tentative Order as proposed to meet the section
V!.C.2.(e) requirement of Poseidon's NPDES Permit, Order No. R9-2006-0065. The NPDES Permit
was reopened only to assess compliance with this provision.
The Discharger shall submit a Flow, Entrainment and Impingement Minimization Plan
within 180 days of adoption of the Order. The plan shall assess the feasibility of site
specific plans, procedures, and practices to be implemented and/or mitigation measures
to minimize the impacts to marine organisms when the CDP intake requirements exceed
the...volume...of water being, discharged.by the EPS. The plan shall be subject to the
approval of the Regional Water Board and shall be modified as directed by the Regional
WaterBoard.
Order No. R9-2006-0065, NPDES No. CA0109223, p. 22 (emphasis added). The basic premise of the
condition in section VI.C.2.(e) is a Porter-Cologne analysis for CDP operations when CDP is the driving
factor for EPS intake. Because Poseidon's Minimization Plan was originally due in January 2007,
Poseidon has had more than enough time to evaluate the necessary elements of section 13142.5(b).
However, in an effort to hurriedly approve the Minimization Plan, the Revised Tentative Order now
contains a provision requiring design or technology requirements after CDP is built, upon notice of 180
days of EPS shutdown, subject only to Executive Officer review. Revised Tentative Order, p. 2.
As discussed above, the trigger for design or technology measures is inadequate. However, it also fails
to meet the Permit section VI.C.2.(e) requirement for requiring assessment of measures to minimize
mortality "when the CDP intake requirements exceed the volume of water being discharged by the
EPS." Order No. R9-2006-0065, NPDES No. CA0109223, p. 22. The order requires, as does Porter-
Poseidon Resources Carlsbad Desalination Project
Environmental Group Comment Letter
May 7,2009
Page 12
Cologne, measures to reduce intake and mortality when EPS flows fall below 304 MGD (or would do so
but for CDP). Thus, requiring a 6-month shutdown of EPS before design or technology measures are
put in place (or even studied) does not meet the section VI,C.2,(e) or section 13142.5(b) requirements.
Throughout the approval process, the Regional Board has also made clear and expressed in no
uncertain terms that the approval of the Minimization Plan is for co-located operations only.
1) The Plan, including any amendments subsequently approved by the Regional Board, is of
limited duration and is applicable only to Poseidon's current cooperative operation with EPS.
Upon Poseidon's proposal to operate CDP independent of EPS or when EPS permanently
ceases power generation operations, it may be necessary to further evaluate appropriate
mitigation and/or minimization of impacts to marine organisms of CDP's operations. Resolution
No. R9-2008-0039, April 9, 2008, p. 2.
2) Poseidon's Plan, including any amendments that are subsequently approved by the Regional
Board, are of limited duration and are applicable only to CDP's current cooperative operation
with EPS. When Poseidon proposes to operate independent of EPS or EPS permanently
ceases power generation operations, EPS's cessation of power generation operations, would be
necessary to further evaluate appropriate mitigation and/or minimization of impacts to marine
organisms of CDP's operations. Resolution No. R9-2008-0039, April 9, 2008, p. 3.
3) This Provision was included in Order No. R9-2006-065 to ensure Poseidon Resources
Corporation applies the best available site, design, technology, and mitigation measures that
are feasible to minimize the intake and mortality of all forms of marine life during periods when
the Desalination Plant requires more seawater than is needed by the Encina Power Generation
Station. Provision VI.C.2.6 is consistent with California Water Code Section 13142.5(b). Public
Notice of Availability Flow,- Entrainment And Impingement Minimization Plan Poseidon
Resources Corporation Carlsbad Desalination Project, February 21, 2007, p. 1.
4) Poseidon's Plan, including any amendments that are subsequently approved by the Regional
Board, are of limited duration and are applicable oply to CDP's current cooperative operation
with EPS. When Poseidon proposes to operate independent of EPS or EPS permanently
ceases power generation operations, EPS's cessation of power generation operations, would be
necessary to further evaluate appropriate mitigation and/or minimization of impacts to marine
organisms of CDP's operations. Supplemental Executive Officer Summary Report, April 9,
2008, p. 2.
5) If EPS permanently ceases operations and the Discharger proposes to independently operate
the existing EPS seawater intake and outfall for the benefit of the CDP ("stand-alone
operation"), it will be necessary to evaluate whether, under those conditions, the CDP complies
with the requirements of Water Code section 13142.5(b). Additional review will be necessary in
part because under stand-alone operations, the Discharger will have more flexibility in how it
operates the intake structure and outfall and additional and/or better design and technology
features may be feasible. Tentative Order No. R9-2009-0038, March 13, 2009, p. 2.
Approval of the Minimization Plan, and Porter-Cologne compliance is valid only until EPS shuts down.
At that point, a new and thorough section 13142.5(b) analysis will be required. Although the Revised
Poseidon Resources Carlsbad Desalination Project
Environmental Group Comment Letter
May 7, 2009
Page 13
Tentative Order provides a mechanism for additional technology or design review upon EPS shutdown,
this is not consistent with the Regional Board and Poseidon's previous position.
While EPS is operating, it is expected to supply the majority of the water needed to
support desalination operations. As explained in staffs March 27,2009 staff report, even
though the Minimization Plan in many places discusses stand-alone operations, the
Regional Board will reconsider whether the Project satisfies Section 13142.5(b) should
EPS cease to operate. At this juncture, then, the Regional Board only need consider
whether the Minimization Plan assures the Project will comply with Section 13142.5{b)
when EPS provides insufficient water supply for the Project while operating in co-located
mode.
Latham and Watkins Comment Letter, April 2, 2009, p. 12. Because the Regional Board repeatedly
asserted that CDP stand-alone operations .would be subject to new Porter-Cologne analysis, changing
this mandate at the last minute, after the close of the comment period, with no explanation, is
unsupportable.
Further, as discussed at length in our previous comment letter, in light of the impending EPS shutdown
and regulatory shift in phasing out once-through cooling power plants, compliance with section 13142.5
requires a broader site alternatives analysis than for a co-located CDP. Carlsbad Desalination Project,
Environmental Groups' Supplemental Comments, April 6, 2009, p. 5-7,13-16. This is especially true for
a stand-alone CDP, where all intake and mortality will be attributable to CDP and Poseidon will have to
meet all the elements of section 13142.5(b) independently.
The Revised Tentative Order thus should require not only a design and technology review under
section 13142.5 upon EPS shutdown, but must also clarify that Porter-Cologne section 13142.5(b)
requires consideration of all its elements: the best site, design, technology, and mitigation measures.
Conclusion
The Revised Tentative Order does not accurately reflect the Regional Board's directive given at the
April 8th hearing, nor does it satisfy the NPDES Permit condition or Porter-Cologne section 13142.5{b).
Without the requested revisions and clarifications, the Regional Board cannot move forward with
approval of the Minimization Plan or adoption of the Revised Tentative Order.
Thank you for your careful consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
COAST LAW GROUP L4.P
Marco A. Gonzalez
Livia Borak
Attorneys for San Diego Coastkeeper
and the Surfrider Foundation
169 Saxony Road
Suite 204
Encinitas, CA 92024
COAST LAW Gnoui1 IIP Tel 760-942-8505
Fax 760-942-8515
www.coastlawgroup.com
May 12, 2009
Via Electronic Mail
John Robertas, Executive Officer jrob&rtus@waterboards.ca.gov
Chiara Clemente, Senior Environmental Scientist cdemente@waterboards.ca.gov
Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
9174 Sky Park Court, Suite 100
San Diego, CA. 92123-4340
RE: Proposed Order NO. R9-2006-0065. NPDES No. CA 0109223
Poseidon Resources Corporation Carlsbad Desalination Project
Flow, Entrainment and Impingement Minimization Plan
Environmental Group Objections '
Dear Mr. Robertus and Ms. Clemente:
On behalf of San Diego Coastkeeper and the Surfrider Foundation, please accept the following
objections regarding Regional Board procedures and Poseidon submissions for the Board's
May 13, 2009 consideration of Poseidon's proposed Flow, Entrainment, and Impingement
Minimization Plan for the Carlsbad Desalination Facility.
1. The Revised EOSR limits comments to the changes to the Tentative Order after the
Regional Board's April 8, 2009 meeting, to be submitted by May 6, 2009. (Revised EOSR, p.1)
However, the Regional Board prepared the Revised EOSR, errata, and a Revised Tentative
Order after the May 6l" deadline. As such, the formal deadline for comments on these
documents should have been extended, and the public notified that it was appropriate to
comment on documents disclosed after the official close of the comment period.
2. The Findings for the 2006 NPDES Permit state, "The Regional Water Board review and
approval of the Flow Minimization, Entrainment and Impingement Minimization Plan will address
any additional review required pursuant to Water Code Section 13142.5{b)." (Order No. R9-
2006-0065, Attachment F, p. F-50) The Minimization Plan does not address stand-alone
operations and the Regional Board specifically reserves consideration of stand-alone
operations at a future date, subject to the "trigger." (Revised Tentative Order, dated May 6,
2009, p. 2) The Regional Board has provided no basis for now refusing to conduct the required
stand-alone analysis at this point, except to state the "Discharger will have more flexibility in
how it operates the intake structure and outfall and additional and/or better design and
technology features may be feasible." (Id.) However, the flexibility afforded the Discharger once
EPS shuts down does not prevent analysis of design or technology features at this point.
3. The Regional Board now reserves only the right to review design or technology features
once EPS shuts down. (Id.) However, the Regional Board analysis of stand-alone operations
cannot be restrained to only some of the Porter-Cologne elements. PC § 13142.5(b).
Environmental Groups' Statement of Objections
Carlsbad Desalination Project
May 12,2009
Page 2
4. The Regional Board's finding that the EPS site was the "best available site feasible to
minimize the intake and mortality of all forms of marine life pursuant to Section 13142.5(b)
under conditions of co-location operation for the benefit of CDP" in 2006 as a "separate and
independent basis for a determination that the CDP has complied with 13142.5(b) for
co-location operation" is unsupported by the record and mischaracterizes the Regional Board's
determination. (Response to Comments, p.9; Order No. R9-2006-0065, Attachment F, p. F-49-
50) The Regional Board did not find the co-located operation at EPS for the benefit of CDP to
be the best site. Id, Although the Regional Board did not make an explicit finding as to site, the
most that can be inferred from the 2006 Findings is that, when EPS provides enough water to
support CDP operations, no additional impingement results and entrainment impacts are de
minimis. (Order No. R9-2006-0065, Attachment F, p, F-49-50) No conclusion regarding co-
location operation for CDP benefit was made, as Porter-Cologne compliance during such
conditions (as well as during stand-alone operations) was to be determined through the
Minimization Plan. (Id.) In light of the Regional Board's other findings at the time of NPDES
Permit issuance, such a reading is unsupported. The Regional Board found EPS flows were
greater than 304 MGD 99 percent of the time. (Order No. R9-2006-0065, Attachment F, p. F-6)
5. The Regional Board's alternative position that the Minimization Plan and supporting
documents constitute a separate and new determination as to the best site under co-located
operations is similarly unsupportable. (Response to Comments, p.9) The Regional Board
cannot, without notice, opportunity to comment, or explanation change its position as to the
determination of best site under co-located operations after the close of the comment period.
Further, this argument amounts to a post-hoc rationalization of a previous approval.
6. The Regional Board imposed section VI.C.2.(e) of the NPDES Permit to require a plan
to "minimize entrainment and impingement." (Id. at F-19) The current Minimization Plan does
not meet this requirement.
7. The determination as to best site under stand-alone operations, must be made before
project construction, or Poseidon faces the possibility of relocating the CDP to an entirely new
location which allows for new or different design or technology measures. The 2006 NPDES
Permit specifically called for section 13142.5(b) stand-alone analysis in the Minimization Plan.
(Order No. R9-2006-0065, Attachment F, p. F-49-50) Because this document was to be
submitted 180 days after permit issuance, the regulatory intent is clear: analysis and approval
of section 13142,5(b) compliance measures before construction of the project. (Order No. R9-
2006-0065, Section VI.C.2.(e)) Recognizing that the EPS shutdown is imminent, the Regional
Board's analysis of such compliance measures is even more pressing than it was in 2006.
8. The Response to Comments document provided by the Regional Board on May 8, 2009
reads largely as an excerpt from Poseidon's Response to Comments provided to the Regional
Board on May 7, 2009. (Regional Board Staff Responsiveness Summary ("Response to
Comments")) Although these comments were formally submitted on May 7th, previous versions
were submitted to Regional Board staff and counsel as early as April 8'", 2009. (Latham and
Watkins letter accompanying Poseidon's Proposed Response to Comments, May 7, 2009) As
mentioned in our previous submissions, Poseidon's preparation of staff's Response to
Comments is contrary to public policy, and prejudicial to the public. Moreover, Poseidon's
request to enter its version of the Response to Comments into the administrative record and
have them considered by the Regional Board shows Poseidon's failure to heed the public
Environmental Groups' Statement of Objections
Carlsbad Desalination Project
May 12,2009
Page 3
comment restrictions dictated by the Board. This 200-page document amounts to a comment
letter on all issues presented to the Board, with virtually not time for the public to digest and
respond. (See, Poseidon's Proposed Response to Comments) We object to inclusion of this
document in the administrative record and object to its use as the basis of staffs Response to
Comments.
9. Poseidon's and staff's reliance on and citation to Voices of Wetlands v. California State
Water Resources Control Board is inappropriate, unpersuasive, and suspect. (Response to
Comments, p. 14; Poseidon's Proposed Response to Comments, p. 23.) Because it is currently
being reviewed by the California Supreme Court, the case is not considered applicable
precedent and citation as such is improper. Further, there is no evidence in the record to
suggest that the Regional Board or staff relied upon this case in conducting a review of the
Minimization Plan.
10. The Regional Board's reliance on Coastal Commission findings, approvals, and permits
is an abuse of discretion. (Response to Comments, p.8-9) Poseidon has argued throughout the
permitting and judicial review process that the Regional Board has primary jurisdiction in
interpretation and imposition of Porter-Cologne section 13142.5(b) requirements. The Regional
Board's wholesale adoption of the Coastal Commission's findings is an abdication of the
Regional Board's responsibility under the Water Code, and of its permitting authority. In light of
the Coastal Commission's clarification of its approval and admonishment that the Regional
Board's Revised Tentative Order is in conflict with the Coastal Commission's decisions, such
reliance is also unsupported and misplaced. (See also, attached Statement of Decision,
Surfrider Foundation v. California Coastal Commission, San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-
2008-00075727, indicating Court's expectation that all Porter-Cologne related issues would be
addressed by the Board upon approval of the Flow Plan.)
11. The Regional Board's reliance on the Coastal Commission's findings and entrainment
mitigation is also suspect in light of the Regional Board's refusal to address Dr. Raimondi's
review of the MLMP for Regional Board purposes. (Response to Comments, p. 11) Dr.
Raimondi performed the Coastal Commission's independent mitigation review and considered
Poseidon's impingement calculations, assessment, and mitigation measures inaccurate,
leading to "double-counting."
12. As previously noted by Environmental Groups, the Regional Board's continued failure to
decide the amount and significance of impingement impacts resulting from CDP operations is
an abuse of discretion. (Response to Comments, p.5)
13. The Regional Board's reliance on Poseidon's stated objectives to constrain its analysis
pursuant to section 13142.5(b) is an abuse of discretion. (Response to Comments, p.6-8) Not
only are Poseidon's project objectives an inappropriate standard for Porter-Cologne analysis,
they are newly and recently injected arguments proposed by Poseidon for inclusion into the
administrative record.
14. The Regional Board's failure to acknowledge federal caselaw interpreting federal Clean
Water Act standards that implicate and guide Regional Board Porter-Cologne analysis is
arbitrary and capricious. (Response to Comments, p. 15; See also, State Water Resources
Control Board memorandum regarding Riverkeeper litigation, dated May 6, 2009, attached
Environmental Groups' Statement of Objections
Carlsbad Desalination Project
May 12,2009
Page 4
hereto.) The Regional Board further fails to provide any basis for such a position. (Id.)
15. The Regional Board's analysis and interpretation of section 13142.5(b) is a new
analysis, provided by Poseidon, which has not been vetted publicly, and has only been
presented after the close of the comment period as a post hoc rationalization. (Response to
Comments, p.13-14. See also, Poseidon's Proposed Response to Comments, p. 22-23.)
Thank you for your careful consideration of these and all prior comments submitted on behalf of
the Environmental Groups. While we endeavor not to repeat comments previously made,
please note that we reserve the right in subsequent appeals and litigation to revive and rely
upon all such arguments, and our willingness not to repeat ourselves does not mean we
acquiesce nor in any way agree with the Regional Board's resolution of such matters previously
identified.
Sincerely,
COAST LAW GROUP VLP
/larco A. Gonzalez
Livia Borak
EXHIBIT 13
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
September 2, 2009
Marco Gonzalez
Coast Law Group
1140 South Coast Highway 101
Encinitas, CA 92024
SUBJECT: AUGUST 19, 2009 LETTER ON DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES
Dear Mr. Gonzalez:
Thank you for your letter submitted on behalf of San Diego Coastkeeper and the California
Environmental Rights Foundation. The letter comments on the proposed Addendum to certified
Final Environmental Impact Report EIR 03-05. The City of Carlsbad prepared the Addendum to
document and analyzed changes proposed as part of the Desalination Project Changes project.
Enclosed are the City's responses to each of the comments in the letter. The responses were
prepared with the assistance of Dudek and Associates, the City's environmental consultant for
this project.
Sincerely,
SCOTT DONNELL
Senior Planner
File
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
City of Carlsbad Responses to
Coast Law Group's August 19, 2009, comments on
Proposed Addendum to certified Final EIR 03-05 -
Desalination Project Changes
COMMENT 1:
Inappropriate Public Process
As a preliminary matter, Environmental Groups, as well as the general public, have been
given little to no opportunity to review the City's Addendum and supporting documents.
The City made documents available to the public three business days before the
Planning Commission hearing, thus ensuring the public would not have sufficient time to
read and respond in writing to relevant materials. Though the newly prepared documents
alone are voluminous, the Addendum also cross references relevant sections in the
FEIR, requiring additional review of the massive FEIR for comparison. That the City has
not identified any rationale for such a truncated public process is not surprising given its
unwavering, bend-over-backwards support for the Project thus far. Please also accept
this correspondence as formal notice of the City's inappropriate and illegal evasion of
public review and comment requirements of CEQA by preparing an Addendum, as
opposed to a subsequent or supplemental EIR (collectively, "SEIR"). As you should be
aware, a SEIR would require a formal notice and comment period of at least 30 days.
The lack of opportunity for public input only speaks to the predetermined approval
process for the Carlsbad Desalination Project ("Project") at every level of review. In light
of the enormity of the Project and its implications, it is unreasonable to expect the public
to provide anything resembling meaningful comment within such a short time frame. As
such, please expect that Environmental Groups will appeal an approval by the Planning
Commission to the City Council, where extensive additional comments will be provided.
RESPONSE 1:
Section 15164(c) of the CEQA Guidelines provides guidance on a Lead Agency's
disposition of Addendum to an EIR, and states: "an Addendum need not be circulated for
public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR...". Therefore, the City's
procedural handling of the Addendum is consistent with CEQA Guidelines.
The City conducted a thorough review of the proposed changes to the Project, pursuant
to guidance provided in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines to determine the
appropriate need for a subsequent (or supplemental) EIR. Specifically, the City
examined the proposed Project changes, and changes in circumstances that may have
City of Carlsbad Responses to Coast Law Group's August 19, 2009, comments on
Proposed Addendum to certified Final EIR 03-05 -
Desalination Project Changes
September 2, 2009
Page 2
occurred since the time that the Final EIR was certified in 2006, based on Section 15162
of the State CEQA Guidelines, which states that:
(a) When an EIR has been certified...for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be
prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of
substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major
revisions of the previous EIR...due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects;
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which
the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous
EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects; or
3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and
could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at
the time the previous EIR was certified as complete...shows any of the
following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed
in the previous EIR;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more
severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be
feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce
one or more significant effects of the project, but the project
proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative;
or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably
different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would
substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the
environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the
mitigation measure or alternative.
City of Carlsbad Responses to Coast Law Group's August 19, 2009, comments on
Proposed Addendum to certified Final EIR 03-05 -
Desalination Project Changes
September 2, 2009
PageS
Each of these provisions were carefully reviewed against the proposed changes, and the
findings of that review are documented in detail in the Addendum. The City determined
that none of the changes or additions meet the standards as provided for a subsequent
EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15162.
The original Project EIR therefore is determined to be sufficient for purposes of fully
addressing the environmental effects of the Project as required under CEQA. It should
also be noted that the public review of the Draft EIR extended for a period of 60 days,
exceeding the minimum requirements of CEQA. In addition, the Final EIR was made
available to the public for nearly 6 months prior to the City taking action on the project.
Therefore, it is unreasonable to suggest that the City has deprived the public of
meaningful review and comment.
COMMENT 2:
The City is Required to Prepare a SEIR: Substantial changes to the Project and in
circumstances surrounding the Project require preparation of a SEIR. More than two
years have passed since the City certified the FEIR for the Project. Since that time,
several agencies have reviewed the Project and found the FEIR inadequate,
supplementing the document with new information. These efforts have revealed the
Project's significant negative impacts. Importantly, none of the newly discovered impacts
or mitigation measures was the subject of CEQA review or appropriate public process
before any agency subsequently reviewing the Project. In light of the EPS's planned
shutdown, as well as the State Water Resources Control Board's Proposed Water
Quality Control Policy on the Use of Coastal and Estuarine Waters for Power Plant
Cooling, previously deemed infeasible alternatives now also require consideration or
reconsideration.
RESPONSE 2:
See Response 1. The comment does not specify which agencies "found the EIR
inadequate", but in fact, agencies issuing permits or approvals for the proposed Project
to date have relied upon the project's Final EIR in taking their actions. None of the
permitting agencies has prepared any new, subsequent or supplemental CEQA
documentation, and therefore no new impacts or mitigation measures have been
identified under CEQA.
City of Carlsbad Responses to Coast Law Group's August 19, 2009, comments on
Proposed Addendum to certified Final EIR 03-05 -
Desalination Project Changes
September 2, 2009
Page 4
Shutdown of the EPS is not "planned". The EPS is comprised of five generating units,
all of which operate under existing valid permits, and are currently designated as
"Reliability Must Run (RMR)" by the California Independent Systems Operator (ISO). No
change in operating status or conditions have occurred for the EPS since the
certification of the Final EIR for the project, and there currently is no timetable for
shutdown of the EPS. The Final EIR considered alternatives pursuant to the
requirements of CEQA, and the findings of the alternatives analysis remains unchanged.
COMMENT 3:
Marine Life impacts Require Evaluation of Alternatives: The Regional Water Quality
Control Board ("Regional Board"), California Coastal Commission ("CCC"), and State
Lands Commission ("SLC"), imposed various mitigation measures to address the newly
discovered and significant marine life impacts of the Project. Though the Addendum
easily discounts mitigation measures as the result of different statutory regimes, these
requirements signal the need to prepare subsequent CEQA documentation evaluating
the feasibility of alternative intakes in light of the significance of the Project's impacts.
RESPONSE 3:
See Response 2. None of the conditions or other requirements placed on permits issued
by other agencies pursuant to laws, ordinances, regulations or policies other than CEQA
require additional analysis under CEQA
COMMENT 4:
Growth Inducement Impacts Have Increased: The FEIR did not discuss growth
inducing impacts to any level of detail, purportedly because the water supply projection
for desalination was considered in the San Diego County Water Authority ("SDCWA")
PEIR for the Regional Water Facilities Master Plan. However, at a programmatic level,
this document did not discuss the project's growth inducement potential with any level of
detail, and specifically did not address the pipeline connection to the SDCWA system
pipelines. Further, the SDCWA is now planning construction of a 150 MGD desalination
plant, adding to the cumulative growth inducement potential of desalinated water, and
requiring further mitigation.
RESPONSE 4:
The Final EIR contains extensive discussion on the potential for the Project to cause
growth, and provides all available information to support conclusions, without engaging
in speculation. As noted in Section 9.0 of the Final EIR, the Project is anticipated to have
City of Carlsbad Responses to Coast Law Group's August 19, 2009, comments on
Proposed Addendum to certified Final EIR 03-05 -
Desalination Project Changes
September 2, 2009
Page 5
similar effects to those analyzed for the Regional Water Facilities Master Plan prepared
by the San Diego County Water Authority, which was found to have the potential to
foster additional growth indirectly by removing barriers to growth. However, further
analysis of indirect effects on growth is not possible without unreasonable speculation.
As also noted in Section 9.0, while the overall effects on growth may not be fully
ascertainable, local effects are analyzed and documented. Section 9.0 of the Final EIR
discusses how local and regional growth projections and control mechanisms ensure
that the change in water supply represented by the Project would not result in growth
beyond what is already anticipated on a local and regional level.
The Regional Water Facilities Master Plan and Program EIR address desalination as a
supplemental regional water supply. To suggest that those documents did not
contemplate integrating desalinated seawater into regional supplies via regional
conveyance facilities is an unreasonable assertion.
The SDCWA is conducting a feasibility study on regional desalination of up to 150 MGD
(million gallons per day) in Camp Pendleton, as part of the agency's commitment to
diversify its water supply through desalinated water produced by the Project and
potential other plants in the region.. The feasibility study is in the early stages of
development, and does not constitute a "project" under CEQA. Additionally, meaningful
information about the Camp Pendleton facility is presently lacking (e.g., potable water
production output and seawater intake method and location have not been identified)
and a site for the facility has not been secured. For these reasons, its evaluation is not
possible or warranted at this time.
COMMENT 5:
Impacts to Geology and Soils Have Increased: The potential for erosion will increase
due to proposed undergrounding of additional Project components, as well as increase
in the size of the delivery pipelines. Significant additional excavation and dirt hauling will
also result from these activities, which have not been addressed in the addendum.
RESPONSE 5:
As documented in the Addendum, the changes proposed for the Project would reduce
the total overall grading and excavation required for the Project by approximately 34,746
cubic yards for project components proposed at the Encina Power Station. The
proposed reduction in the length of the delivery pipelines would reduce the amount of
earthwork required for the pipelines by 333,001 cubic yards, a 56% reduction in grading.
City of Carlsbad Responses to Coast Law Group's August 19, 2009, comments on
Proposed Addendum to certified Final EIR 03-05 -
Desalination Project Changes
September 2, 2009
Page6
Therefore, this comment is incorrect in stating that additional impacts were not
addressed.
COMMENTS:
Noise will Increase: The installation of new pipelines along busy streets and rights of
way will cause increased noise impacts, potentially both with respect to instantaneous
maximums, as well as weighted hour averages. This is particularly relevant to sensitive
receptors such as the residential areas along Linda Vista and 9th Streets.
RESPONSE 6:
As documented in the Addendum, the proposed changes to the Project will not increase
the level of any previously identified noise impacts and will not create any new potential
impacts. The updated Project will continue to operate in the same manner as evaluated
and will not increase the level of potential operational noise impacts. In fact, noise
impacts have the potential to be reduced due to the undergrounding of various on-site
pipes and the intake pump. Furthermore, the type and intensity of the site's construction
will not change from what was evaluated within the FEIR and the Project will continue to
adhere to any and all applicable noise regulations and to operate during appropriate
hours of construction.
COMMENT?:
Traffic Impacts will Increase: The reduction in cut/fill hauling is unsubstantiated in light
of the increase in underground Project components. Moreover, the new pipeline
installation in busy, residential and commercial neighborhoods will increase traffic
impacts.
RESPONSE 7:
See Response 5; the revised Project will not increase, but rather will decrease the
overall grading and truck hauling of spoils. As documented in the Addendum, the overall
pipeline length will be reduced 7% from 17.4 miles to about 16.2 miles and associated
grading requirements will also be reduced by 56%. Consequently, traffic impacts
associated with earth moving equipment and associated haul trucks and other
construction-related vehicles will correspondingly decrease from what was analyzed in
the Final EIR. Regardless, the Final EIR included the mitigation measure that the
applicant must demonstrate that construction operations will not result in unacceptable
Levels of Service during peak hour periods on any affected roadways and that specific
traffic control measures as set forth within an approved traffic control plan are
City of Carlsbad Responses to Coast Law Group's August 19, 2009, comments on
Proposed Addendum to certified Final EIR 03-05 -
Desalination Project Changes
September 2, 2009
Page?
implemented. Such measures will continue to apply to all of the roadways proposed for
location of the revised pipeline alignment.
COMMENT 8:
Use of Public Utilities will Increase: By operating at the FEIR's "historical extreme"
more frequently (and continuously upon EPS shutdown) the Project will require more
energy to operate to draw 304 MG of water instead of 104 as anticipated.
RESPONSE 8:
See Response 2. No change in operating status, or conditions have occurred for the
EPS since the certification of the Final EIR for the project, and there currently is no
timetable for shutdown of the EPS.
COMMENT 9:
Aesthetic and Coastal-Related Impacts Have Increased: The Project's connection to
the SDCWA pipeline system enables physical movement of Project water throughout the
County. The Project's intake of seawater, whether via the existing powerplant intake or
otherwise, does not require location of the physical desalination plant on the coast.
Therefore, the Project is no longer to be considered coastal dependent and should be
relocated to an inland location.
RESPONSE 9:
The use of regional conveyance facilities to deliver product water is irrelevant to the
location of the desalination plant, or to the project's coastal dependency. Because
seawater is required for operation of the proposed Project, and because withdrawal of
seawater is inherently a coastal-dependent use, the Project is coastal dependent,
regardless of the physical location of the desalination plant itself. Moreover, locating the
physical plant farther from the source water (the Pacific Ocean) would require additional
pumping of both source water and discharge, resulting in increased energy use, and
could potentially result in additional impacts on biological resources, air quality, noise,
traffic, and cultural resources due to the increased length of conveyance facilities.
COMMENT 10:
Air Quality/Global Warming Impacts Have Increased: The original Project proposal's
energy requirements will contribute to increased regional GHG emissions, which will
incrementally exacerbate global climate destabilization. As currently proposed and
City of Carlsbad Responses to Coast Law Group's August 19, 2009, comments on
Proposed Addendum to certified Final EIR 03-05 -
Desalination Project Changes
September 2, 2009
PageS
mitigated by other agencies, the Project will still annually contribute more than 60,000
metric tons of CO2 to the atmosphere.
RESPONSE 10:
The Final EIR contains a complete analysis of the project's impact on air emissions,
including greenhouse gas related emissions. That analysis also considers and quantifies
indirect emissions from energy consumption. This comment does not raise any issues
related to the environmental analysis, and therefore no further response is possible.
COMMENT 11:
Mandatory Significance Finding: Global Warming and Marine Life impacts result in a
mandatory finding of significance pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15065(a).
RESPONSE 11:
As discussed in the Addendum, no substantial changes to the project, or to the
circumstances under which the project will be undertaken, have occurred since
certification of the Final EIR, and therefore no changes to the findings of the analysis
under CEQA are warranted.
COMMENT 12:
Cumulative Impacts: The future CECP, LOSSAN Rail Corridor, Coastal Rail Trail, I-5
Widening, and concurrent construction of a development near the Rancho Santa Fe
Drive and Pawnee Street pipeline segment, constitute substantially changed
circumstances surrounding the Project which will involve new or increased significant
environmental impacts, including:
- Growth Inducement
- Air Quality and Global Warming
- Geology and Soils
- Hydrology and Water Quality
- Land Use Planning
- Traffic and Circulation
- Public Utilities and Service Systems
RESPONSE 12:
The potential for the CECP, LOSSAN Rail Corridor, Coastal Rail Trail, and I-5 Widening
to result in substantial changes in cumulative impacts identified in the Final EIR is
addressed in the Addendum, with the conclusion being that the effects of these
City of Carlsbad Responses to Coast Law Group's August 19, 2009, comments on
Proposed Addendum to certified Final EIR 03-05 -
Desalination Project Changes
September 2, 2009
Page 9
additional cumulative projects do not meet the standards for a subsequent or
supplemental EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15162. It is unclear what
"concurrent construction of a development near the Rancho Santa Fe Drive and Pawnee
Street pipeline segment" is referenced in the comment, therefore a specific response on
that point is not possible. However, the segment of pipeline between Rancho Santa Fe
Drive and Pawnee Street is approximately 400 feet in length, and construction would
occur within a relatively short period of time.
COMMENT 13:
Potential Increased Production Capacity: The addition of increased product water
storage tanks and increased diameter delivery pipelines; new configuration and
increased discharge capacity of the intake and discharge pipes; and the exchange and
wheeling agreement with the SDCWA all point to Poseidon's intention to increase
production capacity. If Poseidon intends to increase production capacity, such an
intention must be disclosed and evaluated during the City's CEQA review process.
RESPONSE 13:
The proposed Project is as it is described in the Final EIR and Addendum, and as it is
permitted. No additional production capacity is proposed at this time, and future
expansions in capacity would require additional review and approval.
COMMENT 14:
Development Standards/Lot Coverage: The smaller facilities should be used in the
calculation of coverage. The 46 percent coverage is underestimated currently to meet
the 50 percent coverage maximum limitation.
RESPONSE 14:
It should be noted that the 46% coverage figure referenced in the comment is for
informational purposes only. The lot coverage standard is applied to the entire 95-acre
parcel comprising the EPS. As noted in the staff report, the coverage of existing and
proposed facilities on the parcel totals 15% of the parcel, which is well within the
Municipal Code standard of 50% maximum coverage.
Furthermore, the 5.7 acre desalination plant site is a leasehold and does not meet the
definition of "lot" per Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.04.210.
City of Carlsbad Responses to Coast Law Group's August 19, 2009, comments on
Proposed Addendum to certified Final EIR 03-05 -
Desalination Project Changes
September 2, 2009
Page 10
COMMENT 15:
Coastal Development Permit Revision: Changes to configuration of the Project, intake
and discharge pipes, and increased storage tank capacity all have implications to the
Project's Coastal Development Permit, issued by the Coastal Commission. Though
Poseidon claims such changes will not affect the previous approval, such changes will
require subsequent approval by the Coastal Commission.
RESPONSE 15:
It is the City's understanding that no further review or permitting by the Coastal
Commission would be triggered by the proposed Project changes. However, the Coastal
Commission's review is not relevant to the City's review process or the adequacy of the
Addendum.
COMMENT 16:
Cumulative impacts: The addendum fails to identify significant additional projects
within the proposed revised pipeline routes.
RESPONSE 16:
This comment doe not identify specific "additional projects", and therefore a more
detailed response is not possible. However, the City did employ a reasonable search for
potential cumulative projects that were not known at the time that the Final EIR was
certified. A list of those projects, and an analysis of the potential cumulative
environmental effects against the criteria contained in Section 15162 of the CEQA
Guidelines, is presented in the Addendum. The result of that analysis revealed that the
effects of additional cumulative projects do not meet the standards for a subsequent or
supplemental EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15162.
COMMENT 17:
Claim of Benefits does not abrogate need for SEIR: Staff's claims that proposed
changes to CDP result in net benefit to any future redevelopment of the EPS is not
sufficient rationale to avoid disclosure of impacts and necessary mitigation impacts in the
SEIR.
RESPONSE 17:
The City has not avoided disclosure of any environmental effects, and no SEIR is
required. Substantial evidence of these facts is contained in the Final EIR and
Addendum.
City of Carlsbad Responses to Coast Law Group's August 19, 2009, comments on
Proposed Addendum to certified Final EIR 03-05 -
Desalination Project Changes
September 2, 2009
Page 11
COMMENT 18:
Wildlife Impacts: Because the habitat surrounding the project site includes a significant
stopover for migrating waterfowl, the alignment of project buildings may provide new or
enhanced perching opportunities for foraging raptors. This impact is nowhere identified
in the addendum or accompanying documents.
RESPONSE 18:
The "habitat surrounding the project-site" is not defined in the comment. The areas
surrounding the desalination plant site are primarily comprised of developed and
disturbed land that are part of the EPS. However, if the reference is to the Agua
Hedionda Lagoon, the proposed revisions would orient the desalination plant's footprint
farther away from the Agua Hedionda Lagoon than previously proposed, and therefore
would result in the project being farther from any sensitive resources within the lagoon.
Moreover, the presence of intervening trees and structures between the lagoon and the
proposed desalination plant include tall eucalyptus trees and existing fuel oil storage
tanks and other appurtenant facilities of the EPS, which limit line of sight from the
desalination plant site to the lagoon. The project is also bordered to the east by a row of
eucalyptus trees. Therefore, the existing baseline conditions on the site, as well as the
proposed revisions to the project, would not provide any new or enhanced opportunities
for foraging raptors.
COMMENT 19:
Incomplete Staff Report: At page 3, at bottom of the page, the paragraph ends
midsentence and does not continue on to page 4 and therefore the document is
incomplete.
RESPONSE 19:
The administrative error in the staff report is not relevant to the adequacy of the
Addendum. Nevertheless, the portion of the staff report with the missing text is
presented below. The missing text is shown underlined.
• Desalination plant site reconfiguration and expansion: As approved, the plant has
an east-west orientation that would occupy a 3.2 acre oil storage tank and
surrounding containment berm. The tank, to be demolished, is the southernmost
of three tanks nearest and visible to Carlsbad Boulevard. As proposed, the
desalination plant site would expand to the south of its current location and away
City of Carlsbad Responses to Coast Law Group's August 19, 2009, comments on
Proposed Addendum to certified Final EIR 03-05 -
Desalination Project Changes
September 2, 2009
Page 12
from Agua Hedionda Lagoon, due to the consolidation of uses into one area that
were previously spread throughout the EPS in the original approval. The new
plant site would have a north-south orientation spread over 5.7 acres and parallel
with the railroad tracks.
COMMENT 20:
Neighboring City Impacts: The addendum to the EIR identifies that pipelines will or
may extend into neighboring cities, but fails to address the impacts associated with
those extensions.
RESPONSE 20:
The Addendum clearly identifies the extent and location of proposed pipelines in
neighboring cities, and addresses the potential effects of the pipeline construction within
the revised alignments.
EXHIBIT 14
Planning Commission Minutes August 19,2009 Page 3
1. EIR 03-05(A)/PDP 00-02(B)/SP 144(J)/DA 05-01(A)/RP 05-12(A1/HMP 05-08(A) -
DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES - Request for recommendation of approval of an
addendum to Environmental Impact Report EIR 03-05 and approval of amendments to
the Precise Development Plan, Encina Specific Plan, Development Agreement,
Redevelopment Permit and the Habitat Management Plan Permit. The Carlsbad City
Council and Housing and Redevelopment Commission certified EIR 03-05 and approved
these various applications and permits in 2006 to (1) establish a Precise Development
Plan for the Encina Power Station (EPS), (2) approve a 50 million gallon a day Carlsbad
Seawater Desalination Plant at the EPS, and (3) approve a network of desalinated water
delivery pipelines in Carlsbad, Oceanside, and Vista. The amendments proposed would
reconfigure the approved desalination plant site, modify plant building and structure sizes
and locations, consolidate plant uses, and underground related plant facilities, all on the
EPS property. The proposed changes would also modify the delivery pipeline network,
located off of the EPS property, by (1) identifying the general locations of flow control
facilities, (2) making minor adjustments to the alignment, and (3) adding new pipelines
south of Palomar Airport Road in Melrose Drive and east of Melrose Drive into San
Marcos primarily via streets in Carlsbad, San Marcos and Vista. The approved and
proposed pipelines would connect to existing water facilities and would be located in
street rights of way and already developed and disturbed properties. Portions of the
development are located in the Coastal Zone. The Addendum to EIR 03-05 would
analyze all changes proposed. An addendum is appropriate for minor, post-approval
changes that do not warrant preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR.
Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 1 and stated Senior Planner Scott Donnell would make the Staff
presentation.
Vice Chairperson Douglas asked the applicant if he wished to continue with only 6 Commissioners
present. The applicant stated yes.
Vice Chairperson Douglas opened the public hearing on Item 1.
Mr. Donnell gave a detailed presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions.
Vice Chairperson Douglas asked if there were any questions of Staff. Seeing none, she asked if the
applicant wished to make a presentation.
Peter MacLaggan, representing Poseidon Resources, gave a detailed presentation and stated he would
be available to answer any questions.
Chris Garrett, an attorney working with Poseidon Resources, gave a brief presentation regarding the
various environmental issues of the project.
Vice Chairperson Douglas stated the Commissioners received an errata sheet as well as a letter from
Marco Gonzales.
Vice Chairperson Douglas asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Seeing none, she opened
public testimony on the item.
Ted Owen, president and CEO of the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce, 5934 Priestly Drive, read a letter
of support into the record.
Kimberly Thorner, 3218 Avenida de Alba, Carlsbad, representing Olivenhain Municipal Water District, on
behalf of the San Diego Desal Partners, asked that the Commission approve the amended permits.
\
Planning Commission Minutes August 19,2009 Page 4
Sara Honadle, representing Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation and Coast Law Group, spoke in
opposition to the project.
Livia Borak, on behalf of San Diego Coast Keeper, urged the Commission to require a full EIR on the
amendments.
Joni Miringhoff, 7551 Esfera Street, Carlsbad, urged the Commission to approve the proposed
amendments.
Paul O'Neal, president and CEO of the Vista Chamber of Commerce, 201 Washington, Vista, stated he
approves of the proposed changes.
Vice Chairperson Douglas asked if there were any other members of the audience who wished to speak
on the item. Seeing none, she closed public testimony on the item and asked if the applicant wished to
respond to any of the issues raised.
Mr. Garrett stated the project will not use once-through cooling as was suggested during the public
testimony period. .The power plant is not going to shut down and generating units 4 and 5 are scheduled
to continue to operate. In regards to a stand-alone situation, if the power plant shut down completely and
permanently, additional analysis was made part of the Environmental Impact Report at the environmental
groups request during the project's original approval process. There is a condition which requires the
project to go through a new CEQA process should a stand-alone situation arise, and that condition is still
in the project's approval.
Vice Chairperson Douglas asked if there were any questions of the applicant.
Commissioner Dominguez stated Ms. Borak made a comment regarding extra mitigation requirements
and asked Mr. Garrett to elaborate on that issue. Mr. Garrett stated that the City found that the impacts to
marine life were not significant. The situation would be even less of an impact should there be a stand-
alone situation later. The Coastal Commission agreed but asked for more mitigation per the Coastal Act
and imposed a condition on the applicant. The State Lands Commission, as well as the Regional Board,
asked for similar conditions requesting additional offsite acreage to mitigate for anything that would be
lost due to the entrainment process.
Commissioner Baker asked if the offsite mitigation sites have been identified. Mr. Garrett stated there is a
Marine Life Mitigation program, which has been approved by the Coastal Commission, State Lands
Commission and the Regional Board, and it has a general plan for where the mitigation can be. The plan
states the areas have to be in the southern California area and it has to meet a series of biological
standards for new wetlands that would be created.
Mr. MacLaggan described the Marine Life Mitigation Plan.
Vice Chairperson Douglas asked Staff to respond to the issues raised.
Mr. Donnell stated the changes are minor and immaterial. In regards to the comment regarding the
amount of materials, the addendum itself is only 50 pages and is not voluminous. Mr. Donnell stated the
Staff Report and related resolutions however are quite lengthy. Alternative intake methods for the project
were considered but later rejected because they were found to have more environmental impacts than
the method that has been selected. Mr. Donnell further stated the addendum is adequate as it analyzes
the impacts associated with the changes to the plant as well as to the pipeline network and finds that the
analysis and mitigation of the project's EIR remain adequate. Mr. Donnell also stated that there is a
condition, Condition No.7 in Resolution 6635, regarding the project should there be a stand-alone
situation for the project in the future.
Vice Chairperson Douglas asked if there were any questions of Staff.
Planning Commission Minutes August 19,2009 Page 5
Commissioner Baker asked about the intake amounts per day. Mr. Donnell deferred the question to Mr.
Monaco. Joe Monaco, Dudek and Associates, stated that at the time the EIR was prepared, the average
daily cooling water intake for the power plant was 550 mgd. The project requires 304 mgd for production
water as well as the amount needed for dilution. Mr. Monaco stated 304 mgd is the amount needed
without the running of the power plant. If for any reason the power plant's cooling water intake fell below
304 mgd, then additional water would be needed for dilution purposes.
Commissioner Baker asked if the power plant draws in water during the times it is not running. Mr.
Monaco stated it does draw in water but he does not have the figures for the specific operations of the
power plant. The 550 mgd amount was used as the basis for the analysis. Mr. Monaco stated the
permitted volume for intake for the power plant is 850 mgd.
Commissioner L'Heureux asked what happens at the end of the 30 year contract with Poseidon. Mr.
Donnell stated that is related to agreements in place for the desalination plant to purchase water. The
agreement can be renewed twice.
Commissioner Nygaard asked if it was correct that the Water Quality Control Board placed a requirement
that when the once through cooling method was stopped with the power plant there would have to be
another review. Mr. Monaco stated that the desalination project would not require an intake permit
because it operates off an existing discharge of the power plant. An intake permit would be required for
non-operation or permanent discontinuation of the power plant.
Commissioner Schumacher asked if the intake pipes would stay the same in a stand-alone situation and
if the other facilities would remain the same in a stand-alone situation. Mr. Monaco stated that they
looked at what the CEQA standard is for reasonably foreseeable circumstances, and based on all the
factors considered, the base line was operation of the power plant. The project described in the EIR did
not contemplate what changes might be required of the facilities to accommodate non-operation of the
power plant. Mr. Donnell stated that if the power plant were to cease operation, it would come back
before the Planning Commission as amendments to all the permits being considered for approval tonight
and most likely an Environmental Impact Report.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Dominguez, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission 1) adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 6631, recommending
approval of an Addendum to Environmental Impact Report EIR 03-05, as contained
in application EIR 03-05(A); and 2) adopt Planning Commission Resolutions No.
6632, 6633, 6634, 6635, and 6636 recommending approval of Precise Development
Plan Amendment POP 00-02(6), Specific Plan Amendment SP 144(J), Development
Agreement Amendment DA 05-01 (A), Redevelopment Permit Amendment RP 05-
12(A), and Habitat Management Plan Permit Amendment HMP 05-08(A) based on
the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein including the errata
sheet submitted on August 19, 2009.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Baker commended Staff and the applicant on an excellent presentation. She stated she
has no problems with the amendments for the project. She stated she fails to see how the changes to the
project create any more environmental issues.
Commissioner L'Heureux thanked Staff and the applicant for the wonderful job in the presentation. He
stated the changes are minor and insubstantial, and he stated he can support the project.
Planning Commission Minutes August 19,2009 Page 6
Commissioner Nygaard also thanked Staff and the applicant. She feels the changes are minimal, and
she concurs with her fellow Commissioners. She feels the changes will be a great improvement to the
project.
Commissioner Schumacher also thanked Staff for their thorough job. He also stated the changes are an
improvement by making a more compact site by consolidating the facilities.
Commissioner Dominguez stated his appreciation for the efforts by Staff in making this project as
understandable as it was. He feels the addendum is the appropriate method for the project.
Vice Chairperson Douglas stated the modifications are a great improvement to the original plan. She
stated she is very happy the visible footprint of the building is smaller and more compact. She further
stated she can fully support the project.
VOTE
VOTE: 6-0
AYES: Vice Chairperson Douglas, Commissioner Baker, Commissioner Dominguez,
Commissioner L'Heureux, Commissioner Nygaard and Commissioner Schumacher
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chairperson Montgomery
ABSTAIN: None
Vice Chairperson Douglas closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 1 and called for a 10 minute recess.
RECESS
Vice Chairperson Douglas called for a 10 minute recess at 7:40 p.m.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Vice Chairperson Douglas called the meeting to order at 7:50 p.m. with all Commissioners present and
asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item.
4. CDP 09-08/SUP 09-03/HMP 09-06 - ENCINAS CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT-
Request for the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program and the approval of a Coastal Development Permit, Special Use
Permit, and Habitat Management Plan Permit to replace the existing bridge located on
southbound Carlsbad Boulevard approximately 0.6 mile south of Palomar Airport Road
and 1-mile north of Poinsettia Lane in the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program
and within Local Facilities Management Zone 22.
Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 4 and stated Associate Planner Pam Drew would make the Staff
presentation.
Vice Chairperson Douglas opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 4.
Ms. Drew gave a brief presentation and stated she would be available to answer any questions.
Vice Chairperson Douglas asked if there were any questions of Staff.
Commissioner Dominguez asked if it would be advisable to include the letter submitted August 18, 2009
regarding the archeological issues as part of the motion. Ms. Drew stated yes.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT (CEQA) ADDENDUM
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DESALINATION PLANT PROJECT
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 03-05)
State Clearinghouse No. 2004041081
EIR Certified June 13, 2006
Prepared for:
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008-7314
Contact: Scott Donnell
Senior Planner
760.602.4618
Prepared by:
Dudek
605 Third Street
Encinitas, California 92024
Contact: Joseph Monaco
Principal
760.942.5147
August 2009
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR) contains a comprehensive disclosure and analysis of potential environmental
effects associated with the implementation of the seawater desalination plant and associated
off-site water delivery pipelines. The purpose of this Addendum is to provide clarification of the
minor changes to the Project and to provide explanation supported by substantial evidence as
to why these proposed changes will not result in any new impacts or any increase in the severity
of impacts addressed in the FEIR.
2.0 CEQA REQUIREMENTS
Cal. Code of Regulations title 14 (hereinafter, “State CEQA Guidelines”), sections 15162
through 15164 discuss a lead agency’s responsibilities in handling new information that was not
included in a project’s final environmental impact report.
Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides:
(a) When an EIR has been certified…for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for
that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in
the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major
revisions of the previous EIR…due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects;
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or
Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
effects; or
3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not
have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the
previous EIR was certified as complete…shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the
previous EIR;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe
than shown in the previous EIR;
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
3
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible
would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to
adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from
those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or
more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents
decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
In the alternative, where some changes or additions are necessary to the previously approved
FEIR, but none of the changes or additions meet the standards as provided for a subsequent
EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15162, then the lead agency is directed to
prepare an Addendum to the FEIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, section 15164). Further, the
Addendum should include a “brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR
pursuant to Section 15162,” and that “explanation must be supported by substantial evidence.”
(State CEQA Guidelines, section 15164, subd. (e).) The addendum need not be circulated for
public review, but may simply be attached to the Final EIR (Ibid.; State CEQA Guideline,
section 15164, subd. (c)).
3.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND REGIONAL SETTING
The desalination plant will be located on the Encina Power Station (EPS) site, adjacent to the
existing power plant, located immediately south of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, within the City of
Carlsbad, in northern San Diego County. The EPS and proposed desalination plant are located
at 4600 Carlsbad Boulevard, along the southern edge of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon on the
Pacific Ocean. The EPS comprises approximately 95 acres, and is generally bounded by San
Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) property on the south, the Pacific Ocean and Carlsbad
Boulevard on the west, Interstate 5 on the east, and the southern shore of the outer and middle
basins of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon on the north. Additionally, off-site water conveyance
facilities extend beyond the proposed desalination plant site.
4.0 DESCRIPTION OF APPROVED PROJECT
In 2006, the City of Carlsbad (City) approved an amendment to the Precise Development Plan
(PDP) for the EPS to obtain land use approvals to construct and operate an approximately 50
million gallon per day (mgd) Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Plant (desalination plant) and
other appurtenant and ancillary water and support facilities to produce potable water. The PDP
application was made jointly with Cabrillo, owner and operator of the EPS, which is adjacent to
the site of the proposed desalination plant.
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
4
The EPS Precise Development Plan establishes general planning policies and development
standards for the planning area, and permits administrative processing for minor land use
modifications. It also serves as the primary land use approval mechanism for the desalination
plant. The Plan establishes baseline conditions for existing facilities and operations on site as
well as establishes procedures for administrative approvals for future changes within the PDP
area. The development standards apply to all future on-site development, including major and
minor additions and modifications. The desalination plant would not modify EPS operations,
and, with the exception of discharge channel and electrical connections, does not modify any of
the existing EPS facilities. With the inclusion of the intake pump station and pipeline,
concentrate return pipeline, sewer connection, backwash water treatment facility, electrical
transformers, substation, electrical transmission lines, road improvements, and product water
pipeline, all of which are remotely located from the desalination plan on the EPS property,
construction of the combined desalination plant and remotely located on-site facilities was
originally proposed on a 5.67-acre site. The off-site water delivery pipelines lie outside of the
PDP boundary.
The proposed desalination plant will have the capacity to deliver approximately 50 mgd of
Reverse Osmosis (RO) permeate (product water). The desalinated water from the desalination
plant will be distributed along several pipeline routes to the City of Carlsbad and various local
water districts as wholesale water purchasers for ultimate use and consumption by homes and
businesses in Northern San Diego County. The on-site and off-site components of the
desalination plant are described in more detail in Section 3.0, Project Description of the FEIR.
To facilitate distribution of product water, the EIR analyzed different pipeline alignments through
portions of Carlsbad, Oceanside, and Vista.
All components of the desalination plant, including all on-site and off-site Project elements, are
proposed to be sized and built to accommodate and deliver 50 mgd of product water. City
required applications for the desalination facility were submitted to the City for review in May
2000. The City approved all Project applications and certified the Project's Final Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR) on June 13, 2006. Project applicant remains Poseidon Resources,
(Channelside) LLC., Cabrillo Power I, LLC remains the owner of the EPS.
5.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE PROJECT
Desalination Plant Changes
Changes to the desalination plant consist of reconfiguring the plant, consolidating uses, and
rerouting and undergrounding the source water and discharge pipelines and intake (source
water) pump station. The original design located the facility almost entirely within the existing
berm/containment area of EPS’ oil storage tank #3, with the pretreatment filter area located on
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
5
the west end of the site, and the reverse osmosis (RO) trains and storage, mechanical, and
office uses (collectively, “RO Building”) located on the east side. Plant support facilities,
including the solids handling building and electrical transformers, were located within the
boundaries of the EPS but not within the desalination plant site. These facilities are sometimes
referred to as “on-site facilities” in the FEIR.
The proposed revisions would reconfigure the desalination plant site to occupy the eastern
approximately two-thirds of the EPS oil tank #3 site, as well as additional land located to the
south. The revised site would occupy an area of approximately 5.7 acres within the EPS site,
excluding the source water and discharge pipelines and intake pump station. The facilities also
would be positioned to place the pretreatment filtration area in the northeastern portion of the
newly configured site. The RO Building would be moved to the west-central portion of the site.
Relocation of the RO Building may slightly reduce the visible mass of the desalination plant as
viewed from points across Agua Hedionda Lagoon to the west and north of the site, such as
Carlsbad Boulevard.
Post-treatment, chemical storage and solids handling and transformer facilities would be located
east of the RO Building, adjacent to the rail right-of-way. These facilities, along with the
pretreatment area, would be screened from view by tall, freestanding walls designed to present
a building-like appearance from the site exterior. Product water storage would change from a
1.0 million gallon underground tank to a 3.4 million gallon underground tank on the southern
portion of the site to provide additional storage capacity. Although the tank will be larger, it will
be placed underground, and therefore not visible.
In addition to the changes described, sizes of various plant components, such as the
pretreatment area and solids handling building, would change. Table 1, Comparison between
Approved and Proposed Desalination Plant, shows the differences between the approved and
proposed plans.
Table 1: Comparison between Approved and Proposed Desalination Plant
Feature Approved (PDP 00-02/RP 05-12) Proposed (PDP 00-02(B)/RP 05-12(A)
Desalination Plant Site
Overall dimensions 310' (n-s) x 440' (e-w) approx 800' (n-s) x 290' wide (e-w,avg) approx
Area
3.2 acres, excludes transformers & solids
bldg
5.7 acres, includes transformers & solids
bldg
Pretreatment Area
Location West half of desalination plant site
NE quarter of expanded desalination
plant site
Height
Mostly below grade structure surrounded
by 3' high wall; short stretch of wall is 7.5'
high
Entirely above grade (approx 27' high)
and surrounded by decorative screen
walls
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
6
Feature Approved (PDP 00-02/RP 05-12) Proposed (PDP 00-02(B)/RP 05-12(A)
Dimensions
150' (east to west) by 280' (north to
south)
150' (east to west) by 300' (north to
south)
Area 42,632 square feet (sf) 60,000 sf
RO Building
Location East half of desalination plant site
West central part of expanded
desalination plant site
Height 35' 35'
Dimensions
230' (e-w) x175' (n-s), 80'x50' (2 parts,
longest dimension is 225', which is visible
from west)
120' (e-w) x 380' (n-s) = 380' visible from
west
Area 44, 552 sf 49,700 sf
Intake and discharge pipes Above and underground, approx 3,000
feet long, and along west, south and east
boundaries of site
Underground, approx 1,100 feet long, in
central portion of site from near Carlsbad
Blvd to desalination plant
Intake pump station
Aboveground, near southwest corner of
EPS along Carlsbad Boulevard
Underground, west central part of site
along Carlsbad Boulevard
Transformers
External to desalination plant site (on
EPS site) Internal to desalination plant site
Solids handling building
Location
External to desalination plant site (but
within EPS boundaries) Internal to desalination plant site
Height 19.5' 25'
Area One structure, 2,500 sf
Two structures, 5,000 sf (internal to desal
plant site)
Chemical Storage Area
Location
Along back of RO building, east
boundary of site (facing railroad tracks)
Freestanding, east central part of
expanded site (facing railroad tracks)
Area 5,200 sf 6,000 sf
Screen Walls
Use limited to screening of chemical
storage area
Extensively use to hide pretreatment and
chemical storage areas; 20-30.5' high;
appearance matches RO Building with
many design features
Colors and materials
Cast-in-place concrete, and extensive
use of metal and translucent panels,
glazing, and metal accents
Similar, but more varied use of colors
and materials
Product Water Storage Underground tank, 1.0 million gallons Underground tank, 3.4 million gallons
Retaining walls
Internal to desalination plant site (not
visible beyond plant) along aboveground
intake and discharge pipes in the EPS
site
600' long wall along west boundary of
desalination plant; nearly 10' tall along
much of its length; decorative split face
block with vines
Landscape area 5,000 sf 6,500 sf
Parking spaces 14 23
All features
Visible Project features* 3.969 acres 2.957 acres
Footprint, all features 5.669 acres 5.25 acres
*Decrease in visible Project structures due to undergrounding of intake and discharge pipes and intake pump station
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
7
Source water and discharge pipelines would be relocated and shortened. The connection points
for these pipelines would remain the same, but instead of routing the pipelines to the south,
around the EPS, the pipelines would be installed in a corridor along an existing access road on
the north side of the existing Administration Building extending to the east side of the
Administration Building, and proceed east to the desalination plant along the north side of the
existing switchyard. In conjunction with the pipeline rerouting, the intake pump station would
also move north from near the southwest corner of the EPS to near the Carlsbad Boulevard
entrance of the EPS. These pipelines and the intake pump station, previously considered for
aboveground installation, would be placed underground. Additionally, the discharge pipeline
would increase from a 48 inch to 72 inch diameter. This increase in pipeline size is necessary to
achieve full plant production capacity during initial start up and testing and for the periods
following service interruptions. Depending on the exact location of the intake and discharge
pipelines, construction of those pipelines may require the demolition of the existing EPS
administrative building near the entrance to the EPS. Construction trips associated with the
demolition of this building have been accounted for in the overall construction of the Project.
Replacement of the building, if proposed, will be subject to separate review and approval.
The desalination plant will receive electricity from the regional power grid (SDG&E) as
discussed in the EIR. SDG&E will service the facility by adding additional banks of transformers
to the existing SDG&E substation, southeast of the desalination plant. The substation expansion
was previously permitted by the California Coastal Commission and was found to be exempt
from the need to obtain a new coastal development permit under the coastal act’s exemption for
repair and maintenance to existing utilities. Transmission lines will be placed in conduits which
will supply energy from the substation to the desalination plant. The conduits will be located in
an existing utility easement parallel to the railroad tracks and cross under the railroad tracks to
the desalination plant through an existing tunnel. Sewer facilities will be placed in the same
existing utility tunnel.
No changes in the operational characteristics of the desalination plant are proposed. As
described in the FEIR, the Project as revised would produce approximately 50 MGD of potable
water from 104 MGD of seawater with no change in capacity. The proposed intake and
discharge connection points would be the same as proposed in the FEIR, with the only changes
being the shortening and rerouting of pipelines, relocation of the intake pump station, and
increase in discharge pipeline diameter.
Off-Site Water Conveyance Facilities Changes
The FEIR, in Figure 3-5, identified several pipeline alignments to convey desalination water into
Carlsbad, Oceanside and Vista. The various alignments and sub alignments studied were
proposed primarily in street rights of way, such as Cannon Road, College Boulevard, Faraday
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
8
Avenue, Lake Boulevard, and Melrose Drive. All alignments and alternatives were considered
equally to allow for design flexibility, however, the total pipeline length that was anticipated to be
ultimately needed was17.4 miles.
The revised off-site water delivery pipeline route now proposed for construction is less extensive
than that addressed in the FEIR. Generally the revised pipeline route would follow only part of
the “blue alignment” identified on Figure 3-5 of the FEIR and additional new pipelines described
below. Figure 1 shows the various alignments studied in the FEIR, as well as the minor changes
and additions addressed in this Addendum.
Portions of the blue alignment that have not changed from the FEIR include:
1. From the intersection of Cannon Road and Avenida Encinas, the alignment within
Cannon Road follows the previously studied blue alignment and continues east to the
Faraday Avenue/Melrose Drive intersection in the City of Vista (approximately 6.4 miles);
2. From the Faraday Avenue/Melrose Drive intersection, 2.3 miles north on Melrose Drive
to its intersection with Cannon Road in the City of Oceanside, then continuing south in
Cannon Road and Shadowridge Drive; and
3. From the Faraday Avenue/Melrose Drive intersection, south 0.8 mile to Palomar Airport
Road in the City of Carlsbad.
Pipelines of the blue alignment that were identified in the FEIR, and no longer proposed include:
1. Elimination of all the blue alignment along Melrose Drive north of Cannon Road, which
removes approximately 5.7 miles of pipeline proposed along Melrose Drive,; this results
in a net reduction of approximately 1.2 miles of pipeline from the 17.4 miles anticipated
to be ultimately needed in the FEIR. .
Pipelines that were not previously identified in the FEIR include:
1. Realignment to the beginning segment leaving the EPS site, such that the pipeline is
slightly realigned to run parallel to the railroad tracks then turn east, crossing the railroad
tracks and entering Avenida Encinas, within an existing public utilities easement. The
pipeline then connects to the previously studied route in Cannon Road.
2. Addition of the “La Costa Alignment,” approximately 1.9 miles long, as follows:
a. Beginning at the In Melrose Drive/Palomar Airport Road intersection, continue
south on Melrose Drive to a connection point near Alga Road (the previously
approved blue alignment pipeline within Melrose Drive between Faraday Avenue
and Palomar Airport Road remains);
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
9
3. Addition of new water lines in the cities of Vista and San Marcos (the “San Marcos
Alignment”), approximately 3.6 miles long, as follows:
a. Beginning at the Melrose Drive/Lionshead Road intersection, continue east on
Lionshead Road to its intersection with Business Park Drive in the City of Vista;
b. From the Lionshead Road/Business Park Drive intersection, continue east onto
Poinsettia Road (Lionshead Road becomes Poinsettia Road east of Business
Park Drive) to Pawnee Street, on the east side of Rancho Santa Fe Road, via
Linda Vista Avenue, Las Flores Drive, 9th Street, and disturbed land (future
extension of Creek Street) (City of San Marcos);
c. From the Business Park Drive/Lionshead Road intersection, a short length of
pipeline would extend south to Palomar Airport Road/San Marcos Boulevard.
d. As part of the pipeline project, the City of San Marcos will require the applicant to
expand and improve Las Flores Drive and 9th Street to planned widths within the
public right of way, including full curb-to-curb paving and appropriate striping.
Construction of the full street widths may include the under grounding of
overhead utilities. As part of the Project 9th Street will be extended and fully
improved to Rancho Santa Fe Road and the Creek Street connection between
Rancho Santa Fe Road and Pawnee Street will be constructed and fully
improved.
Additional changes in pipelines include an increase and decrease in pipe diameters, which are
described as follows:
1. Increase the diameter of the main transmission pipeline from the desalination plant into
the City of San Marcos (via the approved and additional pipelines described above) from
48 inches to 54 inches, which will result in a minimization of energy use and associated
greenhouse gas emissions;
2. Increase the diameter from 30 inches to 36 inches of the portion of the blue alignment
identified in the FEIR on Melrose Drive, starting from Lionshead Avenue and continuing
south to the Carlsbad Municipal Water District’s transmission main in Palomar Airport
Road. This increase in diameter is due to changes in flow apportionment between
delivery points within the desalinated water delivery system.
3. Decrease the diameter from 42 inches to 36 inches for all pipeline portions in Melrose
north of Lionshead, because the previously proposed 10 mgd of flow within that segment
of pipe is being redirected east to the SDCWA aqueduct via the pipeline in Lionshead.
As proposed, the total pipeline length will be reduced from 17.4 miles to approximately 16.2
miles (a 7% reduction) Further, the need for the 10 MGD booster pump station identified for
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
10
construction in the City of Oceanside will be removed from the Project as product water will only
be pumped once at the desalination plant.
Delivery of desalinated water from the Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Plant to the City of
Carlsbad and other water customers will be through the product water pipelines indicated in
Figure 1. The product water pipelines connect to the municipal or regional water systems at
several different points as shown on Figure 1. Flow to Carlsbad and the other water customers
is regulated and metered using structures known as flow control facilities (FCF). The FCF is a
concrete vault structure which contains the infrastructure necessary to meter and control the
flow of water to the municipal and regional pipelines that will distribute the water throughout
those various systems. The structures will be placed underground and range in size from
approximately 15’ wide x 25’ long x 11’ deep to 30’ wide x 45’ long x 11’ deep. These structures
will be placed in either the public rights of way or on property adjacent to the pipeline. Although
the exact locations of the FCF vaults have not yet been determined, Figure 1 shows the
approximate locations of the vaults along the product water pipeline. The structures not located
in the ROW will be placed underground on disturbed or already developed areas and therefore
will be no biological impacts from their construction. The FCF structures were previously
considered with the construction of the product water pipelines in the FEIR and there will be no
new impacts related to these facilities being placed outside of the public rights of way.
6.0 CITY PERMITS REQUIRED
To process the proposed changes, the following permit amendments are required:
1. EIR 03-05(A) – addendum to the Project’s certified Environmental Impact Report;
2. SP 144(J) – amendment to Encina Specific Plan 144;
3. PDP 00-02(B) – amendment to the Precise Development Plan;
4. DA 05-01(A) – amendment to the Project’s Development Agreement;
5. RP 05-12(A) – amendment to the Project’s Redevelopment Permit.
6. HMPP 05-08(A) – amendment to the Project’s Habitat Management Plan Permit
7.0 IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The following environmental analysis provided in Section 8.0 supports a determination that
approval and implementation of the changes to the Carlsbad Desalination Plant Project
identified in Section 5.0, would not result in any previously-undisclosed significant environmental
impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously disclosed impacts or additional
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
11
significant environmental impacts beyond those previously covered under the FEIR for the
Project.
Documents containing the environmental analysis supporting the City Council’s action in
approving the Project include the FEIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, CEQA
Findings, and additional responses provided for comments submitted after publication of the
FEIR.
Section 8.0 analyzes eleven areas of environmental concern, and discusses whether the
proposed Project modifications described in Section 5.0 trigger CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
in each of these areas. For each impact area, a reference to the FEIR discussion is provided,
followed by an analysis of the revised Project as it relates to each of these sections. Finally, an
analysis is presented to determine whether there are any changed circumstances or new
information relative to the revised Project.
8.0 ANALYSIS
Aesthetics
Analysis of aesthetic impacts and EIR-identified mitigation measures of the approved Project
are contained in the FEIR, Section 4.1, pages 4.1-3 through 4.1-12. See also CEQA Findings,
pages 10-11.
Analysis of the Revised Project
Revisions to the configuration and layout of the proposed desalination plant site would not result
in new impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in the FEIR, and therefore would
not change the FEIR conclusion that short-term construction-related aesthetic impacts are less
than significant, because the revised Project does not substantially change the site preparation
needs or duration for construction of the desalination plant. Cumulative impacts would also be
the same, given that the location and character of the desalination plant, in the context of
cumulative aesthetic impacts, is substantially the same as the approved Project.
Changes to the proposed design of the Project site will result in an estimated reduction of
approximately 44,089 square feet of visible aboveground structures from the Project site. The
plant facilities have been reconfigured and consolidated parallel with the existing railroad right-
of-way and further set back from the Agua Hedionda Lagoon (See Figures 2 and 3). Pipelines
and an intake pump station previously proposed for aboveground installation will be placed
underground, including the 72 inch seawater intake pipeline and the 72 inch concentrate
discharge pipeline. The pre-treatment pump will be placed in a sub-grade pit and moved to the
northwestern corner of the site, visually reducing the pump’s size and scale, with additional
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
12
landscaping proposed to further screen the pump from view. The administrative offices and
electrical building have been consolidated within the RO Building to create a structure that, in
keeping with the design of the approved Project, resembles an industrial/office complex.
To further reduce the previously identified visual impacts of the site, the landscaping area will be
increased from approximately 5,000 square feet to about 6,500 square feet. Additional
landscaping will improve the overall visual impact over that of the original Project’s design.
Moreover, screening of all above ground equipment, such as the pretreatment area and
electrical transformers, will be accomplished by articulated screen walls designed to match the
RO Building in appearance, materials, and colors. Proposed improvements to color and
variation of materials will further reduce the site’s visual impacts.
Revisions to the configuration and layout of the proposed desalination plant site would not result
in new impacts, nor increase the severity of impacts identified in the FEIR, and mitigation
measures identified in the FEIR related to structural screening, vegetative screening, and
lighting controls would still be applicable and would need no modification. With application of the
FEIR identified mitigation measures, the FEIR conclusion that these impacts are mitigated to a
less than significant level would not be changed.
Substantial Changes With Respect to the Circumstances Under Which the Project is
Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
There are no changes with respect to circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken,
and there is no new information of substantial importance that has become available relative to
visual or aesthetic resources. No substantial changes in the aesthetic or visual environment
have occurred since certification of the FEIR, and no substantial new sensitive receptors or
scenic resources have been identified within the vicinity of the Project site.
Conclusion
The Project as revised will be slightly less visible and further hidden from view from the two
ground-level critical viewpoints (Carlsbad Boulevard and Garfield Drive) evaluated in the FEIR.
The visual density of the site, primarily as viewed from within the EPS, will be reduced by
approximately 25%, with additional structures being placed below ground. The amount of
landscaping to further screen the site will be increased. The overall amount of pipelines will be
reduced and the need for the 10 MGD booster pump station removed. All previous mitigation
measures as discussed in the FEIR will continue to apply.
None of the proposed Project‘s aesthetics changes or additions involve new significant impacts
or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts. Additionally, there are no substantial
changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken, and no new
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
13
information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known
when the FEIR was certified has since been identified. Therefore, the proposed Project
modifications to aethestics do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR as
provided pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15162.
Air Quality
Analysis of air quality impacts and EIR-identified mitigation measures of the approved Project
are contained in the FEIR, Section 4.2, pages 4.2-10 through 4.2-21. See also CEQA Findings,
page 11.
Analysis of the Revised Project
Duration of construction for the facility would be the same, and construction methods and
equipment would not be different from the assumptions contained in the FEIR. The original
Project proposed a net earthwork export of 55,746 cubic yards, while the reconfigured Project
proposes only 21,000 cubic yards of earthwork export.
The total pipeline length will be reduced from 17.4 miles to approximately 16.2 miles (a 7%
reduction) and will reduce the amount of earthwork required by 333,001 cubic yards of cut/fill.
This would result in a 56% reduction in grading, with a corresponding reduction in air pollutant
emissions from.
Operational characteristics of the desalination plant are not proposed to be modified from what
is described in the FEIR, therefore direct and indirect emissions associated with operation of the
desalination plant would not result in any additional or increased levels of air emissions. The
diameter of the delivery pipeline that extends from the desalination facility to San Marcos has
been increased from 48 inches to 54 inches. The larger diameter pipeline will reduce friction
headlosses along the pipeline. This reduction of pipeline headlosses will reduce of power
needed for water delivery by at least 621 hp (0.463 MW). This reduction in the electricity
consumption corresponds to an annual energy usage reduction of 4,056 MWh/yr from the
originally approved Project.
As discussed in more detail below, the revised Project, including additional features and
conditions added since the certification of the FEIR, would result in reduced long-term air
emissions and would therefore reduce the Project’s contribution to these cumulatively significant
impacts. No additional cumulative significant impacts have been identified.
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
14
Substantial Changes With Respect to the Circumstances Under Which the Project is
Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
Global climate change is not a changed circumstance and there is no “new information of
substantial importance” available now that was not known and could not have been known with
exercise of reasonable diligence in June 2006 when the City certified the FEIR. Various entities
had extensively studied and regulated GHG emissions before June 2006, including both the
legislative and executive branches of the government of the state of California. For example, in
2002 California passed legislation regulating GHG emissions from cars and trucks (“AB 1493”),
and in June 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-3-05 (“EO S-3-05”),
which set statewide GHG emissions targets for 2010, 2020, and 2050, and ordered many
executive branch agencies to take immediate action to meet those targets. And in 2006, the
California State Legislature adopted Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the California Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006.
The actions taken with AB 1493, AB 32 and EO S-3-05 make findings as to the environmental
impacts climate change would impose on California, including reduction of the state’s snowpack
and corresponding water supply impacts, adverse health impacts from increases in air pollution
and heat stress caused by higher temperatures, adverse impacts on agriculture and food
production, increase of pests and pathogens, increase of catastrophic wildfires, damage to
coastline and ocean ecosystems from increase in storms and rising sea level, and economic
impacts to the state as a whole due to all of the above.
AB 1493, AB 32 and EO S-3-05 order executive branch agencies to take immediate action to
reduce GHG emissions. AB 1493, which was approved in 2004, ordered the California Air
Resources Board (“ARB”) to adopt regulations to “achieve the maximum feasible and cost-
effective reduction of greenhouse gas emission from motor vehicles.” Cal. Health & Safety Code
section 43018.5(a). Similarly, EO S-3-05 charged the Secretary of the California Environmental
Protection Agency (“CalEPA”) with responsibility for coordinating oversight of efforts made by
the Secretary of the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, Secretary of the
Department of Food and Agriculture, Secretary of the Resources Agency, Chairperson of the Air
Resources Board, Chairperson of the Energy Commission, and the President of the Public
Utilities Commission to meet the 2010, 2020, and 2050 statewide GHG targets. It further
ordered the CalEPA Secretary to report back to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature
“by January 2006 and biannually thereafter” on “progress made toward meeting the greenhouse
gas emission targets,” and “the impacts to California of global warming, including impacts to
water supply, public health, agriculture, the coastline, and forestry, and shall prepare and report
on mitigation and adaptation plans to combat these impacts.” Importantly, EO S-3-05
established the exact same emission target reductions that were subsequently enacted through
Assembly Bill 32 (“AB 32”) in 2006. (See Health & Saf. Code section 38501.) AB 32 requires the
California Air Resources Board (CARB), the state agency charged with regulating statewide air
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
15
quality, to adopt rules and regulations that would achieve GHG emissions equivalent to
statewide levels in 1990 by 2020.
Outside of California, numerous scientific agencies and governmental bodies had extensively
studied the potential environmental effects of global climate change well before June 2006. As
recently pointed out by the U.S. Supreme Court in its decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, 127 S.
Ct. 1438 (2007), numerous legislative and executive actions prior to the year 2000 devoted
“serious attention” to GHG emissions and global climate change. These actions included
enactment of the National Climate Program Act, 92 Stat. 601 (1978) and the Global Climate
Protection Act, 101 Stat. 1407 (1987), as well as President Carter’s request to the National
Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council to investigate the subject. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”), a 1988 creation of the World
Meteorological Organization (“WMO”) and the United Nations Environment Programme
(“UNEP”), issued three assessment reports in 1989, 1995 and 2001 evaluating the state of
global research on climate change and its effects. The IPCC Third Assessment Report issued in
2001 concluded that it was “likely” (expressed as a 66%–90% chance) that “[m]ost of the
observed warming over [the] last 50 years [was] likely due to increases in greenhouse gas
concentrations due to human activities.” The IPCC led to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change in 1992 and the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. In addition, a group of
nineteen private organizations filed a rule-making petition in 1999, asking the EPA to regulate
GHG emissions from new motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act.
In addition to legislative and executive action, the judiciary addressed concern regarding GHG
emissions over fifteen years before the EIR was certified. In City of Los Angeles v. National
Highway Traffic and Safety Admin. (D.C. Cir. 1990) 912 F.2d 478, for example, the City of Los
Angeles, the State of California and others unsuccessfully sought to compel the NHTSA to
study the global climate effects that may result from lower fuel efficiency standards for cars
manufactured after 1989. Among other things, the petitioners argued that “the implications of
the greenhouse effect for California are ‘particularly grave’” and will threaten the state’s coastal
and forestry resources, agricultural system, and water supply. (Id. at pp. 483, 493-494.) These
same concerns were restated sixteen years later in the legislative findings in AB 32 regarding
the potential impacts of global climate change in California. (See Health & Saf. Code section
38501.)
The California Coastal Commission approved the Project subject to the condition, among
others, that the CCC approve an Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan
(GHG Plan), at a subsequent hearing. Poseidon’s plan for the assessment, reduction and
mitigation of GHG emissions establishes a protocol for identifying, securing, monitoring and
updating measures to eliminate the Project’s net carbon footprint. Once the Project is
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
16
operational and all measures to reduce energy use at the site have been taken, the protocol
involves the following steps, completed each year:
1. Determine the energy consumed by the Project for the previous year
2. Determine SDG&E emission factor for delivered electricity from its most recently
published Annual Emissions Report.
3. Calculate the Project’s gross indirect GHG emissions resulting from Project operations
by multiplying its electricity use by the emission factor.
4. Calculate the Project’s net indirect GHG emissions by subtracting emissions avoided as
a result of the Project (Avoided Emissions) and any existing offset Projects and/or
Renewable Energy Credits (RECs).
5. If necessary, purchase carbon offsets or RECs (or pay an in-lieu fee) to zero-out the
Project’s net indirect GHG emissions.
The following are elements of the plan, based on a draft “Greenhouse Gas Emissions Template”
provided by the California Coastal Commission:
A. Increased Energy Efficiency (such as use of a pressure-exchanger energy recovery
system which captures energy from the discharge stream, and high energy efficiency
pumps).
B. GHG Emission Reduction by Green Building Design.
C. On-Site Solar Power Generation.
D. Recovery of CO2 (Carbon dioxide in a gaseous form will be added to the RO permeate in
combination with calcium hydroxide or calcium carbonate in order to form soluble
calcium bicarbonate which adds hardness and alkalinity to the drinking water for
distribution system corrosion protection).
E. Avoided Emissions from Reducing Energy Needs for Water Reclamation (reduced
salinity of source water would reduce the need to remove salts from wastewater to meet
recycled water requirements).
F. Avoided Emissions from Displaced Imported Water.
G. Avoided Emissions through Coastal Wetlands (carbon sequestration).
Off-site reductions of GHG emissions that are not inherently part of the Project include actions
taken by Poseidon to participate in local, regional, state, national or international offset projects
that result in the cost-effective reduction of GHG emissions equal to the indirect Project
emissions Poseidon is not able to reduce through other measures. One such offset project, the
expenditure of one million dollars to reforest areas burned out by fires in the San Diego region in
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
17
the fall of 2007, has been identified by the CCC as the first priority among these measures.
Other projects may also be identified.
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Health and Safety Code Section
38501(a)), cites rising sea levels as a potential adverse impact of global warming. Several
studies on the effects of climate change on sea levels have been conducted since the adoption
of this provision, which are summarized below.
According to the California Climate Center’s white paper entitled Projected Future Sea Level
(March 2006), a historical rate of sea level rise approaching 2 millimeters per year (0.08
inches/year) was recorded for California tide gages, similar to the rate estimated for global
mean sea level. Two climate models and three scenarios were used in the Center’s white paper
to develop a range of potential long-term sea level rise values. The mean sea level rise values
range from approximately 0.10 to 0.72 meter (3.9 to 28 inches) from the year 2000 to the end of
the century (2070 through 2100). The midpoint of the range for each of the three scenarios was
0.32 meter (13 inches), 0.38 meter (15 inches) and 0.44 meter (18 inches).
The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
concluded that continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would cause further
warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century
including rising sea levels (IPCC 2007). The IPCC used sophisticated climate models to carry
out their analysis. Model-based projections of global average sea level rise predicted a range of
sea level rise—between 18 and 76 cm (7 inches to 2.5 feet).
More recent studies indicate that the amount of sea level rise by the end of this century will be
between 7 and 82 cm, depending on the amount of warming that occurs. Dr Mark Siddall from
the University of Bristol, together with colleagues from Switzerland and the US, developed a
conceptual model that matches the sea level changes that have occurred since the end of the
last ice age (Natural Geoscience, 2009). The new model predicts, between 7 and 82 cm (2.7
inches to 2.7 feet) of sea-level rise by the end of this century.
The California Department of Water Resources, CA (DWR) and US Bureau of Reclamation mid-
pacific region (USBR), have recently developed a screening model for planning and
management of State Water Project and Central Valley Project in California, named CalLite
(February 2009). CalLite simulates water conditions in the Central Valley over an 82-yr planning
period (water years 1922-2003) and simulates observed hydrologic regimes or future possible
climate change hydrologic regimes. At present the two projected sea level rise scenarios have
been developed and implemented in CalLite: 1 ft and 2 ft sea level rises.
The sea level rise projected by the documented models described above spanned a fairly large
range. However, it appears that the various projections for sea level rise could affect primarily
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
18
the intake and discharge features of the project. It is not anticipated that a rise in sea level or up
to 2 feet or more within the life span of the Project would result in substantial increase in
exposure of the Project to potential adverse impacts. Accordingly, no significant impacts from
this potential adverse effect of global warming, as identified in the California Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006, would occur.
Conclusion
The proposed revised Project would result in reduced air emissions overall, and is required to
demonstrate a “net zero” impact on greenhouse gas emissions from indirect sources (electrical
energy consumption). The Project as revised would therefore not increase the severity of
previously identified air quality impacts, nor would it result in any new significant effects related
to air emission that were not previously identified in the FEIR. Additionally, in light of the wide
range of global warming activity prior to the certification of the FEIR in June 2006, there are no
substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken, and no
new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been
known when the FEIR was certified has since been identified. Therefore, the proposed Project
modifications regarding air quality do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental
EIR as provided pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15162.
Biological Resources
Analysis of biological resources impacts and EIR-identified mitigation measures of the approved
Project are contained in the FEIR, Section 4.3, pages 4.3-18 through 4.3-54, and the Additional
Responses to Comments on the FEIR. See also CEQA Findings, pages 12-14.
Analysis of the Revised Project
Terrestrial Environment
The proposed changes in the desalination plant configuration would occur within areas that are
entirely disturbed and contain no sensitive vegetation or species. Therefore, no changes in the
level or severity of direct, indirect or cumulative impacts would occur from changes in plant
configuration. Similarly, the proposed changes to the off-site conveyance pipeline alignments
and the underground flow control facilities are entirely within existing developed areas,
previously disturbed areas or within roadways containing no sensitive vegetation or species. A
small segment of the revised pipeline alignment would traverse an unpaved future roadway
area, within the City of San Marcos, between Rancho Santa Fe Drive and Pawnee Street. The
City of San Marcos has conducted environmental review and approved a development project
on that site, including construction of a proposed roadway (Creek Street) within which the
pipeline would be placed. The vegetation communities that occur in that area include non-native
annual grasslands and developed lands/disturbed habitat, with soils that appear to have been
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
19
repeatedly disturbed through discing and possibly filling. Therefore no impacts on sensitive
habitats or species are anticipated. No new or intensified impacts would result. The
reconfiguration of off-site pipelines would avoid sensitive areas identified as being impacted in
the FEIR. Therefore the proposed revisions would result in impact reductions.
Marine Environment
The proposed Project’s operational characteristics and capacity will not change from what was
previously analyzed in the FEIR. The Project will continue to operate at a design flow rate of 304
MGD for production of approximately 50 MGD of desalinated product water.
The Final EIR for the desalination plant used the “historical extreme” operation and level of
salinity to evaluate the impacts to the marine environment. The “historical extreme” conditions
modeled account for impacts related to operation of the desalination facility without power plant
operation and flow rates that would be generated by the desalination plant being operated
independently. Therefore the No Power Plant Operation scenario is the “worst case” condition
studied by the FEIR relative to elevated salinity levels resulting from the desalination plant
discharge, and under this scenario, the operating conditions of the desalination plant would not
result in salinity levels exceeding the threshold (40 part per thousand) for an extended period of
time, and impacts related to elevated salinities would not be significant.
Data presented in Appendix E of the Final EIR (see Carlsbad Desalination Facility Intake Effects
Assessment, dated March 3, 2005, and prepared by Tenera Enviromental) supports a finding of
no significant impact for entrainment, with or without operation of the EPS. The loss of larval fish
entrained by the EPS cooling water flows, whether the EPS is operating or not, are a small
fraction of marine organisms from the abundant and ubiquitous near-shore source water
populations.
Moreover, the most frequently entrained species are very abundant in the area of EPS intake,
Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and the Southern California Bight so that the actual ecological effects
due to any additional entrainment from the Project at either level of plant operations are
insignificant. Therefore, the operation of the desalination facility independent of the EPS does
not cause a significant ecological impact.
The level of impact and conclusions of the FEIR regarding effects on the marine environmental
from elevated salinity levels in the desalination plant discharge, or impingement and
entrainment impacts associated with the source water intake would not changed based on the
proposed Project changes, because the operational characteristics would be the same as with
the approved Project.
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
20
On May 13, 2009, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board approved the
Poseidon’s Flow, Entrainment and Impingement Minimization Plan (“Minimization Plan”).
Imposed pursuant to California Water Code section 13142.5, the Minimization Plan implements
the best available design, technology and mitigation measures feasible to minimize intake and
marine life mortality by committing Poseidon to the construction or restoration of up to 55.4
acres of highly productive estuarine wetlands in the Southern California Bight and the
achievement of a fish productivity standard of 1,715.5 kg/year. This plan further reduces
impingement and entrainment impacts and supports the findings of the EIR that the Project will
not have any significant impacts on marine life due to impingement and entrainment.
Restoration of up to 55.4 acres through the Minimization Plan is also consistent with the
California Coastal Commission’s requirement for a Marine Life Mitigation Plan that was imposed
to ensure consistency with Coastal Act 30230 and 30231.
The Regional Board considered multiple approaches to estimating impingement associated with
the Project’s projected operations under co-located conditions which resulted in an estimate of
impinged biomass ranging from 1.57 to 4.7 kg/day. Poseidon agreed to meet a fish productivity
standard of 1,715 kg/year, which is derived from the impingement estimate of 4.7 kg/day. Based
on the applicant’s commitment of construction or restoration of up to 55.4 acres and the
achievement of a fish productivity standard of 1,715 kg/year, the Regional Board found that the
Project is expected to fully offset projected entrainment and impingement losses for up to 304
MGD of source water withdrawn directly from the Agua Hedionda Lagoon under conditions of
co-located operation. (Order No. R9-2009-0038 at ¶ 50.) This determination by the Regional
Board is consistent with the EIR’s conclusion that the Project would not have any significant
impacts on marine life due to impingement and entrainment.
With regard to impingement, the Project’s EIR did not rely on any quantification of impinged fish
biomass to conclude that a stand-alone Project will not cause any significant impingement
impacts; instead, the EIR relied on intake flow velocity. The EIR concluded the Project would not
cause any additional impingement losses because it will not require an increase in the quantity
or velocity of water withdrawn relative to the Encina Power Station. (EIR at 4.3-35.)
Under the No Power Plant Operation scenario, approach velocity of the water flowing through
the EPS intake would not exceed 0.5 feet per second. Therefore, the Carlsbad Desalination
Plant will not cause any additional impingement losses to the marine organisms impinged by the
EPS, under the assumed baseline EPS operating conditions, and would not result in significant
impingement effects under the No Power Plant Operation scenario. (EIR at 4.3-36.)
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
21
Substantial Changes With Respect to the Circumstances Under Which the Project is
Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
There have been no changes in the level of sensitivity or listing status of species present within
the terrestrial and marine environments directly or indirectly affected by the Project. No changes
to habitats or habitat suitability for sensitive species have occurred within areas affected by the
Project since the time that the FEIR was certified.
The actions of the Coastal Commission or the Regional Water Quality Control Board do not
constitute a changed circumstance under which the Project is taken or new information of
substantial importance. The FEIR’s conclusion that the Project will not cause significant marine
life impacts under CEQA, operating with or without the EPS, is not impacted by the actions of
either of these state agencies. The Coastal Commission and the Regional Water Quality Control
Board used a methodology defined as “area of habitat production foregone” (“APF”) to quantify
the area of mitigation habitat needed to produce organisms lost to entrainment, based on the
same entrainment data relied upon in the FEIR. The APF methodology does not demonstrate
any change in the number of marine organisms that will be entrained or otherwise affected by
the Project during stand-alone operations, and therefore does not constitute “new information”
triggering preparation of a supplemental EIR. Because the underlying biological facts evaluated
in the FEIR have not changed, the subsequent use of different methodologies by other agencies
to characterize those impacts does not constitute a changed circumstance or new information
sufficient to require the preparation of a supplemental EIR.
Furthermore, the additional mitigation imposed by the Coastal Commission and the Regional
Water Quality Control Board does not constitute a changed circumstance or new information of
substantial importance. The mitigation acreage required by these two agencies was imposed
pursuant to their respective responsibilities under separate regulatory schemes, i.e. the Coastal
Act and the California Water Code, both of which employ different standards of review than
CEQA’s “significant impact” threshold. Thus, the additional mitigation acreage did not involve
new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects.
Conclusion
No new or increased impacts are anticipated for terrestrial resources because all of the
proposed pipeline routes have been modified to be placed within existing developed areas,
previously disturbed areas or within roadways. The revised configuration for the desalination
plant is entirely within disturbed areas that do not contain any sensitive biological resources.
Further, the updated siting of the proposed facility will actually move proposed structures further
from the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, thus lessening any indirect potential impacts on that sensitive
resource.
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
22
The evaluation of marine resources will not change from that in the FEIR. The FEIR’s analysis
regarding potential effects from chemical additives, impingement, entrainment, and elevated
salinity levels remain consistent regardless of the proposed changes. Mitigation measures
previously adopted regarding continued monitoring of the plant intake and discharge flow rates
and salinity levels will remain as well as the semi-annual testing and monitoring to measure and
evaluate the site’s discharge for compliance with appropriate requirements and submittal to the
Regional Water Quality Control Board for continued compliance. Additional commitments will
further reduce and offset impacts associated with impingement and entrainment. Lastly, best
management practices for runoff controls will continue to be in place. Therefore, no new or
increased impacts on marine habitats are anticipated.
None of the proposed Project changes or additions regarding biological resources involve new
significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts. Additionally, there
are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken,
and no new information of substantial importance regarding biological resources which was not
known and could not have been known when the FEIR was certified has since been identified.
Therefore, the proposed Project modifications regarding biological resources do not meet the
standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR as provided pursuant to State CEQA
Guidelines, section 15162.
Cultural Resources
Analysis of cultural impacts and EIR-identified mitigation measures of the approved Project are
contained in the FEIR, Section 4.4, pages 4.4-14 through 4.4-27. See also CEQA Findings,
pages 14-15.
Analysis of the Revised Project
The FEIR found that for the desalination plant site, two cultural resources sites are located
within the Encina Power Station boundary: sites CA-SDI-6751 and CA-SDI-16885. Site CA-SDI-
16885 is comprised of a small shell scatter with associated debitage. Because of the extensive
development surrounding the site area, the exposed portion of site CA-SDI-16885 likely
represents a disturbed remnant. The portion of the site tested was identified in the FEIR as not
significant and no further work was recommended. (Guerrero et al. 2004). Site CA-SDI-6751 is
a shell scatter, and is located along the existing AT&SF Railroad, south of Agua Hedionda
Lagoon.
The FEIR determined that the potential for impacts on sites CA-SDI-16885 and CA-SDI-6751 to
occur is considered low; but that field conditions for construction activities may reveal that
impacts could occur. Therefore, mitigation in the form of monitoring during demolition and
excavation was required to ensure impacts remain below a level of significance and if
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
23
monitoring revealed that archaeological sites are present, testing to determine site significance
would be required. If, after the site testing process was conducted, and the site(s) are
determined to be significant, then additional mitigation would be recommended through
avoidance, or through the completion of a cultural resources data recovery program.
The changes to the Project are not anticipated to increase the potential risk to CA-SDI-16885
and CA-SDI-6751, because the reconfiguration of the facility would impact slightly less than the
total area of these two sites. Moreover, all previously identified mitigation measures will continue
to apply to the updated Project for cultural and paleontological resources. Therefore, no
additional impacts are anticipated for the desalination Project site.
The FEIR originally found a number of significant cultural resource sites that had the potential to
be impacted during the construction of the different proposed pipeline routes. Thus, the Project
would avoid such sites when it could and if the potential impact to such resources were known,
then a data recovery program would be developed and completed by a qualified archaeologist
and approved by the City of Carlsbad. However, sites located within existing roadways were
considered to be disturbed, and monitoring during construction is considered to mitigate any
potential impacts to less than significant levels. The FEIR also found that if the precise
alignment of the pipeline was not available, and therefore the potential to affect cultural
resources could not be specifically determined, the applicant would be required to retain a
qualified archaeological monitor during construction and if significant resources were identified,
the resources would be tested to determine significance with appropriate mitigation measures
employed as necessary.
The FEIR contains detailed monitoring program requirements, including detailed instructions for
pre-construction, construction, and post-construction activities. Similar requirements and
mitigation were included in the FEIR for potential paleontological resources. Thus, the FEIR
concluded that any potential cultural resource impacts were determined to be less than
significant.
The proposed changes to the Project will actually reduce the potential impacts determined in the
FEIR, based on the shortened length of off-site conveyance facilities and elimination of the
booster pump station. As previously discussed, the first 6.4 miles of the revised pipeline route
will follow the same pathway as the previously approved pipeline route. Further, the length of
the new pipeline route will still mirror the original with respect to the portion of the pipeline that
travels north on Melrose Drive to Cannon Road and south on Shadowridge Drive.
Similarly, for the portion of pipeline south from Faraday Avenue on Melrose Drive to Palomar
Airport Road, all potential impacts discussed in the FEIR will remain the same. The entire
stretch of the pipeline for the new La Costa and San Marcos Alignments will be placed within
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
24
existing developed right-of-ways or disturbed areas, so that any potential resources would be
already disturbed, and with application of FEIR identified mitigation measures, impacts would be
less than significant. Therefore, no new or increased impacts to cultural resources are
anticipated.
Substantial Changes With Respect to the Circumstances Under Which the Project is
Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
The potential for significant impacts on cultural or paleontological resources within the area of
potential effect of the Project has not changed since the time of certification of the FEIR. This is
primarily due to the fact that the areas potentially affected by the Project are actively disturbed
(desalination plant site) and developed (plant site and previously disturbed areas or within
roadways proposed for pipeline alignments). Therefore, no changes in circumstances and no
new information of substantial importance relative to cultural or paleontological resources have
been identified.
Conclusion
The proposed changes to the Project will not increase the level of any previously identified
impacts and will not create any new potential impacts, because no additional undisturbed areas
would be affected by the Project as revised. There will be no additional or increased level of
impacts at the desalination plant site or at the sections of pipeline that follow the original pipeline
route. The new pipeline route will be located entirely within existing street rights-of-way and is
not anticipated to impact any new potential resource sites. In addition, all previously identified
mitigation measures from the FEIR will remain in place, including the involvement of appropriate
archaeological and paleontological monitors during construction and appropriate controls for the
handling of any potential resources that may be identified during construction of the Project.
None of the changes or additions to the proposed Project regarding cultural or paleontological
resources involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified
impacts. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the
Project will be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance regarding cultural
or paleontological resources which was not known and could not have been known when the
FEIR was certified has since been identified. Therefore, the proposed Project modifications
regarding cultural resources do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR
pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15162.
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
25
Geology and Soils
Analysis of geology/soils impacts and EIR-identified mitigation measures of the approved
Project are contained in the FEIR, Section 4.5, pages 4.5-10 through 4.5-17. See also CEQA
Findings, pages 15-16.
Analysis of the Revised Project
A preliminary geotechnical and environmental evaluation of the reconfigured site was performed
in September, 2008, by GeoLogic Associates (GLA). The report details GLA’s environmental
investigation of the site based upon site evaluations, a review of applicable records and reports,
selected site borings, and laboratory testing of representative soil samples obtained from the
subsurface exploration. The report’s findings are summarized below.
The geotechnical report from GeoLogic Associates found no new potential impacts related to
geology or soils. The report determined that given the overall subsurface profile, depth of
groundwater, and overlying thickness of the non-liquefiable soils, the potential for large-scale
liquefaction at the site during the life of the structures is very low (GeoLogic Associates 2008).
Further, the updated report found the Rose Canyon Fault to be the closest active fault
(approximately 4.4 miles from the site) and could generate a 7.2 moment magnitude, generating
a peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.38g at the Project site and the design earthquake
ground motion at the site predicted to be 0.36g (GeoLogic Associates 2008). Similar to the
FEIR, the report again concluded that the effect of seismic shaking would be reduced to less
than significant by adhering to the Uniform Building Code and state-of-the art seismic design
parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of California.
The report found that based on the last 170 years, there is low potential for tsunami effects at
the reconfigured Project site. Similarly, a seiche generated in the Agua Hedionda Lagoon is not
anticipated to create a significant hazard at the site. The report also found ground surface
rupture was considered unlikely, as well as the potential for landslides or other slope
instabilities. The expansion potential of the fill soils is in the very low range for the specific plant
location, and moderately low at the intake pump location. The report concluded that none of
these potential risks corresponds to a significant impact. With the incorporation of the mitigation
measures identified in the FEIR, no significant impacts are anticipated.
Similar to the findings above, the changes in pipeline routes will not cause any new significant
impacts beyond what was originally evaluated in the FEIR. The FEIR found that, similar to the
desalination plant, with appropriate mitigation there would be no significant impacts related to
geology, soils, or mineral resources.
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
26
The FEIR determined that the pipelines routes within existing roadways will not traverse any
important mineral resource recovery sites within the general plans of the applicable cities. That
same conclusion is applicable to the revised pipeline alignment, because the revised alignment
is entirely within previously disturbed areas or within existing roadways, which are not suitable
for resource extraction and utilization as exploitable natural resources. Therefore, no additional
or increased impacts are anticipated.
Erosion potential for the revised Project would be similar and slightly reduced compared to what
was evaluated in the FEIR, at both a direct and cumulative level. Reductions in erosion potential
are due to the reduced length of pipeline and associated grading. In addition, the mitigation
measures relating to erosion control identified in the FEIR are also applicable to the revised
Project.
The FEIR found that for the pipelines, issues involving constructability, seismic hazards,
landslides, liquefaction, and mineral resources were not anticipated to pose substantial
constraints on Project development, given the level of disturbance and/or developed nature of
the existing roadways and the fact that various utility lines currently exist along the alignment.
However, the FEIR imposed mitigation measures that require a geotechnical evaluation of the
selected pipeline alignment prior to approval of any required encroachment permits. The
geotechnical evaluation would evaluate soils, seismicity, hazards, groundwater, and structural
design issues for all off-site Project components.
The analysis of potential impacts related to off-site conveyance pipeline construction in the FEIR
is applicable to the revised pipeline routes, as are the FEIR identified mitigation measures. The
revised pipeline alignments will not increase any potential hazards or create any new potential
impacts. Prior to approval of any required encroachment permits, the required geotechnical
investigation would evaluate soils, seismicity, hazards, groundwater, and structural design
issues for all off-site Project components. No additional impacts are anticipated for the revised
pipeline alignment in regards to geological or potential soils impacts.
Substantial Changes With Respect to the Circumstances Under Which the Project is
Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
There is no potential for significant changes in geological, seismic, soils or mineral resource
conditions within the area of potential effect of the Project since the time of certification of the
FEIR, because such resources are relatively static. Additionally no new information regarding
unknown hazards, conditions or resources has become available. Therefore, no changes in
circumstances and no new information of substantial importance relative to geology have been
identified.
Conclusion
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
27
The proposed changes to the Project will not increase the level of any previously identified
impacts and will not create any new potential impacts. The evaluation of potential impacts
related to constructability, seismic hazards, landslides, liquefaction, tsunamis, and mineral
resources contained in the FEIR are applicable to the revised Project. The same mitigation
measures will also be applicable. No impacts related to mineral resources were anticipated in
the FEIR and the Project revisions will not alter this determination.
None of the changes or additions to the proposed Project regarding geology, soils, or mineral
resources involves new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified
impacts. In addition, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the
Project will be undertaken and no new information regarding geological resources which was
not known and could not have been known when the FEIR was certified has since been
identified. Therefore, the proposed Project modifications regarding geological resources do not
meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines,
section 15162.
Hazards
Analysis of hazards impacts and EIR-identified mitigation measures of the approved Project are
contained in the FEIR, Section 4.6, pages 4.6-9 through 4.6-17. See also CEQA Findings,
pages 16-17.
Analysis of the Revised Project
A preliminary geotechnical and environmental evaluation of the reconfigured site was performed
in September, 2008 by GLA. The report details GLA’s environmental investigation of the site
based upon site evaluations, a review of applicable records and reports, selected site borings,
and laboratory testing of representative soil samples obtained from the subsurface exploration.
The analysis of environmental hazards focused on the revised footprint for the desalination
facility. The report’s findings are summarized below.
Based on the results of the laboratory analysis of soil samples from the limited environmental
investigation, a low concentration of extractable fuel hydrocarbons (EFH) was reported in some
of the samples. However, the concentrations (7.1 and 33 mg/kg) are well below the regulatory
taste and odor threshold of 100 mg/kg. One sample initially showing EFH levels of 280 mg/kg is
thought to be influenced by the overlying asphalt concrete pavement. Three subsequent
samples at that location were conducted and subsequent results indicated non-detectable
concentrations of EFH. No other significant concentrations (above background levels) of volatile
hydrocarbons (including BTEX and MTBE and semi-VOCs of concern) were detected. The
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
28
report concluded that it did not appear that petroleum hydrocarbon contamination is an
environmental concern at the site.
No VOCs, semi-VOCs, dioxin, PCBs, or inorganic compounds (total cyanide, phenols, and
sulfide) were reported above the laboratory detection limits in the analyzed soil samples, except
for one of the samples which tested at 73 mg/kg of sulfide. Sulfide does not pose an
environmental concern by itself, but may be reactive with additional compounds in forming
sulfuric acid. This concentration is not anticipated to release sulfuric acid in great enough
concentration to pose a threat during transport.
As typically found in natural soils, low concentrations of arsenic, chromium, copper, lead,
mercury, nickel, and zinc were measured in the three soil samples tested for metals. These
concentrations were not found to exceed currently established Preliminary Remediation Goals
(PRGs) (for industrial sites) or Total Threshold Limit Concentrations (TTLCs), or lie within the
background values reported for natural soils in California. No other metals were measured
above laboratory detection limits in any of the soil samples analyzed.
The proposed Project revisions would not result in any changes relative to the analysis or
conclusions regarding effects on emergency response plans, because the Project’s overall
location and operational characteristics would not change.
The FEIR determined that with appropriate handling and mitigation for chemicals proposed to
be used on the desalination facility site, potential impacts related to a risk of exposure, including
fire or hazardous vapor releases during operations, will be less than significant. Because the
operational characteristics, safety design features and standard safety requirements would not
change with the proposed revised Project, this analysis and conclusion is still applicable to the
Project as revised. Overall, there is a net increase in the amount of chemicals stored and used
at the facility, including an increase in the amount of Sulfuric Acid stored at the facility (from
20,300 gallons to 23,000 gallons), and additional use of 10,000 gallons of sodium hydroxide to
aid in the removal of boron and to control Ph levels in the desalinated water. Boron removal and
specific Ph levels were required as Project conditions by the City of Carlsbad City Council, and
the addition of these chemicals implements the City’s condition for the Project and was
therefore considered by the City Council at the time the Project was adopted. Detailed mitigation
measures regarding the appropriate use and storage controls as approved in the FEIR will
continue to apply to the proposed Project.
As noted in the FEIR, the operation of the desalination plant will involve the storage, use, and
transport of potentially hazardous chemicals. The same mitigation measures applicable to the
proposed Project are applicable to the reconfigured Project.
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
29
The FEIR also determined that the construction of the off-site pipelines would require grading
and trenching activities that could potentially disturb and release hazardous materials into the
environment from sites located in proximity to the construction areas for the pipelines. Potential
for release or exposure of existing subsurface contamination could result from these Project
construction activities. The FEIR included mitigation to mitigate this potential for exposure of
existing contamination sites during construction of off-site pipelines through construction
monitoring in areas identified as having the potential for such risks, and appropriate actions, as
determined by the appropriate City’s construction inspector as may be necessary. Such actions
may include avoidance or removal of contaminated materials, or special handling measures to
avoid exposure to materials. This mitigation measure will apply to the revised pipeline alignment
and will ensure that any potential impacts related to hazards or hazardous materials during
pipeline construction are mitigated to less than significant levels. Once construction of the
pipelines is complete, the pipelines would convey potable water through the pipelines, which
would not pose a hazardous risk to the public or the environment and impacts related to
operations of the pipelines would be less than significant.
Regarding risks to or from airports, as discussed in the FEIR several of the off-site pipeline
areas would be located within the Palomar-McClellan Airport Influence Area; some portions of
the pipelines were also be located in the Flight Activity Zone and Runway Protection Zone.
These latter two impacts are eliminated due to the elimination of pipeline alignments within the
Flight Activity Zone and Runway Protection Zone.
Substantial Changes With Respect to the Circumstances Under Which the Project is
Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
There are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be
undertaken, and there is no new information of substantial importance relative to hazards or
hazardous materials that has become available since the certification of the FEIR.
Conclusion
The proposed changes to the Project will not increase the level of any previously identified
impacts and will not create any new potential impacts related to hazards or hazardous
materials. Mitigation is in place to control any potential construction impacts as well as
appropriate controls for the storage and use of on-site chemicals during operations. The
proposed Project will not interfere with any airport operations or emergency evacuation routes.
Any potential hazardous materials will be disposed of appropriately and the proposed Project
will comply with any required best management practices.
None of the changes or additions to the proposed Project regarding hazards or hazardous
materials involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
30
impacts. In addition, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the
Project will be undertaken and no new information regarding hazards or hazardous material
which was not known and could not have been known when the FEIR was certified has since
been identified. Therefore, the proposed Project modifications regarding hazards or hazardous
materials do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to State
CEQA Guidelines, section 15162.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Analysis of hydrology/water quality impacts and EIR-identified mitigation measures of the
approved Project are contained in the FEIR, Section 4.7, pages 4.7-10 through 4.7-25. See also
CEQA Findings, pages 17-20.
Analysis of the Revised Project
Reconfiguration of the desalination plant site will not substantially change the amount of
impervious surfaces at the site and would not result in a substantial change in runoff from the
site compared to what was evaluated in the FEIR. In addition, mitigation including but not limited
to site design, low impact design (LID) features, treatment control and best management
practices identified in the FEIR would still be applicable to the revised Project, and would be put
in place to reduce pollutant contact with storm runoff, and to control, filter, and treat runoff from
the roof, parking and other impervious areas of the desalination plant, in accordance with
federal, state and local regulations and standards. The FEIR noted that one Project feature
included the capture of runoff from the roof of the desalination plant and parking areas for
conveyance to the source water intake for filtration and ultimate domestic use. The applicant
has informed the Planning Department that comingling of storm water in the source water intake
for desalination facility is incompatible with standard practice and policy for potable treatment.
Consequently, the Project will be designed to capture the storm water from the desalination
plant and parking areas for on-site percolation; or alternatively, treatment and disposal in
accordance with federal, state and local regulations and standards. The off-site pipelines will be
located entirely underground and will not result in an increase in impervious surfaces, or other
long-term pollutant discharges. No anticipated long-term impacts to hydrology and water quality
will occur for the revised off-site pipeline alignment.
Regarding effects on ocean water quality, as discussed previously, the operation of the plant
would not be modified with the proposed Project revisions. Therefore, the same flow rates and
quantities analyzed in the FEIR would apply to the revised Project, and the same analysis and
conclusions regarding ocean water salinity, temperature, chemical discharge, circulation,
sediment transport and recreational surf conditions would be applicable to the revised Project.
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
31
The proposed revisions to the Project would not change the potential for water quality impacts
to occur during construction of the on-site or off-site Project features. Mitigation measures
identified in the FEIR include best management practices pursuant to the implementation of a
storm water pollution prevention plan. Those same measures would still be applicable to the
Project as revised, and with implementation of those measures, potentially significant impacts
related to erosion and sedimentation, spill prevention, waste management, dust suppression,
and maintenance issues would be less than significant.
The FEIR determined that the proposed plant site is not located within a flood zone; however,
some of the off-site pipeline areas are located in 100-year flood zones. None of the blue
alignment and the proposed revisions to the pipeline alignments are located within the 100-year
flood zones, thereby eliminating this impact.
Substantial Changes With Respect to the Circumstances Under Which the Project is
Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
There are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be
undertaken, and there is no new information of substantial importance relative to hydrology or
water quality that has become available since the certification of the FEIR.
Conclusion
The proposed changes to the Project will not increase the level of any previously identified
impacts and will not create any new potential impacts related to hydrology or water quality.
Required best management practices will remain in place to ensure appropriate runoff controls.
Overall operations of the site, including intake and discharge rates and quantities, will not
change and therefore will not increase the potential impacts on ocean water quality as
evaluated in the FEIR.
None of the changes or additions to the proposed Project regarding impacts to hydrology or
water quality involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified
impacts. In addition, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the
Project will be undertaken and no new information of substantial importance relative to
hydrology or water quality has been identified which was not known and could not have been
known when the FEIR was certified. Therefore, the proposed Project modifications regarding
hazards or hazardous materials do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental
EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15162.
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
32
Land Use
Analysis of land use impacts and EIR-identified mitigation measures of the approved Project are
contained in the FEIR, Section 4.8, pages 4.8-10 through 4.8-20. See also CEQA Findings,
page 20.
Analysis of the Revised Project
The proposed revision to either the components of the desalination plant or the off-site pipeline
routes do not involve the addition of any new land uses that were not evaluated in the previously
certified FEIR. Similar to the approved Project, the revised Project continues to be a 50 MGD
desalination facility with appurtenant facilities consistent with the U – Public Utility General Plan
designation and PU – Public Utility zoning for the property. The evaluation and findings from the
FEIR do not change with the proposed minor site reconfiguration or revisions to the pipeline
alignments. The changes will slightly reduce the already less than significant impacts on the
surrounding community by reducing the overall length of the off-site pipelines and eliminating
the 10 MGD booster pump station. Additionally, all of the new pipeline routes will be placed
within existing street right-of-ways.
Under the proposal, the solids handling building and electrical transformers will be relocated on
the desalination plant site from locations elsewhere on the EPS. Additionally, the intake pump
station and intake and discharge pump pipelines will be placed underground rather than above
ground as approved. The consolidating and undergrounding of facilities will benefit any future
redevelopment of the site.
In considering redevelopment of the EPS, the Carlsbad City Council has stated its support for
the reuse of the power plant property site to provide greater public benefit. In Resolution 2008-
235, this support is documented along with the Council’s determination that any non-coastal
dependent industrial land use at the EPS is inconsistent with the best interest of the community
and should be precluded. As a seawater desalination plant, the Project is a coastal dependent
land use and is not affected by this determination.
Additionally, the revisions to the Project are not subject to City Council policy that requires an
applicant of a proposed Project within Encina Specific Plan 144 to perform a comprehensive
update of the specific plan. In 2002, the City Council passed Resolution 2003-2008, allowing the
Project to be processed as an amendment to the Encina Specific Plan 144 rather than through a
comprehensive update of the specific plan. Similarly, for the currently proposed revisions, an
amendment to the specific plan is proposed.
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
33
Impacts related to the Runway Protection Zone are eliminated due to the elimination of pipeline
alignments within the Runway Protection Zone.
Substantial Changes With Respect to the Circumstances Under Which the Project is
Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
There are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be
undertaken, because there are no new land uses or substantial changes in land use policies or
requirements that would affect the Project. No new information of substantial importance relative
to land use has become available since the certification of the FEIR.
Conclusion
The proposed changes to the Project will not increase the level of any previously identified
impacts and will not create any new potential impacts regarding potential land use conflicts. The
FEIR determined that no conflicts existed and the proposed changes to either the plant site or
the pipeline alignments are not anticipated to result in any changes in the analysis or
conclusions of the land use discussion of the FEIR.
None of the changes or additions to the proposed Project regarding impacts to land use involve
new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts. In addition,
there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be
undertaken and no new information of substantial importance relative to land use has been
identified which was not known and could not have been known when the FEIR was certified.
Therefore, the proposed Project modifications regarding impacts to land use do not meet the
standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section
15162.
Noise
Analysis of noise impacts and EIR-identified mitigation measures of the approved Project are
contained in the FEIR, Section 4.9, pages 4.9-5 through 4.9-14. See also CEQA Findings,
pages 20-21.
Analysis of the Revised Project
The FEIR determination that impacts from on-site construction activities would be less than
significant is also applicable to the revised Project, because the revised Project is in
substantially the same location relative to sensitive noise receptors and the impact would occur
only during permitted construction hours and would represent only a minor temporary increase
in noise levels in the Project vicinity. All construction will take place during appropriate hours for
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
34
such activities as proscribed by the City’s appropriate noise ordinance and, given the significant
distance from the proposed Project to the nearest sensitive receptors, no construction impacts
are anticipated for the on-site facility. Additionally, the average number of truck trips over all
phases of the construction process will not increase above those evaluated within the FEIR for
the on-site facility. In fact, while the total earthwork of the proposed Project is anticipated to
increase from approximately 61,940 cubic yards (CY) to 68,500 CY, due to the opportunity for
increased on-site reuse of the cut/fill, the actual volume of earthwork to be removed from the
site will decline from 55,746 CY to approximately 21,000 CY. Based upon an average haul truck
capacity of 20 CY per trip, this approximate reduction of 34,746 CY of earth corresponds to a
reduction of approximately 1,737 haul trucks leaving the site.
The FEIR concluded that construction activities such as blasting, pile driving, and demolition
that may be associated with activities proposed at the desalination plant have the potential to
generate ground vibrations but that these activities are not proposed to be conducted in close
proximity to residences or other sensitive structures or uses. Therefore, the equipment used for
construction would not generate significant vibration levels, and would not result in the exposure
of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration. The updated proposed Project
will not alter this conclusion and potential vibration impacts will continue to be less than
significant.
As previously discussed, the first 6.4 miles of the revised pipeline route will follow the same
pathway as the previously approved pipeline route. Therefore, no potential impacts beyond what
was already evaluated for this section of the pipeline will apply. Further, the pipelines along
Melrose Drive north of Cannon Road have been eliminated, as well as the previously approved
booster pump station. Regarding the pipeline extension south of Palomar Airport Road along
Melrose Drive, given the level of service and ambient noise associated with Melrose, no
additional noise impacts are anticipated. Further, approximately the first 2/3 of the new route
along Lionshead and Poinsettia Avenues are primarily commercial in nature and would not
significantly impact those businesses. Only the final stretch along Linda Vista to 9th Street has
residential uses, similar to other areas evaluated in the FEIR. As discussed in the FEIR, pipeline
construction is anticipated to cause a significant noise impact to surrounding residences and the
same conditions to comply with all appropriate noise regulations will remain for the proposed
Project. No additional noise impacts regarding construction of the pipelines are anticipated.
Regarding long-term operational impacts, the removal of the previously proposed 10 MGD
booster pump station in Oceanside eliminates any insignificant operational noise associated
with that use. Further, all pipelines and flow control facilities would be located underground and
any potential noise impacts would be negligible. However, other on-site operational uses once
operational will contribute noise to the overall environment. The FEIR evaluated such potential
and found that neither the intake pump station, pretreatment filter structure, water pump station,
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
35
membrane cleaning system, chemical feed equipment, service facilities, solids handling
equipment, or the RO process area would have any significant noise impacts on surrounding
sensitive receptors. The FEIR found that the maximum noise level of all the pumps and other
equipment would be 88 decibels at 3 feet and the RO process pumps and energy recovery
turbines to have a maximum level of 90 decibels at 3 feet. Given the distance from the site to
potential sensitive receptors, the FEIR determined the Project’s combined noise level would be
below any level of significance and that the combined level will be further reduced by
intervening on-site structures. The FEIR further concluded that on-site deliveries or employer
trips to and from the site would also be less than significant.
The revised Project design will not alter any of these findings. The associated pumps and
mechanical functions, as well as deliveries and employee trips, will continue at approximately
the same level as evaluated within the FEIR. In fact, the updated design will underground
pipeline structures as well as the intake pump, further reducing these already less than
significant noise levels.
Substantial Changes With Respect to the Circumstances Under Which the Project is
Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
There are no substantial changes under which the Project will be undertaken, because no there
are no substantial new sensitive receptors or substantial changes in noise policies or
requirements that would affect the Project. No new or additional substantial sources of noise
have been introduced within the area potentially affected by the Project, and no new information
of substantial importance relative to noise has become available since the certification of the
FEIR.
Conclusion
The proposed changes to the Project will not increase the level of any previously identified
impacts and will not create any new potential impacts. The updated Project will continue to
operate in the same manner as evaluated and will not increase the level of potential operational
noise impacts. In fact, noise impacts have the potential to be reduced due to the
undergrounding of various on-site pipes and the intake pump. Furthermore, the type and
intensity of the site’s construction will not change from what was evaluated within the FEIR and
the Project will continue to adhere to any and all applicable noise regulations and to operate
during appropriate hours of construction. No significant vibration impacts are anticipated and
given the operational nature of the underground pipelines and the pipeline construction process
to be completed within the existing street right-of-way, no noise impacts are anticipated.
None of the changes or additions to the proposed Project regarding noise impacts involve new
significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts. In addition, there
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
36
are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken and
no new information of substantial importance relative to land use which was not known and
could not have been known when the FEIR was certified has since been identified. Therefore,
the proposed Project modifications regarding noise impacts do not meet the standards for a
subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15162.
Traffic
Analysis of traffic impacts and EIR-identified mitigation measures of the approved Project are
contained in the FEIR, Section 4.10, pages 4.10-4 through 4.10-13. See also CEQA Findings,
pages 21-22.
Analysis of the Revised Project
Given that revised Project is operationally the same, and would have the same construction and
operational traffic generating characteristics as the approved Project, impacts will not be
increased due to proposed Project changes and will remain less than significant. All
construction activities for the desalination plant will take place within the Encina Power Plant
site, and therefore no lane closures or safety hazards on public roads would result from plant
construction. Impacts related to road hazards and emergency access would be less than
significant. In addition, given the approximate 62% reduction (34,746 CY) in cut/fill required to
be removed from the Project site, potential construction impacts on traffic will be further reduced
than what was originally evaluated in the FEIR.
The FEIR determined that the maximum increase in ADT from traffic associated with pipeline
construction would not be significant and the increase in traffic associated with pipeline
construction is not anticipated to result in Level of Service on any of the affected roadways
falling below acceptable levels. Furthermore, as the overall pipeline length will be reduced 7%
from 17.4 miles to about 16.2 miles, and grading requirements reduced by 55%, traffic impacts
associated with earth moving equipment and associated haul trucks and other construction-
related vehicles will correspondingly decrease from what was analyzed in the FEIR. Regardless,
the FEIR included the mitigation measure that the applicant must demonstrate that construction
operations will not result in unacceptable Levels of Service during peak hour periods on any
affected roadways and that specific traffic control measures as set forth within an approved
traffic control plan are implemented. Such measures will continue to apply to all of the roadways
proposed for location of the revised pipeline alignment. No impacts are anticipated once the
pipelines are completed.
As noted above, the construction traffic impacts of the revised Project would be reduced from
what was anticipated for the approved Project due to the reduced amount of soil hauling and
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
37
overall reduced length of off-site pipelines. The FEIR identified mitigation measures are still
applicable and the resulting impacts on traffic would be less than significant.
Substantial Changes With Respect to the Circumstances Under Which the Project is
Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
There are no substantial changes under which the Project will be undertaken, because no there
are no substantial changes in traffic characteristics or requirements from what was in place at
the time that the FEIR was certified. No new information of substantial importance relative to
traffic has become available since the certification of the FEIR.
Conclusion
The proposed changes to the Project will not increase the level of any previously identified
impacts and will not create any new potential impacts related to traffic and transportation during
either construction or operation of the proposed Project. The previously adopted mitigation
measures will continue to apply to the proposed Project and will ensure that any potential
impacts to pipeline construction will be less than significant, especially considering that total
pipeline length proposed is less than that analyzed in the FEIR. The impacts as evaluated in the
FEIR for the construction of the on-site facilities will be the same for the proposed Project and
will continue to remain less than significant. Actually, the updated Project design will likely
reduce the amount of truck trips as discussed previously by a significant level given the
anticipated reduction of approximately 34,746 CY of spoil that would have had to be removed
under the original Project design. Operational impacts from both the pipelines and the finished
desalination facility will be the same as was evaluated in the FEIR.
None of the changes or additions to the proposed Project regarding noise impacts involve new
significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts. In addition, there
are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken and
no new information of substantial importance relative to traffic impacts which was not known
and could not have been known when the FEIR was certified has since been identified.
Therefore, the proposed Project modifications regarding traffic impacts do not meet the
standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section
15162.
Public Utilities and Services
Analysis of public utilities and services impacts and EIR-identified mitigation measures of the
approved Project are contained in the FEIR, Section 4.11, pages 4.11-6 through 4.11-22. See
also CEQA Findings, pages 23-25.
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
38
Analysis of the Revised Project
With respect to all areas analyzed under public utilities and services, impact evaluations in the
FEIR were based on operational characteristics of the approved facility. Because the
operational characteristics would not change with the proposed revisions to the Project, no
change in the analysis or conclusions of the FEIR would result, and no new or increased levels
of impacts are anticipated. As noted above in the discussion of air quality, additional features
and requirements of the Project include energy efficiency measures that would reduce energy
consumption, thereby further reducing the Project’s impact on energy systems. Additionally, the
reconfigured water conveyance system results in the elimination of the off-site pump station,
further reducing energy requirements.
The desalination plant will receive electricity from the regional power grid (SDG&E) as
discussed in the EIR. SDG&E will service the facility by adding additional banks of transformers
to the existing SDG&E substation, southeast of the desalination plant. Transmission lines will be
placed in conduits which will supply energy from the substation to the desalination plant. The
conduits will be located in an existing utility easement parallel to the railroad tracks and cross
under the railroad tracks to the desalination plant through an existing utility tunnel. Sewer
facilities will be placed in the same existing utility tunnel.
The revised Project will still be required to pay any appropriate fees as required by the
appropriate jurisdictions. Since the desalination facility will not result in the provision of
additional residential units or substantial employment opportunities that could be directly tied to
additional growth, the Project would not conflict with Growth Management Plan standards or
thresholds for city administrative facilities, fire, schools, libraries, and park and recreation
facilities. Regardless, as discussed in the FEIR, the facility will continue to pay its fair share of
any applicable fees.
The proposed revisions to the Project would not affect the operational characteristics of the
desalination facility, and therefore would not result in any changes in potential impacts
associated with wastewater discharge quality or flow rates. The mitigation measures identified in
the FEIR would still be applicable and would have the same result of reducing these impacts to
less than significant levels.
Substantial Changes With Respect to the Circumstances Under Which the Project is
Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
There are no substantial changes under which the Project will be undertaken, because no there
are no substantial changes in public utilities or services, or to the requirements of agencies that
provide such services, from what was in place at the time that the FEIR was certified. No new
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
39
information of substantial importance relative to public utilities or services has become available
since the certification of the FEIR.
Conclusion
The proposed changes to the Project will not increase the level of any previously identified
impacts and will not create any new potential impacts regarding public utilities or services. The
proposed Project would operate in a similar manner to that evaluated under the FEIR and all
applicable FEIR identified mitigation and design requirements will be implemented. The overall
Project will be required to pay any applicable fees and will not result in the need for the
construction of any additional off-site facilities.
None of the changes or additions to the proposed Project regarding impacts to public utilities or
services involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified
impacts. In addition, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the
Project will be undertaken and no new information of substantial importance relative to public
utilities or services which was not known and could not have been known when the FEIR was
certified that has since been identified. Therefore, the proposed Project modifications relative to
public utilities or services do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR
pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15162.
9.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Analysis of cumulative impacts and EIR-identified mitigation measures of the approved Project
are contained in the FEIR, Section 5.0, pages 5-1 through 5-13. See also CEQA Findings,
pages 25-27.
Analysis of the Revised Project
The type and extent of construction activities, and the operational characteristics of the facility
would not change from what was evaluated in the FEIR for the approved Project. Therefore, no
changes relative to the analysis or conclusions regarding cumulative impacts would occur with the
proposed Project revisions, and the findings of the FEIR remain the same for the revised Project.
Substantial Changes With Respect to the Circumstances Under Which the Project is
Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
Since certification of the FEIR and approval of the Project by the City of Carlsbad, several
projects that could be considered reasonably foreseeable have been proposed, as described
below:
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
40
I-5 widening: The North Coast Interstate 5 HOV/Managed Lanes Project would widen a 27-mile
stretch of Interstate 5 from the La Jolla area to Oceanside. In the planning stages since the
1990s, the project includes freeway widening through Carlsbad and in the vicinity of the Encina
Power Station. Release for public review of the project’s Draft Environmental Impact
Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) is anticipated in summer 2009. Caltrans
estimates freeway widening in the vicinity of the EPS will take place no earlier than five to ten
years after the approval of the Final EIR/EIS.
Coastal Rail Trail: The Coastal Rail Trail is a bicycle and pedestrian path approved in
conceptual form to parallel closely the coastal railroad corridor that runs along or near Interstate
5 from Oceanside to San Diego. In the project vicinity, the rail corridor bisects the EPS, just east
of the desalination Project. However, in some locations, including parts of Carlsbad, the Coastal
Rail Trail cannot be located as originally intended in the railroad right of way due to security and
safety concerns as well as space limitations. Because of these constraints, alternative
alignments are under consideration.
While the City has completed portions of the Coastal Rail Trail in Carlsbad, the alignment in the
vicinity of the EPS is not yet complete. Finding an acceptable alignment in this area is
hampered by the constraints identified above, the existence of the existing EPS, and the need
for the trail to cross Agua Hedionda Lagoon, which is located just north of the EPS. Currently,
efforts regarding the Coastal Rail Trail in the project vicinity are focused on finding a feasible
alignment. There is no funding available or construction schedule for this portion of the trail.
LOSSAN Rail Corridor: The Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) corridor is
the nation’s second busiest rail corridor. As 51% of this busy railway is single track only, the San
Diego Association of Government’s 2030 Regional Transportation Plan calls for double tracking
the entire corridor, along with other improvements.
The portion of the rail corridor that bisects the EPS is planned for double tracking. In addition,
the installation of a second railroad bridge is planned from the north boundary of the EPS and
over Agua Hedionda Lagoon, parallel and next to the current railroad bridge. Although plans are
still in draft stage and environmental documents have yet to be released for public review,
construction on this segment of LOSSAN improvements is estimated to begin in early 2010.
Carlsbad Energy Center Project (CECP): The CECP is a 558-megawatt (MW) gross
combined-cycle, natural gas-fired power generating facility proposed to be built at the existing
EPS. The 23-acre CECP would be located on the northeast section of the 95-acre EPS site.
The proposed site is currently occupied by the EPS tank farm, including above-ground fuel oil
Tanks 5, 6, and 7. CECP construction would take 25 months to complete. An Application for
Certification is currently being considered by the California Energy Commission (CEC Docket
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
41
Number 07-AFC-06), and it is anticipated that the approval process would likely be completed in
early 2011 with construction beginning in 2012.
Agua Hedionda Sewer Line and Lift Station: This project involves installation of a sewer line
and improvements on the Vista/Carlsbad Sewer Interceptor System. The sewer line and lift
station would replace an existing line and lift station that are undersized, and outdated and
nearing the end of their useful life. The sewer line would be 54-inches in diameter for
approximately 12,430 linear feet (2.35 miles) extending in a north-south alignment between the
railroad corridor and Interstate 5. The line would begin just north of Agua Hedionda Lagoon and
would end near the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility on Avenida Encinas, south of
Palomar Airport Road. In the vicinity of the desalination plant, the sewer line and lift station
would be located within the EPS on the east side of the railroad tracks. Construction is
anticipated to begin in Fall 2010, and is estimated to take 18 months to complete.
The following provides an analysis of these additional cumulative projects:
Aesthetics
The FEIR concluded that planned or recently constructed projects located along Carlsbad
Boulevard, the outer lagoon, or in the railway corridor are not expected to create adverse
significant impacts to the visual quality of the area because of City development design
requirements. Mitigation measures related to building design and shielding at the project level
will mitigate any significant visual effects of the project and would avoid cumulative impacts that
may be associated with other projects within the identified viewsheds. Construction of the CECP
and the I-5 widening projects may result in significant impacts on visual resources. However,
because the proposed Project is situated and designed such that it would have minimal visual
impacts, the incremental effect of the Project on any potential significant cumulative impact
would not be cumulatively considerable. There are no substantial changes to the circumstances
under which the Project will be undertaken and no new information of substantial importance
relative to cumulative aesthetic impacts which was not known and could not have been known
when the FEIR was certified that has since been identified. Therefore, the effects of additional
cumulative projects regarding cumulative aesthetic impacts do not meet the standards for a
subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15162.
Air Quality
Construction: The FEIR cumulative impacts analysis for air quality considered potential
cumulative impacts to the San Diego air basin. The FEIR concluded that the Project’s
contribution to temporary regional air quality impacts is not considered to be significant. In
addition, because Project construction occupies a relatively small area at any given time, and
will move along the pipeline corridor fairly rapidly in comparison to fixed location cumulative
construction projects, it is not anticipated that any significant localized cumulative impacts will
result. This is primarily due to the short-term nature of cumulative effects within any given
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
42
location along the Project construction route. The additional cumulative projects would not
change these conclusions because the scope of the additional projects is relatively small within
the context of the air basin, and because as noted in the FEIR, construction air emissions would
be short-term in nature. In addition, because of the extended time period for the start of
construction of the Project, many of the previously identified cumulative projects have already
been constructed, and would no longer contribute to cumulative construction impacts on air
quality.
Operation: The Project will contribute to a significant cumulative impact to air quality regarding
PM10 and ozone (for which the San Diego air basin is non-attainment) and NOx and ROC (ozone
precursors). There are no feasible mitigation measures that could be applied to the Project that
would reduce this cumulative impact to below a level of significance. This conclusion would not
change with consideration of additional cumulative projects, because the impact is experienced
air basin-wide, and no new feasible project-level mitigation measures are available that would
reduce the regional impact to less than significant levels.
There are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be
undertaken and no new information of substantial importance relative to cumulative air quality
impacts which was not known and could not have been known when the FEIR was certified that
has since been identified. Therefore, the effects of additional cumulative projects regarding
cumulative air quality impacts do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR
pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15162.
Biological Resources
Terrestrial Biological Resources
As noted above, the redesign of the Project’s water delivery pipelines will result in a reduction of
impacts on biological resources, such that no sensitive habitats or species would be affected.
Moreover, the FEIR concluded that the City’s Habitat Management Plan (HMP) provides
mitigation programs to address the effects of cumulative development, on a sub-regional scale
and therefore addresses cumulative impacts programmatically. As noted in the FEIR, the
Project is consistent with the HMP, and therefore no significant cumulative impacts to biological
resources would result from Project implementation. This conclusion would not be changed with
the additional cumulative projects, because the Project continues to be consistent with the HMP
and has been modified to reduce impacts on biological resources.
Marine Biological Resources
The cumulative impacts analysis for marine biological resources considered potential
cumulative impacts to the shoreline and offshore area that could be influenced by the proposed
desalination plant. Cumulative projects considered in the analysis of cumulative effects related
to marine biology include other planned seawater desalination operations. One of the additional
cumulative projects, the CECP, includes a seawater desalination component as water source
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
43
alternative. However, permitting agencies are considering issues regarding specific legal
restrictions that may preclude that specific component of the project from being implemented.
Moreover, there has been no analysis of the specific effects of the CECP desalination project
feature on marine biological resources that would allow for analysis of cumulative environmental
effects. Information on the CECP can be found in the Preliminary Staff Assessment posted on
the CEC’s website at http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/carlsbad. Because of the uncertain
nature of the project’s desalination component and the lack of information available on specific
design and environmental effects, further analysis of any cumulative impacts would require
speculation which is beyond the scope of this environmental analysis (State CEQA Guidelines,
section 15145).
There are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be
undertaken and no new information of substantial importance relative to cumulative biological
impacts which was not known and could not have been known when the FEIR was certified that
has since been identified. Therefore, the effects of additional cumulative projects regarding
cumulative biological impacts do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR
pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15162.
Cultural Resources
The FEIR cumulative impacts analysis for cultural resources concluded that impacts on cultural
resources related to cumulative development could be significant if significant cultural resources
are destroyed as a result of development. The mitigation measures required for the proposed
Project and the mitigation required by the City as a standard of CEQA review provides for
avoidance, documentation and/or recovery of significant cultural resources, and as a result, all
impacts related to cultural resources are reduced to less than significant levels. These same
measures would apply to the additional cumulative projects, and therefore the level of
cumulative impact and required mitigation measures would not change as a result these
additional cumulative projects.
There are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be
undertaken and no new information of substantial importance relative to cumulative cultural
resource impacts which was not known and could not have been known when the FEIR was
certified that has since been identified. Therefore, the effects of additional cumulative projects
regarding cumulative cultural resource impacts do not meet the standards for a subsequent or
supplemental EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15162.
Geology and Soils
The FEIR concluded that the desalination plant site and off-site facilities will require relatively
minor site preparation and excavation of soils. Project mitigation to control and address erosion
and seismic and soils hazards, in conjunction with similar standard measures required of
cumulative projects, would reduce cumulative impacts to less than significant levels. The
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
44
additional cumulative projects would have similar levels of impact on geology and soils as
identified for other cumulative projects, and would be subject to similar requirements and
mitigation measures. There are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the
Project will be undertaken and no new information of substantial importance relative to
cumulative geology/soils impacts, which was not known and could not have been known when
the FEIR was certified that has since been identified. Therefore, the effects of additional
cumulative projects regarding cumulative geology/soils impacts do not meet the standards for a
subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15162.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The Project, as well as other cumulative projects would be subject to regulatory controls that
would result in avoidance of substantial hazards, and therefore the FEIR concluded that the
Project would not contribute to cumulative considerable increases in hazards or hazardous
materials. The additional cumulative projects would have similar regulatory controls, and
therefore, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be
undertaken and no new information of substantial importance relative to cumulative hazards
impacts, which was not known and could not have been known when the FEIR was certified that
has since been identified. Therefore, the effects of additional cumulative projects regarding
cumulative hazards impacts do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR
pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15162.
Hydrology and Water Quality
The FEIR concluded that water quality water quality and hydrology issues associated with the
plant would be temporary (construction-related) in nature and would not contribute to
cumulatively significant impacts. Impacts of the additional cumulative projects would be similar,
and in fact would be subject to newer more stringent regulatory control measures. There are no
substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken and no
new information of substantial importance relative to cumulative hydrology/water quality
impacts, which was not known and could not have been known when the FEIR was certified that
has since been identified. Therefore, the effects of additional cumulative projects regarding
cumulative hydrology/water quality impacts do not meet the standards for a subsequent or
supplemental EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15162.
Land Use and Planning
The FEIR concluded that the Project would not contribute to significant impacts resulting from
cumulative development that may have the effect of dividing an established community or
conflicting with land use or environmental policies. Therefore, the incremental effect of the
Project on any potential significant cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable.
This conclusion would also apply with the additional cumulative projects.
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
45
There are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be
undertaken and no new information of substantial importance relative to cumulative land use
impacts, which was not known and could not have been known when the FEIR was certified that
has since been identified. Therefore, the effects of additional cumulative projects regarding
cumulative land use impacts do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR
pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15162.
Noise and Vibration
The FEIR identified cumulative noise impacts to be primarily related construction noise.
However, within the time frame of Project construction, it is not anticipated that those cumulative
effects would reach a level of significance, because of noise restrictions required for
construction projects, and because the time frame for construction of the proposed Project is
relatively short. The additional cumulative projects would not change these conclusions because
of the duration for construction of the additional projects. In addition, because of the extended
time period for the start of construction of the Project, many of the previously identified
cumulative projects have already been constructed, and would no longer contribute to
cumulative construction impacts on construction noise.
There are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be
undertaken and no new information of substantial importance relative to cumulative noise
impacts, which was not known and could not have been known when the FEIR was certified that
has since been identified. Therefore, the effects of additional cumulative projects regarding
cumulative noise impacts do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR
pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15162.
Traffic and Circulation
The cumulative impacts analysis for traffic and circulation considered the intersections and road
segments to which the proposed desalination plant could contribute to a cumulative impact.
Similar to noise impacts, Project traffic impacts are primarily associated with construction. Since
the time frame for construction is relatively short, it is not anticipated that a substantial increase
in current traffic levels resulting from cumulative development will occur prior to completion of
Project construction. Therefore, temporary traffic impacts associated with the Project will cease
prior to any substantial cumulative traffic impacts being realized on local roadways. The
additional cumulative projects would not change these conclusions because the construction
travel routes for the additional projects are not anticipated to conflict with or add to cumulative
construction traffic of the proposed Project.
There are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be
undertaken and no new information of substantial importance relative to cumulative traffic
impacts, which was not known and could not have been known when the FEIR was certified that
has since been identified. Therefore, the effects of additional cumulative projects regarding
Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
CEQA Addendum
46
cumulative traffic impacts do not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR
pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15162.
Public Utilities and Service Systems
The cumulative impacts analysis for energy and wastewater were considered to be less than
significant, primarily based on capacity and reliability features built into existing systems. The
additional cumulative projects would not change the analysis or conclusions of the FEIR
because they would not result in substantial additional demand on such systems.
There are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be
undertaken and no new information of substantial importance relative to cumulative
utilities/services impacts, which was not known and could not have been known when the FEIR
was certified that has since been identified. Therefore, the effects of additional cumulative
projects regarding cumulative utilities/services impacts do not meet the standards for a
subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15162.
10.0 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
Analysis of growth-inducing impacts and EIR-identified mitigation measures of the approved
Project are contained in the FEIR, Section 9.0, pages 9-1 through 9-7. See also CEQA
Findings, pages 54-55.
Analysis of the Revised Project
The operation of the facility and its potable water producing capacity will not change from what was
evaluated in the FEIR for the approved Project. Therefore, no changes relative to the analysis or
conclusions related to growth inducement would occur with the proposed Project revisions, and the
findings of the FEIR remain the same for the revised Project.
Substantial Changes With Respect to the Circumstances Under Which the Project is
Undertaken/New Information of Substantial Importance
There are no substantial changes under which the Project will be undertaken, because there are
no substantial changes in growth potential or growth planning that would affect the analysis
contained in the FEIR. No new information of substantial importance relative to growth
inducement has become available since the certification of the FEIR.
11.0 CONCLUSION
This document has identified all Project changes, changed circumstances, and new information
and memorializes in detail the City’s reasoned conclusion that the revised Project as described
PACIFIC
OCEAN COLLEGE BLS
S
ANTA FE AV
ALGA RD
PALOMAR A IRPORT R D
AVIARA PYCOLLE G E B LE
L
CAMINO
REAL
C A N NON R D
O C E A NSIDE BL
MESA D
R MELROSE DRS H A D O WRIDGE DR
S MELROSE DR9TH S
TBUSINES
S PAR
K DRL I NDA V ISTA DR
S R ANCHO SANTA FE RDW S A N MARC O S BLLIONSHEAD AV
City of Vista
FARA D A Y A V
N SAN
T
A FE AV
LAS FLORES DRPAWNEE STPO INSETTIA AVAGUAHEDIONDALAGOON
City of Carlsbad
City of Oceanside
City of Vista
City of
San Marcos
Proposed
Desalination
Plant
010.5
Miles
J:\Requests\Planning\4103790_09
Pipeline Alignment considered in EIR 03-05 and selected for construction
Pipeline Alignment considered in EIR 03-05 but not selected
Additional Alignments proposed and considered in EIR 03-05 addendum (EIR 03-05(A))
Approximate Location of Flow Control Facility
Figure 1 - Desalination Plant and Pipelines Map
EXISTING CONDITIONEXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITIONAddendum to EIR 03-05FIGURE2
EXISTING CONDITIONEXISTING WITH PROJECT CONDITIONAddendum to EIR 03-05FIGURE3
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO POP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA 05-01/RP 05-12/HMP 05-08 AND
PROPOSED ADDENDUM TO EIR 03-05.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the City Council and the Carlsbad
Housing and Redevelopment Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a joint public hearing at the Council
Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 15, to consider
approval of an addendum to Environmental Impact Report EIR 03-05 and amendments to Precise Development Plan
POP 00-02, Encina Specific Plan SP 144(H), Development Agreement DA 05-01, Redevelopment Permit RP 05-12,
and Habitat Management Plan Permit HMP 05-08.
In 2006, the Carlsbad City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Commission certified EIR 03-05 and approved
these various applications and permits to (1) establish a Precise Development Plan for the Encina Power Station
(EPS) located west of Interstate 5 at 4600 Carlsbad Boulevard; (2) approve a 50 million gallon a day Carlsbad
Seawater Desalination Plant at the EPS, and (3) approve a network of desalinated water delivery pipelines in the cities
of Carlsbad, Oceanside, and Vista.
The amendments proposed would reconfigure the approved desalination plant site, modify plant buildings and
structure sizes and locations, consolidate plant uses, and underground related plant facilities, all on the EPS property.
Portions of the proposed development are located within the coastal zone, the South Carlsbad Coastal
Redevelopment Area, and the Encina Specific Plan. The proposed changes would also modify the delivery pipeline
network, located off of the EPS property, by (1) identifying the general locations of flow control facilities, (2) making
minor adjustments to the alignment, and (3) adding new pipelines south of Palomar Airport Road in Melrose Drive and
east of Melrose Drive into the City of San Marcos primarily via streets in Carlsbad, San Marcos and Vista. The
approved and proposed pipelines would connect to existing water facilities and would be located in street rights of way
and already developed and disturbed properties, and permits from cities other than Carlsbad would be needed to
construct the pipeline network. The addendum to the Environmental Impact Report would analyze all changes
proposed. An addendum is appropriate for minor, post-approval changes that do not warrant preparation of a
supplemental or subsequent EIR.
A location map of the desalination plant and approved and proposed pipeline networks is attached.
Whereas, on August 19, 2009, the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the
addendum to EIR 03-05 and the amendments to POP 00-02, SP 144(H), DA 05-01, RP 05-12, and HMP 05-08 for the
Desalination Project Changes project.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the
agenda bill will be available on and after September 11, 2009. If you have any questions, please call Scott Donnell in
the Planning Department at (760) 602-4618.
The time within which you may judicially challenge the addendum to Environmental Impact Report 03-05 and these
amendments to Precise Development Plan POP 00-02, Encina Specific Plan SP 144(H), Development Agreement DA
05-01, Redevelopment Permit RP 05-12, and Habitat Management Plan Permit HMP 05-08, if approved, is established
by State law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the Desalination Project Changes project in
court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in
this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad. Attn: City Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad
Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE NUMBERS: EIR 03-05(A) Addendum/PDP 00-02(B)/SP 144(J)/DA 05-01(A)/ RP 05-12(A)/HMP 05-08(A)
CASE NAME: DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGES
APPLICANT: POSEIDON RESOURCES (CHANNELSIDE) LLC
DATE APPLICATION FILED: July 17, 2009
PUBLISH: September 5, 2009
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Figure 1 - Desalination Plant and Pipelines Map
Pipeline Alignment considered in EIR 03-05 and selected for construction
Pipeline Alignment considered in EIR 03-05 but not selected
Additional Alignments proposed and considered in EIR 03-05 addendum (EIR 03-05(A))
Approximate Location of Flow Control Facility
PACIFIC
OCEAN
o
] Miles
0.5 1
J:\Requests\Planning\410379Q\_09
AH3AV-O9-008-1 uojpmisut.p
a||jnaj
lueqeo
Interested Parties List
POP 00-02(B)
8.19.09
Jennifer Wong
CA Dept. of Water Resources,
Southern District
770 Fairmount Ave., Ste. 102
Glendale, CA91203
Tanya Gulesserian
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
651 Gateway Blvd., Ste. 900
S. San Francisco, CA 94080
Carey L Cooper
Klinedinst PC
501 W Broadway
Ste 600
San Diego, Ca92101
Kerry Siekmann
5239 El Arbol
Carlsbad, CA92008
Susan Vandrew Rodriguez
City of San Marcos
Planning Division
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069
Jerry Backhoff
City of San Marcos
Planning Division
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069
Livia Borak
Clinic Associate
San Diego Coastkeeper
2820 Roosevelt Rd. Ste. 200A
San Diego, CA92106
Gabriel Solmer
San Diego Coastkeeper
2820 Roosevelt Rd. Ste. 200A
San Diego, CA92106
Greg Mayer, P.E
Principal Engineer
City of Vista
600 Eucalyptus Avenue
Vista, CA 92084
Lonnie Thibodeaux
Water Utilities Director
City of Oceanside
300 N. Coast Highway
Oceanside, CA 92054
Debbie Fountain
Housing and Redevelopment Director
2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Mr Joe Geever
Surfrider Foundation
P.O.Box 1511
Solana Beach, CA 92075
Larry Purcell
San Diego County Water Authority
4677 Overland Avenue
San Diego, CA 92123
Ed Farley
4931 Tilos Way
Oceanside, CA 92056
Robert C. Hawkins
Suite 200
110 Newport Center Dr.
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Ellen Baur
4037 Arcadia Way
Oceanside, CA 92056
Bill Arnold
Rancho Carlsbad Owners Assoc
5200 El Camino Real
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Kerry Siekmann
5239 El Arbol
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Ms. Valerie Chambers
US Dept of Commerce
Natl Marine Fisheries Service
Southwest Region
501 West Ocean Blvd, Ste 4200
Long Beach, CA 90802-4213
W Jeffrey Moncrief Pe
Senior Project Manager Hdr
9444 Farnham St Ste 300
San Diego Ca 92123 1300
Tom Luster
California Coastal Commission
45 Fremont St., Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94105
Michael Burge
The San Diego Union Tribune
5130 Avenida Encinas
Carlsbad Ca 92008
Matt VanderSluis
Planning And Conservation League
921 11th Street, Third Fir
Sacramento, Ca 95814
Barbara Henry
•North County Times
1722 South Coast Highway
Oceanside, CA 92049
Kristina Ray
Communications Manager
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Skip Hammann
Municipal Projects Manager
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Joe Geever
Surfrider Foundation
8117 W. Manchester Ave #297
Playa del Rey, CA 92093
So Cal Watershed Alliance
Environment Now
c/o Conner Everts
2515WilshireBlvd
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Yajrneaj \ssj Aseg joj
Department of Toxic Substances
Control
5796 Corporate Avenue
Cypress, CA 90630
®091S 3iV1dlAJ3i ®AJBAV esn
|aa«T
Easy Peel Labels
Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160®
Mr. Bruce Reznik
Executive Director
San Diego Baykeeper
2924 Emerson Street Ste 220
San Diego, CA 92106
Paper
See Instruction Sheet I
for Easy Peel Feature^
Keith Richards
Cabrillo Power I LLC
1817 Aston Avenue #104
Carlsbad, CA 92008
iAVERY®5ieo® !
Michelle Jung, MS
RBF Consulting
14725 Alton Parkway
Irive, CA92618
Morma J. Wold
2457 Levante Street
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Jerry Buoniconti
4945 Demeter Way
Oceanside, CA 92056
Carol MoConnell
5140Arbol
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Kurt Luhrsen
Morth County Transit Deistrict
310 Mission Ave.
Dceanside, CA 92138-1106
Diane Nygaard
Preserve Calavera
5020 Nighthawk Way
Oceanside, CA 92056
Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute
2595 Ingraham Street
San Diego, CA92109
Eva Plazjer
Senior Civil Engineer
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Jeremy Riddle
Associate Engineer
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
David Hogan
Center for Biological Diversity
PO Box 7745
San Diego, CA92167
Jim Weigand
Fire Marshall
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Bill Plummer
Deputy City Engineer
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Glen Van Peski
Deputy City Engineer
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
California Energy Commission
1516 9th St
Sacramento, CA 95814-5512
County of San Diego
Hazardous Materials Division
PO Box 129261
San Diego, CA92112
Cat^sbad Chamber of Commerce
5934^Priestley Drive
Carlsbad CA 92008
California Independent System
Operator California ISO
P.O. Box639014
Folsom, CA 95763-9014
California State Lands Commission
Suite 100-South
100 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825-8202
California Public Utilities Commission
San Francisco Office (Headquarters)
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC
3315 CENTURY PARK COURT
3P21E
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-1548
San Diego County
Dept of Environmental Health
P.O. Box 129261, San Diego, CA
92112- 9261
CANFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SUITE. 103
7575 METROPOLITAN DRIVE
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402
Etiquettes faciles a peler
lltilico? IP naharit AVPRY®Sens de charaement
Consultez la feuille
d'instruction
www.avery.com
1-8OO-GO-AVERY
Utilisez ie gabarit 5961Mc
210-020-12-00
Homer Eaton
5025 Tierra Del Oro
Carlsbad CA 92008-4351
rapide
1-800-GO-AVERY
210-020-13-00
Clements William WTr
3500 E Lincoln Dr Unit 18
Phoenix AZ 85018-1024
5961™
AVERY® 5961Mc
210-020-14-00
Amgish Toff Trust
5019 Tierra Del Oro
Carlsbad CA 92008-4351
210-020-15-00
Steven Moss
300 Carlsbad Village Dr # 80
Carlsbad CA 92008-2900
210-020-16-00
Riley Family Trust
30885 Date Palm Dr
Cathedral City CA 92234-2958
210-020-17-00
Ben Costantino
5009 Tierra Del Oro
Carlsbad CA 92008-4351
210-020-18-00
Smith Varro U Family Trust
5005 Tierra Del Oro
Carlsbad CA 92008-4351
210-020-21-00
Breza Trust
111 Twin Peaks Dr
Walnut Creek CA 94595-1728
210-020-22-00
Campbell Richard F Trust
7668 El Camino Real Ste 104-467
Carlsbad CA 92009-7932
210-020-23-00
Herbert Byrne
5001 Tierra Del Oro
Carlsbad CA 92008-4351
Drivi
210-090-17-00
City Of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village
Carlsbad
210-090-24-00
Cannon Road LLC
591 Camino De La Reina Ste 1100
San Diego CA 92108-3113
ard
210-090-18-00
North San Diego County Transit Develop
810 Mission Ave
Oceanside
210-090-52-00
Inns Of America Cannon L L C Lf Cannon Road LLC
755 Raintree Dr Ste 200
Carlsbad CA 92011-3298
210-160-25-00
Sharp LietteC Trust
838 Oakwood Ave
Glendora CA 91741-2850
211-010-24-00
San Diego Gas & Electric Co
P.O. Box25111
Santa Ana J^V-92799-5111
211-010-30-00
Cabrillo Power I L L C
1600 Carlsbad Blvd
"arlsbad
>in-nn-02-00
Resident
5005 Hidden Valley Rd Ste
:arlsbad
210-011-01-00
6005 Hidden Valley RdJ
Carlsbad CA
2ID=6il=a3-00
Resident
6005 Hidden Valley Rd S
Carlsbad
Utilisez le gabarit 5961MC
206-070-17-OC
Cabrillo Power I LLC
4600 Carlsbad Blvd
Carlsbad CA 92008-
AVERY® 5961™
AVERY® 596r
210-010-09-00
North San Diego County Transit Development Board
810 Mission Ave
Oceanside CA 92054-
210-010-10-00
North San Diego County Transit Develops
810 Mission Ave
Oceanside
210-010-26-00
San Diego Gas & Electric Co
P.O. Box 25111
Santa Ana CA 92799-5111
210-010-11-00
North San Diego County Transit Developm^
810 Mission Ave
Oceanside
^^
210-010-35-00
State Of California
1350 Front Street Suite 3064
San Diego CA 92101-
210-010-40-00
San Diego Gas & Electric Co
P.O. Box25111
Sa nta_Ana_XA-9279"9-5111
210-010-42-00
San Diego Gas & Electric Co
P.O. Box25111
Santa Ana^GA-^2799-5111
210-010-44-00
San Diego Gas & Electric Co
P.O. 60x25111
Santa Ana CA
210-011-02-00
West Development Inc
6005 Hidden Valley Rd Ste 290
Carlsbad CA 92011-4226
210-010-41-00
Cabrillo Power I LLC
4600 Carlsbad 6lvd
Carlsbad CA 92008-
210-010-43-00
Cabrillo Power I L L C
4600 Carlsbad Blvd
Carlsbad
^^
210-011-01-00
West Development Inc
6005 Hidden Valley Rd
Carlsbad C -4226
210-011-03-00
West Development Inc
6005 Hidden Valley Rd Ste 290
Carlsbad CA 920J
210-011-04-00
West Development Inc
6005 Hidden Valley
Carlsbad£A-920ll-4226
210-020-01-00
Ben Costantino
5009 Tierra Del Oro
Carlsbad CA 92008-4351
210-011-05-00
West Development Inc
6005 Hidden Valley Rd Ste
Carlsbad C
210-020-02-00
Frassanito Revocable Trust
1412 Stagecoach Rd Se
Albuquerque NM 87123-4433
210-020-03-00
Alyce Carsten
5026 Tierra Del Oro
Carlsbad CA 92008-4350
210-020-04-00
Fletcher
5030 Tierra Del Oro
Carlsbad CA 92008-4350
AM3AV-OD-008-1
Rec#: 1 APN: 209-082-07-00
Techbill Truction Corp
3575 Kenyon St
San Diego, CA 92110-5333
Rec#: 2 APN: 209-083-21-00
Quattro Partners LLC,; Del Norte Farms Inc,
501 Spectrum Cir
Oxnard, CA 93030
Rec#: 3 APN: 209-083-22-00
Mammoth Carlsbad I Lie
29222 Rancho Viejo Rd Ste 203
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675-1045
Rec#: 4 APN: 209-121-04-00
Lands Center For Natural
215WAshSt
Fallbrook, CA 92028-2904
Rec#: 5 APN: 213-121-04-00
Bressi Gardenlane Lie
24800 Chrisanta Dr Ste 200
Mission Viejo, CA 92691-4835
Rec#: 6 APN: 213-300-02-00
Ceg li-2762 Gateway Lie
406 9Th Ave 309
San Diego, Ca 92101
Rec#: 7 APN: 213-300-03-00
Bressi Spectrum Lie
4350 Executive Dr 301
San Diego, Ca 92121
Rec#: 8 APN: 213-300-04-00
Gerhard Interiors Ltd
7740 El Camino Real
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 9 APN: 213-300-05-00
Bressi Spectrum Lie
4350 Executive Dr Ste
San Diego, QA^92T2T-2118
Rec#: 10 APN: 213-300-06-00
Bressi Spectrum Lie
4350 Executive Dr
San DiegA-€A"1)2'l21-2118
Rec#: 11 APN: 213-300-07-00
Knd Properties Lie
462 Stevens Ave 308
Solana Beach, Ca 92075
Rec#: 12 APN: 213-300-08-00
Bressi Spectrum Lie
406 9th Ave Ste 309
San Diego, CA 92101-7278
Rec#: 13 APN: 213-300-09-00
Bressi Spectrum Lie
4350 Executive Dr Ste 301
San Dieg
Rec#: 14 APN: 213-300-10-00
2792 Gateway LLC
91OW San Marcos Blvd 109
-San Marcos, Ca 92078
Rec#: 15 APN: 213-300-13-00
Mellor Family Trust
4711 Sunburst Rd
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Rec#: 16 APN: 213-300-14-00
2780 Gateway Lie
1959 Palomar Oaks Way 300
Carlsbad, Ca 92011
Rec#: 17 APN: 213-300-16-00
Rancho Carrillo Master Assn Co
5966 La Place Ct 170
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Rec#: 18 APN: 213-300-17-00
Bressi Spectrum Owners Associati
1049 Camino Del Marl
Del Mar, Ca 92014
Rec#: 19 APN: 219-541-09-00
Hewson/Vista LLC
4636 E University Dr STE 265
Phoenix, AZ 85034
Rec#: 20 APN: 221-010-37-00
Target Corp
PO Box 9456
Minneapolis, MN 55440-9456
Rec#: 21 APN: 221-011-18-00
Lsof Carlsbad Land
1420 Bristol St N 100
Newport Beach, Ca 92660
Rec#: 22 APN: 221-011-23-00
Chocholek Edward F Living Trust
1399 Specialty Dr
Vista, CA 92081-8521
Rec#: 23 APN: 221-013-01-00
Business Park Industrial Properties Partners
5505 Cancha De Golf
Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92091-4041
Rec#: 24 APN: 221-013-46-00
Kaiser G J Properties I L L C
5360 Eastgate Mall G
San Diego, Ca 92121
Rec#: 25 APN: 221-014-01-00
Palomar Melrose L L C
949 S Coast Dr 600
Costa Mesa, Ca 92626
Rec#: 26 APN: 221-014-04-00
Palomar Melrose L L C
949 S Coast DrSJs
Costa Meear~CA92626-7734
Rec#: 27 APN: 221-014-05-00
Palomar Forum Owners Assn
PO Box 4029
Tustin, Ca 92781
Rec#: 28 APN: 221-014-06-00
Palomar Melrose L L C
949 S Coast Dr__Sfc
CostaJVtegar"CA92626-7734
Rec#: 29 APN: 221-014-07-00
Palomar Forum Associates Lp
PO Box 4029
Tustin, CA 9278
Rec#: 30 APN: 221-015-05-00
Palomar Forum Associates Lp
1420 Bristol St N Ste 100
Newport Beach, CA 92660-2914
Rec#: 31 APN: 221-015-07-01
Palomar Forum Associates
717NHarwoodSt2100
Dallas, Tx 75201
Rec#: 32 APN: 221-015-07-02
Charbonneau Properties L L C
3214 Grey Hawk Ct
Carlsbad, Ca 92010
Rec#: 33 APN: 221-015-07-03
H H H Properties L L C
3216 Grey Hawk Ct
Carlsbad, Ca 92010
Rec#: 34 APN: 221-015-07-04
Palomar Summit L L C
6351 Corte Del Abeto A112
Carlsbad, Ca 92011
Rec#: 35 APN: 221-015-07-05
Palomar Summit L L C
6351 Corte DeLAJjeto-STe A112
CarlsbacL-eA^O11-1429
Rec#: 36 APN: 221-015-07-06
Greyhawk Associates
949 S Coast Dr 600
Costa Mesa, Ca 92626
APN: 221-015-07-07Rec#: 37
Holdings Bmi
3001 Enterprise St # 200
Brea, CA 92821-6213
Rec#: 38 APN: 221-015-07-08
Exica Inc
6412 Merlin Dr
Carlsbad, Ca 92011
Rec#: 39
Pope.Mireya
12555 High Bluff Dr 333
San Diego, Ca 92130
APN: 221-015-07-09 Rec#: 40 APN: 221-015-07-10
Greyhawk Associates
949 S Coast Dr Ste,
Costa MesarCA^92626-7734
Rec#: 41 APN: 221-015-07-11
Greyhawk Associates
949 S Coast Dr Ste 600
Costa Mesa, CA
Rec#: 43 APN: 221-015-07-13
Ep Sunset Lie
2632 Obelisco PI
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 42 APN: 221-015-07-12
Fraser.Scott S
1155 Camino Del Mar 468
Del Mar, Ca 92014
Rec#: 44 APN: 221-015-07-14
Batsford,Robert H & Helga C Revo
3282 Grey Hawk Ct 14
Carlsbad, Ca 92010
Rec#: 45 APN: 221-015-07-15
Greyhawk Associates
949 S Coast Dr
Costa MesA-eA"92626-7734
Rec#: 46 APN: 221-015-07-16
Allgire.Richard W & Mary A Famil
3363 Wildflower Valley Dr
Encinitas, Ca 92024
Rec#: 47 APN: 221-015-07-17
Greyhawk Associates
949 S Coast Dr
Costa MesarCA 92626-7734
Rec#: 49 APN. 221-015-07-19
Greyhawk Associates
949 S Coast Dr
Costa MesaT'CA 92626-7734
Rec#: 51 APN: 221-015-07-21
Greyhawk Associates
949 S Coast Dr Ste6fl
Costa MesaJ^GA-t2626-7734
Rec#: 48 APN: 221-015-07-18
Greyhawk Associates
949 S Coast Dr Ste 600
Costa MesaJ£A-9262£7734
Rec#: 50 APN: 221-015-07-20
Greyhawk Associates
949 S Coast Dr Ste 600
Costa Mes
Rec#: 52 APN: 221-015-07-22
Greyhawk Associates
949 S Coast Dr
Costa MesA-CA' 92626-7734
Rec#: 53 APN: 221-015-07-23
Greyhawk Associates
949 S Coast Dr
Costa Mesa^-e7°r92626-7734
Rec#: 54 APN: 221-015-07-24
Greyhawk Associates
949 S Coast Dr
Costa Mesar-eA'~§2626-7734
Rec#: 55 APN: 221-015-07-25
Greyhawk Associates
949 S Coast Dr
Costa MewrrtA 92626-7734
Rec#: 56 APN: 221-015-07-26
Pac Re Property Management L L C
955 Grand Ave
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Rec#: 57
Bmi Holding
3001 Enterprise St 200
Brea, Ca 92821
APN: 221-015-07-27 Rec#: 58 APN: 221-015-07-28
Greyhawk Associates
949 S Coast Dr
Costa Mfi8ar^A 92626-7734
Rec#: 59 APN: 221-015-08-00
Greyhawk Associates
949 S Coast Dr Ste
Costa Mesa<-€j<r9~2626-7734
Rec#: 60 APN: 221-661-02-00
Business Park Car Wash L L C
1280 E Vista Way 5
Vista, Ca 92084
Rec#: 61 ARM: 221-661-03-00
N C Retail Investors Vista L L C
5930 Priestly Dr
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Rec#: 62 APN: 221-661-19-00
Dense Wireless Systems America I
3250 Business Park Dr
Vista, Ca 92081
Rec#: 63 APN: 221-661-34-00
Sorrento Square L L C
9720 Blackgold Rd
LaJolla, Ca 92037
Rec#: 64 APN: 221-661-35-00
Vista Palomar Park Partners L P
9330 Balboa Ave
San Diego, Ca 92123
Rec#: 65 APN: 221-661-36-00
Sun Coast Ventures Lf Vista Palo
9720 Blackgold Rd
La Jolla, Ca 92037
Rec#: 66 APN: 221-661-37-00
Southland Corporation
PO Box 711
Dallas, Tx 75221
Rec#: 67 APN: 221-661-38-00
Springhawk Corp,
9720 Blackgold Rd
LaJolla, CA 92037-1113
Rec#: 68 APN: 221-661-39-00
Vista Palomar Park Partners L P
9720 Blackgold Rd
LaJolla, CA 92037-1113
Rec#: 69 APN: 221-661-40-00
Vista Palomar Park Partners L P
9720 Blackgold Rd
LaJolla, CA-92037-1113
Rec#: 70 APN: 221-661-41-00
Vista Palomar Park Partners L P
9720 Blackgold Rd
La Jolla,
Rec#: 71 APN: 221-810-01-00
Danoswky Family Trust 08-24-01
6203 Paseo Colina
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 72 APN: 221-810-02-00
Contreras,Ernesto
6207 Paseo Colina
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 73 APN: 221-810-03-00
Pohl-Valenty Family Trust
6211 Paseo Colina
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 74 APN: 221-810-04-00
Fitzpatrick Living Trust 02-18-0
6215 Paseo Colina
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 75 APN: 221-810-05-00
Phelps,Kathleen M
6219 Paseo Colina
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 76 APN: 221-810-06-00
Suk,Churl Soo
875E22NdSt414
Lombard, II 60148
Rec#: 77 APN: 221-810-07-00
Jovanovic.Slavko & Tatjana
6227 Paseo Colina
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 78 APN: 221-810-08-00
Goldman Family Trust 03-15-01
6231 Paseo Colina
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 79 APN: 221-810-09-00
Sundheimer.Craig & Nancy
6235 Paseo Colina
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 80 APN: 221-810-10-00
Palmer.Thomas E & Mary V
6232 Paseo Colina
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 81 APN: 221-810-11-00
Katragadda.Ramana V & Sudha
6226 Paseo Colina
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 82 APN: 221-810-12-00
Im.Tae-Woong & Helen H
6224 Paseo Colina
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 83
Kelly.John R
6220 Paseo Colina
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
APN: 221-810-13-00 Rec#: 84 APN: 221-810-14-00
Benward.Wallace
16444 Avenida Cuesta Del Sol
Rancho Santa Fe, Ca 92067
Rec#: 85 APN: 221-810-15-00
Miremadi.Arjang & Hamideh Trust
2533 Ruette Nicole
La Jolla, Ca 92037
Rec#: 86 APN: 221-810-16-00
Stabile, Bill B
6222 Rancho Bravado
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 87 APN: 221-810-17-00
Wright.Brian A & Caroline A
6226 Rancho Bravado
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 88 APN: 221-810-18-00
Herrmann,Robert A & Diane Family
6230 Rancho Bravado
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 89 APN: 221-810-19-00
Muldowney,Peter D & Elizabeth C
6217 Paseo Alta Rico
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 90
Gload.Starla
6213 Paseo Alta Rico
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
APN: 221-810-20-00
Rec#: 91 APN: 221-810-21-00
Ingram.Vinston L
6210 Paseo Alta Rico
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 92 APN: 221-810-22-00
Miller.James R
6214 Paseo Alta Rico
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 93 APN: 221-810-23-00
Rancho Carrillo Master Assn
2237 Faraday Ave 100
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Rec#: 94 APN: 221-810-24-00
Master Rancho Carrillo
2237 Faraday Ave
CarlsbadjGA-g5o"08-7209
Rec#: 95 APN: 221-811-04-00
Bose.K Thomas & Linda M
2807 Rancho Diamonte
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 96 APN: 221-811-05-00
Towns,Pierre A & Anisa D
6236 Paseo Colina
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 97 APN: 221-811-06-00
Hwang.William G & Stella T
2812 Rancho Diamonte
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 98 APN: 221-811-07-00
Schilke Family 2006 Trust
6252 Rancho Bravado
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 99 APN: 221-811-08-00
Amin Family Trust 11-29-94
6256 Rancho Bravado
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 100 APN: 221-811-14-00
Kermott 2004 Trust
6237 Paseo Alta Rico
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 101 APN: 221-811-15-00
Alexander Living Trust 10-30-02
6233 Paseo Alta Rico
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 102 APN: 221-811-16-00
Aldrete 2002 Trust 08-16-02
6229 Paseo Alta Rico
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 103 APN: 221-811-17-00
Wrigley.Ronald L 2007 Trust
6225 Paseo Alta Rico
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 104 APN: 221-811-18-00
Oreilly.John J & Michelle
6221 Paseo Alta Rico
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 105 APN: 221-811-19-00
Harris,Owen N & Gloria K
6218 Paseo Alta Rico
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 106 APN: 221-811-20-00
Nguyen.Thanh Ba
6230 Paseo Alta Rico
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 107 APN: 221-811-21-00
Moussavi.Bijan
6324 Paseo Alto Rico
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 108 APN: 221-811-22-00
Nam,Sung S
6238 Paseo Alta Rico
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 109 APN: 221-811-23-00
Ruderman.Steve & Holly I
2871 Rancho Diamonte
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 110 APN: 221-811-24-00
Ballard Family Trust 05-11-05
2867 Rancho Diamonte
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 111 APN: 221-811-25-00
Vo.Quang D
2863 Rancho Diamonte
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 112 APN: 221-811-26-00
Sherman,Steve C & Mary L
2859 Rancho Diamonte
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 113 APN: 221-811-27-00
Gold,Steven A
2855 Rancho Diamonte
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 114 APN: 221-811-28-00
Keeler.John R & Maria A
2850 Rancho Diamonte
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 115 APN: 221-811-29-00
Peterson Family Trust 08-01-90
2854 Rancho Diamonte
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 116 APN: 221-811-30-00
Pynchon-List Family Trust 10-02-
2858 Rancho Diamonte
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 117 APN: 221-811-31-00
Micare,Pascal D Family Revoc Liv
PO Box 131586
Carlsbad, Ca 92013
Rec#: 118 APN: 221-811-32-00
Manavi,Mahbod & Mojgan
2866 Rancho Diamonte
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 119 APN: 221-811-33-00
Chiu.Wei Oi 2006 Trust 12-13-06
2870 Rancho Diamonte
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 120 APN: 221-811-34-00
Schneider,John M & Nancy A
6212 E Desert Cove Ave
Scottsdale, Az 85254
Rec#: 121 APN: 221-811-35-00
Kogge Family Livimi Trust
2878 Rancho Diamonte
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 122 APN: 221-811-36-00
Garcia,Mario A & Karen C
2882 Rancho Diamonte
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 123 APN: 221-811-37-00
Master Rancho Carrillo
12636 High Bluff Dr Ste 300
San Diego, CA 92130-2071
Rec#: 124 APN: 221-812-11-00
Younan.Maher G & Nadia J
6242 Paseo Alta Rico
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 125 APN: 221-812-12-00
Kurpanek.Dietmar & Faye C
6249 Paseo Alta Rico
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 126 APN: 221-812-13-00
Dorin,Gregory L & Denise M
6245 Paseo Alta Rico
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 127 APN: 221-812-14-00
Packer.Russell H & Melanie M Fam
6241 Paseo Alta Rico
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 128 APN: 221-812-15-00
Beam,Linda K
2886 Rancho Diamonte
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 129 APN: 221-813-01-00
Assn Bressi Spectrum Owners
1049 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar,
Rec#: 130 APN: 221-822-09-00
Luera,Samuel & Esperanza M
6151 Paseo Jaquita
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 131 APN: 221-822-10-00
Mann,Douglas C & Deborah C
6147 Paseo Jaquita
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 132 APN: 221-822-11-00
Ryba,Josephine M
6143 Paseo Jaquita
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 133 APN: 221-822-12-00
Majors,Michael K & Kathleen M
6139 Paseo Jaquita
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 134 APN: 221-822-27-00
Patel Family Trust 08-26-03
6126 Paseo Jaquita
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 135 APN: 221-822-28-00
Aguila Family Trust 05-05-01
6130 Paseo Jaquita
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 136 APN: 221-822-29-00
Rhoads,Susan H
6134 Paseo Jaquita
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 137 APN: 221-822-30-00
Bevacqua.Thomas Trust 06-22-06
6138 Paseo Jaquita
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 138 APN: 221-822-31-00
Mccain.Jack S
3045 Paseo Estribo
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 139 APN: 221-822-32-00
Dixon Family Trust 09-12-06
3041 Paseo Estribo
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 140 APN: 221-822-33-00
Greger.Manfred H & Teresa A
3037 Paseo Estribo
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 141 APN: 221-822-34-00
Norbert Hagen
3033 Paseo Estribo
Carlsbad, CA 92009-2212
Rec#: 142 APN: 221-822-35-00
Solomon.Thomas E & Anne R
3029 Paseo Estribo
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 143 APN: 221-823-03-00
Pearson,Scott C
6140 Paseo Tapajos
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 144 APN: 221-823-04-00
Douglas Hadden
6144 Paseo Tapajos
Carlsbad, CA 92009-2214
Rec#: 145 APN: 221-823-05-00
Pastula Family Trust 06-06-96
6148 Paseo Tapajos
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 146 APN: 221-823-06-00
Johnson,R W Family Trust 06-26-9
6152 Paseo Tapajos
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 147 APN: 221-823-07-00
Fennessy,Brian P & Kathleen A
6156 Paseo Tapajos
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 148 APN: 221-823-08-00
Tincu.Eduard
9348 Hito Ct
San Diego, Ca 92129
Rec#: 149 APN: 221-823-09-00
Joyce Family Trust 07-26-90
3518 Avenida Amorosa
Escondido, Ca 92029
Rec#: 150 APN: 221-823-10-00
Gasaway.Michael L & Heather M
6168 Paseo Tapajos
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 151 APN: 221-823-11-00
Rosano.Rochard & Cathy
3095 Paseo Estribo
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 152 APN: 221-823-12-00
Mcdowell Family Trust 09-15-95
3091 Paseo Estribo
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 153 APN: 221-823-13-00
Genise,George & Louise Trust 02-
3087 Paseo Estribo
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 154 APN: 221-823-14-00
Zhang,Shenbei
3083 Paseo Estribo
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 155 APN: 221-823-15-00
Mcnamara, Valerie
3079 Paseo Estribo
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 156 APN: 221-823-16-00
Young.Theodore C Tr
3075 Paseo Estribo
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 157 APN: 221-823-17-00
Marquez.Eduardo & Nora A
1710 Birchwood Dr
San Marcos, Ca 92069
Rec#: 158 APN: 221-823-18-00
Fields.William J & Rita H
3067 Paseo Estribo
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 159 APN: 221-823-19-00
Asombrado.Doris L Trust
12519SoraWay
San Diego, Ca 92129
Rec#: 160 APN: 221-823-20-00
Pajarillo.Reynaldo C
3059 Paseo Estribo
Carlsbad,.Ca 92009
Rec#: 161 APN: 221-823-21-00
Super.William F
3055 Paseo Estribo
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 162 APN: 221-823-22-00
Lane, Janice I
7362 Escallonia Ct
Carlsbad, Ca 92011
Rec#: 163 APN: 221-823-23-00
Schraeger Family Trust
6154 Paseo Jaquita
Carlsbad, CA 92009-2207
Rec#: 164 APN: 221-823-24-00
Weiss,Roger A & Susan M
6158 Paseo Jaquita
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 165 APN: 221-823-25-00
Rubin A B & L D Living Trust
6162 Paseo Jaquita
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 166 APN: 221-823-26-00
Elias, Thalia
6166 Paseo Jaquita
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 167 APN: 221-823-27-00
Mcdowell,Matthew 0 & Lauren E
6170 Paseo Jaquita
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 168 APN: 221-823-28-00
Hammond,George P & Katherine F
6174 Paseo Jaquita
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 169 APN: 221-823-29-00
Kendall Family Trust 10-08-98
6175 Paseo Jaquita
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 170 APN: 221-823-30-00
Ross Buck
6262 Paseo Elegancia
Carlsbad, CA 92009-2105
Rec#: 171 APN: 221-823-31-00
Edgar Family Trust 07-31-01
39877 Black Horse Way
Palm Desert, Ca 92260
Rec#: 172 APN: 221-823-32-00
Elder.Jerry & Nancy
6163 Paseo Jaquita
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 173 APN: 221-823-33-00
Elfus Family Trust 08-20-04
6159 Paseo Jaquita
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 174 APN: 221-823-34-00
Ferrone,Jason & Tara
6155 Paseo Jaquita
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 175 APN: 221-823-35-00
Gorzynski.Andrew P & Loredana A
6139 Paseo Tapajos
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 176 APN: 221-823-36-00
Hurlock.Daniel B & Kimberly S
6143 Paseo Tapajos
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 177 APN: 221-823-37-00
Castiglione Family Trust
6147 Paseo Tapajos
Carlsbad, CA 92009-2216
Rec#: 178 APN: 221-823-38-00
Hilmen.Kenneth E
3088 Paseo Estribo
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 179 APN: 221-823-39-00
Spangenberg.Phil A & Tracey J
3084 Paseo Estribo
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 180 APN: 221-823-40-00
Meza Family Trust 09-01-07
3080 Paseo Estribo
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 181 APN: 221-823-41-00
Matthews.Carey E & Shirley
3076 Paseo Estribu
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 182 APN: 221-823-42-00
Gregory Farm Ltd Partnership
PO Box 1053
Solana Beach, Ca 92075
Rec#: 183 APN: 221-823-43-00
Manning,Gloria N
3050 Paseo Estribo
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 184 APN: 221-823-44-00
Ramos,Manuel & Arminda
3046 Paseo Estribo
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 185 APN: 221-823-45-00
Desantis.Paul N Jr & Julia
3042 Paseo Estribo
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 186 APN: 221-823-46-00
Master Rancho Carrillo
2237 Faraday AvesJMJ
Carlsbad.CA-92t508^7209
Rec#: 187 APN: 221-830-03-00
Carlsbad Family Housing Partners
710 Wlvy St
San Diego, Ca 92101
Rec#: 188 APN: 221-831-01-01
Files,Susan E Trust
6078 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 189 APN: 221-831-01-02
Belina.F William Trevocable Trus
6080 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 190 APN: 221-831-01-03
Collins,Jan L Living Trust 11-16
1444 Sundance Ave
San Marcos, Ca 92078
Rec#: 191 APN: 221-831-01-04
Leonard Kaplan
1324 Anacapa St
Santa Barbara, CA 93101-2088
Rec#: 192 APN: 221-831-01-05
Allen Family Trust
6086 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 193 APN: 221-831-01-06
Holt.Janice L
6088 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 194 APN: 221-831-01-07
Embree,David E Sr
6090 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 195 APN: 221-831-01-08
Janet Soltys
6092 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, CA 92009-2283
Rec#: 196 APN: 221-831-01-09
Becker.Russell E
6094 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 197 APN: 221-831-01-10
ConstandseJean C & Nancie
6096 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 198 APN: 221-831-01-11
Safarian.Shahin
6098 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 199 APN: 221-831-01-12
Smith,Corinne
6100 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 200 APN: 221-831-01-13
Leuer.Christopher J & Nancy J
6104 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 201 APr-: 221-831-01-14
Oconnor.Donald & Stephanie
6106 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 202 APN: 221-831-01-15
Fulton,Lawrence
427 Recluse Ln
Encinitas, Ca 92024
Rec#: 203 APN: 221-831-01-16
Cartwright.lrene A Trust
6110 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 204 APN: 221-831-01-17
Carroll,Catherine L
6112 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 205 APN: 221-831-01-18
Beshore.Neichia L
6114 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 206 APN: 221-831-01-19
Vignato Family Trust 05-29-07
2405 Sacada Cir B
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 207 APN: 221-831-01-20
Schroeder.Maurine G
6118 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 208 APN: 221-831-01-21
Talbot, Henry W
6120 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 209 APN: 221-831-01-22
Piwenitzky.Hans H li
6124 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 210 APN: 221-831-01-23
Wilson,Susan A
6126 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 211 APN: 221-831-01-24
Bradley,Justin
6128 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 212 APN: 221-831-01-25
Campbell,Scott & Christine Trust
1048 Lighthouse Rd
Carlsbad, Ca 92011
Rec#: 213 APN: 221-831-01-26
Bostan.Florica
6132 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 214 APN: 221-831-01-27
Berkoski.Dana F
PO Box 230340
Encinitas, Ca 92023
Rec#: 215 APN: 221-831-01-28
Kluthe,Gregory S
6136 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 216 APN: 221-831-01-29
Miller.Tamara L
6138 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 217 APN: 221-831-01-30
Seetoo, James M
6140 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 218 APN: 221-831-01-31
Klentschy.Michael P & Diane M
6142 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 219 APN: 221-831-01-32
Kiemel Family Trust 05-20-87
6144 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 220 APN: 221-831-01-33
Lavender.Eleonore R
6146 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 221 APN: 221-831-01-34
Nahlah.Esam A
6150CitracadoCir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 222 APN: 221-831-01-35
Cherry,Ryan A
6152 CitracadoCir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 223 APN: 221-831-01-36
Bogian.Leon P & Sharon J
6154 Cltracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 224 APN: 221-831-01-37
Kreinkamp.Kelly
6158 CitracadoCir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 225 APN: 221-831-01-38
Chmielewski, Joshua A
6158 CitracadoCir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 226 APN: 221-831-01-39
Powers,Shirley M Family Trust 10
6160 CitracadoCir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 227 APN: 221-831-01-40
Gorman, Jacob & Julie
6162 CitracadoCir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 228 APN: 221-831-01-41
Tilque,Courtney K
6164 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 229 APN: 221-831-01-42
Batista,Cathy
6168 CitracadoCir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 230 APN: 221-831-01-43
Granich.Noelle E
6170 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 231 APN: 221-831-01-44
Flores.Ray
6172 CitracadoCir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 232 APN: 221-831-01-45
Willardson.Roy T
6174 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 233 APN: 221-831-01-46
Brown.Nikki L
6176 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 234 APN: 221-831-01-47
Geldard,Carrie
6178 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 235 APN: 221-831-01-48
Mann,Heidi
1230 Via DelCerro
Vista, Ca 92084
Rec#: 236 APN: 221-831-03-01
Stanger.Eric R & Jessica M
1134 Dixie Ln
Fernley, Nv 89408
Rec#: 237 APN: 221-831-03-02
Federman.Todd M
6186 CitracadoCir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 238 APN: 221-831-03-03
Mines,D L 2005 Trust 04-07-05
2766 Olympia Dr
Carlsbad, Ca 92010
Rec#: 239 APN: 221-831-03-04
Lamothe, David & Susan
6190 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 240 APN: 221-831-03-05
South,Kevin M
6192 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 241 ARM: 221-831-03-06
Allen,Mary J
155 Del Mar Shore > Ter
Solana Beach, Ca 92075
Rec#: 242 APN: 221-831-03-07
Jan.Yu Fen
1170KasselTer
Sunnyvale, Ca 94089
Rec#: 243 APN: 221-831-03-08
Nafrada,Roderick R & Mia A
200 Live Oak Way 203
Belmont, Ca 94002
Rec#: 244 APN: 221-831-03-09
Martinez,Steven
2930 Avenida Castana
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 245 APN: 221-831-03-10
Davis,Jeffrey B & Daniel J
6202 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 246 APN: 221-831-03-11
Pearson,Christopher & Gretchen
6204 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 247 APN: 221-831-03-12
Baral,Dante A & Evelyn P
2324 Spindrift Rd
Virginia Beach, Va 23451
Rec#: 248 APN: 221-831-03-13
Lee,Nathan M
6157 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 249 APN: 221-831-03-14
Farr.Scott C
6155 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 250 APN: 221-831-03-15
Amiot.Thomas A
6153 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 251 APN: 221-831-03-16
Jean Selvaggio
6151 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, CA 92009-2284
Rec#: 252 APN: 221-831-03-17
Oquinn,Robert M
444 Pescado PI
Encinitas, Ca 92024
Rec#: 253 APN: 221-831-03-18
Lee.Ching W
6147 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 254 APN: 221-831-05-01
Mcguire,Melissa Trust
62211ThAveC
Honolulu, Hi 96816
Rec#: 255 APN: 221-831-05-02
Doray,Catherine A
6238 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 256 APN: 221-831-05-03
Olsen,Roger & Dena
6240 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 257 APN: 221-831-05-04
Shelly.Brenda L
6242 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 258 APN: 221-831-05-05
Manjunath.Bhadarinath
6244 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 259 APN: 221-831-05-06
Teisher.Michael C
6246 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 260 APN: 221-831-05-07
Anderson,Paul W& Nicole M
6248 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 261 APt'l: 221-831-05-08
Tompkins.Casandn
6250 Citracado Cir 74
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 262 APN: 221-831-05-09
Eriksen,Patricia H
6252 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 263 APN: 221-831-05-10
Miller,Timothy & Lorraine
6254 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 264 APN: 221-831-05-11
Kim.Taewoo
1930 W San Marcos Blvd 36
San Marcos, Ca 92078
Rec#: 265 APN: 221-831-05-12
Sharkey,Christine C
6258 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 266 APN: 221-831-05-13
Patrick Murty
6213 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, CA 92009-2285
Rec#: 267 APN: 221-831-05-14
Raman,Venkatesh N
6215 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 268 APN: 221-831-05-15
Sibley.Jaelyn & Scott
6217 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 269 APN: 221-831-05-16
Colton,Carol Separate Property T
6219 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 270 APN: 221-831-05-17
Ballard,Amy C
6221 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 271 APN: 221-831-05-18
Pickavet.Christina M
6223 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 272 APN: 221-831-05-19
Ryska,Daniel & Kara
6225 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 273 APN: 221-831-05-20
Mark Eskes
26431 Crown Valley Pkwy Ste 100
Mission Viejo, CA 92691-6360
Rec#: 274 APN: 221-831-05-21
Gallegos.Rose
6229 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 275 APN: 221-831-05-22
Carey,Sean
6231 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 276 APN: 221-831-05-23
Lam Lois Van Living Trust
6233 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, CA 92009-2285
Rec#: 277 APN: 221-831-05-24
Ihnken.Kai A
6235 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 278 APN: 221-831-07-01
Kelly.Lisa J
7657 Angeleno Rd
San Diego, Ca 92126
Rec#: 279 APN: 221-831-07-02
Nowakowski, Jeffrey M Trust 06-21
212 Copper Ridge Ct
Boulder City, Nv 89005
Rec#: 280 APN: 221-831-07-03
Yu,Kelvin & Chiung-Yao C
3222 Avenida Del Alba
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 281 APN: 221-831-07-04
Joslin.Brenton J
6267 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 282 APN: 221-831-07-05
Watson.Heather L
6370 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 283 APN: 221-831-07-06
Morrow, Cris
6271 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 284 APN: 221-831-07-07
Coleman,Joseph A Jr
6439 La Paloma St
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 285 APN: 221-831-07-08
Blas.Abram
6068 Paseo Pradera
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 286 APN: 221-831-07-09
Watkins,Elaine
6277 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 287 APN: 221-831-07-10
Douglas,James F & Carol L
6279 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 288 APN: 221-831-07-11
Willard.Robert F & Donna J
6281 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 289 APN: 221-831-07-12
Cobb.Robert W
6283 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 290 APN: 221-831-07-13
Ackad.Yuhong E
6286 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 291 APN: 221-831-07-14
Nguyen,Jacqueline Uyen
6288 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 292 APN: 221-831-07-15
Thompson,Scott F
6290 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 293 APN: 221-831-07-16
Sieger.Stuart & Arlette
28 Wood Valley Ln
Port Washington, Ny 11050
Rec#: 294 APN: 221-831-07-17
Mills,James E
6294 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 295 APN: 221-831-07-18
Justin Luczyk
6296 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, CA 92009-2285
Rec#: 296 APN: 221-831-07-19
Woods Family Trust 11-10-03
6298 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 297 APN: 221-831-07-20
Young,Patricia J Living Trust
88765 Shoreline Loop
Florence, Or 97439
Rec#: 298 APN: 221-831-07-21
Miller.Jean T
6302 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 299 APN: 221-831-07-22
Seemann,Matthew P
6304 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 300 APN: 221-831-07-23
Denatale, Charles
6306 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 301 ARM: 221-831-07-24
Ryan,Chelsea E
6308 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 302 APN: 221-831-09-01
Sandra Peterson
6309 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, CA 92009-2286
Rec#: 303 APN: 221-831-09-02
Bell,Marsha M
6307 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 304 APN: 221-831-09-03
Thiesse.Thiesse K Tr
6305 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 305 APN: 221-831-09-04
Will,John E & Donna J Family Tru
6303 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 306 APN: 221-831-09-05
Neipris, Daniel Tr Trust
7988 Paseo Aliso
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 307 APN: 221-831-09-06
Choon.Chai B & Jung J
6299 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 308 APN: 221-831-09-07
Moore.Jeffery R & Penny S
10627 Mountain View Dr
Madera, Ca 93636
Rec#: 309 APN: 221-831-09-08
Sawicki,William J & Natalie A
6295 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 310 APN: 221-831-09-09
Wang.Deming
941 Prism Dr
San Marcos, Ca 92078
Rec#: 311 APN: 221-831-09-10
Card,Brian A
91-1031 Kaimalie St 4U2
Ewa Beach, Hi 96706
Rec#: 312 APN: 221-831-09-11
Brown,Stephanie D
6289 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 313 APN: 221-831-09-12
Meyn,Patrick T
6287 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 314 APN: 221-831-09-13
Depaola.Raymond M & Diane M
6335 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 315 APN: 221-831-09-14
Shores.David & Faye
6333 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 316 APN: 221-831-09-15
Singh,Baljit & Asha
7827 Calle Jalisco
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 317 APN: 221-831-09-16
Marcus, Mark L & Merideth L
1406 Citrus Rdg
Escondido, Ca 92027
Rec#: 318 APN: 221-831-09-17
Mcdonald,Peggy
6327 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 319 APN: 221-831-09-18
Ahern,Maura E
6325 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 320 APN: 221-831-09-19
Park.Kyung W & Chung S
6323 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 321 APr-': 221-831-09-20
Stull,Gregory N
6321 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 322 APN: 221-831-09-21
Rubenstein.Gabriel & Latrice
6319 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 323 APN: 221-831-09-22
Mitchell.Kim N
6317 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 324 APN: 221-831-09-23
Alford-Wilson,Sharon M
450 J St
San Diego, Ca 92101
Rec#: 325 APN: 221-831-09-24
Russell,Deborah J
6313 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 326 APN: 221-831-10-01
Sargent.John W & Denise M
6077 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 327 APN: 221-831-10-02
Keith.Jeffrey G
6075 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 328 APN: 221-831-10-03
West, Robert E & Kum C M Family T
5135Delaney Ct
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Rec#: 329 APN: 221-831-10-04
Fundamental Real Estate Corp
1902 Wright PI 200
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Rec#: 330 APN: 221-831-10-05
Arbogast,Scott A
6069 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 331 APN: 221-831-10-06
Manavi.Mahbod & Mojgan
2866 Rancho Diamonte
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 332 APN: 221-831-10-07
Franks,Nancy J Trust 06-27-05
6065 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 333 APN: 221-831-10-08
Hammarsten,Doris M 2004 Trust 08
6063 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 334 APN: 221-831-10-09
Hartkopf.Jeffrey M
6061 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 335 APN: 221-831-10-10
Diprima.Silvana
6059 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 336 APN: 221-831-10-11
Exeter, Robert A
6057 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 337 APN: 221-831-10-12
Lauri,Brian & Erika
6055 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 338 APN: 221-831-10-13
Garcia,Mario A & Karen
2882 Rancho Diamonte
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 339 APN: 221-831-10-14
Williams.Bryan
6376 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 340 APN: 221-831-10-15
Wittman,Pamela
6374 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 341 APN: 221-831-10-16
Yuen,Eric
6372 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Recft 342 APN: 221-831-10-17
Tiffany Cherewick
6370 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, CA 92009-2286
Rec#: 343 APN: 221-831-10-18
Hinwood.Trudy
3460 Moon Field Dr
Carlsbad, Ca 92010
Rec#: 344 APN: 221-831-10-19
Syres.Luke A
6366 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 345 APN: 221-831-10-20
Acharya.Ajit & Sarita
6364 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 346 APN: 221-831-10-21
Kaye-Eddie,Emily T
1848ShadetreeDr
San Marcos, Ca 92078
Rec#: 347 APN: 221-831-10-22
Decker, Kelly
519 Samuel Ct
Encinitas, Ca 92024
Rec#: 348 APN: 221-831-10-23
Rude,Joshua
6358 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 349 APN: 221-831-10-24
Dunn.David M
6356 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 350 APN: 221-831-10-25
Peterson,Deborah
6352 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 351 APN: 221-831-10-26
Alvarez,Pablo A
6350 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 352 APN: 221-831-10-27
Joseph Di Marco
6348 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, CA 92009-2286
Rec#: 353 APN: 221-831-10-28
Jabro,Marvin Revoc 2005 Trust
2202 S Santa Fe Ave
Vista, Ca 92084
Rec#: 354 APN: 221-831-10-29
Moore.Terry C
6344 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 355 APN: 221-831-10-30
Eldridge, Robert W & Karen A
6342 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 356 APN: 221-831-10-31
Walsh,Christine M
6340 Citracado Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 357 APN: 221-850-01-00
Agredano.Arturo R
25575 Pine Creek Ln
Wilmington, Ca 90744
Rec#: 358 APN: 221-850-02-00
Kenneth Michael
3211 Rancho Quartillo
Carlsbad, CA 92009-2228
Rec#: 359 APN: 221-850-03-00
Malinowski Family Trust 09-05-06
3207 Rancho Quartillo
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 360 APN: 221-850-04-00
Ishioka.Masamitsu & Hilda
2015 Cordoba PI
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Rec#: 361 APN: 221-850-05-00
Harris,Stephen L
6193 Paseo Tiendc
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 362 APN: 221-850-06-00
Stotler.Michael J Revoc Trust 02
6189 PaseoTienda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 363 APN: 221-850-07-00
Wilfert, Richard W& Jill E
6185 PaseoTienda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 364 APN: 221-850-08-00
Schneider,Jacqui
6181 PaseoTienda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 365 APN: 221-850-09-00
Tchorz.John C & Kimberly
6177 PaseoTienda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 366 APN: 221-850-10-00
Moyer Trust
6173 PaseoTienda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 367 APN: 221-850-11-00
Stremel,Patrick A & Michele H
6169 PaseoTienda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 368 APN: 221-850-12-00
Morrow.Bradley J & Tracey W
6165 Paseo Tienda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 369 APN: 221-850-13-00
Peterson,Todd & Melinda Family T
6161 PaseoTienda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 370 APN: 221-850-14-00
Hanselman,David S & Kelly A
6156 PaseoTienda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 371 APN: 221-850-16-00
Johnston,Joseph F
6164 PaseoTienda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 372 APN: 221-850-17-00
Thomas Dunning
6168 PaseoTienda
Carlsbad, CA 92009-2230
Rec#: 373 APN: 221-850-18-00
Donato Family Trust 04-26-05
6172 PaseoTienda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 374 APN: 221-850-19-00
Duffy.David P & Shawn L
6176 PaseoTienda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 375 APN: 221-850-20-00
Young,Scott & Jennifer
6180 Paseo Tienda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 376 APN: 221-850-21-00
Eng.S Laverne Family Trust 10-22
6184 PaseoTienda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 377 APN: 221-850-22-00
Louw, Frank
6188 PaseoTienda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 378 APN: 221-850-23-00
Smith,Steven & Aida G 2006 Trust
12308 BriardaleWay
San Diego, Ca 92128
Rec#: 379 APN: 221-850-24-00
Gallo.Paul J
6196 PaseoTienda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 380 APN: 221-850-25-00
Salas.Daniel A
3210 Rancho Quartillo
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 381 ARM: 221-850-26-00
Rancho Carrillo Master Assn
2237 Faraday Ave 100
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Rec#: 382 APN: 221-850-27-00
Master Rancho Carrillo
2237 Faraday Ave # 100
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7209
Rec#: 383 APN: 221-851-01-00
Curran,Matthew J & Jennifer L W
3218 Rancho Quartillo
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 384 APN: 221-851-02-00
Davis.John W & Stacey S
3222 Rancho Quartillo
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 385 APN: 221-851-03-00
Schwartz,Jeff E & Danielle K
3226 Rancho Quartillo
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 386 APN: 221-851-04-00
Faghih,Nader Trust 03-02-06
1748E Kenwood St
Mesa, Az 85203
Rec#: 387 APN: 221-851-05-00
Eischen.Kent A & Nhorma P Trust
3234 Rancho Quartillo
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 388 APN: 221-851-06-00
Vartabedian Living Trust 09-05-0
3249 Rancho Arroba
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 389 APN: 221-851-07-00
Peterson,Mark C & Bridget K
3245 Rancho Arroba
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 390 APN: 221-851-08-00
Masters,Gary R
3241 Rancho Arroba
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 391 APN: 221-851-09-00
Sato Family Trust 01-14-99
3237 Rancho Arroba
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 392 APN: 221-851-10-00
Behrouzi.Pejman
3233 Rancho Arroba
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 393 APN: 221-851-11-00
Pak.Byung Hee
3229 Rancho Arroba
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 394 APN: 221-851-12-00
Eliott.Dean
6280 W 3Rd St 433
Los Angeles, Ca 90036
Rec#: 395 APN: 221-851-13-00
Ragghanti.Amber L
3221 Rancho Arroba
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 396 APN: 221-851-14-00
Maryn,Richard D
3224 Rancho Arroba
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 397 APN: 221-851-15-00
Harrison Family Trust 05-18-01
3228 Rancho Arroba
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 398 APN: 221-851-16-00
Ballard, Michael
3232 Rancho Arroba
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 399 APN: 221-851-17-00
Stroh,Glenn A & Tametha L
3236 Rancho Arroba
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 400 APN: 221-851-18-00
Casey,Dennis
3240 Rancho Arroba
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 401 APN: 221-851-19-00
Weiner.Cheryl M
6174 Paseo Palero
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 402 APN: 221-851-20-00
Lord,Parker J & Christine M Tr
6178 Paseo Palero
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 403 APN: 221-851-21-00
Grueskin,Joanne
6182 Paseo Palero
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 404 APN: 221-851-22-00
Koo,David B
6186 Paseo Palero
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 405 APN: 221-851-23-00
Chapman Family 2005 Trust 08-15-
6190 Paseo Palero
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 406 APN: 221-851-24-00
Dowlan Family Trust 02-11-02
6194 Paseo Palero
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 407 APN: 221-851-25-00
Dove.William C & Karin O
6198 Paseo Palero
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 408 APN: 221-851-26-00
Schlosser.Lisa J
3239 Rancho Quartillo
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 409 APN: 221-851-27-00
Senalik.Tyson
3231 Business Park Dr C
Vista, Ca 92081
Rec#: 410 APN: 221-851-28-00
Kim.Paul & Juhee
3231 Rancho Quartillo
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 411 APN: 221-851-29-00
Haro.Carlos H & Maria M
7872 Via Teca
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 412 APN: 221-851-30-00
Ellis.JeriA
3223 Rancho Quartillo
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 413 APN: 221-851-31-00
Humpherys,Brent & Cvarrie
6147 Pearce Jacquinta
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 414 APN: 221-851-32-00
Master Rancho Carrillo
2237 Faraday Aye,
Carlsbadr-eA'92008-7209
Rec#: 415 APN: 221-851-33-00
Payne.William B
6171 Paseo Palero
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 416 APN: 221-851-34-00
Tonido,Edwin L
6167 Paseo Palero
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 417 APN: 221-851-36-00
Thomas Hersant
6153 Paseo Palero
Carlsbad, CA 92009-2234
Rec#: 418 APN: 221-851-37-00
Kaminski Family Living Trust 04-
6149 Paseo Palero
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 419 APN: 221-851-43-00
Dan Vujica
6166 Paseo Palero
Carlsbad, CA 92009-2224
Rec#: 420 APN: 221-851-44-00
Grant,James E Family Trust 12-16
5051 Avenida Encinas
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Rec#: 421 APN: 221-852-59-00
Master Rancho Carrillo
2237 Faraday Ave # 1C
Carlsbad,
Rec#: 422 APN: 221-870-01-01
Farley.Ann
2995 Paseo Almiar
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 423 APN: 221-870-01-02
Kalama,Patricia B
2991 Paseo Almiar
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 424 APN: 221-870-01-03
Knapp.Anthony
2987 Paseo Almiar
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 425 APN: 221-870-01-04
Witman.Joan
6457 Goldenbush Dr
Carlsbad, Ca 92011
Rec#: 426 APN: 221-870-01-05
Hong.James S & Susie H
134 Twin Lakes Dr
Moore, Sc 29369
Rec#: 427 APN: 221-870-01-06
Green,Shawn M & Anna C
6172 Paseo Camas
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 428 APN: 221-870-01-07
Dominguez.Emilio & Cornelia
6176 Paseo Camas
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 429 APN: 221-870-01-08
Van Anh.Thi
6180 Paseo Camas
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 430 APN: 221-870-01-09
Jenkins,Patrick R & Kylie J Fami
6184 Paseo Camas
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 431 APN: 221-870-01-10
Cueva.Graciela
6183 Paseo Camas
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 432 APN: 221-870-01-11
Servin.Maryann
6179 Paseo Camas
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 433 APN: 221-870-01-12
Abifaker.Wassim M & Kareem M
12083 Tivoli Park Row 1
San Diego, Ca 92128
Rec#: 434 APN: 221-870-01-13
Daigle.Glen
33001 Adelante St
Temecula, Ca 92592
Rec#: 435 APN: 221-870-01-14
Baghoyan.Sarkis & Amanda R
6158 Paseo Granito
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 436 APN: 221-870-01-15
Salazar.Elizabeth
6162 Paseo Granito
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 437 APN: 221-870-01-16
Gurule.Denise M
6166 Paseo Granito
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 438 APN: 221-870-01-17
Yoshimura,Jason
6170 Paseo Granito
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 439 APN: 221-870-01-18
Bliss.Michael E
PO Box 131058
Carlsbad, Ca 92013
Rec#: 440 APN: 221-870-01-19
Graves.Olun Trust 11-08-04
8375 Katherine Claire Ln
San Diego, Ca 92127
Rec#: 441 APN: 221-870-01-20
Crowley.Mark W
6161 Paseo GranitD
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 442 APN: 221-870-01-21
Sevilla.Antonio R L lii
6157 Paseo Granite
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 443 APN: 221-870-01-22
Zatarain,Roberto M
6153 Paseo Granito
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 444 APN: 221-870-01-23
Lovingier Family Trust
40370 Camino El Destine
Indio, Ca 92203
Rec#: 445 APN: 221-870-01-24
Cerin.Draska
2124 Wedgewood Dr
Oceanside, Ca 92056
Rec#: 446 APN: 221-870-01-25
Walker.Joan C
6160 Paseo Ensillar
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 447 APN: 221-870-01-26
Muric.Maja
649 Beach St
Encinitas, Ca 92024
Rec#: 448 APN: 221-870-01-27
Kim.Chul Kyo
6168 Paseo Ensillar
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 449 APN: 221-870-01-28
Farnbach,Michael J & Laura L
6167 Paseo Ensillar
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 450 APN: 221-870-01-29
Johnson,Dawn R
5022 Milissi Way
Oceanside, Ca 92056
Rec#: 451 APN: 221-870-01-30
Koteen,Casey & Katherine
6159 Paseo Ensillar
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 452 APN: 221-870-01-31
Knight,Gina M & Jill Etal
6155 Paseo Ensillar
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 453 APN: 221-870-01-32
Mendez.Jose A
6151 Paseo Ensillar
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 454 APN: 221-870-01-33
Arcos,Martin D
6150 Paseo Picador
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 455 APN: 221-870-01-34
Nettles.Wendy C
6154 Paseo Picador
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 456 APN: 221-870-01-35
Scouten,David B
6158 Paseo Picador
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 457 APN: 221-870-01-36
Hardin.William H
6162 Paseo Picador
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 458 APN: 221-870-01-37
Sangis.Lawrence F & Melissa
6168 Paseo Picador
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 459 APN: 221-870-01-38
Nordstrom Trust
1050WiegandRd
Encinitas, Ca 92024
Rec#: 460 APN: 221-870-01-39
Amjadi.Alireza
2908 Rancho Posta
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 461 APN: 221-870-01-40
Bray .Aaron
2912 Rancho Posta
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 462 APN: 221-870-01-41
Senteno Family Trust 09-03-03
928 Westport Ln
Vista, Ca 92084
Rec#: 463 APN: 221-870-01-42
George,Brian Etal
30 Paseo Del Rey
San Clemente, Ca 92673
Rec#: 464 APN: 221-870-01-43
Hood,Kevin J & Melissa A Inter V
32 Corte Vidriosa
San Clemente, Ca 92673
Rec#: 465 APN: 221-870-01-44
Schuck.Andrea
6108 Paseo Valla
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 466 APN: 221-870-01-45
Dalton, Janet S Trust
6112 Paseo Valla
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 467 APN: 221-870-01-46
Trulson,Frank J
6116 Paseo Valla
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 468 APN: 221-870-01-47
Lawson.Tracey R
2915 Rancho Posta
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 469 APN: 221-870-01-48
Cisneros.Elva
2911 Rancho Posta
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 470 APN: 221-870-01-49
Brent Beachler
2907 Rancho Posta
Carlsbad, CA 92009-2281
Rec#: 471 APN: 221-870-01-50
Kuder.Darryl & Mercedes E
2903 Rancho Posta
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 472 APN: 221-870-01-51
Albright Family Trust
1022 Auburn Woods Dr
Vista, Ca 92081
Rec#: 473 APN: 221-870-01-52
Shelton,Barry & Thomas Rachel Et
6124 Paseo Picador
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 474 APN: 221-870-01-53
Maringer Family Trust 09-21-06
6128 Paseo Picador
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 475 APN: 221-870-01-54
Sangines Rafael A & Real Myrna G
2038 San Remo Dr
Oceanside, Ca 92056
Rec#: 476 APN: 221-870-01-55
Peters.Francine L 2005 Trust 07-
6136 Paseo Picador
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 477 APN: 221-870-01-56
Fox Lori Revocable Trust Of 2005
6137 Paseo Ensillar
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 478 APN: 221-870-01-57
Aksan.Lena
105 Grade Park Dr
Herndon, Va 20170
Rec#: 479 APN: 221-870-01-58
Harp,Robert
6129 Paseo Ensillar
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 480 APN: 221-870-01-59
Luna,Frank D
6125 Paseo Ensillar
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 481 APN: 221-870-01-60
Baker.Thomas J
837 Luminara Way
San Marcos, Ca 92078
Rec#: 482 APN: 221-870-01-61
Geller.Naomi D 2006 Trust
6126 Paseo Ensillar
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 483 APN: 221-870-01-62
Nguyen, Bryan & Victoria
11449Raedene Way
San Diego, Ca 92131
Rec#: 484 APN: 221-870-01-63
Abell.Jennifer L
6134 Paseo Ensillar
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 485 APN: 221-870-01-64
Prakhovnik.Yefim A & Anna Y
6138 Paseo Ensillar
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 486 APN: 221-870-01-65
Hall,David S & Carmen
2617 Valewood Ave
Carlsbad, Ca 92010
Rec#: 487 APN: 221-870-01-66
Vega,Jennifer
6141 Paseo Granito
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 488 APN: 221-870-01-67
Rosu.Liviu & Simona F
6137 Paseo Granito
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 489 APN: 221-870-01-68
Nguyen, Nhatnam Gia
6133 Paseo Granito
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 490 APN: 221-870-01-69
Gustafson, David
6117 Paseo Granito
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 491 APN: 221-870-01-70
Lalam.Arvindh Kumar V S
6113 Paseo Granito
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 492 APN: 221-870-01-71
Heckman.Debra
6109 Paseo Granito
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 493 APN: 221-870-01-72
Gray,Patricia A
329 Moonstone Bay Dr
Oceanside, Ca 92057
Rec#: 494 APN: 221-870-01-73
Cilingir.Mehmet & Ozlem
6101 Paseo Granito
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 495 APN: 221-870-01-74
Deutsche Bk Natl
Rec#: 496 APN: 221-870-01-75
Swanson.Brenton R
6106 Rancho Brida
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 497 APN: 221-870-01-76
Halquist,Marsha
6110 Rancho Brida
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 498 APN: 221-870-01-77
Moersch,Jonathan B & Kristin K
6114 Rancho Brida
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 499 APN: 221-870-01-78
Leider.Jeff D & Scott T Etal
509 Camino De La Paz
San Marcos, Ca 92078
Rec#: 500 APN: 221-870-01-79
Nina.Riccardo
6123 Rancho Brida
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 501 APN: 221-870-01-80
Ladjavardi.Farshad
6127 Rancho Brida
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 502 APN: 221-870-01-81
Macdonell,Christopher & Charlene
6131 Rancho Brida
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 503 APN: 221-870-01-82
Wang.Yuan Hung
6135 Rancho Brida
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 504 APN: 221-870-01-83
Anderson,Paul G & Lisa K
6139 Rancho Brida
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 505 APN: 221-870-01-84
Baker.Richard A & Joyce O
6136 PaseoGranito
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 506 APN: 221-870-01-85
Lancaster.Adam C & Tammy M
6140 Paseo Granito
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 507 APN: 221-870-01-86
Beaman, Michael
6144 Paseo Granito
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 508 APN: 221-870-01-87
Gast.Vicki J
6148 Paseo Granito
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 509 APN: 221-870-02-01
Lara,Ruben & Mariana J
6078 Paseo Salinero
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 510 APN: 221-870-02-02
Ekmecic.Borko & Vesna
6082 Paseo Salinero
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 511 APN: 221-870-02-03
Grace, Jacquelin
6086 Paseo Salinero
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 512 APN: 221-870-02-04
Synodin, Michael
6090 Paseo Salinero
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 513 APN: 221-870-02-05
Bernardino,Martin & Lucinda
6094 Paseo Salinero
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 514 APN: 221-870-02-06
Resales,Lucille
6058 Paseo Salinero
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 515 APN: 221-870-02-07
Tanner.Russell & Darcy
6062 Paseo Salinero
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 516 APN: 221-870-02-08
Bement.Leah
6068 Paseo Salinero
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 517 APN: 221-870-02-09
Sullivan.Jeffrey P & Allison C
6072 Paseo Salinero
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 518 APN: 221-870-02-10
Ramirez, Jaime M & Aurora
13047HeywoodSt
Victorville, Ca 92392
Rec#: 519 APN: 221-870-02-11
Dang.Lani
6038 Paseo Salinero
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 520 APN: 221-870-02-12
Carlin.Shamera D
6042 Paseo Salinero
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 521 APN: 221-870-02-13
Prieto,Jaime E
921 Calle Santa Cruz
Encinitas, Ca 92024
Rec#: 522 APN: 221-870-02-14
Delgado.lsaias & Yanira Etal
6050 Paseo Salinero
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 523 APN: 221-870-02-15
Rezai.Farideh
5737 Trinity PI
San Diego, Ca 92120
Rec#: 524 APN: 221-870-02-16
Hernandez,Luis E
6024 Paseo Salinero
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 525 APN: 221-870-02-17
Rodriguez,Allyson M
6028 Paseo Salinero
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 526 APN: 221-870-02-18
Oseguera,Grace
6032 Paseo Salinero
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 527 APN: 221-870-02-19
Webster Trust
6036 Paseo Salinero
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 528 APN: 221-870-02-20
Fanelli, Michael
6004 Paseo Salinero
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 529 APN: 221-870-02-21
Lewis,Derek W & Maria D J
6008 Paseo Salinero
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 530 APN: 221-870-02-22
Laboriante,Cesar & Laura
1925 El Dorado Ave
Oxnard, Ca 93033
Rec#: 531 APN: 221-870-02-23
Hevener.Maria E
1110 Chinquapin Ave
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Rec#: 532 APN: 221-870-02-24
Bortugno, Laura B
6020 Paseo Salinero
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 533 APN: 221-870-02-25
Alex.Georgios Etal
6015 Paseo Salinero
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 534 APN: 221-870-02-26
Palumbo.Philip & Kim
1322AlcyonCt
Carlsbad, Ca 92011
Rec#: 535 APN: 221-870-02-27
Au-Yeung,Sun Godfrey
6007 Paseo Salinero
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 536 APN: 221-870-02-28
Kaharlani,Alireza
3421 Corte Brezo
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 537 APN: 221-870-02-29
Allen,Martha
6065 Paseo Salinero
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 538 APN: 221-870-02-30
Culhane.Ryan E & Melody L
6061 Paseo Salinero
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 539 APN: 221-870-02-31
Kasa.Magdalena
18471 Calle Tramonto
Rancho Santa Fe, Ca 92091
Rec#: 540 APN: 221-870-02-32
Gomez, Katherine E
6053 Paseo Salinero
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 541 APN: 221-870-02-33
Saunders,David E
6049 Paseo Salinero
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 542 APN: 221-870-02-34
Nance,Labien
6052 Paseo Acampo
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 543 APN: 221-870-02-35
Agnos.John E
6056 Paseo Acampo
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 544 APN: 221-870-02-36
Parent.Shawn M & Philip R Etal
6060 Paseo Acampo
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 545 APN: 221-870-02-37
Chia Family Trust
6064 Paseo Acampo
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 546 APN: 221-880-01-00
Fenlon Raceway Lie
7577 Mission Valley Rd
San Diego, Ca 92108
Rec#: 547 APN: 221-880-02-00
Fenton Raceway Lie
7577 Mission Valley Rd
San Diego, CA^92tOS:4432
Rec#: 549 APN: 221-880-04-00
Fenton Raceway Lie
7577 Mission Valle1
San Diego^-eA'92108-4432
Rec#: 548 APN: 221-880-03-00
Fenton Raceway Lie
7577 Mission Vallf
San Die5erCA^92108-4432
Rec#: 550 APN: 221-880-07-00
Rq Realty Holdings Lie
5256 S Mission Rd 210
Bonsall, Ca 92003
Rec#: 551 APN: 221-880-08-00
Opus West Corp
2555 E Camelback Rd 800
Phoenix, Az 85016
Rec#: 552 APN: 221-880-09-00
Lionshead Investments L L C
3874 Catamarca Dr
San Diego, Ca 92124
Rec#: 553 APN: 221-880-10-00
Gathering Storm Properties Lie
12275 El Camino Real 200
Carlsbad, Ca 92010
Rec#: 554 APN: 221-880-13-00
Opus West Corp
2555 E CamelbacJs-#ef--STe~ 800
Phoenixr-rt2T85016-9267
Rec#: 555 APN: 221-880-14-00
Fenton Raceway Lie
7577 Mission Valle'
San Diegg^-eA^gS 108-4432
Rec#: 557 APN: 221-880-16-00^
Opus West Corp
2555 E Camelb3ck-Ror Ste 800
Phoenix^A^85016-9267
Rec#: 556 APN: 221-880-15-00
Fenton Raceway Lie
7577 Mission VaHey.
San Disaert5T92108-4432
Rec#: 558 APN: 221-880-17-01
Hofman.William & Eliza Family 19
3152 Lionshead Ave
Carlsbad, Ca 92010
Rec#: 559 APN: 221-880-17-02
Peak L L C
3156 Lionshead Ave 2
Carlsbad, Ca 92010
Rec#: 560 APN: 221-880-17-03
Peak L L C
2386 Faraday Ave
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7221
Rec#: 561 ARM: 221-880-17-04
O W Commercial It c
2555 E Camelback Rd 800
Phoenix, Az
Rec#: 562 APN: 221-880-17-05
Tierra Holdings Limited Partners
7271 Surfbird Cir
Carlsbad, Ca 92011
Rec#: 563 APN: 221-880-17-06
Owp Point Office Condo Lie,
2575 E Camelback Rd
Phoenix, AZ 85016-4240
Rec#: 564 APN: 221-880-17-07
Owp Point Office Condo Lie,
2575 E Camelback I
Phoenix, AZ-S5CM6-4240
Rec#: 565 APN: 221-880-17-08
Owp Point Office Condo Lie,
2575 E Camelback Rd
Phoenix,
Rec#: 567 APN: 221-880-17-10
Owp Point Office Condo Lie,
2575 E Camelback Rd
Phoenix, AZ
Rec#: 566 APN: 221-880-17-09
Owp Point Office Condo Lie,
2575 E Camelback I
Phoenj)L-A2--856l6-4240
Rec#: 568 APN: 221-880-17-11
Owp Point Office Condo Lie,
2575 E Camelback
Rec#: 569 APN: 221-880-17-12
Owp Point Office Condo Lie,
2575 E CamelbackRd_
Phoenix, AZ-85tPf(M240
Rec#: 570 APN: 221-880-17-13
Owp Point Office Condo Lie,
2575 E Camelbadj
Phoenix^AZ-^5016-4240
Rec#: 571 APN: 221-881-01-00
Opus West Corp
2555 E Camelback^kf-STe 800
Rec#: 572 APN: 221-881-02-00
Opus West Corp
2555 E Camelbgck-RtTSte 800
Phoenjxi--AZ"'85016-9267
Rec#: 573 APN: 221-881-06-00
Fenton Raceway Lie
7577 Mission
San Diego<-eA'~S2108-4432
Rec#: 575 APN: 221-881-12-00
Owner, Record
2555 E Camelbjck-RtrSOO
PhoenJx<Az85016
Rec#: 574 APN: 221-881-11-00
Opus West Corp
2555 E Camelback-Ra'Ste 800
6-9267
Rec#: 576 APN: 221-881-13-00
Fenton Raceway Lie
7577 MissionJ
92108-4432
Rec#: 577 APN: 221-881-14-00
Aethercomm Inc
2910 Norman Strasse Rd 105
San Marcos, Ca 92069
Rec#: 578 APN: 221-881-15-OJ
Opus West Corp
2555 E CamglbaclTRd Ste 800
rrrxT'AZ 85016-9267
Rec#: 579 APN: 221-881-16-00
Fenton Raceway Lie
7577 Mission Valle
San Diego<-€A^2108-4432
Rec#: 580 APN: 221-881-17-00
Opus West Corp
2555 E Camelb§cfc-RtT5te 800
Phoerjixr-fiZ"55016-9267
Rec#: 581 APN: 221-881-18-00
Opus West Corp
2555 E Camelback Rd
Phoenix, AZ
Ste
Rec#: 582 APN: 222-011-11-00
San Marcos Unified School Djs
Rec#: 583 APN: 222-011-15-00
San Marcos Unified School District
Rec#: 584 APN: 222-141-01-00
Burgess.William HJr & Kathleen
1720 Kinglet Rd
San Marcos, Ca 92078
Rec#: 585 APN: 222-141-02-00
Steve Speer
1716 Kinglet Rd
San Marcos, CA 92078-5104
Rec#: 586 APN: 222-141-03-00
Fischer Family Trust 07-01-94
1710 Kinglet Rd
San Marcos, Ca 92078
Rec#: 587 APN: 222-141-04-00
Baier.K J & Watson D A Trust
253 Rodney Ave
Encinitas, Ca 92024
Rec#: 588 APN: 222-141-05-00
Harwell,Donald G & Valerie L
1700 Kinglet Rd
San Marcos, Ca 92078
Rec#: 589 APN: 222-141-06-00
County Of San Diego
Rec#: 590 APN: 222-142-01-00
Auckland,Steve
1832TowheeSt
San Marcos, Ca 92078
Rec#: 591 APN: 222-142-02-00
Pollero.Peter W li & Karen J
1828TowheeSt
San Marcos, Ca 92078
Recft 592 APN: 222-142-03-00
Ness,Monica
1824 Townee St
San Marcos, Ca 92078
Rec#: 593 APN: 222-142-04-00
Gilmore,David E & Michelle P
1820TowheeSt
San Marcos, Ca 92078
Rec#: 594 APN: 222-142-05-00
Rodriquez.Victor R & Marlena D
265 Fraxinella St
Encinitas, Ca 92024
Rec#: 595 APN: 222-142-06-00
Murray,Joseph E & Sophia E
1812TowheeSt
San Marcos, Ca 92078
Rec#: 596 APN: 222-142-07-00
Bunker.David L & Mary R
1808 Towhee St
San Marcos, Ca 92078
Rec#: 597 APN: 222-142-08-00
Cafarella,Joseph & Clementine
1804 Towhee St
San Marcos, Ca 92078
Rec#: 598 APN: 222-142-12-00
Padelford.Charles H
1813 Towhee St
San Marcos, Ca 92078
Rec#: 599 APN: 222-142-13-00
Cohen,Jennifer
1214 San Julian Dr
San Marcos, Ca 92078
Rec#: 600 APN: 222-142-14-00
Kibbe,Douglas J
1825 Towhee St
San Marcos, Ca 92078
Rec#: 601 APN: 222-142-15-00
Judd.Kathryn M Trust
1831 TowheeSt
San Marcos, Ca 92078
Rec#: 602 APN: 222-142-16-00
Hall,Richard C & Joanne
1719 Kinglet Rd
San Marcos, Ca 92078
Rec#: 603 APN: 222-142-17-00
Vessal.Behnam
657 Santa Camelia Dr
Solana Beach, Ca 92075
Rec#: 604 APN: 222-142-28-00
Anderberg,Gerard S & Rhonda L Et
1720 Redwing St
San Marcos, Ca 92078
Rec#: 605 APN: 222-142-29-00
Reed,Steven L & Perdita C
1714 Redwing St
San Marcos, Ca 92078
Rec#: 606 APN: 222-142-30-00
Kadesky.Deborra L 2005 Trust
1604 Quail Ridge Rd
Escondido, Ca 92027
Rec#: 607 APN: 222-142-31-00
Kadesky.Deborra L Separate Prope
1604 Quail Ridge Rd
Escondido,
Rec#: 608 APN: 222-142-32-00
County Of San Diego
Rec#: 609 APN: 222-143-01-00
Dietz.Thomas F & Eleanore R
1713 Redwing St
San Marcos, Ca 92078
Rec#: 610 APN: 222-151-01-00
Navarro.Catalina
3499 Camino Valencia
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 611 APN: 222-151-02-00
Seversky.Sarah H Trust 08-29-90
3497 Camino Valencia
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 612 APN: 222-151-03-00
Kershner.Eric L & Lisa G
3493 Camino Valencia
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 613 APN: 222-151-04-00
Pataca.Antonio J & Albertina A
3489 Camino Valencia
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 614 APN: 222-151-05-00
Winters,Cindy L
3485 Camino Valencia
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 615 APN: 222-151-06-00
Chen.Chung Chih
3481 Camino Valencia
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 616 APN: 222-151-07-00
Myatt,Richard E & Laurie A
3477 Camino Valencia
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 617 APN: 222-151-08-00
Schumacher, Lydia K
3473 Camino Valencia
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 618 APN: 222-151-09-00
Coronella,Julia & June
3469 Camino Valencia
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 619 APN: 222-151-10-00
Widdison,Malcolm J & Lynne J
3465 Camino Valencia
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 620 APN: 222-151-11-00
Scott.Warren N & Kelly M
3461 Camino Valencia
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 621 ARM: 222-151-37-00
Wray,Justin L K & "anya C
3454 Camino Michulle
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 622 APN: 222-151-38-00
Hemphill,Ralph & Katherine
3458 Camino Michelle
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 623 APN: 222-151-39-00
Markey.Seymore & Linda
3462 Camino Michelle
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 624 APN: 222-151-40-00
Dao Family Trust 06-06-00
3466 Camino Michelle
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 625 APN: 222-151-41-00
Brown,Diane K
3470 Camino Michelle
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 626 APN: 222-151-42-00
Holzhausen.Dustin
3474 Camino Michelle
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 627 APN: 222-151-43-00
Roszak,Matthew
3478 Camino Michelle
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 628 APN: 222-151-44-00
Vitug.Arnel P
3482 Camino Michelle
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 629 APN: 222-151-45-00
Promenade At La Costa Associatio
15010 Avenue Of Science 201
San Diego, Ca 92128
Rec#: 630 APN: 222-151-46-00
Reiner.John
3490 Camino Michelle
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 631 APN: 222-151-47-00
Rivera,Filomena
3494 Camino Michelle
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 632 APN: 222-151-48-00
Bobb.Andrew B
PO Box 927724
San Diego, Ca 92192
Rec#: 633 APN: 222-151-49-00
Smith,Kathryn
3495 Camino Michelle
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 634 APN: 222-151-50-00
Meginness,Gregory A & Rosella A
POBox 131141
Carlsbad, Ca 92013
Recft 635 APN: 222-151-51-00
Heatherman.Ryan & Rebecca
3487 Camino Michelle
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 636 APN: 222-151-52-00
Doyle,Michael J
3483 Camino Michelle
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 637 APN: 222-151-53-00
Johansen,Sandra D
3479 Camino Michelle
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 638 APN: 222-151-54-00
Coelho.Bela
3475 Camino Michelle
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 639 APN: 222-151-55-00
Witt.Christopher J
3471 Camino Michelle
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 640 APN: 222-151-56-00
Lancas,Michael J & Shanon P
3467 Camino Michelle
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 641 APr-': 222-151-57-00
Alaverdi.Noosheen
3463 Camino Micholle
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 642 APN: 222-151-58-00
Brock.Alan & Joan E
3459 Camino Michelle
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 643 APN: 222-151-59-00
Troche,Mauricio
3455 Camino Michelle
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 644 APN: 222-151-62-00
Navarro,Roberto & Claudia
3452 Camino Valencia
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 645 APN: 222-151-63-00
Marquis, Jack B & Margarette M
3456 Camino Valencia
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 646 APN: 222-151-64-00
Smith Living Trust 03-10-04
3460 Camino Valencia
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 647 APN: 222-151-65-00
Zimmer Family Trust
3464 Camino Valencia
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 648 APN: 222-151-66-00
Promenade At La Costa Association
15010 Avenue Of Science # 201
San Diego, CA 92128-3420
Rec#: 649 APN: 222-151-67-00
Fantus,Stephen H & Susan
3468 Camino Valencia
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 650 APN: 222-151-68-00
Pop.Maximilian & Kelly A M
3472 Camino Valencia
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 651 APN: 222-151-69-00
Joan Hackett
3476 Camino Valencia
Carlsbad, CA 92009-6043
Rec#: 652 APN: 222-151-70-00
Cameron,Jean E
6617CorteReal
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 653 APN: 222-151-71-00
Valderrama.Raul Tr
103715ThSt
San Diego, Ca 92101
Rec#: 654 APN: 222-151-72-00
Duarte.Jose L & Lidia
6612CorteReal
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 655 APN: 222-151-73-00
Gordon,James J & Katherine P
6616 Corte Real
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 656 APN: 222-151-74-00
Promenade At La Costa Association
15010 Avenue Of Science # 201
San Diego, CA 92128-3420
Rec#: 657 APN: 222-151-79-00
Promenade At La Costa Association
15010 Avenue Of Scien
San Diego, 0-92128^3420
Rec#: 658 APN: 222-151-83-00
Herman,Christopher & Cynthia
3450 Camino Michelle
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 659 APN: 222-151-84-00
Promenade At La Costa Association
411 Ivy St
San Diego, CA 92101-2108
Rec#: 660 APN: 222-160-03-00
Hagio.Michio Trust 01-31-02
PO Box 178339
San Diego, Ca 92177
Rec#: 661 APN: 222-160-48-00
Meadowlark Community Church
1918 Redwing St
San Marcos, Ca 92078
Rec#: 662 APN: 222-470-08-01
Fabian,Annicka B 2008 Trust
3104 Avenida Christina
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 663 APN: 222-470-08-02
Wagner.Vicky A
3106 Avenida Christina
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 664 APN: 222-470-08-03
Meyers.Laurence Trust 10-25-99
3108 Avenida Christina
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 665 APN: 222-470-08-04
Fitzgerald,Thomas A & Margaret L
3110 Avenida Christina
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 666 APN: 222-470-08-05
Hoover.Brenda G
19 Old Homestead Cir
Palmyra, Va 22963
Rec#: 667 APN: 222-470-08-06
Fulmer.Alan C & Kathleen A
252 Easy St
Pagosa Springs, Co 81147
Rec#: 668 APN: 222-470-08-07
Simko, Jaime J & Michelle D
3116 Avenida Christina
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 669 APN: 222-470-08-08
Kenneth Floyd
6566 Airoso Ave
San Diego, CA 92120-4809
Rec#: 670 APN: 222-470-08-09
Morton.Thomas E
3120 Avenida Christina
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 671 APN: 222-470-08-10
Kress,Kerry
6502 Via Ostra
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 672 APN: 222-470-08-11
Andersen,Robin L 2008 Trust
6504 Via Ostra
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 673 APN: 222-470-08-12
Pennington.Jon
6506 Via Ostra
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 674 APN: 222-470-08-13
Stutler Lisa M Family Trust
3159 Avenida Topanga
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 675 APN: 222-470-08-14
Patel.Gira D
3157 Avenida Topanga
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 676 APN: 222-470-08-15
Alongi-Schmitt Family Trust
5833 Blazing Star Ln
San Diego, Ca 92130
Rec#: 677 APN: 222-470-08-16
Kiefer.Reed & Jaqueline
3153 Avenida Topanga
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 678 APN: 222-470-08-17
Shedd,Eliza C Revoc Trust
6508 Via Ostra
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 679 APN: 222-470-08-18
Ours,Dennis R & Rebecca M
6510 Via Ostra
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 680 APN: 222-470-08-19
Delaney Family Trust 11-04-94
6509 Via Ostra
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 681 APN: 222-470-08-20
Beaver,Sandra M
6511 Via Ostra
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 682 APN: 222-470-08-21
Flores.Masako
3771 Carmel View Rd 3
San Diego, Ca 92130
Rec#: 683 APN: 222-470-08-22
Yi,Tammy
6510 Camino Capistrano
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 684 APN: 222-470-08-23
Glathe.Sharon L
3105 Avenida Topanga
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 685 APN: 222-470-08-24
Amy.Gary
2529 Glendale Ct
Loveland, Co 80538
Rec#: 686 APN: 222-470-08-25
Scotto.Cassiano R
3107 Avenida Topanga
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 687 APN: 222-470-08-26
Henley,Marilyn Trust
3111 Avenida Topanga
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 688 APN: 222-470-08-27
Lange Darcelle Family Trust
3115 Avenida Topanga
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 689 APN: 222-470-08-28
Ng,Wai-Lam
3113 Avenida Topanga
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 690 APN: 222-470-08-29
Spotts, Robert L & Inese R
3117 Avenida Topanga
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 691 APN: 222-470-08-30
Wu, Margaret
10668 Timber Brook Ln
San Diego, Ca 92130
Rec#: 692 APN: 222-470-08-31
Robinson,William N Revoc Trust 0
3119 Avenida Topanga
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 693 APN: 222-470-08-32
Tracy.Tyler A
3123 Avenida Topanga
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 694 APN: 222-470-08-33
Stevovic.Goran & Sanda
3127 Avenida Topanga
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 695 APN: 222-470-08-34
2703 La Costa L P
2485 San Elijo Ave
Cardiff By The Sea, Ca 92007
Rec#: 696 APN: 222-470-08-35
Raine.Alexander & Teresa
3129 Avenida Topanga
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 697 APN: 222-470-08-36
Aldrich,Ricky W
3133 Avenida Topanga
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 698 APN: 222-470-08-37
Noll Family Trust 06-12-97
1120NikiLynn PI
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Rec#: 699 APN: 222-470-08-38
Raftery.John D & Eve M
3135 Avenida Topanga
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 700 APN: 222-470-08-39
Bessey.John
7357 Almaden Ln
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 701 APN 222-470-08-40
Schmitt.John A & S je A
3890 Vista Campana S 18
Oceanside, Ca 92057
Rec#: 702 APN: 222-470-08-41
Bleth.Dorothie G Trust 03-31-06
3141 Avenida Topanga 193
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 703 APN: 222-470-08-42
Grain,Candy J Trust 07-24-03
6659 Sitio Palmas
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 704 APN: 222-470-08-43
Plagge,Laurel A
3143 Avenida Topanga
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 705 APN: 222-470-08-44
Elkan.Andrew R
3148 Avenida Topanga
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 706 APN: 222-470-08-45
Aguirre H & S Family 2005
3152 Avenida Topanga
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 707 APN: 222-470-08-46
Cornell Linda C Trust
3150 Avenida Topanga
Carlsbad, CA 92009-4514
Rec#: 708 APN: 222-470-08-47
Bailey.Michael C & Michelle S
3154 Avenida Topanga
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 709 APN: 222-470-08-48
Sargissian,Rebecca R
2378 Mira Sol Dr
Vista, Ca 92084
Rec#: 710 APN: 222-470-08-49
Restivo,Joseph
3156 Avenida Topanga
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 711 APN: 222-470-15-01
Hefner,Wesley L Jr & Christine
3104 Avenida Olmeda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 712 APN: 222-470-15-02
Lee,Jerry & Chung Mei
3108 Avenida Olmeda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 713 APN: 222-470-15-03
Maloney.William G & Annette S
3112 Avenida Olmeda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 714 APN: 222-470-15-04
Balas,Helen M Trust 07-17-95
3116 Avenida Olmeda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 715 APN: 222-470-15-05
Kinzie.William F & Trudy K
3120 Avenida Olmeda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 716 APN: 222-470-15-06
Bowman,Nancy B Family Trust
2855 Carlsbad Blvd 142
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Rec#: 717 APN: 222-470-15-07
Neff,William L Jr & Kathy R Fami
7345 Corte Hortensia
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 718 APN: 222-470-15-08
Palomo.Armando & Analuz R
3132 Avenida Olmeda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 719 APN: 222-470-15-09
Davis,Victoria V
410 Bay Berry PI
Encinitas, Ca 92024
Rec#: 720 APN: 222-470-15-10
Montgomery.Laquetta F
3140 Avenida Olmeda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 721 APN: 222-470-15-11
James Daniels
3144 Avenida Olmeda
Carlsbad, CA 92009-4508
Rec#: 722 APN: 222-470-15-12
Leone,Eileen
3148 Avenida Olmeda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 723 APN: 222-470-15-13
Koretke,Thomas F & Cynthia J
3152 Avenida Olmeda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 724 APN: 222-470-15-14
Denby.Priscilla
3154 Avenida Olmeda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 725 APN: 222-470-15-15
Less,Brian E & Stephanie A
3158 Avenida Olmeda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 726 APN: 222-470-15-16
Mckeen,Christine A Family Trust
6271 E Trail Dr
Anaheim, Ca 92807
Rec#: 727 APN: 222-470-15-17
Harris,Joy E
3159 Avenida Olmeda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 728 APN: 222-470-15-18
Seymour.Joseph & Jill
3155 Avenida Olmeda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 729 APN: 222-470-15-19
Sunde.Tiffany A
3157 Avenida Olmeda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 730 APN: 222-470-15-20
Keller.Adam J & Holly A
3153 Avenida Olmeda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 731 APN: 222-470-15-21
Dayus.Andrew J & Erin C
3149 Avenida Olmeda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 732 APN: 222-470-15-22
Miller.Jeremy & Michele
3151 Avenida Olmeda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 733 APN: 222-470-15-23
Fitch.Michael J
3147 Avenida Olmeda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 734 APN: 222-470-15-24
Potts.Katherine D
3143 Avenida Olmeda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 735 APN: 222-470-15-25
Moffett.Richard L Sr & Joanne D
3145 Avenida Olmeda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Recfr 736 APN: 222-470-15-26
Thompson,Joseph S Trust 11-15-04
3228 San Helena Dr
Oceanside, Ca 92056
Rec#: 737 APN: 222-470-15-27
Gold Star One Trust
3137 Avenida Olmeda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 738 APN: 222-470-15-28
Larose Laura Living Trust
3139 Avenida Olmeda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 739 APN: 222-470-15-29
Bogdan.Carl J
3135 Avenida Olmeda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 740 APN: 222-470-15-30
Butterworth,Kelly A
3131 Avenida Olmeda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 741 APN: 222-470-15-31
Grayson,Carol F
3133 Avenida Olmeda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 742 APN: 222-470-15-32
Hilton,Michael J & Jamie I
3129 Avenida Olmeda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 743 APN: 222-470-15-33
Erfurt.Hope
3125 Avenida Olmeda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 744 APN: 222-470-15-34
Florin,Pablo
3127 Avenida Olmeda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 745 APN: 222-470-15-35
Weinberg,James R
3123 Avenida Olmeda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 746 APN: 222-470-15-36
Wallace,Gregory L Jr
3119 Avenida Olmeda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 747 APN: 222-470-15-37
Huffman,Michael
3121 Avenida Olmeda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 748 APN: 222-470-15-38
Moore.Matthew C & Amy A
3117 Avenida Olmeda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 749 APN: 222-470-15-39
Finucan,Kevin & Nicole
3113 Avenida Olmeda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 750 APN: 222-470-15-40
Landry.Wendy
3115 Avenida Olmeda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 751 APN: 222-470-15-41
Paschall.Jeannette B
1526 Lower Lake Ct
Cardiff By The Sea, Ca 92007
Rec#: 752 APN: 222-470-15-42
Forsyth,Carol A Revoc Trust 08-0
82 Hampton Hills Ct
Ashland, Ky 41102
Rec#: 753 APN: 222-470-15-43
Anselm,Bruce M & Janet M
9559 Vista Tercera
San Diego, Ca 92129
Rec#: 754 APN: 222-470-15-44
Stevens.Brian & Theresa M
3105 Avenida Olmeda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 755 APN: 222-470-15-45
Brown,Christopher R
530 Via Del Caballo
San Marcos, Ca 92078
Rec#: 756 APN: 222-470-15-46
Turner.George N & Janice J
3103 Avenida Olmeda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 757 APN: 222-470-15-47
Codella.Emily B
6567 Camino Capistrano
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 758 APN: 222-470-15-48
Germain,Scott A
6571 Camino Capistrano
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 759 APN: 222-470-15-49
Schneider Family Trust 12-27-02
6569 Camino Capistrano
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 760 APN: 222-470-15-50
Wolf.Jay S & Laura E
6573 Camino Capistrano
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 761 APM: 222-470-15-51
Mccullogh.R Patric; & Marlynne M
6577 Camino Capi: trano
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 762 APN: 222-470-15-52
Harshaw,Margaret
6575 Camino Capistrano
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 763 APN: 222-470-15-53
Siegel.Adam & Leslee
6579 Camino Capistrano
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 764 APN: 222-470-15-54
Odonnell,Jerry D & Elizabeth M
6583 Camino Capistrano
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 765 APN: 222-470-15-55
Hawkins,Hunter
6581 Camino Capistrano
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 766 APN: 222-470-15-56
Coleman.Jerod
6585 Camino Capistrano
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 767 APN: 222-470-15-57
Mitchell.Kevin
6589 Camino Capistrano
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 768 APN: 222-470-15-58
Curley, Edward & Elizabeth
6587 Camino Capistrano
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 769 APN: 222-560-01-00
Mcgrath.Paul & Adriana
6789 Camino De Amigos
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 770 APN: 222-560-02-00
Ingle.Toni M & Van G li
6793 Camino De Amigos
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 771 APN: 222-560-03-00
Piepmeyer Family Trust 01-06-06
6797 Camino De Amigos
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 772 APN: 222-560-04-00
Bradley.Wade H
6801 Camino De Amigos
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 773 APN: 222-560-05-00
Tembreull,Timothy J & Caryn L
6805 Camino De Amigos
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 774 APN: 222-560-06-00
Gilmour-Matos Family Trust 09-27
6804 Corte Adalina
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 775 APN: 222-560-07-00
Tat.Xu Van
6800 Corte Adalina
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 776 APN: 222-560-08-00
Riordan,Christopher P
6796 Corte Adalina
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 777 APN: 222-560-09-00
Notolli,Michael F & Heather M A
6792 Corte Adalina
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 778 APN: 222-560-10-00
Kyle Newton
6795 Corte Adalina
Carlsbad, CA 92009-4562
Rec#: 779 APN: 222-560-11-00
Muench,Bryan & Leslie
6799 Corte Adalina
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 780 APN: 222-560-12-00
Pruitt.Raynel I Revoc Trust 04-2
6803 Corte Adalina
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 781 APN: 222-560-13-00
Penn,Barry Revoc Inter Vivos 200
6807 Corte Adalina
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 782 APN: 222-560-14-00
Ilievski Family Trust
475 Rembrandt Dr
Corona, Ca 92882
Rec#: 783 APN: 222-560-15-00
Miller.Morgan J & Cynthia C
6820 Camino De Amigos
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 784 APN: 222-560-16-00
Harriman Family Trust
6816 Camino De Amigos
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 785 APN: 222-560-17-00
Jaster.Paul A & Marguerite M
3525 Corte Lupe
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 786 APN: 222-560-18-00
Bidwell.Garrett & Elizabeth
3529 Corte Lupe
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 787 APN: 222-560-19-00
Moy,Richard M Jr & Maribeth D
3533 Corte Lupe
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 788 APN: 222-560-20-00
Morten Kruse
3537 Corte Lupe
Carlsbad, CA 92009-4568
Rec#: 789 APN: 222-560-21-00
Parfitt.Alice A Revoc Living Tru
9 Briarwood Ct
Novato, Ca 94947
Rec#: 790 APN: 222-560-22-00
Depfyffer.Kurt C & Sarah P
3530 Corte Lupe
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 791 APN: 222-560-23-00
Morales,Manuel L & Giannina
3526 Corte Lupe
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 792 APN: 222-560-24-00
Wutzke.Wendy N Trust 06-16-02
6790 Camino De Amigos
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 793 APN: 222-560-25-00
Tat,Nguyen C & Amy L
6866 Camino De Amigos
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 794 APN: 222-560-26-00
Jared Drader
3544 Corte Yolanda
Carlsbad, CA 92009-4571
Rec#: 795 APN: 222-560-27-00
Anderson, Peter
3540 Corte Yolanda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 796 APN: 222-560-28-00
Feng.Jun Revoc Trust 04-23-06
3536 Corte Yolanda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 797 APN: 222-560-29-00
Hulstine.Roy W & Sherry L
3532 Corte Yolanda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 798 APN: 222-560-30-00
Mcneel Family Trust
3528 Corte Yolanda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 799 APN: 222-560-31-00
Campbell Family Trust 06-17-02
2105 Meadows Ln
Anacortes, Wa 98221
Rec#: 800 APN: 222-560-32-00
Chan.Wing Hong & Cecilia J
6662 Corte Eduardo
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 801 APN: 222-560-33-00
Langston.Paul D & Victoria J
6666 Corte Eduardo
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 802 APN: 222-560-34-00
Hurst.Matthew & Kristi
6670 Corte Eduardo
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 803 APN: 222-560-35-00
Rubio.Urbano
6674 Corte Eduardo
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 804 APN: 222-560-36-00
Passanisi Living Trust
6679 Corte Eduardo
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 805 APN: 222-560-37-00
Wall Ginita Revocable Trust
10863 Vereda Sol Del Dios
San Diego, CA 92130-8630
Rec#: 806 APN: 222-560-38-00
Sandberg Family Trust
6687 Corte Eduardo
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 807 APN: 222-560-39-00
Benbo,Richard & Rhonda N
6691 Corte Eduardo
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 808 APN: 222-560-40-00
Lotz,Christopher
8130 La Jolla Shores Dr
LaJolla, Ca 92037
Rec#: 809 APN: 222-560-41-00
Shapiro.Alan G & Michael W
6699 Corte Eduardo
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 810 APN: 222-560-42-00
Zee.Alfred & Alice
3523 Corte Yolanda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 811 APN: 222-560-43-00
Taylor, Patrick T
3527 Corte Yolanda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 812 APN: 222-560-44-00
Pontarelli,Robert & Karen
3531 Corte Yolanda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 813 APN: 222-560-45-00
Sowers,Jason & Renee D
3535 Corte Yolanda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 814 APN: 222-560-46-00
Tract 85-19 Community Associatio
3103 Villa Way
Newport Beach, Ca 92663
Rec#: 815 APN: 222-560-47-00
Tract 85-19 Community Association^
3103 Villa Way
Newport Beacbr"CA~ 92663-3834
Rec#: 816 APN: 222-560-48-00
Tract 85-19 Community Association
3103 Villa Way
NewportgBaehrCA 92663-3834
Rec#: 817 APN: 222-560-49-00
Tract 85-19 Community Assqcjs
3103 Villa Way
Newport BeaetTTCA 92663-3834
Rec#: 818 APN: 222-560-50-00
Tract 85-19 Community Association
6256 Greenwich Dr Ste 520
San Diego, CA 92122-5971
Rec#: 819 APN: 222-561-01-00
All Family Trust 11-14-06
6813 Camino De Amigos
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Recft 820 APN: 222-561-02-00
Schwaebe,Michael
6817 Camino De Amigos
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 821 APN: 222-561-03-00
Fichtner.Horst R & Robin M
6821 Camino De Anigos
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 822 APN: 222-561-04-00
Gmuer, James & Giannina
6825 Camino De Amigos
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 823 APN: 222-561-05-00
Aguirre,Danny & Raquel
6829 Camino De Amigos
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 824 APN: 222-561-06-00
Youngkin,Joshua & Annette
6833 Camino De Amigos
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 825 APN: 222-561-07-00
Rodriguez, John Y & Lydia A
6837 Camino De Amigos
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 826 APN: 222-561-43-00
Forutanpour.Babak & Poolak A
6818Corte Diego
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 827 APN: 222-561-44-00
Hoolihan,Christopher & Shana A
6814 Corte Diego
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 828 APN: 222-561-45-00
Feiler.Charles P & Elizabeth A
6910 Corte Diego
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 829 APN: 222-561-47-00
Wood,Noel S & Celia
6836 Camino De Amigos
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 830 APN: 222-561-48-00
Soto.Fabrizio J & Monica N
6832 Camino De Amigos
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 831 APN: 222-561-49-00
Williams Jack L & My-hoa
911 E Homestead Rd
Sunnyvale, CA 94087-4901
Rec#: 832 APN: 222-561-50-00
Quade.Robert W & Lisa L
6824 Camino De Amigos
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 833 APN: 222-601-04-00
Continental Ranch Inc
12636 High Bluff Dr 300
San Diego, Ca 92130
Rec#: 834 APN: 222-601-05-00
City Of Carlsbad
Rec#: 835 APN: 222-601-06-00
K C Propco L L C
PO Box 6760
Portland, Or 97228
Rec#: 836 APN: 222-601-07-00
Master Rancho Carrillo
2237 Faraday Ave # 1C
Carlsbad, CA-920158^7209
Rec#: 837 APN: 222-610-09-00
Pittman,Thomas A & Julie A
2905 Rancho Rio Chico
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 838 APN: 222-610-10-00
Horn Scott & I Family Trust
2909 Rancho Rio Chico
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 839 APN: 222-610-11-00
Comitas Family Trust 01-08-02
2913 Rancho Rio Chico
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 840 APN: 222-610-12-00
Rancho,Chico Inter-Vivos Revoc T
2902 Rancho Rio Chico
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 841 APN: 222-610-13-00
Fretz.Ricci S & Elizabeth
2898 Rancho Rio Chico
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 842 APN: 222-610-22-00
Master Rancho Carrillo
12636 High Bluff Dr Ste 300
San Diego, CA 92130-2071
Rec#: 843 APN: 222-611-01-00
Blank Family Trust
2917 Rancho Rio Chico
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 844 APN: 222-611-02-00
Alvarez,Carlos S
2927 Rancho Vacada
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 845 APN: 222-611-03-00
Dichira Family Trust 06-23-05
2931 Rancho Vacada
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 846 APN: 222-611-04-00
Yien.Dean P & Valentine
46 Deer Point Dr
Lake Zurich, II 60047
Rec#: 847 APN: 222-611-05-00
Maljan.Lenita Living Trust 03-20
2939 Rancho Vacada
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 848 APN: 222-611-06-00
Wright, Kenton W & Jesse L
2943 Rancho Vacada
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 849 APN: 222-611-07-00
Simmonds.Paul A & Gina M
2940 Rancho Vacada
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 850 APN: 222-611-08-00
Spousta,Kevin A & Valerie L
2936 Rancho Vacada
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 851 APN: 222-611-09-00
Gammieri, Jerry & Jennifer
2932 Rancho Vacada
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 852 APN: 222-611-10-00
Ebrahimi.Arman
2928 Rancho Vacada
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 853 APN: 222-611-11-00
Storm.Joseph R & Carol A
2924 Rancho Vacada
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 854 APN: 222-611-12-00
Afkarian.lraj
2921 Rancho Rio Chico
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 855 APN: 222-611-13-00
Baraban.Marc R & Jeffrey H
21114 E Snow Creek Dr
Walnut, Ca 91789
Rec#: 856 APN: 222-611-14-00
Keatly.Kelley
2929 Rancho Rio Chico
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 857 APN: 222-611-15-00
Chase Family Trust
2933 Rancho Rio Chico
Carlsbad, CA 92009-3007
Rec#: 858 APN: 222-611-16-00
Us Bank Na 2005-A1 Tr
1805ThStE
St Paul, Mn 55101
Rec#: 859 APN: 222-611-17-00
Cook Family Living Trust
2914 Rancho Rio Chico
Carlsbad, CA 92009-3007
Rec#: 860 APN: 222-611-18-00
Christina Shumate
2910 Rancho Rio Chico
Carlsbad, CA 92009-3007
Rec#: 861 APN: 222-611-19-00
Turner.Matthew A & Kimberly L
2906 Rancho Rio Chico
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 862 APN: 222-620-01-00
Mccue,Carol R
750 StateSt 412
San Diego, Ca 92101
Rec#: 863 APN: 222-620-02-00
Dalton,David L & Suzy
6327 Paseo Corono
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 864 APN: 222-620-03-00
Oswald.Joanne A Separate Propert
6331 Paseo Corono
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 865 APN: 222-620-04-00
Block,Lance &Traci
6335 Paseo Corono
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 866 APN: 222-620-05-00
Lee,Albert S
6339 Paseo Corono
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 867 APN: 222-620-06-00
Selstad,Daniel D & Linda P
6343 Paseo Corono
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 868 APN: 222-620-07-00
Master Rancho Carrillo
12636 High Bluff Dr Ste
San Diego,CA-92l3b^2071
Rec#: 869 APN: 222-620-08-00
Muirhead.Scott & Nanette T
6347 Paseo Corono
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 870 APN: 222-620-09-00
Haglof Family Trust 09-03-02
6783 Malachite PI
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 871 APN: 222-620-10-00
Gerken.William G & Loretta A Fam
6355 Paseo Corono
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 872 APN: 222-620-11-00
Shreeve,Stephen M & Margaret H
6359 Paseo Corono
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 873 APN: 222-620-12-00
Duncan Family Trust 04-02-93
6363 Paseo Corono
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 874 APN: 222-620-13-00
Crummy.James G
3916NHoyneAve
Chicago, II 60618
Rec#: 875 APN: 222-620-14-00
Chapoco,Ferdinand & Rhodora
6349 Paseo Aspada
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 876 APN: 222-620-15-00
Hong.Myung S & Wha C Revoc Trust
6345 Paseo Aspada
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 877 APN: 222-620-16-00
Lai,Ming Sai & Maria F Family Tr
6341 Paseo Aspada
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 878 APN: 222-620-17-00
Conery.Mark J & Susan L
6337 Paseo Aspada
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 879 APN: 222-620-18-00
Daryl Fishbough
7354 Corte Tomillo
Carlsbad, CA 92009-8961
Rec#: 880 APN: 222-620-19-00
Buechs.Todd R & Karla A
6329 Paseo Aspada
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 881 APN: 222-620-20-00
Sullivan,Daniel D i< Jeanette A F
6325 Paseo Aspac a
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 882 APN: 222-620-21-00
Kim Family Trust
6321 PaseoAspada
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 883 APN: 222-621-01-00
Obrien Family 2003 Trust 09-29-0
6371 Paseo Corono
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 884 APN: 222-621-02-00
Mary Simms Schmidt
6375 Paseo Corono
Carlsbad, CA 92009-3013
Rec#: 885 APN: 222-621-03-00
Morton,Benjamin T & Kim
6379 Paseo Corono
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 886 APN: 222-621-04-00
Choi.Sonia Y Trust
6383 Paseo Corono
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 887 APN: 222-621-05-00
Hart,Gwendolyn M
6387 Paseo Corono
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 888 APN: 222-621-06-00
Kries.David K
6391 Paseo Corono
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 889 APN: 222-621-07-00
Sistrunk,Connie C
6395 Paseo Corono
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 890 APN: 222-621-08-00
Lemonds,Travis & Indira
6399 Paseo Corono
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 891 APN: 222-621-09-00
Jamison,Mary C Trust
6373 Paseo Aspada
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 892 APN: 222-621-10-00
Kirkenaer.Jo S & Myra B
6377 Paseo Aspada
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 893 APN: 222-621-11-00
Smith,Cindy
6381 PaseoAspada
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 894 APN: 222-621-12-00
Breihan.Eric R & Kelly J
6385 Paseo Aspada
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 895 APN: 222-621-13-00
Mortenson Family Trust 08-02-00
6389 Paseo Aspada
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 896 APN: 222-621-16-00
David Sternfeld
6398 Paseo Aspada
Carlsbad, CA 92009-3011
Rec#: 897 APN: 222-621-17-00
Munson.Ken R
6394 Paseo Aspada
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 898 APN: 222-621-18-00
Shelhamer-Blakeman Trust
6390 Paseo Aspada
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 899 APN: 222-621-19-00
Carley.Kari A
6386 Paseo Aspada
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 900 APN: 222-621-20-00
Lipman Family Trust
6382 Paseo Aspada
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 901 APN: 222-621-21-00
Dowlatshahi Trust 03-17-88
PO Box 131263
Carlsbad, Ca 920 3
Rec#: 902 APN: 222-621-22-00
Aubuchon.Michele
6374 Paseo Aspada
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 903 APN: 222-621-23-00
Barren,Philip M & Stephanie M
6370 Paseo Aspada
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 904 APN: 222-621-24-00
Kelly.John D & Jane A
6366 Paseo Aspada
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 905 APN: 222-621-25-00
Henrica Holdings Lie
7432 Circulo Sequoia
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 906 APN: 222-621-26-00
Mike Hallack
6369 Paseo Aspada
Carlsbad, CA 92009-3009
Rec#: 907 APN: 222-621-27-00
Lebien,Michael R & Thitiwan
6365 Paseo Aspada
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 908 APN: 222-621-28-00
Finan.William
6361 Paseo Aspada
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 909 APN: 222-621-29-00
Master Rancho Carrillo
12636 High Bluff Dr SI
San Diego, JiA-92"130-2071
Rec#: 910 APN: 222-621-30-00
Juan Flores
6353 Paseo Aspada
Carlsbad, CA 92009-3009
Rec#: 911 APN: 222-621-31-00
Master Rancho Carrillo
12636 High Bluff Dr
San Diego^&arSfl 30-2071
Rec#: 912 APN: 222-621-32-00
Johnson,Michael A & Julie A
2998 Carrillo Way
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 913 APN: 222-621-33-00
Claypool,Christopher L
2994 Carrillo Way
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 914 APN: 222-621-34-00
Savkin.Vladimir I
2990 Carrillo Way
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 915 APN: 222-621-35-00
Gonzalez, Rosendo & Elisa C
2986 Carrillo Way
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 916 APN: 222-621-36-00
Charp Family Revoc Trust 09-12-0
2982 Carrillo Way
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 917 APN: 222-621-39-00
Lee.Joohee
6397 Paseo Aspada
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 918 APN: 222-621-42-00
Conway,Michael D & Nisa M
6393 Paseo Aspada
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 919 APN: 222-640-02-00
Master Rancho Carrillo
2237 Faraday Ave # 100
Carlsbad, CA 92068^209
Rec#: 920 APN: 222-640-03-01
Liebenberg.Stanley P & Gretchen
761344ThCtNw
Gig Harbor, Wa 98335
Rec#: 921 APN: 222-640-03-02
Zhou,Da
6466 Terraza Portico 2
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 922 APN: 222-640-03-03
Hatefi.Azin
6432 Terraza Portico
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 923 APN: 222-640-03-04
Daniels, John W& Jason
6470 Terraza Portico 4
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 924 APN: 222-640-03-05
Nicholls.Alvin
6472 Terraza Portico 5
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 925 APN: 222-640-03-06
Lukich, Michelle
6474 Terraza Portico 6
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 926 APN: 222-640-03-07
Plattner R & I Family Trust
6476 Terraza Portico
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 927 APN: 222-640-03-08
Daftary, David M
6478 Terraza Portico 8
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 928 APN: 222-640-03-09
Sievertson.Alice L
6480 Terraza Portico 9
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 929 APN: 222-640-03-10
King,Daniel
840 Pacific Beach Dr
San Diego, Ca 92109
Rec#: 930 APN: 222-640-03-11
Truong.Tai Van
6484 Terraza Portico 11
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 931 APN: 222-640-03-12
Tuggle,Gregory S
6486 Terraza Portico 12
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 932 APN: 222-640-03-13
Lehrer.Jamie B
6475 Terraza Portico 100
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 933 APN: 222-640-03-14
Lugar.Phillip O & Robin M
511 Cancha
Newport Beach, Ca 92660
Rec#: 934 APN: 222-640-03-15
Cares,Eric & Colleen
6471 Terraza Portico 102
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 935 APN: 222-640-03-16
Vitek.Anthony
6469 Terraza Portico
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 936 APN: 222-640-03-17
Kappelmann,Michael A
6467 Terraza Portico 104
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 937 APN: 222-640-03-18
Jessup.Kary O & Karla M
160 Wisteria Blvd
Covington, Ga 30016
Rec#: 938 APN: 222-640-04-01
Briscoe.David G & Christina N
6488 Terraza Portico 13
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 939 APN: 222-640-04-02
Geno,George W & Karen A
5030 Tolo Way
Oceanside, Ca 92056
Rec#: 940 APN: 222-640-04-03
Shaw 1997 Family Trust 04-10-97
3119QuebradaCt
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 941 APN: 222-640-04-04
Vasu.Sanjay K
6494 Terraza PorticD 16
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 942 APN: 222-640-04-05
Brice, Janet F
6496 Terraza Portico 17
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 943 APN: 222-640-04-06
Jackson,Robert V
6498 Terraza Portico
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 944 APN: 222-640-04-07
Guerra.Troy
3095 Via Maximo 19
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 945 APN: 222-640-04-08
Kaniuk,Michael D & Elizabeth K
3093 Via Maximo 20
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 946 APN: 222-640-04-09
Roach Of Moore Trust
10525 Coyote Hill Gin
Escondido, Ca 92026
Rec#: 947 APN: 222-640-04-10
Leonard,Jim H & Cynthia M
6033 Oakgate Row
LaJolla, Ca 92037
Rec#: 948 APN: 222-640-04-11
Zoval Family Trust 02-07-02
3087 Via Maximo 23
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 949 APN: 222-640-04-12
Brown,Jess
3085 Via Maximo 24
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 950 APN: 222-640-04-13
Rhodes.Michael G
327 Pine Needles Dr
Del Mar, Ca 92014
Rec#: 951 APN: 222-640-04-14
Dowler.Jeffrey T & Jill C
3081 Via Maximo 26
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 952 APN: 222-640-04-15
Laurie Bernard
3079 Via Maximo
Carlsbad, CA 92009-3050
Rec#: 953 APN: 222-640-04-16
Bohl Family Trust 04-27-01
3080 Via Maximo 94
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 954 APN: 222-640-04-17
Kuczynski,Chris
3082 Via Maximo 95
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 955 APN: 222-640-04-18
Peters,Nicholas T
PO Box 231697
Encinitas, Ca 92023
Rec#: 956 APN: 222-640-04-19
Molloy,Louise A
3086 Via Maximo
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 957 APN: 222-640-04-20
Ulloa,Carlos
3088 Via Maximo 98
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 958 APN: 222-640-04-21
Holder.Brad & Monica J
3090 Via Maximo 99
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 959 APN: 222-640-05-01
Williams,Deborah L
1519 Providence Dr
Vista, Ca 92081
Rec#: 960 APN: 222-640-05-02
Shaver.Carl A & Marsha A
5886 Ranch View Rd
Oceanside, Ca 92057
Rec#: 961 APN: 222-640-05-03
Gutai,Steve
3073 Via Maximo ; 0
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 962 APN: 222-640-05-04
Nodal.Stephen C
3071 Via Maximo 31
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 963 APN: 222-640-05-05
Blake.Sydney B Trust 08-04-95
Hardison(1820A) PI
South Pasadena, Ca 91030
Rec#: 964 APN: 222-640-05-06
Power, Ivan V
3067 Via Maximo 33
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 965 APN: 222-640-05-07
Mills,Howard N
6487 Corte La Luz 82
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 966 APN: 222-640-05-08
Koehler.Benjamin J & Terra K
6485 Corte La Luz 83
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 967 APN: 222-640-05-09
Dambrose,Michael & Deborah M
4666 E Paries Pkwy
Decatur, II 62526
Rec#: 968 APN: 222-640-05-10
Lagrange.Tonia
6481 Corte La Luz
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 969 APN: 222-640-05-11
Kosmala,Larry M & Linda M
6479 Corte La Luz 86
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 970 APN: 222-640-05-12
Kannegeisser.Todd B & Ann R
6477 Corte La Luz 87
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 971 APN: 222-640-05-13
Loos,Gary
6476 Corte La Luz 88
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 972 APN: 222-640-05-14
Arthur Lynch
2541 Danhaven Ct
Aurora, IL 60502-9460
Rec#: 973 APN: 222-640-05-15
Kellejian.Kelli J
6480 Corte La Luz
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 974 APN: 222-640-05-16
Shezifi.Oded & Galit
6482 Corte La Luz 91
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 975 APN: 222-640-05-17
Houghton.Sean
6484 Corte La Luz 92
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 976 APN: 222-640-05-18
Harries.Richard J Mi & Karin C
6486 Corte La Luz 93
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 977 APN: 222-640-06-01
Smith,Rebecca K
3065 Via Maximo 34
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 978 APN: 222-640-06-02
Milo Hruby
3063 Via Maximo
Carlsbad, CA 92009-3050
Rec#: 979 APN: 222-640-06-03
Jeffrey Living Trust
2608 Calle Morelia
Pleasanton, Ca 94566
Rec#: 980 APN: 222-640-06-04
Miller, James M & Shirley A
2324 Old Hickory Ln
Lexington, Ky 40515
Rec#: 981 APN: 222-640-06-05
Tsuchiya.Akino
3522 Camino Cereza
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 982 APN: 222-640-06-06
Andrews,Barbara G Trust
3055 Via Maximo 39
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 983 APN: 222-640-06-07
Edelmuth.Keri J
6392 Terraza Portico 40
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 984 APN: 222-640-06-08
Wirkus Family Trust 01-09-99
3303 Cadencia St
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 985 APN: 222-640-06-09
Cutler.Stewart M & Iris
6396 Terraza Portico 42
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 986 APN: 222-640-06-10
Ayala Family 2006 Trust 03-22-06
6170WycliffeCir
Reno, Nv 89519
Rec#: 987 APN: 222-640-06-11
Morrill, Judith
6400 Terraza Portico 44
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 988 APN: 222-640-06-12
Woodruff,Whitney L
6402 Terraza Portico 45
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 989 APN: 222-640-07-01
Pinkerton.John R & Lori L
6404 Terraza Portico 46
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 990 APN: 222-640-07-02
Preston,Julie
6406 Terraza Portico 6406
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 991 APN: 222-640-07-03
Joann Geving
POBox 130142
Carlsbad, CA 92013-0142
Rec#: 992 APN: 222-640-07-04
Nakanishi.Ryo L & Tony T
10AdelphiCt
Sacramento, Ca 95825
Rec#: 993 APN: 222-640-07-05
Guerra.Corinne
6412 Terraza Portico 50
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 994 APN: 222-640-07-06
Olson.Elizabeth E
6414 Terraza Portico 51
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 995 APN: 222-640-07-07
Bethea,Phillip O Jr & H Gay
6416 Terraza Portico 52
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 996 APN: 222-640-07-08
Sullivan,Dennis A & Patricia J
6418 Terraza Portico 53
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 997 APN: 222-640-07-09
Earick,Gregory L
6420 Terraza Portico 54
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 998 APN: 222-640-07-10
Scheidegger.Craig W
6422 Terraza Portico 55
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 999 ' APN: 222-640-07-11
Bohlim,Richard C Family Interviv
6424 Terraza Portico
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1000 APN: 222-640-07-12
Hastings,Linda
6426 Terraza Portico 57
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1001 APN: 222-640-07-13
Hocking,Douglas A
6427 Terraza Portico 73
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1002 APN: 222-640-07-14
Duenas,Justin L
6425 Terraza Portico
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1003 APN: 222-640-07-15
Bentley.Ryan & Stephanie A
6423 Terraza Portico 75
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1004 APN: 222-640-07-16
Kropf.Rene J & Dorothy C
6421 Terraza Portico
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1005 APN: 222-640-07-17
Zelent.Craig D
6419 Terraza Portico 77
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1006 APN: 222-640-07-18
Stratford,Donald G
6417 Terraza Portico 78
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1007 APN: 222-640-07-19
Calcetas.Danilo C & Myrna M
6415 Terraza Portico 79
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1008 APN: 222-640-07-20
Chai,Chih-Kun
6413 Terraza Portico
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1009 APN: 222-640-07-21
Gong,Christine G
6411 Terraza Portico 81
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1010 APN: 222-640-08-01
AI-Shaer,Marwan Ali
6428 Terraza Portico 58
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1011 APN: 222-640-08-02
Korstad K P Living Trust
6430 Terraza Portico
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1012 APN: 222-640-08-03
Hatefi,Azin & Rod F Etal
3574 Sand Ct
Carlsbad, Ca 92010
Rec#: 1013 APN: 222-640-08-04
Lebby Family Trust 03-28-96
6434 Terraza Portico 61
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1014 APN: 222-640-08-05
North San Diego County Associati
906 Sycamore Ave 104
Vista, Ca 92081
Rec#: 1015 APN: 222-640-08-06
Hawkins,Michael R
6438 Terraza Portico
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1016 APN: 222-640-08-07
Addy.Amile A
561 Keystone Ave
Reno, Nv 89503
Rec#: 1017 APN: 222-640-08-08
Lemay.Lisa A
6442 Terraza Portico 65
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1018 APN: 222-640-08-09
Thomas,Karin E
6444 Terraza Portico 66
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1019 APN: 222-640-08-10
Prudhomme,Donna L
6446 Terraza Portico 67
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1020 APN: 222-640-08-11
Huey.Brett
6448 Terraza Portico 68
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1021 APM: 222-640-08-12
Laister,Elizabeth M
6450 Terraza Portico 69
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1022 APN: 222-640-08-13
Blasi-Countouriotis Trust
2295 Galena Ave
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1023 APN: 222-640-08-14
Dunham Family Living 2008
1004 Highlight Dr
WestCovina, Ca 91791
Rec#: 1024 APN: 222-640-08-15
Veselenyi.Katalin I
6441 Terraza Portico 72
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1025 APN: 222-670-02-00
Master Rancho Carrillo
2237 Faraday Ave # 100
Carlsbad, CA §;
Rec#: 1026 APN: 222-670-03-01
Mayoor Savla
3163 Via Puerta
Carlsbad, CA 92009-6081
Rec#: 1027 APN: 222-670-03-02
Stevens,Charles
3159 Via Puerta
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1028 APN: 222-670-03-03
Cummins,Don R
3155 Via Puerta 3
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1029 APN: 222-670-03-04
Woop,Eugene P
612 Sandside Ct
Carlsbad, Ca 92011
Rec#: 1030 APN: 222-670-03-05
Lira.Osvaldo
3160 Via Puerta
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1031 APN: 222-670-03-06
Van Alstine,Richard A
3164 Via Puerta
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1032 APN: 222-670-05-01
Ibrahim Family Trust 03-17-06
6259 Paseo Callado
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1033 APN: 222-670-05-02
Felix,Carlo A Tr & Elena C Trust
3145 Via Simpatia
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1034 APN: 222-670-05-03
Thorndike.Greg & Jessica
3141 Via Simpatia
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1035 APN: 222-670-05-04
Inamati.Gopal B
3137 Via Simpatia
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1036 APN: 222-670-05-05
Waite,Lance M & Anna Tr
PO Box 7218
Rancho Santa Fe, Ca 92067
Rec#: 1037 APN: 222-670-05-06
Jesme, Roger J & Carol S
11 Portsmouth PI
Goto De Caza, Ca 92679
Rec#: 1038 APN: 222-670-05-07
Denuijl,Christopher H
3146 Via Simpatia
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1039 APN: 222-670-05-08
Labrum Family Trust
3150 Via Simpatia
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1040 APN: 222-670-05-09
Schooler.Louis V & Linda M Trust
5186 Carroll Canyon Rd 100
San Diego, Ca 92121
Rec#: 1041 APN: 222-670-05-10
Trelut,George A & Melissa S
3129 Via Simpatia
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1042 APN: 222-670-05-11
Galvan Family Trust 12-10-04
8070 La Jolla Shores Dr 434
LaJolla, Ca 92037
Rec#: 1043 APN: 222-670-05-12
Godwin.Steve E & Mary B
3121 Via Simpatia
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1044 APN: 222-670-05-13
Buck,Nicholas J
POBox 130
Cardiff, Ca 92007
Rec#: 1045 APN: 222-670-05-14
Myers.Rudy & Stacy
3126 Via Simpatia
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1046 APN: 222-670-05-15
Harris,Lynda
3130 Via Simpatia
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1047 APN: 222-670-05-16
Dugan,Sandra S Revoc Trust
3134 Via Simpatia
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1048 APN: 222-670-05-17
Nigh.AltonR Trust 08-31-01
6278 Via Trato
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1049 APN: 222-670-05-18
Jayashekar.Sundareswar B
6282 Via Trato
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1050 APN: 222-670-05-19
Delaloza,Edward & Mary
6286 Via Trato
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1051 APN: 222-670-05-20
Pff Bk & Trust
9467 Milliken Ave
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91730
Rec#: 1052 APN: 222-670-05-21
Krajewski.Radoslaw
6294 Via Trato
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1053 APN: 222-670-05-22
Emarine.Chad A
6298 Via Trato
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1054 APN: 222-670-05-23
Keller.Kimberly A
6297 Via Trato
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1055 APN: 222-670-05-24
Prowse.Claudine N
6035 Paseo Alameda
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1056 APN: 222-670-05-25
Zolly Properties Lie
7444 La Mantanza
San Diego, Ca 92127
Rec#: 1057 APN: 222-670-05-26
Mauldin.Mandy
6285 Via Trato
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1058 APN: 222-670-07-01
Suriawidjaja.Floriana
6260 Via Trato
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1059 APN: 222-670-07-02
Barnett.Bradley J
12 Roma Ct
Sacramento, Ca 95831
Rec#: 1060 APN: 222-670-07-03
Foster.Belinda J
6268 Via Trato
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1061 APN: 222-670-07-04
Buchanan,Heather 3
6272 Via Trato
Carlsbad, Ca 920C9
Rec#: 1062 APN: 222-670-07-05
Reital.Danica
6271 Via Trato
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1063 APN: 222-670-07-06
Hardwick,Tyler
6267 Via Trato
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1064 APN: 222-670-07-07
Tilque.Thomas W Jr
6164 CitracadoCir
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1065 APN: 222-670-07-08
Lee.Ji E & Soo Y
6259 Via Trato
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1066 APN: 222-670-07-09
Katsoulis,George T
6239 Via Trato
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1067 APN: 222-670-07-10
Allen,Christopher A
6235 Via Trato
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1068 APN: 222-670-07-11
Brian Bouchard
6231 Via Trato
Carlsbad, CA 92009-6085
Rec#: 1069 APN: 222-670-07-12
Himaka,Marilyn
6227 Via Trato
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1070 APN: 222-670-07-13
Stamperkong Asset Protection Tru
616 Edgebrook Dr
Las Vegas, Nv 89145
Rec#: 1071 APN: 222-670-07-14
Sharon Burditt
6224 Via Trato
Carlsbad, CA 92009-6084
Rec#: 1072 APN: 222-670-07-15
Plaisance, Peter
6228 Via Trato
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1073 APN: 222-670-07-16
Schneider.Kevin
6232 Via Trato
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1074 APN: 222-670-07-17
Duvall,Bryan K & Christine B
6236 Via Trato
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1075 APN: 222-670-07-18
Loyo.Adrian V
1995 Oxford Ct
Vista, Ca 92081
Rec#: 1076 APN: 222-670-09-01
Flynn,Pierce
3133ViaPuerta
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1077 APN: 222-670-09-02
Cox.Lee S
3129ViaPuerta
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1078 APN: 222-670-09-03
Flynn,Pierce J
3133 Via Puerta
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1079 APN: 222-670-09-04
Rosenblad.Dawn C
3111 Via Puerta
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1080 APN: 222-670-09-05
Bangaru.Sandeep K
3107 Via Puerta
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1081 APN: 222-670-09-06
Gordon,Pamela R Living Trust 03-
11323 Carmel Creek Rd
San Diego, Ca 92I30
Rec#: 1082 APN: 222-670-09-07
Rees Family Revoc Trust 12-20-02
6379 Paseo Potrero
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1083 APN: 222-670-09-08
Quis.Justin Q
3106 Via Puerta
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1084 APN: 222-670-09-09
Loza,Ernesto L & Jennifer B
3110 Via Puerta
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1085 APN: 222-670-09-10
Miller.James B
3114 Via Puerta
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1086 APN: 222-670-09-11
Jennings,Sandra L
3125 Via Puerta
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1087 APN: 222-670-09-12
James Sherry
3121 Via Puerta
Carlsbad, CA 92009-6081
Rec#: 1088 APN: 222-670-09-13
Hogan.Jeff
548 Warwick Ave
Cardiff By The Sea, Ca 92007
Rec#: 1089 APN: 222-670-09-14
Nuckols.Wayne S & Kayo N
3118 Via Puerta
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1090 APN: 222-670-09-15
Tuemler.Aaron D
3122 Via Puerta
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1091 APN: 222-670-09-16
Bowden,Kerry K
3126 Via Puerta
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1092 APN: 222-670-11-01
Wong.Showling
3127 Via Puerta
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1093 APN: 222-670-11-02
Byrnes, Robert & Konie
3123 Via Puerta
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1094 APN: 222-670-11-03
Chuck,Santiago H
3119 Via Puerta
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1095 APN: 222-670-11-04
De Jesus Family L P
2891 Rancho Cortes
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1096 APN: 222-670-11-05
Steele, Robert L
3124 Via Puerta
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1097 APN: 222-670-11-06
Hannahs,Robert K
3128 Via Puerta
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1098 APN: 222-670-11-07
Maroney.Patrick J
3139 Via Puerta
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1099 APN: 222-670-11-08
Ceppi.Matthew J
3135 Via Puerta
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1100 APN: 222-670-11-09
Guillen-Castrillo.Rocio-Teresita
3131 Via Puerta
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1101 APN: 222-670-11-10
Whittenton,Nathan
3132 Via Puerta
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1102 APN: 222-670-11-11
Otchis Trust 01-23-87
1123LunetaDr
Del Mar, Ca 92014
Rec#: 1103 APN: 222-670-11-12
Li.Zhong
3140 Via Puerta
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1104 APN: 222-670-12-01
Montalvo.Andres A & Kristin L
3151 Via Puerta
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1105 APN: 222-670-12-02
Connerley,Joshua & Courtney
3147 Via Puerta
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1106 APN: 222-670-12-03
Solyntjes,Joseph
3143 Via Puerta
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1107 APN: 222-670-12-04
Higgs.Hugh M M
3144 Via Puerta
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1108 APN: 222-670-12-05
Kelly.Heather
3148 Via Puerta
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1109 APN: 222-670-12-06
Gane Revoc Trust 01-09-97
3152 Via Puerta
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1110 APN: 222-671-01-00
Fennel,Brian E & Janelle
6302 Paseo Descanso
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1111 APN: 222-671-02-00
Walin.Frankel Family 2007 Trust
6306 Paseo Descanso
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1112 APN: 222-671-03-00
Marshall Taylor
6310 Paseo Descanso
Carlsbad, CA 92009-1900
Rec#: 1113 APN: 222-671-04-00
Brandt.John C & Rebecca E Family
6314 Paseo Descanso
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1114 APN: 222-671-05-00
Yi.Dong J
6318 Paseo Descanso
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1115 APN: 222-671-15-00
Caricchio.Gregory & Cynthia Z
6355 Paseo Descanso
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1116 APN: 222-671-16-00
Nathans.Dean S & Sharon D R
6351 Paseo Descanso
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1117 APN: 222-671-17-00
^ancho Carrillo Master Associati
2237 Faraday Ave 100
Carlsbad, Ca
Rec#: 1118 APN: 222-671-18-00
Rancho Carrillo Master Association
2237 Faraday Ave # 100
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7209
1119 APN: 222-672-03-00
Miuja.Sonia
5366 Paseo Descanso
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1120 APN: 222-672-04-00
Chou, Julie
6370 Paseo Descanso
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1121 APN: 222-672-05-00
Truong,Steven T
6374 Paseo Descanso
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1122 APN: 222-672-06-00
Takhar.Soin Family Trust
6452 Paseo Cerro
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1123 APN: 222-672-07-00
Koss Family Trust
6456 Paseo Cerro
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1124 APN: 222-672-08-00
Spencer.Gary J & Sharon L
6460 Paseo Cerro
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1125 APN: 222-672-09-00
Carson,Michael R & Michele R Rev
6464 Paseo Cerro
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1126 APN: 222-672-10-00
Sommers,Stephen & Mary
6468 Paseo Cerro
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1127 APN: 222-672-11-00
Cortes,Larry N & Christina J Tru
3113 Rancho Montana
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1128 APN: 222-672-12-00
Jones,Leonard R & Irene
3109 Rancho Montana
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1129 APN: 222-672-13-00
Gugino.James E Trust 04-07-06
3105 Rancho Montana
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1130 APN: 222-672-14-00
Luce,Edward H & Lynda J
3100 Rancho Montana
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1131 APN: 222-672-15-00
Naylor Living Trust 06-08-06
2549 Greystone St
Virginia Beach, Va 23456
Rec#: 1132 APN: 222-672-16-00
Pia,Clifford H & Cheryl A Living
3108 Rancho Montana
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1133 APN: 222-672-17-00
Farah Family Trust
3112 Rancho Montana
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Recft 1134 APN: 222-672-18-00
Lee.Sam Y & Lisa
1425 Lomita Blvd 4
Harbor City, Ca 90710
Rec#: 1135 APN: 222-672-19-00
Guerrero.Andre M & Laura L
6382 Paseo Descanso
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1136 APN: 222-672-20-00
Huffman Living Trust 01-26-00
6386 Paseo Descanso
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1137 APN: 222-672-21-00
Buckley,James F
6390 Paseo Descanso
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1138 APN: 222-672-22-00
Heniges,Stephen M
6393 Paseo Descanso
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1139 APN: 222-672-23-00
King Judith A Living Trust
6389 Paseo Descanso
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1140 APN: 222-672-24-00
Matray.Attila & Eva M Family Tru
6385 Paseo Descanso
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1141 APN: 222-672-25-00
Sherlock Family Tnst 01-05-04
6359 Paseo Descai so
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1142 APN: 222-673-01-00
Zimmer.John P & Penny S
6495 Paseo Cerro
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1143 APN: 222-673-02-00
Sigliano,Richard E & Jennifer E
6491 Paseo Cerro
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1144 APN: 222-673-03-00
Adams,Randolph C Jr & Melanie K
5620 Paseo Del Norte 127C
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Rec#: 1145 APN: 222-673-04-00
Rastakhiz Living Trust 02-28-03
2806 Chicago St
San Diego, Ca 92117
Rec#: 1146 APN: 222-673-05-00
Washington.Alvin W Sr
6479 Paseo Cerro
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1147 APN: 222-673-06-00
Horton,Steven C & Rebecca L
6475 Paseo Cerro
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1148 APN: 222-673-07-00
Ghaemi-Hajalilou.Tr
6471 Paseo Cerro
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1149 APN: 222-673-08-00
Rancho Carrillo Master Association
2237 Faraday Ave # 100
Carlsbad, CA 92068^209
Rec#: 1150 APN: 222-674-01-00
Tsai.Chin Lung & Yu O
2958 Madison St
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Rec#: 1151 APN: 222-674-02-00
Myrman,Marshall & Robin
6363 Paseo Cerro
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1152 APN: 222-674-03-00
Alex,Susan Trust 05-06-03
6359 Paseo Cerro
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1153 APN: 222-674-04-00
Delorenzo Family Trust 08-03-07
6355 Paseo Cerro
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1154 APN: 222-674-05-00
Loukas Family Trust 02-17-07
6351 Paseo Cerro
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1155 APN: 222-674-06-00
Cuellar 1996 Family Trust 02-18-
6347 Paseo Cerro
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1156 APN: 222-674-07-00
Chen Family Trust 07-25-07
6343 Paseo Cerro
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1157 APN: 222-674-08-00
Morejon,Anthony Jr & Jessica L
6339 Paseo Cerro
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1158 APN:
Elkin Family Trust
2143 Manzanita Dr
Oakland, Ca 94611
222-674-09-00
Rec#: 1159 APN: 222-674-10-00
Symon,Jeffrey
6331 Paseo Cerro
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1160 APN: 222-674-11-00
Kindt.Christopher R & Jaime
6328 Paseo Cerro
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1161 APN: 222-674-12-00
Very,John R& Linda J
6332 Paseo Cerro
Carlsbad, Ca 920C9
Rec#: 1162 APN: 222-674-13-00
Kabbara.Souheil J & Rita B
6336 Paseo Cerro
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1163 APN: 222-674-14-00
Vartabedian,Peter
6340 Paseo Cerro
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1164 APN: 222-674-15-00
Gentle.Jack H & Deborah K
6344 Paseo Cerro
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1165 APN: 222-674-16-00
Bornino Family 1998 Trust
6348 Paseo Cerro
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1166 APN: 222-674-17-00
Sigler.Janet S
6352 Paseo Cerro
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1167 APN: 222-674-18-00
Lee.Min S
6356 Paseo Cerro
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1168 APN: 222-674-19-00
Kienast.Kevin & Amanda Family Tr
6360 Paseo Cerro
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1169 APN: 222-680-24-00
Master Rancho Carrillo
2237 Faraday Ave # 100
Carlsbad, CA92e08^209
Rec#: 1170 APN: 222-682-02-00
Rancho Carrillo Master Association
2237 Faraday Ave_J,
CarlsbadJ^GA-"S2008-7209
Rec#: 1171 APN: 223-352-26-00
Wade,Steve & Carolyn S
549 San Dieguito Dr
Encinitas, Ca 92024
Rec#: 1172 APN: 223-352-27-00
Brown,Deborah L
6732 Paseo Del Vis
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1173 APN: 223-352-28-00
Black.Laura K
6734 Paseo Del Vis
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1174 APN: 223-352-29-00
Bannerman.Allison C
6736 Paseo Del Vis
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1175 APN: 223-352-30-00
Flores.Jose M & Esther
6738 Paseo Del Vis
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1176 APN: 223-352-31-00
Williams.Andre
PO Box 532362
San Diego, Ca 92153
Rec#: 1177 APN: 223-352-32-00
Sepich,Stephen & Kristen
6742 Paseo Del Vis
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1178 APN: 223-352-33-00
Tony Xirogiannis
6744 Paseo Del Vis
Carlsbad, CA 92009-6009
Rec#: 1179 APN: 223-352-34-00
Roberts, John C & Dana A
6746 Paseo Del Vis
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1180 APN: 223-352-35-00
Wysong,Gregory
6748 Paseo Del Vis
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1181 APN: 223-352-36-00
Gathers,Jason & Melissa
6750 Paseo Del Vis
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1183 APN: 223-352-38-00
Dow.Timothy M & Helena D
6754 Paseo Del Vis
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1185 APN: 223-352-40-00
Ohare,Elaine M Trust
6758 Paseo Del Vis
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1187 APN: 223-352-71-00
Coram,James
6743 Paseo Del Vis
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1189 APN: 223-352-73-00
Galusha,William & Catherine Fami
6753 Paseo Del Vis
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1182 APN: 223-352-37-00
Dabney,Frank N
6752 Paseo Del Vis
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1184 APN: 223-352-39-00
Thomsen,Frank & Catherine M
6756 Paseo Del Vis
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1186 APN: 223-352-70-00
Sauter.Sean M
6741 Paseo Del Vis
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
Rec#: 1188 APN: 223-352-72-00
Mitchell.Brian & Sue A
6751 Paseo Del Vis
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
AN3AV-O9-008-1
za)|nsu<o
}uaiuabjeip ap sues ®091S ®AH3/\V
jajad e
s\
CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST
6225 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD CA 92011
SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DISTRICT
STE 250
255 PICO AVE
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
ENCINITAS SCHOOL DISTRICT
101 RANCHO SANTA FE RD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
SAN DIEGUITO SCHOOL DISTRICT
701 ENCINITAS BLVD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
LEUCADIA WASTE WATER DIST
TIM JOCHEN
1960 LA COSTA AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92009
OLIVENHAIN WATER DISTRICT
1966OLIVENHAINRD
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF ENCINITAS
505 S VULCAN AV
ENCINITAS CA 92024
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 CIVIC CENTER DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
300 NORTH COAST HWY
OCEANSIDE CA 92054
CITY OF VISTA
600 EUCALYPTUS AVE
VISTA CA 92084
VALLECITOS WATER DISTRICT
201 VALLECITOS DE ORO
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
I.P.U.A.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND
URBAN STUDIES
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505
CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME
4949 VIEWRIDGE AV
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
STE 100
9174 SKY PARK CT
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340
SD COUNTY PLANNING
STEB
5201 RUFFIN RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
LAFCO
1600 PACIFIC HWY
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
10124 OLD GROVE RD
SAN DIEGO CA 92131
SANDAG
STE 800
401 B STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE
6010 HIDDEN VALLEY RD
CARLSBAD CA 92011
CA COASTAL COMMISSION
STE 103
7575 METROPOLITAN DR
SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402
ATTN TEDANASIS
SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIRPORT
AUTHORITY
PO BOX 82776
SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776
CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE
5934 PRIESTLEY DR
CARLSBAD CA 92008
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING
DEPT- PROJECT ENGINEER
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PROJECT PLANNER
SCOTT MOLLOY - BIASD
STE 110
9201 SPECTRUM CENTER BLVD
SAN DIEGO CA 92123-1407
®09is®Ad3AV pad Xseg joj
jaaqs uojpnnsuj aa$
jaded paajT ®091S
s|aqe-|Aseg
zas||i»n
City Managers Office
Jim Wood City of Oceanside
S M ?Cea?tde
h J?° N" ^"ST/ mOouh Coast Highway 101300 N. Coast highway Oceanside, CA 92054 Encinitas CA 92024
Oceanside, CA 92054
Mayor Jim Desmond Rick Menchaca
City of San Marcos »1 Civic Center Drive City of San Marcos
San Marcos, CA 92069 1 C|V^ Cente:?nQV0enRQSan Marcos, CA 92069
Mayor Morris Vance Rita Geldert
City of San Marcos City Manager
600 Eucalyptus Avenue 600 Eucalyptus Avenue
Vista, CA 92084 Vista, California 92084
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 & 2011 CCP.)
This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to or interested in the above-
entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer
of
North County Times
Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-
Advocate and which newspapers have been
adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by the
Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of
California, for the City of Oceanside and the City of
Escondido, Court Decree number 171349, for the
County of San Diego, that the notice of which the
annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than
nonpariel), has been published in each regular and
entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
September 05th, 2009
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at Escondido, California
On this 08th, day of September, 2009
_r
Jane Allshouse
NORTH COUNTY TIMES
Legal Advertising
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO POP 00-02/SP 144(H)/DA05-01/RP 05-12/HMP 05-08 AND PROPOSED ADDENDUM TO EIR 03-05.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the
idye L/IIVO, i_*ai louavj, i^oiuvn I no. ai w.w M.III. ui i lucouay, srauimiiLroi in, tu ^uiiaiuoiapproval of an addendum to Environmental Impact Report EIR 03-05 and amend-ments to Precise Development Plan POP 00-02, Encina Specific Plan SP 144(H),
Development Agreement DA 05-01, Redevelopment Permit RP 05-12, and HabitatManagement Plan Permit HMP 05-08.
In 2006, the Carlsbad City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Commissioncertified EIR 03-05 and approved these various applications and permits to (1) estab-lish a Precise Development Plan for the Encina Power Station (EPS) located west ofInterstate 5 at 4600 Carlsbad Boulevard'(2) approve a 50 million gallon a day Carls-bad Seawater Desalination Plant at the EPS and (3) approve a network of desalinatedwater delivery pipelines in the cities of Carlsbad, Oceanside, and Vista.
The amendments proposed would reconfigure the approved desalination plant site,modify plant buildings and structure sizes and locations, consolidate plant uses, andunderground related plant facilities, all on the EPS property. Portions of the proposeddevelopment are located within the coastal zone, the South Carlsbad Coastal Rede-
velopment Area, and the Encina Specific Plan. The proposed changes would alsomodify the delivery pipeline network, located off of the EPS property, by (1) identifyingthe general locations of flow control facilities, (2) making minor adjustments to thealignment, and (3) adding new pipelines south of Palomar Airport Road in MelroseDrive and east of Melrose Drive into the City of San Marcos primarily via streets inCarlsbad, San Marcos and Vista. The approved and proposed pipelines would connectto existing water facilities and would be located in street rights of way and alreadydeveloped and disturbed properties, and permits from cities other than Carlsbad wouldbe needed to construct the pipeline network. The addendum to the EnvironmentalImpact Report would analyze all changes proposed. An addendum is appropriate forminor, post-approval changes that do not warrant preparation of a supplemental orsubsequent EIR.
A location map of the desalination plant and approved and proposed pipeline networksis attached.
Figure 1 - Dnalinatlon Plnnt »nd Pipeline* Map
Whereas, on August 19, 2009, the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission voted 6-0 torecommend approval of the addendum to EIR 03-05 ancTthe amendments to PDF00-02, SP 144(H), DA 05-01, RP 05-12, and HMP 05-08 for the Desalination ProjectChanges project.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend thepublic hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available pn and after September 112009. If you nave any questions, please call Scott Donnell in the Planning Departmentat (760) 602-4618.
The time within which you may judicially challenge the addendum to EnvironmentalImpact Report 03-05 and these amendments to Precise Development Plan PDF 00-02, Encina Specific Plan SP 144(H), Development Agreement DA 05-01, Redevelop-ment Permit HP 05-12, and Habitat Management Plan Permit HMP 05-08, if approved,is established by State law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge theDesalination Project Changes project in court you may be limited to raising onlylhoseissues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or inwritten correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad. Attn: City Clerk's Office,1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE NUMBERS: EIR 03-05(A) Addendum/PDF 00-02(B)/SP 144(J)/DA 05-01 AV RP 05-12(A)/HMP 05-08(A)CASE NAME: DESALINATION PROJECT CHANGESAPPLICANT: POSEIDON RESOURCES (CHANNELSIDE) LLCDATE APPLICATION FILED: July 17, 2009
PUBLISH: September 5, 2009CITY OF CARLSBADCITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION