Loading...
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 m»§ § 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