Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
EIR 05-05; PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN; Environmental Impact Report (EIR)(Final-Appendix A Volume I - Appendices A - D); 2007-08-01
PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH# 2007031141 EIR 05-05/GPA 05-04/LCPA 05-01/DI 05-01 APPENDIX VOLUME I (APPENDICES A-D) Prepared For: City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Contact: Christer Westman, Project Manager (760) 602-4614 Prepared By: RBF Consulting 9755 Clairemont Mesa Boulevard, Suite 100 San Diego, California 92124 (858) 614-5000 FAX (858) 614-5001 RBF JN 25-101951.001 August 2007 APPENDIX VOLUME I (APPENDICES A-D) Appendix A: Notice of Preparation (NOP) / Public Comments Received Appendix B: Air Quality Site Assessment (Technical Appendix) Appendix C-1: Existing Conditions Report Appendix C-2: Wetland Delineation Report Appendix C-3: Biological Technical Report Appendix D-1: Archaeological Survey Appendix D-2: Cultural Resource Constraints Study APPENDIX A Notice of Preparation (NOP) / Public Comments Received , PUBLIC N?T!&3E ~ ~ ~J,.T.,Llmy~ Notice of Pr~par~Jion.,~ :~~~ ~ Jq~ 0 9 2006 and !';, · / ◊~~~~ : ;:,, Nollice o[]Public Scoping Meeting ~., ~ ti th • DEPI.ITY or e Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Program Environmental Impact Report EIR 05-05 The Planning Department of the City of Carlsbad intends to prepare a Program Environmental Impact Report for the following project:· Project Description: The Ponto area is located in the most southwesterly portion of the city near the city's southern entrance along Carlsbad Boulevard. It presently contains older homes and businesses most of which were developed in the county before the city incorporated. Recognizing its potential for redevelopment and its prime coastal location across from the state campgrounds and near new single-family neighborhoods, the city decided to create a "vision plan" to direct future development in the Ponto area. With input from property owners, nearby residents, and other interested parties, the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan was prepared by the City. The intent of the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan is to create a mixed-use, active, pedestrian and bicycle-oriented area with a strong sense of place, village atmosphere and unique character of design. Because of its prime location at the southern gateway to the city and across from the beach and campgrounds, it could become a vibrant part of the city providing amenities for city residents as well as tourists. The Plan also contains a Vision statement, desirable land uses, a proposed vehicular and pedestrian circulation system and design guidelines to direct future development in the area. In order for futu,re development proposals to be guided by the Plan and in' order to allow the city to review future proposals for compliance with the Plan, it is necessary to amend the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan and to amend the Local Coastal Program (Mello II and West Batiquitos segments) by incorporating references to the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision. Plan. Project Location: The Ponto area is located in the most southwesterly portion of the city. The Ponto area· is generally located south of Hanover Beach Colony 'and north of the Batiquitos Lagoon. The easterly boundary of the Ponto area is the railroad right-of-way and the westerly boundary is Carlsbad Boulevard. The Plan covers a larger study area consisting of approximately ••• --. I 130 ac!es.;;P:~'¾~¥.~I,-Rµ>,e ~eatconsidere~ viable for future developm~nt. or red_evelopm:nt is approximately 50 acres. The 50 acres consist of the older Ponto Area which is also mcluded m the South Carlsba,~)~d~talkRedevelopment Area, one small, vacant parcel located within the boundaries of the previously approved Poinsettia Properties Specific Plan and several vacant properties locatedm the previously approved Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. ~ . . Notice of Preparation (NOP): This comment period, called the scoping process, helps determine the coverage, focus, and content of the Program EIR. During the scoping process, no decisions to approve or deny the project will be made. · Anticipated Project Issues: The project Program EIR will analyze anticipated project impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological and cultural resources, geo1\~gy and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, land use/planning, noise/vibration, traffic/circulation, utilities and service systems, and pumulative impacts. The Program EIR will also consider the project's growth inducement potential and alternatives to the project. · Public Scopi~g Meeting: During the scoping process, the City will hold a public meeting to explain the scoping and overall environmental review process, present the project, and receive comments. The meeting will be held on Thursday, June 22, 2006, from 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at the City of Carlsbad Faraday Center, Room 173-A, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Your comments on the scope of the Environmental Impact Report may be submitted to Christer Westman, Senior Planner in writing to City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008, by Fax to (760) 602-8559, or by e-mail to cwest@ci.carlsbad.ca.us no later than July 12, 2006 . Additional information on the proposed project may be found on the City's website, www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us. Select Construction Updates from the home page. Under Planning· Projects, select Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan. The complete Notice of Preparation may also be found on the City's website. Under City Services, select City Departments, select Planning, select Environmental Notices. DATED: CASE NO: JUNE 7, 2006 EIR 05-05 CASE NAME: PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN PROGRAM ENVIRONMENT AL IMP ACT REPORT-BIR 05-05 PUBLISH DATE: JlJNE·11, 2006 FILE~ IN THE: OFFICE OF THE COUNTY San Diego County on :._ .)l/N O . _ , . _,, CLERK Posted JUN.0.920,0§__ Removed q Mf!b Returned to agency on ----- Deputy ... ~~----- IF~Lf!O Grq~ry J, ~ffllth, Run~n!er/GDURty CJ!rk JUN--0 9 2006 ~,~ Project Boundary Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan EIR 05-05 8 IIOT TO ICAU! 0 250 500 1,000 ai!!ir:=ll!lllilli!i:= ___ il!illllilllFeet Comment Form Ponto Be_~chfront Village 1ision Plan Envitonmental Impact Report EIR 05-05 SCOPING MEETING JUNE 22, 2006 On the lines provided below, please list those issues or concerns you feel need to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan project. Please be as specific and as detailed as possible so that the EIR may address your concerns or issues. If necessary, please attach additional pages. Once completed, please submit your written comments to: Christer Westman, Senior Planner, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad California 92008. You can also submit comments by FAX to (760) 602-855.9 or e-mail to cwest@ci.carlsbad.ca.us. tho..:r: Submitted by (please print) Name: , OJrLs Agency/Business/Group Name if applicable: =v~-rt Address: ~e~()..,re,,r ~ f rkvV Phone and or E-mail: 7t~~ ht...f:4_ @_ D r---e,{tt5. GD !IY) C(1,/Statt'zip codel Date: c~ q JvD It --7-2-J-..oo.b '-i:t--t"'lsha, :] t'.A.,Y) e, } Comment Form n. Ponto Be_~chfront Village Vision Plan Envitonmental Impact Report EIR 05-05 SCOPING MEETING JUNE 22, 2006 On the lines provided below, please list those issues or concerns you feel need to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan project. Please be as specific and as detailed as possible so that the EIR may address your concerns or issues. If necessary, please attach additional pages. Once completed, please submit your written comments to: Christer Westman, Senior Planner, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad California 92008. You can also submit comments by FAX to (760) 602-8559 or e-mail to cwest@ci.carlsbad.ca.us. 71'8 ~~..v.r tJ~ 786" ~8,e:,e/d:? LbH.t:cdtt'lnV A&~ lt8 ~1 1. Pl Aff/ e Ytt.mG 1u~~/i1.ID5:S'. «11u.. t'J:vS'o q. t,1~1:56". p;, f!?4 tvn,,,y 4,s 1/G '-S: Tt2'>1/8-S~ Y &~ t.evii"L.S' ... b. &s: (&1-t. #S(ti,wt~ A-mvnt:. 'b' lt;A'A:L. D:Y-A,,e~~II-Y fz A-11611/bll-~NCtN,fr . ? tJ, /Jr 7116 ~IVS)•41AI ~ t/6,tlfefdl...S: ~Ii:£~ ?!~ if &;;eel. ~ /l?:,vH&u r.r: ~ ·Y/ff5 ~tc ~ ~Lae- s, ~ ~ n, B6 P'IA,A,fetre:crJJ. Pb,s ~,,11;-:(ldr · c,.,:-il-/lth;Als,.f!, l'NA.Jrr re_t!lrrS,..,..,..AntPN' ~/1!f tf'7Mu@l'l""'i:> ,,,..~&'.l:fiR~JJ .,., AhFe/f ~Id-~. Submitted by (please print) Agency/Business/Group Name if applicable: ''II Address: Phone and or E-mail: 7~~?<~ ltp,-b/5-q ~ 87 £>4Le~o;,,d,~<;;. City/State/zip code: Date: &tRL~ (},1,9 .2CJ/I 1 2 TABU:J Ponto Vldo11 Plaa Arca Fonc:sst Trame AM Peak PMPe:i:11:" ...... Lalld Utt Uaitt .. ...,,., AJJT Tot•I In Our Tobi ,. o., A rtOW wfcoafbz:la Ac:il~t -uo l,SOO 90 S4 31 120 72 41 ~-Qnr<!ol •• 35 280 ll 4 18 28 lO a B 0-,.., 5 120 17 IS 2 16 3 I? --~-bf· 6 :w, 7 4 3 22 II II C nm111l 1to+!DTtmaSmre) rooms 160 1,600 ,6 SI 31 12S 77 SI D awa.bomiel1r~ da 111 m 71 14 S7 90 63 27 E . ll-rtt200+2QOTIIDC:lblta) '°°"" 400 3,200 t60 96 64 181 173 115 ·-da 7G 456 36 7 lS 41 29 12 p •-'••~Raloil ks! 19 760 22 14 9 61 l4 34 IU"lmllmffl~m-~,lA" bf ' SQO ' ] 2 40 21 12 G Pmivehdc .... 0.7S IS 2 I I I I I .. .. llS ta 4 1.5 21 14 4 H ,-~= ks! 12 4SQ 14 9 6 43 22 22 ---bigll lrsf ' .... 64 ]J :u 64 ll 26 ....... ~ ... 61 371 30 6 .. 33 13 10 I ·-bf 16 320 ., 40 • 42 • 33 ·~~Rcail bf 16 640 19 12 I SI l9 29 TOTAL 12.<07 m 373 341 1102 644 ... 32 3 1. Staff recommendations of height limitation reduction to 30' measured from existing grade 2. Parking structures to be underground wherever possible 4 5 June 22, 2006 Mr. Christer Westman Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan -EIR Dear Christer, The purposed of this letter is to provide a list of items and issues that should be addressed in the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan EIR. Based on the scoping meeting that will be held on June 22, we believe that it would be most productive for us and for the EIR consultant to receive a formal letter outlining our views. This letter includes input from just the developers within the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan area west of the railroad tracks and north of Avenida Encinas, cominonly referred to in the Vision Plan as the Townhouse Neighborhood and the Mixed Use Center. The following provides a list of the additional items that we believe should be addressed within the EIR. The list is separated into the same categories as the Scope of Work that as provided by the EIR consultant. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION - In order for the EIR to address the potential development that will occur in the future, we feel that it is critical that the EIR is based on the latest available information regarding the development of the areas. Attached to this letter is a tabulation of the development parameters for the Townhouse Neighborhood and the Mixed Use Center. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - In accordance with the latest version of the Vision Plan, it appears that the realignment of the southbound lanes to the east and maintaining the existing intersection design at Carlsbad Boulevard and Avenida Encinas is the Vision Plan preferred Carlsbad Boulevard alignment alternative. We do not disagree with this alignment, but would prefer that there was no change to the alignment. However, assuming that the realignment does occur as proposed, we recommend that the biological impacts of the realignment should be analyzed and appropriate mitigation measures identified. _ HowesWeiler .~.~,~~~~~!~!~.,.~ TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC- The Vision Plan identifies three alignments; however, it appears that Alternative 1 is the preferred alignment (Chapter 1 -Page 15). Alternative 1 should be reviewed in detail to ensure that all impacts created by this alignment are analyzed and appropriate mitigation measures identified. Regarding the pedestrian access under Carlsbad Boulevard as proposed by the Vision Plan, careful consideration should be given and analysis conducted related to the viability of this under pass specifically related to public safety, actual anticipated use by pedestrians, and potential use by transients as temporary shelter. We feel that the underpass would be a safety issue because of the hidden nature of the access. Law enforcement may not be able to see into the access from the street which could lead to a potential hiding place for criminals wishing to do harm to pedestrians. We have been told by persons involved in the commercial marketing industry that pedestrians typically desire street crossings that are above ground and at a signalized intersection. Due to the hidden nature of the under crossing as well as the typical desires of pedestrians, the under crossing may not be utilized to the extent that would warrant actual construction. The EIR should carefully examine these concerns regarding the under crossing. GROWTH INDUCEMENT - Since the proposed projects within the Mixed Use Center will be developed within the current property boundaries, it is not necessary to realign the major underground utilities as identified in the Vision Plan. If there is no realignment of utilities, then there is no need for an analysis of the realignment. Other Considerations - Regarding changes to the Vision Plan itself, we recommend that the Utility Relocation section be removed from the Vision Plan. We do not believe that realignment of these major facilities (as shown in Chapter 4-Page 9 through Page 12 of the Vision Plan) should occur. The projects proposed for the Townhouse Neighborhood and the Mix Use Center are located entirely within the existing property boundaries. The Vision Plan shows development outside of the existing property boundaries within the Mixed Use Center. Expanding the development area of the Mixed Use Center is not proposed; thereby the realignment of the major underground facilities is not necessary. An analysis of the realignment should not occur in the EIR and consideration for realignment should be removed from the Vision Plan. Reference to an 8,000 square foot Nature/Arts Center in the Vision Plan should be revised to be more in line with a Nature/Art Pavilion. An open air pavilion is being proposed that will take advantage of the fair weather that the City of Carlsbad continuously enjoys. The pavilion area will be shaded by a large trellis structure and will HowesWeiler .~,~~~~~~!~!~~-~ include an area large enough to hold out door meetings, an area with fixed exhibits, sitting areas for lectures and fix tables for picnics. It was the opinion of a subcommittee within the Batequitos Lagoon Foundation that such a pavilion would better serve their needs at this location rather than a larger facility. The subcommittee felt strongly that a facility located within the Mixed Use Center is too far from the lagoon to meet their needs. However, a pavilion area with exhibits, a seating area, and picnic tables would allow off-site meetings and lectures to smaller groups. As referenced on in Chapter 1 -Page 15, the Vision Plan preferred alignment for Carlsbad Boulevard is Alternative 1. Any reference to other multiple alignments for Carlsbad Boulevard should be removed. We are formally requesting that the above considerations be addressed as a part of the EIR scoping. Representatives from the developers of the Townhouse Neighborhood and the Mixed Use Center will be in attendance at the EIR scoping meeting scheduled for June 22. This letter serves as their input into the EIR scoping. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, . ,,,,,, J ~;>YZ'.L12~ Stan Weiler, AICP cc. Angela Merrill Tom Delaney PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE PRELIMINARY TABULAT-~ON June 22, 2006 Townhouse Neighborhood: Residential - Mixed-Use Center: {Maximum Retail Units and Parking as compiled from the three Site Plan Studies) Restaurant: Retail: Live/Work: Market Rate: Affordable Required: (128 + 7+ 11) X .15 = 21.90 21.9 X .15 = 3.29 128 Units 10,700 s.f. 20,700 s.f. 7 Units 11 Units 25.19 = 25 Required Parking Required: Restaurant: 40 + (20/1000 Area Over4,000) 10,700 80+54 134 Retail: 3.3/1000 20,700 69 Residential: Live/Work: 7x2 · 14 Market Rate: 11 X 2 22 Affordable: 25x2 50 Guest: 5 Spaces for the first 10 d.u. = 5 Parking Provided: Surface Parking Structure Live/Work Total Required: Total Provided: 32 x. 25 = 8 302 Spaces 37 265 14 306 Spaces Cyrelle Pasco From: PontoDevelopmentlnfo@yahoogroups.com om-behalf of daleordas [Dale0@ordas.com] Saturday, June 10, 2006 4:02 PM Sent: To: PontoDevelopmentlnfo@yahoogroups.com Subject: [PontoDevelopmentlnfo] Ponto "Scoping Meeting" June 22, 2006 Notice of r onto EJR. Hearing J received an e-mail from the Housing and R.edevelopment Agenc_y of the Cit_y of Carlsbad giving notice of a "Scoping Meeting11 on June 22, 2006, for public input on the environmental aspects of the F onto Vision Flan. June 22, 2006 6:j0 p.m. -8:00 p.m. Cit_y of Carlsbad f arada_y Center R.oom J Jj-A 1 63_5 f arada_y Avenue Carlsbad, CA 9 2008 5ack on Jul_y J 9, 2005, the Carlsbad Cit_y Council, b_y unanimous vote, directed that an environmental impact report (E.IR) be prepared. I met with the heads of the Cit_y's R.edevelopment Agenc_y and Traffic Engineering, and was assured that noise and traffic increases generated b_y the build-out of the F onto Vision Flan would be dealt with b_y appropriate traffic control devices and measures. The_y also agreed that building height limits within the project should be reduced to 30 feet from existing grade.further, 11open space11 was to be maximized. I re9uested in vain that the June 22 meeting be postponed to allow notification of all members of the communit_y. If _you were unable to attend the June 22 meeting, _you can submit _your written comments on the scope of the E.IR. to Christer Westman, Senior Flanner, Cit_y of Carlsbad Flanning Department, 1635 Farada_y Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008, or b_y fax to 760- 602-8559, or b_y e-mail to From: To: Date: Subject: Rosalie Skaff <cbsskaff@yahoo.com> <cwest@ci.carlsbad.ca. us> 7/12/06 9:39:01 AM EIR for Ponto Vision Plan To whom it may concern: 't - We are very concerned about the Ponto Village Vision Plan and the hiring of the same firm that did the vision plan to do the EIR. This seems to be a definite conflict of interests. The original plan, as presented, is too dense in its developement of the Ponto property: We believe a more objective environmental study, by a firm not associated with the original plan, would be more appropriate. As it is, we do not believe the taxpayers of Carlsbad should be financially responsible for $101,444 of the $230,555 being spent on the environmental study. It seems to us that those that will profit from the sale and development of this land -the property owners and the developers -should pay for this study or at least for the lion's. share. Sincerely, Rosalie and Roy Skaff 527 Meridian Way Carlsbad, CA 92011 (760)918-0426 Do you Yahoo!? Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta. --Ii ctiri~t~r. Vv~st~~n : qomni,ents ()r, th~ ~~ope of the E:nyironmerita-I lmpa~t :~eport (Ponto) __ From: To: Date: Subject: "DJ Henry" <djhenry007@hotmail.com> . <cwest@ci.carlsbad.ca. us>, <dfoun@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> 7/11/06 10:26:49 PM Comments on the scope of the Environmental Impact Report (Ponto) _ Page_1 ~ From: To: Date: Subject: Mr. Westman, Ken Greenlee <kengreenlee@yahoo.com> <cwest@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> 7/11/06 9:24:07 PM l· Concerns with the scope of the Ponto Redevelopment EIR _:_ I appreciate your time at the meeting of June 7, 2006. And, although the proposed EIR seemed thorough, I still have serious concerns as to its scope. My major concerns are as follows: 1. Will the impact of the development on the beach ever addressed? There are very limited services and facilities on the State Beach, over which the city has no responsibility for upkeep and funding. 2. With regard to traffic flow, models used elsewhere do not necessarily apply to this area. Where else in the state is there a similar area from which congruous traffic models could be drawn? And will this be noted in the report? 3. Parking problems are not solved by building a lot. Will the traffic flow of each parking facility be considered so that the area is not like an parking at an airport? 3. How can there be an accurate traffic count if the monitoring of the current flow for the EIR did not include half of the Summer, including the Memorial Day and the 4th of July, both of which were extremely heavy days this year? 4. How will demographics be addressed in the EIR? Different demographic groups present a different use pattern for the whole area. For purposes of contrast, a facility like The Rancho Santa Fe Inn will have guests and draw people with a different impact on the region than those who visit the Surfer Motel in Pacific Beach. I would also apply the similar comparison with regard to the proposed timeshares, restaurants, and stores. Tatoo parlors or high end stores aimed at retirees? The demographics will have an impact on all aspects of the report. 4. Pedestrians need to be dressed_ Currently, the local residents walk either for exercise or to the each. How will this be addressed in the report? 5. Of course, there is also the issue with the company preparing the EIR. This needs to be clarified. Sincerely, Ken Greenlee 539 Wind Sock Way Carlsbad, CA 92011 (760) 918-0623 ----------------- Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta. · · . f'age 1)1 Ii Chris_terV\ie~t~?ri -~<?oeingJv1e~ting for Pontg !3eachtront '(Ill age Visi~~-Pla_n-_ : : . From: To: Date: Subject: Christer, "Kurt Luhrsen" <Kluhrsen@nctd.org> "Christer Westman" <Cwest@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>t · 7/11/06 9:10:35 AM Scoping Meeting for Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan The issues I would like to make sure the EIR on the above project addresses are mostly pedestrian in nature, but more specifically: (1) How are pedestrians to get frocn the proposed bus stop areas into and out of the new development safely, and· · (2) How are pedestrians to get from this development to the beach safely (i.e. cross Carlsbad Boulevard). Please let me know if you have any questions. Kurt -------------------------------------- Kurt Luhrsen Principal Planner North County Transit District 810 Mission Avenue Oceanside, CA 92054-2825 (760) 966-6546 (760) 967-2001 fax ~ag_e 1 ii . . -::. : From: Mueller Family Mueller <annmueller@sbcglobal.net> <cwest@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> l • To: Date: 7/10/06 10:52:50 AM Subject: Ponto Beach Vision Plan July 10, 2006 Dear Mr. Westman: I was at the last meeting where the Ponto Beach Vision Plan was discussed, and I would like to commend your department for exemplary work in the planning and presentation of the Vision Plan. You have my unwavering support in proceeding with the Vision Plan. One can see that it was carefully planned out, and I look forward to watching the development. In fact, I am interested in purchasing a condo at the development. Please keep me posted on the progress and keep up the good work!! Sincerely, C. Ann Mueller 624 Brookside Court Carlsbad, CA 90211 (760) 930-0950 From: To: Date: Subject: Michael Burner <mburner9@adelphia.net> <cwest@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> 7/10/06 10:51 :30 AM Ponto EIR Scope l· The following concerns regarding the the development south of Ponto Road will affect the community of Hanover Beach Colony and should be addressed in the EIR that is being prepared for this site: 1. Parking in Hanover Beach Colony-Our community has 112 homes built on private streets. Because the width of the streets are narrow, the City required that parking be limited to one side of the street to allow access for emergency vehicles. The concern is that the influx of vehicles destined for the hotels, condominiums, businesses, and beachgoers and tourists will park in our neighborhood looking for a convenient and/or free place to park (the hotel will charge a fee for parking in the parkade). This situation will reduce the available parking for Hanover guests and residents. It will also increase the traffic in our neighborhood that will expose our residents, especially children, to a higher risk of injury or fatality and an increased risk of property damage. A gate at the entrances to our community, jointly funded by the developers and Hanover residents would preclude entry for vehicles other than residents and guests (Hanover shouldn't be required to bear the full cost of a gate to protect its residents and property. The development is being constructed after our community was built and will create impacts to Hanover that would not have occurred without this development. As such, I think that Hanover residents should not bear the full cost of the gate construction if a gate is approved). 2. Noise-Noise exposure to the residents in Hanover will increase due to noise from events at the hotel, vehicles making deliveries to the hotel and other occupancies in the development, and increased traffic on Ponto Road. Some reduction of noise could be achieved by the elimination of the islands/medians will reduce congestion on Ponto Rd. and by moving the hotel's loading dock, which is currently planned to be directly across the street (Ponto) from Hanover. 3. Traffic-The traffic will increase on Ponto Road. As stated earlier, some of this traffic will divert through Hanover, either to avoid congestion or to try to find parking. The increased traffic will increase the congestion entering and exiting Ponto Road onto Carlsbad Blvd. Ponto Rd. is the only access to Hanover for residents or emergency vehicles (other than an emergency crash gate at the north end of Hanover). Congestion on Ponto would impact the ingress and egress of vehicles in and out of Hanover. Moving the entry lobby of the hotel may help to alleviate some of the traffic. As stated earlier, removing islands/medians from the plan will allow traffic to move easier along Ponto Rd. to the hotel and the development. A gate at the entrances to Hanover would eliminate non-resident/guest traffic. 4. Emergency Services impact-The new development will impact all emergency services. As a retired Deputy Fire Chief from the City of San Diego, I am well aware of the impact to emergency services that occurs with an increase in population and structures in a dense physical area. EMS response will increase as the population increases; there will be an increase in service requirements by lifeguards at the :·. ··. page 1 H . ••·••"•••"•·n•'" .. ·Of••:• •··.• -, ... ,. . .,,_._ .. ,_.,,.,•--•· ,4s• -. •. ,,.-,._,._._.,.~_,, ... _.,o•••-•"' ·· CG= I _ _ __ ... ,. _ .,., .. _ ......... Page 2_ < ,, .. ..., ... ·i!"l" -<>-<"' y. ,,_ ..... ,, •• ,, ,., ' ,.. , , •• ,., •• ,,.~.,,.. ' ;,w••rm -·-. " -. . beach because of increased beach use; fire responses will increase with the increase in structures-the access to buildings will be l • restricted due to islands/medians and excessive vegetation/trees which restricts and delays fireground operations; police response will increase not only with an increase in crime and traffic accidents but with increased response in assisting fire, EMS and lifeguards in their operations. If you need further information, input or clarification of my concerns, you can contact me at 760-931-1919 or by email at mburner9@adelphia.net. Michael A. Burner 7017 Leeward Street Carlsbad, CA 92011 President, Hanover Beach Colony HOA From: To: Date: Subject: "Greg Thomsen" <thomsen99@earthlink.net> <cwest@ci. carlsbad. ca. us> 7/4/06 6:31:14 PM Scoping Comments on Ponto Vision Plan Christer Westman Senior Planner City of Carlsbad Planning Department l- Please accept the two attached letters as comments on the scope of the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Program Environmental Impact Report EIR 05-05. Thank you, Greg Thomsen Page 1JI Christer Westman Senior Planner City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 July 4, 2006 I am hereby submitting comments on the scope of the Ponto Beachftont Village Vision Plan Program Environmental Impact Report EIR 05-05. I am also attaching the June 28, 2005, letter I sent to the Carlsbad City Council on the Mitigated Negative Declaration that was prepared for this project. I request that both of these letters be included in the record for the EIR. I also request that the issues raised in these two letters be analyzed in the EIR. It is essential that the City of Carlsbad (City) fully analyze a range of alternatives to the proposed project that addresses all of the concerns expressed during the public process on the MND and in the scoping for this EIR. Viable alternatives must be included, not just the proposed project of the Vision Plan and no action, i.e. no Vision Plan. Alternatives should include a scaled down density with balanced tourist services, ranging from a resort hotel to public parks and open space. A park, interpretive area in the area south of A venida Encinas would enhance the Ponto area for the residents and tourists and would create a buffer for the lagoon. A park near the entry to the Hanover Colony would provide tourist services and avoid the public safety problems that the Vision Plan's proposal to locate a large hotel there would cause. The EIR needs to fully analyze the cumulative impacts that the Vision Plan's intense development of mixed use (hotels, commercial, and residential uses) would force into this area. These would completely change the open character. The City continues to label Ponto as blighted and subject to redevelopment, whereas many citizens view the area as open space that benefits recreationists, tourists, and biological resources. The "blighted" portion of Ponto is actually only a small portion of the study area. The EIR should disclose what transportation and community enhancements the City proposes to compensate for this massive development. Further, the EIR needs to include thorough studies of the impacts from the project to the state campground, beach recreational facilities, traffic, biological resources, water quality, noise, and visual resources discussed in my June 28, 2005 letter. These studies and analysis need to be specific to Ponto. The Vision Plan included many generalized designs and concepts that appeared to be something that could be proposed virtually any,vhere and that were not consistent with or sensitive to the unique coastal values of the Ponto area. For instance, the Vision Plan purports to maximize public access to the coast, but in fact does not carefully look at what that really means at Ponto. Please include me on the mailing list for any updates on the Ponto Vision Plan EIR. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Greg Thomsen 7155 Linden Terrace Carlsbad, California 92011 thomsen99@carthlink.net 603-0143 !l Christer Westman -Pontol~tt-~r_2city.-jU!1~9~-revised_.do_c ... : _· _· ... . .... : .. : ... . .. . ····• .... -- Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: I live in Carlsbad at 7155 Linden Terrace. We moved here for coastal open space and clean beaches for surfing and walking. Thank you for the public hearing tonight on the Ponto Beachfront Vision Plan. This hearing is an opportunity for you to hear from the public. I realize the City of Carlsbad has put time and money into preparing the Vision Plan and probably thought it was ready to certify it and move on. But, as the two editorials in today's North County Times say, we need to step back and prepare a better Vision Plan and conduct an Environmental Impact Report. In short, we need to do this right. The Ponto area is not just land to be redeveloped. The report to the planning commission states this parcel contains several vacant or underutilized properties. As I testified at the Planning Commission hearing on Ponto, I don't consider open coastal bluffs as vacant land. Calling them vacant or underutilized makes it sound like they currently serve no purpose. This open space serves the important function of helping to protect the Batiquitos Lagoon wetland preserve and in turn the ocean at Ponto Beach and down the coast. The importance of wetlands cannot be over emphasized. They serve as nesting sites and nurseries. The south coast wetlands are an integral part of the Pacific Flyway, one of the largest bird migrations on earth. Wetlands also serve as a filter for storm water, releasing clean water to the ocean. Even though the wetlands themselves are protected, uplands development generates erosion and pollution that heavily impacts the ecosystem. The degradation puts pressure on and endangers wildlife. The MND for the Vision Plan glosses over potentially significant impacts to Batiquitos Lagoon and Ponto Beach. Development of the magnitude spelled out in the Plan would worsen an already unacceptable situation by creating a high volume of run off that would hurt the lagoon and the beach. Ponto Beach already suffers from water pollution. In May this year it was closed twice for several days each time due apparently to a sewer malfunction. The Plan would also create a potentially significant impact to the aesthetics of recreationists at the campground and beach, to adjacent homeowners, and to the diverse traveling public on the Pacific Coast Highway. Many of the bicyclists, joggers, and drivers who traverse the PCH consider it a scenic highway experience. There is virtually no mitigation in the Vision Plan and MND that addresses the impacts of multi-story parking garages, large hotels, and dense commercial development in this area. The amount of development proposed in the Vision Plan would dramatically increase the visitation to the South Carlsbad State Beach. The beach already suffers from a lack of funding and services for maintenance, life guards, trash removal, and resource management. The large increase in visitation could overwhelm and impact the beach, the visitor experience, and public safety. The Vision Plan sets the vision and the tone, and currently locks in a dense array of hotels, parking garages, restaurants, businesses, and condos. But, it defers most of the environmental review until later. It is inadequate to use future studies as mitigation, or to say projects will be consistent with approved plans. These kinds of mitigations do not reduce or remedy identified impacts. It does not appear that the City of Carlsbad in the Vision Plan and MND have met the requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act to provide the fullest or even adequate protection to the environment. Other communities are valuing their coasts and are protecting and restoring them. Coastal restoration is occurring in Bolsa Chica north of Huntington Beach and around Long Beach's Terminal Island. Solana Beach is putting in a coastal park near Fletcher Cove. The Vision Plan in its current form tries to fit in too much development. I hear from the City that the California Coastal Commission desires tourist serving facilities in the Ponto area. From my research I believe the Coastal Commission wants balanced tourist services, ranging from a resort hotel to public parks. A park, interpretive area in the area south of A venida Encinas would enhance the area and create a buffer for the lagoon. A park near the entry to the Hanover Colony would provide tourist services and avoid the public safety problems that the Vision Plan's proposal to locate a hotel there would cause. In summary, I am asking the City to do three things. First, listen to the public, in the hearing, in the letters, in the petitions, and in all the ways they are trying to talk to you. Second, treat the Ponto Beach area as the unique California coastal treasure that it is. You could say these open coastal bluffs and beaches are Carlsbad's trademark. And third, redo the Ponto Beachfront Vision Plan. Put in more of a balance of open public areas along with private commercial businesses in the area that is already developed. Prepare an Environmental Impact Report to properly analyze impacts to this sensitive area and to provide strong conditions to guide any future development. The Vision Plan and MND in their current form leave too many unresolved issues. They do not serve the best interests of the community. Thank you for your consideration. From: To: Date: Subject: "Mann, Vicky" <Vicky.Mann@Wrigley.com> <cwest@ci. carlsbad. ca. us> 6/25/06 7:43:28 AM Feedback on Scope Meeting for Ponto Project l· I am a resident of Carlsbad at 506 Dew Point Ave. I am an original homeowner and have lived here for seven years. I am writing this since I was unable to attend the scope meeting regarding the Ponto Redevelopment Project. I would like to ensure that study look at the impact of the traffic along the proposed entrance on Avenida Encinas. This road is one lane after the bend at Ralphs. It seems unsuitable to be used for the main traffic flow in and out of the project. 1 would recommend that alternatives be reviewed including the main entrance and traffic flow to use Poinsettia since is two lanes in each direction and has recently been widened. Thank you for your consideration. Vicky Mann Team Leader -Southwest Cell -760-672-2206 Email -vicky.mann@wrigley.com F'age 1 Jj From: To: Date: Subject: <m mclarty@adelphia.net> <cwest@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> 6/25/06 8:04:42 AM ponto l· We !ive in San Pacifico along the wall at the tracks so the area to be developed is our back view. My main concern is the congestion and traffic if too much is put in the small space available. Ave Encinas is a very strange street to drive as it curves, changes directions, and number of lanes and lines is not consistent. It is very confusing for unfamiliar drivers arid I have witnessed many unlawful and unsafe turns and stops. It is especially scary on weekends at Ponto and Encinas as the no left turn from north Coast Hwy makes people turn and do U-turns everywhere along Encinas and you add pedestrians and bicycles. My point is that room to change the road and make it safer does not exist. Please make sure that all traffic studies are done before development approval. My other concern is type of hotels. Low-end units are in abundance along the freeway and attract people who require more law enforcement. This area is where families come and we need to preserve the environment for their safety. We very much appreciate the city being proactive and concerned about this pristine area unique on the coast of southern CA. Many of our residents are well qualified in assisting and I hope their recommendations are seriously considered. Thank you, Cherie Mclarty Michael R. Mclarty 7337 Seafarer Place C.arlsbad, CA 92009 <t :Z u l. ' p; ---- ' \. -) -1 -~· p . roJect Boundary Ponto B ea~hfront Villa Vision Plan ge EIR 05-05 8 NOT ro s~e 0 250 500 Comment Form li,- Ponto Be_achfront Village Vision Plan .... Envitonmental Impact Report EIR O 5-0 5 · SCOPING MEETING JUNE 22, ·2006 { 'J!JL ~r,t, µ "'" .. \/i . LANNt//G D - ,, EPARTMENT ,i!y Of CarfsbarJ On the lines provided below, please list those issues or concerns you feel need to be----.::: ... ·· addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan project. Please be as specific and as detailed as possible so that the EIR may address your concerns or issues. If necessary, please attach additional pages. Once completed, please submit your written comments to: Christer Westman, Senior Planner, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad California 92008. You can also submit comments by FAX to (760) 602-8559 or e-mail to cwest@ci.carlsbad.ca. us. Submitted by (please print) {j~ ~~t,(. __ _ Name: (R,s,b e~ )n,1;1 cLL~t< Agency/Business/Group Name if applicable: Address: Phone and or E-mail: C,,Af.-{ ~ root:. s; /c,( e Cl'. 7 tcJ( q 50 --oC/5-o City/State/zip code: q 7-..0 /I Date: 7--{;"-0b C~,,,__ls Loc-o(1 C/3 ·- To: Subject: Mr. Christer Westman, Senior Planner Planning Department City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Program EIR 05-05 Dear Mr. Westman: Thank you for the Notice of Preparation for the subject project, which was received by this Society last month. · We are pleased that cultural resources have been included in the list of subject areas to be addressed in the DEIR. In order to permit us to review the cultural resources aspects of the project, please include us in the distribution of the DEIR when it becomes available for public review. Also, in order to facilitate our review, we would appreciate being provided with one copy of the cultural resources technical report(s) along with the DEIR. SDCAS appreciates being included in the environmental review process for this project. cc: SDCAS President File Sincerely, ~oyle, Jr., <ih erson Environmental Review Committee P .0. Box 81106 • San Diego, CA 92138-1106 • (858) 538-0935 6/29/2006 City of Carlsbad Attention: Christer Westman, Senior Planner 1635 Faraday Ave. l· Carlsbad, Ca 92408 I attended the meeting of June 22. I am a docent for the Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation and I live off of the coast Highway at: 6524 Easy St, Carlsbad, Ca 92011. My number one concern is the environment. I have a Concern regarding the runoff that will enter the lagoon during construction of the project, as well as the noise level of the equipment that will be needed to work on this project. Wildlife in the water and the surrounding areas will be effected by the impact of the noise. The density that is part of the vision is not acceptable. We Do not have the police, fire, trash or lifeguard services that Will accommodate the population this project will produce. The air pollution from the many cars as well as the traffic congestion Should be address cautiously. Submitted by ?~ l-<.,,-/'1~(..., '-Joyce Page ef . (;f ?ii Z'fl:: ',' ~ JU'!f l;r (!c1 II/ { / "! PLANN/1/G DE ':'r. Ef/T City ,f Carlsoa j \<i~~- Comment Form lt--P onto Be_achfront Village Vision Plan Environmental Impact Report EIR 05-05 SCOPING MEETING JUNE 22, 2006 On the lines provided below, please list those issues or concerns you feel need to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan project. Please be as specific and as detailed as possible so that the EIR may address your concerns or issues. If necessary, please attach additional pages. Once completed, please submit your written comments to: Christer Westman, Senior Planner, 1635 Faraday A venue, Carlsbad California 92008. You can also submit comments by FAX to (760) 602-8559 or e-mail to cwest@ci.carlsbad.ca.us. Submitted by (please print) Name: Agency/Business/Group Name if applicable: Address: Phone and or E-mail: City/State/zip code: C ,)_.,:;I It Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation July 11, 2006 Christer Westman Senior Planner · 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Preserve, Protect and Enhance !- Subject: Ponto Beachfront Viiiage Vision Plan Environmental Impact Report E!R 05-05 Scoping Meeting Comments Dear Mr. Westman: The Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation (BLF) has been striving to preserve, protect and enhance the Batiquitos environs since 1983. While we wish we could preserve the Ponto area in its current semi-developed state, we recognize the development rights granted by the City zoning ordinance and Master Plan. Given that development will occur in this area, we believe that the City's effort to develop a vision plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that provides a unifying theme for future development, while protecting the environment to the maximum extent are critical. We firmly believe that there are environmental factors that must be considered in developing the Ponto Beachfront Village Area. The site's proximity to endangered species nesting grounds (e.g., the California Least Tern) requires setbacks and buffers, while the area's proximity to Batiquitos Lagoon and the Pacific Ocean require aggressive use of Best Management Practices for urban runoff, storm water and water quality management. Housing density, building heights, unobtrusive and low visual impact parking facilities, and pedestrian-friendly and properly landscaped and visually pleasing (e.g., park and mall-like landscaping) paths and walkways need to be carefully considered. The public's right of access to this area must be safeguarded by "expansion and connection to the existing trail network. Prohibition of gated communities around the area is also considered important to maintain-proper traffic flow. It is our understanding that a traffic study is just now being started. With traffic data beginning to be collected, we are concerned that the EIR contractor may not get realistic data since we are already well into July and the high tourist season. If data is not collected to update the traffic model now, rather than later, we feel the model may give invalid projections leading to significant future traffic congestion. · The BLF is particularly concerned about the proximity of a hotel and resort complex planned for the southeast corner of the project area. The proximity to the Least Tern nesting area maintained by California's Department of Fish and Game is disturbing. We P.O. Box 130491 Carlsbad, California 92013-0491 • 760.931.0800 • www.batiquitosfoundation.org 2 strongly recommend that if such a complex is built, thail it be set well back from the bluff and not restrict access by the general public. -Public access between the complex and the bluff with a landscaped trail.should be required. This would also add more buffering between the complex, the lagoon and adjacent wetlands. A pedestrian bridge over the railro?d tracks in this area, connecting the existing lagoon trail to the east would be highly desirable and enhance the public's experience when they visit the area. Finally, we strongly recommend that the EIR, as required by CEQA, address other development projects to the north and south of the Ponto site. Since all of these projects interact and will have consequential impacts, the EIR must be inclusive. CEQA mandates this consideration in the EIR. The BLF strongly recommends careful study and consideration of these cumulative impacts during preparation of the EIR, and looks forward to reviewing the reported conclusions. We continue to encourage the city to pursue its usual aggressive enforcement of county, state and federal statutes that protect our environment, especially our wetlands and endangered species. We look forward to working with the City in crafting sensitive solutions for Ponto Beachfront Village that will benefit both our City and the environment, and the opportunity to provide input during the EIR development process. ~ely.i i ,h~~ /n:t ~ ' ---A/ Fred . Sandqui , President, Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation /4~~ /"..;,V• .-· ,,:· .. ;,>~) I ",~ '',:) , ?cf';-~i? \,. 1.~~-~ ~ ~ ··t~\ Comment Form Ponto B~achfront Village Vision Plan 1 ,~~, ~\) il \J Envitonmental Impact Report EIR 05-05 ~ #..,~:..-• {) SCOPING MEETING JUNE 22, 2006 ~-!';, ~~ (,~ :-/~f/ . ~1/ On the lines provided below, please list those issues or concerns you feel need to be .,.:, '~"' - addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan project. Please be as specific and as detailed as possible so that the EIR may address your concerns or issues. If necessary, please attach additional pages. Once completed, please submit your written comments to: Christer Westman, Senior Planner, 1635 _ Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad California 92008. You can also submit comments by FAX to (760) 602-8559 or e-mail to cwest@ci.carlsbad.ca.us . Submitted by (please print) Name: ,..-,,,:_/) ')'-, }' f_C-v City/State/zip code: 11f. i.51?A}> . .. Agency/Business/Group Name if applicable: Date: ,.;/:> s, s s 7 e 91~~, · .. l!// . ~ ~ ·\:;::- ., ., .. , ?; ~ ~-; ;: i ,.. 'f]' -~-._. !,< ~~~~ . I,~.) ~~ ...Q c2 \c-i ~~~ cP \ _. p -,;:, Coffiment Form lt--Ponto Be_achfront Village Vision Plan Environmental Impact Report EIR 05-05 \;-,\ r<J ' ,'-,-/ SCOPING MEETING JUNE 22. 2006 ~~;... ~ ,~,,/ . , '%0i/ On the lines provided below, please list those issues or concerns you feel need to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Ponto Beachfront Village Vi,sion Plan project. Please be as specific and as detailed as possible so that the EIR may address your concerns or issues. If necessary, please attach additional pages. Once completed, please submit your written comments to: Christer Westman, Senior Planner, 1635 Faraday A venue, Carlsbad California 92008. You can also submit comments by FAX to (760) 602-8559 or e-mail to cwest@ci.carlsbad.ca.us. 7-(f).. -(J(R, I -::-I). /) A BL 1 s~ (A a_ riLA dhf .LJ1~ rb Lt.tfcn l( U1 L-K.J i=~:1t.~S1 ½1:t:i,(J'.?:;~ii 1tj ~'!/ .KJLttJl a :i~:vt / cR LU[ fu:ruli 0. 1ALu , .t' a..M Li j .d l g,_ C ? IA' a, I l'L, t ti 6 0 cu ' /) ~ 7. ~ s Q)JJ! /21'< R { s· oJJ -,d 1) til k ~ du r}'.J a fl,/ {JJ. ( ru eZ l,o 7 ~ 4-1 0 t -/i -t,:::. --r/; ' (L r:_).(ULd.f PO Gl-< 2(P ,4) j Q 1fl l e_,4 l ~i z. ?th ii ''° r, n <l.'L , / ,{-; 1 A) 61 ct.cf r rn vLM ~y ,,d x ;(/.£.Ji ,,<_,<.£tJ --..1.4--l~~t~~;-f '.~2~ ~j~1QC::1~~?~~;:~ 1 ~ ~e o ~eiq __._____._._+o------=--->-A ~/c, u CA 1-1/ a__,J J,u_ A ,1 fRj AL -< M-Llh 1 (A llL ~.. c~R.- Submitted by (please print) Name: Agency/Business/Group Name if applicable: f2.6tlr-t14 'J.3~ [f S!tCf/-~R_ /'vf J Lt..Y QK'/EN !fJR ~ss Addres/J, /30} t3oJr{ Phone and or E-mail: . L © I 1(.Qo-<far-rDh<J? City/State/zip code: Date: C~iJcJ Cit Cf ~o IJ 1--ra-olo • v11v11,vvo 11,;;1 rnr. IOVi:l't.c::;001::i l.oU/10:. I L./\lT l.ll'\UUr L.L., COAST LAW GROUP LLr 169 Saxony Road, Suite 204 Encinitas, CA 92024 Ph: 760.942,8505 Fx: 760.942.8515 www ,coastlawgroup.com FAX COVER SHEET FAX NUMBER TRANSMITTED TO: (760) 602-8559 To: From: Client/Matter: Date: Total Pages: 7 Letter COMMENTS: Christer Westman Todd T. Cardiff ·Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan r Scoping Comments July 7, 2006 --------.. --·--·--··. iftJVVI/VVI 6 The information contained in this facsimile mcssag-c is information protected by allomcy•clicnt and/or rhc attorney(worlc product privilege. It is /mended only for rhe use of rite individual named above a11d /he priYilege:s are: 1101 waiw:d by vinue of this hcJ\/lng been sent b)1.facsimile. ({the person actually receiving thtsfacsimi/e or any other reader of the.facsimile is not rhc named reclplenc or the employee or agent responsible to deliver ii ro the named recipient. any use. dissemina1ion. distribution. or copying of the communicalion is slrict(;· prohibited. f/you. have recrdved this communication in error, please immediaiely notify us by 1e/epho11e and relum the original rrwssage ro us at the above address via U.S. Postal Service. * NOT COUNTING COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ill PAGES, PLEASE TELEP MONE US Il\.1MEDIATELY AT (760) 942-8505, ..,.1 ,..,..,1.,_vvoJ 11,-.JI 111,, IVVV~'9V..JI..J Delivered via first class mail July 7, 2006 Christer Westman Senior Planner 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 1..tun..;i I L..nrr un1.1v1 ~~, RE: Ponto Beachfront V~Uage Vision Plan -Scoping Comments Dear Mr. Westman, 'i:!:JVV'-/VVI 169 Saxony Road Suite 204 ~ncinltas, CA 92024 !<)I 7Ei1Hl42-8505 la~ 760-942-8S15 www rncls1 l,1wm11111.1 \r,11·, Coast Law Group has been retained by Michael and Peggy Crowley to ensure the City's compliance with local, state, and federal laws in connection with the proposed Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan located north of Batiquitos La.goon in Carlsbad. Thank you for holding the scoping meeting on June 22, 2006. We would like to incorporate all comments made at the scoping meeting into these comments. We thank you for yow· consideration of these additional comments in evaluating the scope of the Environmental Impact Report A. The City__M~t.N,_otify All Responsible and Trustee Agencies for Comments on the Scope of the EIR. Our first concern is that it does not appear that a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was timely circulated among all responsible and trustee agencies. The CEQA guidelines 1 require that an NOP also be sent to State CEQA Clearinghouse. (CEQA Guidelines§ 15082.) A search of the State Clearinghouse Database (http://www.ceqanet.ca.gov) did not reveal the listing of a NOP for the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan. If there has been an NOP circulated, please mail the NOP to the address provided above. If an NOP that describes the project, its location, and its probable environment effects, has not been circulated to responsible and trustee agencies, then the City should prepare one immediately. At a minimum, it should send the NOP to all public members who participated in the hearing on the previous Negative Declaration, and to responsible agencies, including, but not limited to: the Army Corp of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service::, California Department of Fish and Game, State Parks Department, California Coastal Commission, City Fire Department, City Police Department1 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), County Board of Supervisors, and the City of Encinitas. In addition, the City must also cons1.1lt with the San Diego County Water 1 The CEQA Guidelines are located at 14 Cal. Code of Regulations§ 15000 et. seq. t.;U/1~ I LI\W liKUUt' LLt' le;JVV.:1/VV( City of Carlsbad Scoping Comments• Ponto Bcachrront Village Vision Plan EIR July 7, 2006 Pac2or6 Authority, because the project includes the construction of hotels. (CEQA Guidelines § 15083 .5 .) The City should extend the time for submitting comments for thirty days, to allow the responsible agencies to adequately comment on the scope of the BIR. In additio11, the City should make clear to the public that comments on the project ru the scope of the EIR will be considered and responded to by the City: regardless of whether the time period for S\.ibmining scoping comments has ended. (Pub. Res. Code§ 21082.1.) B. The Environmental Baseline for the Determination of Impacts Should be the Present Conditions. without Build-out, not tl-1c Present Zonine: with Build~ut. It may be appropriate under certain circumstances to consider the current zoning designations the "no project alternative." (CEQA Guidelines § 1 S l 26.6(e)(3).) However, the "no project" alternative does not provide the environmental baseline to determine whether there has been a significant environmental impact. (CEQA Guidelines§§ 15125 & 1S 126.6(e)(l).) Whether a significant impact occurs is determined by the maximum build-out of a proposed alternative compared to the currently existing conditions. Any significant impact, whether the impact is significant when compared to the environmental baseline, or cumulatively significam, must be mitigated to a level of insignificance. (Pub. Res. Code § 21081.) C. The EIR Should Include an Analysis of an Alternative that Includes all Residential Development without the Hoteh. One of the major impacts of the Po1'l.to Beach.front Village Vision Plan will be the increase in the density of humans. There will be an increase of the population in the area of more than 1,000 people. The increase in population, whether transient or permanent, will have a significant impact on City services, Park services, traffic, wildlife, water quality and other significant impacts. One of the ways to reduce the impacts of the proposed project, is to change the hotel projects into single family residences. Such change would reduce the amount of people, reducing numerous impacts to the area, including to the beaches. Even multifamily residential, such as townhomes, would have a lesser impact on the beach, than hotels, because local citizens tend to take care of the beach. Tourists, as we recently have witnessed at the Fourth of July festivities, leave a considerable amount of trash and debris behind. Park services would also be less impacted by a project that had substantially all residential, as well. Undoubtedly, the owners of the propo~ed hotel projects will argue that this is pot. a feasible alternative. In fact. the owners may argue that a change of zoning constitutes a takings. However, property owners do not have a vested right in a particular zoning designation. Robinson v. Los Angeles, 146 Cal. App. 2d 810, 815-16 (1956). Clearly, if CEQA applies to zoning changes as projects, then an EIR must consider the potential impacts and advantages of changing the zoning of the proposed hotel projects into residential projects as one of its alternatives. 11:zuauaax ~u~~I L~W ~KUUr LLr igjVV'I/VVr City of Carlsbad Scoping Comments. Ponto Beach front Village Vision Plan ElR July 7, 2006 Pa e 3 of 6 D. The EIR Should Include an Analysis of an Alternative that Includes a City- Owned Park on the Southern Most Parcel nf the Beachfront Village Vision Plan. One of the alternatives that has greatest s1.1pport among the citir,ens of Carlsbad is for the southern parcel, directly adjacent to the Batiqt1itos Lagoon, to be designated as open space. Converting such land into publically owned open space would provide a significa.i1t benefit to the comnnmity and would continue the historical use of the parcel as low impact open space. Currently the southern parcel is used by numerous members of the public. The parcel provides ideal views of the Batiquitos Lagoon. Birdwatchers frequent the area, enjoying views of endangered least terns, gnatcatchers and various birds of prey. I have personally seen red tail hawks using the southern parcel for foraging. People exercise their dogs on the property. Surfers use the southern parcel to check the waves at Ponto Beach. An alternative that designates the southern parcel as open space should be considered in the EIR, because it significantly red1.1ces the adverse impacts on traffic, wildlife, water quality, and City and park services. Therefore, such alternative should be included in the EIR. (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish and Game Commission, 16 Cal. 4th 105) 134 (1997).) The question is whether such alternative is feasible. "Feasible" is defined in CEQA as: (C]apable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological. factors. (CEQA Guidelines § 15364 (emphasis added).) Clearly. such alternative would be environmentally superior. The citizens of Carlsbad are in support of such open space. Legal issues regarding takings could be resolved using the City's power of eminent domain. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1230.010 et. seq.) There are no technological factors that would make such change in zoning infeasible. The only question of whether such alternative is feasible, is whether it is economically feasible. An economic analysis must be performed to determine whether such project is feasible. This should determine the fail' market value of such property, potential funding mechanisms, and creative ways to acquire the property while reducing the price of the southern parcel. For example, one potential method of obtaining the property is to allow the developer to use the property as off~ site mitigation for other development, either within the City or within the County. Another possibility WQuld be to ptovide a cei:tain amount of tax credits for placing a conservation easement on the property. (Civ. Code§ 815 et. seq.) Economic impacts are not considered a significant environmental impact unless they cause a physical change to the environment. (CEQA Guidelines § 15131 (a).) In other words, the cost of a project is not considered an environmental impact, unless such cost creates a direct or indirect · · ! ~ronmental impact. However, the argument that an economic analysis cannot be included in ii&Lkta&& VI/Vl/t.VVO 11.~'-rnA IOVV'+~O:Jl:J 'c!:JVV.,.J/VVI City of Carlsbnd Scoping Comments -Ponto Beach front Village Vision Plan ElR July 7, 2006 Pae4nf6 am EIR is absolutely false. As noted in the CEQA Guidelines, "Economic or social information may be included in an EIR ... " (CEQA Guidelines§ 15131.) ln fact, if the City contends that the alternative is infeasible, it must provide an analysis of the ecoliomic factors it considered within the EIR. (Citizen q(Go/eta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, 52 Cal. 3d 553, 569 (1990).) Thus, the EIR should contain an economic analysis of providing a park on the southern parcel in the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan. E. The EIR Should Include an Alternative that Sets Aside Only a Portion of the Southern Parcel as an Open Space :Park. The EIR should include an altemative analyzing setting aside only a portion of the southern parcel. The alternative should consider splitting the lot, so that at least 150 feet from the bluff edge could be maintained for open space. Such open space would again reduce the amount of traffic (with less hotel rooms), improve water quality (more impermeable surface), protect wildlife (less people at the edge of the lagoon), and would be responsive to the \.Vishes of the public. Again, as with the analysis above, the City should analyze the costs for acquiring a portion of the parcel for park purposes and potential funding mechanisms. The City should also consider that a certain percentage of the parcel at the edge of Batiquitos Lagoon would be set aside for open space anyway. Thus, the City may only need to acquire portions of the lot that are not necessary for mitigation. Such alternatives may be an attractive feasible alternative, as it would cost significantly less than obtaining the entire parcel, still provide the developer a reasonable return on investment, and would provide the citizens of Carlsbad a very accessible and visitor friendly park. F. The EIR Should Consider the Impacts to Building Restrooms at the North End of Ponto Beach. The proposed project will clearly increase the number of people who visit Ponto Beach. There are currently no pennanent visitor serving facilities at Ponto Beach. It is not convenient for people to walk a 1/4 mile from Ponto Beach to the first set of stairs at the Carlsbad Campgrounds. A logical way to reduce the impact on the beach and on the Campgrounds, is to build restrooms at the North End of Ponto Beach. However, building restrooms has its own impacts on aesthetics, water quality, habitat and potentially parking (depending on where it is located). Never-the-less, such mitigation measure should be considered in the EIR, a.s such public facilities would be needed to lessen the impacts on the facilities at the State Campgrounds. i&IMIRG&LA1 ~UA~I LAW ~HUUr LLr IQ;IVVO/VVr City of Cn rlsbsd Scoping Com,neots • Ponto Beach front Village Vision Plan EIR July 7, 2006 P11 e 5 of6 G. The EUR Should Limit the Height of All Buildlings to Thirty Feet. As discussed above, the area encompassed by the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan is essentially undeveloped. However, to the north and south of the area (including south of Batiquitos Lagoon), the height of the buildings are limited to 30 feet or less. The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan should adopt this height limit to reduce impacts to aesthetics. Larger buildings would be incongruous with the natural setting, especially on the southern parcel, and would block the views from other residences. In addition, the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan should require that all parking structures be placed primarily underground. One of the largest complaints from the public has been the proposed three story parking garages. One of the ways to ensure that there is not a significant impact is to underground the majority of the parking. H. The EIR Should Include n Soils Analysis to Determine Whether the Soil has Been Contaminated with Hazardous Waste, and Whether Such Soil is Compatible for Beach Replenishment. The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan encompasses areas that have been traditionally used for industrial purposes. Some lots have stored heavy equipment, broken down cars, and other equipment that may have leaked petroleum products (or other chemicals) into the ground. The EIR should do an analysis of the soil to ensure that the public and the environment is not threatened. The EIR should consider methods of cleaning or capping contaminated soils. If the soil is not contaminated, the City should determine whether the soil is appropriate for sand replenishment. If the soil matches the grain size and material of the local beach sand, the soil should be placed on the beach, south of the jetties at Ponto. Placement of the beach sand south of Ponto Jetties will help prevent damage to the wave at Ponto and will prevent the clogging of the mouth of the lagoon. I. The EIR Should Include the Capture of 100% of the Storm Water ;1nd Divert Such Storm Water to the Waste Water Treatment Plant. -o Pollution from storm water runoff presents a considerable problem to wildlife and people. Pollutants can cause illness in water fowl and can cause eggs to be thin•shelled. Frogs and fish have been found to undergo abnonnal physiological changes from certain pollutants. In addition, storm water runoff presents a problem to swimmers and surfers, especially at the mouth of Batiquitos Lagoon. Often, directly after it rains, the beach registers high bacteria counts, which can make people sick. The EIR should consider ways to reduce storm water runoff into the lagoon, including the i potential of capturing all storm water and sending it through the wastewater treatment plant. l Another possibility for mitigation would be to filter the runoff for debris and hydrocarbons and build l a UV urban treatment facility to treat the bacteria, A similar system was successfully installed on :.·-1 ~onwood Creek (above Moonlight Beach) in Encinitas. IAMIWM!MIIM : ' vr,vrr.:::vvo 11.:::i.::: r1111 r0v.:1c+.:::tl:J l:J ~UK~I LKW oKUUr LLr City or Carlsbad Scoping Comments -Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan EIR July 7, 2006 Pa e 6 or 6 ~VVf/VVf J. Scoping Should Include All Previous Commentr. on the Mitig,ated Negative Declaration. There were significant comments provided to the City of Carlsbad concerning the Mitigated Negative Declaration, both submitted on paper, and included in the oral comments. The comments ranged from concerns about wildlife impacts, to water qualiiy, to police and fire services. The oral and written coinmer1ts on the Mitigated Negative Declaration should be considered in determining the scope of the EIR. CWWW.Ql(QMA Sincerely, jol)?.4!,f Todd T. Cardiff, Esq. · Coast Law Group LLP Attorneys for Michael Crowley JUL. 12. 2006 2:20PM WO~UtN WlLLlAMS APC NU,)_/")l Y. l WoRDEN WILLIAMS, APC 462 STEVENS AVENUE> SUITE 102, SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075 PHONE: (858) 755-6604 FAX: (858) 755-5198 E-Mail: info@wordenw'illiams.com Web Site: www.wordenwilliams.com FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION Date: July 12, 2006 Total Sheets: 18 (Including Cover Sheet) 10: Christer Westman, Planning Department City of Carlsbad Fax No.: (760) 602-8559 Phone No.: (760) 602-4600 FROM: D, Wayne Brechtel Re: Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan EIR 05-05 Item: Letter dated July 12, 2006 Commen~: Original Malled: Yes X No --- FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Q.IENTCODE: I.JPBOW-001 CLIENT NAME, MATIER NAME: CONFIDENTIALl1Y NOTICE The. cl,o,:umenn accompanying this FACSIMILE txans!Tli$Sion may contain confidential lnformlltiOn which is lege,,IJy ptivilsged. The Information is intended onl~ for the use of the individual or en lit¥ named above. If !/Ou ""' not the Intended recipient, OI' ihe pei:;on responslbJca for delivering it to tnc inltnded recipient, you a1'l! hereby not:Ined that any d15closure, copying, distribUfiCn or use of .qiy of the infonnatton contained in thb trernmlssion is slrlclly PROHIBITED. !I you have re~eived this 11"11n:1mi$oion in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and mall the otiginal transmlselon to ui;, Thank you, JUL. 12. 2006 2:20PM WORDEN WILLIAMS APC l~U. J.. I? I ~, L ~ WORDEN WILLIAMS APC Rerm:senrfflg Pub/le Agencies, Privcte ["tities, end Jr,dividual.s July 12, 2006 Via Facsimile and. U.S. Mail Christer Westman Planning Department City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Notice of Preparation of the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Program Environmental Impact Report EIR 05-05 Dear Mr. Westman: This letter is written on behalf of Bob Lipsey, a resident of the Hanover Beach Colony to ·the north of the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan area. Mr, Lipsey resides at 7130 Leeward Street, Carlsbad, California 92009. Mr. Lipsey's home, and several homes on each side of his, are in the unique position of directly facing property within the draft Vision Plan area. Mr. Llpsey's home faces the property that is currently designated for the ''Garden Hotel" in the draft Vision Plan, We request that the EIR include the following: 1. Although the EIR is a program EIR, the City has application materials for 1 specific development proposals within the Vision Plan, including an application for the Garden Hotel. The current proposal includes an entrance way for the hotel directly across from Mr. Lipsey's house. The EIR should include details about these proposals and their potential impacts1 since these are reasonably foreseeable projects that will implement the Vision Plan, and the EIR should include alternative designs for the hotel that could mitigate these specific impacts. In other words, the EIR should be project specific for the Garden Hotel. When necessary, the impacts· frorn the Garden Hoteli or other specific development proposals can be compared ME,',S OF PRACTIC~ PUBLIC AGENCY L"ND USE AND ENVmONMfNTAL REAL ESTATF, ~rnsoNAL "INJURY ESTAH PLf\NNINC AND ADMl:,,ISTRATJON CIVIL LITIGATION 6USINE5S ATTORNtYS TrcACY It RICHMOND D. W"YNE 8~ECHTEL KEN A. CARlfFc iERRY M GIBBS ,\,\ALINOA R DICKENSQ:,j l(RISTEN M'BRIOE D, DWIGHT WORDEN ()/ (~tlllf.e/ W. SCOTT WII.LIAMS Of CouMd OFFICE 462 STEVEN$ AVENUE SUIT! l 02 SOL,.,NA 8EACH CALIFORNIA 92075 (;.501 i.;S-6604 HLEPHO~! ii\581 7~S-i190 FACSIMILE W"l/v,•, v.1orden"'li 11 iams.com JUL.12.2006 2:20PM WORDEN WILLIAMS APC NU, LI? 1 Y. j Christer Westman July 12, 2006 Page2 to "worst case" assumptions about the development that could be authorized under the Vision Plan. 2. The EIR needs to address how the draft Vision Plan will integrate the proposed "Garden Hotel," which is a commercial development, with the front yards of these residential homes, without degrading the quality of the residential neighborhood. A hotel is a 24 hour operation, with the potential for traffic, noise and light impacts at all times of day. What kind of buffer will be provided? How will noise and fumes be managed? What direction will the lighting face? Where will trash and deliveries occur? How much traffic will there be? Will headlights constantly illuminate the front windows of these homes at night? What kind of enforcement mechanisms will be in place if the hotel is too noisy for a residential neighborhood? 3. The site for the Garden Hotel is elevated, and even if it is graded to be lower than the elevation of Mr. Lipsey's building pad, still has the potential to significantly block views. I enclose a photo of the Garden Hotel properly taken from Mr. Lipsey's front porch, which demonstrates the significant elevation difference of the hotel site and surrounding properties, Please analyze the view impacts from development at the Garden Hotel site. 4. The proposed parking garage will be almost directly adjacent to Mr. Lipsey' s house, and may, in fact, block the sunlight from his home and yard. Please provide an analysis of the shadow impacts from the parking garage. Will headlights shine into windows of the adjacent homes? 5. The Vision Plan should discuss the State Park's plans for the area, and how the uses in the Vision Plan will integrate with State Park1 s plans. 6. The EIR should consider switching the land uses around within the Vision Plan, especially in the area adjacent to existing homes in Hanover Beach Colony. It may be that siting le:ss dense uses, such as the community facility, next to the Hanover Beach Colony on Ponto Road would cause: less impacts to the residents at Hanover Beach Colony than the currently proposed Garden Hotel. This may also integrate better with State Park's plans, and does not appear to be precluded by the General Plan and zoning. 7. The EIR should consider alternative street alignments, so that major traffic is not directed in front of a residential neighborhood. Ponto Road should not become a major thoroughfare for the entire Vision Plan. Ponto Road should not be used as the main access for either the Garden Hotel or the parking structure, given the adjacent residential uses, and instead a new road taking access off of Highway 101 should be planned. JUL. 12. 2006 2: 20PM WORDEN WILLIAMS APC NU. 2 I? 1 ~-4 Christer Westman July 12, 2006 Page3 8. The EIR should consider various ways of accommodating the various development concepts in ways that will reduce impacts to the residents and surrounding communiti;. Although there are existing general plan and zoning designations, all of these could be changed as part of the implementation of the Vision Plan. The developer of the Garden Hotel has purchased multiple properties, allowing a proposed development that is much larger than may have been originally contemplated when the General Pl,m and zoning designations were created. This is the time to step back and make sure that the designations made years ago within the General Plan and zoning are still the best fit for this area1 and that the land use controls will ensure that the area will be developed as intended1 and that potential impacts will be mitigated. 9. The EIR should consider more open space uses for the Vision Plan. The Ponto area represents an opportunity to make a true "gem" for the community if the City employs a long term "Vision." Great cities are defined by their great parks, and this is a chance for Carlsbad to create a great park, like Balboa Park in San Diego. The proposed Vision Plan is currently a somewhat dense assortment of uses, but the City should consider whether less intense uses and more open space would reduce impacts in the area, especially to the residential community which borders on the Vision Plan area, and provide additional amenities to the public and residents, and recreational "gem" for the community. 10·. The City has submitted the Ponto area to SAl"'IDAG as a potential Community Center on the SANDAG Smart Growth Concept Map. The EIR should include an fmalysis of whether the Vision Plan is intended to implement that Smart Growth Concept Map, and if so, how the Vision Plan will provide development controls to mitigate any impacts that will result from implementation of the area as a Community Center. How will the uses of the Vision Plan integrate with the existing and future Transit in the area? 11. The EIR should consider the worst-case scenario of development, based on the controls that are within the general plan and zoning, and the language of the proposed Vision Plan. For example, if the Plan does not contain language to control noise or visual impacts, then the EIR should highlight this fact. 12. We incorporate all of our previous comments and attach a copy of our previous comment letter, without attachments, for reference. JUL. 12. 2006 2:21PM WORDEN WILLIAMS APC NO. 2751 ~-~ Christer Wesiman July 12, 2006 Page4 Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed EIR. Please continue to provide this office with all public notices regaxrling the above Project. Thank you, in advance, for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, WORDEN WILLIAMS, APC ~ // <L,_/v./~ D. Wayne Brechtel dwb@wcrdenwilliams.com DWB:lg Enclosures cc: Client Debbie Fountain, Housing and Redevelopment Department JUL. JL. 1UUb L: LUM WUkUcN WILLIAMS APl ( ~ WORDEN vVILLIAMs APc Rt,:teiencfng Pub/J'c Agencies, f'rivaee [ntiti~,, attrJ lndiviauo/t June 271 2005 City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad; California 92008 Re: Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Case Number; GPA 05-04/LCPA 05-01 Appellant: Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: l~U. LI~ I This office represents the Ponto Action Committee ("PAC"), a group of local citizens who are concerned with the proposed Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan (hereafter "Vision Plan"). PAC includes residents of the Hanover Beach Colony to the north of the Vision Plan site, residents of the San Pacifico community to the east, and other concerned residents of the community. The pr-incipal concem with the Vision Plan is the faih.1riz to prepar<Z an environmental impact report ("EIR") as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (''CEQN'). An EIR is a comprehensive document that considers all potentially adverse impacts of a project and then identifies mitigation m~asures a.nd alternatives that could avoid or reduce the severity of impacts It is a 1'big picture" document that allows decision makers to consider the entirety of large projects, such as the Vision Plan, and consider ways that the project can be mitigated or modified to lessen adverse. impacts. For exampie, cou1d commiardal uses be moved further away from residential areas to avoid impacts? Could traffic circufation within the-development area be changed to avoid conflicts with existing communities? Could specific standards be put into place to lessen visual r. I AREAS OF PRACT\CE ~UBLI c; AGE~CY LAND VSE AND ~NV 11\C)NMcNi AL PERSONAL INIURY cSTA TE PLANNING AND ADMINl$t~AT10N C\VI, LlilCATIQN . i ATTORNEYS i T~ACY R. R1CH~1()ND D. WAYNE BRECHTEL TER/\Y }. 1~1,PA\'RICK 11:ilRY M. GIBB$ MALINDA R DIC:KEN~lJN MICHAEL'~. i'Vi:.MI\N, ~L ,~ or Cour,;,~f D. DWICHTWORDfN Of Co111,;el W, SCOTT WHLIAMS o, Coun,ef Ofr!CE 462 $11;\/ENS AVENUE ~um l('l2 SOLANA $EACH CALIFORNIA nois 185 o) 75 S-6(,0~ ~EcEPl1ClN( (85 6) i5 5-5118 f1,C,SIMILE www.wordenw1ll1orns.com JUL. 12. 2006 2:22PM WORDcN WILLIAMS APC f, ( ( City Council, City of Carlsbad June 2 7, 2005 Page2 impacts to communities to the east? Could the property be deve1oped a.s a park?1 Although the Vision Plan identifies two alternatives that were considered at a workshop some time ago, there is no comparison of the environmental merlts of the various alternatives. If the City approves the Vision Plan as proposed without doing an EIR, the ability to consider the "big picture" will be lost because the basic plan, which identifies the specific uses and roadways, will have been approved. Environmental review in the future, to the ex.tent there is any, will be limited to the details of individual projects. The ability to make meaningful changes to the overall Vision Plan will have been lost. The City can and must do bett€r, PAC requests that the City Council deny the Vision Plan and associated General Plan and Local Coastal Program approvals on the grounds that the environmental review for the Vision Plan is inadequate and direct that staff prepare an EIR that fully and adequately addresses the potential impacts of the Vision Plan, so that consideration of rneari.ingful mitigation measures and alternatives can occur before it is too late. 2 Set forth below is a more detailed overview of the reasons for this request. A. The Citv Mav Not Use A Mitigaied Negative Declaration Because There ls A Fair Argument That The Vision Plan Mav Have A Significant Effect On The Environment. Whenever there is substantial evidence that a proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, the California Environmental Quality Act ('1CEQA") requires the lead agency to prepare an Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR')) prior to considering approval of 1 The City's LCP cites the need for ''low cost" visitor accommodations or recreation in the unplanned area of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan. For example, the LCP suggests plarming a: public parkforthe unptannetl area west of the railroad tracks. The LCP encoutag1:'!s parks to be at least 5 acres, but there is nothing to say that the park could not be larger than 5 acres in this area. The reference to a public park is omitted from the Vision Plan's description of fae LCP in Chapter 1, page 15. The unplanned area has been designated in th2 Vlsion Plru1 for mixed use development. Although the mixed use includes a wetland interpretive area, this is a small part of the entire unplanned area. The City should explore alternatives that include more public park uses. 21n addition, I hereby incorporate by reference and renew the objections made in my April 22, 2005 letter commenting on the inadequacies of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. K:\Clisnts\LipbovALettars\Cii;,Councll.001.EIR Required.02.wpd JUL.12.2006 2:22PM WORDEN WILLIAMS APC J ;, NU. J./J 1 ~. ~ City Council, City of Carlsbad June 27, 2005 Page 3 the project. (Pub. Resources Code§ 21080(d) and 21151; 14 Cal.Code Regs. § 15064(a)(1L (f)(l).) In what has become known as the "fair argument" standard, a lead agency must prepare an EIR if substantial evidence supports a fair argument of a potential adve.rse environmental effect, even if the public agency is presented with contrary evidence. (Friends of "B" Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1002.) In other words, agency evidence that an impact will not be significant cannot overcome other evidence supporting a fair argument of significance. It ls one of the few instances in which any agency does not get the bendit of the doubt. Further, a disagreement among experts regarding the significance of an impact triggers the need to prepare an EIR. (14 Cal.Code Regs. § 15064(g)) The fair argument standard furthers CEQA's goal of protecting the environment by creating a strong presumption in favor of preparing an EIR. (See P,ub. Resources Code§§ 21000-21002.) In this case, City staff proposes use of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, A Mitigated Negative Declaration is an abbreviated form of environmental review under CEQA that is only permitted when there is li o fair argument of a. significant impact and it can be demonstrated with certainty that a project wilt not create any significant adverse effects on the environment (Pub. Resources Code§ 21080(c)(l).) Such is not the case here. A situation similar to this matter arose in City of Redlands v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 96 Ca.I.App.4th 398. There, the County of San Bernardino adopted an amendment to its General Plan concerning the Ccunty's sphere of influence. As in the Ponto Road matter, the County of San Bernardino argued that an EIR was unnecessary since the amendment was merely clarifying the County's authority relating to planning (Id. at 406) and that future projects would undergo further envircnmental review when a project was actually proposed. (Id. at 409.) The Court disagreed. The Court noted that the general plan amendment contemplated future development and that the County failed to reasonably anticipate the effects of such development. (Id. at 409.) The Court found that the County1s reasoning was nonsensical because while conceding the amendment was designed to facilitate greater development, it denied there was any possibiHty of a significant adverse effect on the environment. (f d. at 469 .) The same is true in this case. The City of Carlsbad is proposing to amend its General Plan and Local Coastal Program to facilitate specific and intensive development immediately adjacent to a busy highway and a residential. neighborhood. The Vision Plan is the first step in a land use process that will result in future development of the Ponto site. Thus, under CEQA, the City must ,:use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can." (14 Cal. CodiZ Regs. § 15144,) Likewise, the City must consider all phases of the project. It may not limit environmental review by claiming additional studies will occur later. (City of Antioch v. City K;\Clients\Lir.,~ow\liltet$\C\tyCour.cll.OOl.EIR Rc<=illiTed,02.wp<l JUL. 1'J.. 'J.006 '2:23PM WORDcN WlLLlAMS APC ( l~U.L/?I r. IV City Council, City of Carlsbad June 27, 2005 Page 4 Councll (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1325 [plecemeal review of development resulting in use of negative declaration was improper even though future developments would be examined in EIRsJ.) The City's duty under CEQA to do all it reasonably can was recently discussed in County Sanitation District No. 2 of Los Ange/es County v. County of Kern (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544. As the Court explained, "under CEQA, the lead agency bears a burden to investigate potential environmental impads. 'If the local agency has failed to study an area of possible environmental impact, a fair argument may be based on the limited facts in the record. Deficiencies in the record may actually enlarge the scope of fair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a wider range of inferences."' (Id. at 1597, citing Sundstrom lJ. County of Mendoctno (1988) 202 CaJ.App.3d 296, 311.) Here, the City is avoiding its duty to investigate potential impacts and the evidence submitted by my clients and other members of the public leaves no doubt that such adverse impacts are possible. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is lacking detailed analysis of potential adverse effects of the Vision Plan. Rather than analyze these issues now, the Mitigated Negative Declaration claims that additional studies can b~ undertaken later when site specific proposals are presented. Indeed, the proposed findings acknowledge a variety of potential adverse effects on biology, cultural resources, and noise, butthen defers analysis of these effects to a later time. The Biological Section, for example, acknowledges there ar~ endangered and rare plant and animal species that occur on site and that development could potentially affect these species. The mitigation, however, is simply to do a more comprehensive study and develop appropriate mitigation at a later time. This is absolutely not allowed under CEQA. (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino ( 1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296 [deferral of analysis and mitigation would skirt the requirement for public review and agency scrutiny of environmental impacts]; Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1396 [condition requiring compliance with a mitigation mec\Sure that might be recommended in the future was improper],) Accordingly, the City must require an E.m to be prepared before going any further on the Vision Plan. · The bottom line is that the City must prepare an EIR for the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan. The Vision Plan sets forth a plan of how development Ls anticipated to proc€ed, including the location and types of development, and the City must do all that it can to anticipate the potential effects of such a development. The City must match the level of detail in the environmental r'eview to the level of detail in the Vision Plan. Enough is known about the scope of the Vision Plan that such impacts can be evaluated. Indeed, my clients, at their own expense, have identified several of these potentially significant effects in the areas of traffic K:\CHents\Lipbow\Lerte1"a\CityCour1cil.OOl.EIR Requirad.02.wpd JUL. lL. 2006 2: 23PM WORDEN WILLIAMS APC f NU. L/?1 Y. 11 City Council, City of Carlsbad June 27, 2005 Page 5 and noise levels. Thus, there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Vision Plan may have a significant effect, and an EIR is therefore required. (Pub. Resources Code ~ 21080(d).) 1. Sign.ificant Traffic Effects Attached to this letter as Exhibit "A'1 is a letter from Susan Rosner of Kimley-Horn Associates that details numerous adverse traffic effects of thiZ Vision Plan that were not adequately analyzed or mitigated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. As an initial matter, the traffic counts used in ll-ie Mitigated Negative Declaration appear to have underestimated the volume and effects of summer beach traffic in the area. For example, some of the traffic counts were taken in April when there is little or no beach traffic, and others taken in July on a weekday when traffic would be less than a weekend. However, during the summer and fall, residents report that Ponto Road and surrounding streets can become filled with cars since there are few other areas where beach goers can park in thls area. This situation will likely become worse once the project is developed because it will attract even more beach goers who will be drawn by the increased parking created by the Vision Plan. This, in turn, will causi?. increased congestion and increased conflicts bet\veen pedestrians and cars along Carlsbad Boulevard. The City musttherefore return to the drawing board and revise the traffic counts based on realistic estimates of summer beach traffic. Another problem with the traffic analysis is that it failed to consider the additional traffic that would be generated on the Garden Hotel site if that site is developed as a visitor-serving commercial development, as permitted under the Vision Plan and related amendments. A5 Ms. Rosner explains, if this occurs, 84,000 square-feet of commercial space could be developed and generate 10,080 average daily trips with 403 trips during the morning peak hour and 1,008 trips during the a.ftemoon peak hour. This is far in excess of the 1,500 total trips, 90 morning peak trips, and 120 afternoon peak trips considered in the Mitigated Negative 'bedaration. Indeed, Ms. Rosner points out that coupled with tramc frorri the nearby Hanover Beach Colony, the level of service at certain intersections could drop to an LOSF. This is a significant effect that must b~ analyzed and mitigated in an ElR. Another concern is that the Mitigated Negative Declaration failed to analyze several important issues invoMng pedestrian-safety along Ponto Road, which is currently used by area. residents to access South Carlsbad State Beach. For exc1mple, we know that the City is proposing to locate a parking garage across the street from the Hotel. This in tum will lead to K;\Cliem,ILij:)bow\L;tiars\CityCouncll.001.ElR Raqu.iracl.02,\1/Pd ' .. JUL. 1/.. /.006 /.:t:lPM WORDrN W!LL!AMS APC { NU. LI? I ~. I L ( City Council, City of Carlsbad June 27, 2005 Page 6 pedestrians crossing Ponto Road to get to the hotel and/or ·beach. There is no specific provision for crossing lights or speed limit restrictions and it is likely that pedestrian/vehicle conflicts will occur due to the speed of t.l-te cars and the curvature of the road in this area. Specifically, drivers will not be able to stop in time and pedestrians could be seriously injured or killed as a result. Another flaw in the Mitigated Negative Declaration is its conclusion that potential effects to "unplanned" areas will be insignificant based on the assumption that potential uses under current planning could be worse. This is an inappropriate method for analyzing the potential adverse effects of a project. The proper starting point for an analysis is 1'the physical environmental condition in the vicinity of the project" as itcurrently exists. (14 Cal.Code Regs_ § 15125(a); Cadiz Land Co. u. Rail Cycle (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 74, 99 (the environmental setting should be quantified in order to assess the magnitude of change}.) Thus, because the unplanned area does not currently generate any traffic, the City must assume that any additional traffic that could occur in this area will worsen traffic conditions. It cannot compa.re the Vision Plan with the theoretical traffic that might exist if the property were built out under the policies of the current general plan. Finally, it is noted that the MND identified an impact to the intersection of La Costa Avenue and the Coast Highway. However, no mitigation for this impact is proposed on the assumption that the qty of Encinitas will be making street improvements that would mitigate for this impact pursuant to the City of Encinitas' Highway 101 Corridor Specifrc Plan. There is no assurance that the City of Encinitas' mitigation win take place, or if it does, if it will be on line by the time that_ the impacts from the Vision Plan occur, leaving this traffic impact unmitigated. 2. Significant Noise Effects Attached to this letter as Exhibrt ,tB'1 is a letter from Rlck Tavares oflnvestlgative Science and Engineering, Inc. that details numerous potentially adverse nois~ effects that were not adequately analyzed or mitigated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. As explained by Mr. Tavares, the Mitigated Negative Declatation is completely lacking the detail and analysis necessary to make the conclusion that the Vision Plan will not result in any significant adverse impacts. Indeed, had the City looked at the amount of noise that would be generated by expected traffic along adjacent roadways, it would have been eviderit that noise increases as high as 6.8 dBA CNEL would exist, and that the Cit/ s significance threshold l<!\C!lenMLlpbow\l.e~\CityCouncil.OOl.EIR R¢q1.1ired,02,wpd " JUL. L!. :ZOOb L :t:H'M WUKUtN WILLIAM~ A~C { l~U. LI? I r, I J City Council, City of Carlsba.d June 2 7, 2005 Page 7 of a 3 dBA increase would be exceeded.3 More importantly, Mr. Tavares points out that compliance with the Noise Element will not adequately mitigate such adverse effects. Mr. Tavares also points out that the Vision Plan does not address the fact that a noise contour of 60 dBA CNEL will intrude at least 500 feet into the project, which ls a significant effect and is not mitigated nor required to be mitigated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Finally, Mr. Tavares identifies a number of significant adverse noise impacts that can be expected to occur in connection with the development and operation of a hotel including HVAC, pumps, blowers, truck deliveries, amplified music, and traffic. The City cannot put these issues off to another day. Instead, the City must address these issues now and !dentify foosible mitigation measures so that the viability of the project de.sign can be evaluated and mitigation measures and alternative design issues can be explored whlle they are still feasible. 3. Significant Biological Effects The Biological Resources section of the Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies several significant environmental effects of the Vision Plan which have not been adequately mitigated. For example, the biology section states that four sensitive plant spedes have been found on site and that impacts to sensitive plant species are significant. Furlher, the biology section concedes two sensitive bird species, including the endangered American peregrine falcon, were observed on site. Additional evidence will be submitted to you that the threatened California gnatcatchet is also found on site. Future development will clearly adversely offect these rare and endangered species by destroying their habitat and killing individual species. However, the Mitigated Negative Declaration claims that all adverse impacts will be mitigated by conducting a '1comprehensive site-specific biological resource analysis" and developing a mitigation strategy to avoid imi:iacts. This is woefully inadequate under CEQA. Although the City may have the best of intentions, the fact is that this approach neither identifies the seriousness of the adverse impacts or commits the City or the applicant to any particular mitrgation requirement. There are no performance standards or other objective measures by which one could 3 The City has always identified an increase of 3 dBA CNEL as the threshold for analyzing significant noise effects as outlined in the City's Noise Guid(e!lines Manual's project processing procedures (page 24). For example, this significance threshold was recently used in the envirqnrnental review for the Villages of La Costa project and the La. Costa Robertson Ranch. ~\Cli~nls\Llr.bow\Letter.;\CityCounci\.00l.ElR RequiNtd.02.wpd JUL. IL, L~Vb L:L4r'IVI WUKUtN WILLIAM~ Arc IVV. LI?\ i, 14 City Council, City of Carlsbad June 27, 2005 Page 8 determine if the City was able to avoid adverse biological impacts. Instead, there is only an acknowle.dgment that a development could create significant adverse impacts, and then an unenforceable promise to mitigate the impacts with some unknown method sometime in the future. B. The City Is Attempth1g To immoperly Defer Analysis Of Potential Adverse Effects In mei.ny parts of the Vision Plan, it is said that additional environmental review and mitigation will be undertaken when a specific proposal is put foi-ward This is an inapptopriate deferral of the City's obligation to analyze such potential effects now as required by CEQA. 1 understand the City's theory that a future study could be more precise to the e:x.tent that more will be known about the exact type of development being considered. However, this approach is not permitted under CEQA because the reality is that once a project has gone this far, 1t tends to make it difficult or impossible to implement feasible altema.tives and mitigation measures. Instead, public agencies a.re required to explore these issues early on in the planning process while changes in design are still feasible, The City already knows a great deal about the development that will occur if the Vision Plan is approved. The proposed Ponto Beachfront Vision Plan provides for a ver,; intense development, including up to: 14 7 Condos, 260 Hotel Units, 800 Timeshare Units, 176 Apartments, 22,000 square feet of office space, 41,000 square. feet of specialty retail space and 3 restaurants. The Vision Plan identifies these uses, and their approximate location in enough detail to analyze the potential impacts at this time. The City has required an EIR for this scale of development in the past. For example, the City just issued a notice of preparation for the La Costa Town Square Project, which entails 81.8 acres and proposed the following: Mixed use 302,000 square feet shopping center, 53,000 square foot cinema, 30,193 squars foot tenant warehouse, 63 square fe~t detached residential units, 120 multi family residential units and 45 affordable hou5ing multi family units. ' This very issue is addressed in section 15004-of the CEQA Guidelines, which states: "Choosing the precise· time for CE.QA compliance involves a balancing of competing factors. ElRs and negative d12clarations should be prepared as early as feasible in the planning proc~ss to enable environmental considerations to influence project program and design and yet late enough to provide meaningful information for environmental assessment.11 (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15004(b).) And the "Discussion" section following section 15004 goes further and explarns K,\C\lema\Llpbow\J..etter.\Cit,,Co1.r,~il,00l.ElR Req\lired.02,wpd JUL. 12. 2006 2: 24PM WORDEN WILLIAMS APC ( · NU.L/71 Y. l? ( City Council, City of Carlsbad June 27, 2005 Page 9 that early preparation of the appropriate environmental document enables agencies to make revisions in the project before the agency becomes so committed to a particular approach that changes can only be made with difficulty. Thus, while there is some logic to waiting to undertake environmental review at a later time, on balance, it is an undesirable and impermissible appi:oach because it jeopardizes the abilit<J of public agencies to fulfill CEQA's goal of implementing feasible alternatives and mitigation measures. This case is virtually identical to other situations in which courts have not hesitated to declare the use of a negative declaration inappropriate when approving planning type documents. For example> in City of Redlands v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 398, the Court set oside a negative declaration and required the use of an EIR for a. general plan amendment. Likewise in City of Livermore v. Local Area Formation Commission (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 531 the Court set aside a negative declaration used for changes in a sphere of influence guidelines for urban development. The common thread between the above cases and the current Ponto Road Vision Plan is that at a certain point the planning process becomes concrete enough for the lead agency to study the range of potentially adverse effects, even if some forecasting and assumptions need to be made. In this case, while there is bound to be some uncertainty in analyzing the potential effects of the Vision Plan, the process ls far enough along for the City to make some reasonable assumptions about the adverse effects of the proposed project. On th~ other hand, if the City approves the Vision Plan and waits to undertake environmental review until a spedfic development proposal is put forv.1ard, both the City and private landowners and developers will have invested a considerable amount of time and money into a relatively specific plan that will be ha'!'d to modify, should it be necessary or desirable to do so. C. future Environmental Review Is Illusory Because The Negative Declaration ls Presumed To Cover Evend;hing Currentl!l.,_Befog Considered Bv The City. City Staff has suggested that any adverse effects that may result from the Vision Plan can be studied at a latet time. However, additional er.viror.menta! review of st.: bsec;uent projects is not required unless one of the following standards is met (a) substantial changes are proposed in the project that will require major revisions to the Mitigated Negative Declaration; (b) substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken that will require major revisions to the Mitigated Negative Declaration; or (c) new information of substantiat importance to the project, which was not known at the time the prior K:\CHents\Llpbow\l.iltm\CityCouncil.001.EIR Rqq1.1ired.02.wpd f' JUL. 12. 2006 2:24PM WORDEN WILLIAMS APC { NU.L/JI ~-lb City Council, City of Carlsbad June-27, 2005 Page 10 environmental document was c~rlified as complete, becomes available.. (Pub. Resources Code § 21166; 14 Cal.Code Regs. § 15162.) The basic premise of these criteria is that no further environmental review will be required if the Mitigatad Negative Diaclaration atready discussed the potential impact at issue-The adequacy of the discussion will not be relevant because Mitigated Negative Declaration will be presumed adequate and further environmental review will only be required if the strict standards of Public Resources Code 21166 are met. Finally) the strict "fair argument" standard will not apply to future decisions regarding environmental review, maldng legal challenges to decisions not to prepare ElRs extremely difficult. In other words, with the City, s current approach, it is quite possible the potentially adverse effacts of the. Vision Plan will never be adequately studied in an E1R. Indeed, private landowners and developers would be within their rights to insist that no subsequent environmental review can be required unless at least one of the conditions of Public Resources Code section 21166 is met. D. The Vision Plan ls An Inadequate Specific Plan , Staff has asserted thcl.t the Vision Plan does not pennit any specific development but is meant ooly to provide general guidance for development. However, references to the Vision Plan have been incorporated into both the-General Pla.n and the Local Coastal Program, which do establish development entitlements. It is therefore disingenuous to portray the Vision Plan as a non-binding, advisory planning document. To the contrary, the purpose of the Vision Plan is to provide specific implementation measures of the General Plan for this area. In other words 1 the functlon of the Vision Plan is really to serve as a Specific Plan. Howeve,r, the Vision Plan does not contain aU of the content required of a Specific Plan. (Gov. Code§ 65451.) The Vision Plan is therefore an inadequate Specific Plan. In order to be adequate to serve as a Specific Plan, the Vision Plan must contain text and diagrams that specify 'all of the following elements: (1) The distribution) location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space. (2) The proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major tnmsportation and infrastructure components needed to support the land uses proposed iD the plan. (3) Standards and criteria by'which development and conservation measures will be implemented· . . K:\Clianls\Lipbo\11\1..attem\CityCQi.tnei\.OOi.EJR Rsquirsd.~2,urpd ., JUL. 12. 2006 2:24PM WORDEN WILLIAMS APC ( N 0. 2 / ':l l ~. l / '\>v· • City Council, City of Carlsbad June 27, 2005 Page 11 (4) A program of implementation measures Lncluding tegulations, public works projects, and financing. The Vision Plan does not contain all of the above required elements and therefore is an inadequate Specific Plan. For ex.ample, the Vision Plan does not contain adequate standards, criteria and regulations to guide development, nor does it contain a financing plan. Before going any further with the Vision Plan, the City must identify the above~elements and prepare a legally adequate Specific Plan. Alternatively, the City should abandon the proposed Vision Plan and wait until an actual development proposal is put forward, which can then be evaluated on its merits. Further evidence that the Vision Plan is designed to serve as a Specific Plan can be found in the proceedings of the City Housing and Redevelopment Commission In February 2002, that Commission approved a Work Plan for development on a Land Use Strategy for the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Project A.rea by adopting Resolution 351. (Attached as Exhibit "C.") The Work Plan explained the status of the South Carlsbad Area and outlined a phased approach to developing a Land Use Strategy. According to the Work Plan, a Specific Plan is required ''for any development within the Ponto Area". It appears, therefore, that the Ponto Vision Plan is supposed to be the Specific Plan envisioned by the Commission. However, for the reasons discussed above, the Specific Plan is incomplete and legally inadequate. E. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, PAC respectfully requests that the Council not approve the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan, its associated General Plan and Local Coastal Program Amendments, or the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City has not undertaken adequate environmental review, and there is a fair argument that the project, as propose~, has the potential to substantially and adversely affect the environment. Further1 to the extent that the Vision Plan is supposed to serve as a Specific Plan for thls area, it is legally inadequate and must be revised. K:\Cli~nl&\Lipllow\Latters\Ci~Co'.ln~il,001,'Em R~q1,1irqd,Q2,wpd JUL.12. 2006 2:24PM WORDEN WlLLlAMS APC ' ,r \ 1mL/'JI r. lb City Council; City of Carlsbad June 27, 2005 Page 12 I appreciate your consideration of these comments and am available to answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, WORDEN WILLIAM:S, APC 2J w~ ~ ,, D. Wayne Brechtel dwb@wordenwilliams.com DWB:re Attachments cc: Client Gary Barberio, Planning Department Deborah Fountain, Housing and Redevelopment Director K,\Cll~nts\Lipbow\Let!sr,\Ci!yCo,.mcil.001.EIR Required.02.wpd LEUCADIA WAST~WATER --------D 1· ~ T R I C T L...L..."-'VMI../.Lr, "fTrl._. I 1--TTr-1 I '-1, 1960 La Costa Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92009 Telephone (760) 753-0155 Fax (760) 753"3094 www.lwwd.org LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL To: City of Carlsbad Attn: Chrlster Westman Date: July 12, 2006 Subject: Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan The following items are being transmitted: □Herewith O.,nder separate cover Clvia: US Mail Number of Coples 1 Description The above items are submitted: C At your request Cl For your use General remarks: C For your approval C For your action □ Per contract dated or your files C For your information This letter is in response to the City Public Notice received by the Leucadia Wastewater District on June 9, 2006. Transmitted by: Trisha Miranda G:IFORMS\l.eTTER OF TRANSMITTAL TEMPLATE.doc Copy to; File. Steve Deering, Robin Morishita 07/12/2006 15:4~ L(UCADIA WASTEWATER ~Dl~TRl(T Christer Westman Senior Planner City of Cartsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 July 12, 2006 POARP OF PlREC.TOl\5 ALLAN /ULIUSSEN. ~ll.ESIC>nN't LOISE, HUMPHREYS, Viet ~RESIDENT JUDY 1<. HANSON. OIMC:TOI! DAYtl:l l(.UL<:'.HIN, DIR,cTOR ELAINE SULLIVAN, DIRECTOR PAUi, J. BUSl•-lnE, GiNERAL MANAGER Ref: 07--0718 Re: Public Scoping Request for Comments by Carlsbad for the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan. Program EIR 05 .. 05 Dear M( Westman, This letter is sent in response to the City Public Notice received by Leucadia Wastewater District. (LWD) on June 9, 2006. Sewer Service Issues LWD does not have any gravity sewer collection system in the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan area, or any customers paying for sewer service in that area. Attached to this letter is a copy of the current LWD boundary and Sphere of Influence per LAFCO. The attached official LAFCO map incorrectly shows the area in a portion of the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan within the LWD sewer service area. The LAFCO graphic shows that the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan is entirely north of the LWD Sphere of Influence. LWD understands that it is the intent of the City of Carlsbad to provide sewer service to any new customers in this area. Because of the sewer service area ambiguities, LWD recommends that the City of Carlsbad initiate a LAFCO Reorganization to clarify that sewer service in this area will be provided by the City of Carlsbad and that the area is not serviced by LWD. Utility Issues LWD has separately received a request for utility information for the Ponto Village planning area from Gary Rogers at Daniel Boyle Engineering (760-433-8710 Ext 219). LWD has provided copies of Record Drawings tor two 24-inch diameter forcemains that carry wastewater from LWD and the City of Encinitas to the Encina Wastewater Authority (EWA) Wastewater Treatment Plant just north of the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan area. The forcemains start at LWD's Batiquitos Pump Station, which is located on the east side of · '1960 LA COSTA AVENUE, C:Al'llSl3AD, CA 92009 · PHONE 760.753,0155 · FAX 760.753.3094 · LWWD.ORG · INFO@LWWD.O"(, Ref: 07~0718 Carlsbad Boulevard (Highway 101) at the southwest corner of Batiquitos Lagoon and just north of La Costa Avenue, The Batlquitos Forcemains, labeled FM B-2 and FM 8-3, alignment are shown on the attached reduced scale copies of LWD Atlas Drawings 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A, 6A, and 6B. Please note that the LWO Batiquitos Forcemains diverge from the Carlsbad Boulevard corridor in the project area where they parallel portions of Ponto Drive. Additionally, LWD owns a 14-inch diameter Encina Effluent forcemaln, previously used as a Failsafe Pipeline (labeled 14" Failsafe FM), which transports secondary treated effluent from EWA to LWD's Gafner Water Recycling Plant near the corner of La Costa Avenue and El Camino Real. The Gafner plant filters and disinfects the secondary effluent to produce recycled water for use on the La Costa Resort & Spa Golf Course. The Gafner plant has provided tertiary polishing treatment for the past 1 O years. The 14-inch Enclna Effluent forcemain runs parallel to one of the Batiqultos Forcemains, FM B-2, along the alignment of Ponto Drive in the City project area. LWD requests that the City of Carlsbad review the existing and proposed street right-of-way limits relative to the location of and account for the three existing L WO forcemains and the associated easements in the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan area. Closing Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on potential impacts and issues of concern to LWD on the Ponto Beachfront Village Plan. As the Ponto Seachfront Village Plan progresses, please keep LWD informed of any plans that would impact the operations of these existing forcemains. ~Lzi General Manager cc: Steve Deering, District Engineer Robin Morishita, Project Manager File \ I i I I I i I Project Boundary Ponto Beaohfront Village Vision Plan EIR 05-05 e O 250 600 1,0DO '* --, +:it •· 1q2 ,mr:eel Q '-../ .....A__ l Padlk: Ocl8J u Leucadia Wastewater District LEGEN D ~ Leucadia WNO C Sphere of Influence (SOI) SOI Adopud: 9 I 10 I 84 01~LAFCO ~ SliGIS W/1-S.O.,,C-- n. ... ,,....... ...... -........ lliftf. .... ...,._ ............................... _ .... ., ............... ...,.,,.....,,....._c..,... .......... ....,_.,_n-....... .-....... ._ .. aAlllQllriO .................. .,... ..... __. ....................... ,..__ .. IANDilG. TM,...,._, ... ~_,.,_ .... ,.,...... ,..,__.INIIM.,.1--...,_ ..... n.. .............................. ,........., ... • .....,..__.._... ... a.,.1»co ... _. .. -,.....-,i-. ,. G)Gil$.'PllOJ{eT"'-11rt1~~ ...... o...-. i I i 1j ► ~ --z.-)'.:!_ )( I I 9 w ~, ! er: a :z: Q I CD !: jJ w 9 ... I .,, d ili w ,. w ~~ I i X ~ ... (I) ,OOO'ttt'tl OOO'tti•tJ OOO'IH .. l OOO'IH'tl OOO'Ot&'H OOO'o<i'IJ i OOO'lti'IJ I OOO'tU'tJ I l I I I 0001tC'tJi .. l I I ! I I I I I I I I ! ! I ! I I I .. i i ti !i Ii i Ii Ii i i Ii li i i l OOO'ttl'tl I I I OOO~t<'tl I I I OOO'Kt'tl I I I I OOO'ttl'tl I I I OOO'tt&'tl ! I I I I I I I I I I I ; ! ~ i i Ii i Ii i i i li Ii i i REVISIONS REMARKS OUOCK ORICINAL OU0£K UPOATE lu-<Mt"~ ~~ SEWER LEGEND 0 MANHOLE NO. ) SJZf/liA TCRIAL O LfNCTH rORCC MAIN --------- ! I ,-.,rs SHEET tA I ~I~ 1j i I --z.-~ "' f i~ :t i < I ~ :, I :z N a: i ~I :::f"" I I-~11 ji ~~ ~: w w ~ ~ w u, "I :c lit 0\ u, ~' ! 0 I 0 ,._ . I 11111111111111111111111111,,,,,,,,.,,.,,,, ~ :.;, ~ ~ ~ :-:- ~ ~ :- ~ ;.., ;-;.- ~ ~ ,,f, ~ ~ l SEE SHEET 3A ltl!VISIONS DA TE REMARKS 7/M OUOCK Olllc.-<AI. S/2000 OUDCl< UPOA T{ lu,e"'£"'~ ~~ SEWER LEGEND OIS TRlC T BOUN()AJIY I • -,------- 0 MANHOLE NO. O SIZC/lll. TCRIAL O LCNCTH _ _ FORC£ MAIN __ ! I NTS U?~P~lm •---CI-NUU.SIO ,_ 7ll.iSZ.tlM SHEET 4A !j IIC I i I j1 ~ i ~ I w ~~ ,: a, ~~ ii I:: ':I ill 0 I I I ..... VI ;/, I,! ~I I ~ R i 11 i I --z.-V"t < I 11: !~ ~I 1-CIC i ':IL II) ~ii ~ :a l ... j, ..I ~~ i i w w ~: w ... (I) ~ :c a,: "I ~1 0 I (I) I ~ --------.-.~~. REVISIONS DATE REMARKS 1/M DU)[ICOIIIGIN,t,L 1/2000 ~K~41'( SEWER LEGEND ~!!'.£~...!,__ 0 MANHOLE NO. ) SIZC/MATCIIIAL O LCNCrH FORCE MAIN --------- ! I \J~ P~PTES~m ----Q-111.tcUIU '• JIUR.llk SHEET 58 ~,~ I i I \I\ i i ~ ~I --z.-1--ID I 111: I z 0 ~ii I i ~ i!i .. , I-~~ ~: w w w Ill fl) ~ :c Ir: "I U) ~ '-! 0 I ~ h .. I APPENDIX B Air Quality Site Assessment (Technical Appendix) The Air Quality Site Assessment for the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan EIR was not prepared as a separate technical report. Instead, the Air Quality Site Assessment was prepared and was formatted to follow the standard EIR format for Chapter 5.0. The Air Quality Site Assessment is therefore included as Section 5.1 of this EIR, and not as a separate document; however, the technical appendix, which provides data upon which the Air Quality Site Assessment and findings are based, is included herein as Appendix B. Air Quality Site Assessment (Appendix) for the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan (EIR 05-05/GPA 05-04/LCPA 05-01/DI 05-01) Prepared For: City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Contact: Christer Westman, Project Manager (760) 602-4614 Prepared By: RBF Consulting 9755 Clairemont Mesa Boulevard, Suite 100 San Diego, California 92124 (858) 614-5000 FAX (858) 614-5001 RBF JN 25-101951.001 November 2006 Parenthetical URBEMIS2002 Assumptions For: Ponto Village Vision Plan Date: October 26, 2006 YEAR 2030 AREA SOURCES Natural Gas Fuel Combustion: (URBEMIS2002 default all phases) Wood Stoves Fuel Combustion: Off Fireplaces: Off Landscape Maintenance Equipment: ' "·' ·,., · · · · SuhimefDays '· 180 Consumer Products: (URBEMIS2002 default all phases) Area Source Mitigation: Refer to URBEMIS2002 file output. YEAR 2030 OPERATIONAL SOURCES Vehicle Fleet %: (URBEMIS2002 default all phases) Year: Year of Completion -2030 Trip Characteristics: (URBEMIS2002 Default all phases) Temperature Data: 40 to 90 degrees Fahrenheit Variable Starts: (URBEMIS2002 default all phases) Road Dust: Paved-100% Unpaved-0% Pass By Trips (On/Off): On Double-Counting(On/Off): Off Operational Mitigation Measures: Refer to URBEMIS 2002 file output. Page: 1 11/07/2006 3:51 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: Project Name: H:\COMMON\MC Files\URBEMIS2002v8.7\Ponto.urb Carlsbad -Ponto Vision Plan Project Location: San Diego County On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds/Day -Summer) AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 26.36 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 29. 73 NOx 11.46 NOx 29. 78 SUM OF AREA AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 56.09 41.24 co 15.26 co 338.90 co 354.16 S02 PMlO 0.00 0.04 S02 PMlO 0.99 173.86 S02 PMlO 1.00 173.90 Page: 2 11/07/2006 3:51 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: H:\COMMON\MC Files\URBEMIS2002v8.7\Ponto.urb Project Name: Carlsbad -Ponto Vision Plan Project Location: San Diego County On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds/Day -Winter) AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) ROG 188.20 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 31. 39 NOX 16.64 NOx 44.59 SOM OF AREA AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 219.59 61.23 co 306.45 co 352.00 co 658.45 SO2 0.71 SO2 0.97 SO2 1.68 PMl0 44.40 PMl0 173. 86 PMl0 218.26 Page: 3 11/07/2006 3:51 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: Project Name: H:\COMMON\MC Files\URBEMIS2002v8.7\Ponto.urb Carlsbad -Ponto Vision Plan Project Location: San Diego County On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Tons/Year) AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG TOTALS (tpy, unmitigated) 10.86 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG TOTALS (tpy, unmitigated) 5.53 NOx 2.27 NOx 6.34 SUM OF AREA AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx TOTALS (tpy, unmitigated) 16.39 8.60 co S02 14.37 0.03 co S02 62.65 0.18 co S02 77.02 0.21 PMlO 1. 82 PMlO 31.73 PMlO 33.55 Page: 4 11/07/2006 3:51 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: Project Name: H:\COMMON\MC Files\URBEMIS2002v8.7\Ponto.urb Carlsbad -Ponto Vision Plan Project Location: San Diego County On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day -Winter) AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES (Winter ROG 0.84 162. 88 Source Natural Gas Hearth Landscaping -No winter Consumer Prdcts emissions 14.04 10.43 Architectural Coatings TOTALS(lbs/daylunmitigated) 188.20 Pounds per NOx 11.42 5.22 16. 64 Day, Unmitigated) CO S02 8.68 0 297.78 0.71 306.45 0.71 PMlO 0.02 44.38 44.40 Page: 5 11/07/2006 3:51 PM UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx co S02 PMlO Apartments mid rise 0.33 0.47 3.75 0.01 1. 82 Condo/townhouse general 2.36 3.31 26.70 0.07 12.93 Live/work 0.17 0.23 1.88 0.01 0.91 Resort-Timeshares 2.33 3.26 26.28 0.07 12.73 Passive Park 0.03 0.04 0.34 0.00 0.17 High turnover (sit-downi 9.20 13.11 103.06 0.29 51.11 Hotel 13.49 19.23 151.13 0.42 74.95 Specialty Retail 3.47 4. 94 38.86 0.11 19.25 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 31. 39 44.59 352.00 0.97 173.86 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2030 Temperature (Fl: 40 EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: Unit Type Acreage Trip Apartments mid rise 0.63 6.00 Condo/townhouse general 8.00 8.00 Live/work 1. 80 8.00 Resort-Timeshares 7.88 8.00 Passive Park 20.00 High turnover (sit-down) 160.00 Hotel 10.00 Specialty Retail 40.00 Season: Winter Rate trips/dwelling unit trips/dwelling unit trips/dwelling unit trips/dwelling unit trips/acres trips/1000 sq. ft. trips/rooms trips/1000 sq. ft. No. Total Units Trips 24.00 144.00 128.00 1,024.00 9.00 72.00 126. 00 1,008.00 0.75 15.00 28.30 4,528.00 664.00 6,640.00 43.25 1,730.00 Sum of Total Trips 15,161.00 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 115,132.93 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Light Auto Light Truck < 3,750 lbs Light Truck 3,751-5,750 Med Truck 5,751-8,500 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 Med-Heavy 14, 001-33,-000 Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 Line Haul> 60,000 lbs Urban Bus Motorcycle School Bus Motor Home Travel Conditions Urban Trip Length (miles) Rural Trip Length {miles) Trip Speeds (mph) % of Trips -Residential 52.50 15.90 16.70 7.60 1.00 0.30 0.90 0.70 0.00 0.20 1.50 0.10 2.60 Home- Work 10.8 15.0 35.0 27.3 Residential Home- Shop 7.3 10.0 35.0 21. 2 % of Trips -Commercial (by land use) Passive Park High turnover (sit-down) rest. Hotel Specialty Retail 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.30 0.00 0.00 Home- Other 7.5 10.0 35.0 51.5 Catalyst 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 80.00 66.70 22.20 0.00 0.00 50.00 66.70 0.00 92.30 CoI!llllercial COilllllUte 10.8 15.0 35.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 Non-Work 7.3 10.0 35.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.0 Diesel 0.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00 20.00 33.30 77.80 100.00 100.00 50.00 0.00 100.00 7.70 Customer 7.3 10.0 35.0 92.5 92.5 92.5 97.0 Page: 6 11/07/2006 3:51 PM Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages The Trip Rate and/or Acreage values for Apartments mid rise have changed from the defaults 5.76/.63 to 6/.63 The Trip Rate and/or Acreage values for Condominium/townhouse general have changed from the defaults 6.9/B. to B/B. The Trip Rate and/or Acreage values for Retirement community have changed from the defaults 3.71/1.B to 8/1.B The Trip Rate and/or Acreage values for Congregate care (Assisted Living) Facility have changed from the defaults 2.02/7.86 to 8i7.86 Changes made to the default values for Area Changes made to the default values for Operations The operational emission year changed from 2005 to 2030. Page: 7 11/07/2006 3:51 PM ORBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: Project Name: H:\COMMON\MC Files\URBEMIS2002v8.7\Ponto.urb Carlsbad -Ponto Vision Plan Project Location: San Diego County On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day -Summer) AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds per Source ROG NOx Natural Gas 0.84 11.42 Hearth -No summer emissions Landscaping 1.05 0.04 Consumer Prdcts 14.04 Architectural Coatings 10.43 TOTALS(lbs/day,unmitigated) 26.36 11.46 Day, Unmitigated) co S02 8.68 0 6.58 0.00 15.26 0.00 PMlO 0.02 0.02 0.04 Page: B 11/07/2006 3:51 PM UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx co S02 PMlO Apartments mid rise 0.37 0.31 3.69 0.01 1. 82 Condo/townhouse general 2.43 2.21 26.24 0.07 12.93 Live/work 0.17 0.16 1.85 0.01 0.91 Resort-Timeshares 2.40 2.17 25.83 0.07 12.73 Passive Park 0.03 0.03 0.33 0.00 0.17 High turnover (sit-down) 7.68 8.76 98.85 0.29 51.11 Hotel 13.64 12.85 144.96 0.43 74.95 Specialty Retail 3.02 3.30 37.15 0.11 19 .25 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 29.73 29.78 338.90 0.99 173.86 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2030 Temperature (F): 85 EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: Unit Type Acreage Trip Apartments mid rise 0.63 6.00 Condo/townhouse general 8.00 8.00 Live/work 1. BO 8.00 Resort-Timeshares 7.88 8.00 Passive Park 20.00 High turnover (sit-down) 160.00 Hotel 10.00 Specialty Retail 40.00 Season: Swnmer Rate trips/dwelling unit trips/dwelling unit trips/dwelling unit trips/dwelling unit trips/acres trips/1000 sq. ft. trips/rooms trips/1000 sq. ft. No. Total Units Trips 24.00 144.00 128.00 1,024.00 9.00 72. 00 126.00 1,008.00 0.75 15.00 28.30 4,528.00 664.00 6,640.00 43.25 1,730.00 Sum of Total Trips Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 15,161.00 115,132.93 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 52.50 0.00 100.00 0.00 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 15.90 0.00 100.00 0.00 Light Truck 3,751-5,750 16. 70 0.00 100.00 0.00 Med Truck 5,751-8,500 7. 60 0.00 100.00 0.00 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.00 0.00 BO.DO 20.00 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 0.00 66.70 33.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 0.90 0.00 22.20 77. BO Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.70 0.00 0.00 100.00 Line Haul> 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.20 0.00 50.00 SO.OD Motorcycle 1.50 33.30 66. 70 0.00 School Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 2.60 0.00 92. 30 7.70 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home-Home-Home- Work Shop Other Commute Non-Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 10.8 7.3 7.5 10.8 7. 3 7.3 Rural Trip Length (miles) 15.0 10.0 10.0 15.0 10.0 10.0 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 I 35, Q 35.0 % of Trips -Residential 27.3 21. 2 51. 5 % of Trips -Commercial (by land use) Passive Park 5.0 2.5 92.5 High turnover (sit-down) rest. 5.0 2.5 92.5 Hotel 5.0 2.5 92.5 Specialty Retail 2.0 1.0 97.0 Page: 9 11/07/2006 3:51 PM Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages The Trip Rate have changed The Trip Rate have changed The Trip Rate have changed The Trip Rate have changed and/or Acreage values for Apartments mid rise from the defaults 5.76/.63 to 6/.63 and/or Acreage values for Condominium/townhouse general from the defaults 6.9/8. to 8/8. and/or Acreage values for Retirement community from the defaults 3.71/1.8 to 8/1.8 and/or Acreage values for Congregate care (Assisted Living) Facility from the defaults 2.02/7.88 to o ,.., nn 0/ I• 00 Changes made to the default values for Area Changes made to the default values for Operations The operational emission year changed from 2005 to 2030. Page: 10 11/07/2006 3:51 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: Project Name: H:\COMMON\MC Files\URBEMIS2002v8.7\Ponto.urb Carlsbad -Ponto Vision Plan Project Location: San Diego County On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Tons/Year) AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES (Tons per Year, Uruni tigated) Source ROG NOx co S02 PMlO Natural Gas 0.15 2.08 1.58 0.00 0.00 Hearth 6.68 0.18 12.19 0.03 1. 82 Landscaping 0.09 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.00 Consumer Prdcts 2.56 Architectural Coatings 1.38 TOTALS (tpy, unmitigated) 10.86 2.27 14.37 0.03 1. 82 Page: 11 11/07/2006 3:51 PM UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx Apartments mid rise 0.06 0.07 Condo/townhouse general 0.44 0.47 Live/work 0.03 0.03 Resort-Timeshares 0.43 0.46 Passive Park 0.01 0.01 High turnover (sit-downi l. 49 1. 86 Hotel 2.48 2.73 Specialty Retail 0.58 0.70 TOTAL EMISSIONS (tons/yr) 5.53 6.34 Does not include correction for passby trips. co S02 0.68 0.00 4.82 0.01 0.34 0.00 4.74 0.01 0.06 0.00 18.30 0.05 26.83 0.08 6.88 0.02 62.65 0.18 Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2030 EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: Unit Type Acreage Trip Apartments mid rise 0.63 6.00 Condo/townhouse general 8.00 8.00 Live/work 1.80 8.00 Resort-Timeshares 7.88 8.00 Passive Park 20.00 High turnover (sit-down) 160.00 Hotel 10.00 Specialty Retail 40.00 Season: Annual No. Rate Units trips/dwelling unit 24.00 trips/dwelling unit 128.00 trips/dwelling unit 9.00 trips/dwelling unit 126.00 trips/acres 0.75 trips/1000 sq. ft. 28.30 trips/rooms 664.00 trips/1000 sq. ft. 43.25 PMlO 0.33 2.36 0.17 2.32 0.03 9.33 13.68 3.51 31. 73 Total Trips 144.00 1,024.00 72.00 1,008.00 15.00 4,528.00 6,640.00 1,730.00 Sum of Total Trips Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 15,161.00 115,132.93 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Light Auto Light Truck < 3,750 lbs Light Truck 3,751-5,750 Med Truck 5,751-8,500 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 Line Haul> 60,000 lbs Urban Bus Motorcycle School Bus Motor Horne Travel Conditions Urban Trip Length (miles) Rural Trip Length (miles) Trip Speeds (mph) % of Trips -Residential Percent Type Non-Catalyst 52.50 15.90 16.70 7.60 1.00 0.30 0.90 0.70 0.00 0.20 1.50 0.10 2. 60 Home- work 10.8 15.0 35.0 27.3 Residential Horne- Shop 7.3 10.0 35.0 21. 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.30 0.00 0.00 Home- Other 7.5 10.0 35.0 51.5 % of Trips -Commercial (by land use) Passive Park High turnover (sit-down) rest. Hotel Specialty Retail Catalyst 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 80.00 66.70 22.20 0.00 0.00 50.00 66.70 0.00 92.30 Commercial Commute 10.8 15.0 35.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 Non-Work 7.3 10.0 35.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.0 Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 33.30 77.80 100.00 100.00 50.00 0.00 100.00 7.70 Customer 7.3 10.0 35.0 92.5 92. 5 92.5 97.0 Page: 12 11/07/2006 3:51 PM Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages The Trip Rate and/or Acreage values for Apartments mid rise have changed from the defaults 5.76/.63 to 6/.63 The Trip Rate and/or Acreage values for Condominium/townhouse general have changed from the defaults 6.9/8. to 8/8. The Trip Rate and/or Acreage values for Retirement community have changed from the defaults 3.71/1.8 to 8/1.8 The Trip Rate and/or Acreage values for Congregate care (Assisted Living) Facility have changed from the defaults 2.02/7.88 to 8/7.86 Changes made to the default values for Area Changes made to the default values for Operations The operational emission year changed from 2005 to 2030. Title version Run Date seen Year: ponto-emfac.rts san Diego county APCD Avg 2030 winter Default Title Emfac2002 v2.2 sept 23 2002 10/19/06 15:36:08 2030 --Model Years: 1985 to 2030 se_ason winter Area : san Diego county APCD Dis ************************************************************************************ ***** vear:2030 --Model Years 1985 to 2030 Inclusive --winter Emfac2002 Emission Factors: V2.2 Sept 23 2002 District Average county APCD District Average San Diego 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Table 1: Running Exhaust Emissions (grams/mile) Pollutant Name: Reactive org Gases speed MPH 5 35 LDA 0.122 0.018 LDT ·0.093 0.015 MDT 0.144 0.024 Pollutant Name: carbon Monoxide speed MPH 5 35 LDA 1. 365 0.810 LDT 1.641 0.951 MDT 2.219 1.233 Pollutant Name: oxides of Nitrogen speed MPH 5 35 LDA 0.197 0.112 LDT 0.231 0.127 MDT 0.393 0.223 Pollutant Name: carbon Dioxide speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT 0. 501 0.153 Temperature: 40F Relative Humidity: UBUS 1.685 0.311 MCY 5.155 2.065 ALL 0.145 0.028 Temperature: 40F Relative Humidity: HDT 4.783 1.002 HDT 2.634 1.524 UBUS MCY 16.245 28.404 3.044 18.503 ALL 1.765 0.940 Temperature: 40F Relative Humidity: UBUS 9.712 5. 235 MCY 1.607 1.475 ALL 0.357 0.203 Temperature: 40F Relative Humidity: HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 944.534 1189.691 1670.924 2129.624 2439.471 266.166 1135.030 35 307.258 387.134 523.290 1598.286 1442.221 139.832 406.614 Pollutant Name: sulfur Dioxide Temperature: 40F Relative Humidity: Page 1 ponto-emfac.rts speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 0.009 0.011 0.016 0.020 0.024 0.003 0.011 35 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.015 0.014 0.002 0.004 Pollutant Name: PM2.5 Temperature: 40F Relative Humidity: 0% speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 0.058 0.096 0.121 0.193 0.274 0.024 0.081 35 0.009 0.016 0.020 0.062 0.064 0.011 0.015 Pollutant Name: PM2.5 -Tire wear Temperature: 40F Relative Humidity: 0% speed MPH LDA LDT MDT HOT UBUS MCY ALL 5 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.006 0.002 0.001 0.002 35 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.006 0.002 0.001 0.002 Pollutant Name: PM2.5 -Break wear Temperature: 40F Relative Humidity: 0% Speed MPH LOA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 35 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 Pollutant Name: Gasoline -mi/gal Temperature: 40F Relative Humidity: 0% speed MPH LOA LDT MDT HOT UBUS MCY ALL 5 9. 351, 7.424 5.250 3.515 3.453 25. 872 8.330 35 28.707 22.792 16.853 17.766 17 .471 48.783 25.658 Pollutant Name: Diesel -mi/gal Temperature: 40F Relative Humidity: 0% speed MPH LOA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 29.156 29.156 20.014 5.200 4.258 0.000 6.548 35 29.156 29.156 20.014 5.200 4.258 0.000 6.548 Page 2 ponto-emfac.rts Title san Diego county APCD Avg 2030 winter Default Title version Emfac2002 v2.2 sept 23 2002 Run Date 10/19/06 15:36:08 seen Year: 2030 --Model Years: 1985 to 2030 season winter Area : San Diego county APCD Dis ************************************************************************************ ***** Year:2030 --Model Years 1985 to 2030 Inclusive --winter Emfac2002 Emission Factors: V2.2 sept 23 2002 District Average County APCD District Average san Diego ALL ALL Table 2: starting Emissions (grams/trip) Pollutant Name: Reactive org Gases Temperature: 40F Relative Humidity£ Time min 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 720 LDA 0.030 0.058 0.112 0.160 0.203 0.241 0.274 0.366 0.173 0.183 0.193 0.203 0.212 0.222 0.231 0.240 0.248 0.257 LDT 0.025 0.050 0.096 0.139 0.178 0.214 0.247 0.346 0.172 0.183 0.193 0.204 0.214 0.224 0.234 0.244 0.253 0.263 MDT 0.065 0.129 0.250 0.364 0.470 0.568 0.659 0.947 0.575 0.610 0.646 0.681 0.716 0.751 0.785 0.819 0.852 0.886 Pollutant Name: carbon Monoxide Time min 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 120 LDA 0.381 0.750 1.451 2.104 2.708 3.263 3.769 5.491 LDT 0.396 0.781 1. 517 2.210 2.858 3.462 4.022 5.803 MDT 0.988 1. 951 3.804 5.560 7.218 8.777 10.239 14.979 HDT 0.111 0.216 0.410 0. 581 0.730 0.856 0.960 0.658 0.699 0.737 0.775 0.812 0.847 0.880 0.913 0.944 0.974 1.003 UBUS 0.380 0.741 1.405 1.992 2.502 2.934 3.289 2.256 2.394 2.527 2.656 2.781 2.901 3.017 3.128 3.236 3.338 3.437 MCY 1.533 1.833 2.415 2.974 3.509 4.021 4.386 3.690 2.662 2.834 3.002 3.167 3.328 3.487 3.642 3.794 3.943 4.089 ALL 0.040 0.075 0.141 0.202 0.256 0.305 0.349 0.448 0.247 0.262 0.276 0.291 0.305 0.318 0.332 0.345 0.359 0.371 Temperature: 40F Relative Humidity: HDT 2.671 5.234 10.034 14.400 18.332 21. 829 24.893 11.105 Page 3 UBUS 6.461 12.660 24.269 34.829 44.338 52.797 60. 206 26.859 MCY 4.699 6.935 11.149 15 .019 18.546 21. 729 24.568 29.396 ALL 0.555 1.086 2.097 3.039 3.913 4. 719 5.456 6.966 ponto-emfac.rts 180 2.640 2.966 6.567 11. 429 27.644 12.922 3.558 240 2.807 3.189 7.109 11.765 28.455 14.247 3.796 300 2.958 3.388 7.588 12.111 29.292 15.458 4.010 360 3.095 3.563 8.005 12.468 30.155 16.555 4.202 420 3.216 3.715 8.359 12.835 31.043 17.538 4.372 480 3.323 3.842 8.652 13 .213 31.958 18.406 4.519 540 3.415 3.946 8.883 13 .602 32.898 19.161 4.644 600 3.491 4.026 9.052 14.001 33.865 19.802 4.746 660 3.553 4.082 9.158 14.412 34.857 20.329 4.826 720 3.600 4.114 9.203 14.833 35.875 20.742 4.883 Pollutant Name: oxides of Nitrogen Temperature: 40F Relative Humidity: ALL Time min LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 0.061 0.104 0.636 0.296 1.229 0.191 0.150 10 0.071 0.114 0.678 0.446 1.852 0.238 0.169 20 0.087 0.132 0.754 0.709 2.946 0.322 0.203 30 0.101 0.147 0.819 0.924 3.837 0.391 0.231 40 0.111 0.159 0.873 1.090 4.526 0.446 0.253 50 0.119 0.168 0.915 1.207 5.012 0.486 0.269 60 0.124 0.174 0.946 1.275 5.296 0. 512 0.280 120 0.131 0.188 1.031 1.314 5.457 0.524 0. 300 180 0.146 0.207 1.064 1.309 5.437 0. 526 0.317 240 0.145 0.206 1.056 1.302 5.407 0.517 0. 315 300 0.143 0.204 1.043 1.292 5.366 0.507 0. 312 360 0.141 0.200 1.025 1.279 5.314 0.494 0.307 420 0.139 0.196 1.003 1.264 5.251 0.479 0.301 480 0.136 0.191 0.975 1.247 5.178 0.462 0.294 540 0.132 0.185 0.942 1.227 5.095 0.442 0.285 600 0.128 0.179 0.905 1.204 5.001 0.421 0.276 660 0.123 0.171 0.862 1.179 -4.896 0.397 0.265 720 0.118 0.162 0.815 1.151 4.781 0. 371 · 0.253 Pollutant Name: carbon Dioxide Temperature: 40F Relative Humidity: ALL Time min LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 12.099 15.275 21.258 2.738 4. 722 13. 371 13 .804 10 13.643 17.204 24.175 5.461 9.417 15.572 15 .672 20 17 .223 21.683 30.858 10.861 18.730 19.893 19.962 30 21.459 26.991 38.674 16.200 27.939 24.106 24.988 40 26.350 33.129 47.625 21.479 37.043 28.212 30.749 50 31.897 40.096 57.709 26.697 46.042 32.209 37.247 60 38.099 47.893 68.927 31. 855 54.937 36.099 44.481 120 88. 270 111.138 158.020 54.179 93.438 53.574 102.096 180 100.258 126. 210 179.692 64.009 110.390 57.793 116.062 240 112 .213 141. 245 201. 257 73.258 126.342 61.763 129.965 300 124.134 156.243 222.713 81. 927 141. 292 65.486 143.803 360 136.022 171. 203 244.063 90.016 155.243 68.962 157.576 420-147. 877 186.127 265.304 97.525 168.193 72 .190 171. 286 480 159.698 201.013 286.438 104.453 180.142 75.170 184.932 540 171. 485 215.863 307.464 110.802 191.091 77.903 198. 513 600 183.240 230.675 328.383 116.570 201.039 80.389 212.030 660 194.960 245.450 349.194 121.758 209.987 82.626 225.483 Page 4 720 206.648 260.189 ponto-emfac.rts 369.897 126.366 217.934 84.616 Pollutant Name: sulfur Dioxide T,:,mpiP l"::ITl I l"IP • 40F ALL Time min LOA LDT MDT HOT UBUS MCY ' 5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ALL Title 10 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 20 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 30 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 40 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 50 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 60 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 120 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 180 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.001 240 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.001 300 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.001 360 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.002 0.001 420 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.002 0.001 480 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.002 0.001 540 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.003 0.001 600 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.003 0.001 660 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.001 0.003 0.001 720 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.001 0.003 0.001 Pollutant Name: PM2.5 Temperature: 40F Time min 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 720 LOA LDT MDT HOT UBUS MCY 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.005 0.002 0.004 0.004 0.001 0.003 0.004 0.003 0.005 0.006 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.004 0.007 0.008 0.003 0.005 0.003 0.005 0.008 0.010 0.003 0.006 0.002 0.006 0.010 0.011 0.004 0.007 0.002 0.010 0.016 0.018 0.005 0.009 0.005 0.011 0.018 0.020 0.005 0.009 0.007 0.012 0.019 0.022 0.005 0.010 0.008 0.012 0.021 0.024 0.005 0.010 0.010 0.013 0.022 0.025 0.005 0.010 0.011 0.014 0.023 0.026 0.006 0.010 0.012 0.014 0.024 0.027 0.006 0.011 0.013 0.015 0.024 0.028 0.006 0.011 0.014 0.015 0.025 0.028 0.006 0.011 0.014 0.015 0.025 0.029 0.006 0.012 0.015 0.015 0.025 0.029 0.006 0.012 0.015 San Diego county APCD Avg 2030 winter Default Title Page 5 238. 872 Relative 1-111mi ,H t-v • 11-111 I -I,._,■ ALL 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 Relative Humidity: ALL 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.008 0.012 0.014 0.015 0.016 0.017 0.018 0.018 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 version Run Date seen Year: season ponto-emfac.rts Emfac2002 v2.2 Sept 23 2002 10/19/06 15:36:08 2030 --Model Years: 1985 to 2030 winter Area : San Diego county APCD Dis ************************************************************************************ ***** vear:2030 --Model Years 1985 to 2030 Inclusive --winter Emfac2002 Emission Factors: v2.2 sept 23 2002 District Average District Average San Diego County APCD Table 4: Hot soak Emissions (grams/trip) Pollutant Name: Reactive org Gases Temperature: 40F Relative Humidity: ALL Time min LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 5 0.005 0.008 0.007 0.002 0.014 0.028 0.006 10 0.009 0.014 0.013 0.003 0.026 0.054 0.011 20 0.017 0.027 0.025 0.007 0.047 0.101 0.021 30 0.023 0.037 0.035 0.009 0.063 0.141 0.029 40 0.026 0.042 0.040 0.011 0.070 0.159 0.032 Hot soak results are scaled to reflect zero emissions for trip lengths of less than 5 minutes (about 25% of in-use trips). Title San Diego county APCD Avg 2030 winter Default Title version Emfac2002 V2.2 sept 23 2002 Run Date 10/19/06 15:36:08 seen Year: 2030 --Model Years: 1985 to 2030 season winter Area : San Diego county APCD Dis ************************************************************************************ ***** Year:2030 --Model Years 1985 to 2030 Inclusive --winter Emfac2002 Emission Factors: v2.2 sept 23 2002 District Average county APCD District Average san Diego Table Sa: Partial Day Diurnal Loss Emissions (grams/hour) Pollutant Name: Reactive org Gases ALL Temp degF 40 LDA 0.000 LDT 0.000 MDT 0.000 HDT 0.000 Page 6 Temperature: ALL UBUS 0.000 MCY 0.000 Relative Humidity: ALL 0.000 ponto-emfac.rts Title San Diego county APCD Avg 2030 winter Default Title version Emfac2002 V2.2 sept 23 2002 Run Date 10/19/06 15:36:08 seen Year: 2030 --Model Years: 1985 to 2030 season winter Area : san Diego county APCD Dis ************************************************************************************ ***** Year:2030 --Model Years 1985 to 2030 Inclusive --winter Emfac2002 Emission Factors: V2.2 Sept 23 2002 District Average District Average San Diego county APCD Table Sb: Multi-Day Diurnal LOSS Emissions (grams/hour) Pollutant Name: Reactive org Gases Temperature: ALL Relative Hurni dity: . ALL Temp degF LDA LDT MDT HDT UBUS MCY ALL 40 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Title San Diego county APCD Avg 2030 winter Default Title version Emfac2002 v2.2 sept 23 2002 Run Date 10/19/06 15:36:08 seen Year: 2030 --Model Years: 1985 to 2030 season winter Area : San Diego county APCD Dis ************************************************************************************ ***** Year:2030 --Model Years 1985 to 2030 Inclusive --winter Emfac2002 Emission Factors: v2.2 sept 23 2002 District Average county APCD District Average San Diego Table 6a: Partial Day Resting Loss Emissions (grams/hour) Pollutant Name: Reactive org Gases ALL Temp degF 40 LDA 0.000 LDT 0.000 MDT 0.000 HDT 0.000 Page 7 Temperature: ALL UBUS 0.000 MCY 0.000 Relative Humidity: ALL 0.000 ponto-emfac.rts Title San Diego county APCD Avg 2030 winter Default Title version Emfac2002 v2.2 sept 23 2002 Run Date 10/19/06 15:36:08 seen Year: 2030 --Model Years: 1985 to 2030 season winter Area : san Diego county APCD Dis ************************************************************************************ ***** vear:2030 --Model Years 1985 to 2030 Inclusive --winter Emfac2002 Emission Factors: v2.2 sept 23 2002 District Average District Average county APCD San Diego Table 6b: Multi-Day Resting LOSS Emissions (grams/hour) ALL Pollutant Temp degF 40 Name: LDA 0.000 Reactive org Gases LDT 0.000 MDT 0.000 HDT 0.000 Temperature: UBUS 0.000 ALL MCY 0.000 Title san Diego county APCD Avg 2030 winter Default Title version Emfac2002 v2.2 sept 23 2002 Run Date 10/19/06 15:36:08 seen Year: 2030 --Model Years: 1985 to 2030 season winter Area : san Diego county APCD Dis Relative ALL 0.000 Humidity: ************************************************************************************ ***** Year:2030 --Model Years 1985 to 2030 Inclusive --winter Emfac2002 Emission Factors: v2.2 sept 23 2002 District Average county APCD District Average San Diego Table 7: Estimated Travel Fractions ALL Pollutant Name: %VMT %TRIP %YEH LDA 0.549 0. 532 0.545 LDT 0.323 0.313 0.325 MDT 0.082 0.115 0.082 HDT 0.041 0.036 0.037 Page 8 Temperature: ALL UBUS 0.003 0.001 0.001 MCY 0.002 0.003 0.009 Relative Humidity: ALL 1.000 1.000 1.000 I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ponto-emfac.rts Title san Diego county APCD Avg 2030 winter Default Title version Emfac2002 v2.2 sept 23 2002 Run Date 10/19/06 15:36:08 seen Year: 2030 --Model Years: 1985 to 2030 season winter Area San Diego county APCD Dis ************************************************************************************ ***** Year:2030 --Model Years 1985 to 2030 Inclusive --winter Emfac2002 Emission Factors: V2.2 sept 23 2002 District Average county APCD (grams/minute) Table 8: Pollutant Name: Reactive org Gases ALL Time min 1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 LOA 0.008 0.007 0.008 0.010 0.011 0.014 0.016 0.018 0.019 0.020 0.021 0.022 0.023 0.023 0.024 0.025 -LDT 0.238 0.124 0.088 0.071 0.061 0.044 0.040 0.040 0.041 0.043 0.045 0.047 0.048 0.050 0.052 0.053 MDT 0.348 0.180 0.127 0.102 0.087 0.060 0.054 0.052 0.053 0.055 0.057 0.059 0.061 0.063 0.065 0.067 District Average San Diego Evaporative Running Loss Emissions HOT 0.227 0.117 0.080 0.063 0.053 0.032 0.027 0.024 0.024 0.023 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.025 0.025 0.025 Page 9 Temperature: 40F Relative Humidity: UBUS 0.744 0.383 0.265 0.206 0.172 0.105 0.087 0.080 0.079 0.083 0.086 0.089 0.093 0.096 0.099 0.101 MCY 0.005 0.039 0.058 0.070 0.079 0.101 0.114 0.125 0.134 0.141 0.147 0.153 0.159 0.165 0.170 0.175 ALL 0.121 0.065 0.047 0.040 0.036 0.029 0.028 0.028 0.029 0.031 0.032 0.033 0.035 0.036 0.037 0.038 I I I i 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 01.PalomarAirportRd-AveEncinas.txt CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: 1. Palomar Airport Road at Avenida Encin RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= .5 M/S 20= 100. CM ALT= 0. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= .0 CM/S CLAS= 7 (G)' VS= .0 CM/S MIXH= 1000 . · M AMB= 5.8 PPM SIGTH= 20. DEGREES TEMP= 4.4 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H w DESCRIPTION * Xl Yl X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ----------------*-------·------------------*------------------------------ A. Y SBl B. Y SB2 C. Y SB3 D. Y SB4 E. Y NBl F. Y NB2 G. Y NB3 H. Y NB4 I. Y LTl J. Y LT2 K. X EBl L. X EB2 M. X EB3 N. X EB4 o. X WBl P. X WB2 Q. X WB3 R. X WB4 s. X LTl T. X LT2 * 684 1256 711 1201 * AG 1333 .9 * 711 1201 746 1134 * AG 352 1.8 * 746 1134 800 1025 * AG 625 .9 * 800 1025 859 906 * AG 625 .9 * 869 911 814 1025 * AG 633 .9 * 815 1025 761 1138 * AG 549 1.8 * 761 1138 729 1205 * AG 624 .9 * 729 1205 701 1264 * AG 624 .9 * 721 1198 754 1135 * AG 981 1.8 * 754 1135 802 1039 * AG 87 1.8 * 596 1103 683 1125 * AG 456 .9 * 683 1125 751 1141 * AG 381 1.8 * 751 1141 827 1159 * AG 1362 .9 * 827 1159 923 1182 * AG 1362 .9 * 925 1170 832 1147 * AG 639 .9 * 832 1147 758 1128 * AG 366 1.8 * 758 1128 688 1112 * AG 453 .9 * 688 1112 599 1090 * AG 453 .9 * 675 1115 754 1135 * AG 75 1.8 * 754 1135 842 1157 * AG 273 1.8 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 2 Page 1 .0. 22.1 .0 22.1 .0 22.1 .0 22.1 .0 22.1 .0 22.1 .0 22.1 .0 22.1 .0 22.1 .0 22.1 .0 23.9 .0 23.9 .0 23.9 .0 23.9 .0 23.9 .0 23.9 .o 23.9 .0 23.9 .0 23.9 .0 23.9 I I I i I I I I I ·I I I I I I I I I I 01.PalomarAirportRd-AveEncinas.txt JOB: 1. Palomar Airport Road at Avenida Encin RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * RECEPTOR * COORDINATES (M) X Y Z ------------*--------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 806 1100 1.8 2. Recpt 2 * 691 1157 1.8 3. Recpt 3 * 729 1094 1.8 4. Recpt 4 * 778 1180 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE) * * PRED * * BRG * CONC * RECEPTOR * (DEG) * (PPM) * A B C CONC/LINK (PPM) D E F G H -------------*-------*-------*----------------------------------------1. Recpt 1 * 311. * 6.0 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * 97. * 6.0 * .0 .0 .o .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3. Recpt 3 * 49. * 5.9 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4. Recpt 4 * 179. * 5.9 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .o * CONC/LINK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * I J K L M N 0 p Q R s T ------------*------------------------------------------------------------1. Recpt 1 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3. Recpt 3 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4. Recpt 4 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Page 2 I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 03.PalomarAirportRd-I-5 NB Ramps.txt CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: 3. Palomar Airport Road at I-5 NB Ramps RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= .5 M/S 20= 100. CM ALT= 0. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= .0 CM/S CLAS= 7 (G) VS= .0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 5.8 PPM SIGTH= 20. DEGREES TEMP= 4.4 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H w DESCRIPTION * Xl Yl X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ----------------*-------------------------*------------------------------ A. Y SBl B. Y SB2 C. Y SB3 D. Y SB4 E. Y NBl F. Y NB2 G. Y NB3 H. Y NB4 I. Y LTl J. Y LT2 K. X EBl L. X EB2 M. X EB3 N. X EB4 0. X WBl P. X WB2 Q. X WB3 R. X WB4 s. X LTl T. X LT2 * 684 1256 711 1201 * AG 0 .9 * 711 1201 746 1134 * AG 0 1.8 * 746 1134 800 1025 * AG 0 .9 * 800 1025 859 906 * AG 0 .9 * 869 911 814 1025 * AG 705 .9 * 815 1025 761 1138 * AG 604 1.8 * 761 1138 729 1205 * AG 963 .9 * 729" 1205 701 1264 * AG 963 . 9 * 721 1198 754 1135 * AG 0 1.8 * 754 1135 802 1039 * AG 101 1.8 * 596 1103 683 1125 * AG 2227 .9 * 683 1125 751 1141 * AG 1868 1.8 * 751 1141 827 1159 * AG 1868 .9 * 827 1159 923 1182 * AG 1868 .9 * 925 1170 832 1147 * AG 1859 .9 * 832 1147 758 1128 * AG 1859 1.8 * 758 1128 688 1112 * AG 1950 .9 * 688 1112 599 1090 * AG 1950 .9 * 675 1115 754 1135 * AG 359 1.8 * 754 1135 842 1157 * AG 0 1.8 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 2 Page 1 .o 22.1 .0 22.1 .o 22.1 .o 22.1 .0 22.1 .o 22.1 .o 22.1 .o 22.1 .o 22.1 .o 22.1 .o 13.1 .o 13.1 .o 13.1 .0 13.1 .o 13.1 .o 13.1 .o 13.1 .0 13.1 .0 13.1 .0 13.1 I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I 03.PalomarAirportRd-I-5 NB Ramps.txt JOB: 3. Palomar Airport Road at I~5 NB Ramps RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: carbon Monoxide III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * RECEPTOR * COORDINATES (M) X Y Z ------------*---------------------1. Recpt 1 * 806 1100 1.8 2. Recpt 2 * 691 1157 1.8 3. Recpt 3 * 729 1094 1.8 4. Recpt 4 * 778 1180 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE) * * PRED * * BRG * CONC * RECEPTOR * (DEG) * (PPM) * A B C CONC/LINK (PPM) D E F G H -------------*-------*-------*---------------------------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 301. * 6.0 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * 121. * 6.0 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3. Recpt 3 * 51. * 6.0 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4. Recpt 4 * 228. * 6.0 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 * CONC/LINK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * I J K L M N 0 p Q R s T ------------*------------------------------------------------------------1. Recpt 1 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3. Recpt 3 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .o .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4. Recpt 4 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Page 2 I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I 04.PalomarAirportRd-PaseoDelNorte.txt CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: 4. Palomar Airport Road at Paseo Del Nor RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= .5 M/S 20= 100. CM ALT= 0. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= .0 CM/S CLAS= 7 (G) VS= .0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 5.8 PPM SIGTH= 20. DEGREES TEMP= 4.4 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H w DESCRIPTION * Xl Yl X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ----------------*-------------------------*------------------------------ A. Y SBl B. Y SB2 C. Y SB3 D. Y SB4 E. Y NBl F. Y NB2 G. Y NB3 H. Y NB4 I. Y LTl J. Y LT2 K. X EBl L. X EB2 M. X EB3 N. X EB4 0. X WBl P. X WB2 Q. X WB3 R. X WB4 s. X LTl T. X LT2 * 684 1256 711 1201 * AG 723 .9 * 711 1201 746 1134 * AG 489 1.8 * 746 1134 800 1025 * AG 800 .9 * 800 1025 859 906 * AG 800 .9 * 869 911 814 1025 * AG 561 .9 * 815 1025 761 1138 * AG 281 1.8 * 761 1138 729 1205 * AG 607 .9 * 729 1205 701 1264 * AG 607 .9 * 721 1198 754 1135 * AG 234 1.8 * 754 1135 802 1039 * AG 280 1.8 * 596 1103. 683 1125 * AG 2140 .9 * 683 1125 751 1141 * AG 1816 1.8 * 751 1141 827 1159 * AG 2050 .9 * 827 1159 923 1182 * AG 2050 .9 * 925 1170 832 1147 * AG 3079 .9 * 832 1147 758 1128 * AG 2768 1.8 * 758 1128 688 1112 * AG 3048 .9 * 688 1112 599 1090 * AG 3048 .9 * 675 1115 754 1135 * AG 326 1.8 * 754 1135 842 1157 * AG 311 1.8 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 2 Page 1 .0 34.7 .0 34.7 .0 34.7 .0 34.7 .0 34.7 .0 34.7 .0 34.7 .0 34.7 .0 34.7 .o 34.7 .0 27.5 .o 27.5 .o 27.5 .0 27.5 .0 27.5 .0 27.5 .0 27.5 .0 27. 5 .0 27.5 .0 27.5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 04.PalomarAirportRd-PaseoDelNorte.txt JOB: 4. Palomar Airport Road at Paseo Del Nor RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: carbon Monoxide III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * RECEPTOR * COORDINATES (M) X Y Z ------------*--------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 2. Recpt 2 * 3. Recpt 3 * 4. Recpt 4 * 806 1100 1.8 691 1157 1.8 729 1094 1.8 778 1180 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE) * * PRED * * BRG * CONC * RECEPTOR * (DEG) * (PPM) * A B C CONC/LINK (PPM) D E F G H -------------*-------*-------*----------------------------------------1. Recpt 1 * 305. * 6.1 * .o .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * 106. * 6.1 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3. Recpt 3 * 51. * 6.1 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4. Recpt 4 * 226. * 6.0 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 * CONC/LINK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * I J K L M N 0 p Q R s T ------------*------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Recpt 1 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3. Recpt 3 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .o .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 4. Recpt 4 * .0 .0 .0 .o .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Page 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,, I I I 05.PalomarAirportRd-Armada.txt CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: 5. Palomar Airport Road at Armada RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= .5 M/S 20= 100. CM ALT= o. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= .0 CM/S CLAS= 7 (G) VS= .0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 5. 8 PPM SIGTH= 20. DEGREES TEMP= 4.4 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H w DESCRIPTION * Xl Yl X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ----------------*-------------------------*------------------------------ A. Y SBl B. Y SB2 C. Y SB3 D. Y SB4 E. Y NBl F. Y NB2 G. Y NB3 H. Y NB4 I. Y LTl J. Y LT2 K. X EBl L. X EB2 M. X EB3 N. X EB4 o. X WBl P. X WB2 Q. X WB3 R. X WB4 s. X LTl T. X LT2 * 684 1256 711 1201 * AG 839 .9 * 711 1201 746 1134 * AG 414 1.8 * 746 1134 800 1025 * AG 699 .9 * 800 1025 859 906 * AG 699 .9 * 869 911 814 1025 * AG 688 .9 * 815 1025 761 1138 * AG 345 1.8 * 761 1138 729 1205 * AG 529 .9 * 729 1205 701 1264 * AG 529 .9 * 721 1198 754 1135 * AG 425 1.8 * 754 1135 802 1039 * AG 343 1.8 * 596 1103 683 1125 * AG 1357 .9 * 683 1125 751 1141 * AG 1273 1.8 * 751 1141 827 1159 * AG 1698 .9 * 827 1159 923 1182 * AG 1698 .9 * 925 1170 832 1147 * AG 2571 .9 * 832 1147 758 1128 * AG 2286 1.8 * 758 1128 688 1112 * AG 2629 .9 * 688 1112 599 1090 * AG 2629 .9 * 675 1115 754 1135 * AG 184 1.8 * 754 1135 842 1157 * AG 285 1.8 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 2 Page 1 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 25.7 .0 25.7 .0 25.7 .0 25.7 .0 25.7 .0 25.7 .0 25.7 .0 25.7 .0 25.7 .0 25.7 I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 05.PalomarAirportRd-Armada.txt JOB: 5. Palomar Airport Road at Armada RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: carbon Monoxide III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * RECEPTOR * COORDINATES (M) X Y Z ------------*---------------------1. Recpt 1 * 2. Recpt 2 * 3. Recpt 3 * 4. Recpt 4 * 806 1100 1.8 691 1157 1.8 729 1094 1.8 778 1180 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE) * * PRED * * BRG * CONC * RECEPTOR * (DEG) * (PPM) * A B C CONC/LINK (PPM) D E F G H -------------*-------*-------*---------------------------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 308. * 6.0 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * 105. * 6.0 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3. Recpt 3 * so. * 6.1 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4. Recpt 4 * 178. * 6.0 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 * CONC/LINK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * I J K L M N 0 p Q R s T ------------*------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Recpt 1 * .0 .o .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3. Recpt 3 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 4. Recpt 4 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .o .0 .0 Page 2 I ,.I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. 07.PalomarAirportRd-AviaraPkycollege.txt CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: 7. Palomar Airport Road at AviaraPky RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: carbon Monoxide SITE VARIABLES U= .5 M/S BRG= WORST CASE CLAS= 7 (G) MIXH= 1000. M SIGTH= 20. DEGREES 20= VD= VS= AMB= TEMP= 100. CM .0 CM/S .0 CM/S 5.8 PPM 4.4 DEGREE (C) ALT= II. LINK VARIABLES 0. (M) LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H W DESCRIPTION * Xl Yl X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ----------------*-------------------------*------------------------------ A. Y SBl B. Y SB2 C. Y SB3 D. Y SB4 E. ·Y NBl F. Y NB2 G. Y NB3 H. Y NB4 I. Y LTl J. Y LT2 K. X EBl L. X EB2 M. X EB3 N. X EB4 0. X WBl P. X WB2 Q. X WB3 R. X WB4 S. X LTl T. X LT2 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 684 1256 711 1201 746 1134 800 1025 869 911 815 1025 761 1138 729 1205 721 1198 754 1135 596 1103 683 1125 751 1141 827 1159 925 1170 832 1147 758 1128 688 1112 675 1115 754 1135 711 1201 * AG 746 1134 * AG 800 1025 * AG 859 906 * AG 814 1025 * AG 761 1138 * AG 729 1205 * AG 701 1264 * AG 754 1135 * AG 802 1039 * AG 683 1125 * AG 751 1141 * AG 827 1159 * AG 923 1182 * AG 832 1147 * AG 758 1128 * AG 688 1112 * AG 599 1090 * AG 754 1135 * AG 842 1157 * AG 1502 1429 1689 1689 457 289 674 674 73 168 1818 1423 1496 1496 1996 1716 1884 1884 395 260 .9 1.8 .9 .9 .9 1.8 .9 .9 1.8 1.8 .9 1.8 .9 .9 .9 1.8 .9 .9 1.8 1.8 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 2 Page 1 .0 38.3 .o 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 . 0 31.1 . 0 31.1 . 0 31.1 . 0 31.1 .0 31.1 . 0 31.1 . 0 31.1 .0 31.1 . 0 31.1 . 0 31.1 I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I, I I I 07.PalomarAirportRd-AviaraPkycollege.txt JOB: 7. Palomar Airport Road at AviaraPky RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * RECEPTOR * COORDINATES (M) X Y Z ------------*---------------------1. Recpt 1 * 806 1100 1.8 2. Recpt 2 * 691 1157 1.8 3. Recpt 3 * 729 1094 1.8 4. Recpt 4 * 778 1180 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE) * * PRED * * BRG * CONC * RECEPTOR * (DEG) * (PPM) * A B C CONC/LINK (PPM) D E F G H -------------*-------*-------*---------------------------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 305. * 6.0 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * 107. * 6.1 * .o .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .o 3. Recpt 3 * 3. * 6.0 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4. Recpt 4 * 230. * 6.0 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 * CONC/LINK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * I J K L M N 0 p Q R s T ------------*------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Recpt 1 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3. Recpt 3 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4. Recpt 4 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Page 2 I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 09.PalomarAirportRd-ElcaminoReal.txt CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: 9. Palomar Airport Road at El Cami no Real RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= .5 M/S 20= 100. CM ALT= 0. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= .0 CM/S CLAS= 7 (G) VS= .0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 5.8 PPM SIGTH= 20. DEGREES TEMP= 4.4 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H w DESCRIPTION * Xl Yl X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ----------------*-------------------------*------------------------------A. Y SBl B. Y SB2 C. Y SB3 D. Y SB4 E. Y NBl F. Y NB2 G. Y NB3 H. Y NB4 I. Y LTl J. Y LT2 K. X EBl L. X EB2 M. X EB3 N. X EB4 0. X WBl P. X WB2 Q. X WB3 R. X WB4 s. X LTl T. X LT2 * 684 1256 711 1201 * AG 1499 .9 * 711 1201 746 1134 * AG 418 1.8 * 746 1134 800 1025 * AG 1296 .9 * 800 1025 859 906 * AG 1296 .9 * 869 911 814 1025 * AG 1652 .9 * 815 1025 761 1138 * AG 1573 1.8 * 761 1138 729 1205 * AG 2040 .9 * 729 1205 701 1264 * AG 2040 .9 * 721 1198 754 1135 * AG 1081 1.8 * 754 1135 802 1039 * AG 79 1.8 * 596 1103 683 1125 * AG 2359 .9 * 683 1125 751 1141 * AG 1892 1.8 * 751 1141 827 1159 * AG 2973 .9 * 827 1159 923 1182 * AG 2973 .9 * 925 1170 832 1147 * AG 2151 .9 * 832 1147 758 1128 * AG 1273 1.8 * 758 1128 688 1112 * AG 1352 .9 * 688 1112 599 1090 * AG 1352 .9 * 675 1115 754 1135 * AG 467 1.8 * 754 1135 842 1157 * AG 878 1.8 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 2 Page 1 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 I I I I I I .I 'I I I I ·1 I I I I I I I 09.PalomarAirportRd-ElCaminoReal.txt JOB: 9. Palomar Airport Road at El caminoReal RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: carbon Monoxide III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * RECEPTOR * COORDINATES (M) X Y Z ------------*---------------------1. Recpt 1 * 2. Recpt 2 * 3. Recpt 3 * 4. Recpt 4 * 806 1100 1.8 691 1157 1.8 729 1094 1.8 778 1180 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE) * * PRED * * BRG * CONC * RECEPTOR * (DEG) * (PPM) * A B C CONC/LINK (PPM) D E F G H -------------*-------*-------*----------------------------------------1. Recpt 1 * 311. * 6.1 * .o .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .o .0 2. Recpt 2 * 102. * 6.1 * .o .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3. Recpt 3 * 50. * 6.1 * .o .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .o .0 4. Recpt 4 * 178. * 6.1 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 * CONC/LINK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * I J K L M N 0 p Q R s T ------------*------------------------------------------------------------1. Recpt 1 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * .0 .o .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .o 3. Recpt 3 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4. Recpt 4 * .0 .o .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .o Page 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I' I I, I I I 10.PalomarAirportRd-ElFuerta.txt CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: 10. Palomar Airport Road at El Fuerta RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= .5 M/S 20= 100. CM ALT= o. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= .0 CM/S CLAS= 7 (G) VS= .0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 5. 8 PPM SIGTH= 20. DEGREES TEMP= 4.4 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H w DESCRIPTION * Xl Yl X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ----------------*-------------------------*------------------------------ A. Y SBl B. Y SB2 C. Y SB3 D. Y SB4 E. Y NBl F. Y NB2 G. Y NB3 H. Y NB4 I. Y LTl J. Y LT2 K. X EBl L. X EB2 M. X EB3 N. X EB4 o. X WBl P. X WB2 Q. X WB3 R. X WB4 s. X LTl T. X LT2 * 684 1256 711 1201 * AG 923 .9 * 711 1201 746 1134 * AG 545 1.8 * 746 1134 800 1025 * AG 696 .9 * 800 1025 859 906 * AG 696 .9 * 869 911 814 1025 * AG 206 .9 * 815 1025 761 1138 * AG 155 1.8 * 761 1138 729 1205 * AG 238 .9 * 729 1205 701 1264 * AG 238 .9 * 721 1198 754 1135 * AG 378 1.8 * 754 1135 802 1039 * AG 51 1.8 * 596 1103 683 1125 * AG 3371 .9 * 683 1125 751 1141 * AG 3288 1.8 * 751 1141 827 1159 * AG 3666 .9 * 827 1159 923 1182 * AG 3666 .9 * 925 1170 832 1147 * AG 3040 .9 * 832 1147 758 1128 * AG 2889 1.8 * 758 1128 688 1112 * AG 2940 .9 * 688 1112 599 1090 * AG 2940 .9 * 675 1115 754 1135 * AG 83 1.8 * 754 1135 842 1157 * AG 151 1.8 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 2 Page 1 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 27.5 .0 27.5 .0 27.5 .0 27.5 .0 27.5 .0 27.5 .0 27.5 .0 27.5 .0 27.5 .0 27. 5 I I I I I I I I I -, I I :I I I I / 10.PalomarAirportRd-ElFuerta.txt JOB: 10. Palomar Airport Road at El Fuerta RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: carbon Monoxide III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * RECEPTOR * COORDINATES (M) X Y Z ------------*---------------------1. Recpt 1 * 2. Recpt 2 * 3. Recpt 3 * 4. Recpt 4 * 806 1100 1.8 691 1157 1.8 729 1094 1.8 778 1180 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE) * * PRED * * BRG * CONC * RECEPTOR * (DEG) * (PPM) * A B C CONC/LINK (PPM) D E F G H -------------*-------*-------*----------------------------------------1. Recpt 1 * 305. * 6.1 * .0 .0 .0 .o .0 .0 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * 106. * 6.1 * .0 .0 .0 .o .0 .0 .o .0 3. Recpt 3 * 50. * 6.1 * .0 .0 .0 .o .0 .0 .0 .0 4. Recpt 4 * 229. * 6.1 * .0 .0 .0 .o .0 .0 .o .0 * CONC/LINK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * I J K L M N 0 p Q R s T ------------*------------------------------------------------------------1. Recpt 1 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .o .o .o .0 .0 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 .o .o .0 .0 .,o .0 .0 3. Recpt 3 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .o .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 4. Recpt 4 * .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 .o .o .o .0 .0 .0 .0 Page 2 I I· I I I I I ,I I 11.PalomarAirportRd-Melrose.txt CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: 11. Palomar Airport Road at Melrose RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= .5 M/S ZO= 100. CM ALT= 0. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= .0 CM/S CLAS= 7 (G) VS= .0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 5.8 PPM SIGTH= 20. DEGREES TEMP= 4.4 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H w DESCRIPTION * Xl Yl X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ----------------*-'-----------------------*------------------------------ A. Y SBl B. Y SB2 C. Y SB3 D. Y SB4 E. Y NBl F. Y NB2 G. Y NB3 H. Y NB4 I. Y LTl J. Y LT2 K. X EBl L. X EB2 M. X EB3 N. X EB4 o. X WBl P. X WB2 Q. X WB3 R. X WB4 s. X LTl T. X LT2 * 684 1256 711 1201 * AG 2337 .9 * 711 1201 746 1134 * AG 2230 1.8 * 746 1134 800 1025 * AG 2813 .9 * 800 1025 859 906 * AG 2813 .9 * 869 911 814 1025 * AG 1080 .9 * 815 1025 761 1138 * AG 866 1.8 * '761 1138 729 1205 * AG 1251 .9 * 729 1205 701 1264 * AG 1251 .9 * 721 1198 754 1135 * AG 107 1.8 * 754 1135 802 1039 * AG 214 1.8 * 596 1103 683 1125 * AG 2024 .9 * 683 1125 751 1141 * AG 1639 1.8 * 751 1141 827 1159 * AG 1746 .9 * 827 1159 923 1182 * AG 1746 .9 * 925 1170 832 1147 * AG 1932 .9 * 832 1147 758 1128 * AG 1349 1.8 * 758 1128 688 1112 * AG 1563 .9 * 688 1112 599 1090 * AG 1563 .9 * 675 1115 754 1135 * AG 385 1.8 * 754 1135 842 1157 * AG 583 1.8 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 2 Page 1 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 .0 38.3 I ·1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 11.PalomarAirportRd-Melrose.txt JOB: 11. Palomar Airport Road at Melrose RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: carbon Monoxide III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * RECEPTOR * COORDINATES (t,1) X Y Z ------------*---------------------1. Recpt 1 * 2. Recpt 2 * 3. Recpt 3 * 4. Recpt 4 * 806 1100 1.8 691 1157 1.8 729 1094 1.8 778 1180 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE) * * PRED * CONC/LINK * BRG * CONC * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (DEG)* (PPM)* A B C D E F G H -------------*-------*-------*----------------------------------------1. Recpt 1 * 307. * 2. Recpt 2 * 106. * 3. Recpt 3 * 6. * 4. Recpt 4 * 230. * * * RECEPTOR * I J 6.1 * 6.1 * 6.1 * 6.1 * K L .0 .0 .0 .0 M .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 CONC/LINK (PPM) N 0 p .0 .o .0 .0 Q .0 .0 .0 .0 R .o .o .o .o s .0 .0 .0 .0 T ------------*------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Recpt 1 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .o .0 .0 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .o .0 .0 .o .0 .0 .0 .0 3. Recpt 3 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .o .0 .0 .0 .0 4. Recpt 4 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .o .0 .0 .o .0 .0 .0 .0 Page 2 I I I I ,, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 14.Pointsettia-carlsbad.txt CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: 14. Pointsettia Ln at Carlsbad Bl RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= .5 M/S 20= 100. CM ALT= 0. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= .o CM/S CLAS= 7 (G) VS= .0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 5.8 PPM SIGTH= 20. DEGREES TEMP= 4.4 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H w DESCRIPTION * Xl Yl X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ----------------*-------------------------*------------------------------ A. Y SBl B. Y SB2 C. Y SB3 D. Y SB4 E. Y NBl F. Y NB2 G. Y NB3 H. Y NB4 I. Y LTl J. Y LT2 K. X EBl L. X EB2 M. X EB3 N. X EB4 o. X WBl P. X WB2 Q. X WB3 R. X WB4 s. X LTl T. X LT2 * 684 1256 711 1201 * AG 1521 .9 * 711 1201 746 1134 * AG 1350 1.8 * 746 1134 800 1025 * AG 1571 .9 * 800 1025 859 906 * AG 1571 .9 * 869 911 814 1025 * AG 977 .9 * 815 1025 761 1138 * AG 966 1.8 * 761 1138 729 1205 * AG 968 .9 * 729 1205 701 1264 * AG 968 .9 * 721 1198 754 1135 * AG 171 1.8 * 754 1135 802 1039 * AG 11 1.8 * 596 1103 683 1125 * AG 34 .9 * 683 1125 751 1141 * AG 32 1.8 * 751 1141 827 1159 * AG 203 . 9 * 827 1159 923 1182 * AG 203 .9 * 925 1170 832 1147 * AG 384 .9 * 832 1147 7.58 1128 * AG 163 1.8 * 758 1128 688 1112 * AG 174 .9 * 688 1112 599 1090 * AG 174 .9 * 675 1115 754 1135 * AG 2 1.8 * 754 1135 842 1157 * AG 221 1.8 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 2 Page 1 .0 27.5 .0 27.5 .0 27.5 .0 27.5 .0 27.5 .0 27.5 .0 27.5 .0 27.5 .0 27.5 .0 27.S .0 27.5 .0 27.5 .0 27.5 .0 27.5 .0 27.5 .0 27.5 .0 27.5 .0 27. 5 .0 27.5 .0 27.5 I I I I I I I I I I I .I I I I 14.Pointsettia-carlsbad.txt JOB: 14. Pointsettia Ln at Carlsbad Bl RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: carbon Monoxide III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * RECEPTOR * COORDINATES (M) X Y Z ------------*---------------------1. Recpt 1 * 2. Recpt 2 * 3. Recpt 3 * 4. Recpt 4 * 806 1100 1.8 691 1157 1.8 729 1094 1.8 778 1180 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE) * * PRED * CONC/LINK * BRG * CONC * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (DEG) *(PPM)* A B C D E F G H ------------*-------*-------*---------------------------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 308. * 2. Recpt 2 * 99. * 3. Recpt 3 * 6. * 4. Recpt 4 * 178. * * * RECEPTOR * I J 6.0 * 5.9 * 5.9 * 5.9 * K L .o .0 .0 .0 M .0 .0 .0 .0 .o .0 .0 .0 .o .0 .0 .0 CONC/LINK (PPM) N 0 p .o .0 .0 .0 Q .0 .0 .0 .0 R .0 .0 .0 .0 s .0 .0 .0 .0 T ------------*------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Recpt 1 * .0 .o .0 .o .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * .0 .0 .o .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .o 3. Recpt 3 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4. Recpt 4 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .o Page 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 15.Poinsettia-AveEncinas.txt CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: 15. Poinsettia Ln at Avenida Encinas RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= .5 M/S 20= 100. CM ALT= o. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= .0 CM/S CLAS= 7 (G) VS= .0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 5.8 PPM SIGTH= 20. DEGREES TEMP= 4.4 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H w DESCRIPTION * Xl Yl X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ----------------*-------------------------*------------------------------A. Y SBl B. Y SB2 C. Y SB3 D. Y SB4 E. Y NBl F. Y NB2 G. Y NB3 H. Y NB4 I. Y LTl J. Y LT2 K. X EBl L. X EB2 M. X EB3 N. X EB4 o. X WBl P. X WB2 Q. X WB3 R. X WB4 s. X LTl T. X LT2 * 684 1256 711 1201 * AG 605 .9 * 711 1201 746 1134 * AG 289 1.8 * 746 1134 800 1025 * AG 623 .9 * 800 1025 859 906 * AG 623 .9 * 869 911 814 1025 * AG 626 .9 * 815 1025 761 1138 * AG 542 1.8 * 761 1138 729 1205 * AG 606 .9 * 729 1205 701 1264 * AG 606 .9 * 721 1198 754 1135 * AG 316 1.8 * 754 1135 802 1039 * AG 84 1.8 * 596 1103 683 1125 * AG 278 .9 * 683 1125 751 1141 * AG 214 1.8 * 751 1141 827 1159 * AG 530 .9 * 827 1159 923 1182 * AG 530 .9 * 925 1170 832 1147 * AG 673 .9 * 832 1147 758 1128 * AG 339 1.8 * 758 1128 688 1112 * AG 423 .9 * 688 1112 599 1090 * AG 423 .9 * 675 1115 754 1135 * AG 64 1.8 * 754 1135 842 1157 * AG 334 1.8 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 2 Page 1 .o 31.1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .o 31.1 .0 31.1 .o 31.1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .0 20.3 .0 20.3 .0 20.3 .0 20.3 .0 20.3 .0 20.3 .0 20.3 .0 20.3 .0 20.3 .0 20.3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 15.Poinsettia-AveEncinas.txt JOB: 15. Poinsettia Ln at Avenida Encinas RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: carbon Monoxide III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * RECEPTOR * COORDINATES (M) X Y Z ------------*--------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 806 1100 1.8 2. Recpt 2 * 691 1157 1.8 3. Recpt 3 * 729 1094 1.8 4. Recpt 4 * 778 1180 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE) * * PRED * CONC/LINK * BRG * CONC , * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (DEG)* (PPM) * A B C D E F G H -------------*-------*-------*---------------------------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 310. * 5.9 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * 102. * 5.9 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3. Recpt 3 * so. * 5.9 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4. Recpt 4 * 178. * 5.9 * .0 .0 .0 .o .0 .0 .0 .0 * CONC/LINK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * I J K L M N 0 p Q R s T ------------*------------------------------------------------------------1. Recpt 1 * 2. 1 Recpt 2 * 3. Recpt 3 * 4. Recpt 4 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .o .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Page 2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .o .0 .o .o .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 16.Poinsettia-I-5 SB Ramp.txt CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: 16. Poinsettia Ln at I-5 SB Ramp RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= .5 M/S 20= 100. CM ALT= 0. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= .0 CM/S CLAS= 7 (G) VS= .0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 5.8 PPM SIGTH= 20. DEGREES TEMP= 4.4 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) · * EF H w DESCRIPTION * Xl Yl X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ----------------*-------------------------*------------------------------ A. Y SBl B. Y SB2· C. Y SB3 D. Y SB4 E. Y NBl F. Y NB2 G. Y NB3 H. Y NB4 I. Y LTl J. Y LT2 K. X EBl L. X EB2 M. X EB3 N. X EB4 0. X WBl P. X WB2 Q. X WB3 R. X WB4 s. X LTl T. X LT2 * 684 1256 711 1201 * AG 377 .9 * 711 1201 746 1134 * AG 55 1.8 * 746 1134 800 1025 * AG 1050 .9 * 800 1025 859 906 * AG 1050 .9 * 869 911 814 1025 * AG 0 .9 * 815 1025 761 1138 * AG 0 1.8 * 761 1138 729 1205 * AG 0 .9 * 729 1205 701 1264 * AG 0 .9 * 721 1198 754 1135 * AG 322 1.8 * 754 1135 802 1039 * AG 0 1.8 * 596 1103 683 1125 * AG 1595 .9 * 683 1125 751 1141 * AG 1595 1.8 * 751 1141 827 1159 * AG 1917 .9 * 827 1159 923 1182 * AG 1917 .9 * 925 1170 832 1147 * AG 1853 .9 * 832 1147 758 1128 * AG 858 1.8 * 758 1128 688 1112 * AG 858 .9 * 688 1112 599 1090 * AG 858 .9 * 675 1115 754 1135 * AG 0 1.8 * 754 1135 842 1157 * AG 995 1.8 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 2 Page 1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .o 31.1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .0 13.1 .0 13.1 .0 13.1 .0 13.1 .0 13.1 .0 13.1 .0 13.1 .0 13.1 .0 13.1 .0 13.1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 16.Poinsettia-I-5 SB Ramp.txt JOB: 16. Poinsettia Ln at I-5 SB Ramp RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: carbon Monoxide III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * RECEPTOR * COORDINATES (M) X Y Z ------------*--------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 806 1100 1.8 2. Recpt 2 * 691 1157 1.8 3. Recpt 3 * 729 1094 1.8 4. Recpt 4 * 778 1180 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE) * * PRED * * BRG * CONC * RECEPTOR * (DEG) * (PPM) * A B C CONC/LINK (PPM) D E F G H -------------*-------*-------*----------------------------------------1. Recpt 1 * 307. * 5.9 * .0 .o .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .o 2. Recpt 2 * 103. * 6.0 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3. Recpt 3 * 50. * 6.0 * .0 .o .0 .0 .0 .0 .o .o 4. Recpt 4 * 178. * 6.0 * .0 .o .0 .o .0 .0 .0 .0 * CONC/LINK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * I J K L M N 0 p Q R s T ------------*------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Recpt 1 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .o .0 .0 3. Recpt 3 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .o .0 .0 4. Recpt 4 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .o .0 .0 .0 .o .0 .0 Page 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 17.Poinsettia-I-5 NB Ramps.txt CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: 17. Poinsettia Ln at I-5 NB Ramp RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: Carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= .5 M/S 20= 100. CM ALT= 0. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= .0 CM/S CLAS= 7 (G) VS= .0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 5.8 PPM SIGTH= 20. DEGREES TEMP= 4.4 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H w DESCRIPTION ·* Xl Yl X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ----------------*-------------------------*------------------------------ A. Y SBl B. Y SB2 C. Y 5B3 D. Y SB4 E. Y NBl F. Y NB2 G. Y NB3 H. Y NB4 I. Y LTl J. Y LT2 K. X EBl L. X EB2 M. X EB3 N. X EB4 0. X WBl P. X WB2 Q. X WB3 R. X WB4 s. X LTl T. X LT2 * 684 1256 711 1201 * AG 0 .9 * 711 1201 746 1134 * AG 0 1.8 * 746 1134 800 1025 * AG 0 .9 * 800 1025 859 906 * AG 0 .9 * 869 911 814 1025 * AG 1214 .9 * 815 1025 761 1138 * AG 967 1.8 * 761 1138 729 1205 * AG 1049 .9 * 729 1205 701 1264 * AG 1049 .9 * 721 1198 754 1135 * AG 0 1.8 * 754 1135 802 1039 * AG 247 1.8 * 596 1103 683 1125 * AG 1326 .9 * 683 1125 751 1141 * AG 1244 1.8 * 751 1141 827 1159 * AG 1244 .9 * 827 1159 923 1182 * AG 1244 .9 * 925 1170 832 1147 * AG 1853 .9 * 832 1147 758 1128 * AG 1853 1.8 * 758 1128 688 1112 * AG 2100 .9 * 688 1112 599 1090 * AG 2100 .9 * 675 1115 754 1135 * AG 82 1.8 * 754 1135 842 1157 * AG 0 1.8 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 2 Page 1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .o 13.1 .0 13.1 .0 13.1 .0 13.1 .0 13.1 .o 13.1 .o 13.1 .0 13.1 .0 13.1 .0 13.1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 17.Poinsettia-I-5 NB Ramps.txt JOB: 17. Poinsettia Ln at I-5 NB Ramp RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: carbon Monoxide III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * RECEPTOR * COORDINATES (M) X Y Z ------------*---------------------1. Recpt 1 * 2. Recpt 2 * 3. Recpt 3 * 4. Recpt 4 * 806 1100 1.8 691 1157 1.8 729 1094 1.8 778 1180 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE) * * PRED * * ·BRG * CONC * RECEPTOR * (DEG) * (PPM) * A B C CONC/LINK (PPM) D E F G H -------------*-------*-------*----------------------------------------1. Recpt 1 * 301. * 6.0 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * 121. * 6.0 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3. Recpt 3 * 51. * 6.0 * .o .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .o .0 4. Recpt 4 * 177. * 6.0 * .0 .o .o .0 .0 .0 .0 .o * CONC/LINK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * I J K L M N 0 p Q R s T ------------*------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Recpt 1 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .o .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .o .0 .0 3. Recpt 3 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4. Recpt 4 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .o .0 .0 Page 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 18.Poinsettia-PaseoDelNorte.txt CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: 18. Poinsettia Ln at Paseo Del Norte RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= .5 M/S 20= 100. CM ALT= 0. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= .0 CM/S CLAS= 7 (G) VS= .0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 5.8 PPM SIGTH= 20. DEGREES TEMP= 4.4 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H w DESCRIPTION * Xl Yl X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ----------------*-------------------------*------------------------------ A. Y SBl B. Y SB2 c. Y SB3 D. Y SB4 E. Y NBl F. Y NB2 G. Y NB3 H. Y NB4 I. Y LTl J. Y LT2 K. X EBl L. X EB2 M. X EB3 N. X EB4 o. X WBl P. X WB2 Q. X WB3 R. X WB4 s. X LTl T. X LT2 * 684 1256 711 1201 * AG 618 .9 * 711 1201 746 1134 * AG 505 1.8 * 746 1134 800 1025 * AG 534 .9 * 800 1025 859 906 * AG 534 .9 * 869 911 814 1025 * AG 34 .9 * 815 1025 761 1138 * AG 16 1.8 * 761 1138 729 1205 * AG 500 .9 * 729 1205 701 1264 * AG 500 .9 * 721 1198 754 1135 * AG 113 1.8 * 754 1135 802 1039 * AG 18 1.8 * 596 1103 683 1125 * AG 1580 .9 * 683 1125 751 1141 * AG 1096 1.8 * 751 1141 827 1159 * AG 1209 .9 * 827 1159 923 1182 * AG 1209 .9 * 925 1170 832 1147 * AG 1127 .9 * 832 1147 758 1128 * AG 1098 1.8 * 758 1128 688 1112 * AG 1116 .9 * 688 1112 599 1090 * AG 1116 .9 * 675 1115 754 1135 * AG 484 1.8 * 754 1135 842 1157 * AG 29 1.8 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 2 Page 1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .o 31.1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .o" 31~1 .0 20.3 .0 20.3 .o 20.3 .0 20.3 .0 20.3 .0 20.3 .0 20.3 .0 20.3 .0 20.3 .0 20.3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 18.Poinsettia-PaseoDelNorte.txt JOB: 18. Poinsettia Ln at Paseo Del Norte RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: carbon Monoxide III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * RECEPTOR * COORDINATES (M) X Y Z ------------*---------------------1. Recpt 1 * 2. Recpt 2 * 3. Recpt 3 * 4. Recpt 4 * 806 1100 1.8 691 1157 1.8 729 1094 1.8 778 1180 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE) * * PRED * * BRG * CONC * RECEPTOR * (DEG) * (PPM) * A B C CONC/LINK (PPM) D E F G H -------------*-------*-------*---------------------------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 302. * 5.9 * .0 .0 .o .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * 108. * 6.0 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3. Recpt 3 * 1. * 6.0 * .0 .0 .o .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4. Recpt 4 * 229. * 6.0 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .o .0 .0 .o * CONC/LINK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * I J K L M N 0 p Q R s T ------------*------------------------------------------------------------1. Recpt 1 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .o .0 .0 .0 3. Recpt 3 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .o .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4. Recpt 4 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .o .0 .0 .0 Page 2 I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I 21.Poinsettia-Aviara.txt CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: 21. Poinsettia Ln at Aviara Parkwa) RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE POLLUTANT: carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= .5 M/S ZO= 100. CM ALT= 0. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= .0 CM/S CLAS= 7 (G) VS= .0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 5.8 PPM SIGTH= 20. DEGREES TEMP= 4.4 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H w DESCRIPTION * Xl Yl X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ----------------*-------------------------*------------------------------ A. Y SBl B. Y SB2 C. Y 5B3 D. Y SB4 E. Y NBl F. Y NB2 G. Y NB3 H. Y NB4 I. Y LTl J. Y LT2 K. X EBl L. X EB2 M. X EB3 N. X EB4 0. X WBl P. X WB2 Q. X WB3 R. X WB4 s. X LTl T. X LT2 * 684 1256 711 1201 * AG 1146 .9 * 711 1201 746 1134 * AG 970 1.8 * 746 1134 BOO 1025 * AG 994 .9 * 800 1025 859 906 * AG 994 .9 * 869 911 814 1025 * AG 627 .9 * 815 1025 761 1138 * AG 285 '1.8 * 761 1138 729 1205 * AG 503 .9 * 729 1205 701 1264 * AG 503 .9 * 721 1198 754 1135 * AG 176 1.8 * 754 1135 802 1039 * AG 342 1.8 * 596 1103 683 1125 * AG 938 .9 * 683 1125 751 1141 * AG 720 1.8 * 751 1141 827 1159 * AG 896 .9 * 827 1159 923 1182 * AG 896 .9 * 925 1170 832 1147 * AG 645 .9 * 832 1147 758 1128 * AG 621 1.8- * 758 1128 688 1112 * AG 963 .9 * 688 1112 599 1090 * AG 963 .9 * 675 1115 754 1135 * AG 218 1.8 * 754 1135 842 1157 * AG 24 1.8 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 2 Page 1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .0 27.5 .0 27.5 .0 27.5 .0 27.5 .0 27.5 .0 27.5 .0 27.5 .0 27.5 .0 27.5 .0 27.5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 21.Poinsettia-Aviara.txt JOB: 21. Poinsettia Ln at Aviara Parkway RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: carbon Monoxide III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * RECEPTOR * COORDINATES (M) X Y Z ------------*--------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 806 1100 1.8 2. Recpt 2 * 691 1157 1.8 3. Recpt 3 * 729 1094 1.8 4. Recpt 4 * 778 1180 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE) * * PRED * CONC/LINK * BRG * CONC * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (DEG) *(PPM)* A B C D E F G H -------------*-------*-------*---------------------------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 301. * 2. Recpt 2 * 112. * 3. Recpt 3 * 3. * 4. Recpt 4 * 230. * * * RECEPTOR * I J 6.0 * 6.0 * 6.0 * 5.9 * K L .0 .0 .0 .0 M .o .0 .o .0 .0 :o .o .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 CONC/LINK (PPM) N 0 p .0 .0 .o .o Q .0 .0 .0 .0 R .0 .0 .0 .0 s .0 .0 .0 .0 T ------------*------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Recpt 1 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .o .0 .0 .0 .o .0 2. Recpt 2 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3. Recpt 3 * .0, .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .o .0 4. Recpt 4 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .o .0 Page 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 23.ElcaminoReal-caminovidaRoble.txt CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: 23. El Camino Real at Camino Vida Roble RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= .5 M/S 20= 100. CM ALT= 0. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= .0 CM/S CLAS= 7 (G) VS= .0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 5.8 PPM SIGTH= 20. DEGREES TEMP= 4.4 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H w DESCRIPTION * Xl Yl X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ----------------*-------------------------*------------------------------ A. Y SBl B. Y SB2 C. Y SB3 D. Y SB4 E. Y NBl F. Y NB2 G. Y NB3 H. Y NB4 I. Y LTl J. Y LT2 K. X EBl L. X EB2 M. X EB3 N. X EB4 0. X WBl P. X WB2 Q. X WB3 R. X WB4 s. X LTl T. X LT2 * 684 1256 711 1201 * AG 2456 .9 * 711 1201 746 1134 * AG 2436 1.8 * 746 1134 800 1025 * AG 2465 .9 * 800 1025 859 906 * AG 2465 .9 * 869 911 814 1025 * AG 1291 .9 * 815 1025 761 1138 * AG 1166 1.8 * 761 1138 729 1205 * AG 1432 .9 * 729 1205 701 1264 * AG 1432 .9 * 721 1198 754 1135 * AG 20 1.8 * 754 1135 802 1039 * AG 127 1.8 * 596 1103 683 1125 * AG 832 .9 * 683 1125 751 1141 * AG 564 1.8 * 751 1141 827 1159 * AG 584 .9 * 827 1159 923 1182 * AG 584 .9 * 925 1170 832 1147 * AG 61 .9 * 832 1147 758 1128 * AG 37 1.8 * 758 1128 688 1112 * AG 164 .9 * 688 1112 599 1090 * AG 164 .9 * 675 1115 754 1135 * AG 268 1.8 * 754 1135 842 1157 * AG 24 1.8 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 2 Page 1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .0 31.1 .0 29.0 .0 29.0 .0 29.0 .0 29.0 .0 29.0 .0 29.0 .0 29.0 .0 29.0 .0 29.0 .0 29.0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 23.ElcaminoReal-caminovidaRoble.txt JOB: 23. El Camino Real at Camino Vida Roble RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: carbon Monoxide III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS RECEPTOR * * COORDINATES (M) X Y Z ------------*--------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 2. Recpt 2 * 3. Recpt 3 * 4. Recpt 4 * 806 1100 1.8 691 1157 1.8 729 1094 1.8 778 1180 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE) * * PRED * CONC/LINK * BRG * CONC * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (DEG) *(PPM)* A B C D E F G H -------------*-------*-------*----------------------------------------1. Recpt 1 * 305. * 2. Recpt 2 * 118. * 3. Recpt 3 * 2. * 4. Recpt 4 * 233. * * * RECEPTOR * I J 6.0 * 6.0 * 6.0 * 6.0 * K L .0 .0 .0 .0 M .0 .0 .1 .o .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 CONC/LINK (PPM) N 0 p .0 .0 .0 .0 Q .0 .0 .0 .0 R .0 .o .0 .0 s .0 .0 .0 .0 T ------------*------------------------------------------------------------1. Recpt 1 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3. Recpt 3 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .o .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4. Recpt 4 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Page 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 28.LaCosta-carlsbad.txt CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: 28. La Costa Ave at Carlsbad Bl RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= BRG= CLAS= MIXH= SIGTH= .5 M/S WORST CASE 7 (G) 1000. M 5. DEGREES II. LINK VARIABLES 20= VD= VS= AMB= TEMP= 100. CM .0 CM/S .0 CM/S 5.8 PPM 4.4 DEGREE (C) ALT= 0. (M) LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H W DESCRIPTION * Xl Yl X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ----------------*-------------------------*------------------------------A. Link A * 6284 -181 6285 -247 * AG 816 .9 B. Link B * 6285 -247 6285 -300 * AG 437 1.8 C. Link C * 6285 -300 6280 -453 * AG 1035 .9 D. Link D * 6297 -461 6299 -378 * AG 1533 .9 E. Link E * 6299 -378 6298 -319 * AG 1533 .9 F. Link F * 6298 -319 6298 -177 * AG 1533 .9 G. Link G * 6285 -266 6300 -315 * AG 379 1.8 H. Link H * 6300 -315 6462 -325 * AG 379 .9 I. Link I * 6523 -314 6381 -311 * AG 1022 .9 J. Link J * 6381 -311 6298 -301 * AG 424 1.8 K. Link K * 6370 -310 6284 -326 * AG 598 1.8 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR * X y z ------------*--------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 6326 -281 1. 7 2. Recpt 2 * 6315 -340 1. 7 3. Recpt 3 * 6243 -327 1. 7 4. Recpt 4 * 6246 -277 1. 7 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION Page 1 .0 23.9 .0 23.9 .0 23.9 .0 23.9 .0 23.9 .0 23.9 .0 23.9 .0 13.1 .0 13.1 .0 13.1 .0 13.1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IV. 28.LaCosta-carlsbad.txt PAGE 2 JOB: 28. La Costa Ave at Carlsbad Bl RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: carbon Monoxide MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE) * * PRED * CONC/LINK * BRG * CONC * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (DEG) * (PPM) * A B C D E F G H -------------*-------*-------*---------------------------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 2. Recpt 2 * 3. Recpt 3 * 4. Recpt 4 * * * RECEPTOR * 200. * 343. * 84. * 107. * 6.0 * 6.1 * 6.0 * 6.0 * CONC/LINK (PPM) I J K ------------*--------------- 1. Recpt 1 * .0 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * .0 .o .0 3. Recpt 3 * .0 .0 .o 4. Recpt 4 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Page 2 .0 .0 .o .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .o .0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 29.Lacosta-vulcan.txt CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: 29. La Costa Ave at Vulcan Ave RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= BRG= CLAS= MIXH= SIGTH= .5 M/S WORST CASE 7 (G) 1000. M 5. DEGREES II. LINK VARIABLES , 20= VD= VS= AMB= TEMP= 100. CM .0 CM/S .0 CM/S 5.8 PPM 4.4 DEGREE LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * DESCRIPTION * Xl Yl X2 Y2 * TYPE (C) VPH ALT= EF (G/MI) 0. (M) H w (M) (M) ----------------*-------------------------*------------------------------A. Link A * 6284 -181 6285 -247 * AG 968 .9 B. Link B * 6285 -247 6285 -300 * AG 629 1.8 C. Link C * 6285 -300 6280 -453 * AG 798 .9 D. Link D * 6297 -461 6299 -378 * AG 1000 .9 E. Link E * 6299 -378 6298 -319 * AG 1000 .9 F. Link F * 6298 -319 6298 -177 * AG 1000 .9 G. Link G * 6285 -266 6300 -315 * AG 339 1.8 H. Link H * 6300 -315 6462 -325 * AG 339 .9 I. Link I * 6523 -314 6381 -311 * AG 478 .9 J. Link J * 6381 -311 6298 -301 * AG 309 1.8 K. Link K * 6370 -310 6284 -326 * AG 169 1.8 III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR * X y z ------------*---------------------1. Recpt 1 * 6326 -281 1. 7 2. Recpt 2 * 6315 -340 1. 7 3. Recpt 3 * 6243 -327 1. 7 4. Recpt 4 * 6246 -277 1. 7 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION Page 1 .0 13.1 .0 13.1 .0 13.1 .0 13.1 .0 13.1 .0 13.1 .0 13.1 .0 13.1 .0 13.1 .0 13.1 .0 13.1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 29.LaCosta-vulcan.txt PAGE 2 JOB: 29. La Costa Ave at Vulcan Ave I RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: carbon Monoxide IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE) * * PRED * CONC/LINK * BRG * CONC * (PPM) RECEPTOR * (DEG)* (PPM)* A B C D E F G H -------------*-------*-------*---------------------------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 199. * 5. 9 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * 339. * 6.0 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3. Recpt 3 * 84. * 5.9 * .0 .o .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4. Recpt 4 * 107. * 5.9 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 * CONC/LINK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * I J K ------------*--------------- 1. Recpt 1 * .0 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * .0 .0 .0 3. Recpt 3 * .0 .0 .o 4. Recpt 4 * .0 .0 .0 Page 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 33.LaCosta-ElcaminoReal.txt CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: 33. La Costa Ave at El Camino Real RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= .5 M/S 20= 100. CM ALT= 0. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= .0 CM/S CLAS= 7 (G) VS= .0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 5.8 PPM SIGTH= 20. DEGREES TEMP= 4.4 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H w DESCRIPTION * Xl Yl X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ----------------*-------------------------*------------------------------ A. Y SBl B. Y SB2 C. Y SB3 D. Y SB4 E. Y NBl F. Y NB2 G. Y NB3 H. Y NB4 I. Y LTl J. Y LT2 K. X EBl L. X EB2 M. X EB3 N. X EB4 o. X WBl P. X WB2 Q. X WB3 R. X WB4 s. X LTl T. X LT2 * 684 1256 711 1201 * AG 3058 .9 * 711 1201 746 1134 * AG 2747 1.8 * 746 1134 800 1025 * AG 2914 .9 * 800 1025 859 906 * AG 2914 .9 * 869 911 814 1025 * AG 2115 .9 * 815 1025 761 1138 * AG 1836 1.8 * 761 1138 729 1205 * AG 2465 .9 * 729 1205 701 1264 * AG 2465 .9 * 721 1198 754 1135 * AG 311 1.8 * 754 1135 802 1039 * AG 279 1.8 * 596 1103 683 1125 * AG 1523 .9 * 683 1125 751 1141 * AG 894 1.8 * 751 1141 827 1159 * AG 1205 .9 * 827 1159 923 1182 * AG 1205 .9 * 925 1170 832 1147 * AG 809 .9 * 832 1147 758 1128 * AG 642 1.8 * 758 1128 688 1112 * AG 921 .9 * 688 1112 599 1090 * AG 921 .9 * 675 1115 754 1135 * AG 629 1.8 * 754 1135 842 1157 * AG 167 1.8 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 2 Page 1 .0 29.0 .0 29.0 .0 29.0 .0 29.0 .0 29.0 .0 29.0 .0 29.0 .0 29.0 .0 29.0 .0 29.0 .0 29.0 .0 29.0 .0 29.0 .0 29.0 .0 29.0 .0 29.0 .0 29.0 .0 29.0 .0 29.0 .0 29.0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 33.LaCosta-ElcaminoReal.txt JOB: 33. La Costa Ave at El Camino Real RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: carbon Monoxide III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * COORDINATES (M) RECEPTOR * X Y Z ------------*--------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 2. Recpt 2 * 3. Recpt 3 * 4. Recpt 4 * 806 1100 1.8 691 1157 1.8 729 1094 1.8 778 1180 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE) * * PRED * * BRG * CONC * RECEPTOR * (DEG) * (PPM) * A B C CONC/LINK (PPM) D E F G H -------------*-------*-------*---------------------------------------- 1. Recpt 1 * 305. * 6.2 * .o .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .o .0 2. Recpt 2 * 108. * 6.1 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .o .0 3. Recpt 3 * 4. * 6.1 * .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4. Recpt 4 * 231. * 6.1 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .o .o .0 * CONC/LINK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * I J K L M N 0 p Q R s T ------------*------------------------------------------------------------1. Recpt 1 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .o .0 .0 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * .0 .0 .o .0 .0 .0 .0 .o .0 .0 .0 .0 3. Recpt 3 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .o .0 .0 .0 .0 4. Recpt 4 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .o .0 .0 .0 .0 Page 2 I I I I -1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 34.Leucadia-carlsbad.txt CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 1 JOB: 34. Leucadia Bl at Carlsbad Bl RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: carbon Monoxide I. SITE VARIABLES U= .5 M/S ZO= 100. CM ALT= 0. (M) BRG= WORST CASE VD= .0 CM/S CLAS= 7 (G) VS= .0 CM/S MIXH= 1000. M AMB= 5.8 PPM SIGTH= 20. DEGREES TEMP= 4.4 DEGREE (C) II. LINK VARIABLES LINK * LINK COORDINATES (M) * EF H w DESCRIPTION * Xl Yl X2 Y2 * TYPE VPH (G/MI) (M) (M) ----------------*-------------------------*------------------------------ A. Y SBl B. Y SB2 c. Y SB3 D. Y SB4 E. Y NBl F. Y NB2 G. Y NB3 H. Y NB4 I. Y LTl J. Y LT2 K. X EBl L. X EB2 M. X EB3 N. X EB4 o. X WBl P. X WB2 Q. X WB3 R. X WB4 s. X LTl T. X LT2 * 684 1256 711 1201 * AG 941 .9 * 711 1201 746 1134 * AG 665 1.8 * 746 1134 800 1025 * AG 880 .9 * 800 1025 859 906 * AG 880 .9 *-869 911 814 1025 * AG 1589 .9 * 815 1025 761 1138 * AG 1575 1.8 * 761 1138 729 1205 * AG 1617 .9 * 729 1205 701 1264 * AG 1617 .9 * 721 1198 754 1135 * AG 276 1.8 * 754 1135 802 1039 * AG 14 1.8 * 596 1103 683 1125 * AG 134 .9 * 683 1125 751 1141 * AG 92 1.8 * 751 1141 827 1159 * AG 368 .9 * 827 1159 923 1182 * AG 368 .9 * 925 1170 832 1147 * AG 474 .9 * 832 1147 758 1128 * AG 259 1.8 * 758 1128 688 1112 * AG 273 .9 * 688 1112 599 1090 * AG 273 .9 * 675 1115 754 1135 * AG 42 1.8 * 754 1135 842 1157 * AG 215 1.8 CALINE4: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL JUNE 1989 VERSION PAGE 2 Page 1 .0 20.1 .0 20.1 .0 20.1 .0 20.1 .0 20.1 .0 20.1 .0 20.1 .0 20.1 .0 20.1 .0 20.1 .0 23.9 .0 23.9 .0 23.9 .0 23.9 .0 23.9 .0 23.9 .0 23.9 .0 23.9 .0 23.9 .0 23.9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I :1 I I I I 34.Leucadia-carlsbad.txt JOB: 34. Leucadia Bl at Carlsbad Bl RUN: Hour 1 (WORST CASE ANGLE) POLLUTANT: carbon Monoxide III .. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS * RECEPTOR * COORDINATES (M) X Y Z ------------*---------------------1. Recpt 1 * 2. Recpt 2 * 3. Recpt 3 * 4. Recpt 4 * 806 1100 1.8 691 1157 1.8 729 1094 1. 8 778 1180 1.8 IV. MODEL RESULTS (WORST CASE WIND ANGLE) * * PRED * * BRG * CONC * RECEPTOR * (DEG) * (PPM) * A B C CONC/LINK (PPM) D E F G H -------------*-------*-------*----------------------------------------1. Recpt 1 * 307. * 6.0 * .0 .o .0 .0 .o .0 .0 .0 2. Recpt 2 * 108. * 5.9 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .o .0 .o .0 3. Recpt 3 * 52. * 5.9 * .0 .o .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4. Recpt 4 * 180. * 6.0 * .0 .o .0 .0 .o .0 .0 .0 * CONC/LINK * (PPM) RECEPTOR * I J K L M N 0 p Q R s T ------------*------------------------------------------------------------1. Recpt 1 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .o .0 2. Recpt 2 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .o .0 .0 .o .0 3. Recpt 3 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .o .0 .0 .o .0 4. Recpt 4 * .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .o .0 .0 .o .0 Page 2 APPENDIX C-1 Existing Conditions Report I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT FOR THE PONTO LAND USE STRATEGY AND VISION PROJECT .CITY OF CARLSBAD Prepared for ROBERT BEIN, WILLIAM FROST & ASSOCIATES CONTACT: DANIELLE PUTNUM 9755 CLAIREMONT MESA BL VD., SUITE 100 SAN DIEGO, CA 92124-1324 Prepared by WENDY LOEFFLER SENIOR BIOLOGIST I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS I Introduction 1 Survey Methods 1 I Existing Conditions 5 I A. Topography and Soils 5 B. Botany 6 I C. Zoology 10 D. Sensitive Biological Resources 12 I E. Jurisdictional Waters. 15 I F. Wildlife Movement Corridor 18 Potential Biological Constraints 18 I A. Sensitive Vegetation Communities 19 B. Sensitive Plants 20 I C. Sensitive Wildlife 20 I D. Jurisdictional Waters 20 E. Wildlife Movement Corridors 21 I References Cited 21 I FIGURES I 1: Regional Location 2 2: Project Location on USGS Map 3 3: Aerial Photograph of Project 4 I 4: Existing Biological Resources 7 Sa: USAGE and CDFG Jurisdictional Areas 16 Sb: USAGE and CDFG Jurisdictional Areas 17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.} TABLES 1: Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types 2: Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters ATTACHMENTS 1 : Plant Species Observed 2: Wildlife Species Observed or Detected 3: Sensitive Plant Species Observed or with the Potential for Occurrence 4: Sensitivity Codes 5: Sensitive Wildlife Species Known or with the Potential to Occur 6 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Introduction The study area for the Ponto Land Use Strategy and Vision Project is in the city of Carlsbad, California (Figure 1). The site spans Sections 29, 32, and 33 of Township 12 South, Range 4 West of the U.S. Geographic Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute topographic map Encinitas .quadrangle (Figure 2) (USGS 1968). The study area encompasses approximately 130.5 acres. The site is bounded by La Costa Avenue to the south, the Pacific Ocean to the west, and Poinsettia Lane to the north. South Carlsbad State Beach is within the western portion of the study area (Figure 3). Two unvegetated islands that are protected as preserves for the state and federally endangered California least tern ( Sterna antillarum brownit) are present at the mouth of Batiquitos Lagoon. These islands are adjacent to, but outside of, the study area. , The purpose of this study is to identify any potential biological constraints in support of preparation of a vision plan for development of the site. Survey Methods A general biological resources survey was conducted on June 3 and 5, 2003 by RECON biologist Amy Clark. A botanical survey was conducted by Brant Primrose on June 3 and 5, 2003. Plant communities were assessed and mapped. Animal species observed directly or detected from calls, tracks, scat, nests, or other sign were noted. All plant species observed on-site were also noted, and plants that could not be identified in the field were identified later using taxonomic keys. A wetland delineation was performed by RECON biologists Gerry Scheid and Darin Busby according to the guidelines set forth by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE; 1987) on June 2, 2003. A wetland delineation is used to identify and map the extent of wetlands and "waters of the U.S." found on-site and provide information regarding jurisdictional issues. Floral nomenclature for common plants follows Hickman (1993) and vegetation communities follow Holland (1986). Zoological nomenclature for birds is in accordance with the American Ornithologists' Union Checklist (1998) and Unitt (1984); for butterflies, Mattoni (1990) and Opler and Wright (1999); for mammals, Jones et al. (1997); and for amphibians and reptiles, Crother (2001 ). Assessments of the sensitivity of species and habitats are based primarily on California Native Plant Society (CNPS; 2001 ), State of California (2003a, 2003b), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS; 2002), and Holland (1986). 1 ------------------- .c (.) C: as cc <( = Pacific Ocean REC O N Del Mar , M:\iobs2\3842\bio\gis\biotec.opr\ fig 1 (reg I) 06/26/03 * Project location ...... ____ .. -·--------.. ___ _ UNINCORPO 0 Miles FIGURE 1 Regional Location - .c: () C: C'CS cc <( >-N C'CS ...J ------ + 0 REC ON M: \jobs2\384 2\bio \9 is\biotec.opr\ fig2 (usgs) 06/26/03 ---- \ Project location ------- 0 Feet FIGURE 2 Project Location on USGS Map - ------------------- .c (.) £: ca a: ct >a N ca ..J REC O N M: \jobs2\3842\bio \gis\biotec.opr\ fig3 (aerial) 06/26/03 \ Project location 0 Feet FIGURE 3 Aerial Photograph of Proiect I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Limitations to the compilation of a comprehensive floral checklist were imposed by seasonal factors, such as blooming period and emergence of some annual species. The faunal surveys were also limited by seasonal as well as temporal factors. Nocturnal animals were not observed directly as all surveys were performed during the day. In addition, species that are spring or fall migrants or species present within the area only during the winter may not have been detected. Existing Conditions A. Topography and Soils Elevation of the site ranges from approximately O to 60 feet above mean sea level (USGS 1968). Batiquitos Lagoon empties into the Pacific Ocean at the southern end of the site. A small terrace is present north of the mouth of the lagoon on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard. Three soil series-Coastal beaches, Marina, and Terrace escarpments-are mapped within the survey area (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1973). Characteristics of these soils are summarized below from the Soil Survey of San Diego Area, California (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1973). Coastal beaches (Cr) occur as gravelly and sandy beaches along the Pacific Ocean where the shore is washed and rewashed by ocean waves. Part of this land type is likely to be covered with water during high tide and stormy periods. This soil has rapid permeability. Marina loamy coarse sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes (MIC) and Marina loamy coarse sand, 9 to 30 percent slopes (MIE) are found on-site. These soils generally are found on beach ridges and are derived from weakly consolidated to noncoherent ferruginous eolian sand. Marina loamy coarse sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes, is found on the majority of the site. The soil has rapid permeability, slow to medium runoff, and a slight to moderate erosion hazard. Marina loamy coarse sand, 9 to 30 percent slopes is found in the southern portion of the site. This soil also has rapid permeability, medium to rapid runoff, and a moderate to high erosion hazard. Terrace escarpments (TeF) typically occur on the coastal plain and as small areas in the foothills and the desert. The soil occurs between narrow floodplains and adjoining uplands and the steep sides of drainages that are entrenching into level uplands. Typically, there are 4 to 10 inches of loamy or gravelly soil over soft marine sandstone, shale, or gravelly sediments. The soil has rapid runoff and a high erosion hazard. B. Botany Six vegetation communities were identified in the approximately 130.5-acre study area: coastal brackish marsh, southern coastal salt marsh, freshwater marsh, disturbed southern coastal bluff scrub, disturbed coastal sage scrub, and maritime succulent scrub. These communities account for approximately 18.5 acres of the site. The remainder and majority of the study area supports five additional land cover types: beach, disturbed lands, developed areas, open water, and non-vegetated floodway. Table 1 lists the acres of each vegetation community and land cover type and Figure 4 illustrates the location of each present within the study area. A total of 103 plant species was identified on the site (Attachment 1 ). Of this total, 62 (60 percent) are species native to southern California and 41 ( 40 percent) are introduced species. 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE 1 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND LAND COVER TYPES Vegetation Community Acres Coastal brackish marsh 1.89 Southern coastal salt marsh 1.97 Freshwater marsh 0.62 Disturbed southern coastal bluff scrub 7.56 Disturbed coastal sage scrub 5.95 Maritime succulent scrub 0.55 Beach 25.41 Disturbed lands 31.86 Developed 52.73 Open water 1.23 Non-vegetated floodwal 0.70 TOTAL 130.47 1. Coastal Brackish Marsh -1.89 acres Coastal brackish marshes are dominated by perennial, emergent, herbaceous monocots up to around two meters tall. These marshes are similar to coastal salt marshes and freshwater marshes, with a mix of the site and plant characteristics of each. Coastal brackish marshes are often adjacent to salt marshes at the edges of coastal bays and lagoons. Coastal brackish marshes receive water from both saline and freshwater inputs. Salinity may vary, increasing at high tide or during seasons of low freshwater runoff (Holland 1986). Areas of coastal brackish marsh occur adjacent to the South Carlsbad State Beach parking area. These areas are part of a habitat restoration project and are protected from human 6 - ..c (.) C ca a: <( ----------- Image Source: Copyright 2001 AirPhotoUSA, LLC, All Rights Reserved (flown January 2001) Pacific Ocean Vegetation communities ~::::::::·.,.❖:::;., I Coastal brackish marsh '=--'I Disturbed coastal sage scrub REC O N Disturbed southern coastal bluff scrub Southern coastal salt marsh Freshwater marsh Maritime succulent scrub ~--....,,..,,,,. ~MM Disturbed I i Open water i i Beach i i Developed Non-vegetated floodway ------ ,\\•. • • •• .,.-~• °:"l ■' ~ , ", \: ·. ' ', . ' .. • .. . . . ,·· ~ • l ol :-~. '. . ' \,~_ ·. ~ . l \~ •, ' . ••• ,# •"· ~ ._. Ir • • ♦ l . ~, . ' ... . •• ' =" • -~ .... '.. ·. , . ~ ...... , . ~. • • 'j .. ,t,. / ··""-· Batiquitos Lagoon \ Project location 0 Feet • California horned lark FIGURE 4 Existing Biological Resources - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I intrusion by rope fencing. Dominant plant species include broad-leaved cattail (Typha latifolia), sand verbena (Abronia umbellata), and sand spurry (Spergularia sp.). 2. Southern Coastal Salt Marsh -1.97 acres Southern coastal salt marsh consists of salt-tolerant herbaceous plant species and occurs in bays, estuaries, and lagoons in California from Point Conception to the Mexican border. Southern coastal salt marshes are highly productive ecosystems that are driven by tidal cycles, which bring a daily influx of nutrients (Holland 1986). Two areas of southern coastal salt marsh occur in the survey area. Both areas are in the median between south-and north-bound traffic lanes of Carlsbad Boulevard. Pickleweed (Salicornia virginica) and alkali heath (Frankenia salina) are the two dominant plant species occurring in this community. 3. Freshwater Marsh -0.62 acre Freshwater marsh is a community that consists of perennial emergent monocots such as cattails ( Typha spp.) and bulrush ( Scirpus spp. ). Freshwater marsh vegetation occurs in open bodies of fresh water with little current flow, such as ponds, and to a lesser extent around seeps and springs. The vegetation typically forms a closed canopy. Freshwater marsh communities, as with all wetland habitats, have been greatly reduced throughout their entire range and continue to decline as a result of urbanization. An area of freshwater marsh occurs adjacent to Batiquitos Lagoon and the Least Tern Preserve. The marsh is higher than the lagoon and therefore does not receive saltwater inflow. The dominant plants in this community include broad-leaved cattail, spiny rush (Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldil), and California bulrush (Scirpus californicus). 4. Disturbed Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub-7.56 acres Southern coastal bluff scrub occurs at localized sites along the coast south of Point Conception. The plant composition is mostly woody and/or succulent and low to somewhat prostrate, up to two meters tall. The majority of growth and flowering occurs from late winter through spring. Disturbed southern coastal bluff scrub is present on the bluff above South Carlsbad State Beach. Dominant plant species include crystalline ice plant (Mesembryanthemum crystallinum), beach evening primrose (Camissonia cheiranthifolia ssp. cheiranthifolia), Hottentot fig (Carpobrotus edulis), and sea rocket (Caki/e maritima). 5. Disturbed Coastal Sage Scrub -5.95 acres Coastal sage scrub is a plant community comprised of low-growing, aromatic, drought- deciduous soft-woody shrubs that have an average height of approximately three to four feet. The plant community is typically dominated by facultatively drought deciduous species such as California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), laurel sumac (Ma/osma /aurina), and white sage (Salvia apiana). The community typically is found on low moisture-availability sites with steep, xeric slopes or clay rich soils that are slow to release stored water. These sites often include drier south-and west-facing slopes and occasionally north-facing slopes, where the community can act as a successional phase of chaparral development. Coastal sage scrub intergrades at higher elevations with several types of chaparrals, or in drier more inland areas with Riversidian sage scrub. Coastal sage scrub is found in coastal areas from Los Angeles County south into Baja California (Holland 1986). Disturbed coastal sage scrub is located within the median of Carlsbad Boulevard and adjacent to coastal brackish marsh on the north side of the South Carlsbad State Beach 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I, I I I parking area. The dominant native plant species include California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), common encelia (Encelia californica), and California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum var. foliolosum). These areas of coastal sage scrub are considered disturbed due to the presence of non-native invasive and/or ornamental species such as scarlet pimpernel (Anagallis arvensis), smooth cat's-ear (Hypocharis glauca), sour clover (Melilotus indica), and fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum). 6. Maritime Succulent Scrub -0.55 acre Maritime succulent scrub is a low (two to three feet high), open (25-75 percent cover) vegetation community dominated by drought deciduous, subligneous (somewhat woody), malacophyllous (soft-leaved) shrubs with a rich mixture of stem and leaf succulents. The proportion of cacti is typically highest in inland areas. Ground cover is more or less devoid of vegetation between shrubs. Growth and flowering are concentrated in the spring. Maritime succulent scrub occurs on thin rocky or sandy soils, often on steep slopes of coastal headlands and bluffs. This type of succulent scrub intergrades with southern coastal bluff scrub on more exposed headlands and bluffs and with Venturan sage scrub on better developed, moister soils away from the immediate coast (Holland 1986). Maritime succulent scrub occurs on south-facing slopes adjacent to the Least Tern Preserve. The most common plant species include California box thorn (Lycium californicum), bladqerpod (/someris menziesil), cholla (Opuntia prolifera), common encelia, and chalk lettuce (Dud/eya pulverulenta ssp. pulverulenta). 7. Beach -25.41 acres The west side of the survey area is bordered by South Carlsbad State Beach adjacent to the Pacific Ocean. The beach is comprised mainly of sand with some plant species occurring on the fringe of the beach along the parking area and disturbed southern coastal bluff scrub. A portion of this area is periodically inundated with saltwater due to fluctuations of the tidal flow. The dominant plant species on the vegetated fringe include crystalline ice plant, beach-bur (Ambrosia chamissonis), sea rocket, beach evening primrose, and Hottentot fig. 8. Disturbed -31.86 acres A large part of the survey area is mapped as disturbed. This includes a large, flat terrace on the eastern portion of the survey area and portions of the Carlsbad Boulevard median that has been previously graded and now primarily supports non-native weeds. These areas are telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), tocolote (Centaurea melitensis), and black mustard (Brassica nigra). 9. Developed -52. 73 acres Approximately 53.44 acres of developed areas are present in the survey area. These areas include the South Carlsbad State Beach campground and parking areas; an area consisting of light industrial and residential buildings, and Carlsbad Boulevard and other roads. 10. Open Water -1 ~23 acres The area mapped as open water consist_s of the channelized inflow and outflow for Batiquitos Lagoon and is unvegetated. 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11. Nonavegetated Floodway -0. 70 acre A non-vegetated floodway composed of rocks is located along the northern arid southern banks of the Batiquitos Lagoon channel. These rocks stabilize the banks of the channel. C. Zoology Overall, the site is of moderate value for wildlife species. A large portion of the site is . disturbed or developed and provided limited resources for wildlife. A complete list of the wildlife species detected is provided in Attachment 2. Sensitive species potentially occurring on-site are discussed in the Sensitive Biological Resources section. 1. Amphibians All amphibians require moisture for at least a portion of their life cycle, with many requiring a permanent water source for habitat and reproduction. Terrestrial amphibians have adapted to more arid conditions and are not completely dependent on a perennial or standing source of water. These species avoid desiccation by burrowing beneath the soil or leaf litter during the day and during the dry season. No amphibians were observed during the surveys. Common species such as Pacific treefrogs (Hy/a regilla) have a potential to occur within the study area. 2. Reptiles The diversity and abundance of reptile species varies with habitat type. Many reptiles are restricted to certain plant communities and soil types although some of these species will also forage in adjacent communities. Other species are more ubiquitous using a variety of vegetation types for foraging and shelter. A western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) was observed within the study area on the disturbed shoulder of Carlsbad Boulevard. 3. Birds The diversity of bird species varies with respect to the character, quality, and diversity of vegetation communities present. Scrub and marsh communities typically support a higher diversity of bird species than disturbed and developed areas, though disturbed areas can provide foraging habitat for a variety of raptor species. Bird species observed within the study area include mourning dove (Zenaida macroura marginella), common yellowthroat (Geoth/ypis trichas), cliff swallow (Hirundo pyrrhonota tachina), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus frontalis), and western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis). Species commonly found near the ocean and lagoons were observed flying over the site including double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus albociliatus), California least tern, and California brown pelican (Pe/ecanus occidentalis californicus). Species common to brackish marshes and lagoons were also observed, including great blue heron (Ardea herodias herodias), cinnamon teal (Anas cyanoptera septentrionalium), black-necked stilt (Himantopus mexicanus), and killdeer (Charadrius vociferous vociferous). One raptor species, American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), was observed flying over the study area. 4. Mammals Coastal sage scrub, marsh communities, _and disturbed areas typically provide cover and foraging opportunities for a variety of mammal species. Most mammal species are 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I nocturnal and must be detected during daytime surveys by observing their sign, such as tracks, scat, and burrows. Cottontail rabbit ( Sylvilagus audubonit) and California ground squirrel ( Spermophilus beechey1) were observed on-site primarily within the disturbed areas. D. Sensitive Biological Resources Local, state, and federal agencies regulate sensitive species and require an assessment of their presence or potential presence to be conducted on-site prior to the approval of any proposed development on a property. For purposes of this report, species will be considered to be sensitive if they are (1) listed by state or federal agencies as threatened or endangered or are candidates or proposed for such listing; (2) on Lists 1 B or 2 of the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2001 ); (3) listed as rare, endangered, or threatened in the National Diversity Database (NDDB) (State of California 2003a, 2003b}; or (4) considered sensitive by.local conservation organizations or specialists. Noteworthy plant species are those that are on List 3 (more information about the plant's distribution and rarity needed} and List 4 (plants of limited distribution} of the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2001 }. Sensitive habitat types are those identified by Holland (1986). Assessments for the potential occurrence of sensitive or noteworthy species are based upon known ranges and habitat preferences for the species, species occurrence records from the NDDB, and species occurrence records from other sites in the vicinity of the survey area. The City of Carlsbad has prepared a draft Subarea Plan in affiliation with the North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP} entitled Habitat Management Plan (draft HMP} for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad (City of Carlsbad 1999). The MHCP is a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional habitat conservation plan currently being drafted for northwestern San Diego County (San Diego Association of Governments [SANDAG] 1998). In addition to the City of Carlsbad, participating jurisdictions include the cities of Oceanside, Vista, San Marcos, Escondido, Encinitas, and Solana Beach. The multi-jurisdictional MHCP draft document identifies a series of focused planning areas within which some lands will be dedicated for preservation of native habitats. These areas contain both "hardline" areas, which will be preserved as open space, and "softline" areas, which will include both development and open space to be determined through the planning process. The Carlsbad draft HMP is currently in the process of gaining final approvals from the state and federal agencies and is anticipated to be adopted and implemented by the City of Carlsbad before the end of 2003 (Don Rideout, pers. comm. August 1, 2003). Raptors (birds of prey} and active raptor nests are protected by the California Fish and Game Code 3503, which states that it is "unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds of prey or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird" unless authorized (California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG] 1991 ). All wetland areas are considered sensitive, as are wetland buffer areas. USACE regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. (wetland and non-wetland jurisdictional waters} according to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that a water quality certificate be obtained in conjunction with any federal permits. This certificate is processed through the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB}. CDFG regulates all changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake that supports fish or wildlife. With a few exceptions, CDFG jurisdictional areas are the same as USACE jurisdictional areas on a given site. Riparian habitat, 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I regardless of USACE jurisdiction, is regulated by CDFG. Isolated waters are also protected by the state of California. 1. Sensitive Vegetation Communities The following vegetation communities identified on-site are considered sensitive by the City of Carlsbad (1999), Holland (1986), and the State of California (2003a): coastal brackish marsh, southern coastal salt marsh, freshwater marsh, maritime succulent scrub, disturbed southern coastal bluff scrub, and disturbed coastal sage scrub. In addition, City of Carlsbad regulates impacts to disturbed lands. 2. Sensitive Plants Attachment 3 summarizes the status, habitats, and results of the botanical survey for each of the potentially occurring sensitive plant species, with codes explained in Attachment 4. The paragraphs below detail those species that were observed on-site and those that were not observed, but have the potential to occur. Some species, such as shrub or cactus species, would have been easily observed on the site during the botanical survey and if not observed are considered to be not present. a. Observed Four sensitive plant species were observed on-site. They include one CNPS List 1 B species, Nuttall's lotus (Lotus nuttallianus), one CNPS List 2 species, California boxthorn (Lycium californica), and two CNPS List 4 species, southwestern spiny rush (Juncus acutus ssp. /eopo/dil) and woolly seablite (Suaeda taxifo/ia). b. Not Observed Several other sensitive species were not observed but are known to occur in the vicinity of the project site and are considered as having a low potential to occur on-site based on vegetation communities present. The current surveys were conducted during a time in which these species should be apparent, and thus it is expected that they are not currently present within the study area. However, given the habitats available and proximity to larger areas of suitable habitat, these species could potentially migrate to the study area in future years. The following species that have a low potential to occur are CNPS List 1 B: aphanisma (Aphanisma blitoides), south coast salt-scale (Atriplex pacifica), salt-marsh bird's beak, Orcutt's pincushion (Chaenactis glabriscu/a var. orcuttiana), Blochman's dudleya (Dudleya blochmaniae ssp. b/ochmaniae), Coulter's goldfields (Lasthenia g/abrata ssp. coulten), and estuary seablite (Suaeda esteroa). Salt marsh bird's beak (Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus) is also a federally and state listed endangered species. Blochman's dudleya is also a draft HMP narrow endemic species. Sea dahlia (Coreopsis maritima) is a CNPS List 2 species and has a low potential to occur. Lewis's evening primrose (Camissonia /ewisil) is a CNPS List 3 species and has a low potential to occur. Red sand-verbena (Abronia maritima) and seaside calandrinia (Calandrinia maritima) are CNPS List 4 species and have a low potential to occur. 3. Sensitive Wildlife Attachment 5 provides a list of sensitive species that were observed within the study area or that have a potential to occur based on the ranges and habitat requirements of these species and include the likelihood of occurrence for these species. 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I a. Observed Two sensitive bird species were observed on-site: American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) and California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia). American peregrine falcon is state listed as endangered, is a California fully protected species, and is a draft HMP covered species. California horned lark is a California species of special concern. Figure 4 illustrates the locations at which this species was detected. b. Not Observed The following sensitive species were not observed within the study area but have a high potential to occur: saltmarsh skipper (Panoquina errans), long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus), and Belding's savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis be/ding,). Species with a moderate potential to occur include Belding's orangethroat whiptail (Cnemidophorus hyperythrus be/ding,), western burrowing owl (Speotyto cunicularia hypugaea), coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), large-billed savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis rostratus), and tricolored blackbird (Agelius tricolor). Species with low potential to occur on-site include southwestern pond turtle ( Clemmys marmorata pa/Iida), western least bittern (lxobrychus exi/is hesperis), light-footed clapper rail (Rallus /ongirostris /evipes), and western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus). There are some species whose breeding sites and habitat are regulated by federal and state wildlife agencies. Several of these species have a potential to forage within the study area but are not expected to nest based on lack of suitable substrate within the study area itself or lack of historical use of the area for breeding. These include osprey (Pandion haliaetus), Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperit), white-faced ibis (P/egadis chiht), Caspian tern (Sterna caspia), Forster's tern (Sterna forsten), elegant tern (Sterna e/egans), and California least tern. E. Jurisdictional Waters A total of 5.92 acres of wetlands and waters within the study area falls under USACE jurisdiction and 6.15 acres of CDFG jurisdictional areas occur on-site (Table 2). Figures 5a and 5b illustrate the jurisdictional areas. These areas are described below. A formal wetland delineation has been prepared and is presented under separate cover (RECON 2003). Each regulatory agency will verify the delineation of the jurisdictional areas during the course of project review. TABLE 2 JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS AND WATERS Wetland Determination USACE Jurisdiction Wetland Non-wetland waters of the U.S. TOTAL USACE CDFG Jurisdiction Wetland/riparian habitat Stream bed TOTAL CDFG 13 Acres 4.39 1.53 5.92 4.50 1.65 6.15 - .c c.> s::: m a: ::r: >, N m ..J ------------- Image Source: Copyright 2001 AirPhotoUSA, LLC, All Rights Reserved (flown January 2001) f7ZZl CDFG jurisdictional area -USACE non-wetland waters of the U.S. c::==J USACE wetland • Soil test pits [!] Culvert REC ON __ ..,.... ___ \ Project location c::::=:J Concrete ditch ----- 0 Feet FIGURE Sa USACE and CDFG Jurisdictional Areas ------------------- .c u C ca a: ct >a N ca ..J f7//.,J CDFG jurisdictional area USACE non-wetland waters of the U.S • .___.....,I USACE wetland I> Soil test pits [!] Culvert ~CON \ Project location 0 Feet FIGURE 5b USACE and CDFG Jurisdictional Areas I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A total of 5.92 acres of USAGE jurisdictional waters occurs on-site. Of the 5.92 acres, 4.39 acres are wetlands and 1.53 acres are non-wetland waters of the U.S. 2. California Department of Fish and Game A total of 6.15 acres of CDFG jurisdictional areas occurs on-site, including 1.65 acres of jurisdictional streambed and 4.50 acres of wetlands and riparian habitats. 3. City of Carlsbad City of Carlsbad's jurisdiction for wetlands and waters matches the jurisdiction of USAGE and CDFG. City of Carlsbad jurisdictional areas within the study area total approximately 6.15 acres. , F. Wildlife Movement Corridor Wildlife movement corridors are defined as areas that connect suitable wildlife habitat areas in a region otherwise fragmented by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance. Natural features such as canyon drainages, ridgelines, or areas with vegetation cover provide corridors for wildlife travel. Wildlife movement corridors are important because they provide access to mates, food, and water; allow the dispersal of individuals away from high population density areas; and facilitate the exchange of genetic traits between populations (Beier and Loe 1992). Wildlife movement corridors are considered sensitive by resource and conservation agencies. As this site is bounded by the Pacific Ocean on the west and development to the east, north, and south, the majority of the site does not function as a corridor that facilitates the movement of wildlife from one location to another, particularly terrestrial species. The one exception is the open water inlet that connects Batiquitos Lagoon to the Pacific Ocean, which allows for movement of aquatic species and for continual foraging habitat for those species dependent upon aquatic resources. Potential Biological Constraints The potential biological constraints of the project were assessed according to guidelines set forth in the City of Carlsbad's draft HMP (City of Carlsbad 1999) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Mitigation would be required for any project impacts considered significant under the HMP and CEQA guidelines. It is anticipated that the draft HMP will be implemented before the end of 2003 (Don Rideout, pers. comm. August 1, 2003). If this document is not approved as currently published or is not adopted by the City, all projects with proposed impacts will need to conform to CEQA requirements and the proposed project would be required to enter into either the Section 1 O(a)( 1 )(A) or Section 7 permit process to gain approval from the federal regulatory agencies if there are impacts to federally listed species. A. Sensitive Vegetation Communities Impacts to any of the sensitive habitats would be considered significant and require mitigation. This includes coastal brackish marsh, southern coastal salt marsh, freshwater marsh, maritime succulent scrub, disturbed southern coastal bluff scrub, and disturbed coastal sage scrub. In addition, City of Carlsbad regulates impacts to disturbed lands and requires a fee be paid for impacts to these areas. Impacts to all of the sensitive vegetation communities, with the exception of disturbed coastal sage scrub and disturbed lands, would likely require a mitigation ratio of 3:1. The ratio for the communities that are also considered USAGE wetlands is subject to the 16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I approval of USACE. The mitigation ratio for disturbed coastal sage scrub is 2: 1. A mitigation fee, to be determined the City Council, would be required for impacts to disturbed lands if the draft HMP is adopted. Three fee levels are proposed in this fee program: Fee Level 1 would include non-sensitive native vegetation communities (e.g., southern mixed and chamise chaparral); Fee Level 2 would include non-native grassland; and Fee Level 3 would include disturbed and agricultural lands and eucalyptus woodlands. A per-acre fee would be established by the City Council and mitigation ratios would be set at a 1 :1 ratio for impacts to lands in Fee Level 1, 0.5:1 in Fee Level 2, and 0.1 :1 in Fee Level 3. The final parameters of this fee program will be determined at the time the draft HMP is adopted and implemented by the City of Carlsbad. If the draft HMP is not adopted as currently written, there may be no required mitigation for impact to disturbed lands on this project. The draft HMP has identified several core areas in which areas of particular sensitivity are described. The proposed preserve design of the draft HMP includes the preservation of these areas. Core Area #8 of the draft HMP centers on Batiquitos Lagoon and includes a small portion of the southern portion of study area. In particular, it appears to include the areas of coastal brackish marsh surrounded by disturbed coastal sage scrub near the South Carlsbad Beach parking area, the two southern coastal salt marsh areas in the median of Carlsbad Boulevard, and the small portion of maritime succulent scrub north of the Least Tern Preserves. This core area, as a whole, contains sensitive vegetation communities that support several state and federally listed sensitive species. As part of the proposed preserve assembly for the City of Carlsbad, these areas should be avoided. B. Sensitive Plants Impacts to state and federally listed species and CNPS List 1 B and List 2 plant species would be considered significant. These species should be avoided where possible. Impacts would likely need to be mitigated through transplantation of any impacted species or inclusion of the species in the plant palette of proposed restoration. Impacts to CNPS List 3 and 4 species would likely be considered adverse but less than significant and would not pose any constraints to development. A focused survey should be conducted to accurately map the populations of the Nuttall's lotus and California boxthorn. There are several sensitive species not observed during the current surveys that have a low potential to occur on-site that would result in significant finding if impacted. This includes aphanisma, south coast salt-scale, Orcutt's pincushion, salt-marsh bird's beak, sea dahlia, Blochman's dudleya, Coulter's goldfields, and estuary seablite. If development of this area does not occur within the 2003 season, these focused plant surveys may need to be reconducted to confirm the results of the current surveys. - C. Sensitive Wildlife Development of the study area would not significantly reduce the habitat of either the American peregrine falcon or the California horned lark and these species do not pose any potential constraints. Preservation of the marsh habitats affiliated with Batiquitos Lagoon and Core Area #8, as mandated by the draft HMP, would avoid impacts to the saltmarsh skipper, southwestern pond turtle, long-billed curlew, Belding's savannah sparrow, large-billed savannah sparrow, tricolored blackbird, western least bittern, light- footed clapper rail, and western snowy plover, if they were determined to be present. Focused surveys for these species may be required if proposed development was to impact the marsh habitats. Impacts to Belding's orangethroat whiptail would be considered less than significant. 17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Impacts to western burrowing owl and coastal California gnatcatcher would be significant, if present, and could pose a constraint to development of the disturbed lands and disturbed coastal sage scrub, respectively. Focused protocol surveys for these two species should be conducted to determine whether they are preser:it within the study area. D. Jurisdictional Waters Impacts to jurisdictional waters are considered significant and should be avoided to the greatest extent possible. Jurisdictional waters are regulated by the federal, state, and local governments under a no-net-loss policy and any approved impacts would require mitigation through habitat creation, enhancement, or preservation, as determined by a qualified restoration specialist in consultation with the regulatory agencies. In addition, regulatory agencies often require that a buffer be maintained between jurisdictional waters and any development. The width of the buffer area can vary, depending on project design, but is typically 100 feet. Any impacts to USAGE and CDFG jurisdictional waters would require acquisition of a 404 permit from USAGE, a 401 Water Quality Certification from RWQCB, and a 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFG. E. Wildlife Movement Corridors Any proposed development should avoid any impact to the connection between Batiquitos Lagoon and the Pacific Ocean or any of the marsh habitat present at that edge in order to preserve the ability for movement of aquatic resources between the water bodies. References Cited American Ornithologists' Union 1998 Check-list of North American Birds. 7th ed. Washington, D.C. Beier, Paul, and Steven Loe 1992 A Checklist for Evaluating Impacts to Wildlife Movement Corridors. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:434-440. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) 1991 Fish and Game Code of California. Gould Publications, Inc. California, State of 2003a State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California. Natural Diversity Data Base. Department of Fish and Game. July. 2003b State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California. . Natural Diversity Data Base. Department of Fish and Game. April. California Native Plant Society (CNPS) 2001 Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. California Native Plant Society Special Publication No. 1, 5th edition. Sacramento. 18 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Carlsbad, City of 1999 Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad. December. Crother, B. I. 2001 Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North America North of Mexico, with Comments Regarding Confidence in our Understanding. SSAR Herpetological Circular 29. iii + 82 pp. Hall, E. R. 1981 The Mammals of North America. 2d ed. 2 vols. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Hickman, James C. (editor) 1993 The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Holland, Robert F. 1986 Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Nongame-Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and Game. October. Jones, J. K., D. C. Carter, H. H. Genoways, R. S. Hoffman, and D. W. Rice 1997 Revised Checklist of North American Mammals North of Mexico. Occasional Papers of the Museum, Texas Tech University 80:1-22. Mattoni, R. 1990 Butterflies of Greater Los Angeles. The Center for the Conservation of Biodiversity/Lepidoptera Research Foundation, Inc. Beverly Hills, CA. Opler, P.A., and A. B. Wright 1999 A Field Guide to Western Butterflies. Peterson Field Guide Series. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. RECON 2003 Wetland Delineation Report for the Ponto Specific Plan, City of Carlsbad, California. June. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) 1998 The Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) Consultants' Working Draft. June. 19 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I U.S. Department of Agriculture 1973 Soil Survey, San Diego Area, California. Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service. Roy H. Bowman, ed. San Diego. December. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Wetlands Research Program, Technical Report Y-87-1. Department of the Army, Washington, D.C. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2002 Review of Species that are Candidates or Proposed for Listing as Endangered or Threatened: Annual Notice of Findings on Recycled Petitions; Annual Description of Progress of Listings. Federal Register 67(114). June 13. 50 CFR 17. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1968 Encinitas quadrangle 7.5-minute topographic map. Unitt, P.A. 1984 Birds of San Diego County. Memoir No. 13. San Diego Society of Natural History. 20 I I I I I I I I I ATTACHMENTS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ATTACHMENT 1 I I I I I I I I I I ------- Scientific Name Abronia umbellata Lam. Acacia longifolia (Andrews) .Willd. Amblyopappus pusi/lus Hook. & Arn. Ambrosia chamissonis (Less.) E. Greene Ambrosia psilostachya DC. Anagallis arvensis L. Antirrhinum nuttallianum Benth. in DC. Artemisia californica Less. Arundo donax L. Atriplex canescens (Parsh) Nutt. Atriplex semibaccata R.Br. Avena sp. Baccharis pilularis DC. Baccharis sa/icifolia (Ruiz Lopez & Pavon) Pers. Brassica nigra (L.) Koch. Bromus hordaceus L. Bromus madritensis L. ssp. rubens (L.) Husnot Cakile maritima Scop. Calystegia macrostegia (E. Greene) Brum. Calystegia so/danella (L.) R.Br. ------ ATTACHMENT 1 PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED Common Name Sand verbena Sydney golden, golden wattle Pineapple weed Beach-bur Western ragweed Scarlet pimpernel Snapdragon California sagebrush Giant reed Fourwing saltbush, shad-scale Australian saltbush Wild oats Coyote bush Mule fat, seep-willow Black mustard Smooth brome Foxtail chess Sea rocket Finger-leaf morning-glory Chaparral morning-glory Camissonia cheiranthifolia (Spreng.) Raimann ssp. cheiranthifolia Beach evening primrose Carpobrotus edu/is (L.) Bolus. Hottentot fig Centaurea melitensis L. Tocolote, star-thistle Chamaesyce sp. Prostrate spurge Chenopodium sp. Goosefoot Chorizanthe procumbens Nutt. Prostrate spineflower Chrysanthemum coronarium L. Garland, crown daisy Cistis creticus L. Rock-rose Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. Horseweed Cressa truxillensis Kunth Alkali weed Cupaniopsis anacardioides L. Carrot wood Cuscuta ca/ifornica Hook. & Arn. Dodder Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. Bermuda grass ------ Habitat Origin BM N DCSS, D, DIS I ~. DCSS, BL, DIS N B,CB N DCSS, DIS N DCSS, DIS I D N DCSS, DIS N MSS I B,MSS,DIS N B,DIS I D,DIS N DCSS,D,DIS N DCSS N MSS, DIS I B I DIS I B, CB, BL, DIS N D,DIS N B N B,CB,DIS N B, CB, BL, FWM, D, I DIS DIS I D N CB, DIS I DIS N B,MSS,DIS I DIS I B,CB,D,DIS N DIS N D I DIS N B,FWM,CB I ---------.. - ATTACHMENT 1 PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED (continued) -- Scientific Name Common Name Datura wrightii Regel Jimsonweed Descurainia incana (Fischer & C. Meyer) Dom Tansy mustard Distichlis spicata (L.) E. Greene Saltgrass Dudleya edulis (Nutt.) Moran Lady fingers Dudleya pulverulenta (Nutt.) Britt. & Rose ssp. pulverulenta Chalk lettuce Encelia californica Nutt. Common encelia Eriogonumfasciculatum Benth. var.foliolosum (Nutt.) Abrams California buckwheat Erodium sp. Filaree, storksbill Eschscholzia californica Cham. California poppy Foeniculum vulgare Mill. Fennel Frankenia salina (Molina) I.M. Johnston Alkali heath Gnaphalium sp. Cudweed, everlasting Heliotropium curassavicum L. Chinese pusley Heteromeles arbutifolia (Lindley) Roemer Toyon, Christmas berry Heterotheca grandiflora Nutt. Telegraph weed Hypochaeris glabra L. Smooth cat's-ear Isocoma menziesii (Hook. & Am.) G. Nesom Coast goldenbush Isomeris arborea Nutt. Bladderpod Jaumea carnosa (Less.) A. Gray Jaumea Juncus acutus L. ssp. /eopoldii (Parl.) Snog. Spiny rush Lamarckia aurea (L.) Moench. Goldentop Lantana camera L. Lantana Lepidium nitidum Torrey & A. Gray var. nitidum Shining peppergrass Limonium perezii (Stapf) Hubb. Perez rosemary Lobularia maritima (L.) Desv. Sweet alyssum Lotus nuttallianus E. Greene Nuttall's lotus Lotus scoparius (Nutt. in Torrey & A. Gray) Ottley var. scoparius California broom Lupinus truncatus Hook. & Am. Chaparral lupine Lycium californicum Nutt. California box thorn Mammillaria dioica K. Bdg. Fish-hook cactus Me/aleuca linarifolia Sm. Bottlebrush Melilotus indica (L.) All. Sourclover ------ Habitat Origin B, CB, BL, MSS, DIS N MSS N B,BL, DIS N MSS N MSS,D,DIS N DCSS, MSS, DIS N B, DCSS, MSS, DIS N CB, DIS I DCSS N DIS I CSM N CSM N MS, MSS, D, DIS N B, DCSS, DIS N DCSS N DCSS,DIS I DIS N B, DCSS, BL, MSS, N DIS BL,MSS,DIS N DIS N B, CB, FWM, DIS I DIS I DIS N B, CB, DIS I BL,DIS I B N DCSS, D, DIS N DIS N MSS N MSS N D I DCSS I ------------------- ATTACHMENT 1 PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED (continued) Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Origin Mesembryanthemum crystallinum L. Crystalline ice plant B, CB, MSS, DIS I Mimulus aurantiacus Curtis Bush monkeyflower DCSS N Mirabi/is californica A. Gray Wishbone bush MSS N Myoporum laetum Forst. Myoporum BL,D,DIS I Nerium oleander L. Oleander R I Nicotiana glauca Grah. Tree tobacco MSS, DIS I Nicotiana obtusifolia Martens & Galeotti Tobacco MSS I Opuntia littoralis (Engelm.) Cockerell. Shore cactus MSS N Opuntia prolifera Engelm. Cholla MSS N Pennisetum setaceum Forsskal Fountain grass DCSS,DIS I Picris echioides L. Bristly ox-tongue MSS I Plantago erecta Morris Dot-seed plantain DIS N Platanus racemosa Nutt. Western sycamore FWM N Polypogon monspeliensis (L.) Desf. Annual beard grass DCSS,DIS I Pyracantha sp. Firethorn DIS I Raphanus sativus L. Radish CB, DIS I Rhus integrifo/ia (Nutt.) Brewer & Watson Lemonade berry DIS N Ricinus communis L. Castor bean MSS I Rumex crispus L. Curly dock B, CB,DIS I Salicornia virginica L. Pickleweed CSM N Salix exigua Nutt. Narrow-leaved willow CB N Salix /aevigata Bebb Red willow DIS N Salix lasio/epis Benth. Arroyo willow CB,FWM,DIS N Sa/so/a tragus L. Russian thistle, tumbleweed DCSS, B, DIS I Salvia apiana Jepson White sage DIS N Salvia mellifera E. Greene Black sage DCSS, DIS N Sambucus mexicana C. Presl Blue elderberry BM N Scirpus californicus (C.A. Mey.) Steudel. California bulrush FWM N Sisyrinchium helium Wats. Blue-eyed-grass DIS N Sonchus oleraceus L. Common sow thistle B, DCSS,DIS I Spergularia sp. Sand spurrey BM,DIS I Stephanomeria cichoriacea A. Gray S tephanomeria DIS N Suaeda taxifo/ia Woolly sea-blite CB N ------ Scientific Name Tamarix sp. Typha latifolia L. Washingtonia robusta Wendl. Xanthium strumarium L. Yucca gloriosa L. Yucca schidigera K.E. Ort_gies HABITATS B BM CB CSM D DCSS= DIS = Beach Coastal brackish marsh Disturbed southern coastal bluff scrub Southern coastal salt marsh Developed Disturbed coastal sage scrub Disturbed lands FWM = Freshwater marsh MSS = Maritime succulent scrub ----- ATTACHMENT 1 PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED (continued) -- Common Name Tamarisk Broad-leaved cattail Washington palm Cocklebur Spanish dagger Mohave yucca OTHER TERMS Native to locality --- Habitat FWM,DIS BM,FWM D,DIS B,BM,DIS MSS,D MSS N I Introduced species from outside locality --- Origin I N I N I N I I I I I \, I I I I ATTACHMENT 2 I I I I I I I I I I ------------- ATTACHMENT 2 WILDLIFE SPECIES OBSERVED OR DETECTED Common Name Reptiles (Nomenclature from Crother 2001) Western fence lizard Scientific Name Sceloporus occidentalis Birds (Nomenclature from American Ornithologists' Union 1998 and Unitt 1984) Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus albociliatus California brown pelican -Pelecanus occidentalis C[!lifornicus Great blue heron Ardea herodias herodias American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus Mallard Anas platyrhynchos platyrhynchos Cinnamon teal Anas cyanoptera septentriona/ium Common moorhen Gallinula chloropus cachinnans Black-necked stilt Himantopus mexicanus Killdeer Charadrius vociferus vociferus California least tern Sterna antillarum browni Mourning dove Zenaida macroura marginella Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans semiatra Western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis Horned lark Eremophila alpestris Northern rough-winged swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis Cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota House finch Carpodacus mexicanus frontalis Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Song sparrow Melospiza melodia House sparrowt Passer domesticus Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Mammals (Nomenclature from Jones et al. 1997 and Hall 1981) Desert cottontail California ground squirrel tintroduced species. Sylvilagus audubonii Spermophilus ~echeyi Occupied Habitat DIS F F F F BM BM BM BM F,BM,B F F, D, DIS BM,D,DIS DIS DIS F F B, DIS, D, DCSS FWM FWM DIS FWM DIS CB,DIS,D --- Status csc FE,SE,CFP ,HMP, • • SE, CFP,HMP,* FE,SE,CFP, HMP,* csc -- Evidence of Occurrence C 0 0 O,V 0 o,v 0 0 O,V o,v O,V O,V o,v O,V V o,v o,v O,V o,v O,V O,V O,V 0 0 - ------ Habitats B = Beach BM = Coastal brackish marsh CB = Disturbed southern coastal bluff scrub D = Developed DCSS = Disturbed coastal sage scrub DIS = Disturbed lands F = Flying overhead FWM = Freshwater marsh Evidence of Occurrence V = Vocalization 0 = Observed C = Carcass/remains ------------ ATTACHMENT 2 WILDLIFE SPECIES OBSERVED OR DETECTED (continued) Status CFP csc FE HMP MSCP = SE * California fully protected species California Department of Fish and Game species of special concern Listed as endangered by the federal government City of Carlsbad Draft Habitat Management Plan covered species Multiple Species Conservation Program target species list Listed as endangered by the state of California Taxa listed with an asterisk fall into one or more of the following categories: • Taxa considered endangered or rare under Section 15380( d) of CEQA guidelines • Taxa that are biologically rare, very restricted in distribution, or declining throughout their range • Population(s) in California that may be peripheral to the major portion of a taxon's range, but which are threatened with extirpation within California • Taxa closely associated with a habitat that is declining in California at an alarming rate (e.g., wetlands, riparian, old growth forests, desert aquatic systems, native grasslands) - I I I I I I I I I ATTACHMENT 3 I I I I I I I I I I ------~ Species Abronia maritima Red sand-verbena Agave shawii Shaw's agave Aphanisma blitoides Aphanisma Astragalus tener var. titi Coastal dunes milk-vetch Atriplex cou/teri Coulter's saltbush A triplex pacifica South Coast salt-scale Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii Davidson's saltscale ------ ATTACHMENT 3 SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES --- OBSERVED (t) OR WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE State/Federal CNPS City of Status List Carlsbad Habitat/Blooming Period -/-4 -Perennial herb; grows in prostrate mats on beach dunes; blooms Feb.-Nov.; elevation less than 300 feet. -!-2 -Succulent shrub; coastal bluff scrub, coastal sage scrub, maritime succulent scrub; blooms Sept.-May; elevation less than 250 feet. -/-1B -Annual herb; coastal bluff scrub, coastal sage scrub; sandy soils; blooms March-June; elevation less than 1,000 feet. CE/FE 1B -Annual herb; coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, sandy soils, mesic coastal prairie; blooms March-May; elevation less than 1,000 feet. -!-1B -Perennial herb; coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal sage scrub, valley and foothill grassland, alkaline or clay soil; blooms Mar.- Oct; elevation less than 1,050 feet. -!-1B -Annual herb; coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal sage scrub, playas; blooms Mar.-Oct.; elevation less than 500 feet. -!-1B -Annual herb; coastal bluff scrub, coastal sage scrub, alkaline soil; blooms April-Oct.; elevation less than 1,000 feet. ----- Comments Not observed during survey. Low potential to occur. Out ofrange; not expected to occur. Not observed during survey; low potential to occur. Not observed during surveys. San Diego populations have not been relocated since 1970's; not expected to occur. Not observed during surveys. No suitable soils; not expected to occur. ', ' Not observed during survey; low potential to occur. Out of range; not expected to occur. ------------------ Species Baccharis vanessae Encinitas baccharis Calandrinia maritima Seaside calandrinia Camissonia lewisii Lewis's evening-primrose Chaenactis g/abriuscula var. orcuttiana Orcutt's pincushion Cordy/anthus maritimus ssp. maritimus Salt marsh bird's-beak Coreopsis maritima Sea dahlia ATTACHMENT 3 SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED (t) OR WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE (continued) State/Federal CNPS City of Status List Carlsbad Habitat/Blooming Period CE/FT 1B HMP Deciduous shrub; chaparral; maritime, NE sandstone; blooms Aug.-Nov.; elevation less than 2,500 feet. Known from fewer than 20 occurrences. -!-4 -Annual herb; coastal bluff scrub, coastal sage scrub, valley and foothill grassland; blooms Feb.-Aug.; elevation less than 5,000 feet. -/-3 -Annual herb; coastal bluff scrub, cismontane woodland, coastal dunes, coastal sage scrub, valley and foothill grassland, sandy or clay; blooms March-July; elevation less than 1,000 feet. -!-1B -Annual herb; coastal bluff scrub, sandy, coastal dunes; blooms Jan.-Aug.; elevation 350 feet. CE/FE 1B -Annual herb; coastal dunes, coastal salt marshes and swamps; blooms May-Oct.; elevation less than 100 feet. -/-2 -Perennial herb; coastal bluff scrub, coastal sage scrub; blooms March-May; elevation less than 500 feet. Comments Not observed during surveys. No suitable habitat; not expected to occur. Not observed during survey; low potential to occur. Not observed during survey; low potential to occur. Not observed during survey; low potential to occur. Not observed during survey; low potential to occur. Not observed during survey; low potential to occur. - ----- Species ------ ATTACHMENT 3 SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES -- OBSERVED (t) OR WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE (continued) State/Federal CNPS City of Status List Carlsbad Habitat/Blooming Period ----- Comments Dudleya b/ochmaniae ssp. blochmaniae -/-1B HMP Perennial herb; coastal sage scrub, coastal bluff Not observed during survey; Blochrnan's dudleya NE scrub, chaparral, grasslands; clay/serpentine low potential to occur. soils; blooms April-June; elevation less than 1,500 feet. Known from fewer than 20 occurrences in California and fewer than 5 in Baja California. Euphorbia misera -/-2 HMP Shrub; coastal sage scrub, maritime succulent Not observed; not expected to Cliff spurge scrub, coastal bluff scrub; blooms Dec.-Aug.; occur. elevation less than 2,000 feet. F erocactus viridescens -/-2 HMP Succulent; chaparral, coastal sage scrub, valley Not observed; not expected to San Diego coast barrel cactus and foothill grassland, vernal pools; blooms occur. May-June; elevation less than. 1,500 feet. Frankenia palmeri -/-2 -Perennial herb; coastal dunes, coastal salt Not observed. Site is no11h of Palmer's frankenia marsh; blooms May-July; elevation below 30 known range; not expected to feet. occur. Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldiit -/-4 -Perennial herb; coastal dunes , meadows and Observed on-site. Southwestern spiny rush seeps, coastal salt marsh, riparian; blooms May-June; elevation less than 3,000 feet. Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri -/-1B -Annual herb; coastal salt marsh, vernal pools, Not observed during survey; Coulter' s goldfields playas; blooms Feb.-June; elevation less than low po_tential to occur. 4,000 feet. - ------------------ Species Lessingia (=Corethrogyne) filaginifo/ia var. linifolia Del Mar Mesa sand aster Lotus nuttallianust Nuttall's lotus Lycium californicumt California box thorn Malacothrix incana Dunedelion Nemacaulis denudata var. denudata Coast woolly-heads Nemacaulis denudata var. gracilis Slender woolly-heads Orobanche parishii ssp. brachyloba Short-lobed broomrape ATTACHMENT 3 SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED (t) OR WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE (continued) State/Federal CNPS City of Status List Carlsbad Habitat/Blooming Period -/-1B HMP Perennial herb; coastal bluff scrub, openings in NE southern maritime chaparral and coastal sage scrub, sandy soil; blooms May-Sept.; elevation less than 500 feet. -/-1B Coastal dunes, coastal sage scrub -/-2 -Shrub; coastal bluff scrub, coastal sage scrub; blooms March-Aug.; elevation less than 500 feet. -/-4 -Perennial herb; coastal dunes, coastal sage scrub; blooms April-Aug; elevation 6-100 feet. -/-1B -Annual herb; coastal dunes; blooms April- Sept.; elevation less than 300 feet. -/-2 -Annual herb; coastal and desert dunes, Sonoran desert scrub; blooms March-May; elevation 170-1,300 feet. -/-4 -Perennial parasitic herb; coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, sandy soils; blooms April- October; elevation less than 1,000 feet. Comments Not observed; not expected to occur. Observed on-site. Observed on-site. Not observed. Species is believed to be extirpated from San Diego County; not expected to occur. Not observed; not expected to occur. Not observed; not expected to occur. Not observed; not expected to occur. - ----- Species Phacelia stellaris Brand's phacelia Suaeda esteroa Estuary suaeda Suaeda taxifoliat Woolly sea-blite Triquetrella califomica Triquetrella ------ ATTACHMENT 3 SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES --- OBSERVED (t) OR WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE (continued) State/Federal CNPS City of Status List Carlsbad Habitat/Blooming Period -/-1B -Annual herb; coastal scrub coastal dunes; blooms March-June; elevation less than 1,300 feet. Known from fewer than five occurrences. -/-1B -Perennial herb; coastal salt marshes and swamps; blooms May-Oct.; elevation less than 20 feet. -/-4 -Evergreen shrub; coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, margins of coastal salt marshes and swamps; blooms Jan.-Dec.; elevation less than 200 feet. -/-1B -Moss; coastal bluff scrub, coastal sage scrub; elevation below 350 feet. Known in California from fewer than 10 small coastal occurrences. NOTE: See Attachment 4 for explanation of sensitivity codes. ----- Comments Not observed; not expected to occur. Not observed during survey; low potential to occur. Observed on-site. Not observed. Known from only one locale in San Diego; not expected to occur on-site. I I I I I I I I I ATTACHMENT 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ATTACHMENT 4 SENSITIVITY CODES FEDERAL CANDIDATES AND LISTED PLANTS FE = Federally listed, endangered FT = Federally listed, threatened FPE =_ Federally proposed endangered FPT = Federally proposed threatened STATE LISTED PLANTS CE State listed, endangered CR State listed, rare CT State listed, threatened CITY OF CARLSBAD COVERED PLANTS HMP = City of Carlsbad Draft Habitat Management Plan covered species NE Draft HMP Narrow Endemic CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY IA 1B 2 Species presumed extinct. Species rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. These species are eligible for state listing. Species rare, threatened, or endangered in California but which are more common elsewhere. These species are eligible for state listing. 3 = Species for which more infor- mation is needed. Distribution, endangerment, and/or taxonomic information is needed. 4 = A watch list of species oflimited distribution. These species need to be monitored for changes in the status of their populations. I I I I I I I I I ATTACHMENT 5 I I I I I I I I : I I -----------·------- ATTACHMENT 5 SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES KNOWN OR WITH THE POTENTIAL TO OCCUR Species Status Habitat/Comments Invertebrates (Nomenclature from Mattoni 1990 and Opler and Wright 1999) Saltmarsh skipper Panoquina errans Reptiles (Nomenclature from Crother 2001) Belding's orangethroat whiptail Cnemidophorus hyperythrus beldingi Southwestern pond turtle Clemmys marmorata pallida HMP CSC,HMP, * CSC,HMP, * Salt marshes. Host plant Distich/is spicata. Adult emergence July-September. Chaparral, coastal sage scrub with coarse sandy soils and scattered brush. Ponds, small lakes, marshes, slow-moving, sometimes brackish water. Birds (Nomenclature from American Ornithologists' Union 1998 and Unitt 1984) Double-crested cormorant (rookery site) Phalacrocorax auritus alboci/iatus American white pelican (nesting colony) Pelecanus erythrorhynchos California brown pelican (nesting colony) Pelecanus occidenta/is californicus Great blue heron (rookery site) Ardea herodias csc csc FE, SE,CFP, HMP,* • Bays, lagoons, estuaries. Non-breeding visitor. Lagoons, bays, estuaries, freshwater ponds; inland lakes during spring migration. Migrant and winter visitor. Coastal salt water, open ocean; rare vagrant inland. Common non-breeding year-round visitor. Bays, lagoons, ponds, lakes. Non-breeding year-round visitor, some localized breeding. Occurrence Suitable habitat and host plant present; known to occur in Batiquitos Lagoon; high potential to occur within study area. Suitable habitat present; moderate potential to occur. Marginal habitat present; low potential to occur. No rookeries present; not expected to nest within study area. Winter foraging expected; not expected to nest within study area. Suitable foraging habitat present; not expected to nest within study area. No rookeries present; not expected to nest within study area. - ------------------ ATTACHMENT 5 SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES KNOWN OR WITH THE POTENTIAL TO OCCUR (continued) Species Great egret (rookery site) Ardea alba egretta Western least bittern Ixobrychus exilis hesperis Black-crowned night heron (rookery site) Nycticorax nycticorax hoactli White-faced ibis (rookery site) Plegadis chihi Osprey (nesting) Pandion haliaetus Cooper's hawk (nesting) Accipiter cooperii American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus Status * csc, * * CSC,HMP csc CSC,HMP SE, CFP, HMP, * Habitat/Comments Lagoons, bays, estuaries. Ponds and lakes in the coastal lowland. Winter visitor, uncommon in summer. Brackish and freshwater marshes in the coastal lowland. Rare summer resident, very rare in winter. Lagoons, estuaries, bayshores, ponds, and lakes. Often roost in trees. Year-round visitor. Localized breeding. Freshwater ponds, irrigated fields, brackish lagoons. Migrant and winter visitor, rare in summer. Very localized breeding. Coast, lowland lakes, rarely foothills and mountain lakes. Uncommon fall/winter resident, rare in spring and summer. Fish are the primary prey item. Mature forest, open woodlands, wood edges, river groves. Parks and residential areas. Year- round resident. Open coastal areas, mud flats. Rare inland. Rare fall and winter visitor, rare and localized breeding resident. Occurrence No rookeries present; not expected to nest within study area. Marginal habitat present; low potential to occur. No rookeries present; not expected to nest within study area. Major population know in Batiquitos Lagoon; though recent breeding not recorded. Not expected to nest within the study area; but suitable foraging habitat present. Not expected to nest within the study area; but suitable foraging habitat present. No suitable nesting habitat present; not expected to nest within the study area. Suitable foraging habitat present. Observed flying over the study area. - ------------------ ATTACHMENT 5 SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES KNOWN OR WITH THE POTENTIAL TO OCCUR (continued) Species Light-footed clapper rail Ral/us longirostris levipes Western snowy plover (coastal population) Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus Long-billed curlew (breeding) Numenius americanus Caspian tern (nesting colony) Sterna caspia Elegant tern (nesting colony) Sterna elegans Forster's tern (nesting colony) Sterna forsteri Status FE, SE,CFP, HMP FT, CSC, HMP, * CSC,HMP, * * CSC,HMP, * * Habitat/Comments Salt marshes supporting Spartina foliosa. _ Localized resident. Sandy beaches, lagoon margins, tidal mud flats. Migrant and winter visitor. Localized breeding. Most numerous during fall migration. Tidal mud flats, salt marshes, bays. Fall and spring migrant, winter visitor, rare and localized in summer. Bays, estuaries, lagoons; freshwater ponds and lakes in coastal lowlands. Resident. Localized breeding at the south end of San Diego Bay. Mud flats, sandbars, dunes, bays, lagoons. Summer resident at the nesting colony at the south end of San Diego Bay. Otherwise, common migrant and abundant during late summer. Bays, estuaries, lagoons, shoreline. Abundant resident with breeding colony at the south end of San Diego Bay. Occurrence Known to occur in nearby coastal lagoons and Batiquitos Lagoon is identified as a critical habitat area. Spartina foliosa not observed during the survey and this species has a low potential to occur within the study are. Known to occur in Batiquitos Lagoon; marginal habitat present within study area; low potential to occur. Primarily a migratory species; not expected to nest. Marginal habitat present within study area; not expected to nest. Potential to nest in adjacent areas. Marginal habitat present within study area; but no nesting colony known from Batiquitos Lagoon. Not expected to nest. Marginal habitat present within study area; not expected to nest. Potential to nest in adjacent areas. - -,-" ----------------- ATTACHMENT 5 SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES KNOWN OR WITH THE POTENTIAL TO OCCUR (continued) Species California least tern (nesting colony) Sterna anti/larum browni Western burrowing owl (burrow sites) Speotyto cunicularia hypugaea Vaux' s swift Chaetura vauxi California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia Coastal California gnatcatcher Polioptila californica californica Belding's savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi Status FE, SE,CFP, HMP,* CSC,HMP csc, * csc FT,CSC,HMP SE, HMP, * Habitat/Comments Bays, estuaries, lagoons, shoreline. Nest colonially along the coast. Migrant and very localized summer resident. Grassland, agricultural land, coastal dunes. Require rodent burrows. Declining resident. All habitat types of San Diego County during migration. Sandy shores, mesas, disturbed areas, grasslands, agricultural lands, sparse creosote bush scrub. Common breeding resident, abundant migrant and winter visitor. Coastal sage scrub, maritime succulent scrub. Resident. Salt marshes, lagoons dominated by pickleweed (Salicornia virginica). Common but localized resident. Occurrence Marginal habitat present within study area; not expected to nest. Known to nest in adjacent areas. Moderately suitable habitat present within study area; low to moderate potential to occur. Known from north side of Batiquitos Lagoon. Expected to fly over study area during spring and fall migration. Observed on-site; breeding habitat present. Not observed. Moderately suitable habitat present within study area and known from northern slopes above Batiquitos Lagoon; moderate potential to occur. Large population known from Batiquitos Lagoon. Moderate to high potential for species to be present within the salt marshes in the study area. - ------------------ ATTACHMENT 5 SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES KNOWN OR WITH THE POTENTIAL TO OCCUR (continued) Species Status Large-billed savannah sparrow Passercu/us sandwichensis rostratus CSC,HMP Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CSC,HMP, • Mammals (Nomenclature from Jones et al. 1997 and Hall 1981) Pacific little pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris pacificus STATUS CODES Listed/Proposed FE,CSC FE = Listed as endangered by the federal government FPE = Federally proposed endangered FPT = Federally proposed threatened FT = Listed as threatened by the federal government SCE = California candidate for listing as endangered SCT = California candidate for listing as threatened · SE = Listed as endangered by the state of California ST = Listed as threatened by the state of California Habitat/Comments Marshes. Very rare in San Diego County. Freshwater marshes, agricultural areas, lakeshores, parks. Localized resident often seen among flocks of red-winged blackbirds. Open coastal sage scrub; fine, alluvial sands near ocean. Occurrence Not observed; Batiquitos Lagoon salt marsh habitat has been identified as critical for this species; study area supports only a small amount of potential habitat; low to moderate portential for species to occur within study area. Suitable habitat present; moderate potential to occur. No suitable soils; not expected to occur. - --------------- ATTACHMENT 5 SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES KNOWN OR WITH THE POTENTIAL TO OCCUR {continued) ---- STATUS CODES (cont.) Other BEPA= CFP csc = FC HMP PSE * Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act California fully protected species California Department of Fish and Game species of special concern . Federal candidate for listing (tax.a for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threat(s) to support proposals to list as endangered or threatened; development and publication of proposed rules for these tax.a are anticipated) City of Carlsbad Draft Habitat Management Plan covered species Proposed as endangered by the state of California Taxa listed with an asterisk fall into one or more of the following categories: • Taxa considered endangered or rare under Section 15380(d) ofCEQA guidelines • Tax.a that are biologically rare, very restricted in distribution, or declining throughout their range • Population(s) in California that may be peripheral to the major portion of a taxon's range, but which are threatened with extirpation within California • Taxa closely associated with a habitat that is declining in California at an alarming rate (e.g., wetlands, riparian, old growth forests, desert aquatic systems, native grasslands) - APPENDIX C-2 Wetland Delineation Report I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1927 Fifth Avenue WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT FOR THE PONTO LAND lUSE STRATEGY AND VISION PROJECT CITY OF CARLS.BAD, CAJL.[FORN][A Prepared for ROBERT BEIN, WILLIAM FROST & ASSOCIATES CONTACT: DANIELLE PUTNUM 9755 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD., SUITE 100 SAN DIEGO, CA 92124-1324 DARIN BUS BIOLOGIST RECON NUMBER 3842B DECEMBER 8, 2003 San Diego, CA 92101-2358 Q This document printed on recycled paper P 619.308.9333 F 619.308.9334 RlECON I I TABLE OF CONTENTS I Summarry of Findings 1 I Introduction 1 I Methods 1 A. Wetlands 5 I B. Non-wetland Jurisdictional Waters 7 C. Other Jurisdictions 8 I Results of Field Data 8 I A. Vegetation 8 B. Hydrology 16 I C. Soils 20 I Wetland Determination 25 A. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 25 I B. California Department of Fish and Game 26 I C. City of Carlsbad 26 Regulatory Issues 26 I References Cited 26 I FIGURES I 1: Regional Location 2 2: Survey Area on USGS Map 3 3: Aerial Photograph of Survey Area 4 I 4: Existing Vegetation 9 5a: USACE and CDFG Jurisdictional Areas 17 5b: USACE and CDFG Jurisdictional Areas 18 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont) TABLES 1: Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types 2: Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters PHOTOGRAPHS 1: Coastal Brackish Marsh Adjacent to Beach and West of Carlsbad Boulevard 2: Coastal Brackish Marsh Adjacent to Beach and West of Carlsbad Boulevard 3: Southern Coastal Salt Marsh Between Northbound and Southbound Lanes on Carlsbad Boulevard · 4: Freshwater Marsh East of Carlsbad Boulevard 5: Beach and Pacific Ocean in Southern Portion of Site 6: Batiquitos Lagoon Open Water Channel West of Carlsbad Boulevard 7: Drainage Overgrown with Hottentot Fig East of Carlsbad Boulevard 8: Arroyo Willows in Drainage East of Carlsbad Boulevard 9: Concrete Ditch East of Carlsbad Boulevard ATTACHMENT 1: Wetland Delineation Data Forms 10 25 11 11 13 13 14 14 21 21 22 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Summary of Findings A wetland delineation was conducted on the approximately 130.5-acre study area for the Ponto Land Use Strategy and Vision project in the city of Carlsbad in northern San Diego County. A total of 4.39 acres of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) wetlands, 1.53 acres of USACE non-wetland waters of the U.S., and 6.15 acres of California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) jurisdictional areas occur on-site. The site contains three drainages, one lagoon channel, and five wetlands. Introduction This report describes the results of a wetland delineation conducted on the survey area for Ponto Land Use Strategy and Vision project. This report identifies the location of all jurisdictional waters and provides the necessary background information for analysis by USACE and CDFG. USACE and CDFG can use these data to make a final jurisdictional determination with respect to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 1600-1607 of the Fish and Game Code. The biological resources of the site are discussed separately in the Existing Conditions Report for the Ponto Land Use Strategy and Vision Project (RECON 2003). The study area for the Ponto Land Use Strategy and Vision project is in the city of Carlsbad, California (Figure 1). The site spans Sections 29, 32, and 33 of Township 12 South, Range 4 West of the U.S. Geographic Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute topographic map Encinitas quadrangle (Figure 2) (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] 1968). As seen on the USGS Encinitas quadrangle and the one-inch equals 200 feet aerial photograph of the site taken in January 2001, the site is bounded by La Costa A venue to the south, the Pacific Ocean to the west, and Poinsettia Lane to the north (Figure 3). The 130.5-acre site borders the Pacific Ocean and Batiquitos Lagoon. Elevation of the site ranges from approximately O to 60 feet above mean sea level (USGS 1968). The site contains three drainages, one lagoon channel, and five wetlands. The lagoon channel connects Batiquitos Lagoon with the Pacific Ocean. Methods RECON biologists Darin Busby and Gerry Scheid conducted a wetland delineation on June 2, 2003, according to the guidelines set forth by USACE (1987) .. A wetland delineation is used to identify and map the extent of the wetlands and waters of the U.S. and provide information regarding jurisdictional issues. Prior to conducting the delineation, the aerial photograph and the USGS Encinitas quadrangle were examined to aid in the determination of potential waters of the U.S. on-site. Once on-site, the 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Pacific: Ocean REC O N lv1:\ljo( bs211\384'2\bio\gis\weclec.oo,· "9 reg 06/26/03 * Project location Son Vicente\ Reservoir · FIGURE 1 Regional Location I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Map Source: USGS 7.5 minute topographic map series, Encinitas quadrangle l \ ... \ I r \ \ \ 0 -:. . .., REC O N M: \Jobs2\384 2\b10 \g ts ,.wohec.opr' f;g2 (usgsl 06/26/03 \ l \ \ \ n \ Project location (). ' ( 1 -' IQ U !TO~ ,/ .,:,;'·'"?-:~ :_,>.:__.':"-;.:.....:) > 0 Feet 2000 d FIGURE 2 Project Location on USGS Map I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I REC O N \ Pmjed locat;on 0 Feel FIGURE 3 Aerial Photograph of Project I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I potential areas were examined to determine the presence of any of the three wetland parameters or ordinary high water marks. Soil test pits were selected within potential wetland areas and where the apparent boundary between wetland and upland was inferred based on changes in the topography, hydrology, and composition of the vegetation. The remainder of the survey area was also examined in the field for potential waters of the U.S and CDFG jurisdictional areas. The locations of soil test pits and jurisdictional areas were marked on the one-inch equals 200 feet aerial photograph. A. Wetlands According to the 1987 USACE manual, wetlands are defined as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances, do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." Wetlands are delineated using three parameters: hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils. According to USACE, indicators for all three parameters must be present to gualify as a wetland. The definition of a wetland includes the phrase "under normal circumstances" because there are situations in which the vegetation of a wetland has been removed or altered as a result of recent natural events or human ., activities (USACE 1987). To describe these conditions, USACE included definitions for atypical situations and problem areas. They are as follows: Atypical situation: . . . refers to areas in which one or more parameters (vegetation, soil, and/or hydrology) have been sufficiently altered by recent human activities· or natural events to preclude the presence of wetland indicators of the parameter (USACE 1987). Problem areas: . . . wetland types in which wetland indicators of one or more parameters may be periodically lacking due to normal seasonal or annual variations in environmental conditions that result from causes other than human activities or catastrophic natural events. Representative examples of problem areas include seasonal wetlands, wetlands on drumlins, prairie potholes, and vegetated flats (USACE 1987). Atypical situations and problem areas may lack one or more of the three criteria and still be considered wetlands if background information on the previous condition of the area and field observations indicate that the missing wetland criteria were present before the disturbance and would occur at the site under normal circumstances. Additional 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I delineation procedures would be employed if normal circumstances did not occur on a site. The Ponto Specific Plan site does not contain problem wetland areas or atypical situations. All wetlands on-site appear to be fed from groundwater, a direct connection with Batiquitos Lagoon, the Pacific Ocean, and/or surface runoff from surrounding areas. The current site conditions are presumed to be the "~ormal circumstances" and a routine delineation method was used. 1. Hydrophytic Vegetation Hydrophytic vegetation is defined as "the sum total of macrophytic plant life growing in water or on a substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content" (USACE 1987). The potential wetland areas were surveyed by walking the project site and making observations of those areas exhibiting characteristics of jurisdictional waters or wetlands. Vegetation within the potential jurisdictional areas was examined. The dominant plant species for each vegetation stratum (i.e., tree, shrub, herb, and vine) was determined and the relative canopy cover of each species present was visually estimated. The dominant species were then recorded on a summary datasheet along with the associated wetland indicator status of those species. The wetland indicator status of each dominant species was determined by using the list of wetland plants for California provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1997). The hydrophytic vegetation criterion is considered fulfilled at a location if greater than 50 percent of all the dominant species present within the vegetation unit have a wetland indicator status of obligate (OBL), facultative-wet (FACW), or facultative (FAC) (USACE 1987). An OBL indicator status refers to plants that have a 99 percent probability of occurring in wetlands under natural conditions. A F ACW indicator status refers to plants that occur in wetlands (67-99 percent probability) but are occasionally found in non-wetlands. A FAC indicator status refers to plants that are equally likely to occur in wetlands or non-wetlands (estimated probability 34-66 percent). 2. Wetland Hydrology Hydrologic information for the site was obtained by reviewing USGS topographic maps and by directly observing hydrology indicators in the field. Examples of wetland hydrology indicators may include, but are not limited to, inundation, watermarks, drift lines, sediment deposits, and drainage patterns. Evidence of flows, flooding, and ponding was recorded and the frequency and duration of these events were inferred. The wetland hydrology criterion is considered fulfilled at a location if, based upon the conclusions inferred from the field observations, an area has a high probability of being periodically inundated or has soils saturated to the surface at some time during the 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the surface soil environment, especially the root zone (USACE 1987). 3. Hydrric §oils A hydric soil is a soil that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation (USA CE 1987). The hydric soil criterion is. considered fulfilled at a location if soils in the area can be inferred to have a high groundwater table, evidence of prolonged soil saturation, or any indicators suggesting a long-term reducing environment in the upper 18 inches of the soil profile. Soil test pits were selected within potential wetland areas and where the apparent boundary between wetland and upland was inferred based on changes in the topography, hydrology, and composition of the vegetation. Soil test pits were dug to a depth of at least 18 inches or to a depth necessary to determine soil color, evidence of soil saturation, depth to groundwater, and indicators of a reducing soil environment ( e.g., mottling, gleying, and sulfidic odor). Sandy soils may mask the presence of hydric soil indicators. Additional wetland indicators used to identify hydric sandy soils include high organic matter content in the surface horizon or at the depth of the water table and organic streaking. B. Non-wetland Jurisdictional Waters The USACE also requires the delineation of non-wetland jurisdictional waters. These waters must have strong hydrology indicators such as the presence of seasonal flows and an ordinary high water mark. An ordinary high water mark is defined as: " ... that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as [a] clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas." (33 CFR Part 328.3) Areas delineated as non-wetland jurisdictional waters may lack wetland vegetation or hydric soil characteristics .. Hydric soil indicators may be missing because topographic position precludes ponding and subsequent development of hydric soils. Absence of wetland vegetation can result from frequent scouring due to rapid water flow. These types of jurisdictional waters are delineated by the lateral and upstream/downstream extent of the ordinary high water mark of the particular drainage or depression. 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ca Other Jurisdictions Guidelines for delineating the extent of jurisdiction for CDFG and the City of Carlsbad are described below. 1. California Department of Fish and Game Under sections 1600-1607 of the Fish and Game Code, the California Department of Fish and Game regulates activities that would divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake that supports fish or wildlife. CDFG has jurisdiction over riparian habitats ( e.g., southern willow scrub) associated with watercourses. Jurisdictional waters are delineated by the outer edge of riparian vegetation or at the top of the bank of streams or lakes, whichever is wider. 2. City of Carlsbad The City of Carlsbad takes jurisdiction over all USACE and CDFG jurisdictional areas (City of Carlsbad 1999). Results of Field Data A description of the vegetation, hydrology, and soil types observed in the field is discussed below. The data forms detailing information gathered in the field are provided in Attachment 1. A. Vegetation Six vegetation communities and land cover types were identified on the approximately I 30.5-acre study area: coastal brackish marsh, southern coastal salt marsh, freshwater marsh, beach, open water, non-vegetated floodway, disturbed southern coastal bluff scrub, disturbed coastal sage scrub, maritime succulent scrub, disturbed areas, and developed areas. Table 1 lists the acres of each vegetation community and land cover type and Figure 4 illustrated the location of each present within the study area. 8 -------- Vegetation communities I ·. . . . I Coastal brackish marsh I I Disturbed coastal sage scrub h: .:XLLI Disturbed southern coastal bluff scrub Southern coastal salt marsh Freshwater marsh fHHfil,E1 Maritime succulent scrub REC O N M:\jobs2\384?\bio\~is\wertec.opc\ li94 (veg) 08/04/0o ---- HWHfilWI Disturbed I I Open water I I Beach I I Developed Non-vegetated floodway --- \ Project locoHon ---- 0 Feel FIGURE 4 Existi ng Vegetation I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE 1 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND LAND COVER TYPES Vegetation Community Coastal brackish marsh Southern coastal salt marsh Freshwater marsh Beach Open water Non-vegetated floodway Disturbed southern coastal bluff scrub Disturbed coastal sage scrub Maritime succulent scrub Disturbed Developed TOTAL 1. Coastal Brackish Marsh -1.89 acres Acres 1.89 1.97 0.62 25.41 1.23 0.70 7.56 5.95 0.55 31.86 53.73 130.47 Coastal brackish marshes are dominated by perennial, emergent, herbaceous monocots up to around two meters tall. These marshes are similar to coastal salt marshes and freshwater marshes, with a mix of the site and plant characteristics of each. Coastal brackish marshes are often adjacent to salt marshes at the edges of coastal bays and lagoons. The coastal brackish marshes receive water from both saline and freshwater inputs. Salinity may vary, increasing at high tide or during seasons of iow freshwater runoff (Holland 1986). Two areas of coastal brackish marsh occur west of Carlsbad Boulevard and adjacent to the South Carlsbad State Beach parking area. These areas are part of a habitat restoration project and are protected from human intrusion by rope fencing (Photographs I and 2). Dominant plant species include mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), broad-leaved cattail (Typha latifolia), bulrush (Scirpus sp.), arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), and spiny rush (Juncus acutus L. ssp. leopoldii). 2. Southern Coastal Salt Marsh -1.97 acres Southern coastal salt marsh consists of salt-tolerant herbaceous plant species and occurs in bays, estuaries, and lagoons in California from Point Conception to the Mexican border. Southern coastal salt marshes are highly productive ecosystems that are driven by tidal cycles, which bring a daily influx of nutrients (Holland 1986). Two areas of southern coastal salt marsh occur in the survey area. Both areas are in the median between the southbound and northbound traffic lanes of Carlsbad Boulevard. 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PHOTOGRAPH 1 Coastal Brackish Marsh Adjacent to Beach and West of Carlsbad Boulevard PH OTOGRAPH 2 Coasta l Brackish Marsh Adjacent to Beach and West of Carlsbad Boulevard REC ON M:\JOBS2\3842\b10,grophics\photos l -2.oi 06/16/03 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Pickleweed (Salicornia virginica) and alkali heath (Frankenia salina) are the two dominant plant species occurring in the southern coastal salt marsh (Photograph 3). 3. Freshwater Marsh -0.62 acre Coastal and valley freshwater marsh is a community that consists of perennial emergent monocots such as broad-leaved cattail and bulrush. Freshwater marsh vegetation occurs in open bodies of fresh water with little current flow, such as ponds, and to a lesser extent around seeps and springs. The vegetation typically forms a closed canopy. Freshwater marshes occur in areas of permanent inundation by freshwater without active stream flow. Freshwater marsh communities, as with all wetland habitats, have been greatly reduced throughout their entire range and continue to decline as a result of urbanization. An area of freshwater marsh occurs east of Carlsbad Boulevard and adjacent to Batiquitos Lagoon (Photograph 4 ). The marsh is higher than the lagoon and therefore does not receive saltwater. The dominant plants in this community include broad-leaved cattail and California bulrush (Scirpus califomicus). 4. Beach -25.41 acres The west side of the site is bordered by South Carlsbad State Beach adjacent to the Pacific Ocean. The beach is comprised mainly of sand with some plant species occurring on the fringe of the beach along the parking area and disturbed southern coastal bluff scrub (Photograph 5). The dominant plant species on the vegetated fringe include crystalline ice plant (Mesembryanthemum crystallinum), beach-bur (Ambrosia chamissonis), sea rocket (Cakile maritima), beach evening primrose (Camissonia cheiranthifolia ssp. cheiranthifolia), and Hottentot fig (Carpobrotus edulis). 5. Open Water -1.23 acres The Batiquitos Lagoon channel is mapped as open water. This channel receives inflow from the Pacific Ocean and outflow from Batiquitos Lagoon (Photograph 6). 6. Non-vegetated Floodway -0. 70 acre A non-vegetated floodway composed of rocks is located along the northern and southern banks of the Batiquitos Lagoon channel. These rocks stabilize the banks of the channel. 7. Disturbed Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub -7 .96 acres Southern coastal bluff scrub occurs at localized sites along the coast south of Pt. Conception. The plant composition is mostly woody and/or succulent and low to somewhat prostrate, up to two meters tall. The majority of growth and flowering occurs from late winter through spring. 12 I I I I I I I I I I I .I I I I I I I REC ON M: 1JOBS21384 2\bio,grophics\pholos3--1 c,i PHOTOGRAPH 3 Southern Coastal Salt Marsh Between Northbound and Southbound Lanes on Carlsbad Boulevard PHOTOGRAPH 4 Freshwater Marsh East of Carlsbad Boulevard 06/27103 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I' REC O N M: \JOBS2\3 84 2\bio \graphics\phoros5-6. ai PHOTOGRAPH 5 Beach and Pacific Ocean in Southern Portion of Site ·a PHOTOGRAPH 6 Freshwater Marsh East of Carlsbad Boulevard 06/28/03 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Disturbed southern coastal bluff scrub is present on the bluff above the beach and below South Carlsbad Sate Beach. Dominant plant species include crystalline ice plant, beach evening primrose, Hottentot fig, and sea rocket. 8. Disturbed Coastal Sage Scrub -5.95 acres Coastal sage scrub is a plant community comprised of low-growing, aromatic, drought- deciduous soft-woody shrubs that have an average height of approximately three to four feet. Coastal sage scrub intergrades at higher elevations with several types of chaparrals, or in drier more inland areas with Riversidian sage scrub. Coastal sage scrub is found in coastal areas from Los Angeles County south into Baja California (Holland 1986). The occurrence of disturbed coastal sage scrub on-site is largely due to revegetation efforts in the median of Carlsbad Boulevard and the South Carlsbad State Beach parking area. The dominant native plant species include California sagebrush, common encelia (Encelia californica), and California buckwheat. These areas of coastal sage scrub are considered disturbed due to the presence of non-native invasive and/or ornamental species such as scarlet pimpernel (Anagallis arvensis), smooth caf s-ear (Hypocharis glauca), sour clover (Melilotus indica), and fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum). 9. Maritime Succulent Scrub a 0.55 acre Maritime succulent scrub is a low (two to three feet high), open (25-75 percent cover) vegetation community do~nated by drought deciduous, subligneous (somewhat woody), malacophyllous (soft-leaved) shrubs with a rich mixture of stem and leaf succulents. This type of succulent scrub intergrades with southern coastal bluff scrub on more exposed headlands and bluffs and with Venturan sage scrub on better developed, moister soils away from the immediate coast (Holland 1986). Maritime succulent scrub occurs on the south-facing slope adjacent to Bataquitos Lagoon and the fresh water marsh. The most common plant species include California box thorn (Lycium californicum), bladderpod (lsomeris menziesii), cholla ( Opuntia prolifera), common encelia, and chalk lettuce (Dudleya pulverulenta ssp. pulverulenta). 10. Disturbed -31.86 acres A large part of the site is mapped as ruderal. This includes a large, flat terrace on the eastern portion of the survey area and portions of the Carlsbad Boulevard median. These areas are telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), tocolote (Centaurea melitensis), and black mustard (Brassica nigra). 15 I I I I I I .I I I I I I I I I I I I I llo Developed -530 73 acres Approximately 53.44 acres of developed area is present on-site. These areas include the South Carlsbad State Beach campground and parking areas, an area consisting of light industrial and residential buildings, and Carlsbad Boulevard and other roads. B. Hydrology The site borders the Pacific Ocean and Batiquitos Lagoon. The site contains three drainages, one lagoon channel, and five wetlands. All the drainages and wetlands have a connection with the Pacific Ocean but are unnamed and are not classified as a blue line stream on the USGS topographical map. The lagoon channel connects Batiquitos Lagoon with the Pacific Ocean. Figure 5 shows the location of drainages and wetlands in the survey area. 1. Wetlands Five USACE wetlands and CDFG wetland/riparian areas occur on-site (see Figure 5). USACE has jurisdiction over 4.39 acres of wetland and CDFG has jurisdiction over 4.50 acres of wetland/riparian habitat. The presence of wetland hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydric soils was used to determine the jurisdictional status of each wetland. All the wetlands identified have a connection to the Pacific Ocean. Vegetation in these wetland areas is predominantly FACW and OBL wetland indicator species. Primary indicators of wetland hydrology in wetland areas on the site are standing water, saturated soils, water marks, topography, oxidized root channels throughout the soil profile, and layers of sediment deposition in the upper soil. Indications of hydric soils included sulfidic odor, low-chroma soil colors, mottling, and indications of reducing conditions in the soil. USACE and CDFG have jurisdiction over the two coastal brackish marshes in the southern portion of the site, totaling 1.8 acres. CDFG has jurisdiction over an additional 0.07 acre as riparian habitat. These wetlands appear to be created or enhanced wetlands. The wetland adjacent to the beach is approximately 1.39 acres. This wetland is dominated by OBL spiny rush and F ACW bulrush, is inundated, and is assumed to contain hydric soils (see Photograph 1). The wetland adjacent to Carlsbad Boulevard is approximately 0.41 acre. This wetland is dominated by F ACW arroyo willow and F ACW mule fat, is inundated, and is assumed to contain hydric soils (see Photograph 2). Soil test pits were not dug because the wetlands occur within a habitat restoration area. USA CE and CDFG have jurisdiction over the two southern coastal salt marshes between the northbound and southbound lanes on Carlsbad Boulevard, totaling 1.97 acres. The salt marsh to the south of the Batiquitos Lagoon channel is approximately 1.48 acres. The salt marsh to the north of the Batiquitos Lagoon channel is approximately 0.49 acre. Both 16 -------- l·'>'></~j CDFG jurisdictional area USACE non-wetland waters of the U.S. ~-~I USACE wetland • Soil test pits Culvert REC O N M:\jobs2\3842\bio\gis\wettec.opr\ f,gSo (jw) 06/27 /03 ----- \ Pro ject location Concrete ditch ------ FIGURE Sa USACE and CDFG Jurisdictional Areas -------- f--'...-✓-'.,<.,< .. j CDFG jurisdictional area USACE non-wetland waters of the U.S. '----I USACE wetland Soil test pits Culvert REC O N M:\1obs?\384?\.b10\9,s\.,,.,1"ttecllp1\ fiqSb liwi 06/27 /03 ------- \ Project location ---- 0 Feet FIGURE 56 USACE and CDFG Ju risdictional Areas I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I of these wetlands are dominated by OBL pickleweed and F ACW + alkali heath, contain wetland hydrology, and contain hydric soils (see Photograph 3). The wetlands receive periodic surface flows from the concrete culverts connecting to the Batiquitos Lagoon channel. These areas may also be low enough to receive groundwater. USACE and CDFG have jurisdiction over the 0.62-acre freshwater marsh east of Carlsbad Boulevard. The wetland is dominated by the OBL California bulrush and OBL broad-leaved cattail, is inundated, and contains hydric soils (see Photograph 4). The wetland appears to be a created wetland that acts as a detention basin to collect surface runoff from surrounding areas. The site contains an irrigation system on the banks that may have been used for the creation of the wetland during the plant establishment period. Water exits the wetland through a drain on the eastern side. A four-foot-wide soil- covered concrete swale above the drain appears to function as a floodway channel during high flow events. This swale also connects the wetland to Batiquitos Lagoon. USACE and CDFG have jurisdiction over the intertidal area along the west side of the site (see Photograph 5). The extent of the beach is determined by the location of the ordinary high water mark. As previously mentioned, the ordinary high water mark is established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as changes in the character of soil and the presence of litter and debris (33 CFR Part 328.3). 2. Drainages Four USACE non-wetland waters of the U.S. and CDFG jurisdictional streambeds occur on-site (see Figure 5). USACE non-wetland waters of the U.S. total approximately 1.53 acres and CDFG streambeds total approximately 1.55 acres. The presence of an ordinary high water mark, riparian vegetation, and a connection to the Pacific Ocean was used to determine the jurisdictional status of each area. The acreage was determined by multiplying the length by the lateral extent of the ordinary high water marks or canopy cover at selected locations. In addition to ordinary high water marks, drift lines and cut banks were observed in some areas that were determined to be jurisdictional waters. The Batiquitos Lagoon channel receives inflow from the Pacific Ocean and outflow from Batiquitos Lagoon. The section of the Batiquitos Lagoon channel on-site is approximately 130 feet wide by 475 feet long. USACE and CDFG have jurisdiction over approximately 1.45 acres of the channel. CDFG has jurisdiction over an additional 0.10- acre on the banks of the non-vegetated floodway on the north and south side of the channel. The banks of the channel are composed of boulders (see Photograph 6). Carlsbad Boulevard crosses over the channel. A 572-foot-long drainage averaging three feet wide originates east of Carlsbad Boulevard at Ponto Drive (see Figure Sa). The drainage runs south through an empty lot to a concrete ditch. A vertical culvert is present at the intersection of the drainage and the 19 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I concrete ditch that likely connects to the existing storm water system and likely connects to the Pacific Ocean (see Figure Sa). The first half of the drainage is approximately four feet wide by three feet deep and is overgrown with Hottentot fig (Photograph 7). The second half of the drainage is approximately two feet wide and has cut banks averaging one to two feet high. Two arroyo willows grow within the second half of the drainage (Photograph 8). The drainage then intersects with a two-foot-wide concrete ditch, and a culvert at the eastern end that connects to the Pacific Ocean (Photograph 9). The drainage is ephemeral, most likely exhibiting surface flow in times of high precipitation and subsiding to dry channels in drier times. Surface flows likely originate as runoff from Ponto Drive and surrounding lots. USACE's jurisdiction includes approximately 0.04 acre of the drainage as defined by the ordinary high water mark. CDFG's jurisdiction totals approximately 0.09 acre and includes the drainage from both upper banks and the canopy of two isolated arroyo willows present in the southern portion of the drainage. USACE and CDFG have jurisdiction over a 4-foot-wide by 44-foot-long (0.04 acre) soil- covered concrete swale that connects the wetland east of Carlsbad Boulevard to Batiquitos Lagoon. The swale appears to function as an overflow channel during times of high precipitation. USACE and CDFG have jurisdiction over the same area of the swale. USACE and CDFG have jurisdiction over a 68-foot-long unvegetated drainage that originates near the northwestern corner of the parking lot in the southern portion of the site. The drainage is approximately two feet wide and runs north into the adjacent \ wetland. CDFG jurisdiction includes the arroyo willow at the top of the drainage. C. Soils Three soil series-Coastal Beaches, Marina, and Terrace Escarpments-are mapped within the survey area (USDA 1973). Characteristics of these soils are summarized from the Soil Survey of San Diego Area, California (USDA 1973 ). None of these soil series are listed as hydric soils by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA 1995). The attributes of these soils are discussed below. 1. Coastal Beaches Coastal beaches (Cr) occur as gravelly and sandy beaches along the Pacific Ocean where the shore is washed and rewashed by ocean waves. Part of this land type is likely to be covered with water during high tide and stormy periods. This soil has rapid permeability. 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PHOTOGRAPH 7 Drainage Overgrown with Hottentot-fig East of Carlsbad Boulevard PHOTOGRAPH 8 Arroyo Willows in Drainage East of Carlbad Boulevard REC ON M:\JOBS'2\3842\bioigrophics\photos7-8.ai 06/17103 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------------------· -------·---I PHOTOGRAPH 9 Concrete Ditch East of Carlsbad Boulevard REC ON M:\JOBS2\3842\bio\g,aphics\photo9.oi 06/ 17 /03 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2. Marina Series Marina loamy coarse sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes (MlC) and Marina loamy coarse sand, 9 to 30 percent slopes (MlE) are found on-site. These soils generally are found on beach ridges and are derived from weakly consolidated to noncoherent ferruginous eolian sand. The soils belong to the Entisol order and Alfie Xeropsamment suborder. Entisol are young soils that show little alteration of the parent material. Alfie Xeropsamment are deep sandy soils that have a clay lamella in the subsoil. The soil formed in a climate that has a warm dry season of more than 60 days and a moist season of more than 90 days. In a representative profile the surface layer is brown and dark yellowish-brown and slightly acidic in the first 10 inches. The subsoil is brown and mildly alkaline in the next 47 inches. The substratum is yellow and moderately alkaline. Marina loamy coarse sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes (MIC) are found on the majority of the site. The soil has rapid permeability, slow to medium runoff, and a slight to moderate erosion hazard. Marina loamy coarse sand, 9 to 30 percent slopes (MIE) are found in the southern portion of the site. The soil has rapid permeability, medium to rapid runoff, and a moderate to high erosion hazard. 3. Terrace Escarpments Terrace escarpments (TeF) typically occurs on the coastal plain a:od as small areas in the foothills and the desert. The soil occurs between narrow floodplains and adjoining uplands and the steep sides of drainages that are entrenching into level uplands. Typically, there are 4 to 10 inches of loamy or gravelly soil over soft marine sandstone, shale, or gravelly sediments. The soil has rapid runoff and a high erosion hazard. 4. Soils Results Eight soil test pits were dug throughout the site (see Figure 5). Sample points were selected within potential wetland areas and where the apparent boundary between wetland and upland was inferred based on changes in the topography, hydrology, and composition of the vegetation. The wetland data forms are provided in Attachment 1 for reference. Test pits 1 and 2 were dug in the central detention basin east of Carlsbad Boulevard. These pits yielded the following three soil profiles: very dark gray (lOYR 3/1) sandy loam with yellowish red (5YR 5/8) mottles, dark brown (lOYR 3/2) sandy loam with black (lOYR 2/1) mottles, and pale red (2.5 YR 7/2) sandy loam. Very dark gray soil with yellowish red mottles and dark brown soil with black mottles was observed in test pit 1. These soils nearly match the soil profile of dark brown (lOYR 3/3) found at Oto 2 inches and brown (7 .5YR 4/4) found at 10 to 17 inches in the Marina Series (USDA 23 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1973). The low-chroma soil color and the presence of reducing conditions (mottles) indicate the observed soil is hydric. In addition, the test pit is located in a relatively lower topographic position that is poorly drained and susceptible to frequent flooding. These are the criteria used to list these soils as hydric (USDA 1992). Pale red soil was observed in test pit 2, and does not match the soil profile in the Marina Series (USDA 1973). The soil in test pit 2 is not hydric. Test pits 3 and 4 were dug in the tidal flow area between the north-and southbound lanes on Carlsbad Boulevard. These pits yielded the following two soil profiles: dark gray ( IOYR 4/l) sandy loam with dark yellowish brown (lOYR 4/4) mottles and dark gray (l OYR 4/l) sandy loam with yellowish brown ( lOYR 5/6) mottles. Dark gray soil with dark yellowish brown mottles was observed in test pit 3 and dark gray soil with yellowish brown mottles was observed in test pit 4. These observed soils do not match the soil profile in the Marina Series (USDA 1973). The low-chroma soil color and the presence of reducing conditions (mottles) indicate the observed soil is hydric. In addition, the test pit is located in a detention basin with a relatively lower topographic position that is poorly drained and susceptible to frequent flooding. These are the criteria used to list the soils in pits 3 and 4 as hydric (USDA 1992). Test pit 5 was dug in the drainage between Carlsbad Boulevard and Ponto Drive. This pit yielded the following soil profile: dark brown (lOYR 3/3) sandy loam. This soil matches the soil profile of dark brown (lOYR 3/3) found at Oto 2 inches and brown (7.5YR 4/4) found at IO to 17 inches in the Marina Series (USDA 1973). This soil is not hydric. A pit was not dug for test pit 6 in the marsh west of Carlsbad Boulevard and adjacent to the beach, because the wetland occurs within a habitat restoration area. The soils are assumed to be hydric because the site is inundated, and has a low topographic position that is poorly drained and susceptible to frequent flooding. These are the criteria used to list these soils as hydric (USDA 1992). A pit was not dug for test pit 7 in the marsh west and adjacent to Carlsbad Boulevard, because the wetland occurs within a habitat restoration area. The soils are assumed to be hydric because the site is inundated, and has a low topographic position that is poorly drained and susceptible to frequent flooding. These are the criteria used to list these soils as hydric (USDA 1992). Test pit 8 was dug in the tidal flow area between the northbound and southbound lanes on Carlsbad Boulevard. This pit yielded the following soil profile: black ( 1 OYR 2/1) sandy loam with a four-inch clay layer. This observed soil does not match the soil profile in the Marina Series (USDA 1973). The low-chroma soil color and the presence of a sulfidic odor and reducing conditions indicate the observed soil is hydric. In addition, the test pit filled with water at 18 inches, and is located in a relatively lower topographic position 24 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I that is poorly drained and susceptible to frequent flooding. These are the criteria used to list these soils as hydric (USDA 1992). Wetland Determination A total of 4.39 acres of USACE wetlands, 1.53 acres of USACE non-wetland waters of the U.S., and 6.05 acres of CDFG jurisdictional areas occur on-site (Table 2). Figure 5 shows the location of soil test pits and jurisdictional areas. These areas are described below. TABLE2 JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS AND WATERS Wetland Determination USACE Jurisdiction Wetland Non-wetland waters of the U.S. TOTALUSACE CDFG Jurisdiction Wetland/riparian habitat Streambed TOTALCDFG A. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Acres 4.39 1.53 5.92 4.50 1.65 6.15 A total of 5.92 acres of USACE jurisdictional waters occur on-site. Of the 5.92 acres, 4.39 acres are wetlands and 1.53 acres are non-wetland waters of the U.S. 1. Wetlands Five wetlands totaling 4.39 acres occur on-site (see Figure 5). The presence of wetland hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydric soils was used to determine the jurisdictional status of each wetland. All the wetlands identified have a connection to the Pacific Ocean. 2. Non-wetland Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. Four non-wetland jurisdictional waters of the U.S. totaling approximately 1,150 linear feet (1.5 acres) occur on-site (see Figure 5). The presence of an ordinary high water mark 25 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I an% a connection to the Pacific Ocean was used to determine the jurisdictional status of each area. Bo California Department of Fish and Game A total of 6.15 acre; of CDFG jurisdictional areas occurs on-site. All USACE jurisdictional areas previously described fall under the jurisdiction of CDFG. With the exception of a few locations, all CDFG jurisdictional areas have the same acreage as the USACE jurisdictional areas. Therefore, CDFG jurisdictional areas include all wetland, non-wetland waters of the U.S., stream banks, and riparian habitat (see Figure 5). CDFG will verify this jurisdictional determination during the review process. C.. City of Carlsbad All USACE and CDFG jurisdictional areas fall under the jurisdiction of the city of Carlsbad. City of Carlsbad jurisdictional areas total approximately 6.15 acres. The City of Carlsbad will verify this jurisdiction during the review process. Regulatory Issues Jurisdictional waters are regulated by the federal, state, and local governments under a no-net-loss policy and all impacts are considered significant and should be avoided to the greatest extent possible. Approved impacts would require mitigation through habitat creation, enhancement, or preservation, as determined by a qualified restoration specialist in consultation with the regulatory agencies. In addition, regulatory agencies often require that a buffer be maintained between jurisdictional waters and any development. The width of the buffer area can vary, depending on project design, but is typically 100 feet. Any impacts to USACE and CDFG jurisdictional waters would require acquisition of a 404 permit from USACE, a 401 Water Quality Certification from RWQCB, and a 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFG. References Cited Carlsbad, City of 1999 Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad. December. 26 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation 1989 Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Agriculture-Soil Conservation Service, Cooperative technical publi~ation, Washington, D.C. Holland, Robert F. 1986 Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Nongame-Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and Game. October. RECON 2003 Existing Conditions Report for the Ponto Land Use Strategy and Vision Project, City of Carlsbad, California. June. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, Department of the Anny~ January. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1973 Soil Survey, San Diego Area, California. Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service. Roy H. Bowman, ed. San Diego. December. 1992 Hydric Soil List. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Escondido, CA Field Office. Field Office Technical Guide. March. 1995 Hydric Soils of California. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available from . <http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/hydric/state.html>. Accessed July 17, 2002. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1997 National List of Vascular Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary. Ecology Section-National Wetlands Inventory. March 3, 1997. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1968 Encinitas quadrangle 7.5-minute topographic map. 27 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ATTACHMENT 1 Wetland Delineation Data Forms I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD ProjecVSite: Ponto Specific Plan, Carlsbad Date: June 21, 2003 ApplicanVOwner: RBF Consulting County: San Diego lnvestigator(s): Darin Busby, Gerry Scheid State: California Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? 181 Yes 0 No Community ID: Fresh water marsh Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? D Yes 181 No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? D Yes 181 No Plot ID: 1 (if needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Typha latifolia H OBL 9. 2. Scirpus califomicus H OBL 10. 3. Platanus racemosa T FACW 11. 4. Salix gooddingii T OBL 12. 5. 13. 6. 14. 7. 15. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) JOO% Remarks: 1 . Assume presence of wetland vegetation? 2. Rooted emergent vegetation present? HYDROLOGY D Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): D Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge D Aerial Photographs D Other 181 No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: 1£±..._ (in.) Depth to Water in Pit: NIA (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: NIA (in.) Observations and Remarks: 181 igi Yes □ No -Yes □ No Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: 181 Inundated 181 Saturated in: 181 Upper 12" 18113-18" 181 Water Marks D Drift Lines D Sediment Deposits D Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): D Oxidized Root Channels in: D Upper 12" 0 13-18" D Water-Stained Leaves D Local Soil Survey Data D FAG-Neutral Test D Other (Explain in Remarks) 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 181 Yes □ No 2. Slope: 181 0-2%; or □ >2% 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: □ new roots only; D old roots only; D new and old roots, 181 none 4. Flooding: □ none, flooding not probable; □ rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; D occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or 181 frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: □ very brief, if <2 days; □ brief, if 2-7 days, or 181 long, if >7 days 6. Site ponds water? 181 Yes □ No ' SOILS Map Unit Name Drainage Class: Slight to moderate (Series and Phase): Marina loamy coarse sand, 2-9 % slope Permeability: Rapid Runoff: Slow to medium Taxonomy (Subgroup): Alfie Xeropsamment Field Observations: Confirm Mapped Type? 181 Yes 0 No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Contrast Structures, etc. 0-6 10 YR 3/2 5 YR5/8 Abundant Sandy loam 6-18 10 YR 3/2 IOYR 2/1 Small Sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: D Histosol □ Concretions D Histic Epipedon □ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils D Sulfidic Odor □ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils D Aquic Moisture Regime □ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 181 Reducing Conditions □ Listed on National Hydric Soils List 181 Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors □ Other (Explain in Remarks) Observations and Remarks: 1. Smell: □ Neutral; □ Slightly fresh; or 181 Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: □ Irrigated; □ Land leveled; □ Ditch drained; □ Pumped; □ Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils: 181 do D do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (>7 days) to ve,y long durations . (>30 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 181 Yes □ No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? 181 Yes D No Wetland Hydrology Present? 181 Yes □ No Hydric Soils Present? 181 Yes □ No Remarks: 1. Possibly water of the U.S. ? 181 Yes D No 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA Regulation? □ Yes 181 No (If yes, check item(s) below.) (a) □ Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on d,y land {b} □ Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the i"igation ceased. (c) □ Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking d,y land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. --~ (d) □ Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/.o_r diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. (e) □ Water-filled depressions created in d,y land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in d,y land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional Comments/Remarks: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD ProjecVSite: Ponto, Carlsbad Date: June 21, 2003 ApplicanVOwner: RBF Consulting County: San Diego lnvestigator(s): Darin Busby, Gerry Scheid State: California Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? 181 Yes 0 No Community ID: Upland Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? D Yes 181 No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? D Yes 181 No Plot ID: 2 (if needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum 1. Lotus scoparius s u 9. 2. Cortaderia jubata H u 10. 3. Carpobrotus chilensis H u 11. 4. Baccharis pilularis s u 12. 5. Encelia califomica s u 13. 6. 14. 7. 15. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excludinq FAC-) 0% Remarks: 1. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? 2. Rooted emergent vegetation present? HYDROLOGY D Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): D Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge D Aerial Photographs □ □ Yes 181 No - Yes 181 No Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: D Inundated Indicator D Other D Saturated in: D Upper 12" D 13-18" D Water Marks 181 No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Water in Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: Observations and Remarks: NIA (in.) ~ (in.) ~(in.) 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? □ Yes 181 No 2. Slope: 181 0-2%; or □ >2% D Drift Lines D Sediment Deposits D Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): D Oxidized Root Channels in: D Upper 12" 0 13-18" D Water-Stained Leaves D Local Soil Survey Data □ FAG-Neutral Test D Other (Explain in Remarks) 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: □ new roots only; □ old roots only; □ new and old roots, 181 none 4. Flooding: □ none, flooding not probable; 181 rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; D occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or □ frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: 181 ve,y brief, if <2 days; □ brief, if 2-7 days, or □ long, if >7 days 6. Site ponds water? □ Yes 181 No SOILS Map Unit Name Drainage Class: Slight to moderate (Series and Phase): Marina loamy coarse sand. 2-9 % slope Permeability: Rapid Runoff: Slow to medium Taxonomy (Subgroup): Alfie Xeropsamment Field Observations: Confirm Mapped Type? D Yes 181 No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Contrast Structures, etc. 0-12 2.5 TR 7/2 None Sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: D Histosol D Concretions D Histic Epipedor; D High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils 0 Sulfidic Odor D Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils D Aquic Moisture Regime D listed on Local Hydric Soils List D Reducing Conditions D listed on National Hydric Soils List D Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors D Other (Explain in Remarks) ObseNations and Remarks: 1. Smell: □ Neutral; 181 Slightly fresh; or □ Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: □ Irrigated; □ Land leveled; □ Ditch drained; D Pumped; D Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils: □do 181 do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (>7 days) to ve,y long durations (>30 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: D Yes D Yes D Yes 1. Possibly water of the U.S.? D Yes 181 No 181 No 181 No 181 No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? D Yes 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA Regulation? □ Yes 181 No (If yes, check item(s) below.) (a) □ Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on d,y land (b) □ Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. 181 No (c) □ Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking d,y land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. {d) □ Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking d,y land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. (e) □ Water-filled depressions created in d,y land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in d,y land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional Comments/Remarks: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD Project/Site: Ponto Specific Plan, Carlsbad Date: June 21, 2003 Applicant/Owner: RBF Consulting County: San Diego Investigator( s): Darin Busby, Gerry Scheid State: California Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? 181 Yes □ No Community ID: Salt marsh Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? D Yes 181 No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? D Yes 181 No Plot ID: 3 (if needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Disrichlis spicara H FACW 9. 2. Frm1kc11iu .mlina H FACW+ 10. 3. Pol_\'pogo11 monspeliensis H FACW+ 11. 4. Salicomia virgi11ica H OBL 12. . 5. 13. 6. 14. 7. 15. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) 100% Remarks: 1. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? 2. Rooted emergent vegetation present? HYDROLOGY D Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): D Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge D Aerial Photographs D Other 181 No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Water in Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: Observations and Remarks: NIA (in.) ~(in.) ~(in.) 181 □ Yes □ No -Yes 181 No Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: D Inundated D Saturated in: D Upper 12" D 13-18" D Water Marks D Drift Lines 181 Sediment Deposits D Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): 181 Oxidized Root Channels in: 181 Upper 12" 181 13-18" D Water-Stained Leaves D Local Soil Survey Data D FAG-Neutral Test D Other (Explain in Remarks) 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? D Yes 181 No 2. Slope: 181 0-2%; or □ >2% 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: □ new roots only; D old roots only; 181 new and old roots, D none 4. Flooding: □ none, flooding not probable; □ rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; D occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or 181 frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2years. 5. Duration: □ very brief, if <2 days; D brief, if 2-7 days, or 181 long, if >7 days 6. Site ponds water? 181 Yes □ No SOILS Map Unit Name Drainage Class: Slight to moderate (Series and Phase): Marina loamy coarse sand. 2-9 % slope Permeability: Rapid Runoff: Slow to medium Taxonomy (Subgroup): Alfie Xeropsamment Field Observations: Confirm Mapped Type? D Yes 181 No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Contrast Structures, etc. 0-18 10 YR 4/1 IOYR4/4 Abundant, large Sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: D Histosol D Concretions D Histic Epipedon D High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils □ Sulfidic Odor D Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils D Aquic Moisture Regime D Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 181 Reducing Conditions D Listed on National Hydric Soils List 181 Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors D Other (Explain in Remarks) ObseNations and Remarks: 1. Smell: □ Neutral; □ Slightly fresh; or 181 Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: □ Irrigated; □ Land leveled; □ Ditch drained; □ Pumped; □ Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils: 181 do □ do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (>7 days) to very long durations (>30 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: 181 Yes 181 Yes 181 Yes 1. Possibly water of the U.S.? 181 Yes □ No □ No 0 No □ No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? 181 Yes 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA Regulation? □ Yes 181 No (If yes, check item(s) below.) (a) □ Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) □ Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. □ No (c) □ Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. (d) □ Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. (e) □ Water-filled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional Comments/Remarks: I I I I I I 1· I I I I I I I I I I -I I DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD Project/Site: Ponto Specific Plan, Carlsbad Date: June 21, 2003 Applicant/Owner: RBF Consulting County: San Diego lnvestigator(s): Darin Busby, Gerry Scheid State: California Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? 181 Yes □ No Community ID: salt marsh Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? D Yes 181 No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? D Yes 181 No Plot ID: 4 (if needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum 1. Ambrosia psilostachya H FAC 9. 2. Cuscuta salina H u 10. 3. Frankenia salina H FACW+ 11. 4. lsocoma menziesii s u 12. 5. Jaumea camosa H OBL 13. 6. Polypogon mo11spelie11sis H FACW+ 14. 7. 15. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAG (excludinq FAG-) 67% Remarks: 1. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? 2. Rooted emergent vegetation present? HYDROLOGY D Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): D Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge 0 Aerial Photographs 181 □ Yes □ No - Yes 181 No I Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: D Inundated Transitional Indicator D Other D Saturated in: D Upper 12" 013-18" D Water Marks 181 No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Water in Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: NIA (in.) ~(in.) ~(in.) D Drift Lines 0 Sediment Deposits 181 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): D Oxidized Root Channels in: D Upper 12" 0 13-18" D Water-Stained Leaves D Local Soil Survey Data 0 FAG-Neutral Test 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) Observations and Remarks: Likely subject to tidal Oushing but culvert is plugged with sand 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? D Yes 181 No 2. Slope: 181 0-2%; or D >2% 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: □ new roots only; □ old roots only; □ new and old roots, 181 none 4. Flooding: □ none, flooding not probable; D rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; D occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or 181 frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: D very brief, if <2 days; 181 brief, if 2-7 days, or D long, if >7 days 6. Site ponds water? 181 Yes D No .i SOILS Map Unit Name Drainage Class: Slight to moderate (Series and Phase): Marina loamy coarse sand, 2-9 % slope Permeability: Rapid Runoff: Slow to medium Taxonomy (Subgroup): Alfie Xeropsamment Field Observations: Confirm Mapped Type? D Yes 181 No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Contrast Structures, etc. 0-12 10 YR 4/1 IOYR 516 Samii, few Sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: D Histosol □ Concretions D Histic Epipedon □ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils D Sulfidic Odor □ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils D Aquic Moisture Regime □ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 181 Reducing Conditions D Listed on National Hydric Soils List 181 Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors D Other (Explain in Remarks) Observations and Remarks: 1. Smell: □ Neutral; 181 Slightly fresh; or □ Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: □ Irrigated; □ Land leveled; □ Ditch drained; □ Pumped; □ Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils: 181 do □ do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (>7 days) to very long durations (>30 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 181 Yes 0 No 0 No 0 No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? 181 Yes D No Wetland Hydrology Present? 181 Yes Hydric Soils Present? 181 Yes Remarks: 1. Possibly water of the U.S.? 181 Yes □ No 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA Regulation? □ Yes 181 No (If yes, check item(s) below.) (a) □ Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) □ Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) □ Artificial Jakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. (d) □ Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. (e) □ Water-filled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional Comments/Remarks: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD Project/Site: Ponto Specific Plan, Carlsbad Date: June 21, 2003 Applicant/Owner: RBF Consulting County: San Diego lnvestigator(s): Darin Busby, Gerry Scheid State: California Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? 181 Yes 0 No Community ID: upland Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? 0 Yes 181 No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? 0 Yes 181 No Plot ID: 5 (if needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum 1. Bromus diandrus H u 9. 2. Carpobrotus edu/is H u 10. 3. Raphanus sativus H u 11. 4. Salix lasiolepis T FACW 12. 5. 13. 6. 14. 7. 15. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) 25% Remarks: 1. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? 2. Rooted emergent vegetation present? HYDROLOGY O Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): O Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge O Aerial Photographs □ □ Yes 181 No -Yes 181 No Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: 0 Inundated Disturbed Indicator 0 Other 0 Saturated in: 0 Upper 12" 0 13-18" 0 Water Marks 181 No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water. Depth to Water in Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: NIA (in.) ~(in.) ~(in.) ObseNations and Remarks: No hydrology indicator observed 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? □ Yes 181 No 2. Slope: 181 0-2%; or O >2% 0 Drift Lines 0 Sediment Deposits 0 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): 0 Oxidized Root Channels in: 0 Upper 12" 0 13-18" 0 Water-Stained Leaves 0 Local Soil Survey Data 0 FAG-Neutral Test 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) 3. Oxidized rflizospheres: □ new roots only; O old roots only; 0 new and old roots, 181 none 4. Flooding: □ none, flooding not probable; 0 rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; 0 occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or 181 frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: 181 ve,y brief, if <2 days; O brief, if 2-7 days, or O long, if >7 days 6. Site ponds water? 0 Yes 181 No SOILS Map Unit Name Drainage Class: Slight to moderate (Series and Phase): Marina loamy coarse sand, 2-9 % slope Permeability: Rapid Runoff: Slow to medium Taxonomy (Subgroup): Alfie Xerops:munent Field Observations: Confirm Mapped Type? 181 Yes 0 No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Contrast Structures, etc. 0-18 IOYR 3/3 None Sandy loam Hydric Soil Indicators: D Histosol D Concretions D Histic Epipedon D High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils □ Sulfidic Odor D Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils D Aquic Moisture Regime D Listed on Local Hydric Soils List D Reducing Conditions D Listed on Nation~I Hydric Soils List D Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors D Other (Explain in Remarks) Observations and Remarks: No hydric soils observed 1. Smell: □ Neutral; □ Slightly fresh; or D Freshly plowed field smell _ 2. Site: □ Irrigated; D Land leveled; □ Ditch drained; □ Pumped; □ Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils: □do 181 do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (>7 days) to very long durations (>30 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: D Yes D Yes D Yes 1. Possibly water of the U.S.? 181 Yes D No 181 No 181 No 181 No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? D Yes 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA Regulation? □ Yes 181 No (If yes, check item(s) below.) (a) □ Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land {b) □ Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. 181 No (c) □ Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and. retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. (d) □ Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. (e) □ Water-filled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). Approved by HOUSACE 3/92 Additional Comments/Remarks: Drainage with high water mark; non-wetland water approximately 3 feet wide; connects to concrete ditch I I I I .I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD Project/Site: Ponto Specific Plan, Carlsbad Date: June 21, 2003 Applicant/Owner: RBF Consulting County: San Diego Investigator( s): Darin Busby, Gerry Scheid State: California Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? 181 Yes 0 No Community ID: Coastal brackish marsh Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? D Yes 181 No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? D Yes 181 No Plot ID: 6 (if needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Baccharis salicifolia s FACW 9. 2. Juncus acutus s FACW 10. 3. Salix /asiolepis T FACW 11. 4. Scirpus sp. H OBL 12. 5. 13. 6. 14. 7. 15. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excludina FAC-) 100% Remarks: 1. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? 2. Rooted emergent vegetation present? HYDROLOGY O Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): O Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge 0 Aerial Photographs D Other 181 No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Water in Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: Observations and Remarks: _6_(in.). N/A (in.) N/A (in.) 181 181 Yes □ No / - Yes □ No Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: 181 Inundated 181 Saturated in: 181 Upper 12" D 13-18" D Water Marks 181 Drift Lines D Sediment Deposits D Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): D Oxidized Root Channels in: 0 Upper J 2" 0 13-18" D Water-Stained Leaves D Local Soil Survey Data 0 FAG-Neutral Test D Other (Explain in Remarks) 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 181 Yes □ No 2. Slope: 181 0-2%; or □ >2% 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: □ new roots only; □ old roots only; □ new and old roots, 181 none 4. Flooding: □ none, flooding not probable; □ rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; D occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or 181 frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2 years. 5. Duration: □ ve,y brief, if <2 days; D brief, if 2-7 days, or 181 long, if >7 days 6. Site ponds water? 181 Yes □ No ,, SOILS Map Unit Name Drainage Class: Slight to moderate (Series and Phase): Marina loamy coarse sand, 2-9 % slope Permeability: Rapid Runoff: Slow to medium Taxonomy (Subgroup): Alfie Xeropsamment Field Observations: Confirm Mapped Type? D Yes 0 No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Contrast Structures, etc. see note below Hydric Soil Indicators: D Histosol □ Concretions D Histic Epipedon □ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils 181 Sulfidic Odor □ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils D Aquic Moisture Regime □ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 181 Reducing Conditions □ Listed on National Hydric Soils List D Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors 181 Other (Explain in Remarks) Observations and Remarks: No pit dug because wetland is within habitat restoration area; site inundated; assume hydric soils 1. Smell: D Neutral; □ Slightly fresh; or D Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: □ Irrigated; □ Land leveled; □ Ditch drained; □ Pumped; D Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils: 181 do □ do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (>7 days) to very long durations (>30 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 181 Yes □ No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? 181 Yes D No Wetland Hydrology Present? 181 Yes □ No Hydric Soils Present? 181 Yes □ No Remarks: 1. Possibly water of the U.S.? 181 Yes □ No 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA Regulation? □ Yes 181 No (If yes, check item(s) below.) (a) □ Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) □ Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. (c) q Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. (d) □ Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. (e) □ Water-filled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). Approved by HOUSACE 3/92 Additional Comments/Remarks: A pit was not dug because the wetland occurs within a habitat restoration area; site inundated; assume hydric soils I I I I I I I :1 I I I I I I I I DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD Project/Site: Ponto Specific Plan, Carlsbad Date: June 21, 2003 Applicant/Owner: RBF Consulting County: San Diego Investigator( s): Darin Busby, Gerry Scheid State: California Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? 181 Yes 0 No Community ID: Coastal brackish marsh Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? D Yes 181 No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? D Yes 181 No Plot ID: 7 (if needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Baccharis salicifolia s FACW 9. 2. Rumex crispus H FACW-10. 3. Salix lasiolepis T FACW 11. 4. Typha latifolia H OBL 12. 5. 13. 6. 14. 7. 15. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) JOO% Remarks: 1. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? 2. Rooted emergent vegetation present? HYDROLOGY D Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): D Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge D Aerial Photographs D Other 181 No Recorded Data Available Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: _8_(in.) Depth to Water in Pit: NIA (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: NIA (in.) Observations and Remarks: 181 181 Yes □ No -Yes □ No Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: 181 Inundated 181 Saturated in: 181 Upper 12" 18113-18" 181 Water Marks D Drift Lines D Sediment Deposits D Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): D Oxidized Root Channels in: D Upper 12" 0 13-18" D Water-Stained Leaves D Local Soil Survey Data 0 FAG-Neutral Test D Other (Explain in Remarks) 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? 181 Yes D No 2. Slope: 181 0-2%; or □ >2% 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: □ new roots only; □ old roots only; D new and old roots, 181 none 4. Flooding: □ none, flooding not probable; □ rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; D occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or 181 frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2years. 5. Duration: □ ve,y brief, if <2 days; D brief, if 2-7 days, or 181 long, if >7 days 6. Site ponds water? 181 Yes D No SOILS Map Unit Name Drainage Class: Slight to moderate (Series and Phase): Marina loamy coarse sand, 2-9 % slope Permeability: Rapid Runoff: Slow to medium Taxonomy (Subgroup): Alfie Xeropsamment Field Observations: Confirm Mapped Type? 0 Yes 0 No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Contrast Structures, etc. see note below Hydric Soil Indicators: O Histosol □ Concretions 0 Histic Epipedon □ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils 181 Sulfidic Odor □ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils □ Aquic Moisture Regime □ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 181 Reducing Conditions □ Listed on National Hydric Soils List □ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors 181 Other (Explain in Remarks) Observations and Remarks: No pit dug because wetland is within habitat restoration area; site inundated; assume hydric soils 1. Smell: □ Neutral; □ Slightly fresh; or □ Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: O Irrigated; 0 Land leveled; □ Ditch drained; □ Pumped; □ Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils: 181 do 0 do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (>7 days) to very long durations (>30 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: 181 Yes 181 Yes 181 Yes 1. Possibly water of the U.S.? 181 Yes O No 0 No 0 No 0 No ls this Sampling Point within a Wetland? 181 Yes 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA Regulation? □ Yes 181 No (If yes, check item(s) below.) (a) □ Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land (b) □ Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. 0 No (c) □ Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. (d) □ Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. (e) □ Water-filled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional Comments/Remarks: A pit was not dug because the wetland occurs within a habitat restoration area; site inundated; assume hydric soils I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD Project/Site: Ponto Specific Plan, Carlsbad Date: June 21, 2003 Applicant/Owner: RBF Consulting County: San Diego lnvestigator(s): Darin Busby, Gerry Scheid State: California Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? 181 Yes 0 No Community ID: Coastal salt marsh Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? D Yes 181 No Transect ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? D Yes 181 No Plot ID: 8 (if needed, explain on reverse or attach separate sheet.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Carpobrotus edulis H u 9. 2. Distichl is spicata H FACW 10. 3. Frwzkrnia salina H FACW+ 11. 4. Salicomia virginica H OBL 12. 5. 13. 6. 14. 7. 15. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) 75% Remarks: 1. Assume presence of wetland vegetation? 2. Rooted emergent vegetation present? HYDROLOGY D Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): D Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge D Aerial Photographs D Other 181 No Recorded Data Avaiiable Field Observations: Depth of Surface Water: Depth to Water in Pit: Depth to Saturated Soil: Observations and Remarks: NIA (in.) .!§_(in.) _6_(in.) 181 □ Yes □ No_ Yes 181 No Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators: D Inundated 181 Saturated in: 181 Upper 12" 18113-18" D Water Marks D Drift Lines D Sediment Deposits D Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary Indicators (2 or more required): D Oxidized Root Channels in: D Upper 12" 0 13-18" D Water-Stained Leaves D Local Soil Survey Data 0 FAG-Neutral Test D Other (Explain in Remarks) 1. Filamentous or sheet forming algae present? □ Yes 181 No 2. Slope: 181 0-2%; or D >2% 3. Oxidized rhizospheres: D new roots only; □ old roots only; 181 new and old roots, D none 4. Flooding: □ none, flooding not probable; □ rare, unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions; D occasional, occurs on an average of once or less in 2 years; or 181 frequent, occurs on an average of more than once in 2years. 5. Duration: □ ve,y brief, if <2 days; D brief, if 2-7 days, or 181 long, if >7 days 6. Site ponds water? 181 Yes □ No SOILS Map Unit Name Drainage Class: Slight to moderate (Series and Phase): Marina loamy coarse sand, 2-9 % slope Permeability: Rapid Runoff: Slow to medium Taxonomy (Subgroup): Alfie Xeropsamment Field Observations: Confirm Mapped Type? O Yes 181 No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Contrast Structures, etc. 0-18 IOYR2/i Sandy loam with 4 inch clay layer Hydric Soil Indicators: 0 Histosol □ Concretions D Histic Epipedon □ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils 181 Sulfidic Odor □ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils 0 Aquic Moisture Regime □ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List 181 Reducing Conditions 0 Listed on National Hydric Soils List 181 Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors 0 Other (Explain in Remarks) ObseNations and Remarks: 1. Smell: 0 Neutral; □ Slightly fresh; or 181 Freshly plowed field smell 2. Site: □ Irrigated; □ Land leveled; □ Ditch drained; □ Pumped; □ Graded to drain via slope 3. Soils: 181 do □ do not become frequently ponded or saturated for long (>7 days) to ve,y long durations (>30 days) during the growing season WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Remarks: 181 Yes 181 Yes 181 Yes 1. Possibly water of the U.S.? 181 Yes □ No 0 No 0 No 0 No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? 181 Yes 2. Possibly exempt from Corps/EPA Regulation? □ Yes 181 No (If yes, check item(s) below.) (a) □ Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on d,y land (b) □ Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased. 0 No (c) □ Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking d,y land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing. (d) □ Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking d,y land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons. (e) □ Water-filled depressions created in d,y land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in d,y land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States (see 33 CFR 328.3(a)). Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 Additional Comments/Remarks: APPENDIX C-3 Biological Technical Report I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. --~ -~ • ' -, • ~t PONTO f3EACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION P ~ 'II .J ]._•a.. • -~ ~ • , •,I.,_--~ . BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT November 6, 2006 Prepared for : RBF CONSULTANTS 9755 Clairemont Mesa Boulevard, Suite 100 San Diego, California 92124-1324 Prepared by : HELIX ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING, INC. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard, Suite 200 La Mesa, California 91941-4646 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Section 1.0 2.0 3.0 Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Biological Technical Report TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1 1. 1 Location ...................................... '"1· .....•••••.•...•.....••••...•.•.••...•..•.....•.••....•......•••..•... 1 1.2 Project Description .............................................................................................. 1 1.3 Physiography ....................................................................................................... 1 METHODS .................................................................................................................. 2 2.1 Literature Review ................................................................................................. 2 2.2 Biological Surveys ................................................................................................ 2 2. 2. 1 Vegetation Mapping ................................................................................ 2 2.2.2 Rare Plant Survey .................................................................................... 2 2.2.3 Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys .................................................... 2 2.2.4 Jurisdictional Delineation ........................................................................ 3 2.2.5 Nomenclature .......................................................................................... 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................................................................................ .4 3.1 Vegetation Communities .................................................................................... .4 3.1.1 Southern Coastal Salt Marsh .................................................................... 5 3. 1. 2 Riparian Woodland ................................................................................. 5 3.1.3 Southern Willow Scrub ............................................................................ 5 3.1.4 MuleFatScrub ......................................................................................... S 3. 1.5 Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh ....................................................... 6 3.1.6 Marine ..................................................................................................... 6 3.1.7 Mudflat ................................................................................................... 6 3. 1.8 Disturbed Wetlands ................................................................................ 6 3.1.9 Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub (including disturbed) ................................... 6 3.1.10 Beach/Coastal Dune ................................................................................. 6 3. 1.11 Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (including disturbed) ...................................... 7 3.1.12 Non-native Grassland .............................................................................. 8 3.1.13 Eucalyptus Woodland .............................................................................. 8 3.1.14 Disturbed Habitat ................................................................................... 8 3.1.15 Non-native Vegetation ............................................................................ 8 3.1.16 Developed Land ......................................................................... ; ............. 9 3.2 Plants .................................................................................................................. 9 3.3 Animals ............................................................................................................... 9 3.4 Jurisdictional Areas .............................................................................................. 9 3.4.1 Federal (Corps) Jurisdiction ...................................................................... 9 3.4.2 State (CDFG) Jurisdiction ........................................................................ 9 3.5 Wildlife Corridor ............................................................................................... 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Section 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) SENSITIVE RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 11 4.1 Sensitive Vegetation Communities ..................................................................... 11 4.2 Sensitive Plant Species ....................................................................................... 11 4.3 Sensitive Animal Species .................................................................................... 17 REGIONAL CONTEXT AND REGULATORY ISSUES ........................................... 22 5.1 Federal Government .......................................................................................... 22 5.2 State ofCalifornia .............................................................................................. 24 5.3 City of Carlsbad ................................................................................................. 24 5 .4 Thresholds of Significance .................................................................................. 25 IMPACT ANALYSIS ................................................................................................. 26 6.1 Direct Impacts ................................................................................................... 26 6.1.1 Vegetation Communities ....................................................................... 26 6.1.2 Jurisdictional Areas ................................................................................ 27 6.1.3 Plant Species .......................................................................................... 28 6.1.4 Animal Species ...................................................................................... 28 6.1.5 Wildlife Corridors .................................................................................. 28 6.2 Indirect Impacts ................................................................................................ 28 6.2.1 WaterQuality ....................................................................................... 29 6.2.2 Construction Noise ................................................................................ 30 6.2.3 Fugitive Dust ........................................................................................ 30 6.2.4 Colonization of Non-native Plant Species ............................................... 30 6.2.5 Habitat Fragmentation/Edge Effects ...................................................... 30 6.2.6 Domesticated Pets ................................................................................. 31 6.2.7 Human Activity ..................................................................................... 31 6. 2. 8 Animal Behavioral Changes ................................................................... 31 6.2.9 Roadkili ................................................................................................. 32 6.2.10 Night Lighting ...................................................................................... 32 6.2.11 Errant Construction Impacts .................................................................. 32 MITIGATION MEASURES ....................................................................................... 32 7 .1 Sensitive Vegetation Communities ..................................................................... 3 2 7. 2 Jurisdictional Areas ............................................................................................ 3 3 7 .3 Indirect Impacts ................................................................................................ 34 CERTIFICATION/QUALIFICATION ....................................................................... 36 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 3 7 ii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I A B C Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LIST OF APPENDICES Plant Species Observed Animal Species Observed or Detected Explanation of Status Codes for Plant and Animal Species LIST OF FIGURES Follows Page Regional Location Map ................................................................................................. 2 Project Location Map .................................................................................................... 2 Vegetation/Sensitive Resources .................................................................................... .4 Corps Jurisdictional Areas ........................................................................................... 10 CDFG Jurisdictional Areas .......................................................................................... 10 City of Carlsbad HMP Designations ............................................................................ 24 Vegetation and Sensitive Resources/Impacts ................................................................ 28 Corps Jurisdictional Areas/Impacts .............................................................................. 28 CDFG Jurisdictional Areas/Impacts ............................................................................ 28 LIST OF TABLES Survey Information ....................................................................................................... 2 Existing Vegetation Communities ................................................................................ .4 Existing Jurisdictional Areas within the Study Area ..................................................... 10 Listed or Sensitive Plant Species with Potential to Occur ............................................. 12 Listed or Sensitive Animal Species with Potential to Occur .......................................... 19 Impacts co Vegetation Communities ........................................................................... 26 Impacts to Jurisdictional Areas ................................................................................... 27 Mitigation Summary for Impacts to Vegetation Communities ..................................... 33 Mitigation Summary for Impacts to Corps Jurisdictional Areas .................................... 34 Mitigation Summary for Impacts to CDFG Jurisdictional Areas .................................. 34 ill I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1.0 INTRODUCTION This biological technical report was prepared for the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan (proposed project) to provide potential developers, the City of Carlsbad (City), resource agencies, and the public with current biological data to satisfy review of the proposed project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and other federal, state, and City regulations. This report describes the study area's vegetation communities as well as plant and wildlife species observed or detected and identifies those resources that are sensitive. It also identifies sensitive species with potential to occur within the study area. In addition, project impacts are assessed, and mitigation is proposed to offset the proposed project's significant impacts to sensitive biological resources. 1.1 LOCATION The approximately 130.4-acre Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan study area is located in Carlsbad, California (Figure 1) east of the Pacific Ocean, west of the railroad line for the North County Transit District, south of Poinsettia Lane, and north of La Costa A venue. The study area is located in Sections 29, 32, and 33 of Township 12 South, Range 4 West on the San Bernardino Base and Meridian U.S. Geological Survey 7 .5-minute Encinitas quadrangle map (Figure 2). South Carlsbad State Beach is within the western portion of the study area. The study area lies within the City's Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities (City HMP; 2004a). 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan pr_oposes six distinct character areas including a mixed-use center, beachfront resort, townhouse neighborhood, village hotel, live-work neighborhood, garden hotel, and associated infrastructure. Also proposed are improvements to Carlsbad Boulevard, underpass trails to the west side of Carlsbad Boulevard, a wetland interpretive park, and a community trail. The proposed development would be limited to approximately 47 .6 acres of the 130.4-acre study area. The remaining approximately 82.8 acres are not proposed for development (South Carlsbad State Beach area) and would not be designated as open space (Batiquitos Lagoon). 1.3 PHYSIOGRAPHY The study area consists of a residential development, the South Carlsbad State Beach (campgrounds), parking facilities, Carlsbad Boulevard and other roads, beach, and undeveloped land. The inflow/outflow channel for Batiquitos Lagoon is located in the southern portion of the study area. Elevations within the study area range from O to 60 feet above mean sea level. A small terrace occurs north of the mouth of the lagoon on the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard within the study area. Four soil types occur within the study area: Coastal beaches (Cr); Marina loamy coarse sand (MIC) 2 to 9 percent slopes; Marina loamy coarse sand (MIE), 9 to 30 percent slopes; and Terrace escarpments (TeF; Bowman 1973). HELIX Biological Technical Report for Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan / RBF-04 I November 6, 2006 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2.0 METHODS 2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW Prior to conducting biological field surveys, HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) conducted a review of a previous reports (existing conditions and wetland delineation) of the study area prepared by RECON Environmental, Inc. (RECON 2003a and b, respectively). In addition, a search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; 2006a) and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) online database for the Encinitas USGS quadrangle map (2006) was conducted for information regarding sensitive species known to occur in the vicinity of the study area. 2.2 BIOLOGICAL SURVEYS 2.2.1 Vegetation Mapping In June 2006, HELIX biologist W. Larry Sward updated vegetation mapping (Table 1) originally performed by RECON (2003a). The study area was surveyed on foot with the aid of binoculars where necessary. Vegetation communities within the study area were mapped on an aerial photograph of the site (1"= 100' scale) with overlaid topography. Table 1 SURVEY INFORMATION Surve Date Personnel une 16 2006 W. Larr Sward tember 6, 2006 rew natcatcher tember 13, 2006 rew Coastal California natcatcher tember 21, 2006 rew Coastal California natcatcher 2.2.2 Rare Plane Survey In July 2006, a rare plant survey was conducted within the proposed project footprint only by HELIX biologist Jasmine Watts (Table 1) by walking the area using trails and dirt roads with frequent forays into the different vegetation communities throughout the area where possible. This survey focused on locating Nuttall's lotus (Lotus nutta!/ianus) and California boxthorn (Lycium californica). 2.2.3 Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys In 2006, three U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocol (1997) surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) were conducted within the study area by HELIX permitted biologist Kathy Pettigrew (Table 1). During surveys, all areas with potential to support coastal California gnatcatchers (e.g., Diegan coastal sage scrub [including disturbed] and southern coastal bluff scrub [including disturbed]) were surveyed. Taped gnatcatcher vocalizations were played at irregular intervals to elicit an aural response in otherwise concealed birds. These vocalizations were played only sparingly to prevent disrupting normal behavior to the maximum extent possible. HELIX Biological Technical Report for Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan I RBF-04 I November 6, 2006 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1- 1 I I I I I 2.2.4 Jurisdictional Delineation In 2003, a jurisdictional delineation was conducted within the study area (RECON 20036). All areas with depressions, drainage channels, or wetland vegetation were evaluated for the presence of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), including Waters of the U.S. and CDFG streambeds. Each area was inspected according co Corps wetland delineation guidelines. Corps wetland boundaries were determined using three criteria of vegetation, hydrology and soils established for wetland delineations as described within the Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Wetland affiliations of plant species follow the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands (USFWS 1996). Wetland hydrology was primarily evidenced by the presence of surface water (inundated soils), drift lines, and a positive F AC-neutral test. Bed and bank topography was also considered a wetland hydrology indicator. · Soil information was taken from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (1992) and Bowman (1973). Soil chromas were identified according to Munsell's Soil Color Charts (Kollmorgen 1994). Wetland soils generally exhibit characteristic low chromas. Areas were determined to be non-wetland Waters of the U.S. if there was evidence of regular surface flow (e.g., bed and bank topography) but the vegetation criterion was not met. Jurisdictional limits for these areas were defined by the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). Corps Jurisdictional Areas All potential wetlands areas were surveyed. If an area was suspected of being a wetland, vegetation and hydrology indicators were noted and soil sampled and described. The area was then determined ro be a federal (Corps) wetland if it satisfied all three wetland criteria. Non-wetland Waters of the U.S. were mapped if there was evidence of regular surface flow (e.g., bed and bank) that was contiguous with Corps jurisdictional navigable waters, but the vegetation and/or soil criteria were not met. Non-wetland areas encompassed by the OHWM were measured and vegetation (if present) was noted. Pursuant to a January 2001 Supreme Court decision, the Corps does not take jurisdiction over Waters of the U.S. that are "isolated" or areas not connected to downstream Waters of the U.S. (U.S. Supreme Court 2001). CDFG Jurisdictional Areas CDFG jurisdictional wetland boundaries were determined based on the presence of riparian vegetation or regular surface flow. Streambeds within CDFG jurisdiction were delineated based on the definition of streambed as "a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supporting fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having surface or subsurface flow that supports riparian vegetation" (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 1.72). CDFG jurisdictional habitat includes all riparian shrub/tree canopy and may extend beyond stream banks. 2.2.5 Nomenclature Nomenclature for this report is taken from Holland (1986) for vegetation communities and Hickman, ed. (1993) for plants. Additional references include Heath (2004) for butterflies, Collins and Taggart (2002) for reptiles, American Ornithologists' Union (2006) for birds, and Baker et al. (2003) for mammals. Plane species status is taken from CNPS (2006) or the CDFG CNDDB (20066), and animal species status is from the CDFG CNDDB (2006c). HELIX Biological Technical Report for Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan I RBF-04 I Nwember 6, 2006 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3.1 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES Fourteen vegetative communities (southern coastal salt marsh, riparian woodland, southern willow scrub, mule fat scrub, coastal and valley freshwater marsh, marine, mud flat, disturbed wetlands, southern coastal bluff scrub [including disturbed], beach/coastal dunes, Diegan coastal sage scrub [including disturbed], non-native grassland, eucalyptus woodland, and non-native vegetation) as well as disturbed habitat and developed land were identified within the study area (Figure 3; Table 2). HELIX Table 2 EXISTING VEGETATION COMMUNITIES VEGETATION COMMUNITY ACREAGE* Habitat Group At Southern coastal salt marsh 0.98 Riparian woodland 0.17 Southern willow scrub 0.91 Mule fat scrub 0.19 Coastal and valley freshwater marsh 2.21 Marine 1.30 Mudflats 0.03 Disturbed wetland 0.11 Habitat Group B Southern coastal bluff scrub (including disturbed) 4.3 Beach/Coastal dunes 25.4 Habitat Group C Diegan coastal sage scrub (including disturbed) 5.2 Habitat Group E Non-native _grassland 0.2 Habitat Group F Eucalyptus woodland 0.3 Disturbed habitat 24.6 Other Non-native vegetation 21.0 Developed 43.4 TOTAL 130.4 *Upland habitats are rounded to the nearest 0.1 acre, while wetland habitats are rounded to the nearest 0.01; thus, totals reflect rounding tHabitat Groups refer to Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) habitat classification system Biological Technical Report for Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan/ RBF-04 I November 6, 2006 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3 .1.1 Southern Coastal Salt Marsh Southern coastal salt marsh is a highly productive community composed of herbaceous and suffrutescent salt-tolerant hydrophytes that form a dense cover of up to one meter tall. This plant community is found along sheltered inland margins of bays, lagoons, and estuaries where the hydric soils are subjected to regular tidal inundation by salt water (Holland 1986). Dominant species usually include alkali-heath (Frankenia satina), California sea-blite (Suaeda californica), and/or glasswort (Salicornia sp.) occurring along the upper, landward edges of the marshes; glasswort and beachwort (Batis maritima) at middle elevations; and Pacific cordgrass (Spartina foliosa) closest to open water. Two areas of southern coastal salt marsh occur in the study area. Both areas are in the median between south-and north-bound traffic lanes of Carlsbad Boulevard. Southern coastal salt marsh covers approximately 0.98 acre within the study area and consists of pickleweed (Salicornia virginica) and alkali-heath. 3.1.2 Riparian Woodland Riparian woodlands are often similarly composed of winter-deciduous trees that require water near the soil surface. Willow (Salix ssp.), cottonwood (Poputus fremontit), and western sycamore (Platanus racemosa) typically form a dense medium height woodland in moist canyons and drainage bottoms. Associated understory species often include mule fat (Baccharis saticifolia), stinging nettle (Urtica dioica ssp. holosericea), and wild grape (Vitis girdiana). The differences between woodlands and forests are physiognomic rather than compositional. Woodlands have less canopy cover than forests, whose individual tree canopy species overlap so that a cover exceeding 100 percent may occur in the upper tree stratum, where woodlands may contain large canopy gaps in the same area. Woodlands may also have near total cover in the tree stratum but exist over a relatively small area. Within the study area, riparian woodland occurs in three small patches near the Least Tern Preserve and covers approximately 0.17 acre. 3. 1.3 Southern Willow Scrub Southern willow scrub consists of dense, broadleaved, winter-deciduous stands of trees dominated by shrubby willows in association with mule fat, and with scattered emergent cottonwoods and western sycamores. This vegetation community occurs on loose, sandy or fine gravelly alluvium deposited near stream channels during flood flows. Frequent flooding maintains this early seral community, preventing succession to a riparian woodland or forest (Holland 1986). In the absence of periodic flooding, this early seral type would be succeeded by southern cottonwood or western sycamore riparian forest. Approximately 0.91 acre of southern willow scrub occurs within the southern portion of the study area adjacent to the parking lot. 3.1.4 Mule Fat Scrub Mule fat scrub is a depauperate, shrubby riparian scrub community dominated by mule fat and interspersed with shrubby willows. This vegetation community occurs along intermittent stream channels with a fairly coarse substrate and moderate depth to the water table. This early seral community is maintained by frequent flooding, the absence of which would lead to a cottonwood or sycamore dominated riparian woodland or forest (Holland 1986). Approximately 0.19 acre of mule fat scrub occurs within the southern portion of the study area adjacent to the parking lot. HELIX Biological Technical Report for Ponto Beachfront Village ViJion Plan I RBF-04 I November 6, 2006 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3. 1.5 Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh Coastal and valley freshwater marsh is dominated by perennial emergent monocots that reach heights between 12 and 15 feet, often forming completely closed canopies. This habitat occurs along the coast and in coastal valleys near river mouths and around margins of lakes and springs. These areas are permanently flooded by fresh water yet lack a significant current (Holland 1986). Characteristic species include cattails (Typha sp.), spike-sedge (Eleocharis sp.), rush (luncus sp. and Scirpus sp.), and umbrella sedge (Cyperus sp.). Within the study area the dominant plants within this vegetation community include southwestern spiny rush (luncus acutus ssp. leopoldit), and California bulrush (Scirpus californicus). This vegetation community covers approximately 2.21 acres of the study area. 3.1.6 Marine The area mapped as marine is unvegetated and consists of the channelized inflow/outflow for Batiquitos Lagoon. This habitat covers approximately 1.30 acres of the study area. 3. I. 7 Mudflat A mudflat is a relatively level area of fine silt along a shore, as in a sheltered estuary or around an island, alternately covered and uncovered by the tide that is barren of vegetation. Approximately 0.03 acre of mudflat occurs within the study area. 3.1.8 Disturbed Wetlands Disturbed wetlands are dominated by exotic wetland species that invade areas that have been previously disturbed or undergone periodic disturbances. These invasive non-native plant species 0displace the native wetland flora. Characteristic species of disturbed wetlands include giant reed (Arundo donax), bristly ox-tongue (Picris echioides), cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium var. canadense), and tama~isk (Tamarix sp.). Disturbed wetlands occur within the southern portion of the study area and cover approximately 0.11 acre. 3. 1.9 Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub (including disturbed) Souther_n coastal bluff scrub is dominated by low scrub forming continuous (or more scattered) mats. Most plants are woody and/or succulent. Dwarf shrubs, herbaceous perennials, and annuals are represented, with the majority of growth and flowering occurring from late winter through spring. · This vegetation community is exposed to nearly constant winds with high salt content and the soil is usually rocky and poorly developed. Within the study area, southern coastal bluff scrub (including disturbed) occurs along the bluffs above South Carlsbad State Beach and covers approximately 4.3 . acres. Plant species within this vegetation community within the study area include beach evening primrose (Camissonia cheiranthijblia ssp. cheiranthifolia) and sea rocket (Cakile maritima). 3.1.10 Beach/Coastal Dune ' This community refers to the expanse of sandy substrate between mean tide and the foredune, the absen<:e of which is the furthest inland reach of storm waves. The beach is characterized by a maritime climate, high exposure to salt spray and sand blast, and a shifting sandy substrate with low water- ·HELIX Biological Technical Rep()t't f()t' Ponto Beachfront Villa~ Vision Plan I RBF-04 I November 6, 2006 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I holding capacity and low organic matter content. Beach steepness, height, and width are affected by wave height, tidal range, sand grain size and supply. California's beaches tend to be relatively low and narrow. The lower half of the beach is relatively bare of plants, while the upper half is thinly vegetated with herbaceous perennials (Barbour and Johnson 1977). Beach vegetation exhibits a zonation of species from the tide line to foredune. In general, total plant cover increases inland along this gradient. Species zonation is correlated with tolerance of salt spray, wave inundation, and soil salinity (Barbour and DeJong 1977). Common plant species within this habitat are sea rocket, beach evening primrose, beach-bur (Ambrosia chamiossonis), and beach morning-glory (Calystegia soldanella; Beauchamp 1986). Active coastal dunes are barren, mobile sand accumulations whose size and shape are determined by abiotic site factors rather than by stabilizing vegetation. Dune size and shape varies with wind direction and speed, site topography, sand source, and grain size. The western edge of the study area is bounded by the Pacific Ocean and includes South Carlsbad State Beach, comprised mainly of disturbed southern coastal bluff scrub and sand with some plant species occurring on the beach fringe along the parking area. A portion of this area is periodically inundated with saltwater due to tidal flow fluctuations. Dominant plant species on the vegetated fringe include crystalline ice plant (Mesembryanthemum crystallinum), beach-bur, sea rocket, beach evening primrose, and hottentot fig (Carpobrotus edulis). Beach/coastal dunes cover approximately 25.4 acres of the study area. 3 .1.11 Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (including disturbed) Coastal sage scrub is one of the two major shrub types that occur in southern California, occupying xeric sites characterized by shallow soils (the other is chaparral). Four distinct coastal sage scrub geographical associations (northern, central, Venturan, and Diegan) are recognized along the California coast. Despite the fact that it has been greatly reduced from its historical distribution (Oberbauer 1991), the Diegan association is the dominant coastal sage scrub in coastal Southern California from Los Angeles to Baja California, Mexico (Baja; Holland 1986). In 1965, Diegan coastal sage scrub was listed as the third most extensive vegetation community in the County (CDFG 1965). Oberbauer (1979) and Oberbauer and Vanderwier (1991) suggest that nearly 72 percent of the San Diego County's original sage scrub habitat has been destroyed or modified, primarily a result of urban expansion. Diegan coastal sage scrub is dominated by subshrubs whose leaves abscise during drought and are replaced by a lesser amount of smaller leaves. This adaptation of drought evasion allows these species to better withstand the prolonged drought period in the summer and fall in areas of low precipitation. Coastal sage scrub occurs on a variety of soil types, both chemically and physically, from sandy lithosols on siliceous sandstone to day-rich chernozems on volcanic ash. Water is less likely to penetrate to depth in clay soils than in siliceous soils. Clay soils generally lose more moisture through runoff, have lower infiltration rates, store more moisture in an equivalent depth of soil, and are likely to lose a greater proportion of moisture through capillary action and transpiration from shallow-rooted species than siliceous soils. Thus, in areas of relatively low precipitation, fine-textured soils are more likely to favor the success of shallow-rooted species rather than deep-rooted species (Kirkpatrick and Hutchinson 1980). Within the study area Diegan coastal sage scrub (including disturbed) covers approximately 5.2 acres and occurs in several areas within the study area, including but not limited to, the median of Carlsbad Boulevard, atop the bluff overlooking Batiquitos Lagoon, and adjacent to the parking lot in the southern portion of the study area. Dominant native plant species within the study area include HELIX Biological Technical Report for Ponto Beachfront Village Virion Plan I RBF-04 I November 6, 2006 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I California sagebrush, California encelia (Encelia californica), and California buckwheat. Disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub includes species such as scarlet pimpernel (Anagallis arvensis), smooth cat's- ear (Hypocharis glauca), sour clover (Melilotus indica), and fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum). 3.1. 12 Non-native Grassland Non-native grassland is a dense to sparse cover of annual grasses often associated with numerous species of showy-flowered native annual forbs. This association occurs on gradual slopes with deep, fine-textured, usually clay soils. Characteristic species include oats (Avena sp.), red brome (Bromus rubens), ripgut (B. diandrus), ryegrass (Lolium sp.), and mustard (Brassica sp.). Most of the annual introduced species that comprise the majority of species and biomass within the non-native grassland originated from the Mediterranean region, an area with a long history of agriculture and a climate similar to California. These two factors (in addition to intensive grazing and agricultural practices in conjunction with severe droughts) contributed to the successful invasion and establishment of these species and replacement of native grasslands with an annual dominated non-native grassland (Jackson 1985). Within in the study area, non-native grassland occurs in two small patches along Carlsbad Boulevard and covers approximately 0.2 acre. 3.1.13 Eucalyptus Woodland Eucalyptus woodland is dominated by eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.), an introduced species that has often been planted purposely for wind blocking, ornamental, and hardwood production purposes. Most groves are monotypic with the most common species being either the blue gum (E. globulus) or red gum (E. camaldulensis). The understory within well-established groves is usually very sparse due to the closed canopy and allelopathic nature of the abundant leaf and bark litter. If sufficient moisture is available, this species becomes naturalized and is able to reproduce and expand its range. The sparse understory offers only limited wildlife habitat; however, as wildlife habitat, these woodlands provide excellent nesting sites for a variety of raptors. During winter migrations, a large variety of warblers may be found feeding on the insects attracted to the eucalyptus flowers. This vegetation community occurs in three small areas in the northern portion of the study area and covers approximately 0.3 acre. 3.1. 14 Disturbed Habitat Disturbed habitat includes land that has been cleared of vegetation (e.g., dirt roads) or contains a preponderance of non-native plant species. Disturbed land occurs within the flat terrace on the astern portion of the study area and within portions of the Carlsbad Boulevard median. Dominant plant species within disturbed habitat within the study area include Crown daisy (Chrysanthemum coronarium), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), star thistle (Centaurea melitensis), and black mustard (Brassica nigra). Disturbed habitat covers approximately 24.6 acres of the study area. 3.1.15 Non-native Vegetation Non-native vegetation is the name ascribed to cultivated plants that have become naturalized in native habitat areas or that are remnant of previous cultivated land uses. Non-native vegetation within the study area consists of hottentot fig, golden wattle (Acacia longifolia), and Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus mo/le). This vegetation community occurs throughout the study area and covers approximately 21.0 acres. HELIX Biological Technical Report for Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan I RBF-04 I November 6, 2006 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3. 1. 16 Developed Land Developed land within the study area includes the South Carlsbad State Beach campground and parking facilities, an area consisting of light industrial and residential buildings, and Carlsbad Boulevard and other roads. Developed areas cover approximately 43.4 acres of the study area. 3.2 PLANTS A total of 48 plant species were observed by HELIX in 2006 within the approximately 83.5-acre proposed project footprint area (Appendix A). RECON reported observing 104 plant species in 2003 within the entire 130.4-acre study area (2003a). 3.3 ANIMALS A total of 41 animal species were observed/detected within the study area during the rare plant survey and coastal California gnatcatcher surveys, including 5 butterfly, 1 reptile, 32 bird, and 3 mammal species (Appendix B). RECON reported observing a total of 24 animal species including 1 reptile, 21 bird, and 2 mammal species within the study area (RECON 2003a). 3.4 JURISDICTIONAL AREAS Areas under Corps and CDFG jurisdiction occur within the study area. A jurisdictional delineation was conducted in 2003 and a report prepared by RECON (20036). HELIX updated the jurisdictional vegetation communities in 2006 to be consistent with the updated vegetation mapping; however, HELIX did not conduct further jurisdictional delineation fieldwork. 3.4.1 Federal (Corps) Jurisdiction Corps jurisdictional areas total 6.01 acres within the study area consisting of 4.60 acres of wetlands and 1.41 acres of non-wetland Waters of the U.S. (Figure 4; Table 3). 3.4.2 State (CDFG) Jurisdiction CDFG jurisdictional areas total 6.08 acres within the study area consisting of 4.60 acres of wetlands and 1.48 acres of non-wetland Waters of the U.S. (Figure 5; Table 3). HELIX Biological Technical Report for Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan I RBF-04 I Nowmber 6, 2006 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 3 EXISTING JURISDICTIONAL AREAS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA VEGETATION COMMUNITY/HABITAT CORPS CDFG Wetlands Southern coastal salt marsh 0.98 0.98 Riparian woodland 0.17 0.17 Southern willow scrub 0.91 0.91 Mule fat scrub 0.19 0.19 Coastal and valley freshwater marsh 2.21 2.21 Mudflats 0.03 0.03 Disturbed wetland 0.11 0.11 Subtotal 4.60 4.60 Non Wetlands Marine 1.30 1.30 Drainage/Stream bed 0.11 0.18 Subtotal 1.41 1.48 TOTAL 6.01 6.08 3.5 WILDLIFE CORRIDOR Wildlife movement corridors are defined as areas that connect suitable wildlife habitat areas in a region otherwise fragmented by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance. Natural features such as canyon drainages, ridgelines, or areas with vegetation cover provide corridors for wildlife travel. Wildlife corridors are important because they provide access to mates, food, and water; allow the dispersal of individuals away from high population density areas; and facilitate the exchange of genetic traits berween populations (Beier and Loe 1992). Wildlife movement corridors are considered sensitive by resource and conservation agencies. Given that the study area is bounded by the Pacific Ocean on the west and development to the northeast and north, the majority of the study area does not function as a corridor that facilitates movement of wildlife from one location to another, particularly terrestrial species. On the south and southeast, Batiquitos Lagoon connects to the Pacific Ocean, allowing for movement of aquatic species and for continual foraging habitat for those species dependent upon aquatic resources. HELIX Biological Technical Report for Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan/ RBF-04 I November 6, 2006 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4.0 SENSITIVE RESOURCES Sensitive resources are those defined as (1) habitat areas or vegetation communities that are unique, of relatively limited distribution, or of particular value to wildlife; and (2) species that have been given special recognition by federal, state, or local government agencies and organizations due to limited, declining, or threatened populations. 4.1 SENSITIVE VEGETATION COMMUNITIES The following vegetation communities within the study area are considered sens1t1ve and/or are regulated by the USFWS, Corps, CDFG, and/or City: southern coastal salt marsh, southern willow scrub, mule fat scrub, coastal and valley freshwater marsh, marine, mudflats, disturbed wetland, southern coastal bluff scrub (including disturbed), beach/coastal dunes, Diegan coastal sage scrub (including disturbed), non-native grassland, eucalyptus woodland, and disturbed habitat (Figure 3). 4.2 SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES No federally or state listed plant species were observed in the study area. Four CNPS sensitive plant species were observed by RECON (2003a): Nuttall's lotus, southwestern spiny rush, California boxthorn, and woolly seablite (Suaeda taxifolia), of which three (rush, boxthorn, and seablite) were observed by HELIX during 2006 surveys. A brief description of each sensitive plant species observed within the study area is provided below. Each species is listed in order of status; where more than one species has similar status, species are listed alphabetically by scientific name. An explanation of status codes is included as Appendix C. Nuttall's lotus (Lotus nuttallianus) Listing: --/--; CNPS List lB.1 Distribution: San Diego County and northern Baja below approximately 100 feet in elevation Habitat: Coastal dunes, particularly well-protected back dunes with minimal human foot traffic: Soils are mapped as beach sands and riverwash. Status on site: Observed by RECON (2003a; not mapped) Southwestern spiny rush (Juncus acutus) Listing: --/--; CNPS List 4.2 Distribution: Los Angeles, San Bernardino, San Luis Obispo, Ventura, and San Diego counties; Baja Habitat: Moist, saline, or alkaline soils in coastal salt marshes and riparian marshes Status on site: Observed by HELIX in 2006 and by RECON (2003a; not mapped) California boxthorn (Lycium californicum) Listing: --/--; CNPS List 4.2 Distribution: Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange, Channel Islands, San Diego, east to Arizona, and south into Baja Habitat: Coastal bluff scrub and coastal sage scrub Status on site: Observed in disturbed habitat south of Avenida Encinas and east of Carlsbad Boulevard by HELIX 2003 (Figure 3) HELIX Biological Technical Report for Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan I RBF-04 I November 6, 2006 11 I I I I ~1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Woollyseablite(Suaedataxijolla) Listing: --/--; CNPS List 4.2 Distribution: Along southern California coast, on majority of islands off coast, and in Baja Habitat: Margins of coastal salt marshes, coastal dunes, and coastal bluff scrub Status on site: Observed by RECON (2003a) within and observed by HELIX under eucalyptus trees in the northern portion of the project footprint area (not mapped) Sensitive Plant Species with Potential to Occur Table 4 presents sensitive plant species with potential to occur within the study area. General surveys were conducted by RECON (2003a) and a rare plant survey was conducted by HELIX in 2006 and none of these species was found. Each species is listed alphabetically by scientific name. Table 4 LISTED OR SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR SPECIES STATUS* POTENTIAL TO OCCUR Red sand-verbena --/--Low. Grows below 300 feet on beach dunes. Blooms (Abronia maritima) CNPS List 4.2 February through November. Although suitable habitat occurs on site, species not observed during 2006 rare plant survey. California adolphia --/--Low. Occurs in coastal sage scrub and chaparral along (Adolphia californica) CNPS List 2.1 slopes near creeks and drainages. Project site supports only marginally suitable habitat. Would likely have been detected if present. Shaw's agave --/--None. Occurs below 250 feet in coastal bluff scrub, (Agave shawit) CNPS List 2.1 coastal sage scrub, and maritime succulent scrub. Blooms September through May. Study area is outside native range, which is generally restricted to the County's southern portion. San Diego ambrosia FE/--Very low. Found along creek beds and drainages, (Ambrosiapumila) CNPS List lB. l generally along the periphery of riparian woodland (Reiser 2001). Nearest extant sighting is near Lake Hodges, approximately 9.4 miles east. Study area does q not support suitable habitat. Aphanisma --/--Very low. Occurs at elevations below 1,000 feet in (Aphanisma blitoides) CNPS List lB.2 coastal bluff scrub and coastal sage scrub with sandy soils. Blooms March through June. Reiser (2001) suggests that species may be extirpated from the county. Del Mar manzanita FE/--Very low. Generally occurs in open coastal chaparral (Arctostaphylos glandulosa CNPS List lB.1 on eroded sandstone soils (Reiser 2001). Blooms ssp. crassifolia) December through April. Reported just north of Batiquitos Lagoon, approximately 1 mile east. A conspicuous shrub that would likely have been detected if present. HELIX Biological Technical Report far Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan I RBF-04 I November 6, 2006 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 4 (cont.) LISTED OR SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR SPECIES STATUS* POTENTIAL TO OCCUR Coastal dunes milk-vetch FE/SE None. Occurs at elevations below 1,000 feet in coastal (Astragalus tener var. titt) CNPS List lB.1 dunes, coastal bluff scrub, and mesic coastal prairie CA Endemic with sandy soils. Blooms March through May. Not observed during 2006 rare plant surveys, survey was conducted outside the blooming period. San Diego populations have not been relocated since 1970s. Coulter' s saltbush --/--Low. Occurs at elevations below 1,050 feet in coastal (Atriplex coultert) CNPS List lB.2 bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal sage scrub, and grasslands, with alkaline or clay soil. Blooms Mar. through Oct. Not observed during 2006 rare plant surveys. No suitable soils within the studv area. South coast saltscale --/--Low. Occurs in coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, and (Atriplex pacifica) CNPS List lB.2 coastal sage scrub below 500 feet. Blooms March through October. Not observed during 2006 rare plant survey. Nearest reported observations in Oceanside (CDFG 2006a). Davidson's saltscale --/--Low. Found below 1,000 feet in coastal bluff scrub and (Atriplex serenana var. CNPS List lB.2 coastal sage scrub on alkaline soils. Blooms April davidsonit) through October. Nearest reported observation is Oceanside, approximately 9 miles north (CDFG 2006a). Encinitas baccharis FT/SE Very low. Occurs in maritime and mixed chaparral on (Baccharis vanessae) CNPS List lB.1 sandstone soils below 2,500 feet. Blooms Aug. CA Endemic through Nov. Known from fewer than 20 occurrences. Carlsbad HMP Would likely have been detected on site during rare Narrow Endemic plant surveys if present. No suitable habitat mapped (NE) within study area. Thread-leaved brodiaea FT/SE Very low. Generally grows in moist grasslands and on (Brodiaea filifolia) CNPS List lB.1 the periphery of vernal pools. Blooms March to June. Reported north of Batiquitos Lagoon near El Camino Real, approximately 3 miles. Suitable habitat does not occur within study area. Orcutt's brodiaea --/--Very low. Generally grows on gravelly loam soils in (Brodiaea orcuttit) CNPS List lB.1 grasslands with mima mound topography and on the periphery of vernal pools (Reiser 2001). Blooms March to June. Nearest reported sightings are in the Olivenhain/Rancho Santa Fe area, at least 4 miles east. Suitable habitat does not occur within study area .. Seaside calandrinia --/--Low. Found in coastal bluff scrub, coastal sage scrub, ( Calandrinia maritima) CNPS List 4.2 and grassland below 5,000 feet. Blooms February through August. Reiser (2001) reports a population north of the terminus of Swallowtail Road, Encinitas, approximately 1.5 miles east-southeast. Would likely have been detected within study area if present. HELIX Biological Technical Report for Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan I RBF-04 I Nowmber 6, 2006 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 4 (cont.) LISTED OR SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR SPECIES STATUS* POTENTIAL TO OCCUR Lewis's evening-primrose --/--Low. Found on sandy or clay soils below 1,000 feet in ( Camissonia lewisiz) CNPS List 3 coastal bluff scrub, cismontane woodland, coastal dunes, coastal sage scrub, and grasslands. Blooms March through July. Reiser (2001) reports a population on sandstone west of the Palomar Airport runway, approximately 1.5 miles northeast. Not observed during 2006 rare plant survev. Wart-stemmed --/--Very low. Typically found in southern maritime ceanothus CNPS List 2.2 chaparral, which does not occur in study area. A large (Ceanothus verrucosus) population is reported on hills approximately 1 mile ease north of Batiquitos Lagoon. Would likely have been detected if present. Orcutt's pincushion --/--Low. Occurs below 350 feet in coastal bluff scrub, ( Chaenactis glabriuscula CNPS List lB. l sandy, and coastal dunes. Blooms January through var. orcuttiana) August. Not observed during survey. Not observed during 2006 rare plant survey, although suitable habitat occurs in studv area. Orcutt's spineflower FE/SE Very low. Found in coastal chamise chaparral openings (Chorizanthe orcuttiana) CNPS List lB.1 with loose sandy substrate (Reiser 2001). Nearest presumed extant population is near Encinitas Blvd. approximately 4.5 miles southeast (CDFG 2006a). No chaparral mapped the within area; habitat only marginallv suitable. Long-spined spineflower --/--None. Typically found on clay lenses and on the ( Chorizanthe polygonoides CNPS List lB.2 periphery of vernal pools. Appropriate habitat does not var. lonzis/Jina) occur in study area. Summer holly I Very low. Found on mesic north-facing slopes in --,-- ( Comarostaphylis diversifolia CNPS List lB.2 southern mixed chaparral. Suitable habitat does not ssp. diversifolia) occur in the study area. Salt marsh bird's-beak FE/SE Very low. Found below 100 feet in coastal dunes, ( Cordylanthus maritimus CNPS List lB.2 coastal salt marshes and swamps. Blooms May through ssp. maritimus) October. Not observed during 2006 rare plant survey. Both known populations occur in southern portion of Countv (Reiser 2001). Sea dahlia --/--Low to moderate. Occurs below 500 feet in coastal (Coreopsis maritima) CNPS List 2.2 bluff scrub and coastal sage scrub. Blooms March through May. Reported just south of Batiquitos Lagoon, approximately 0.9 mile southeast (CDFG 2006a). Not observed durin2 2006 rare plant survey. San Diego sand-aster --/--Low to moderate. Occurs in coastal bluff scrub and (Corethrogyne filaginifolia CNPS List lB. l coastal chaparral. Blooms from July to September. var. incana) Nearest population on hills south of Batiquitos Lagoon west of Saxony Road, approximately 1 mile southeast. HELIX Biological Technical Report for Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan I RBF-04 I November 6, 2006 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 4 (cont.) LISTED OR SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR SPECIES STATUS* POTENTIAL TO OCCUR Blochman's dudleya --/--Low. Occurs on clay/serpentine soils below 1,500 feet in (Dudleya blochmaniae CNPS List lB. l coastal sage scrub, coastal bluff scrub, chaparral, and ssp. blochmaniae) Carlsbad HMP grasslands. Blooms April through June. Known from NE fewer than 20 occurrences in California and fewer than five in Baja. Although it was not observed during 2006 rare plant survey, CNDDB reports a population just north of Palomar Airport, approximately 2.4 miles northeast (CDFG 2006a). San Diego button-celery FE/SE Very low. Found in vernal pool communities and (Eryngium aristulatum CNPS List lB.1 vernally moist areas with mima mount topography. var. parishit) Reported in vernal pools just east of the railroad tracks approximately 0.4 mile north (CDFG 2006a). No vernal pools occur in the study area. Cliff spurge --/--Low. Occurs below 2,000 feet in coastal sage scrub, (Euphorbia misera) CNPS List 2.2 maritime succulent scrub, and coastal bluff scrub. Carlsbad HMP Blooms Dec. through Aug. Not observed during 2006 Covered rare plant survey. Nearest reported sighting is north of Agua Hedionda Lagoon, approximately 3.4 miles north (CDFG 2006a). San Diego barrel cactus --/--Very low. Occurs below 1,500 feet in chaparral, (Ferocactus viridescens) CNPS List 2.1 coastal sage scrub, grassland, and in the vicinity of Carlsbad HMP vernal pools. Blooms May throughJune. Would have Covered been observed if present. Palmer's frankenia --/--None. Typically found along the periphery of coastal (Frankenia palmert) CNPS List 2 .1 salt marsh. Blooms May through July; appears at elevation below 30 feet. The only confirmed population in the U.S. is in Chula Vista (Reiser 2001). Orcutt's hazardia FC/ST Low. Occurs in open chaparral, especially chamise (Hazardia orcuttii) CNPS List lB.1 chaparral. Blooms from August to October. Recorded east of Lux Canyon, approximately 5 miles southeast. Habitat in study area unsuitable to suooort species. San Diego marsh-elder --/--Occurs in riparian habitat along creeks and (Iva hayesiana) CNPS List 2.2 intermittent streambeds, usually with alluvial soils. Reported in the Batiquitos Lagoon Ecological Reserve to the south and southeast of the study area. Would likely have been detected if present; Coulter's goldfields --/--Low to moderate. Found below 4,000 feet in coastal (Lasthenia glabrata ssp. CNPS List lB.1 salt marshes and vernal pools (Reiser 2001). Blooms coulteri) Feb. through June at less than 4,000 feet elevation. Although not observed during 2006 rare plant survey, CNDDB reports a population in Batiquitos Lagoon to the south (CDFG 2006a). HELIX Biological Techni·a/ Report for Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan I RBF-04 I November 6, 2006 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 4 (cone.) LISTED OR SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR SPECIES STATUS* POTENTIAL TO OCCUR Del Mar Mesa sand aster --/--Low. Occurs on sandy soils below 500 feet in coastal ( Corethrogyne filaginifolia CNPS List lB. l bluff scrub as well as openings in southern maritime var. linifolia) CA Endemic chaparral and coastal sage scrub. Blooms May through Carlsbad HMP September. Not observed during 2006 rare plant NE survey and not reported to CNDDB in project vicinity (CDFG 2006a). Dunedelion --/--None. Typically found below 100 feet in coastal dunes (Malacothrix incana) CNPS List 4. 3 and coastal sage scrub. Blooms April through August. CA Endemic Species believed extirpated from San Diego County. Little mousetail --/--Very .low. Occurs in vernal pool communities. (Myosurus minimus ssp. CNPS List 3.1 Reported in pools approximately 0.4 mile north of apus) project site (CDFG 2006a). No vernal pools occur within study area. Spreading navarretia FT/--Very low. Occurs in vernal pool communities, which (Navarretia fossalis) CNPS List lB. l do not occur on site. Reported in pools approximately 0.4 mile north of study area. Coast woolly-heads --/--Low. Occurs below 300 feet in coastal dune (Nemacaulis denudata CNPS List lB.2 communities, particularly more protected back dunes var. denudata) (Reiser 2001). Blooms April through September. Habitat within study area only marginally suitable. Slender woolly-heads --/--None. Occurs between 170 and 1,300 feet on well- (Nemacaulis denudata CNPS List 2.2 developed sand dunes both along the coast and in var. gracilis) deserts. Blooms March through May. No suitable habitat occurs within study area. California Orcutt grass FE/SE Very low. Occurs in vernal pool communities, which (Orcuttia californica) CNPS List lB. l do not occur on site. Reported in pools approximately 0.4 mile north of study area. Short-lobed broomrape --/--Very low. Occurs on sandy soils below 1,000 feet in (Orobanche parishii ssp. CNPS List 4.2 coastal bluff scrub and coastal dunes. Blooms April brachyloba) through October. Nearest reported population believed extirpated by residential development in Lux Canyon (Reiser 2001). Brand's phacelia FC/--Low. Found below 1,300 feet in coastal scrub and (Phacelia stellaris) CNPS List lB. l coastal dunes. Blooms March through June. All San Diego County records for this species are in south county. Not observed during 2006 rare plant survey. Nuttall' s scrub oak --/--Very low. Generally found in coastal chaparral, (Quercus dumosa) CNPS List lB. l especially on mesic north-facing slopes (Reiser 2001). Blooms in February and March. Reported on hills north of Batiquitos Lagoon, approximately 2 miles east of study area. Would likely have been detected if present. HELIX Biological Technical Report for Ponto Beachfront Vttlage Vision Plan I RBF-04 I Nrwember 6, 2006 16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 4 (cont.) LISTED OR SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR SPECIES STATUS* POTENTIAL TO OCCUR Estuary suaeda --/--Low to moderate. Occurs near sea level in coastal salt (Suaeda esteroa) CNPS List lB.2 marshes and swamps. Blooms May through October. Reported in 1986 in the San Marcos Creek estuary upstream from Batiquitos Lagoon (CDFG 2006a). Not observed during 2006 rare plant survey. Triquetrella --/--Very low. Occurs below 3 5 0 feet in coastal bluff scrub (T riquetretla californica) CNPS List lB.2 and coastal sage scrub. Known in California from fewer than 10 small coastal occurrences, only one of which is in San Diego. *Refer to Appendix C for a listing and explanation of status and sensitivity codes 4.3 SENSITIVE ANIMAL SPECIES Eight sensitive animal species were observed or detected within the study area or flying overhead by HELIX in 2006 and/or by RECON in 2003: California least tern (Sterna antitlarum brownt), California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus), coastal California gnatcatcher, American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), loggerhead shrike (Lanius !udovicianus), Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperit), California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris), and double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus; Figure 3). Terns were obseryed in 2006; however, the exact species was not identified. A brief description of the sensitive animal species observed/detected within the study area is provided below. An explanation of status codes can be found in Appendix C. California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni) Listing: FE/SE, Fully Protected; Carlsbad HMP Covered Distribution: Observed in San Diego County during the breeding season. It is a coastal oceanic species but has been observed inland foraging in coastal lowland lakes. Habitat: Coastal areas adjacent to the ocean Status on site: Observed by RECON in 2003 (not mapped) California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus) Listing: FE/SE, Fully Protected; Carlsbad HMP Covered Distribution: Observed year-round along San Diego County's coast but most abundant in winter Habitat: Coastal salt water, beaches, bays, marshes, and on the open ocean Status on site: Observed flying over study area by RECON in 2003 (not mapped). Observed flying along coastal portion of the study area by HELIX in 2006 (noted on Figure 3) HELIX Biological Technical Report for Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan I RBF-04 I November 6, 2006 17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Listing: FT /CSC; Carlsbad HMP Covered Distribution: Southern Los Angeles, Orange, western Riverside, and San Diego counties south into Baja Habitat: Diegan coastal sage scrub composed of relatively low-growing, drought-deciduous, succulent plant species such as California sagebrush, white sage, black sage (Salvia mellifera), California encelia, California buckwheat, and yellow-flowered bush penstemon (Keckiella antirrhinoides) Status on site: Observed within Diegan coastal sage scrub within the study area and off-site adjacent to the railroad tracks (Figure 3) American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) Listing: --/SE, Fully Protected; Carlsbad HMP Covered Distribution: Rare in San Diego County year-round but more abundant near the coast and in winter Habitat: Generally, areas with cliffs near water where prey (shorebirds and ducks) is concentrated. Preferred hunting areas are agricultural fields, meadows, marshes, and lakes. Nesting usually occurs on cliff ledges or in a scrape in debris and occasionally in the old nests of other birds. Status on site: Observed by RECON in 2003 (not mapped) Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) Listing: BCC/CSC Distribution: An uncommon year-round resident observed throughout San Diego County but absent from pinyon woodlands in higher elevations of the Santa Rosa and Vallecito mountains Habitat: Grassland, open sage scrub, chaparral, and desert scrub Status on site: Observed perching on a light post on Ponto Drive by HELIX in 2006 Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii) Listing: Nesting; --/CSC; Carlsbad HMP Covered Distribution: Throughout the continental U.S., excluding Alaska, parts of Montana, and parts of the Dakotas. Winters south to Mexico and Honduras. Habitat: In San Diego County, this species tends to inhabit lowland riparian areas and oak woodlands in proximity to suitable foraging areas, such as scrublands or fields. Status on site: Two immature individuals were observed by HELD( in 2006 flying over the study then perching on a palm tree within the northern portion of the study area (Figure 3) California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris) Listing: --/CSC Distribution: Observed year-round scattered throughout San Diego County Habitat: Coastal strand, arid grasslands, and sandy desert floors Status on site: Observed within non-native vegetation and disturbed habitat within the proposed project footprint by RECON in 2003 and HELIX in 2006 (Figure 3) Double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) Listing: --/CSC Distribution: Observed scattered throughout San Diego County year-round, but more abundant in winter Habitat: Fresh and salt water habitats Status on site: Observed by RECON in 2003 (not mapped) and in 2006 by HELIX flying over site (Figure 3) HELIX Biological Technical Report for Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan / RBF-04 I N011ember 6, 2006 18 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Sensitive Animal Species with Potential to Occur Listed or sensitive animal species with potential to occur within the project site are listed in Table 5. The species are grouped into invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, then alphabetized (by scientific name). Table 5 LISTED OR SENSITIVE ANIMAL SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR SPECIES STATUS* POTENTIAL TO OCCUR INVERTEBRATES Saltmarsh skipper --/--High. Found in salt marshes; known to occur in (Panoquina errans) Carlsbad HMP Batiquitos Lagoon. Host plant is saltgrass (Distichlis Covered spicata). Adult emergence July through September. Suitable habitat and host plant present. VERTEBRA TES Reptiles and Amphibians Belding's orange---/CSC Moderate. Found in chaparral and coastal sage scrub throated whiptail Carlsbad HMP with coarse sandy soils and scattered brush. Suitable ( Cnemidophorus hyperythrus Covered habitat present. beldinv) Southwestern pond turtle --/CSC Low. Occurs in ponds, small lakes, marshes, slow- ( Clemmys marmorata moving, sometimes brackish water. Marginal habitat pallida) present. Birds American white pelican Nesting; None. Found in lagoons, bays, estuaries, freshwater (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos) --/CSC ponds, and inland lakes during spring migration. Migrant and winter visitor. Winter foraging expected. Species observed flying overhead; however, no nestin_g colony occurs within study area. Great blue heron Rookery; Not expected to nest within study area. Found in (A rdea herodias) --/--bays, lagoons, ponds, and lakes. Non-breeding year- round visitor with some localized breeding. HELIX observed individuals within study area; however, no rookeries present. Great egret Rookery; No rookeries present; not expected to nest within (Ardea alba egretta) --/--study area. Occurs in lagoons, bays, estuaries, and ponds and lakes in coastal lowland. Winter visitor, uncommon in summer. Wes tern least bittern --/CSC Low. Prefers brackish and freshwater marshes in the (lxobrychus exilis hesperis) coastal lowland. Rare summer resident, very rare in winter. Marginal habitat present. HELIX Biological Technical Report for Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan I RBF-04 I November 6, 2006 19 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 5 (cont.) LISTED OR SENSITIVE ANIMAL SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR SPECIES STATUS* POTENTIAL TO OCCUR VERTEBRATES (cont.) Birds (cont.) Black-crowned night heron Rookery; Not expected to nest within study area. Found in (Nycticorax nycticorax) --/--lagoons, estuaries, bayshores, ponds, and lakes. Often roost in trees. Year-round visitor with localized breeding· however, no rookeries within study area. White-faced ibis Rookery; Not expected to nest within study area. Suitable (Plegadis child) --/CSC foraging habitat present, which includes freshwater Carlsbad HMP ponds, irrigated fields, and brackish lagoons. Migrant Covered and winter visitor, rare in summer with very localized breeding. Major population known in Batiquitos Lagoon, though recent breeding not recorded. Osprey Nesting; Not expected to nest within study area. Suitable forag- (Pandion haliaetus) --/CSC ing habitat present, which includes coast, lowland Carlsbad HMP lakes, rarely foothills and mountain lakes. Uncommon Covered fall/winter resident, rare in spring and summer. Fish primary prey item. HELIX observed species sitting on electric oole in Batiquitos La_goon outside studv area. Light-footed clapper rail FE/SE, Fully Low. Occurs in salt marshes supporting Spanina (Rallus longirostris levipes) Protected foliosa, which was not observed during survey. Carlsbad HMP Localized resident that is known to occur in nearby Covered coastal lagoons, with Batiquitos Lagoon identified as critical habitat area. Western snowy plover Nesting; Low potential to nest. Known to occur in Batiquitos ( Charadrius alexandrinus FT, BCC/CSC Lagoon; marginal habitat present within study area. nivosus) Carlsbad HMP Occurs in sandy beaches, lagoon margins, and tidal Covered mud flats. Migrant and winter visitor with localized breeding. Most numerous during fall migration. Long-billed curlew Breeding; Not expected to nest within study area. Prefers tidal (Numenius americanus) BCC/CSC mud flats, salt marshes, and bays. Fall and spring migrant, winter visitor, rare and localized in summer. Primarily a migratory species. Caspian tern Nesting; Not expected to nest, though potential in adjacent (Sterna caspia) BCC/CSC areas. Marginal habitat present within study area. Found in bays, estuaries, lagoons, and freshwater ponds and lakes in coastal lowlands. Resident, with localized breeding at south end of San Diego Bay. Elegant tern Nesting; Not expected to nest in study area, but no nesting (Sterna elegans) BCC/CSC colony known from Batiquitos Lagoon (though Carlsbad HMP marginal habitat present). Occurs in mud flats, Covered sandbars, dunes, bays, and lagoons. Summer resident at nesting colony at south end of San Diego Bay. Otherwise, common migrant and abundant in late summer. HELIX Biological Technical Report for Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan I RBF-04 I November 6, 2006 20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 5 (cont.) LISTED OR SENSITIVE ANIMAL SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR SPECIES STATUS* POTENTIAL TO OCCUR VERTEBRATES (cont.) Birds (cont.) Forster's tern Nesting; Not expected to nest, though potential in adjacent (Sterna forstert) --/--areas, and marginal habitat in study area. Found in bays, estuaries, lagoons, and on shoreline. Abundant resident with breeding colony at south end of San Diego Bav. California least tern Nesting; Not expected to nest in study area, though known to (Sterna antillarum browttt) FE/SE, Fully in adjacent areas, and marginal habitat in study area. Protected Occurs in bays, estuaries, lagoons, and on shoreline. Carlsbad HMP Nests colonially along the coast. Migrant and very Covered localized summer resident. Observed by RECON in 2003 but not mapped. Burrowing owl BCC/CSC Low to moderate. Moderately suitable habitat in study (Athene cunicularia) Carlsbad HMP area; known from north side of Batiquitos Lagoon. Covered Prefers grassland, agricultural land, and coastal dunes; requires rodent burrows. Declining resident. Vaux' s swift --/CSC Moderate. All habitat types in San Diego County ( Chaetura vauxt) during migration; expected to fly over during spring and fall. Belding's savannah --/SE Moderate to high. Large population known from sparrow Carlsbad HMP Batiquitos Lagoon. Occurs in salt marshes and lagoons (P asserculus sandwichensis Covered dominated by pickleweed (Salicornia virginica). beldinrz) Common but localized resident. Large-billed savannah sparrow --/CSC Low to moderate. Batiquitos Lagoon salt marsh (P asserculus sandwichensis Carlsbad HMP habitat identified as critical for species; study area rostratus) Covered suooorts only a small amount of ootential habitat. Tricoiored blackbird BCC/CSC Moderate. Suitable habitat present. Found in (Agelaius tricolor) freshwater marshes, agricultural areas, lakeshores, and in parks. Localized resident often seen among flocks of red-winged blackbirds. Mammals Dulzura pocket mouse --/CSC Low. Found in chaparral, especially in grasslands ( Chaetodipus californicus intergrade. Habitat in study area only marginally femoralis) suitable. Nearest recorded CNDDB observation is south of Palomar Airport Road between El Camino Real and Interstate (I-) 5, approximately 2 miles northeast (CDFG 2006a). Northwestern San Diego --/CSC Low to moderate. Occurs in open coastal sage scrub, pocket mouse particularly in open, weedy areas with sandy (Chaetodipus Jal/ax fa/lax) substrates. Marginally suitable in study area, although reported sightings not along beach. Nearest reported observations just north of San Elijo Lagoon, approximatelv 5.5 miles southeast (CDFG 2006a). HELIX Biological Technical Report for Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan I RBF-04 / November 6, 2006 21 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 5 (cont.) LISTED OR SENSITIVE ANIMAL SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR SPECIES STATUS* POTENTIAL TO OCCUR VERTEBRATES (cont.) Mammals (cont.) Mexican long-tongued --/CSC Low. Occurs in scrub lands and forests, especially bat canyons with riparian vegetation. Roosts in mines, (Choeronycteris mexicana) caves, and buildings. Only sporadically reported through of San Diego County, including one observation in Encinitas (CDFG 2006a). Stephens' kangaroo rat FE/ST Low. Typically occurs in grasslands and open coastal (Dipodomys stephensz) sage scrub. Nearest presumed extant observation was made in 1988 near Guajome Lake (CDFG 2006a) San Diego black-tailed --/CSC Moderate. Occurs primarily in open sage scrub, jackrabbit chaparral, grasslands, croplands, and disturbed (Lepus californicus bennettit) habitat with at least some shrub cover present; study area supports abundant suitable habitat. Nearest observation from CNDDB recorded south of Palomar Airport Road between El Camino Real and I-5, approximately 2 miles northeast (CDFG 2006a). San Diego desert woodtat --/CSC Low to moderate. Occurs in open chaparral and (Neotoma lepida intermedia) coastal sage scrub, often building large stick nests in rock outcrops or around clumps of cactus or yucca. Marginally suitable habitat occurs on site, although nesting sites are rare. Pacific pocket mouse FE/CSC Low. Occurs in coastal strand, coastal dunes, river (Perognathus longimemhris alluvium, and coastal sage scrub growing on marine pacificus) terraces. Generally found in areas fine-grained, sandy, or gravelly substrate areas. Reported on east side of Lux Canyon, aooroximatelv 5 miles south (CDFG 2006a). *Refer to Appendix C for a listing and explanation of status and sensitivity codes 5.0 REGIONAL CONTEXT AND REGULATORY ISSUES Biological resources within the study area are subject to regulatory control by the federal government, State of California, and City. The federal government administers non-marine plant and wildlife related regulations through the USFWS, while Waters of the U.S. (wetlands and non-wetlands) are administered by the Corps. California law regarding wetland, water-related, and wildlife issues is administered by CDFG. The City is the lead agency for the CEQA environmental review process in accordance with state law and local ordinances. 5.1 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Administered by the USFWS, the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) provides the legal framework for the listing and protection of species (and their habitats) that are identified as being endangered or HELIX Biological Technical Report for Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan I RBF-04 I November 6, 2006 22 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I threatened with extinction. Actions that jeopardize endangered or threatened species and the habitats upon which they rely are considered a "take" under the ESA. Section 9(a) of the ESA defines take as "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct." "Harm" and "harass" are further defined in federal regulations and case law to include actions that adversely impair or disrupt a listed species' behavioral patterns. Sections 4(d), 7 and l0(a) of the federal ESA regulate actions that could jeopardize endangered or threatened species. A special rule under Section 4(d) of the ESA was finalized which authorizes "take" of certain protected species under approved Natural Communities Conservation Programs (NCCPs), which are administered by the states. Section 7 describes a process of federal interagency consultation for use when federal actions may adversely affect listed species. A Section 7 consultation is required when there is a nexus between endangered species' use of a site and impacts to Corps jurisdictional areas. Section lO(a) allows issuance of permits for incidental take of endangered or threatened species with preparation of a habitat conservation plan (HCP). The term "incidental" applies if the taking of a listed species is incidental to and not the purpose of an otherwise lawful activity. An HCP demonstrating how the taking would be minimized and how steps taken would ensure the species' survival must be submitted for issuance of Section lO(a) permits. The City met requirements of Section lO(a) with the approval and implementation of the City's HMP and now has authorization from the resource agencies to issue take permits (as necessary) for the proposed project. The USFWS identifies critical habitat for endangered and threatened species. Critical habitat is defined as areas of land considered necessary for endangered or threatened species to recover. The ultimate goal is to restore healthy populations of listed species within their native habitat so they can be removed from the list of threatened or endangered species. Once an area is designated as critical habitat pursuant to the federal ESA, all federal agencies must consult with the USFWS to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to result in destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat. No critical habitat occurs within the study area; however, critical habitat for San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis), Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni), and spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis) occurs approximately 300 feet northeast of the study area. All migratory bird species that are native to the U.S. or its territories are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) as amended under the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of 2004 (FR Doc. 05-5127; USFWS 2004). The MBTA is generally protective of migratory birds but does not actually stipulate the type of protection required. In common practice, USFWS places restrictions on disturbances allowed near active raptor nests. Federal wetland regulation (non-marine issues) is guided by the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and the Clean Water Act. The Rivers and Harbors Act deals primarily with discharges into navigable waters, while the purpose of the Clean Water Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of all Waters of the U.S. Permitting for projects filling Waters of the U.S. (including wetlands) is overseen by the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Projects could be permitted on an individual basis or be covered under one of several approved nationwide permits. Individual permits are assessed individually based on the type of action, amount of fill, etc. Individual permits typically require substantial time (often longer than six months) to review and approve, while nationwide permits are pre-approved if a project meets appropriate conditions. It is assumed that the proposed project would require a Section 404 Permit from the Corps and a Section 401 from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). HELIX Biological Technical Report far Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan I RBF-04 I Nwember 6, 2006 23 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5.2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA The California ESA is similar to the federal BSA in that it contains a process for listing of species and regulating potential impacts to listed species. Section 2081 of the California ESA authorizes CDFG to enter into a memorandum of agreement for take of listed species for scientific, educational, or management purposes. The Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) enacted a process by which plants are listed as rare or endangered. The NPP A regulates collection, transport, and commerce in plants that are listed. The California ESA followed NPP A and covers both plants and animals that are determined to be endangered or threatened with extinction. Plants listed as rare under NPP A were also designated rare under the California BSA. The California Fish and Game Code (Sections 1600 et seq.) requires an agreement with CDFG for projects affecting riparian and wetland habitats through issuance of a Streambed Alteration Agreement. It is assumed that the proposed project would require a 1602 Agreement from the CDFG. CEQA and its implementing guidelines (CEQA Guidelines) require discretionary projects with potentially significant effects (or impacts) on the environment to be submitted for environmental review. Mitigation for significant impacts to the environment is determined through the environmental review process, in accordance with existing laws and regulations. Raptors (birds of prey) and active raptor nests are protected by California Fish and Game Code 3503, which states that it is "unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds of prey or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird" unless authorized (CDFG 1991). 5.3 CITY OF CARLSBAD The study area lies within the North County MHCP Subregional Plan area. The MHCP Subregional Plan was adopted and certified by the San Diego Association of Governments Board of Directors on March 28, 2003. Each of the seven jurisdictions within the MHCP area (including the City) is required to implement their respective portion of the MHCP via citywide subarea plans. On November 15, 2004, the City's HMP was approved, and federal and state permits issued. A small portion of the study area is located within Focused Planning Area (FPA) Core 8, which includes Batiquitos Lagoon (Figure 6). According to the City's HMP, Batiquitos Lagoon supports sensitive plant and animal species and is a critical foraging area for American peregrine falcon and California brown pelican. FP A Core 8 provides linkage to other Core FP As both within and outside the City. Batiquitos Lagoon is included in an existing Hardline Conservation Area. The City's HMP includes conservation goals and standards which will apply to future development proposals in certain areas of the City. The goals and standards are arranged according to the Local Facility Management Zone (LFMZ) in which they occur. The study area is included within LFMZ 9 and 22 (Figure 6). No standards exist within the City HMP for LFMZ 9 or 22. In addition, the City's HMP establishes zone-level recommendations for each of the LFMZs. The zone- level recommendations for LFMZ 9 include ( 1) monitor breeding populations of terns, plovers, and sparrows, and continue predator control where necessary; and (2) use fencing and signs as necessary to HELIX Biological Technical Report for Ponto Beachfront Village Vi.Jion Plan I RBF-04 I November 6, 2006 24 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I minimize human intrusion in or near nesting, loafing, or roosting areas for HMP covered species such as terns, pelicans, and rails. The zone-level recommendations for LFMZ 22 include (1) manage vernal pool habitat to minimize adverse edge effects and maintain/enhance water quality of the pools; (2) stabilize sensitive species populations by removing impacts or potential impacts, including trampling, vehicular traffic, illegal dumping, collecting, and invasion of non-native plants; (3) use fencing and signs to restrict human intrusion and educate the public about vernal pool resources; (4) implement runoff or erosion control measures on adjacent properties, as necessary, to maintain appropriate amounts of water runoff into pool watersheds, while protecting water quality against potential pollutants; (5) monitor the status of preserved populations to ensure they remain viable. According to the City's HMP, projects which conserve at least 67 percent of habitat on site shall not be subject to off-site mitigation. According to Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.203.040(B)(3), Coastal Resources Protection Overlay Zone, the following policy shall apply to (1) areas west of existing Paseo del Norte; (2) west of 1-5; and (3) along El Camino Real immediately upstream of the existing storm drains: All development must include mitigation measure for the control of urban runoff flow rates and velocities, urban pollutants, erosion and sedimentation in accordance with the requirements of the City's Grading Ordinance, Stormwater Ordinance, Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan, Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Plan master drainage plan and the San Diego County Hydrology Manual and any amendments to them. Such mitigation shall become an element of the project, and shall be installed prior to the initial plan and any amendments to them for the area between the project site and the lagoon (including the debris basin), as well as revegetation of graded areas immediately after grading; and a mechanism for permanent maintenance if the City declines to accept the responsibility. Construction of drainage improvements may be through formation of an assessment district, or through any similar arrangement that allocates costs among the various landowners in an equitable manner. 5.4 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE For the purpose of evaluating impacts, the proposed project would result in a significant impact if it would: © Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by USFWS or CDFG; o Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by USFWS or CDFG; o Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Clean Water Act Section 404; o Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors; or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; 0 Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or o Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state conservation plan. HELIX Biological Technical Report for Ponto Beachfront Village Virion Plan I RBF-04 I November 6, 2006 25 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6.0 IMP ACT ANALYSIS This section presents an impact analysis for the proposed project. Impacts considered are either direct or indirect. An impact is direct when the primary effect is removal of existing habitat, often replacing it with developed area. An indirect impact consists of secondary effects of a project (such as noise) that leads to habitat degradation. The significance of impacts to present biological resources or those with potential to occur was determined based upon the sensitivity of the resource and the extent of the anticipated impacts. For certain highly sensitive resources (e.g., a federally endangered species) any impact would be significant. Conversely, other resources that have a low sensitivity (e.g., species with a large, locally stable population in the City but declining elsewhere) could sustain an impact with insignificant effect. 6.1 DIRECT IMPACTS 6. 1. 1 Vegetation Communities Implementation of the proposed project would result in direct impacts to 47 .6 acres including: 0.04 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.1 acre of disturbed southern coastal bluff scrub, 1.2 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub (including disturbed), 0.3 acre of eucalyptus woodland, 21.1 acres of disturbed habitat, 9.7 acres of non-native vegetation, and 15.2 acres of developed land (Figure 7; Table 6). According to the City's HMP impacts to southern willow scrub, disturbed southern coastal bluff scrub, Diegan coastal sage scrub (including disturbed), eucalyptus woodland, and disturbed habitat would be significant and mitigation would be required. Impacts to non-native vegetation and developed land are not considered significant and mitigation is not required. Table 6 IMPACTS TO VEGETATION COMMUNITIES VEGETATION COMMUNITY/HABITAT ACREAGE* Existing Impact Habitat Group At Southern coastal salt marsh 0.98 0.00 Riparian woodland 0.17 0.00 Southern willow scrub 0.91 0.04 Mule fat scrub 0.19 0.00 Coastal and valley freshwater marsh 2.21 0.00 Marine 1.30 0.00 Mudflats 0.03 0.00 Disturbed wetland 0.11 0.00 Habitat Group B Southern coastal bluff scrub (including disturbed) 4.3 0.1 Beach/Coastal dunes 25.4 0.0 Habitat Group C Diegan coastal sage scrub (including disturbed) 5.2 1.2 HELIX Biological Technical Report for Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan I RBF-04 / November 6, 2006 26 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6.0 IMP ACT ANALYSIS This section presents an impact analysis for the proposed project. Impacts considered are either direct or indirect. An impact is direct when the primary effect is removal of existing habitat, often replacing it with developed area. An indirect impact consists of secondary effects of a project (such as noise) that leads to habitat degradation. The significance of impacts to present biological resources or those with potential to occur was determined based upon the sensitivity of the resource and the extent of the anticipated impacts. For certain highly sensitive resources (e.g., a federally endangered species) any impact would be significant. Conversely, other resources that have a low sensitivity (e.g., species with a large, locally stable population in the City but declining elsewhere) could sustain an impact with insignificant effect. 6.1 DIRECT IMPACTS 6.1.1 Vegetation Communities Implementation of the proposed project would result in direct impacts to 47 .6 acres including: 0.04 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.1 acre of disturbed southern coastal bluff scrub, 1.2 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub (including disturbed), 0.3 acre of eucalyptus woodland, 21.1 acres of disturbed habitat, 9.7 acres of non-native vegetation, and 15.2 acres of developed land (Figure 7; Table 6). According to the City's HMP impacts to southern willow scrub, disturbed southern coastal bluff scrub, Diegan coastal sage scrub (including disturbed), eucalyptus woodland, and disturbed habitat would be significant and mitigation would be required. Impacts to non-native vegetation and developed land are not considered significant and mitigation is not required. Table 6 IMPACTS TO VEGETATION COMMUNITIES VEGETATION COMMUNITY/HABITAT ACREAGE* Existinj! Impact Habitat Group At Southern coastal salt marsh 0.98 0.00 Riparian woodland 0.17 0.00 Southern wiilow scrub 0.91 0.04 Mule fat scrub 0.19 0.00 Coastal and valley freshwater marsh 2.21 0.00 Marine 1.30 0.00 Mudflats 0.03 0.00 Disturbed wetland 0.11 0.00 Habitat Group B Southern coastal bluff scrub (including disturbed) 4.3 0.1 Beach/Coastal dunes 25.4 0.0 Habitat Group C Diegan coastal sage scrub (including disturbed) 5.2 1.2 HELIX Biological Technical Report for Ponto Beachfront Village Vi.lion Plan I RBF-04 I November 6, 2006 26 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 6 (cont.) IMPACTS TO VEGETATION COMMUNITIES VEGETATION COMMUNITY/HABITAT ACREAGE* Existing Impact Habitat Group E Non-native grassland 0.2 0.0 Habitat Group F Eucalyptus woodland 0.3 0.3 Disturbed habitat 24.6 21.1 Other Non-native vegetation 21.0 9.7 Developed 43.4 15.2 TOTAL 130.4 47.6 *Upland habitats are rounded co the nearest 0.1 acre, while wetland habitats are rounded to the nearest 0.01; thus, totals reflect rounding tHabitat Groups refer to MHCP habitat classification system 6.1.2 Jurisdictional Areas Corps Jurisdictional Areas The proposed project would significantly impact 0.15 acre of Corps jurisdictional areas including 0.04 acre of southern willow scrub and 0.11 acre of non-wetland Waters of the U.S. (Figure 8; Table 7). CDFG Jurisdictional Areas The proposed project would significantly impact 0.21 acre of CDFG jurisdictional areas including 0.04 acre of southern willow scrub and 0.17 acre of streambed (Figure 9; Table 7). Table 7 IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL AREAS VEGETATION COMMUNITY/ ACREAGE HABITAT Corps CDFG Wetlands Southern willow scrub 0.04 0.04 Non Wetlands Drainage/Streambed 0.11 0.17 TOTAL 0.15 0.21 HELIX Biological Techni.-al Report for Ponto Beachfront Village Vi1ion Plan I RBF-04 I November 6, 2006 27 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6.1.3 Plant Species The proposed project would impact California boxthorn and woolly seablite (Figure 7). These species are not listed by federal or stare agencies as special concern, rare, threatened, or endangered. Both plant species are designated as CNPS List 4.2, which is defined as a "watch list for species of limited distribution that are fairly endangered in California (20 to 80 percent occurrences threatened)." Given (1) that few individuals of these species would be affected upon implementation of the proposed project; (2) that these species occur in various locations within the study area chat would not be affected by the proposed project; and (3) the low sensitivity listing of the species, impacts to California boxthorn and woolly seablite would be adverse but less than significant. 6. 1.4 Animal Species The proposed project would impact California horned lark and loggerhead shrike (Figure 7). Given that these avian species are able to disperse through the site to other areas with appropriate habitat and adequate areas of habitat occur in the project vicinity, impacts to the horned lark and loggerhead shrike would be adverse but less than significant. Direct impacts to the remaining six sensitive animal species (all avian) discussed in Section 4.4 are not anticipated. In particular, no direct impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher are anticipated because the individual observed within the study are was outside the proposed project footprint and the Diegan coastal sage scrub closest to the observed location would not be directly affected by project development. In addition, this species likely traverses the southeastern portion of the study area in order to reach the preserved habitat within the finger canyon north of Batiquitos Lagoon and east of the railroad tracks. Although not impossible, it is unlikely that gnatcatchers use the small patches of Diegan coastal sage scrub within the Carlsbad Boulevard median or north of Avenida Encinas and west of Ponto Drive. 6.1. 5 Wildlife Corridors As previously stated, the majority of the study area does not function as a corridor that facilitates movement of wildlife (particularly large mammals) from one location to another. As previously discussed, a small portion of the study area occurs within FPA Core 8. No impacts to this core area would occur upon implementation of the proposed project. 6.2 INDIRECT IMPACTS Indirect impacts are those that occur to biological resources over short or long periods of time as a result of the project. Although biological resources may not initially be directly impacted, they may be affected indirectly over time due to the relative proximity of development. Potential indirect impacts from project construction could include decreased water quality (i.e., through sedimentation, contaminants, or fuel release), construction noise, fugitive dust, colonization of non-native plant species in previously undisturbed areas, edge effects, domesticated pets, human activity, animal breeding behavioral changes, roadkill, night lighting, and errant construction impacts. A discussion of potential indirect impacts follows. HELIX Biological Technical Report far Ponto Beach.front Village Vision Plan I RBF-04 I November 6, 2006 28 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6.2.1 Water Quality Water quality within Batiquitos Lagoon or the Pacific Ocean could be adversely affected by potential surface runoff and sedimentation during construction. The use of petroleum products (fuels, oils, lubricants) and erosion of cleared land during construction could potentially contaminate surface water. Decreased water quality can adversely affect vegetation, aquatic animals, and terrestrial wildlife that depend on the surface water. During project construction, measures shall be implemented to control erosion, sedimentation, and pollution that could impact water resources on and off site. The applicant would be required to comply with the Clean Water Act Section 404 and 401 Permits, Section 4 of Chapter 7 of Volume 1 of the City's Engineering Standards (City 20046), and Chapter 15 .12, Storm Water Management and Discharge Control, of the City's Municipal Code (City 2006), which require erosion control measures. Prior to the commencement of grading, a Notice of Intent must be filed with the RWQCB for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Construction Storm Water Permit. Specific permit requirements include implementation of an approved Storm Water Prevention Plan, which requires best management practices for erosion and sediment control related to construction activities. Standard measures that may apply to the proposed project include: e Surface drainage shall be designed to collect and move runoff into adequately sized natural stream channels or drainage structures. o Erosion control measures associated with the project shall include techniques for both long-and shore-term erosion hazards pursuant to direction by a hydrologic or engineering consultant. These are likely to include such measures as the short-term use of sandbags, matting, mulches, berms, hay bales, or similar devices along all pertinent graded areas to minimize sediment transport. The exact design, location, and schedule of use for such devices shall be determined by a hydrologic or engineering consultant. • Native vegetation shall be preserved whenever feasible, and all disturbed areas shall be reclaimed as soon as possible after completion of grading. Native topsoil shall be stockpiled and reapplied as part of the site revegetation whenever possible. e Use of energy dissipating structures (e.g., detention ponds, riprap, or drop structures) as deemed necessary by a hydrologic or engineering consultant shall be used at storm drain outlets, drainage crossings, and/or downstream of all culverts, pipe outlets, and brow ditches to reduce velocity and prevent erosion. • A maintenance plan for temporary erosion control facilities shall be established. This will typically involve inspection, deaning, and repair operations being conducted after runoff-producing rainfall. o Removal and disposal of ground water (if any) encountered during construction activities shall be coordinated with the RWQCB to ensure proper disposal methods and locations under a General Dewatering Permit. This may involve specific measures such as removing excess sediment (through the use of desilting basins, etc.) and limiting discharge velocity. o Specified fueling and maintenance procedures shall be designated to preclude the discharge of hazardous materials used during construction (e.g., fuels, lubricants, and solvents). Such designations shall include specific measures to preclude spill including proper handling and disposal techniques. Compliance with the above regulations and standards would be required; therefore impacts to surface water quality would be less than significant. HELIX Biological Technical Report for Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan/ RBF-04 I November 6, 2006 29 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 9 MITIGATION SUMMARY FOR IMPACTS TO CORPS JURISDICTIONAL AREAS VEGETATION ACREAGE MITIGATION COMMUNITY/HABITAT Existing Impact Ratio Required Wetlands Southern willow scrub 0.91 0.04 3:1 0.12 Non Wetlands Drainage 0.11 0.11 1:1 0.11 TOTAL 1.02 0.15 --0.23 MM 7.2.2 Impacts to 0.04 acre of CDFG jurisdictional wetlands and 0.17 acre of CDFG jurisdictional streambed shall be mitigated through creation and/or enhancement of 0.29 acre of jurisdictional areas on or off site at 3: 1 and 1: 1 ratio, respectively, as determined by the resource agencies (Table 10). Table 10 MITIGATION SUMMARY FOR IMPACTS TO CDFG JURISDICTIONAL AREAS VEGETATION ACREAGE MITIGATION COMMUNITY/HABITAT Existing Impact Ratio Required Wetlands Southern willow scrub 0.91 0.04 3:1 0.12 Non Wetlands Stream bed 0.18 0.17 1:1 0.17 TOTAL 1.09 0.21 --0.29 7 .3 INDIRECT IMPACTS MM 7.3.1 HELIX No grubbing, grading, or clearing within 500 feet of occupied Diegan coastal sage scrub during the coastal California gnatcatcher breeding season (March 1 through August 15), California least tern breeding season (April through August) or raptor habitat during the raptor breeding season (December through July) shall occur. As such, all grading permits, improvement plans, and the final map shall state the same. If grubbing, grading, or clearing would occur during the gnatcatcher, least tern, and/or raptor breeding season, a pre-construction survey shall be conducted to determine if these species occur within the areas impacted by noise (either within 500 feet or where noise is greater than 60 dB L0q). If there are no gnatcatchers, least tern, or raptors nesting (includes nest building or other breeding/nesting behavior) within this designated area, development shall be allowed to proceed. However, if any of these birds are observed nesting or displaying breeding/nesting behavior within the area, construction shall (1) be postponed until all nesting (or breeding/nesting behavior) has ceased or until after August 15; or (2) a temporary noise barrier or berm Biological Technical Report for Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan I RBF-04 / NOtJember 6, 2006 34 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I MM 7.3.2 MM 7.3.3 MM 7.3.4 HELIX shall be constructed at the edge of the development footprint to ensure that noise levels are reduced to below 60 dB L.9• Alternatively, the use of construction equipment could be scheduled to keep noise levels below 60 dB Leq in lieu of or in concert with a wall or other noise barrier. In order to ensure compliance with the MBTA, clearing of all vegetation shall occur outside of the breeding season of most avian species (February 15 to September 15). Grubbing, grading, or clearing during the breeding season of MBTA covered species could occur if it is determined via a pre-construction survey that no nesting birds (or birds displaying breeding or nesting behavior) are present immediately prior to grubbing, grading, or clearing and would require approval of the USFWS, CDFG, and City that no breeding or nesting avian species are present in the vicinity of the grubbing, grading, or clearing. Exotic animal control shall focus on both domestic pets and invasive pest species. The Homeowners' Association (HOA) shall promote resident education regarding the potential impacts of pets on wildlife through signage and newsletters; persistent problems related to uncontrolled pets shall be reported to the San Diego County Animal Control. Lighting within the proposed project development adjacent to preserved habitat shall be of the lowest illumination allowed for human safety, selectively placed, shielded, and directed away from preserved habitat. During the construction period, limits of grading and clearing shall be clearly delineated with temporary fencing such as orange construction fencing to ensure that construction activity remains within the defined limits of disturbance according to the grading plan. A qualified biologist shall inspect the fencing and shall monitor construction activities occurring adjacent to the open space to avoid unauthorized impacts. Unauthorized impacts shall be reported to the USFWS, CDFG, and City within 24 hours of occurrence. Biological Technical Report for Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan I RBF-04 I Nwember 6, 2006 35 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8.0 CERTIFICATION/QUALIFICATION The following individuals contributed to the fieldwork and/or preparation of this report. Sarichia (Seekey) Cacciatore Pamela Hartsock Derek Langsford Brian Parker M.S., Environmental Science and Policy, Johns Hopkins University, 2002 B.A., Geography/Certificate Urban Planning, California State University- San Bernardino, 1997 Ph.D., English, University of Missouri-Columbia, 2000 M.A., English, Eastern Illinois University, 1991 B.A., English, Eastern Illinois University, 1990 Ph.D. Ecology, UC Davis/San Diego State University, 1996 B.Sc. (Hons.), Ecological Science, University of Edinburgh, 1985 M.A., Organismal Biology, Ecology, and Evolution, University of California- Los Angeles, 2001 B.S., Ecology, Behavoir, and Evolution, University of California-San Diego, 1996 Katherine Pettigrew B.S., Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, 2001 W. Larty Sward M.S., Biology, San Diego State University, 1979 B.S., Biology, San Diego State University, 1975 Jasmine Watts B.S., Ecology and Systematic Biology, California Polytechnic State University- San Luis Obispo, 2001 HELIX Biological Technical Report for Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan I RBF-04 I November 6, 2006 36 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 9.0 REFERENCES American Ornithologists' Union. 2006. List of the 2,041 Bird Species (with Scientific and English Names) Known from the AOU Check-list Area. URL: http://www.aou.org/checklist/ birdlist4 7. pdf. Baker, R.J., L.C. Bradley, R.D. Bradley, J.W. Dragoo, M.D. Engstrom, R.S. Hoffmann, C.A. Jones, F. Reid, D.W. Rice, and C. Jones. 2003. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico. Occasional Papers of the Museum, Texas Tech University 223. Barbour, M. and A. Johnson. 1977. Beach and Dune. Terrestrial Vegetation of California. Eds. Barbour and Major. Wiley, N.Y. Pp. 223-262. Barbour, M. and T. Dejong. 1977. Response of west coast beach taxa co salt spray, seawater inundation and soil salinity. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 104: 29-34. Beauchamp, R.M. 1986. A Flora of San Diego County. Sweetwater River Press, 241 pp. Beier, Paul, and Steven Loe. 1992. A Checklist for Evaluating Impacts to Wildlife Movement Corridors. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20: 434-440. Bowman, R. 1973. Soil Survey of the San Diego Area. USDA in cooperation with the USDI, UC Agricultural Experiment Station, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Navy, and the U.S. Marine Corps. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1965. California fish and wildlife plan. The Resources Agency, Volume 3(c): 908. 1991. Fish and Game Code of California. Gould Publications, Inc. CDFG California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2006a. RareFind. September 1. 2006b. State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game Habitat Conservation Division, Wildlife & Habitat ' Data Analysis Branch. URL: http://www. dfg .ca.gov /w hdab/pdfs/TEPlants. pdf. October. 2006c. State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game Biogeographic Data Branch. URL: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/pdfs/TEAnimals.pdf. October. California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC). 2006. Cal-IPC Invasive Plant Inventory. URL: http://portal.cal-ipc.org/weedlist. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2006. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. Internet searchable database Version 7-06d. URL: http://cnps.web.aplus.net/cgi-bin/inv/inventory.cgi. Updated quarterly. October 3. HELIX Biological Technical Report for Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan/ RBF-04 I November 6, 2006 37 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I City of Carlsbad (City). 2004a. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad. November. 20046. Engineering Standards -Volume 1: General Design Standards. 2006. Municipal Code approved pursuant to Ordinance NS-795. April 4. Collins, Joseph T. and Travis W. Taggart. 2002. Standard Common and Current Scientific Names for North American Amphibians, Turtles, Reptiles, and Crocodilians, 5th Edition. Publication of The Center for North American Herpetology, Lawrence, Kansas. iv + 44 pp. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 100 pp. with Appendices. Heath, Fred. 2004. An Introduction to Southern California Butterflies. Mountain Press Publishing Company. Missoula, Montana. Hickman, J.C., ed. 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, 1400 pp. Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. State of California Resources Agency. Jackson, L. 1985. Ecological origins of California's Mediterranean grasses. Journal of Biogeography 12 (1985): 349-361. Kirkpatrick, J. and C. Hutchinson. 1980. The environmental relationships of Californian coastal sage scrub and some of its component communities and species. Journal of Biogeography 7 (1980): 23-38. Kollmorgen Instruments Corporation. 1994. Munsell Soil Color Charts, Revised edition. Baltimore, MD. Oberbauer, T. 1979. Distribution and dynamics of San Diego County grasslands. Unpublished M.A. thesis, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. 1991. Comparison of Pre-European and 1988 vegetation coverage for San Diego County. P. Abbot and B. Elliot. Geol. Soc. North Amer., So. Calif. Reg., Sympos. Oct. 21-24, 1991, San Diego, California. ---and J. Vanderwier. 1991. The vegetation and geologic substrate association and its effect on development in San Diego County. Environmental perils, San Diego region. Eds. P.L. Abbott and W.J. Elliott. San Diego Association of Geologists. October 20. pp. 203-212. HELIX Biological Technical Report for Ponto Beachfront Village Vilion Plan I RBF-04 I Nowmber 6, 2006 38 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I RECON Environmental, Inc. 2003a. Existing Conditions Report for the Ponto Land Use Strategy and Vision Project. December 8. 20036. Wetland Delineation Report for the Ponto Land Use Strategy and Vision Project. December 8. Soule, Michael E., ed. 1986. Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity. Chapter 11, Habitat Fragmentation in the Temperate Zone. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service. 1992. Hydric Soil Lists. Field Office Official List of Hydric Soils Map Units for San Diego Area, California. Section II Field Office Technical Guide. Davis, CA. March. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. Branch of Habitat Assessment. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. http://www.nwi.fws.gov/bha/ (in downloadable .pdf format). 1997. Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Poliopti!a californica ca!ifornica) Presence/ Absence Survey Protocol. August 6. 2004. Final List of Bird Species to Which the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Does Not Apply. U.S. Supreme Court. 2001. Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SW ANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 99-1178. January 9. HELIX Biological Technical Report for Ponto Beacbfront Village Vision Plan/ RBF-04 / Novtmber 6, 2006 39 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .ru:>PENDIX -~~~~~~~~~ PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix A PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED -PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN FAMILY GYMNOSPERM Cupressaceae SCIENTIFIC NAME Juniperus sp. ANGIOSPERMS -MONOCOTS Poaceae Bromus diandrus Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens Cortaderia jubata Cynodon dactylon Distichlis spicata Hordeum murinum Pennisetum setaceum ANGIOSPERMS -DICOTS Aizoaceae Anacardiaceae Apiaceae Asteraceae Boraginaceae Brassicaceae Carpobrotus chilensis Mesembryanthemum crystallinum Malosma laurina Rhus integrifolia Foeniculum vulgare Ambrosia psilostachya Artemisia californica Artemisia dracunculus Baccharis pilularis Centaurea melitensis Chrysanthemum coronarium Deinandra fasciculata Encelia californica Gnaphalium bicolor Gnaphalium californicum Heterotheca grandijlora lsocoma menziesii var. menziesii Sonchus sp. Stephanomeria exigua Xanthium spinosum Heliotropium curassavicum Brassica sp. A-1 COMMON NAME juniper common ripgut grass foxtail chess pampas grass Bermuda grass saltgrass mouse barley fountain grass sea-fig crystalline iceplant laurel sumac lemonade berry fennel western ragweed California sagebrush tarragon coyote brush star thistle garland daisy fascicled tarplant California encelia bicolor cudweed California everlasting telegraph weed San Diego goldenbush sow thistle small wreath-plant spiny cocklebur salt heliotrope mustard I I I I I I I I -I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix A (cont.) PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED -PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME ANGIOSPERMS -DI COTS (cont.) Convolvulaceae Calystegia macrostegia morning-glory Crassulaceae Dudleya edulis ladies-fingers Dudleya pulverulenta chalk-lettuce Euphorbiaceae Ricinus communis castor-bean Fabaceae Lotus scoparius var. scoparius coastal deerweed Geraniaceae Erodium sp. filaree Lamiaceae Salvia apiana white sage Salvia mellifera black sage Myrtaceae Eucalyptus sp. eucalyptus Onagraceae Camissonia cheiranthifolia beach evening-primrose Plumbaginaceae Limonium californicum western marsh-rosemary Polygonaceae E riogonum fasciculaium ssp. fasciculatum California buckwheat Salicaceae Salix lasiolepis arroyo willow Solanaceae Datura wrightii jimson weed, thorn-apple Lycium californicum California box-thorn Solanaceae N icotiana glauca tree tobacco Solanum sp. nightshade T amaricaceae Tamarix sp. tamarisk A-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ANIMAL SPECIES OBSERVED I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix B ANIMAL SPECIES OBSERVED -PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN FAMILY INVERTEBRATES Hesperiidae Papilioninae Pieridae Polyommatinae Riodinidae VERTEBRATES Reptile Phrynosomatidae Accipitridae Aegichalidae Ardeidae Charadriidae Columbidae Corvidae Emberizidae Falconidae Fringillidae Hirundinidae Icreridae Laniidae Laridae Mimidae Pandionidae Pelicanidae Phalacrocoracidae SCIENTIFIC NAME Pyrgus albescens P apilio zelicaon Pieris rapae Leptotes marina Apodemia mormo virgulti Sceloporus occidentalis Accipiter cooperiit Psaltriparus minimus A rdea herodias Butorides virescens Egretta thula Charadrius vociferous Columba livia Zenaida macroura Corvus brachyrhynchos Melospiza melodia Pipilo crissalis Falco sparverius Carpodacus mexicanus Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Stelgidopteryx serripennis Agelaius phoeniceus Lanius ludovicianust Larus sp. Sterna sp. Mimus polyglottos P andion haliaetus Pelicanus occidentalist Phalacrocorax auritust B-1 COMMON NAME western checkered skipper Anise swallowtail butterfly cabbage white butterfly marine blue butterfly Behr's metalmark butterfly western fence lizard Cooper's hawk bushtit great blue heron green heron snowy egret killdeer rock dove mourning dove American crow song sparrow California towhee American kestrel house finch cliff swallow northern rough-winged swallow red-winged black bird loggerhead shrike gull tern northern mockingbird osprey California brown pelican double-crested cormorant I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix B (cont.) ANIMAL SPECIES OBSERVED -PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN FAMILY VERTEBRATES (cont.) Birds (cont.) Scolopacidae Sturnidae Sylviidae Trochilidae T roglodytidae Mammals Canidae Leporidae Sciuridae tSensitive species SCIENTIFIC NAME Calidris alba Catoptrophorus semipalmatus Linosa fedoa Numenius phaeopus Sturnus vulgaris Polioptila californica californicat Calypte anna Cistothorus palustris Thryomanes bewickii Canis familiaris Sylvilagus audubonii Spermophilus beecheyi B-2 COMMON NAME sanderling willer marbled godwit whimbrel European starling coastal California gnatcatcher Anna's hummingbird marsh wren Bewick's wren domestic dog desert cottontail California ground squirrel I I I l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I EXPLANATION OF STATUS CODES FOR PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix C EXPLANATION OF STATUS CODES FOR PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES FEDERAL AND STATE CODES U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) FE Federally listed endangered FC Federal candidate species (discussed in more detail, below) FT Federally listed threatened BCC Birds of Conservation Concern (discussed in more detail below) California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) SE State listed endangered ST State listed threatened CSC California species of special concern Fully Protected Fully Protected species refers to all vertebrate and invertebrate taxa of concern to the Natural Diversity Data Base regardless of legal or protection status. These species may not be taken or possessed without a permit from the Fish and Game Commission and/or CDFG. OTHER CODES AND ABBREVIATIONS USFWS Federal Candidate (FC) Species Federal candidate species are those for which the USFWS has on file "sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support a proposal to list as endangered or threatened, but for which preparation and publication of a proposal is precluded by higher-priority listing actions. [The USFWS] maintain[s] this list for a variety of reasons: to notify the public that these species are facing threats to their survival; to provide advance knowledge of potential listings that could affect decisions of environmental planners and developers; to provide information that may stimulate conservation efforts that will remove or reduce threats to these species; to solicit input from interested parties to help us identify those candidate species that may not require protection under the [Endangered Species Act] or additional species that may require the Act's protections; and to solicit necessary information for setting priorities for preparing listing proposals" (Federal Register 70:90 [May 11, 2005 ]). USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) This report from 2002 aims to identify accurately the migratory and non-migratory bird species (beyond those already designated as federally threatened or endangered) that represent USFWS' highest conservation priorities and draw attention to species in need of conservation action. USFWS hopes that by focusing attention on these highest priority species, the report will promote greater study and protection of the habitats and ecological communities upon which these species depend, thereby ensuring the future of healthy avian populations and communities. The report is available online at http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/reports/bcc2002.pdf. C-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix C (cont.) EXPLANATION OF STATUS CODES FOR PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) Covered Species Species listed as MHCP covered species indicate that these species would receive formal protection and take authorization upon MHCP approval under the federal and state and Endangered Species acts. MHCP Narrow Endemic "Narrow Endemic" is a sensitivity rating given by the MHCP to indicate "those species considered so restricted in distribution and abundance that substantial loss of their populations or habitat might jeopardize the species' continued existence or recovery." California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Codes Lists lA = Presumed extinct. lB = Rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. Eligible for state listing. 2 = Rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere. Eligible for state listing. 3 = Distribution, endangerment, ecology, and/or taxonomic information needed. Some eligible for state listing. 4 = A watch list for species of limited distribution. Needs monitoring for changes in population status. Few (if any) eligible for state listing. List/Threat Code Extensions .1 -Seriously endangered in California (over 80 percent of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat) .2 -Fairly endangered in California (20 to 80 percent occurrences threatened) . 3 -Not very endangered in California (less than 20 percent of occurrences threatened, or no current threats known) A "CA Endemic" entry corresponds to those taxa that only occur in California. All Llst lA (presumed extinct in California) and some List 3 (need more information; a review list) plants lacking threat information receive no extension. Threat Code guidelines represent only a starting point in threat level assessment. Other factors, such as habitat vulnerability and specificity, distribution, and condition of occurrences, are considered in setting the Threat Code. C-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8 , , I RIVERSIDE : COUNTY ORANGE ! SAN DIEGO : COUNTY j COUNTY '• • , •• . .... .......... ;"" ... , .... O'Neill LakeJ. Pacific Ocean 4 0 8 Miles I:\ArcGIS\R\RBF-04 Ponto\Map\Bio\BTR\Fig.l_Regional.mxd -JP HI llX .... I -·----------___ .. __ -"'--------- Sutherland eservoir I ( El Capitan Reser,,oir ~- ,..-,/",,.__ Loveland Reservoir ~ke TES ·-·-·-· \ UNITED STA=•-•=•-•=•-•-•-•.a• •=•-•"'" MEXICO Regional Location Map PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN Figure 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I + 0 ♦ s 2,000 1,000 0 P"":"""fiW·ii½lw " Job No: RBF-04 Date: 07/11/06 I:\ArcGIS\R\RBF-04 Ponto\Map\Bio\B1R\Fig2_Location.mxd -JP HI l IX 2,000 ,Feet Leucadfa> . ,:11; O·· ~/.,, ?j: Source: USGS 7.5 min Quadrangles; Encinitas~' Project Location Map PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN Figure 2 - 500 -- Pac(fic Ocean ♦ s 250 0 -- Biological Stu, Area Boundary 500 .lob No: RIW-04 Date: 09/1 8/06 Source: Eagk Aerial, October 2005 !:\Ard:ilS\R\RRF-"14 Pnn11,\Mttp\Rio\RTR\Fi,!l'.\. Vc-, .. scn!I.ITI'.'ld -NM ff lllX ---------- Southern Coastal Salt Marsh Riparian Woodland Southern Willow Scrub Mule Fat Scrub - Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh Marine Mudflats Disturbed Wetland Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub-Disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub-Disturbed Beach / Coastal Dunes Non-native Grassland Eucalyptus Woodland Non-native Vegetation Disturbed Habitat Developed ~ California Boxthorn (Lycium californica) ■ California horned lark* (Eremophila a/pestris) ■ California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris) -- Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) • Cooper's hawk (Accipter cooperii) * Double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) Loggerhead shrike (Lanius /udovicianus) Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) *Source: RECON December 2003 Note: Multiple California Brown Pelicans observed flying along coastal portion of study area during all surveys, -=.,.,,...,==-=""'i'll-.n: Batiquitos La,goon Vegetation / Sensitive Resources PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VIS[ON PLAN Figure 3 - - 300 --- ♦ s 150 0 .lob No: RBF-04 Date: 09/22/06 Sow-ce: Eagle Aerial, October 2005 l·\Arc\TlS\R\RBF-04 Prin10\Map\Ri1,\RTR\Fii4_\onic:.mxd -NM H l l IX ---- 300 ---------- Southern Coastal Salt Marsh Riparian Woodland Southern Willow Scrub Mule Fat Scrub Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh Marine Mudflats Disturbed Wetland Non-wetland Waters of th e U.S Note: Based on vegetation mapping by Helix 2006 in locations of jurisdictional areas mapped by Recon 2003 - Corps Jurisdictional Areas PONTO BEACHFRONT VfLLAGE VISION PLAN Figure 4 ------------------- 300 Job No: RBF-04 Date: 09/22/06 Hf l IX Southern Coastal Salt Marsh 0 Riparian Woodland 0 Southern Willow Scrub 0 Mule Fat Scrub Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh Marine -Disturbed Wetland -Streambed Note: Based on vegetation mapping by Helix 2006 in locations of jurisdictional areas mapped by Recon 2003 CDFG Jurisdictional Areas PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VlSION PLAN Figure 5 - 500 ------ Local Facility Management Zone 4 Local Facility Management Zone 9 Local Facility Management Zone 22 Focused Planning Area (Core 8) • s 250 0 Job No: RBF-04 Dale: 08/21/06 Source: Eagle Aerial, October 2005 500 l:\ArcGIS\R\RHF-04 Pon1fl\Mnp\Rio\!llR\Fl.!!6_HMP.m'.Kd -NM Hf l IX ----------- City of Carlsbad HMP Designations PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN Figure 6 - - 300 --- ♦ s 150 0 Job No: RBF-04 Date: 09/18/06 Source: Eagle Aerial, October 2005 - 300 f:\ArcGTS\R\RBF-04 P('lni0\Map\Rio\BTR\Fig7 _ Veg_Jmpacti._.m.icd-NM Hf llX ---------- LEGEND Southern Coastal Salt Marsh Riparian Woodland Southern Willow Scrub Mule Fat Scrub - Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh Disturbed Wetland Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub-Disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub-Disturbed Beach / Coastal Dunes Non-native Grassland Eucalyptus Woodland Non-native Vegetation Disturbed Habitat Developed Development Footprint California boxthorn (Lycium californica) California horned lark* (Eremophi/a alpestris) California horned lark (Eremophila a/pestris) -- Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila califomica californica) Cooper's hawk (Accipter cooperii) Double-crested cormorant (Pha/acrocorax auritus) Loggerhead shrike (Lanius /udovicianus) Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) •source: RECON December 2003 Note: Multiple California Brown Pelicans observed flying along coastal portion of study area during all surveys. Vegetation and Sensitive Resources/Impacts PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN Figure 7 - - 300 --- ♦ s 150 0 Job No: RBF-04 Date: 09/22/06 Source: Eagle Aerial, October 2005 - 300 l:\AreGl~\R\RBF-<'4 Pon10\Map\Rio\RTR\Fi~X_C'<,rpsJmpac1~.m:<II •NM Hf l IX ----------- Southern Coastal Salt Marsh Riparian Woodland Southern Willow Scrub - Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh Marine Mudflats Disturbed Wetland Non-wetland Waters of the U.S Development Footprint - Note: Based on vegetation mapping by Helix 2006 in locations of jurisdictional areas mapped by Recon 2003 Corps Jurisdictional Areas/Impacts PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN Figure 8 - - 300 --- w♦, s 150 0 Joh No: RBF-04 Date: 09/22/06 Source: Eagle Aerial, October 2005 - 300 l:\ArcGIS\R\R RF-04 Pn1110\Map\Hin\RTit\Fi~9 _rnFn_ Imp.1m,.m,;d -NM ff fl IX ----------- Southern Coastal Salt Marsh Riparian Woodland Southern Willow Scrub - Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh Marine Mudflats Disturbed Wetland Streambed 0 Development Footprint - Note: Based on Vegetation mapping by Helix 2006 in locations of jurisdictional areas mapped by Recon 2003. CDFG Jurisdictional Areas/Impacts PONTO BEACHFRONT VI LLAGE VISION PLAN Figure 9 - ~ ............ 75 78 El Citjon Boul.evard, Suite 200 LaMtsa, ()! 9j94! fax (619)-162-0Y:l pJ,nne (619)-f62-1515 Inla11d Empire Office plm11t' ('J'il) 328-1700 J October 10, 2006 Mr. Daniel Marquez U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 6010 Hidden Valley Rd. Carlsbad, CA 92011 RBF-04 Subject: Year 2006 Protocol Coastal California Gnatcatcher Survey Report for the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Study Area Dear Mr. Marquez: This letter presents the results of a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocol presence/absence survey conducted by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) for the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) on the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan study area. This report describes the survey methods and results and is being submitted to the USFWS as a condition _ of HELIX's Threatened and Endangered Species Permit TE778195. LOCATION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The 130.4-acre Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan study area is located in Carlsbad, California (Figure 1) east of the Pacific Ocean, west of the railroad line for the North County Transit District, south of Poinsettia Lane, and north of La Costa Avenue. The study area is located in Sections 29, 32, and 33 of Township 12 South, Range 4 West on the San Bernardino Base and Meridian U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute Encinitas quadrangle map (Figure 2). South Carlsbad State Beach is within the western portion of the study area. The study area lies within the City's Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad (City 2004), The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan proposes six distinct character areas including a mixed use center, beachfront resort, townhouse neighborhood, village hotel, live-work neighborhood, and a garden hotel and associated infrastructure. Also proposed are improvements to Carlsbad Boulevard, underpass trails to the west side of Carlsbad Boulevard, a wetland interpretive park, and a community trail. METHODS Three site visits were conducted per the current ( 1997) USFWS protocol by permitted biologist Kathy Pettigrew. Survey information is provided in Table 1. Letter Report to Mr. Daniel Marquez October 10, 2006 Table 1 SURVEY INFORMATION Acres of Sage Dates Biologist Start/Stop Scrub Habitat Times surveyed(Time Spent* 9/6/06 K. Pettigrew 0930/1130 9. 5 acres/2 hours 9/14/06 K. Pettigrew 915/1115 9. 5 acres/2 hours 9.5 acres/2.25 9/21/06 K. Pettigrew 0945/1200 hours Page 2 of 8 Start/Stop Weather Conditions Clear, 73°F, wind 2-4 mph/clear, 76°F, wind 0-3 mph Overcast, 68°F, wind 0-3 mph/mostly clear, 73°F, wind 0-3 mph Mostly clear, 69°F, wind 0-3 mph/mostly clear, 73° F, wind 0-3 *Survey time included travel between patches of potential habitat. The surveys were conducted by walking along existing roads and trails as well as through the vegetation where trails or other openings exist (Figure 3). Birds were viewed with the aid of binoculars where necessary. Taped gnatcatcher vocalizations were played for approximately 10 seconds at approximate five- minute intervals. During the protocol coastal California gnatcatcher surveys, all areas with potential to support gnatcatchers (e.g., Diegan coastal sage scrub [including disturbed] and southern coastal bluff scrub [including disturbed]) were surveyed (Figure 3). VEGETATION COMMUNITIES/HABITAT TYPE Fourteen vegetative communities, as well as disturbed habitat and developed land, were identified within the study area and include: 0.98 acre of southern coastal salt marsh, 0.17 acre of riparian woodland, 0.91 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.19 acre of mule fat scrub, 2.21 acres of coastal and valley freshwater marsh, 1.30 acres of marine, 0.03 acre of mud flat, 0.11 acre of disturbed wetlands, 4.3 acres of southern coastal bluff scrub (including disturbed), 5 .2 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub (including disturbed), 25.4 acres of beach/coastal dunes, 0.2 acre of non- native grassland, 0.3 acre of eucalyptus woodland, 21.0 acres of non-native vegetation, 24.6 acres of disturbed habitat, and 43.4 acres of developed land (Figure 3). ... -:.. Letter Report to Mr. Daniel Marquez October 10, 2006 Southern Coastal Salt Marsh Page 3 of 8 Southern coastal salt marsh is a highly productive community composed of herbaceous and suffrutescent, salt-tolerant hydrophytes that form a dense cover up to one meter tall. This plant community is found along sheltered inland margins of bays, lagoons, and estuaries where the hydric soils are subjected to regular tidal inundation by salt water. Dominant species usually include alkali-heath (Frankenia salina), California sea-blite (Suaeda californica), and/or glasswort (Salicornia sp.) occurring along the upper, landward edges of the marshes; glasswort and beachwort (Batis maritima) at middle elevations; and Pacific cordgrass (Spartina foliosa) closest to open water. Two areas of southern coastal salt marsh occur in the study area. Both areas are in the median between south-and north-bound traffic lanes of Carlsbad Boulevard. Southern coastal salt marsh covers 0.98 acre within the study area and is dominated by pickleweed (Salicornia virginica) and alkali-heath. Riparian Woodland Riparian woodlands are composed of winter-deciduous trees that require water near the soil surface. Riparian woodlands often are comprised of willow (Salix ssp.), cottonwood (Populus fremontit), and western sycamore (Platanus racemosa) and typically form a dense, medium height canopy. Associated understory species often include mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), stinging nettle (Urtica dioica ssp. holosericea), and wild grape (Vitis girdiana). Within the study area, riparian woodland occurs in three small patches and covers 0.17 acre. Southern Willow Scrub Southern willow scrub consists of dense, broadleaved, winter-deciduous stands of trees dominated by shrubby willows in association with mule fat, and often contain scattered emergent cottonwoods and western sycamores. This vegetation community occurs in loose, sandy or fine gravelly alluvium, which is deposited near stream channels during floods or heavy flows. Frequent flooding maintains this early seral community, preventing succession to a riparian woodland or forest. In the absence of periodic flooding, this early seral type would be succeeded by southern cottonwood or western sycamore riparian forest. Approximately 0.91 acre of southern willow scrub occurs within the southern portion of the study area adjacent to the parking lot in the central portion of the study area. Mule Fat Scrub Mule fat scrub is a depauperate, tall, herbaceous riparian scrub community dominated by mule fat and interspersed with shrubby willows. This vegetation community occurs along intermittent stream channels with a fairly coarse substrate and moderate depth to the water table. This early seral community is Letter Report to Mr. Daniel Marquez October 10, 2006 Page 4 of 8 maintained by frequent flooding. Approximately 0.19 acre of mule fat scrub occurs within the study area. Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh Coastal and valley freshwater marsh is dominated by perennial, emergent monocots that reach a height of 12 to 15 feet, and often form completely closed canopies. This vegetation community occurs along the coast and in coastal valleys near river mouths and around the margins of lakes and springs. These areas are permanently flooded by fresh water yet lack a significant current. Characteristic species include cattails (Typha sp.), spike-sedge (Eleocharis sp.), rush (Juncus sp.) Scirpus sp.), and umbrella sedge (Cyperus sp.). Within the study area the dominant plants within this vegetation community include southwestern spiny rush (Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldit), and California bulrush (Scirpus californicus). Approximately 2.21 acres of coastal and valley freshwater marsh occur in the study area. Marine The area mapped as marine is unvegetated and includes the inflow/outflow channel for Batiquitos Lagoon. This area covers 1.30 acres in the study area. Mudflat A mudflat is a relatively level area of fine silt along a shore, as in a sheltered estuary or around an island, alternately covered and uncovered by the tide and is barren of vegetation. Mud flat occurs within the study area over 0.03 acre. Disturbed Wetlands Disturbed wetlands are dominated by exotic wetland species that invade areas that have been previously disturbed or undergone periodic disturbances. These invasive non-native plant species displace the native wetland flora. Characteristic species of disturbed wetlands include giant reed (Arundo donax), bristly ox-tongue (Picris echioides), cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium var. canadense), and tamarisk (Tamarix sp.). Disturbed wetlands occur within the southern portion of the study area and cover 0.11 acre. Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub (including disturbed) Southern coastal bluff scrub is dominated by low scrub forming continuous (or more scattered) mats. Most plants are woody and/or succulent. Dwarf shrubs, herbaceous perennials, and annuals are represented, with the majority of growth and flowering occurring from late winter through spring. This vegetation community is exposed to nearly constant winds with high salt content and the soil is usually rocky and poorly developed. Within the study area, southern coastal -----------< · ff• t: fl~_V/.' :.'.'.~.---__ :_::'·~·-.;---.·_,._·._:~ . ._, ',; .i[ t~·r~~A!:,. . ,, ,, ' Letter Report to Mr. Daniel Marquez October 10, 2006 Page 5 of 8 bluff scrub (including disturbed) occurs along the bluffs above South Carlsbad State Beach and covers 4.3 acres. In the study area, this community includes beach evening primrose (Camissonia cheiranthifblia ssp. cheiranthifolia) and sea rocket (Cakile maritima). Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (including disturbed) Coastal sage scrub is one of the two major shrub types that occur in southern California, occupying xeric sites characterized by shallow soils. Dominated by drought-deciduous shrub species with relatively shallow root systems and open canopies, coastal sage scrub communities often contain a substantial herbaceous component. Four distinct coastal sage scrub geographical associations (northern, central, Venturan, and Diegan) are recognized along the California coast. Within the study area, Diegan coastal sage scrub (including disturbed) covers 5 .2 acres and occurs in several areas, including but not limited to, the median of Carlsbad Boulevard, atop the bluff overlooking Batiquitos Lagoon, and adjacent to the parking lot in the southern portion of the study area. The dominant native plant species within the study area include California sagebrush, California encelia (Encelia californica), and California buckwheat. Disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub also includes species such as scarlet pimpernel (Anagallis arvensis), smooth cat's-ear (Hypocharis glauca), sweet clover (Melilotus indica), and fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum). Beach/Coastal Dune Beach/coastal dune habitat refers to the expanse of sandy substrate between mean tide and the foredune or, in the absence of a foredune, to the furthest inland reach of storm waves. Beach/coastal dune habitat is characterized by a maritime climate, high exposure to salt spray and sand blast, and a shifting sandy substrate with low water-holding capacity and low organic matter content. Beach steepness, height, and width are affected by wave height, tidal range, and sand grain size and supply. Beach vegetation exhibits a zonation of species from the tide-line back to the foredune. In general, the number of species and total plant cover increases inland along this gradient. Species zonation is correlated with tolerance of salt spray, wave inundation, and soil salinity. Common plant species observed within this habitat were sea rocket, beach evening primrose, beach-bur (Ambrosia chamiossonis), and beach morning-glory (Calystegia soldanella). Active coastal dunes are barren. Their size and shape are determined by abiotic site factors such as mobile sand accumulations, wind direction and speed, site topography, sand source, and grain size rather than by stabilizing vegetation. The western edge of the study area is bounded by South Carlsbad State Beach and the Pacific Ocean. The beach contains some plant species that .. --------<,: R r '"-,-.-x. ,·· ·,. ;· .. ·< :.-, .. '•, [ L : I "·~ I I ., . \ Letter Report to Mr. Daniel Marquez October 10, 2006 Page 6 of 8 occur primarily on the fringe of the beach along the parking area and in the disturbed southern coastal ·bluff scrub. A portion of this area is periodically inundated with saltwater due to fluctuations of tidal flow. The dominant plant species observed in the study area include crystalline ice plant (Mesembryanthemum crystallinum), beach-bur, sea rocket, beach evening primrose, and hottentot fig (Carpobrotus edulis). Beach/coastal dunes cover 25.4 acres in the study area. Non-native Grassland Non-native grassland is a dense to sparse cover of annual grasses, often associated with numerous species of showy-flowered native annual forbs. This association occurs on gradual slopes with deep, fine-textured, usually clay soils. Characteristic species include oats (Avena sp.), red brome (Bromus rubens), ripgut (B. diandrus), ryegrass (Lolium sp.), and mustard (Brassica sp.). Most of the annual introduced species within non-native grassland originated from the Mediterranean region, an area with a long history of agriculture and a climate similar to California. These two factors, in conjunction with intensive grazing, agricultural practices and severe droughts, have contributed to the successful invasion and establishment of these species. Within the study area, non-native grassland occurs in two small patches along Carlsbad Boulevard and covers 0.2 acre. Eucalyptus Woodland Eucalyptus woodland is dominated by non-native eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus sp.). Most groves are monotypic. The understory within well-established groves is usually sparsely vegetated due to the allelopathic nature of the abundant leaf and bark litter. If sufficient moisture is available, this species becomes naturalized and is able to reproduce and expand its range. This vegetation community occurs in three small areas in the northern portion of the study area and covers 0.3 acre. Non-native Vegetation Non-native vegetation is the name ascribed to cultivated plants that have become naturalized or that are remnants of previous cultivated land uses. This vegetation community occurs throughout the study area and covers 21.0 acres. Disturbed Habitat Disturbed habitat includes land that has been cleared of vegetation (e.g., dirt roads), or contains a preponderance of non-native plant species. Disturbed land occurs within the flat terrace on the astern portion of the study area and within portions of the Carlsbad Boulevard median. Dominant plant species within disturbed habitat in the study area include telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), yellow star thistle (Centaurea melitensis), and black mustard (Brassica nigra). Disturbed habitat covers 24.6 acres of the study area. :.:::.11(ll':>•·•": _ i ..•. ·•• i 1', en VI f onme_riTal plann1nf1nc ' ---~' Letter Report to Mr. Daniel Marquez October 10, 2006 Developed Land Page 7 of 8 Developed land within the study area includes the South Carlsbad State Beach campground and parking areas, an area consisting of light industrial and residential buildings, Carlsbad Boulevard, and other roads. Developed areas cover 43.4 acres in the study area. SURVEY LIMITATIONS The portion of the survey that took place along the southern coastal bluff scrub and sage scrub habitat that parallels the ocean is on top of unstable coastal dunes adjacent to a private campground. Therefore, this area was surveyed from below. In this area, noise from the surf may have restricted my ability to hear all bird vocalizations. However, I was able to see atop the bluffs in most areas, and I did audibly detect several species of birds in this portion of the survey area. HABITAT SUITABILITY FOR GNATCATCHERS The Diegan coastal sage scrub and southern coastal bluff scrub habitats in the study area occur in small, somewhat isolated patches. In addition, the study area is surrounded by the ocean or development with limited appropriate habitat. The scrub habitat varies in terms of density and maturity throughout the study area. The habitat along the beach and within the medians in the study area is somewhat disturbed and contains varying quantities of non-native species. The habitat in the southern portion of the study area, west of Batiquitos Lagoon (Figure 3), is of moderate density and maturity and appears to have the greatest potential to support gnatcatchers relative to the remaining patches of sage scrub habitat on site. SURVEY RESULTS The coastal California gnatcatcher was observed in two locations during the protocol survey (Figure 3). On September 14, 2006, an individual was heard "mewing" and "buzzing" in the scrub habitat near Batiquitos Lagoon. On September 21, 2006, two coastal California gnatcatchers were heard mewing back and forth in the habitat adjacent to the railroad tracks just outside the survey area. It is likely that the single bird observed on September 14 was one of these birds and the two birds are moving around in the limited sage scrub habitat in that area. Please contact me if you have any questions. 8 , I RIVERSIDE : COUNTY ,. _____________ ., ORANGE ! SAN DIEGO :,. COUNTY j COUNTY •, •• .._ , .. /~ .......... ··--· ........ 4 O'Neill Lake,; Pacific Ocean •· s 0 8 Miles l:\ArcGIS\R\RBF-04 Ponto\Map\Bio\CAGN\Fif! l_Regtonal mxd -NM ff lllX [(f,, r~0 Ww"fo0 Escondido <Sweetwater Resen1oir San Vicente Reservoir Otay Reservoir Julian ':' .El Capitan Reservoir Loveland Reservoir ~~ Barrett Lake Regional Location Map PONTO BEACHFRONT Figure 1 • -- ♦ s 2,000 1,000 0 Job No: RBF-04 Date: 07/27/06 l:IArcGIS\R\RBF-ot Ponto\Map\Bio\CAGN\Fig2_Location.mxd -NM H l l IX 2,000 Feet :,•, B.A T rn l' J 'f U:-3 0-:] ... _.._ '-( -• ~ ,,~ ... • -~ '.: I> ~ : ,;T.J;, ,':, .. -·., .. ,, ~.ti/'.:; ·i.~,· ,. Project Location Map PONTO BEACHFRONT Figure 2 500 500 Southern Coastal Salt Marsh Riparian Woodland Southern Willow Scrub Mule Fat Scrub .. Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh Marine Mudflats Disturbed Wetland Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub-Disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub-Disturbed Beach / Coastal Dunes Non-native Grassland Eucalyptus Woodland Non-native Vegetation Disturbed Habitat Developed "-Survey Route * Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Job No: RBF-04 Date: 09/27/06 l:\ArcGIS\R\RBF-04 Ponto\Map\Bio\CAGN\FigJ_ Veg.ctation.mxd -NM Hf l IX Vegetation Communities, Coastal California Gnatcatcher Locations and Survey Route PONTO BEACHFRONT Figure 3 APPENDIX D-1 Archaeological Survey I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I AN ARCHAEO.LOGICAL SURVEY FOR THE PONTO BEACHFRONT VILLAGE VISION PLAN PROJECT CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA GPA 05-04/LCP A 05-01/DI 05-01 Prepared for: RBF Consulting 9755 Clairemont Mesa Boulevard, Suite 100 San Diego, California 92124 Submitted to: City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Prepared by: Seth A. Rosenberg and Brian F. Smith Brian F. Smith and Associates 14010 Poway Road, Suite A Poway, California 92064 July 31, 2006 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Project National Archaeological Data Base Information Authors: Seth A. Rosenberg and Brian F. Smith Consulting Firm: Brian F. Smith and Associates 14010 Poway Road, Suite A Poway, California 92064 (858) 679-8218 Report Date: July 31, 2006" Report Title: An Archaeological Survey for the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Project, City of Carlsbad, California (GPA 05- 04/LCPA 05-01/DIOS-01) Prepared for: RBF Consulting 9755 Clairemont Mesa Boulevard, Suite 100 San Diego, California 92124-1324 Submitted to: City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008-7314 USGS Quadrangle: Encinitas, California (7.5 minute) Study Area: Approximately 50 acres Key Words: Reconnaissance; Carlsbad, California; San Diego County; USGS Encinitas Quadrangle (7.5 minute); Township 12 South; Range 4 West; positive survey; previously mitigated site (SDl- 11,026); no further research potential; monitoring recommended. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Project Table of Contents 1.0 Management Summary 2.0 Introduction 3.0 Project Setting 3.1 Environmental Setting 3.2 Cultural Setting 3.2.1 The San Dieguito Complex/Paleo-Indian 3.2.2 The La Jolla Complex/Encinitas Tradition/ Milling Stone Horizon 3.2.3 The Late Prehistoric Period 3.2.4 Historic Period 4.0 Methodology 4.1 Pedestrian Survey Methodology 4.2 Institutional Records Search 4.3 Native American Consultation 5.0 Report of Findings 5.1 Institutional Records Search Results 5.2 Field Reconnaissance Results 6.0 Summary and Recommendations. 7 .0 Certification 8.0 References Cited . Appendix I -Qualifications of Key Personnel Appendix II -Records Search Results* Appendix III -Native American Heritage Commission Correspondence *Not for public review; bound separately ii ~ 1.0--1 2.0--1 3.0-1 3.0--1 3.0--2 3.0--2 3.0--3 3.0--5 3.0--6 4.0--1 4.0--1 4.0-2 4.0--2 5.0-1 5.0--1 5.0-2 6.0--1 7.0--1 8.0--1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Project List of Figures Figure 2.0-1 General Location Map . Figure 2.0-2 Project Location Map . Figure 2.0-3 Area of Future Development Figure 2.0-4 Proposed Project Development Map Figure 5.0-1 Site Map, Showing Current Surface Expression of SDI-11,026 List of Tables Table 5.0-1 Previously Recorded Sites Within One Mile of the Project Table 5.0-2 Previous Archaeological Studies Conducted Adjacent to, or Within, the Project . List of Plates Plate 5.0-1 Aerial photograph of SDI-11,026 in 1985 Plate 5.0-2 Aerial photograph of SDI-11,026 in 1985 Plate 5.0-3 Overview of project area, facing north . Plate 5.0-4 Overview of project area,facing east Plate 5.0-5 Overview of current state of SDI-11,026 Plate 5.0-6 Altered 1930s single-family dwelling Plate 5.0-7 1940s/1950s apartments with RV garage. AMSL BFSA CEQA NAHC SCIC SDSU USGS YBP List of Abbreviations Above Mean Sea Level Brian F. Smith and Associates California Environmental Quality Act Native American Heritage Commission South Coastal Information Center San Diego State University United States Geologic Survey Years Before Present iii ~ 2.0-2 2.0-3 2.0-4 2.0-5 5.0-5 5.0-3 5.0-4 5.0-6 5.0-6 5.0-7 5.0-7 5.0-8 5.0-8 5.0-9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Project 1.0 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY The following report describes an archaeological survey and records search conducted by Brian F. Smith and Associates (BFSA) for the proposed Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Project located in the City of Carlsbad, California. This investigation was conducted to identify and evaluate any cultural resources within the project area. Based upon the historic use and recorded presence of prehistoric resources within the vicinity of the Batiquitos Lagoon area, there existed a reasonable potential for cultural resources within the project boundaries. The investigation included an archaeological records search, correspondence with the Native American Heritage Commission, and intensive field survey. An archaeological records search was conducted on April 27, 2006 by the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) at San Diego State University (SDSU), the results of which were reviewed by BFSA. The records search resulted in the determination that one previously recorded cultural resource is located within the project area. Site SDI-11,026, an Archaic Period campsite, is located along the southern edge of the project area and was previously subjected to a testing and data recovery program in 1985, exhausting any further research potential (Smith & Moriarty 1985a). Therefore, no further archaeological analysis of SDI-11,026 is required. A request to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for a Sacred Lands File review resulted in the determination that no known resources are present within the project boundaries. The intensive pedestrian survey was conducted by BFSA on June 12, 2006. The project area has been previously disturbed by agricultural activities and various improvements and developments, including the construction of the California Southern Railroad (later Santa Fe), commercial structures, residential structures, drainage channels, and roads. Other than verifying the location of SDI-11,026, no other prehistoric resources were identified within the project area. In addition, the survey area included a small cluster of single-family residences and commercial business structures, some of which are known to be historic in nature. BFSA has determined that none of the structures located within the project boundaries, including those within inaccessible parcels, is significant. Although access to portions of the project area was denied by the corresponding landowners, structures within these properties were visible. The survey and archaeological records search resulted in the determination that no significant cultural resources are located within the project boundaries; therefore, no significant cultural resources will be impacted by the proposed project. Although the current investigation did not identify any significant resources within the project boundaries, the presence of a previously mitigated site, the results of the archaeological records search, and known historical use of the Carlsbad area indicate that there is a high potential for buried cultural deposits. Therefore, it is our recommendation that a qualified archaeological monitor be present for any boring, trenching, or grading activities within the project area to facilitate 1.0-1 I I I I I, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Ponto Beachjront Village Vision Plan Project the identification, determination of significance, and analysis of any cultural resources discovered during construction activities. A copy of this report will be permanently filed with SCIC at SDSU. All notes, photographs, and other materials related to this project and resulting from these investigations will be curated at the offices of Brian F. Smith and Associates in Poway, California. 1.0-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Project 2.0 INTRODUCTION In response to a request by RBF Consulting, BFSA conducted an archaeological survey for a portion of the proposed Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan project area located in the City of Carlsbad, in northwestern San Diego County, California (Figure 2.0-1). The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan is an approximately 130-acre area located along the seashore, north and south of the mouth of Batiquitos Lagoon in Carlsbad, California. The area within the project slated for future development, and targeted in the current archaeological investigation, is an approximately SO- acre area which includes Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) 214-160-04, -05, -06, -10, -11, -13, -19, -20,-21, -24, -25, -27, -28, -29, -34, -35, and -36; 214-590-04; 214-171-11; 216-010-01 through -05; and 216-140-17 and -18. This portion of the project is bounded by Carlsbad Boulevard to the west, the San Diego Northern Railroad to the east, Batiquitos Lagoon to the south, and the east/west oriented section of Ponto Road to the north (Figure 2.0-3). Specifically, this portion of the property is located on the USGS Encinitas, California 7.5' topographic quadrangle within the southwest comer of Section 28, the southeast comer of Section 29, the northeast comer of Section 32, and the northwest portion of Section 33, Township 12 South and Range 4 West of the San Bernardino Base Meridian (Figure 2.0-2). The current project included an intensive pedestrian survey of the area of future development and a thorough review of both archaeological and Native American records. This report constitutes the cultural resource requirements for the project's Environmental Impact Report (BIR 05-05). The investigation by BFSA was conducted in accordance with City of Carlsbad Cultural Resource Guidelines (1990) and CEQA criteria. The survey was conducted to determine whether any prehistoric or historical cultural resources would be impacted by the proposed development The project consists of the construction of a mixed-use development including commercial, retail, and residential structures, and open-space (Figure 2.0-4). Initially, the potential for archaeological sites in the study area was considered high based on the distribution of known sites in the region, the topography of the project vicinity, and the presence of one previously mitigated site on the property. The Phase I archaeological investigation of the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan was directed by Brian F. Smith, consulting archaeologist and principal investigator. The pedestrian survey was conducted by field archaeologist Andrew Hoge and project archaeologist Seth A. Rosenberg, who prepared the text of this report. Editing and production were performed by Dylan Amerine with assistance from Amanda Erb. Damien Tietjen provided graphics. Qualifications of key personnel are listed in Appendix I. 2.0-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Figure 2.0-1 General Location Map The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Project City of Carlsbad 2.0-2 1:750,000 I inch equals 11 .84 miles 0..,';..'.....,'i::=::a' ... 2 ... 1~te111 DaleCrtatcd:27JIID02006 C\GI:5),rojocU\poaao..p.11\W DnSourc,c.: USOS,Oeogapby Nclww I I I I \ I I I I I I ~ ~ I \ I+ I I I I I :1 I I ( \ \ Project Location Figure 2.0-2 Project Location Map The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Project USGS 7.5' Encinitas Quadrangle 2.0-3 I incl! equals 2,000 feet o 75 1so XX) -460 eoo ---====--, .... ,_ =-"' c:ii600-1!l00c::==iii''"".....,"'°";""' Da!o0-C.1cd: 25Apil2006 C:\IJISlpmj«u\p<>mo....,pro_loc.lllad 0-aSoun:ff.. USGS 7.SEDcinilaQuo,drantJc I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 I c:.J Study Area Proposed Development Figure 2.0-3 Area of Future Development The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Project 2.0-4 1:12,000 I indJ equals 1,000 feet •_, iil:85 :iii,70 ....ii::''°::::::::::ii'10--280Me1rm O.eCreah:d: 25Apil2006 C:'OJS'poj~o_...-_dc ... kip.nwl n.t..Saan:a: USGSSeunkM Dlta~oq r---- ~ ,_ ---- N t ------- ,ourn GARLUAD UATC tEAClt GAM?Gl!OVIID Figure 2.0-4 : Proposed Project Development Plan The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Project ---- IJ\TlQOITOf l:' ... C.00/lr ..... ); I } ?j' -- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Project 3.0 PRO.TECT SETTING The project setting includes the natural physical, geological, and biological context of the proposed project, as well as the cultural setting of prehistoric and historic human activities in the general area. The following sections discuss both the environmental and cultural settings of the subject property, the relationship between the two, and the relevance of that relationship to the project 3.1 Environmental Setting San Diego County lies in the Peninsular Range Geologic Province of southern California. The mountainous zone, which extends from northwest to southeast through the county, ranges to a maximum height of 6,533 feet above mean sea level (Beauchamp 1986). The project's elevation ranges from sea level to approximately 50-60 feet above mean sea level. Foothills and valleys, which comprise the cismontane region, extend west from the mountains. This region typically receives more rainfall than the mesas and less than the mountainous region. Between the foothills and the coast lies the coastal mesa region, which is cut by several large drainages originating in the mountains and foothills. The coast is characterized by large bays and lagoons, where the major rivers empty into the sea,,and mesas which terminate at the ocean in the form of bluffs (Beauchamp 1986). The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Project is located along the mouth of Batiquitos Lagoon. During the Late Holocene, the eastern extent of the lagoon was characterized by shallow saltwater marsh and mud flats. However, several millennia ago, the lagoon was considerably deeper and provided different habitat. The lagoon was created as the sea level rose rapidly following the last glacial sequence, filling a deep canyon cut by San Marcos Creek during a long period of lower sea levels. This deeply entrenched lagoon provided a variety of marine food resources (e.g., molluscs, crustaceans, and fishes) used in the subsistence routine of Early and Middle Holocene La Jolla Complex peoples. Evidence from Batiquitos Lagoon indicates that at approximately 3,500 YBP, a rapid, cataclysmic sedimentation event occurred that closed the lagoon off to the coast and significantly altered the lagoon environment (Gallegos 1992; Masters et al. 1988; Miller 1966). This event was followed by a stabilization of sea levels and then development of sand bars, sand flats, and mud flats within the lagoons along the central San Diego County coast. This sedimentation process resulted in the decline of mollusc populations, particularly Pectinids, which greatly reduced human activity in the area. The decline in occupancy of the Batiquitos Lagoon area following this siltation event is evidenced by the paucity of sites postdating 3,500 YBP (Gallegos 1987). The closest mountains within this range are the San Marcos Mountains, of which Franks Peak, Double Peak, and Mount Whitney are located directly east of the project area. These mountain ranges are the locations of lithic material sources that were likely procured by the 3.0-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Ponto Beachjront Village Vision Plan Project occupants of the region for use in tool manufacture. A large exposure of Santiago Peak Volcanics is located within the San Marcos Mountains (California Division of Mines and Geology 1996), while a jasper source is located within the Merriam Mountains (Norwood 1979). For this project specifically, due to the location of the project area along the beachfront, any lithic material found within the project area would be from an abundance of lithic resources available at beaches and stream beds. Soils in the area fall within the Marina-Chesterton Association, characterized by somewhat excessively drained to moderately well drained loamy coarse sands and fine sandy loams overlying sandy clay (Bowman 1973: General Soil Map). The specific soil within the project area is Coastal Beaches (Cr), gravelly and sandy soil often covered with water, and the Terrace Escarpments, loamy or gravelly soil located on very steep slopes (TeF) (Bowman 1973: sheet 33). The prehistoric biological community was dominated by the coastal sage scrub ecosystem, which included a diversity of seed-bearing shrubs and grasses, and cacti. A diversity of faunal resources were available in this ecosystem, including deer (Odocoileus hemionus), Leporids (Lepus and Sylvilagus), quail (Callipelpa californica), and a variety of rodents and reptiles. Additional resource-rich biotic communities were accessible in the vicinity of the site, including freshwater and saltwater marshes, estuaries, riparian woodland, and deepwater lagoon habitats. Resources from these environments associated with the San Marcos Creek watershed included a variety of species, including rushes, reeds, grasses, oak trees, deer, Leporids, waterfowl, fish, and molluscs. During the Early and Middle Holocene, pine groves were probably much more common, with Torrey pine (Pinus torreyana) and similar species being more widespread during this time, providing a source of "pine nut" seeds. Finally, the pelagic habitat of the Pacific Ocean provided fish and marine mammals. 3.2 Cultural Setting 3.2.1 The San Dieguito Complex/Paleo-Indian The term "San Dieguito Complex" is a cultural distinction used to describe a group of people that occupied sites in the region between 11,500 and 7,000 YBP and appear to be related to or contemporaneous with the Paleo-Indian groups in the Great Basin area and the Midwest. Initially believed to have been big game hunters, the San Dieguito are better typified as wide- ranging hunter-gatherers. The earliest evidence of the San Dieguito Complex sites are known from San Diego County, the Colorado Desert, and further north along the California coast. These people abandoned the drying inland lakes of the present California desert and arrived in San Diego County circa 9,000 years before present (YBP), as documented at the Harris Site SDI-149 (Warren 1966); Rancho Park North Site SDI-4392 (Kaldenberg 1982); and Agua Hedionda Sites SDI-210/UCL.J- M-15 and SDI-10,965/SDM-W-131 (Moriarty 1967; Gallegos and Carrico 1984; Gallegos 1991). A San Dieguito component appears to have been present in the lower strata at the Malago Cove site in Redondo Beach, Los Angeles County (Walker 1951). Although radiocarbon dates were not 3.0-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Project obtained from these levels, the lack of ground stone tools and presence of crude flaked tools suggests similarities to the San Dieguito Complex. Diagnostic San Dieguito artifacts include finely crafted scraper planes, choppers, scrapers, crescentics, elongated bifacial knives, and intricate leaf-shaped points (Rogers 1939; Warren 1967). This tool assemblage resembles those of the Western Lithic Co-Tradition (Davis et al. 1969) and the Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition (Bedwell 1970; Moratto 1984). Typical San Dieguito sites lack ground stone tools. Tools recovered from San Dieguito Complex sites and the pattern of the site locations indicate that they were a wandering hunting and gathering society (Moriarty 1969; Rogers 1966). Faunal data from the Malago Cove site, which included molluscs, fish, birds, and terrestrial and marine mammals, suggests a diverse and broad-based strategy (Walker 1951). The San Dieguito Complex is the least understood of the cultures that occupied the southern California region. This is due primarily to the fact that San Dieguito sites rarely contain stratigraphic information or datable material. Debate continues as to whether the San Dieguito sites are actually different activity areas of the early Encinitas Tradition peoples (Bull 1987; Gallegos 1987), or whether the San Dieguito Complex peoples had a separate origin and culture from the Encinitas Tradition (Hayden 1987; Moriarty 1987; Smith 1987). According to this second scenario, the San Dieguito Complex peoples may have been assimilated into the dominant Encinitas Tradition culture (Kaldenberg 1982; Moriarty 1967). A third possibility is that the San Dieguito Complex gave rise to the Encinitas Tradition (Koerper et al. 1991). The issue of shared or separate origins of the San Dieguito Complex and Encinitas Tradition may be resolved with continued collection of archaeological data and collection of systematic radiocarbon dates. 3.2.2 The La Jolla Complex/Encinitas Tradition/Milling Stone Horiwn Between 9,000 and 8,000 YBP, a widespread complex was established in the southern California region, primarily along the coast (Warren and True 1961). This complex is locally known as the La Jolla Complex (Rogers 1939; Moriarty 1966), which is regionally associated with the Encinitas Tradition (Warren 1968), and shared cultural components with the widespread Milling Stone Horizon (Wallace 1955). The coastal expression of this complex, with a focus on coastal resources and development of deeply-stratified shell middens located primarily around bays and lagoons, appeared in the southern California coastal areas, where the older sites associated with this expression are located at Topanga Canyon, Newport Bay, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and some of the Channel Islands. Radiocarbon dates from sites attributed to this complex span a period of over 7,000 years in this region, beginning over 9,000 YBP. The Encinitas Tradition is best recognized for its pattern of large coastal sites characterized by shell middens, grinding tools closely associated with the marine resources of the area, cobble- based tools, and flexed human burials (Shumway et al. 1961; Smith and Moriarty 1985b). While ground stone tools and scrapers are the most recognized tool types, coastal Encinitas Tradition sites also contain numerous utilized flakes, which may have been used to pry open shellfish. Artifact 3.0-3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Project assemblages at coastal sites indicate a subsistence pattern focused on shellfish collection and near- shore fishing, suggesting an incipient maritime adaptation with regional similarities to more northern sites of the same period (Koerper et al. 1986). Other artifacts associated with Encinitas Tradition sites include stone bowls, doughnut stones, discoidals, stone balls, and stone, bone, and shell beads. The coastal lagoons in northwestern San Diego County supported large Milling Stone Horizon populations circa 6,000 YBP, as shown by numerous radiocarbon dates from the many sites adjacent to the lagoons. The ensuing millennia were not stable environmentally, and by 3,000 YBP, many of the coastal sites in central San Diego County had been abandoned (Gallegos 1987, 1992). The abandonment of the area is usually attributed to the sedimentation of coastal lagoons and the resulting deterioration of fish and mollusc habitat, a situation well documented at Batiquitos Lagoon (Miller 1966; Gallegos 1987). Over a two thousand year period at Batiquitos Lagoon, dominant mollusc species occurring in archaeological middens shifted from deep-water molluscs (Argopecten sp.) to species tolerant of tidal flat conditions (Chione sp.), indicating water depth and temperature changes (Miller 1966; Gallegos 1987). This situation likely occurred for other small drainages (Buena Vista, Agua Hedionda, San Marcos, and Escondido Creeks) along the central San Diego coast, where low flow rates did not produce sufficient discharge to flush the lagoons they fed (Buena Vista, Agua Hedionda, Batiquitos, and San Elijo Lagoons) (Byrd 1998). Drainages along the northern and southern San Diego coastline were larger, and flushed the coastal hydrological features they fed, keeping them open to the ocean and allowing for continued human exploitation (Byrd 1998). Los Pefiasquitos lagoon exhibits dates as late as 2,355 YBP (Smith and Moriarty 1985b), and Sorrento Valley (Carrico and Taylor 1983; Carrico and Gallegos 1988; Gallegos et al. 1989; Smith and Moriarty 1983; WESTEC 1975). San Diego Bay showed continuous occupation until the close of the Milling Stone Horizon (Gallegos et al. 1988). Additionally, data from several drainages in Camp Pendleton indicate a continued occupation of shell midden sites until the close of the period, indicating that coastal sites were not entirely abandoned during this time (Byrd 1998). By 5,000 YBP, an inland expression of the La Jolla Complex, which exhibits influences from the Campbell Tradition from the north, is evident in the archaeological record. These inland Milling Stone Horizon sites have been termed "Pauma Complex" (True 1958; Warren et al. 1961; Meighan 1954). By definition, Pauma Complex sites share a predominance of grinding implements (manos and metates), lack mollusc remains, have a greater tool variety (including atl-atl dart points, quarry-based tools, and crescentics), and seem to express a more sedentary lifestyle with a subsistence economy based on the use of a broad variety of terrestrial resources. Although originally viewed as a separate culture from the coastal La Jolla Complex (True 1980), it appears that these inland sites may be part of a subsistence and settlement system utilized by the coastal peoples. Evidence from the 4S Project in inland San Diego County suggests that these inland sites may represent seasonal components within an annual subsistence round by La Jolla Complex populations (Raven-Jennings et al. 1996). Including both coastal and inland sites of this time 3.0-4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Project period in discussions of the Encinitas Tradition, therefore, provides a more a complete appraisal of the settlement and subsistence system exhibited by this cultural complex. 3.2.3 The Late Prehistoric Period The Late Prehistoric period begins approximately 1,300 YBP when a Shoshonean-speaking group from the Great Basin region moved into Riverside County. This period is characterized by higher population densities and elaborations in social, political, and technological systems. Economic systems diversified and intensified during this period, with the continued elaboration of trade networks, the use of shell-bead currency, and the appearance of more labor-intensive, but effective, technological innovations, such as the bedrock mortar for use in acorn processing. Atlatl darts were replaced by smaller arrow points to be used with the bow and arrow. The period is divided into two phases, San Luis Rey I and San Luis Rey II, and is based upon the introduction of pottery (Meighan 1954). Through radiocarbon dating, the introduction of pottery and the initiation of the San Luis Rey II phase began at approximately 1300 A.O. San Luis Rey I is characterized by the use of portable shaped or unshaped slab metates, and non-portable bedrock milling features. Manos and pestles can also be shaped or unshaped. Cremations, bone awls, and stone and shell ornaments are also prominent in the material culture. The later San Luis Rey II assemblage is augmented by pottery cooking and storage vessels, cremation urns, and polychrome pictographs. The fluorescence of rock art likely appeared as the result of increased population sizes and increased sedentism (True et al. 1974). Projectile points are dominated by the Cottonwood Triangular series, but Desert Side-notched and Dos Cabazas Serrated styles also occur. Subsistence is thought to have focused on the utilization of acorns, a storable species that allowed for relative sedentism and increased populations. The ethnographic period begins at approximately AD 1769 when the Mission San Luis Rey was established. Ethnohistorical and ethnographic evidence indicates that the Luisefio occupied northern San Diego County. These peoples were seasonal hunter-gatherers with cultural elements that were very distinct from the Archaic Period peoples, including cremation, the use of the bow and arrow, and use of the acorn as a main food staple (Moratto 1984). Along the coast, the Luisefio made use of the marine resources available by fishing and collecting mollusks for food. Seasonally available terrestrial resources, including acorns and game, were also sources of nourishment for Luiseiio groups. The elaborate kinship and clan systems between the Luisefio and Cahuilla and other groups facilitated a wide-reaching trade network that included trade of Obsidian Butte obsidian and other resources from the eastern deserts and steatite from the Channel Islands. The Luisefio were Takic-speaking people more closely related linguistically and ethnographically to each other and the Cahuilla, Gabrielino and Cupefio than to the Kumeyaay, who occupied territory to the south. The Luisefio occupied a territory bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the east by the Peninsular Range Mountains at San Jacinto, including Palomar Mountain to the south and 3.0-5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Project Santiago Peak to the north, on the south by Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and on the north by Aliso Creek in present day San Juan Capistrano. The Luisefio differed from their neighboring Takic speakers in having an extensive proliferation of social statuses, a system of ruling families that provided ethnic cohesion within the territory, a distinct world view that stemmed from use of the hallucinogen datura, and an elaborate religion that included ritualized sand paintings of the sacred being "Chingichngish" (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1925). The Luisefio occupied sedentary villages, most often located in sheltered areas in valley bottoms, along streams, or along coastal strands near mountain ranges. Villages were located near water sources to facilitate acorn leaching, and in areas that offered thermal and defensive protection. Villages were composed of areas that were both publicly and privately, or family, owned. Publicly owned areas included trails, temporary campsites, hunting areas, and quarry sites. Inland groups had fishing and gathering sites along the coast that were utilized, particularly from January to March, when inland food resources were scarce. During October and November, most of the village would relocate to mountain oak groves to harvest acorns. For the remainder of the year, the Luisefio remained at village sites, where food resources were within a day's travel (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1925). 3 .2 .4 Historic Period Spanish Period (1769-1821) The Spanish occupation of the claimed territory of Alta California took place during the reign of King Carlos III of Spain. A representative of the King in Mexico, Jose de Galvez, conceived of the plan to colonize Alta California and thereby secure the area for the Spanish crown (Rolle 1969). The effort involved both a military and a religious contingent, with the overall intent of establishing forts and missions to gain control of the land and of the native inhabitants through conversion. Actual colonization of the San Diego area began on July 16, 1769, when the first Spanish exploring party, commanded by Gaspar de Portola (with Father Junfpero Serra in charge of religious conversion of the native populations), arrived in San Diego to secure California for the Spanish crown (Palou 1926). The natural attraction of the harbor at San Diego and the establishment of a military presence in the area solidified the importance of San Diego to the Spanish colonization of the region and the growth of the civilian population. Missions were constructed from San Diego to as far north as San Francisco. The mission locations were based on a number of important territorial, military, and religious considerations. Grants of land to persons who made an application were made, but many tracts reverted to the government for lack of use. As an extension of territorial control by the Spanish empire, each mission was placed so as to command as much territory and as large a population as possible. While primary access to California during the Spanish Period was by sea, the route of El Camino Real served as the land route for transportation, commercial, and military activities. This route was considered to be the most direct path between the missions (Rolle 1969). As increasing numbers of Spanish and 3.0-6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Project Mexican people, and later Americans during the Gold Rush, settled in the area, the Indian populations diminished as they were displaced or decimated by disease (Carrico and Taylor 1983). Mexican Period (1821-1846) By 1821, Mexico had gained independence from Spain, and the northern territories were subject to political repercussions. By 1834, all of the mission lands had been removed from the control of the Franciscan Order under the Acts of Secularization. Without proper maintenance, the missions quickly began to disintegrate and after 1836, missionaries ceased to make regular visits inland to minister the needs of the Indians (Engelhardt 1921). Large tracts of land continued to be granted to persons who applied for them or had gained favor with the Mexican government. Grants of land were also made to settle government debts. Anglo-American Period (1846-Present) California was invaded by United States troops during the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848. The acquisition of strategic Pacific ports and California land was one of the principal objectives of the war (Price 1967). At the time, the inhabitants of California were practically defenseless, and they quickly surrendered to the United States Navy in July 1847 (Bancroft 1884). The cattle ranchers of the "counties" of southern California prospered during the cattle boom of the early 1850s. They were able to "reap windfall profit...pay taxes and lawyer's bills ... and generally live according to custom" (Pitt 1966). Cattle raising soon declined, however, contributing to the expansion of agriculture. With the passage of the "No Fence Act," San Diego's economy changed from stock raising to farming (Rolle 1969). The act allowed for the expansion of unfenced farms, which was crucial in an area where fencing material was practically unavailable. Five years after its passage, most of the arable lands in San Diego County had been patented as either ranchos or homesteads, and growing grain crops replaced raising cattle in many of the county's inland valleys (Blick 1976; Elliott 1883 [1965]). By 1870, farmers had learned to dry farm and were coping with some of the peculiarities of San Diego County's climate (San Diego Union, February 6, 1868; Van Dyke 1886). Between 1869 and 1871, the amount of cultivated acreage in the county rose from less than 5,000 acres to more than 20,000 (San Diego Union, January 2, 1872). Of course, droughts continued to hinder the development of agriculture (Crouch 1915; San Diego Union, November 10, 1870; Shipek 1977). Large-scale farming in San Diego County was limited by a lack of water and the small size of arable valleys; also, the small urban population and poor roads restricted commercial crop growing. Nevertheless, cattle continued to be grazed in inland San Diego County (Gordinier 1966). 3.0-7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Project During the first two decades of the twentieth century, the population of San Diego County continued to grow. The population of the inland county declined during the 1890s, but between 1900 and 1910, it rose by about 70 percent. The pioneering efforts were over, the railroads had broken the relative isolation of southern California, and life in San Diego County became similar to other communities throughout the west. After World War I, the history of San Diego County was primarily determined by the growth of San Diego Bay. In 1919, the United States Navy decided to make the bay the home base for the Pacific Fleet (Pourade 1967). During the 1920s, the aircraft industry also established itself at the bay (Heiges 1976). The establishment of these industries led to the growth of the county as a whole; however, most of the growth occurred in the north county coastal areas, where the population almost tripled between 1920 and 1930. During this time period, the history of inland San Diego County was subsidiary to that of the City of San Diego, which became a Navy center and industrial city (Heiges 1976). In inland San Diego County, agriculture became specialized, and recreational areas were established in the mountain and desert areas. Just before World War II, urbanization began to spread to the inland county and the northern and southern peripheries of the city, including the area of northwestern San Diego County that contains the current study area. 3.0--8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Project agricultural fields, and drainages. Therefore, special attention was paid towards investigating the integrity of possible historic structures and any prehistoric resources identified within the property. 4.2 Institutional Records Search An archaeological records search was conducted for this project by the SCIC at SDSU on April 27, 2006. In addition to providing site locations and previous archaeological investigations, the following historic sources were consulted: • • • • Historic Address Database 1948 USGS Encinitas, California topographic map (1:24,000) 1898 and 1942 USGS Oceanside, California topographic maps (1:62,500) Map Showing Roads and Trails in Use from 1769-1885: San Diego County, California (1955). The results of the records search were reviewed by BFSA. One previously recorded site was located within the project area (SDI-11,026). See Section 3.3 for a detailed review of the records search results. 4.3 Native American Consultation Included in the archaeological investigation of the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Project was a records search request of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Land Files for cultural resources within, or adjacent to the project area. According to NAHC records no known resources are located within the project boundaries. The NAHC supplied a list of Native American contacts that may have additional information concerning these cultural resources. On May 23, 2006, BFSA supplied each Native American contact with project specifics and a location map. As of the submission of this report, only the Cupa Cultural Center of the Pala Band of Mission Indians has responded with a statement indicating they are unaware of any resources within the project boundaries. Correspondence with the NAHC and an example of the letter sent to all suggested local Native American groups listed by the NAHC are provided in Appendix III. 4.0-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Project 5.0 REPORT OF FINDINGS A Phase I archaeological assessment was conducted for the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego. The results of the archaeological investigation, including data obtained from both the records search and the field reconnaissance, are discussed in the following paragraphs. Assessment of any identified resources was conducted according to the criteria outlined in Section 4.0. 5.1 Institutional Records Search Results The archaeological records search conducted for this project was performed by the SCIC at SDSU, the results of which were reviewed by BFSA. The records search revealed that two known sites, SDI-11,206 and SDI-17,403, are located within the area to be developed (Figure 2.0-2; Appendix II). However, after reviewing the DNR site forms supplied by the SCIC, it is apparent that SDI-17,403 refers to the same site as SDI-11,206. SCIC files indicate that both sites are situated in the same location and are associated with an older San Diego Museum of Man site number designation, W-84. Site SDI-11,206 includes W-84 and W-88, both of which were subjected to a data recovery program in 1985 (Smith & Moriarty 1985a). Smith and Moriarty determined that sites W-84 and W-88 were most likely the same site; however, the construction of the railroad across the mouth of Batiquitos Lagoon cut out the center of the site. Aerial photographs from 1985 clearly illustrate the relationship of the two sites and the railroad cut (Plates 5.0-1 and 5.0-2). For the current investigation, only W-84 lies within project boundaries. Excavations conducted by Smith and Moriarty for W-84 consisted of the placement of eight mechanically excavated trenches, two standard one-square-meter excavation units, and two "block" two-square-meter excavation units. Excavations resulted in the determination that W-84 (western portion of SDI-11,206) is an Early Holocene/Middle Holocene transition site associated with the Early Archaic cultural horizon. The site exhibited a midden deposit consisting of darkened organic soil. Artifacts recovered included lithic production waste, precision tools, ground stone tools, and percussion tools. Ecofacts included marine shell, dominated by Chione species. Excavations also indicated that the site has been disturbed by agricultural activities and the construction of the railroad line. For further information on excavation specifics and material culture recovery, see Smith and Moriarty (1985a). In addition to Sites SDI-11,206 and SDI-17,403, 16 cultural resources are present within one mile of the project (Table 3.0-1 ). The majority of the sites represent the prehistoric occupation of the Batiquitos Lagoon area, which usually includes shell scatters reflecting the heavy utilization of local marine resources. Historically, the area has been agricultural in nature. Previous research throughout the Batiquitos Lagoon area has been extensive due to heavy development within the City of Carlsbad. According to SCIC files, a total of 46 archaeological studies, including three Environmental Impact Reports, have been completed within one mile of the project area, four of which either overlap or were adjacent to the current project area (Table 3.0-2). The most recent 5.0-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Project archaeological investigation conducted within or adjacent to the current project area was a constraints study performed by RECON in 2003 (Appendix II). RECON relocated Site SDI- 11,026 and subsequently recommended a testing program to determine the significance of the site. No other cultural resources were identified within the area of future development All primary data obtained during the records search is provided in Appendix II. 5.2 Field Reconnaissance Results The field reconnaissance was conducted on June 12, 2006. The majority of the project area was easily accessible and contained poor to excellent ground visibility, depending on the degree of development and vegetation cover. According to the City of Carlsbad and RBF Consulting, access had been denied for APNs 214-160-05, -27, -28, -34, and -36. However, the inability to conduct a pedestrian survey within these parcels did not impede the field reconnaissance. All structures were visible from outside of the inaccessible parcels. In addition, previous development of these areas negates the likelihood of finding any intact prehistoric deposits. The project has been disturbed in its' entirety by previous use and development, consisting of agricultural activities and railroad, residential, commercial, drainage, and road construction. Photographs documenting field conditions at the time of the survey are presented in Plates 5.0-3 and 5.0-4. The archaeological survey resulted in the relocation of Site SDI-11,026. The site was observed as a light to moderate marine shell scatter. The surface expression of the site consisted of a widely dispersed shell scatter (approximately one to two fragments/m2). This area is approximately 23 meters north/south by 367 .5 meters east/west and occupies an area of approximately 2,938 m2 (31,329 feet'). A heavier shell scatter (approximately 15 fragments/m2) was located within the lighter shell scatter at the southeastern-most edge of the area to be developed. This smaller area is approximately 75.5 meters north/south by 177.2 meters east/west and occupies an area of approximately 1,343 m2 (14,456 feet'). No other ecofacts or artifacts were observed. The artifacts were most likely collected during earlier investigations. As described earlier (Smith & Moriarty 1985), the site appears to have been disturbed by agricultural activities and railroad construction. Plate 5.0-5 and Figure 5.0-1 show the current state of Site SDl-11,026. The current archaeological reconnaissance failed to identify any additional prehistoric resources within the area of future development. The area of future development contains several residential and commercial structures known to be of historical age located along Ponto Drive. However, an analysis of all the structures within the property indicates that none of the buildings possesses significant architecture or integrity and are, therefore, not significant according to City of Carlsbad and CEQA criteria, as defined in Section 4.0. Two of the structures are shown below in Plates 5.0-6 and 5.0-7. 5.0-2 I I I I. I I I I I I . I I I I I I I I I The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Project TABLE5.0-1 Previously Recorded Sites Within One Mile of the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Project Sites SDI-603 SDI-607 SDI-760 SDI-762 SDI-6749 SDI-6750 SDI-9589 SDI-10,439 SDI-11,953 SDI-12,130 SDI-12,670 SDI-12.807 SDI-12,810 SDI-13,739/H SDI-15,679 SDI-17,404 5.0-3 Site Descriptions Prehistoric: shell midden, percussion and ground stone tools, and one burial. Prehistoric: shell scatter. Prehistoric: lithic and shell scatter. Prehistoric: shell midden and isolated metate. Unknown: site record missing from SCIC. Prehistoric: shell midden. Does not contain any prehistoric or historic material. Should be deleted from SCIC cultural resource inventory. Prehistoric: lithic and shell scatter, percussion, groundstone, and precision tools. Prehistoric: shell midden, isolated mano/pestle, bone awl, and ceramics . Prehistoric: lithic and shell scatter, fire affected rock, percussion, groundstone, and precision tools. Prehistoric: lithic and shell scatter, fire affected rock, percussion, groundstone, and precision tools. Prehistoric: lithic and shell scatter, fire affected rock, percussion, groundstone, and precision tools, and three burials. Prehistoric: Shell midden, lithic scatter, fire affected rock, percussion, groundstone, and precision tools. Multi-component: lithic and shell scatter, fire affected rock, groundstone and percussion tools, and historic trash. Prehistoric: shell scatter. Prehistoric: cobble hearths. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Project TABLES.0-2 Previous Archaeological Studies Conducted Adjacent to, or Within, the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Project Smith, Brian F. 1996 Results of the Archaeological Monitoring of the Poinsettia Shores Project, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. Brian F. Smith & Associates. Submitted to Kaisa Poinsettia Corporation. Unpublished Report on File at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA. Smith, Brian F. & James R. Moriarty III 1999 The Archaeological Excavations of Cultural Resources at the Batiquitos Pointe and Batiquitos Bluffs Projects, Sites W-84, W-88, W-95, and W-2551. Archaeological/Historical Consultants. Submitted to Sammis Properties, Inc. Unpublished Report on File at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA. RECON 1985 Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park Master Plan EIR 84-3. RECON. Submitted to City of Carlsbad. Unpublished Report on File at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA. RECON 2003 Cultural Resource Constraints Study of the Ponto Specific Plan, City of Carlsbad, California. RECON. Submitted to Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates. Unpublished Report on File at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA. 5.0-4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I r:::J Study Area -Proposed Development Cbione: -Moderate to Heavy Concentration D Light Concentration Figure 5.0-1 Site Location Map Showing Current Surface Expression of SDI-11 ,026 The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Project 5.0-5 11111' c:i,i",..'"'---.. ===='"'---800- D,,ieO.-d: 2SApril2006 C:IOIS"t,rojo<1&\.poi,0Jb,,U.Jmd Dau, Soun:u: USGS Seamlea Data Dls1Jibuion I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I I I I I I The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Project Plate 5.0-1 Aerial photograph of SDI-11,026 in 1985 facing north. Note the original Museum of Man site designation numbers and the railroad construction disturbance. Only the southern portion of SDI-11,026 (W-84) is within the current project boundaries. Plate 5.0-2 Aerial photograph of SDI-11,026 in 1985 facing northwest. 5.0-6 I' I I I I I I I .I ,, :1 .I I I I I I I I The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Project Plate 5.0-3 Overview of project area, facing north. Plate 5.0-4 Overview of the project area, facing east. 5.0--7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plw1 Project Plate 5.0-5 Overview of current state of Site SDI-11,026. Plate 5.M View of an altered 1930s single-family dwelling on APN 214-160-36, facing east. 5.0-8 I I I ·1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Ponto Beachjront Village Vision Plan Project Plate 5.0-7 View of 1940s/1950s apartments with RV garage on APNs 214-160-11 & -21, facing northeast. 5.0-9 I I I I I I I I ,1 I I ,, I I I I The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Project 6.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The archaeological record search and pedestrian survey for the area of future development within the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan resulted in the relocation of previously recorded Site SDI-11,026. The site was first observed as a light to moderate marine shell scatter. In 2003, RECON rediscovered the site and recommended a testing program to determine significance. However, the site has been previously subjected to testing and data recovery phases by Smith and Moriarty in 1985. Based on these studies, the research potential of the site has been exhausted and is, therefore, not considered significant according to City of Carlsbad and CEQA guidelines. However, because only a small portion of the site was excavated, it is possible that significant subsurface features or deposits are still present. A number of historic structures are located along Ponto Drive in the northern portion of the area of future development. Although landowner permission was not granted to access every parcel within the project area, every structure was visible and structural assessments were possible. No significant historic resources are present within the project area. Therefore, no additional historic research or evaluation is recommended for the project. Due to the known presence of prehistoric resources within the project boundaries and the high density of known archaeological sites in the Batiquitos Lagoon area, there exists a strong possibility of encountering subsurface features or deposits during construction activities. Furthermore, due to the close proximity of the site to archaeological sites with burial contexts, there exists the potential to disturb additional prehistoric burials. Based on the potential for encountering archaeological deposits, a qualified archaeological monitor should be present during grading to identify any cultural resources uncovered during construction activities. An on-site monitor will facilitate the identification and evaluation of any resources, should they be found. In the event that intact deposits, features, or human remains are discovered, construction work at that location will be stopped until the City is notified and appropriate measures completed to mitigate impacts to significant discoveries. Any archaeological work required to mitigate impacts to cultural deposits shall include the presence of a Native American monitor. 6.0-1 I· I I I I I I ·.1 I I I 1- ·1 I I I· The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Project 7.0 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this archaeological report, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and have been compiled in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) criteria as defined in Section 15064.5 and City of Carlsbad cultural resource criteria. Jul 31 2006 Date 7.0-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I I· I I I The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Project 8.0 REFERENCES CITED Bancroft, Hubert Howe 1884 History of California, Vols. I and II. The History Company, San Francisco. Beauchamp, R. Mitchell 1986 A Flora of San Diego County, California. Sweetwater River Press, National City, California. Bedwell, S. F. 1970 Prehistory and Environment of the Pluvial Fort Rock Area of South-central Oregon. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene. Bowman, R. H. 1973 Soil Survey of the San Diego Area, California. Part I. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. Blick, J. D. 1976 Agriculture in San Diego County. In San Diego -An Introduction to the Area. Edited by Philip Pryde. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa. Bull, Charles S. 1987 A New Proposal: Some Suggestions for San Diego Prehistory. In San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy. Edited by Dennis Gallegos. San Diego County Archaeological Society Research Paper (No. 1 ). Byrd, B.F. 1998 Harvesting the Littoral Landscape During the Late Holocene: New Perspectives from Northern San Diego County. In Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 20(2): 195-218. California Division of Mines and Geology 1996 Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California. DMG Open File Report %-02. Carrico, Richard L. and Clifford V. F. Taylor 1983 Excavation of a Portion of Ystagua: A Coastal Valley Ipai Settlement. Environmental Impact Report on file at the City of San Diego, Environmental Quality Division. Carrico, R. L. and D.R. Gallegos 1988 Data Recovery Program for a Portion of Pump Station 64 Force Main Improvement. Manuscript on file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Davis, E. L., C. W. Brott, and D. L. Weide 1969 The Western Lithic Co-Tradition. San Diego Museum Papers (No. 6). San Diego Museum of Man, San Diego. 8.0-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Project Elliott, Wallace W. 1883 History of San Bernardino and San Diego Counties (1965 Edition). Riverside Museum Press, Riverside, California. Engelhardt, 2.ephryn 1921 San Diego Mission. James M. Barry Company, San Francisco. Gallegos, Dennis 1987 A Review and Synthesis of Environmental and Cultural Material for the Batiquitos Lagoon Region. In San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy. Editor. (San Diego County Archaeological Society Research Paper [No. l]). 1991 Antiquity and Adaptation at Agua Hedionda, Carlsbad, California. In Hunter- Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by John M. Erlandson and Roger H. Colton, pp. 19-41. Perspectives in California Archaeology, No. 1. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. 1992 Patterns and Implications of Coastal Settlement in San Diego County: 9,000 to 1,300 Years Ago. In Essays on the Prehistory of Maritime California. Edited by Terry Jones. Center for Archaeological Research, Davis, California. 2002 Southern California in Transition: Late Holocene Occupation of Southern San Diego County. Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by J. Erlandson and T. Jones. Gallegos, Dennis and Richard Carrico 1984 Windsong Shores Data Recovery Program/or Site W-I3I, Carlsbad, California. Report on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University. Gallegos, Dennis, R. Phillips and Carolyn Kyle 1988 Five Thousand Years of Maritime Subsistence at Ballast Point Prehistoric Site SDI-48 (W-I 64 ), San Diego, California. Prepared for the Department of the Navy by Westec Services, Inc., San Diego. Gallegos, Dennis, Andrew Pigniolo and Roxana Phillips 1989 A Cultural And Paleontological Inventory Update/or the University of California at San Diego and Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Manuscript on file with the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University. Gordinier, Jerry G. 1966 Problems of Settlement in the San Diego Foothills. Unpublished Master's thesis, San Diego State College, San Diego. Hayden, Julian D. 1987 Notes on the Apparent Course of San Dieguito Development. In San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy. Edited by Susan M. Hector. San Diego County Archaeological Society Research Paper (No. 1). Heiges, Harvey 1976 The Economic Base of San Diego County. In San Diego -An Introduction to the Region. Edited by Philip Pryde. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa. 8.0-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Project Kaldenberg, Russell 1982 Rancho Park North: A San Dieguito-La Jolla Shellfish Processing Site in Coastal Southern California. Occasional Paper (No. 6). Imperial Valley College Museum Society, El Centro, California. Koerper, Henry C., Paul E. Langenwalter and Adella Schroth 1986 The Agua Hedionda Project Archaeological Investigations at CA-SDI-5353 and CA- SDI-9649. Report on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University. 1991 Early Holocene Adaptations and the Transition Phase Problem: Evidence from the Allan 0. Kelly Site, Agua Hedionda Lagoon. In Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California. Edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Roger H. Colten. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Volume 1, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Kroeber, A. L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Dover Editions, Dover Publications, Inc., New Yorlc. Masters, Patricia, Dennis Gallegos, and Carolyn Kyle 1988 Five Thousand Years of Marine Subsistence at Ballast Point Prehistoric Site SDI-48 (W-164) San Diego, California. Report on file with the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University. Meighan, C. W. 1954 A Late Complex in Southern California Prehistory. In Southwestern Journal of Anthropology Vol. 10, No. 2. Miller, Jaquelin Neva 1966 The Present and the Past Molluscan Faunas and Environments of Four Southern California Coastal Lagoons. Unpublished Master's thesis, University of California, San Diego. Moratto, Michael J. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. Moriarty, James R., Ill 1961 "The Coast Dieguefio, San Diego's Historic Indian." Cabrillo Historical Society Journal (Vol. I, No. 3). 1966 Culture Phase Divisions Suggested by Topological Change Coordinated with Stratigraphically Controlled Radiocarbon Dating in San Diego. Anthropological Journal of Canada (Vol. 4, No. 4). 1967 Transitional Pre-Desert Phase in San Diego County. Science Vol. 155. 1969 San Dieguito Complex: Suggested Environmental and Cultural Relationships. Anthropological Journal of Canada (Vol. 7, No. 3). 8.0-3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Project 1987 A Separate Origins Theory for Two Early Man Cultures in California. In San Dieguito- La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy. Edited by Susan M. Hector. San Diego County Archaeological Society Research Paper (No. 1). Norwood, Richard H. 1979 Cultural Resources of Diamond West/Sunset Hills: A Development in Oceanside, California. Report on file at South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Palou, Fray Francisco 1926 Historical Memoirs of New California. Edited by Herbert Eugene Bolton (4 Volumes). University of California Press, Berkeley. Pitt, Leonard 1966 The Decline of the Californias. University of California Press, Los Angeles. Pourade, Richard F. 1967 The Rising Tide: Southern California in the Twenties and Thirties. Union-Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego. Price, Glenn W. 1967 Origins of the War with Mexico. University of Texas Press, Austin. Raven-Jennings, Shelly, Brian F. Smith and Johnna L. Buysse 19% The Results of a Cultural Resource Study at the 4S Ranch, Rancho Bernardo, County of San Diego. Report on file at Brian F. Smith and Associates, San Diego, California. Rogers, Malcolm J. 1939 Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and Adjacent Desert Areas. San Diego Museum Papers (No. 3). San Diego Museum of Man. 1966 Ancient Hunters of the Far West. Edited with contributions by H. M. Worthington, E. L. Davis, and Clark W. Brott. Union Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego. Rolle, Andrew F. 1969 California: A History (Second Edition). Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York. Shipek, Florence 1977 A Strategy for Change: The Luisefio of Southern California. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation on file at the University of Hawaii. Shipley, W. 1978 Native Languages of California. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California, pp. 80-90, edited by R.F. Heizer. Washington D.C. Smithsonian Institution. Shumway, George, Carl L. Hubbs, and James R. Moriarty 1961 Scripps Estate Site, San Diego, California: A La Jollan Site Dated 5,460-7,370 Years Before the Present. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (Vol. 93, No. 3 ). 8.0-4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Project Smith, Brian F. 1987 The Excavations at Site CA-SD/-9956/W-3376. Environmental Impact Report on file at the County of San Diego, Department of Planning and Land Use. Smith, Brian F. & James R. Moriarty III 1983 An Archaeological Evaluation of a Drainage Channel Project at the South Sorrento Business Park. Environmental Impact Report on file at the City of San Diego. 1985a The Archaeological Excavations of Cultural Resources at the Batiquitos Pointe and Batiquitos Bluffs Projects, Sites W-84, W-88, W-95, and W-2551. Archaeological/Historical Consultants. Submitted to Sammis Properties, Inc. Unpublished Report on File at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA. 1985b The Archaeological Excavations at Site W-20. Environmental Impact Report on file at the City of San Diego, Environmental Quality Division. True, D. L. 1958 An Early Complex in San Diego County, California. In American Antiquity (Vol. 23, No. 3). 1980 The Pauma Complex in Northern San Diego County: 1978. In Journal of New World Archaeology 3(4). Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Van Dyke, Theodore 1886 Southern California. Fords, Howard and Hulbert. Walker, E.F. 1951 Five Prehistoric Sites in Los Angeles County, California. Publications of the Frederick Webb Hodge Anniversary Publication Fund 6: 1-116 Wallace, William J. 1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology (Vol. 11, No. 3). Albuquerque. Warren, Claude N. 1966" The San Dieguito Type Site: Malcolm J. Roger's 1938 Excavation on the San Dieguito River. San Diego Museum Papers (6). 1%7 The San Dieguito Complex: A Review and Hypothesis. American Antiquity, Vol. 2, No. 2. Salt utke City, Utah. 1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States. Edited by C. Irwin-Williams. Eastern New Mexico Contributions in Anthropology (Vol. 1, No. 3). Warren, C. N. and D. L. True 1961 The San Dieguito Complex and Its Place in California Prehistory. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1960-1961. University of California, Los Angeles. 8.0-5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Project Warren, C. N., D. L. True and Ardith A. Eudy 1961 Early Gathering Complexes of Western San Diego County: Results and Interpretations of an Archaeological Survey. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1960-1961:246-338. University of California, Los Angeles WESTEC Services, Inc. 1975 Rimbach Property Archaeological Report. Manuscript on file, South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. 8.0-6 I I I I I I I I I I I' I I I I I I I I The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Project APPENDIX I Qualifications of Key Personnel I I I I I I I I I I 1· I I I I I I I I A E! Brian F. Smith & Associates Archaeological/Historical/Paleontological/Biological/Consulting BRIAN FREDERICK SMITH 14010 Poway Road, Suite A Poway, California 92064 (858) 679-8218 bsmith@bfsa-ca.com EDUCATION Brian F. Smith is the owner and principal historical and archaeological consultant for Brian F. Smith and Associates (BFSA). The company has been in business since 1977. Master of Arts degree from the University of San Diego in History, 1982. Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of San Diego in History and Anthropology, 1975. Completed the U. S. General Services Administration Training Center Course entitled "Introduction to Federal Project and Historic Preservation Law." SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE As an archaeological consultant and principal investigator registered with various governmental agencies within the State of California since 1977, Brian F. Smith has successfully completed over five hundred archaeological and historical studies at properties within this region, accumulating over 35,000 hours of experience in dealing with sensitive cultural resources and governmental policies. Past projects conducted by Mr. Smith have included survey, test, and salvage programs conducted at sites of historic and/or prehistoric significance. Experience in southern California has included the investigation of prehistoric sites of all major cultural complexes which have existed in the region over the past 12,000 years, and historic sites of the Spanish, Mexican and early American periods. Mr. Smith has completed historic and historical architectural evaluations of structures for Federal and State review. Smith's expertise includes the composition of cultural resource documents for California (CEQA) and federal (NEPA and NHPA) projects, and the design and implementation of mitigation programs. MAJOR PROFESSIONAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS These selected major professional accomplishments represent research efforts which have added significantly to the body of knowledge concerning the prehistoric lifeways of cultures once present in the southern California area. The following are samples of the research efforts which are considered to have made an impact in the study of historic and prehistoric resources in the area. Charles H. Brown Site -Site Director Attracted international attention to the discovery of evidence of the antiquity of man in North America. Site located in Mission Valley, in the City of San Diego. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Brian F. Smith and Associates Del Mar Man Site -Site Foreman Study of the now famous Early Man Site in Del Mar, California, for the San Diego Science Foundation and the San Diego Museum of Man, under the direction of Dr. Spencer Rogers and Dr. James R. Moriarty. Old Town State Park Projects -Consulting Historical Archaeologist Projects completed in the Old Town State Park involved development of individual lots for commercial enterprises. The projects completed in Old Town include: • Archaeological and Historical Site Assessment for the Great Wall Cafe (1992). • Archaeological Study for the Old Town Commercial Project (1991). • Cultural Resources Site Survey at the Old San Diego Inn (1988). City of San Diego Reclaimed Water Distribution System -Principal Investigator A cultural resource study of nearly 400 miles of pipeline in the City and County of San Diego. Navy Broadway Complex -Consulting Historian and Archaeologist The Navy Broadway Complex is a massive redevelopment project at the Naval Supply Depot located at the foot of Broadway in Downtown San Diego. This project involved the architectural and historical assessment of over 25 structures that comprise the Naval Supply Depot, many of which have been in use since World War I and were used extensively during World War II. The EIR/EIS which was prepared included National Register evaluations of all structures. The archaeological component of the project involved the excavation of backhoe trenches to search for evidence of the remains of elements of the historic waterfront features that characterized the bay front in the latter half of the 19th century. This study was successful in locating portions of wharves and shanties that existed on the site prior to capping of this area after construction of the sea wall in the early 20th century. Master Environmental Assessment Project, City of Poway Principal Investigator/Historian This project was conducted for the City of Poway to produce a complete inventory of all recorded historic and prehistoric properties within the City. The information was used in conjunction with the City's General Plan Update to produce a map matrix of the City showing areas of high, moderate, and low potential for the presence of cultural resources. The effort also included the development of the City's Cultural Resource Guidelines, which were adopted as City policy. City of Carlsbad Archaeological and Historical Guidelines -Consulting Archaeologist and Historian BFSA was contracted by the City of Carlsbad to produce the draft of the City's historical and archaeological guidelines for use by the Planning Department of the City. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Brian F. Smith and Associates 4S Ranch Cultural Resource Study -Consulting Archaeologist The 4S Ranch property is a 3,600-acre parcel in northern San Diego County which is being developed as a master plan community. Brian Smith has served as the consulting archaeologist for nine studies of cultural resources on the project, including intensive surveys, recording of 170 archaeological sites, testing of resources for significance evaluations, preparation of mitigation plans, and conducting data recovery programs. The report of findings for the 4S Ranch mitigation program will include significant advances in the understanding of prehistoric subsistence patterns and periods of occupation in the region. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SETH A. ROSENBERG 14010 Poway Road, Suite A Poway, CA 92064 (858) 679-8218 srose11D.ll>e!l"g@ll>ft'sa-ca.com EDUCATION Ball State University (BSU), College of Science and Humanities, Muncie, IN. Graduate Student, MA in Anthropology expected July 2006 University of Arizona (UA), College of Arts and Sciences, Tucson, AZ. Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology, May 1998 SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE February 2005 -Present Project Archaeologist: Brian F. Smith & Associates, San Diego, California -Project Archaeologist for cultural resource management projects. Responsible for all phases of project management from field supervision to producing reports. Directed cultural resource inventory projects in compliance with county requirements, CEQA, and Section 106 for federal, state and local agencies primarily in southern California (San Diego and Riverside Counties). Prepared and edited technical reports documenting background research, findings, and management recommendations. Recorded and evaluated archaeological sites and historic buildings for eligibility to local, state, and national historic registers. Evaluated effects of proposed projects on archaeological sites and historic buildings. Provided management recommendations for site stewardship. Worked with clients to ensure projects were completed effectively and efficiently. Fall Semester 2004 Course Instructor: Anthropology 111, BSU: Global Diversity. The course offers a look at several groups of people from around the modern world and the changes they experience through the processes of globalization. October, 2004 Professional Presentation: Corner Stores and Bottles: African-American Consumption in Indianapolis, IN. Midwest Archaeology/Southeast Archaeology Conference, St Louis, MO. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Spring Semester 2003, Spring Semester 2004 August, 2002 - December, 2004 September- December 2003 July-September, 2003 Spring Semester 2003 May -August, 2002 April, 2002 June -December, 2001 October, 2000 - April 2001 August -October, 2000 Graduate Assistantship: Archaeological Resources Management Service (ARMS), Ball State University,Muncie, IN. Archaeological Resources Management Service, Ball State Ball State University, Indiana. Crew Chief (Survey and Testing). Research Assistant: Ricardo Fernandez de Vega Dissertation, University of Kentucky National Science Foundation Grant Palguin Valley, 9th Region, Chile Assisted in survey and testing of Mapuche prehistoric and historic sites in Southern Chile. Fieldwork also consisted of working with Mapuche and Chilean associates to identify indigenous sites. Panamerican Consultants, Inc., Fort Bragg, NC. Field Technician (Survey). PALS (Placing Anthropology in Schools): Coordinating with local pre-collegiate teachers in the public school system, graduate and undergraduate students to enhance school curriculum with subject areas such as evolution, cross-cultural understanding, multiculturalism, human geography, material culture, race, and ethnicity. Hunter Researcb, Various Counties, New Jersey. Field Technician (Survey, Testing, and Excavation). Gray & Pape, Inc., Coming, NY. Field Technician (Survey). Skelly & Loy, Inc., Tioga Co. PA. Field Technician (Testing and Excavation). SWCA, Inc., Douglas, Bisbee, Tempe, Phoenix, Mesa, Gilbert, AZ. Field Technician (Survey, Testing, and Excavation). Archaeology Research Center, University of Maine at Farmington, Swanton, VT. Field Technician (Survey, Testing, and Excavation). June -August, 2000 Cultural Resource Analysis, Inc,, Charleston, WV. Field Technician (Survey, Testing, and Excavation). May,2000 Gray & Pape, Inc., Lee County, VA. Field Technician (Survey). I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I March -April, 2000 SWCA, Inc., Coolidge, AZ. Field Technician (Survey, Testing, and Excavation). February-March, 2000 P-ill Associates, Inc., Lovelock & Denio, NV. Field Technician (Survey and Testing). August-December, Parsons Corporation, Dover, DE. Field Technician (Testing 1999 and Excavation). October, 1998 -June, Old Pueblo Archaeology Center, Tucson, AZ. Field 1999 Technician (Survey, Testing, and Excavation). January -July, 1998 Garbage Project, Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. Field Technician (Testing and Excavation). Authored Proposals: Archaeological Testing Proposal: State Road 42 Rehabilitation, Site 12-Vi-888, Vigo County, Indiana. January 29, 2004. Archaeological Testing Proposal: State Road 42 Rehabilitation, Site 12-Vi-888, Vigo County, Indiana. Revised February 25, 2004. Authored Reports: An Archaeological Survey for the Garland Project, City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California. BFSA project #05-172. Revised March 22, 2006. Results of a Data Recovery Program for the Winchester Ridge Project: Phase 3 Archaeological Assessment, Riverside County, California. BFSA project #06-21. February 22, 2006. Mitigation Monitoring Report for the Smart Corner Project. BFSA project #05-09. February 13, 2006. A Cultural Resources Survey for the Kenneth Mathena Project, City of Poway, California. BFSA project #06-09. January 17, 2006. A Cultural Resources Survey for the Bartlett Property Project, City of Escondido, California. BFSA project #05-209. January 16, 2006. A Cultural Resources Study for the Dos Colinas Project, Carlsbad, California. BFSA project #05-201. December 27, 2005. Results of an Archaeological Survey for the Target EIR Project. BFSA project #05-204. December 20, 2005. An Archaeological Survey for the Alessandro Plaza Project, City of Moreno Valley, County of Riverside, California. BFSA project #05-206. December 20, 2005. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Cultural Resources Study for the Tentative Tract Map No. 33900 Project, City of Perris, Riverside County, California. BFSA project# 05-150. December 19, 2005 An Archaeological Report for the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program at the Lofts at 677 7h Avenue Project, City of San Diego. BFSA project #04-28. August 30, 2005. An Archaeological Report for the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program at the Renaissance at North Park Project. BFSA project #03-93. July 18, 2005 A Cultural Resources Survey for the San Bernardino County Nipton Cellular Tower Project, 72 Wheaton Springs Road, Baker, California. BFSA project #05-114. June 27, 2005 A Cultural Resources Survey for the Riverside County Harris Cellular Tower Project, Highway 111 and Tipton Road, Palm Springs, California. BFSA project #05-109. June 27,2005 An Archaeological Survey and Significance Evaluation of Site SDI-15,889 for the Breanna Estates Il Project, Oceanside, California. BFSA project #05-98. June 16, 2005. An Archaeological Survey for the Waterford Project, El Centro, County of Imperial, California. BFSA project #05-81. June 7, 2005. An Archaeological Survey for the House-Valley Center Project, Valley Center, County of San Diego, California. BFSA project #05-101. June 7, 2005. Results of archaeological monitoring at the La Jolla Cove Wall Replacement and Bluff Improvements Project; WO# 526700. BFSA project #04-06. June 2, 2005. Results of archaeological monitoring at the West Park Project (2626 6th Ave) WR No. 42-0196, PTS No. 2973. BFSA project #04-134. June 2, 2005. An Archaeological Survey for the Boundary Peak Project, San Diego County, California. BFSA project #05-82. May 25, 2005. An Archaeological Survey for the Cielo Azul Project, Harmony Grove, San Diego, California. BFSA project #05-39. May 18, 2005. A Cultural Resources Survey for the Khew Property Project, San Diego County, California. BFSA project #05-79. May 11, 2005. A Cultural Resources Survey for the Palomar/Industrial Parcel Project, Chula Vista, California. BFSA project #05-74. May 9, 2005. An Archaeological Survey for the Oak Glen Project, Valley Center, San Diego County, California. BFSA project #05-77. May 2, 2005. An Archaeological Survey for the Pala Mesa Resort Project, San Diego County, California. BFSA project #05-66. April 28, 2005. An Archaeological Survey for the Stowe Road Project, Riverside County, California. BFSA project #05-56. April 28, 2005. A Cultural Resources Study for the Dorathea Residence Project, City of Poway, California. BFSA project #05-72. April 26, 2005. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I A Cultural Resources Study for the Sandon Lot Split Project, Riverside County, California. BFSA project #05-46. April 12, 2005. An Archaeological Survey for the Innovative Resort Communities Project, Escondido, California. BFSA project #05-59. April 4, 2005. Field Reconnaissance: CR /50 West Borrow Pit, Jefferson County, Indiana, ARMS project #04FR65. August 30, 2004. Field Reconnaissance: SR 28 Sight Improvement Project, Delaware, Indiana ARMS project #04FR59. August 15, 2004. Archaeological Records Review: Intersection Improvement on SR 14, Fulton County, Indiana, ARMS project #04RC29. August 3, 2004. Field Reconnaissance: Rose/awn Library, Newton County, Indiana, ARMS project #04FR045. July 20, 2004. Field Reconnaissance: SR 243 Dumpsites, Putnam County, Indiana, ARMS project #04FR053. July 13, 2004. Field Reconnaissance: Pulaski County Bridge #291, Pulaski County, Indiana, ARMS project #04FR46. June 25, 2004. Field Reconnaissance: Deep River Headwaters Restoration, Lake County, Indiana, ARMS project#04FR021. May 27, 2004. Field Reconnaissance: Leopold Cell Tower, Perry County, Indiana, ARMS project #04FR036. May 27, 2004. Field Reconnaissance: Doerner Property Cell Tower, Gibson County, Indiana, ARMS project #04FR026. April 27, 2004. Field Reconnaissance: Centerville Sewer Line, County, Indiana, ARMS project #04.PR022. April 19, 2004. Field Reconnaissance: Bridge on SR 15 over Wabee Drain, Kosciusko County, Indiana, ARMS project #03FR081. March 9, 2004. Archaeological Records Review: Kunkle Lake Dam, Wells County, Indiana, ARMS project#04RC006. February 27, 2004. Field Reconnaissance: Waste Area in Cynthiana, Posey County, Indiana, ARMS project #04FR005. February 24, 2004. Field Reconnaissance: Western Interceptor Project, Tippecanoe County, Indiana, ARMS project #04FR002. February 9, 2004. Field Reconnaissance: Greenbriar Ridge Road Spoil Area, Switzerland County, Indiana, ARMS project#04FRJ8. February 9, 2004. Archaeological Records Review: SR 25, Boggs ditch Structure Replacement, Kosciusko County, Indiana ARMS project #03RC032. January 22, 2004. Field Reconnaissance: Lanier Mansion Parking Lot, Madison, Jefferson County, Indiana, ARMS Project #03FR0JO. July 8, 2003. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Field Reconnaissance: SR 42 Rehabilitation & Swails Road at SR 42, Te"e Haute, Vigo County, Indiana,, ARMS Project #02FR054/02FR084. June 18, 2003. Field Reconnaissance: White County Airport, Monticello, White County, Indiana, ARMS Project #02FR083. May 20, 2003. Field Reconnaissance: Lakeview Park, Rochester, Fulton County, Indiana, ARMS Project #03FR023. May 7, 2003. Field Reconnaissance: Crown Point Trail, Crown Point, Lake County, Indiana, ARMS Project #03FR0J4. April 25, 2003. Field Reconnaissance: Elkhart Trail, Elkhart, Indiana, ARMS project #03FR002. April 7, 2003. Field Reconnaissance: Intersection Improvement on US 52 INDOT Project #STP-082- 2(020), Des #9800840, Hancock and Shelby Counties, IN, ARMS Project #03FR008. April 7, 2003 Field Reconnaissance: Waste Area, Posey County, Indiana, ARMS Project #03FR023. March 28, 2003 Field Reconnaissance: Patoka Lake Public Access, DuBois County, IN, ARMS Project #02FR073. November 1, 2002. Field Reconnaissance: CR 600 North Borrow Pit, DuBois County, IN, ARMS Project #02FR076. October 15, 2002. Field Reconnaissance: Intersection Improvement on US50 at CR 1250 E INDOT Project #NH-042-4 (053 ), Des #9903090, Daviess County, IN, ARMS Project #02FR072. September 18, 2002. PROFESSIONAL REFERENCES Tom Yoder, Archaeologist, Project Manager SWCA,Inc. Durango, Colorado 208 Parker A venue, Suite C Durango, Colorado 81303 (970) 385-n81 (970) 385-n85 Donald Cochran, Director Mitchell Zoll, Principal Investigator Archaeological Resources Management Service Ball State University Muncie, IN 47306 (765) 285-5328 James S. Lee, Principal Investigator Bill Liebeknecht, Principal Investigator, Laboratory Director Hunter Research, Inc. 120 West State Street Trenton, NJ 08608 (609) 695-0122 John Lindley, PhD, Principal Investigator SWCA,Inc. 2120 North Central A venue, Suite 130 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 (800) 828-8517 (602) 274-3831 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Project APPENDIX II Records Search Results (Confidential Appendix; bound separately) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,, I I The Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Project APPENDIX III Native American Heritage Commission Correspondence I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Brian F. Smith & Associates April25,2006 Mr. Rob Wood, Program Analyst Native American Heritage Commission 915 Capitol Mall, Room 364 Sacramento, California 95814 Archaeological/Historical/Paleontological Consulting Subject: Sacred Lands records search for the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan, located in the Ponto neighborhood of Carlsbad, California 92009. Dear Mr. Wood, I am writing to request a record search of the Sacred Lands File and a list of appropriate Native American contacts for a project in the Ponto neighborhood of the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. This project, called the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan, lies in Township 12 South, Range 4 West as shown on the USGS Encinitas topographic quadrangle. A copy of the appropriate section of the USGS Encinitas 7 .5-minute topographic quadrangle is provided with the project location depicted thereon. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Attachment: Project Location Map I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Brian F. Smith & Associates April 25, 2006 Mr. Rob Wood, Program Analyst Native American Heritage Commission 915 Capitol Mall, Room 364 Sacramento, California 95814 Archaeological/Historical/Paleontological Consulting Subject: Sacred Lands records search for the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan, located in the Ponto neighborhood of Carlsbad, California 92009. Dear Mr. Wood, I am writing to request a record search of the Sacred Lands File and a list of appropriate Native American contacts for a project in the Ponto neighborhood of the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. This project, called the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan, lies in Township 12 South, Range 4 West as shown on the USGS Encinitas topographic quadrangle. A copy of the appropriate section of the USGS Encinitas 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle is provided with the project location depicted thereon. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Attachment: Project Location Map 14010 Poway Road, SulteA, Poway, Califomla 92064; Phone (8,58) 679-8218 or (909) 681-9950; Fax (8,58)679-9896; www.bfsa.ca.com I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 05/23/2006 16:17 FAX 916 657 5390 NAHC 141001 STAJE OE CALFQAN!A AtnqJd Sdbnae1•ft'PM @e!'!'T9!' of& . NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION . 915 CAPITOL MALL, flOOM 364 SACRAMem>, CA 95814 (916)G53-40&2 Fax (916) 657•5390 Wob Site www.r'IM'le.ca.gov Larry Pierson Brian F. Smith & Associates Sent by Fax: 858--679-9896 Number of Pages: 7 May 23, 2006 RE: Proposed Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan, Carlsbad; San Diego County Dear Mr. Pierson: A record search of the sacred land file has fai1ed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the Immediate project area~ The absence of specific site information In the sacred lands file does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural resouroes should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites. Enclosed is a list of Native Americans individuals/organizations wllo may have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. The Commission makes no recommendation or preference of a single individual, or group over another. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated, if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowtedge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to dalms of failure to consult with the appropriate 11'ibe or group. If a response has not been received wRhin two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call to ensure that the project information has been received. If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers frorn aniof these individuals or groups, please notify me. Wrlh your assistance we are able to assure that our lists contain current information. If you have any questions or need additional information, please oontact me at (916) 653-4040. s· ly, ./ _ Wt.lo.' Rob Wood I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I May 23, 2006 Subject: Information regarding Native American Sacred Lands on or near the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan project. This inquiry is a follow-up to my letter dated April 25, 2006, requesting information you may have regarding the existence of Native American Sacred Lands on or near the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan project. The information you provide will be used to assess areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project. Any information you might provide will be kept confidential and will not be divulged to the public. This project, called the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan, lies in Township 12 South, Range 4 West as shown on the USGS Encinitas topographic quadrangle. A copy of the appropriate section of the USGS Encinitas 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle is provided with the project location depicted thereon. If we do not receive a response within ten days of the date of the letter, BFSA will assume that you are unaware of any Native American Sacred Lands at the above-mentioned property. Sincerely, Larry J. Pierson, RP A Senior Archaeologist and Historian Attachments: VSGS Encinitas topographic quadrangle with the project delineated thereon. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I June 1, 2006 Larry J. Pierson, RP A Senior Archaeologist and Historian Brian F. Smith & Associates 14010 Poway Rd., Ste. A Poway, CA 92064 Re: Information regarding Native American Sacred Lands on or near the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Project Dear Mr. Pierson: This letter is in response to your request for Native American consultation on the above referenced project. We respond to these requests on behalf of Robert Smith, Chairman of the Pala Band of Mission Indians. Because this project takes place outside the traditional areas of residence of the people of Pala, we have a low level of concern regarding possible areas of cultural sensitivity. However, this should not be construed as indicating that no cultural resources or traditional cultural properties are present in this location. Areas of significance may be identified by other concerned bands, or revealed in the course of project construction. The Pala Band of Mission Indians stands behind any assertions made by other bands that there are significant resources within the project area, should such assertions be made. Furthermore, we feel that any project of this size would benefit from the presence of Native American monitors during any ground-disturbing activities. We appreciate being made aware of this project and having the opportunity to comment. ~: Shasta C. Gaughen, MA, ABO Assistant Director 35008 Pala Temecula Road PMB 445 Pala, CA 92059 760-742-1590 !phone] 760-742-4543 [fax] I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TR!B.A.L COUNCiL Allen E. Lawson Chairman r-?uciy Contreras Vice-Chairman Angela Martinez- ivicNea! Secretar_f·Treasurer Jeralci Cope Delegate David Joler Delegate SAN PASQUAL RESERVATION July 10, 2006 Larry J. Pierson, RPA Brian F. Smith & Associates 14010 Poway Road, Suite A Poway, CA 92064 Re: Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Project_ Dear Mr. Pierson: In regards to your letter dated May 23, 2006, please be advised that the San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians considers this area Kumeyaay ancestral territory. As such, we are the most northwest Kumeyaay tribe and as always we are concerned with the disturbance of remaining cultural properties. At this time we do not know of any sacred or sensitive sites at the proposed project site. Should you discover any funerary items or cultural remains please inform our office, as they may include our ancestors. Sincerely, ~f,~- David Toler Councilman P.O. Box 365 ~ 27458 N. LAKE WOHLFORD Ro., VALLEY CENTER, CA 92082 ~ ---, . . .. . -----. . . P1--1rH,lt=' 7R0-7Llq-~:;>OO ° FAX 760-749-3876 ° WWW.SANPASQUALINDIANS.ORG APPENDIX D-2 Cultural Resource Constraints Study 1927 Fihh Avenue San Diego, CA 92101-2358 P619.308.9333 F 6193089334 .. www.recon·us.com RJECON June 17, 2003 Mr. Jeff Barfield Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates 9755 Clairemont Mesa Blvd., Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92124-1324 Reference: Cultural Resource Constraints Study of the Ponto Specific Plan, City of Carlsbad, California (RECON Number 3842A) Dear Mr. Barfield: This letter provides the results of a cultural resource survey conducted for a constraints investigation of the 128-acre Ponto property. The cultural resource survey was designed and executed to assist in your constraints evaluation. The purpose of the survey was to identify cultural resource sites, features, or isolated finds on the Ponto property. The survey was completed on June 4, 2003 and one cultural resource site (CA-SDI-11026) was relocated along the southeastern portion of the project. Fragments of marine shell ( Chione sp. and Argopecten sp.) were observed near the property edge and in an access road between the Ponto property and the adjacent cut slope and roadway. Several pieces of debitage were also observed on the property surface. The Ponto property is west of Batiquitos Lagoon on a bluff overlooking the Pacific Ocean and the lagoon outflow. The property ranges from sea level to 50 to 60 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). This parcel is located within the Section 29 and Section 33, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, and is approximately one- half mile west of Interstate 5 (Figures 1, 2, and 3), The northern property boundary is located directly south of Poinsettia Lane and east of the Santa Fe Railroad. The property occupies a portion of a bluff top, which parallels the railroad tracks, crossing the Batiquitos Lagoon outflow, to the southern boundary at approximately Hillcrest Drive, The parcel has undergone heavy foot and motor vehicle traffic, cut by roads, parking lots for trailers, and their assorted requirements and beach erosion. Ground surface visibility was mixed according to where you were. In the northern portion the ground visibility was 10 percent with heavy annual groundcover. In the southern portion of the property north of the slough visibility could be as high as 60 percent. Three §Oil series-Coastal Beaches, Marina, and Terrace Escarpments-are mapped within the survey area (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1973). Characteristics of these soils are summarized from the Soil Survey of San Diego Area, California (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1973). Coastal beaches occur as gravelly and sandy beaches along the Pacific Ocean where the shore is washed and rewashed by ocean waves. Part of this land type is likely to be covered with water during high tide and story periods. This soil has rapid permeability. Marina loamy coarse sand are also found on-site. These soils generally are found on beach ridges and are derived from weakly consolidated to non-coherent ferruginous eolian sand. The soils belong to the Entisol order and are young soils that show little alteration of the parent material and are found on the majority of the site. The disturbed plant community is dominated by grasses and herbaceous annuals, Previously, it was probably dominated by a Diegan coastal sage scrub community, Dominant species in this community include California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), California buckwheat (Eriogonumfasciculatum), Mr. Jeff Barfield Page 2 June 17, 2003 California broom (Lotus scoparius), white sage (Salvia mellifera), chaparral mallow (Malacothamnus fasciculata), and felt-leaved yerba santa (Eriodictyon crassifolium). Several of these species were used by Native American groups for both food and utilitarian materials. The sage scrub community that once existed on the property would have supported a large variety of wildlife species. Species observed include the California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), cottontail rabbit (Sylvilugus audubonii), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), house finch (Carpodactus mexicanusfrontalis), lesser goldfinch (Carduelis psaltria hesperophilus), California towhee (Pipilo crissalis), and the orange-throated whiptail lizard (Cnemidophorus hyperythrus). The project is located on the coast and adjacent to Batiquitos Lagoon. Lagoons provided shellfish for food, particularly clams (Chione sp.), scallops (Argopecten sp.), mussels (Mytilus sp.), and bean clams (Donax sp.). Tidal species and deep-water species of fish were also food resources. The Ponto property is within an area of southern California that has revealed evidence of extensive prehistoric human occupation extending back 8,000 years before the present (B.P.). Resources associated with nearby Batiquitos Lagoon, the Pacific Ocean, and the peninsular foothills supported local inhabitants throughout this period. For all of the prehistoric period, the native human occupants of San Diego County relied upon a strategy of foraging or gathering seasonally available plants and animals for their needs. Coastal groups relied on shellfish, which was locally abundant in the lagoons and the embayments, which characterize the San Diego shoreline. Although large mammals such as deer were certainly hunted, small game such as hares, rabbits, and squirrels provided the most dependable sources of meat. Plants for utilitarian uses, food, and medicinal purposes were gathered from the surrounding area. Coastal sage scrub communities provided seeds, fruits, berries, and tubers, such as buckwheat, wild cherry, cactus fruit, and yucca. The major plant food staple of coastal and mountain areas was the acorn, which was harvested in the late summer and fall, ground, leached, and boiled into a mush called shawii (Hedges and Baresford 1986; Eighmey 1992). Archaeological research in San Diego has undergone several changes in focus since its beginning in the early 1900s. With the implementation of CEQA in 1972, there has been a great deal of archaeological information gathered in association with cultural resource management studies. Along with the traditional subject of culture chronology (for which the issues are still far from resolved), archaeological data is being used to address prehistoric environmental adaptation, settlement patterns, subsistence strategies, trade, and technology. The South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) was contacted and a self search was conducted for the project property and surrounding areas within one-half mile (Confidential Attachment 1). Historic maps reviewed included an 1872 map of southern California, and the 1948 and 1949 Encinitas 7.5-minute U.S.G.S. quad- rangles. The project area has been surveyed in its entirety during this investigation and during previously completed work. Archaeological material was recorded only in the southernmost portion of the northern section of the property. The property south of the lagoon was even more disturbed than the northern portion of the property. This was an extensive site with little remaining. Several previously completed cultural resource investigations have either included portions of the project area or have abutted it. The project area was surveyed and described by Kowta (1959) as an extensive open site, which extended east ofl-5, with scattered shell and artifacts on surface. Crabtree, Warren, True (1959 and 1961) visited the site and completed site forms. DeCosta (1983) surveyed and tested portions of the site as part of a Caltrans study. During this study recorded artifacts included manos, metate fragments, flake, scrapers, and choppers. Shell was also recovered. Numerous CA-SDI numbers are recorded within and adjacent to the property; however, they probably should all be lumped under CA-SDI-211. Early work in this area as indicated by museum numbers (SDMM-W-89, -97, and -98), suggests the site was recorded by M. Rogers as early as the 1920s. Mr. Jeff Barfield Page 3 June 17, 2003 A light scatter of shell, several flakes, and two stone tools were observed during the present survey. The relocated site CA-SDI-11026 (Smith and Moriarty 1985; Van Buren 1988) was located on the north side of the Batiqutos Lagoon, west of the railroad tracks on a point of land that overlooks a habitat and revegetation area and the slough. The shell scatter covers a substantial area, but is very light and the shell, both Chione sp. and Argopecten sp. are not chalky and do not indicate great age. CA-SDl-11026 appears to be a slight dispersed surface shell scatter with no apparent depth or integrity; however, the work completed by Smith and Moriarty suggest there may be a subsurface component. Since archaeological deposits are not uniform phenomena, it is prudent to explore this site to establish the condition, content, and research potential. Based on the present surface observations and on work completed by Smith and Moriarty, additional testing should be completed. An additional two units and four shovel test pits should allow for an accurate appraisal of this site and a determination of importance. Thank you for the opportunity to work on this project. If there are any questions regarding the contents of this report, please contract me at (619) 308-9333. Sincerely, JDG:sh Confidential Attachment References Cited Crabtree, D., and D. King 1961 Site Record Form1961 South Coastal Information Center. Crabtree, D., C. Warren, and D. True 1963 Site Record 1963. South Coastal Information Center. Eighmey, J. 1992 Archaeological Evaluation of a Portion of SDI-6829 (SDM-W-1889). RECON. DeCosta, J. 1982 Site Record Form 1982. South Coastal Information Center. Gallegos, D. 1992 Archaeological Test Report for Prehistoric Site CA-SDI-6819-Carlsbad, CA. Gallegos and Associates. Submitted to Carlsbad Municipal Water District. Unpublished report on file at SCIC, San Diego State University. Hedges, K., and C. Baresford 1986 Santa Ysabel Ethnobotany. San Diego Museum of Man Ethnic Technology Notes No. 20. Bookcrafters, Chelsea, Michigan. Mr. Jeff Barfield Page4 June 17, 2003 References Cited (cont.) Kowta, M. 1959 Site Record 1959, South Coastal Information Center. Smith, L. and D. Moriarty 1985 The Archaeological Excavations at Site W-20, Sierra Del Mar: A Site Occupied by the La Jolla Complex from 7,140 B.P. (5,190 B.C.) to 2,355 B.P. (400B.C) on the Shores of Los Pefiasquitos Lagoon, near Del Mar, California. Brian F. Smith Associated, San Diego. Submitted to Fargo Industries, San Diego. U.S. Department of Agriculture 1973 Cultural Resources Report on the Rancho La Costa Properties Located in the County of San Diego. Prepared by SRS. January. .{. "'~ ~_ ,;~!~~,~'\\--\--½-+-- -~-·-:,--{_'... ,-'-, .· .. -~5;:§;:;:'.:i1lb~;,::,~; \ 'l--'H--'.-1' Pacific Ocean RECON M:\jobs2\3842\arc\grs\arctec apr\ fig I (reg I) 06/ 16/03 * Project location L .. ··-: San Pasqual FIGURE 1 Regional Location 0 REC O N M:\jobs2\3842\orc\gis\orctec.apr\ f;g2 (usgs) 06/16/03 FIGURE 2 Project Location on USGS Map REC O N FIGURE 3 Aerial Photograph of Project