DOCSLIB.ORG

Section 1 Introduction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Section 1 Introduction CITY OF GARDEN GROVE ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION & INITIAL STUDY SIX-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX● 9312 CHAPMAN AVENUE INITIAL STUDY & MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SIX-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX 9312 CHAPMAN AVENUE GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA LEAD AGENCY: CITY OF GARDEN GROVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING SERVICES DIVISION 11222 ACACIA PARKWAY GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA 92840 REPORT PREPARED BY: BLODGETT BAYLOSIS ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING 2211 HACIENDA BOULEVARD, SUITE 107 HACIENDA HEIGHTS, CA 91745 OCTOBER 16, 2020 GGRO 015 1475588.1 PAGE 1 CITY OF GARDEN GROVE ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION & INITIAL STUDY SIX-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX● 9312 CHAPMAN AVENUE THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 1475588.1 PAGE 2 CITY OF GARDEN GROVE ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION & INITIAL STUDY SIX-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX● 9312 CHAPMAN AVENUE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Title of Project: Six-Unit Apartment (9312 Chapman Avenue). Brief Description of Project: The proposed project is a request by the Applicant to subdivide a 0.47- acre (20,500 square-feet) vacant lot to accommodate six new dwelling units within a three-story building. These six new dwelling units will have a total building area of 12,767 square feet and a total living area of 10,119 square feet. In addition, a total of 2,315 square feet of recreational space will be provided. Lastly, a total of 21 parking spaces will be included. Access to the project site will be provided by a new 30-foot wide driveway located along the south side of Chapman Avenue. The discretionary approvals that are being requested by the project Applicant include a General Plan Amendment (GPA), Zone Change (ZC), Site Plan, and the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). Project Location (see also attached map): The project site is located in the north portion of the City of Garden Grove. The proposed project site is located on the south side of Chapman Avenue. The project site’s legal address is 9312 Chapman Avenue. The corresponding Assessor’s Parcel Number is 133-082-27. Name of the Project Proponent: The project Applicants are Victor Phu Nguyen and Julie Hoang Vu, 11165 Wasco Road, Garden Grove, CA 92841. Cortese List: The project does ◼ does not involve a site located on the Cortese List, also known as the California Department of Toxic Substances Control’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Project Impacts: The Initial Study/MND found that the environmental effects from the project would be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures. 1475588.1 PAGE 3 CITY OF GARDEN GROVE ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION & INITIAL STUDY SIX-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX● 9312 CHAPMAN AVENUE THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 1475588.1 PAGE 4 CITY OF GARDEN GROVE ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION & INITIAL STUDY SIX-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX● 9312 CHAPMAN AVENUE Project Site PROJECT LOCATION MAP SOURCE: QUANTUM GIS AND GOOGLE MAPS 1475588.1 PAGE 5 CITY OF GARDEN GROVE ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION & INITIAL STUDY SIX-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX● 9312 CHAPMAN AVENUE THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 1475588.1 PAGE 6 CITY OF GARDEN GROVE ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION & INITIAL STUDY SIX-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX● 9312 CHAPMAN AVENUE TABLE OF CONTENTS Environmental Checklist Form ................................................................... 9 1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................... 15 1.1 Purpose of the Initial Study .................................................................................................... 15 1.2 Initial Study’s Organization ....................................................................................................16 1.3 Initial Study Checklist .............................................................................................................16 2.0 Project Description .......................................................................... 25 2.1 Project Overview .................................................................................................................... 25 2.2 Project Location ..................................................................................................................... 25 2.3 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................... 25 2.4 Project Description ................................................................................................................. 31 2.5 Discretionary Actions............................................................................................................. 37 3.0 Environmental Analysis .................................................................. 38 3.1 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................................ 39 3.2 Agricultural & Forestry Resources .........................................................................................41 3.3 Air Quality .............................................................................................................................. 42 3.4 Biological Resources .............................................................................................................. 48 3.5 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................. 50 3.6 Energy ..................................................................................................................................... 53 3.7 Geology & Soils ....................................................................................................................... 55 3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................... 59 3.9 Hazards & Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................61 3.10 Hydrology & Water Quality ................................................................................................... 64 3.11 Land Use & Planning ............................................................................................................. 68 3.12 Mineral Resources.................................................................................................................. 70 3.13 Noise ........................................................................................................................................ 71 3.14 Population & Housing ............................................................................................................ 75 3.15 Public Services ........................................................................................................................ 77 3.16 Recreation ............................................................................................................................... 78 3.17 Transportation ....................................................................................................................... 79 3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................... 81 3.19 Utilities & Service Systems .................................................................................................... 82 3.20 Wildfire ................................................................................................................................... 85 3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ..................................................................................... 86 4.0 Conclusions ..................................................................................... 89 4.1 Findings .................................................................................................................................. 89 4.2 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program ...................................................................... 89 5.0 References .......................................................................................93 5.1 Preparers ................................................................................................................................ 93 1475588.1 PAGE 7 CITY OF GARDEN GROVE ● MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION & INITIAL STUDY SIX-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX● 9312 CHAPMAN AVENUE TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 6.0 Appendices .............................................................................................................. 95 Appendix A – Air Quality Worksheets ............................................................................................... 97 Appendix B – Noise Worksheets ...................................................................................................... 103 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1-1 Initial Study Checklist ............................................................................................................. 17 2-1 Project Summary Table ......................................................................................................... 32 3-1 Estimated Daily Construction Emissions ............................................................................. 45 3-2 Estimated Operational Emissions in lbs/day – Unmitigated.............................................. 46 3-3 Local Significance Thresholds Exceedance SRA 17 for 1-Acre of Disturbance
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Geomorphic Setting
    DRAFT NCCP/MSAA/HCP CHAPTER 3: EXISTING BIOLOGICAL AND HYDROLOGIC/ GEOMORPHIC SETTING This Chapter describes the biological setting of the approximately 131,600-acre Southern NCCP/MSAA/HCP study area, including portions of the CNF (Figure 3-M). Within the study area, the approximately 91,660 acres of non-federal land defines the planning area for the NCCP/MSAA/HCP. Management of resources in the CNF is the responsibility of the USFS. Therefore, the description of the biological and hydrologic/geomorphic setting includes a general description of the CNF, but the main focus of this section is the 91,660-acre planning area. The 91,660-acre planning area is further subdivided into the four Subarea Plan areas described in Chapter 1 (Figure 3-M). The Subareas total approximately 86,339 acres. The remaining 5,321 acres are comprised on the cities of Lake Forest and Dana Point, and internal areas that are “not a part” of the Subareas, such as Ladera Ranch, Las Flores, the wastewater treatment plant in lower Chiquita, Tesoro High School, FTC-North, and the Nichols Institute bounded by Caspers Wilderness Park. To describe the biological setting of the NCCP/MSAA/HCP planning area, this Chapter includes the following sections: Section 3.1 Database development methods; Section 3.2 Vegetation communities that make up theplanning area and the key wildlife species that are typical of, or indicate, high quality vegetation communities; Section 3.3 Existing geomorphic and hydrologic conditions and processes; Section 3.4 Sensitive wildlife and plant species distribution in the planning areaand subarea plan areas; and Section 3.5 Regional and subregional wildlife habitat linkages.
    [Show full text]
  • Sec 05 11 Tribal and Cultural Resources
    Tribal and Cultural Resources 5.11 TRIBAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 5.11.1 PURPOSE This section identifies existing cultural (including historic and archeological resources), paleontological and tribal resources within the Study Area, and provides an analysis of potential impacts associated with implementation of the General Plan Update. Potential impacts are identified and mitigation measures to address potentially significant impacts are recommended, as necessary. This section is primarily based upon the Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Rancho Santa Margarita General Plan Update, Rancho Santa Margarita, Orange County, California (Cultural Study), and the Paleontological Resources Impact Assessment Report for the Rancho Santa Margarita General Plan Update, Orange County, California (Paleontological Assessment), both prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) and dated April 2019; refer to Appendix F, Cultural/ Paleontological Resources Assessment. 5.11.2 EXISTING REGULATORY SETTING Numerous laws and regulations require Federal, State, and local agencies to consider the effects a project may have on cultural resources. These laws and regulations establish a process for compliance, define the responsibilities of the various agencies proposing the action, and prescribe the relationship among other involved agencies (i.e., State Historic Preservation Office and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation). The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, the California Environmental
    [Show full text]
  • Phase I Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey
    PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY PROPOSED ALTON PARKWAY EXTENSION PROJECT, INCLUDING BAKER RANCH, LAKE FOREST, CALIFORNIA Prepared for Mr. Gene Spindler Shea Properties Vice President, Commercial Development 130 Vantis, Suite 200 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 USGS 7.5-Minute Quadrangle: El Toro, California BonTerra Project No. Shea J003 Prepared by Patrick O. Maxon, M.A., RPA BonTerra Consulting 151 Kalmus Drive, Suite E-200 Costa Mesa, California 92626 T: (714) 444-9199 F: (714) 444-9599 August 2008 Proposed Alton Parkway Extension Project MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT PURPOSE AND SCOPE BonTerra Consulting undertook this project as part of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements for the proposed Alton Parkway Extension project. The Phase I Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Report addresses the remaining approximately 380 acres of the Baker Ranch. This cultural study includes a literature review/records search, Native American scoping, and a pedestrian reconnaissance of the project area. The format of this report follows Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format (Office of Historic Preservation 1990). DATES OF INVESTIGATION BonTerra Consulting Archaeologist Patrick Maxon (see Appendix A: Personnel Qualifications), a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA), conducted the literature review at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton on July 23, 2008. The cultural resources survey of the property was conducted on July 30, 2008 by Patrick Maxon and Justin Partridge of BonTerra. Mr. Maxon visited the Lake Forest Historical Society at Heritage Hill Historical Park on August 6, 2008. This report was completed in August 2008. FINDINGS OF THE INVESTIGATION In summary, four cultural resources (CA-ORA-40, CA-ORA-758, CA-ORA-1004 and CA-ORA-1150) are recorded within the Alton Parkway/Baker Ranch project area.
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX J Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project Prepared by Bonterra Consulting, December 2009
    APPENDIX J Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project Prepared by Bonterra Consulting, December 2009 PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE POSEIDON SEAWATER DESALINATION PROJECT, HUNTINGTON BEACH, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for Alan Ashimine, Senior Associate Environmental Services RBF Consulting 14725 Alton Parkway Irvine, California 92618 USGS 7.5-Minute Quadrangles Newport Beach and Tustin, California BonTerra Project No. RBF J499 Prepared by Joan C. Brown, M.A., RPA Patrick O. Maxon, M.A., RPA BonTerra Consulting 151 Kalmus Drive, Suite E-200 Costa Mesa, California 92626 T: (714) 444-9199 F: (714) 444-9599 December 2009 J-1 Proposed Poseidon Desalination TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Management Summary/Abstract ........................................................................................ MS-1 Section 1.0 Undertaking Information/Introduction ............................................................... 1 1.1 Contracting Data ........................................................................................ 1 1.2 Purpose ..................................................................................................... 1 1.2.1 State ............................................................................................... 1 1.2.2 City of Huntington Beach ............................................................... 2 1.3 Undertaking ............................................................................................... 2 1.4 Exhibit .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Holy Fire Watershed Report
    Burned Area Emergency Response Holy Fire Cleveland National Forest Hydrology and Watershed Specialist Report August 25, 2018 Overview of Horsethief Canyon above Interstate 15 Submitted by: Kelsha L. Anderson, Angeles National Forest Hydrologist I. Objectives This report summarizes the results from the hydrologic assessment of the Holy Fire in the center of the Santa Ana Mountains as part of the Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER). II Potential Values at Risk Values at Risk (VARs) on Forest Service land (FS) are addressed in Appendix D. Many VARs that could be impacted by the fire are on adjacent private, state, county, or local government lands. The State Watershed Emergency Response Team conducted a detailed analysis of non-FS VARs that will be published in a separate document. The FS BAER team and State WERT team collaborate and share information during post-fire assessments to ensure VARs are identified. On private lands, the primary contact for treatments is the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). III. Resource Condition Assessment Fire and Site Description The Holy Fire started on August 06, 2018 at 1:30pm (suspected arson). As of August 21, 2018 the fire had burned 22,982 acres (90% contained). The burn occurred adjacent to California State Highway 74 and Interstate 15. Much of the Holy Fire last burned between 1940-80’s. Table 1: Fire History in Holy Fire Perimeter Holy Fire area impacted Fires of Note Coldwater Canyon Silverado (1987), Unnamed (1942) Mayhew Canyon Indian (1966), Wright Cyn (1942) Indian Canyon
    [Show full text]
  • GENERAL PLAN APPENDIX December 2012 TABLE of CONTENTS
    County of Orange GENERAL PLAN APPENDIX December 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS LAND USE ELEMENT Appendix III-1 Growth Management Program Guidelines …………………………………………… 1 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Appendix IV-1 Growth Management Transportation Implementation Manual ……………………… 9 Appendix IV-2 Planning Criteria for Determining Arterial Highway Classifications ……………….. 30 Appendix IV-3 Bikeway Designation Planning Guidelines ………………………………………….. 36 Appendix IV-4 County Designation Scenic Highways and Candidate Corridors ……………………. 38 Appendix IV-5 Scenic Highways Corridor Implementation Planning Guidelines …………………… 44 Appendix IV-6 List of Acronyms/Abbreviations …………………………………………………….. 48 RESOURCES ELEMENT Appendix VI-1 List of Acronyms/Abbreviations …………………………………………………….. 56 RECREATION ELEMENT Appendix VII-1 Local Park Implementation Plan Criteria: Private Parks, Facilities and Improvements 60 Appendix VII-2 Local Park Guidelines: Site Characteristics, Acquisition, Design, Maintenance & Funding 66 Appendix VII-3 Local Park Site Criteria ……………………………………………………………… 75 Appendix VII-4 Policy for Allocating Funds for Trail Development ………………………………… 81 Appendix VII-5 Trail Descriptions …………………………………………………………………… 85 Appendix VII-6 Staging Areas ……………………………………………………………………….. 109 Appendix VII-7 Trail Design Standards ……………………………………………………………… 115 Appendix VII-8 Regional Recreation Facilities Inventory …………………………………………… 119 Appendix VII-9 List of Acronyms/Abbreviations ……………………………………………………. 129 NOISE ELEMENT Appendix VIII-1 Noise Element Definitions and Acronyms …………………………………………
    [Show full text]
  • Notice of Availability and Public Meeting Notice – Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the San Juan Watershed Project
    Notice of Availability and Public Meeting Notice – Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the San Juan Watershed Project San Juan Watershed Project To: California Office of Planning and Research; Responsible and Trustee Agencies; County Clerks; and Other Interested Parties Subject: Notice of Availability of a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report and Public Meeting Notice Project: San Juan Watershed Project Lead Agency: Santa Margarita Water District Project Description: The Santa Margarita Water District (SMWD), in conjunction with South Coast Water District (SCWD), is proposing to the San Juan Watershed Project (proposed project) that would develop facilities to manage surface water resources to enhance groundwater resources of the San Juan Groundwater Basin. The proposed project would increase the capture and storage of urban runoff and stormwater, optimize the use of recycled water for beneficial reuse, minimize the potential for undesirable impacts, and augment local groundwater supplies to reduce the region’s dependence on imported water. SMWD, acting as Lead Agency, has prepared a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to provide decisionmakers, the public, and trustee agencies with information about the potential effects on the local and regional environment associated with implementation of the proposed project. The proposed project would occur within the San Juan Creek Watershed, within Southern Orange County on the western flank of the Santa Ana Mountains, and would be constructed in multiple phases. The first phase (Phase I) would include installation of three rubber dams within San Juan Creek that would act as in-stream detention facilities for both dry weather and wet weather flows within San Juan Creek and Arroyo Trabuco.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix D Phase I Cultural Resources
    Smith Basin Improvement Project Appendix D Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Smith Basin Rehabilitation Project, City of Orange, California, VCS Environmental, January 2019 PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE SMITH BASIN REHABILITATION PROJECT CITY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA Prepared For Greg Woodside Executive Director of Planning and Natural Resources Orange County Water District 18700 Ward Street Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Prepared By Patrick O. Maxon, M.A., RPA VCS Environmental 30900 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 100 San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 [email protected] January 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page National Archaeological Database (NADB) Information Sheet ................................................ S-1 Management Summary ........................................................................................................... S-2 1.0 Undertaking Information/Introduction ........................................................................ 1 1.1 Area of Potential Effects ...................................................................................... 1 1.2 Project Description .............................................................................................. 1 1.3 Project Personnel................................................................................................ 4 2.0 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................ 5 2.1 Federal ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix B Faunal Compendium
    DRAFT BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT FOR THE LOWER CURTIS PARK EXPANSION MISSION VIEJO, CALIFORNIA JULY 2020 Prepared for: Mark Chagnon City of Mission Viejo 200 Civic Center Mission Viejo, California 92691 Telephone: Prepared By: Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc. 1940 East Deere Avenue, Suite 250 Santa Ana, California 92705 Contact: Tony Bomkamp Telephone: (949) 340-7333 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Location of Project Site ...................................................................................................1 1.2 Project Description ..........................................................................................................1 2.0 METHODOLOGY 2.1 Summary of Surveys .......................................................................................................2 2.2 Soil Resources .................................................................................................................3 2.3 Botanical Resources ........................................................................................................4 2.4 Wildlife Resources ..........................................................................................................5 2.5 Special-Status Habitats....................................................................................................6 3.0 REGULATORY SETTING 3.1 State and/or Federally Listed Plants and Animals ..........................................................7 3.2 California Environmental Quality Act ............................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • Land Management Plan Monitoring and Evaluation Report Fiscal Year 2019
    Land Management Plan United States Department of Agriculture Monitoring and Forest Service Pacific Evaluation Report Southwest Region September 2020 Cleveland National Forest Fiscal Year 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 4 2. Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 4 3. LMP Part 1 Monitoring ........................................................................................................................ 6 Forest Goal 1.1: Community protection (LMP, Part 1, pg. 19) ............................................................... 6 Forest Goal 1.2: Restoration of forest health (LMP, Part 1, pg. 20) ....................................................... 14 Forest Goal 1.2.1: Fire Regime I, 0 to 35 years, low severity (LMP, Part 1, pg. 22) ............................ 15 Forest Goal 1.2.2: Maintain or increase percent chaparral and coastal sage scrub in condition class 1 (LMP, Part 1, pg. 25) .............................................................................................................................. 16 Forest Goal 2.1: Invasive species (LMP, Part 1, pg. 31) ....................................................................... 18 Forest Goals 3.1 and 3.2: Managed recreation in a natural setting (LMP, Part 1, pp. 33 to 36) ............ 19 Forest Program Goal – Her 1:
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Resources Assessment
    Appendix B: Cultural Resources Assessment Cultural Resources Assessment Anaheim Boulevard Hotel Development City of Anaheim, Orange County, California USGS 7.5 Minute Anaheim Quadrangle San Juan Cajon de Santa Ana Land Grant Prepared for: City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162 Anaheim, CA 92805 714.765.5238 Contact: Christine Saunders, Associate Planner Prepared by: FirstCarbon Solutions 250 Commerce, Suite 250 Irvine, CA 92602 714.508.4100 Contact: Jasson Brandman, Project Director Cecilia So, Project Manager Date: November 17, 2017 NORTH AMERICA | EUROPE | AFRICA | AUSTRALIA | ASIA WWW.FIRSTCARBONSOLUTIONS.COM THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of Anaheim—Anaheim Boulevard Hotel Development Cultural Resources Assessment Table of Contents Table of Contents Management Summary ................................................................................................................. 1 Section 1: Introduction .................................................................................................................. 9 1.1 - Project Location and Description ...................................................................................... 9 1.2 - Natural Setting ................................................................................................................... 9 1.3 - Assessment Team .............................................................................................................. 9 Section 2: Cultural Setting ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Additions to the Vascular Flora of the Santa Ana Mountains, California Steve Boyd Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden
    Aliso: A Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany Volume 14 | Issue 2 Article 4 1995 Additions to the Vascular Flora of the Santa Ana Mountains, California Steve Boyd Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden Timothy S. Ross Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden Fred M. Roberts Jr. United States Fish and Wildlife Service Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.claremont.edu/aliso Part of the Botany Commons Recommended Citation Boyd, Steve; Ross, Timothy S.; and Roberts, Fred M. Jr. (1995) "Additions to the Vascular Flora of the Santa Ana Mountains, California," Aliso: A Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany: Vol. 14: Iss. 2, Article 4. Available at: http://scholarship.claremont.edu/aliso/vol14/iss2/4 Aliso, 14(2), pp. 105-108 © 1995, by The Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden, Claremont, CA 91711-3157 ADDITIONS TO THE VASCULAR FLORA OF THE SANTA ANA MOUNTAINS, CALIFORNIA STEVE BoYD AND TIMOTHY S. Ross Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden, 1500 North College Avenue, Claremont, California 91711 AND FRED M. ROBERTS, JR. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad Field Office, 2730 Loker Avenue West, Carlsbad, California 92008 ABSTRACT The Santa Ana Mountains, part of the Peninsular Ranges of southern California, have been well­ documented floristically. Nevertheless, since publication of a preliminary vascular flora for the range in 1978, a significant number of additions have been reported. These are principally from studies of two subregions in the southern portion of the range and include 42 taxa from the Santa Rosa Plateau and 88 taxa from the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness Area. Documentation is provided here for an additional 66 taxa not included in other published floristic accounts of the Santa Ana Mountains.
    [Show full text]