HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-04-20; Planning Commission; Resolution 71621
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
18
19
24
25
26
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7162
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NIEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM AND ADDENDUM TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
35 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT ON A 3.67 GROSS ACRE SITE
GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN THE TERMINUS OF ALTIVA PLACE AND
ALTISMA WAY, AND NORTH OF ALICANTE ROAD IN LOCAL FJl1CILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 6.
CASE NAME: CASCADA VERDE
CASE NO.: CT 15-01/PUD 15-03/SDP 15-02/HDP 15-02/HMP 16-02
WHEREAS, Lanshire Housing Partners, LLC, "Developer/Owner," has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
Parcel 4 of Parcel Map No. 13158, in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California, Filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County, February 21, 1984 as Instrument No.
84-061796 of Official Records
("the Property"); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program and Addendum was prepared in conjunction with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on April 20, 2016, hold a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law to consider said req~est; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering
uny written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad as follows:
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission
hereby ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Miti1gation Monitoring and
Reporting Program and Addendum, Exhibit "MND," according to Exhibits "Notice of
Intent (NO!)," and "Environmental lmp<lc:t Assessment Form -Initial Study (EIA),"
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings and subject to
the following condition:
11
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
13
--Findin~:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a.
b.
if has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Prrogram and Addendum for Cascada Verde -CT
15-01/PUD 15-03/SDP 15-02/HDP 15-02/HMP 16-02, the environmental impacts
therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to APPROVING of the
project; and
the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
and Addendum has been prepared in a~cordance with requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection
Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
d. based on the EIA and comments thereon, there is no substanti1al evidence the project
will have a significant effect on the environment.
1. Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, Cascada Verde-CT 15-01/PUD 15-
14 03/SDP 15-02/HDP 15-02/HMP 16-02 Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and
the Addendum.
15
16
17
18
19
20
211
221 I
2311
::I
26 I
27
28
NOTICE TO APPLICANT
An appeal of this decision to the City Council must be filed with the City Clerk at 1200 Carlsbad Village
Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92008, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the Planning
Commission's decision. Pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.54, section 21.54.150, the
appeal must be in writing and state the reason(s) for the appeal. The City Council must make a
determination on the appeal prior to any judicial review.
PC RESO.NO. 7162 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of
the City of Carlsbad, California, held on April20, 2016, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Chairperson Anderson, Commissioners Black, Goyarts, L'Heureux,
Segall and Siekmann
Commissioner Montgomery
VEL YN ANDERSON, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATIEST:
~n
DON NEU
City Planner
PC RESO NO. 7162 -3-
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT NO:
PROJECT LOCATION:
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Cascada Verde
CT 15-01/PUD 15-03/SDP 15-02/HP 15-02/HMP 16-02
City of
Carlsbad
On property east of Altisma Way, north of Alicante Road, west of Altiva Place
(APN # 215-240-36)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 35 unit multi-family development on a 3.67 gross acre site consisting of five,
four-plex buildings, and three, five-plex buildings. Each building will have three stories with unit sizes
ranging from 809 square feet to 2,010 square feet. Access will be taken off Altisma Way and Altiva
Place. A road over an unnamed creek will connect the two sides of the project. A portion of the on-site
drainage course will be channelized and retaining walls will be used along both channel banks of the
creek. An existing 72-inch culvert within the Alicante Road right-of-way will be replaced with a 96-inch
culvert to lower the water surface elevations within the site.
DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described
project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the Initial
Study identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as
follows:
Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on the attached sheet have
been added to the project.
A copy of the Initial Study documenting reasons to support the Mitigated Negative Declaration is on file
in the Planning Division, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
ADOPTED: April 20, 2016 pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 7162
~ Van Lynch
(/-• Principal Planner
&
Planning Division
1635 Faraday Avenue I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-602-4600 I 760-602-8560 fax
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT NO:
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Cascada Verde
CT 15-01/PUD 15-03/SDP 15-02/HDP 15-02
City of
Carlsbad
PROJECT LOCATION: On property east of Altisma Way, north of Alicante Road, west of Altiva Place
(APN # 215-240-36)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 35 unit multi-family development on a 3.67 gross acre site consisting of five,
four-plex buildings, and three, five-plex buildings. Each building will have three stories with unit sizes
ranging from 809 square feet to 2,010 square feet. Access will be taken off Altisma Way and Altiva
Place. A road over an unnamed creek will connect the two sides of the project. A portion of the on-site
drainage course will be channelized and retaining walls will be used along both channel banks of the
creek. An existing 72-inch culvert within the Alicante Road right-of-way will be replaCI~d with a 96-inch
culvert to lower the water surface elevations within the site.
PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the
above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of
said review, the Initial study identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1)
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study are released for public review would avoid the effects
or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur,
and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project "as
revised" may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Neg;ative Declaration
will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission.
AVAILABILITY: A copy of the Initial Study documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Division, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008
and is available online at: http://www.carlsbadca.gov/services/depts/planning/agendas~.
COMMENTS: Comments from the public are invited. Pursuant to Section 15204 of the CEQA
Guidelines, in reviewing Mitigated Negative Declarations, persons and public agencies should focus on
the proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. If persons
and public agencies believe that the project may have a significant effect, they should: (1) identify the
specific effect; {2) explain why they believe the effect would occur; and (3) explain why they believe the
effect would be significant. Written comments regarding the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
should be directed to Austin Silva, Associate Planner, at the address listed below or via email to
austin.silva@carlsbadca.gov. Comments must be received within 30 days of the date of this notice.
The proposed project and Mitigated Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval/adoption
by the Planning Commission. Additional public notices will be issued when those pUiblic hearings are
scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Austin Silva in the Planning Division at (760) 602-4631.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD
PUBLISH DATE
September 21, 2015-October 21, 2015
September 21, 2015
Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
1635 Faraday Avenue I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-602-4600 I 760-602-8560 fax
Initial Study
1. PROJECT NAME: Cascada Verde
Cicyof
Carlsbad
2. PROJECT NO: CT 15-01/PUD 15-03/SDP 15-02/HDP 15-02
3. LEAD AGENCY:
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
5. LEAD AGENCY CONTACT PERSON:
austin.silva@carlsbadca.gov
4. PROJECT APPLICANT:
Hofman Planning & Engineering
Eric Munoz
Suite 1
3156 Lionshead Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92010
Austin Silva, Associate Planner, (760) 602-4631,
6. PROJECT LOCATION: On property east of Altisma Way, north of Alicante Road, west of Altiva Place
(APN # 215-240-36)
7. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: RMH (Residential Medium-High)
8. ZONING: RDM (Residential Multiple Family)
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 35 unit multi-family development on a 3.67 gross acre site consisting of
five, four-plex buildings, and three, five-plex buildings. Each building will have three stories with
unit sizes ranging from 809 square feet to 2,010 square feet. Access will be taken off Altisma Way
and Altiva Place. A road over an unnamed creek will connect the two sides of the project. A portion
of the on-site drainage course will be channelized and retaining walls will be used along both
channel banks of the creek. An existing 72-inch culvert within the Alicante Road right-of-way will be
replaced with a 96-inch culvert to lower the water surface elevations within the site.
June 2013 Initial Study
Project Name: Cascada Verde
Project No: CT 15-01/PUD 15-03/SDP 15-02/HDP 15-02
10. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING/SURROUNDING LAND USES: The project site is located within an
undeveloped canyon surrounded by residential development. An unnamed intermittent stream
course flows from north to south through the canyon. The majority of the site consists of riparian
woodland. The site also contains eucalyptus woodland, nonnative grassland, coastal sage scrub, and
a small patch of native grassland. Remnant developed areas from human activity containing brick
flooring, retaining walls, fire pits, and awnings are scattered throughout the southern portion of the
site, under the riparian woodland canopy from human activity.
11. OTHER REQUIRED AGENCY APPROVALS (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements}:
Tract Map, Planned Unit Development, Site Development Plan, and Hillside Development Permit.
12. PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: N/A
13. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant
Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
D Aesthetics D Greenhouse Gas Emissions D Population & Housing
D Agriculture & Forestry Resources D Hazards/Hazardous Materials D Public Services
D Air Quality D Hydrology/Water Quality D Recreation
~ Biological Resources D Land Use & Planning D Transportation/Traffic
D Cultural Resources D Mineral Resources D Utilities & Service Systems
~ Geology/Soils D Noise D Mandatory Findings of Significance
14. PREPARATION: The Initial Study for the subject project was prepared by:
Jj It '1/rb/J:J
Austin shva, ;:p: Associate Planner Date
June 2013 -2-Initial Study
Project Name: Cascada Verde
Project No:· CT 15-01/PUD 15-03/SDP 15-02/HDP 15-02
15. DETERMINATION: (to be completed by Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
!2';1 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the ~~nvironment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
herein have been· added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact(s)" on the
environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1} has been adequately analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described herein. A Negative Declaration
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a)
have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
includihg revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, nothing further is required.
16. ENVIRONMENTAL pETERMINATION: The initial study for this project has been reviewed and the
vironmental determination, indicated above, is hereby approved.
fjo1 VAN LYNCH, Principal Planner Date
17. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES: This is to certify that I have reviewed
the mitigation measures in the Initial Study and concur with the addition of these measures to the
project.
£&., Mu,.;;~
S~nMure . Date
Er~c. Mu;J~t
Print Name
June 2013 -3-Initial Study
Project Name: Cascada Verde
Project No: CT 15-01/PUD 15-03/SDP 15-02/HDP 15-02
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls
outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on
project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with
mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is
substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially
Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to
a "Less Than Significant Impact". The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and
briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from
"Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within
the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on
the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the
project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources
for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
June 2013 -4-Initial Study
I.
Project Name: Cascada Verde
Project No: CT 15-01/PUD 15-03/SDP 15-02/HDP 15-02
... "t:l ..... u u "' ~ ~ "' Q. ..... "' Q.
E "§ 0 .§
AESTHETICS >:; ..... Q. ..... t: = c: ~ ; 0 c: c: "' "' "' "' "' -~ ~ ..c.!:! ~ £~ Q.
..... --.§ Qj ·-"'·c . , ·c ..... c: U') QO:!::: Would the project: i.~ "' t>ll 0 Siii:!: ~iii z
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? D D D lg]
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic D D lg] D
highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the D D lg] D site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would D D D lg]
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
a) No Impact. The proposed 35 unit condominium project is located on a site with no scenic vistas. No
impact assessed.
b, c) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not located adjacent to any state scenic
highways, nor are there any rock outcroppings or historic buildings on-site. Riparian woodland
vegetation that can be seen from the surrounding streets will be removed and there is a band of mature
eucalyptus trees located along the northwestern edge of the site that is visible from the adjacent
residential development will also be removed to accommodate the proposed development.
d) No Impact. The proposed use is consistent with the surrounding multi-family residential uses and
will be designed similar to surrounding multi-family uses such that it doesn't not contr~bute a significant
amount of light or glare. No impact assessed.
..... "t:l t: u "' ~2 "' Q. ..... "' Q.
.§ "§ 0 .§
II. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES* > ..... ..... Q. ..... ..... = c: c: c: ... c: c: u ~ ~ cu ~ 8 "' "' "' .s:::. -~ Q. c~ ..c ·-c .§ +'!!::-..... -Qj ·-U) c ...: , ·c ..... c:
Would the project: 0 .!!!' U') b.O ·-"' t>ll 0 ~"' Siii2 Sv; z
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to D D D lg] the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act D D D lg] contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to D D D lg]
non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
* In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to
the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the California Department of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts
to forest resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range
Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in
Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.)
June 2013 -5-Initial Study
Project Name: Cascada Verde
Project No: CT 15-01/PUD 15-03/SDP 15-02/HDP 15-02
a-c)No Impact. There will be no impacts to agricultural resources since the site is not designated, nor
has it been historically or currently used for farmland. The proposed project is consistent with the City
of Carlsbad's General Plan. The subject site is zoned RDM (Residential Density Multiple) and is not
subject to a Williamson Act Contract The project would not result in other changes to the environment
that would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. The General Plan Land Use
designation is Residential Medium-High Density (RMH), which anticipates one-family, two-family and
multiple-family residential development. Given the steep slopes, surrounding residential development
and lack of existing or historical agricultural infrastructure, it is unlikely that agricultural operations
would be viable at this location. Development of the site as proposed would not adversely affect
agricultural resources. No impact assessed.
... 'C ... u <Ill u "' "' c. .c.'"' c. .. <Ill E ·~ :o .§
AIR QUALITY* ~~ +I e-.. .. c: c:: 10 c c u Ill. "' "' "' "' u "' "' "' .. u .c. .!::! 'C: .c. u c. cq:: +"' ..... ~-t-£ .§ s "2 ~ "fo :!::! "' c 0 .!!.0 "' bO 0
Would the project: C.. II! s Vi :iE Sv; z
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air D D D ~ quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an D D ~ D existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard D D ~ D
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds
for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? D D D ~
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of D D D ~ people?
* Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
a) No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is currently designated as a
nonattainment area for the state standard for PM1o, PMz.s, 1-Hour and 8-Hour ozone, and the Federal 8-
Hour Standard for ozone. The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in
the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be
developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego
County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS)
developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of
Governments {SANDAG). The RAQS outlines the APCD's plans and regulatory control measures designed
to attain state air quality standards for ozone. The RAQS, which was initially adopted in 1991, is updated
on a triennial basis with the most recent update occurring in April 2009.
The APCD has also developed the SDAB's input into the State Implementation Plan (SIP) which is
required under the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) for pollutants that are designated as being in
nonattainment of national air quality standards for the air basin. The SIP relies on the same information
from SANDAG to develop emission inventories and emission control strategies that are included in the
attainment demonstration for the air basin.
June 2013 -6-Initial Study
Project Name: Cascada Verde
Project No: CT 15-01/PUD 15-03/SDP 15-02/HDP 15-02
The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that
are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each
city's and the County's general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan,
then the project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such
consistency would ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact.
Section 15125(d) ofthe State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific
reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable
air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS
and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air
quality standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a
project conforms with the RAQS which include the following:
• Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area?
• Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan?
The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is
being implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions in the re~gional air quality
plan and will in no way conflict with or obstruct implementation of the regional plan.
b) Less than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring stations to the project site are at
Camp Pendleton and Escondido (E. Valley Parkway). Data available for these monitoring sites from 2009
through 2011, indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were as follows: the 1-Hour
ozone concentration did not exceed the state standard any time during the years 2009 through 2011;
the 8-Hour ozone concentration exceeded both the state and federal standard in 2009 and 2010 and the
state standard was exceeded twice in 2011; the daily PM1o concentration exceeded the state standard in
2009, but not in 2010 or 2011; and the federal standard for PM1o and the federal 24-Hour PM2.s standard
was not exceeded during the 2009 through 2011 time period. No other violations of any air quality
standards have been recorded during the years 2009 through 2011.
The project would involve minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and construction. Such
emissions would be minimized through standard construction measures and BE~st Management
Practices (BMPs) that would reduce fugitive dust emissions and other criteria pollutant emissions during
construction. Long-term emissions associated with travel to and from the project will be minimal.
Although air pollutant emissions would be associated with the project, they would neiither result in the
violation of any air quality standard (comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin
quality readings), nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any
impact is assessed as less than significant.
c) Less than Significant Impact. The air basin is currently in a state non-attainment zone for ozone and
suspended fine particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively
considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however,
emissions associated with the proposed project would be minimal. Given the limited emissions
potentially associated with the proposed project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or
not the proposed project is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3), the
proposed project's incremental contribution to the cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable.
Any impact is assessed as less than significant.
June 2013 -7-Initial Study
Project Name: Cascada Verde
Project No: CT 15-01/PUD 15-03/SDP 15-02/HDP 15-02
d) No Impact. As noted above, the proposed would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or
concentrations. In addition, there are no sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or hospitals) located in the
vicinity ofthe project. No impact is assessed.
e) No Impact. The construction of the proposed project could generate fumes from the operation of
construction equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would
be short-term or transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transie~nt impacts is not
considered substantial.
.... ·~ .... u u "' cu "' a. .s:: <J a. +' IU .§ ·~ :s .§
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES > ... .... 1:1. .... .... = c c c ~-c c u ·~ e ra e B "' "' "' ..c -~ a. r::::tc: £I;: ~= .... -.§ (IJ ·-~ -~ ;!~ en "2 .... c
Would the project: ~tf "' ... 0 CD ·-~~:::; (IJ ·-z ..... V) -=-....0<1')
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or D ~ D D
regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or
wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in D ~ D D local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands
as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not D ~ D D limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident D D ~ D or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological D D D ~ resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved D D D ~
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
a) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. There is the potential occurrence of 10 listed
species and 17 other special-status animal species to be on the site. Based on the results of an on-site
survey conducted by LSA Associates, Inc., 7 of the 27 special-status animal species have a moderate or
higher potential of occurring on the subject property due to the presence of suitable habitat. No
special-status invertebrate species were observed during the survey. However, the monarch butterfly
has a moderate potential to occur on the subject property. The eucalyptus woodland located along the
northwestern edge of the property provides suitable roosting habitat for this species. Removal of the
eucalyptus woodland could potentially affect the monarch butterfly directly or indirectly through the
loss of suitable roosting habitat.
June 2013 -8-Initial Study
Project Name: Cascada Verde
Project No: CT 15-01/PUD 15-03/SDP 15-02/HDP 15-02
No special status avian species were observed during general and protocol surveys. However, the
Coastal California gnatcatcher and least Bell's vireo both have a moderate potential to occur on-site
based on the presence of suitable habitat. Impacts to coastal sage scrub and riparian woodland have
the potential to affect the Coastal California gnatcatcher and least Bell's vireo, respectively/ directly or
indirectly through the loss of suitable foraging and nesting habitat. Additionally, project-related
activities may cause both temporary and permanent impacts to foraging and/or nesting habitat for avian
species that are not considered special-status, but are covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty ACT
(MBTA). In order to avoid and minimize impacts to nesting birds, a qualified biologist should conduct a
nesting bird survey no more than 48 hours prior to vegetation-clearing activities if project activities are
conducted during the bird breeding season (February 1 through September 15).
No special-status mammal species were observed during surveys. Although, silver-haired bat, western
red bat, Hoary bat, and western yellow bat have a moderate potential to occur on the subject property
based on the presence of suitable habitat. Impacts to riparian woodland and Mexican fan palm trees
have the potential to affect these species directly or indirectly through the loss of suitable foraging and
roosting habitat.
Construction activities will affect special-status plant species. San Diego marsh-elder was observed on
the property during the general reconnaissance survey. This species will be affected by project-related
activities. No other special-status plant species were observed during surveys. Furthermore, other than
San Diego marsh-elder, no other special-status plant species had a moderate or higher potential.
b & c) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. An unnamed stream flows from north to
south through the canyon within the property. The drainage conveys flows in the northern portion of
the property though a natural channel to an elevated earthen road crossing consisting of a 36-inch
diameter culvert. The drainage in the southern portion of the project site includes previously-excavated
braided channels that deliver most flows to a 72-inch diameter culvert at Alicante Road into the
southern portion of the property. Several culvert outlets and unauthorized landscape drains outlet into
the channel providing additional water sources that support the wetlands.
The stream course is tributary to San Marcos Creek, Batiquitos Lagoon, and finally tlhe Pacific Ocean.
The water course is subject to Corps jurisdiction to the Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWN) and adjacent
wetlands because if its connection with the Pacific Ocean. The entire area mapped as wetlands meets
all three criteria for wetland waters of the U.S. as defined by the Corps: wetland hydrology, hydric soils,
and dominance of hydrophytic plant species. Riparian woodland vegetation including streambed and
banks, is subject to CDFW jurisdiction.
There is a potential that Corps waters will be temporary impacted with .15 acres and permanently
impacted with .49 acres (.64 acres total). The potential impacts to CDFW stream beds/banks and
riparian vegetation are .25 acres temporarily and .95 acres permanently (1.19 acres total). Temporary
impacts include short-term impacts resulting from construction, such as grading and
personnel/equipment access. Permanent impacts are a result of permanent features such as
condominium, roads, a bridge and other miscellaneous features.
The City of Carlsbad's Habitat Management Plan (HMP) requires mitigation for impacts to vegetation
communities. There shall be a no net loss and mitigation ratio for riparian woodlands, which are
included in habitat group A will be 3:1. Habitat types in group B shall be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1 as
well. The project developer will satisfy the mitigation requirements with the purchase of off-site
June 2013 -9-Initial Study
Project Name: Cascada Verde
Project No: CT 15-01/PUD 15-03/SDP 15-02/HDP 15-02
mitigation bank credits or other mitigation satisfactory to the city. In-lieu mitigation fees can be paid for
impacts to unoccupied coastal sage scrub, nonnative grassland, eucalyptus woodland, ornamental
vegetation and disturbed land.
Jurisdictional Areas
Mitigation for impacts to Corps jurisdictional areas will be satisfied by meeting the mitigation
requirement for impacts to CDFW jurisdictional areas provided the "no net loss" of wetlands
requirement is met. The purchase of mitigation bank credits or other off-site mitigation will satisfy the
CDFW mitigation requirement. If at least .38 acre (.49 acre of permanent impacts to wetlands less .11
acre of on-site wetland creation) of the riparian woodland mitigation is accepted for "wetland creation"
the resource agencies, no additional Corps wetland waters of the U.S. creation will be necessary to
satisfy the "no net loss" requirement. If the mitigation bank credits are not accepted by the Corps as
wetland creation, the applicant will be required to obtain .38 acres of wetlands off-site.
On-site Creation, Restoration, and Enhancement
Approximately .11 acre of nonnative grassland, coastal sage scrub, and ornamental vegetation to be
affected by project-related activities will be used for on-site creation of habitat. Th1::!se areas will be
planted with native wetland container plants, cuttings, and seed. Approximately .16 acre of riparian
woodland to be affected by project-related activities will be restored by planting wetland container
plants, cuttings and seeds. Approximately .38 acre or riparian woodland within the southern half of the
drainage will not be affected by project-related activities. All nonnative species will be removed to
enhance the habitat. A total of .65 acre would be used to offset anticipated mitigation for impacts to
potentially jurisdictional areas.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The majority of the project site could be used as a migration corridor
for wildlife species. There are connections to undeveloped strips of land to the north and northeast,
and a large undeveloped area to the east. Although there is little potential that the corridor can
function downstream towards the south given that there is existing residential development and a golf
course. The HMP does not identify this Link "E" connecting to any core habitat areas to the south. The
primary purpose of Link "E" is the east/west connection between core areas six and seven. The
proposed development is expected to impact wildlife movement because of a narrowing of the drainage
corridor. Although the project design includes double nine-foot wide by five-foot high box culverts
under a 31-foot long driveway crossing and increasing the size of the Alicante Road drainage structure
from 72" to 96", which will allow wildlife to move within the length of the drainage, most of the
movement corridor will be narrower than the pre-construction state. Furthermore, terrestrial wildlife
movement may be further affected because storm water will be concentrated into a narrower drainage,
likely increasing the rate of water flow. Since this link does not lead to a core area or other areas with
significant habitat, the impact is less than significant.
e & f) No Impact. As described in section "a" -"d," the proposed project is in conformance with all
local policies and the City of Carlsbad's Habitat Management Plan. No impact assessed.
June 2013 -10-Initial Study
Project Name: Cascada Verde
Project No: CT 15-01/PUD 15-03/SDP 15-02/HDP 15-02
..... ·~ t:; u Ill .c ~ Ill Q. ..... Ill Q.
.§ -~ 5 .§
v. CULTURAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES > ..... ..... Q. ..... ..... = c: c: c: ... c: c: u Ill Ill ~ -~ ~ Ill Ill Ill ~~ ~~ Q.
+" '+-·-.§ QJ ·-~ -~;~ II) "2 ..... c:
Would the project: ~~ "' I>D 0 ~iii:~ ~iii z
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical 0 0 ~ 0 resource as defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 0 0 ~ 0 archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or 0 0 ~ 0 site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of 0 0 ~ 0 formal cemeteries?
a, b, c, & d) Less than Significant Impact. There are no historical or archeological resources on the
subject property as defined in Section 15064.5 of CEQA. Additionally, according to Map 5.8-2 of the Final
Master Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan update, March 1994, there are no known
archaeologically sensitive areas in the immediate area of the project site. However, the project will be
conditioned to have archaeological monitoring by a qualified archeologist during construction in order
to identify subsurface cultural deposits. Monitoring is required during initial ground disturbance
including soil testing, soil remediation, and the initial grading.
Map 5.8-1 of the Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan update, March 1994,
identifies the site as having sandstones and siltstones of the Tertiary Age which has a high potential for
containing significant fossils. As such, the project will be conditioned to have a paleontologist attend
the pre-construction meeting, and full-time paleontological monitoring of mass grading and excavation
activities.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued
by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
June 2013 -11-
..... u Ill Q.
E >:;::: = c: Ill Ill -.:::; u c:«= Jlj ·c ~~
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
..... u Ill Q.
.§ ..... c: c: Ill Ill -5~
"' c: ~ -~ -' VI
0
t;
Ill Q.
.§
0 z
0
0
0
0
Initial Study
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Project Name: Cascada Verde
Project No: CT 15-01/PUD 15-03/SDP 15-02/HDP 15-02
.... ,, .... u cu u "' "' a. .s: •• a. .... , . .§ "lii :s .§ > .... .... c. .... t: = c:: ; ; 15 c:: c:: ~ .~ "' "' "' ~ -~ :~ .s::. .!::! a. c::-..... '+---.... -.§ ~ '2 en "i: ,.; "''2
Would the project: 0 .!!!! U) bO ··-"' 0.0 0 cu ·-~~:;: Ql ·-z O..<tl _, VI t::-.... .,.,
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in 0 0 IZl 0 on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Section 1802.3.2 of the
California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life or 0 0 IZl 0
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are 0 0 0 IZl
not available for the disposal of wastewater?
a.i) No Impact. The site is not situated within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault zone nor any local
agency zone. No impact assessed.
a.ii.-a.iv & c) Less Than Significant Impact. The site is in a seismically active region, although no
active or potentially active fault is known to exist at this site. A preliminary geotechnical evaluation was
prepared by GeoTek on May 20, 2015 and identified that some limited active seismic deformation (due
to triggering faults activities) may occur on the site, although it is likely to be minor considering the
distance to any currently known active fault. The nearest known active fault is tlhe Rose Canyon-
Newport Inglewood Fault, approximately 6.5 miles from the site.
In general, materials that are susceptible to liquefaction are loose, saturated granular soils having low
fines content under low confining pressures and some cohesive soils (silts and lean clays), which have
specific geotechnical characteristics. Given that the generally fine grained nature of the alluvium, the
apparent lack of saturation, and that it is generally stiff to hard liquefaction is not considered a
significant risk. No evidence of ancient landslides or slope instabilities at the site was observed during
the evaluation, or the review of pertinent geologic and geotechnical literature. Therefore the potential
for landslides is very low. Furthermore, the existing slopes appear to be performing well with no
indication of gross instability.
f) Less than Significant Impact. Soils consists of fill alluvium, terrace deposits and sedimentary
bedrock. Substantial soil erosion is not anticipated as erosion control will be in place during grading
operations and permanent protection will be added through landscape planters and slope and pad
compaction. In addition, rip rap, drop structures, the slow stream velocities and re-vegetation of the
stream bed will protect the stream bed from excessive soil erosion.
d) Less than Significant Impact. The test results from the preliminary geotechnical evaluation indicate
medium soil expansion, although expansion could range from low to high. Actual conditions will be
determined during grading operation. Due to these projected variations, at least three to five feet of
the upper layer of soil should be removed and re-compacted where structures are proposed and deeper
cuts of five to ten feet in areas underlain by alluvium soils.
June 2013 -12-Initial Study
Project Name: Cascada Verde
Project No: CT 15-01/PUD 15-03/SDP 15-02/HDP 15-02
e) No Impact. The proposed project does not propose septic tanks and will utilize the public sewer
system. Therefore, there will be no impacts involving soils that support the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems. No impact assessed.
.... ,, .... u u "' cu "' Q. ..c: •• Q. .... ,.
E "§: l5 .§
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS >:;:; +' Cl. .... .... = c c: c: ·-c c u ·~ ~ ~ -~ !~ "' "' "' ..s::: -~ Q. c:~ +I !':' --... !!:::: .§ QJ ·-.... c II) c ,..; "' c
Would the project: 0 .!!!' ~ .ao ~~ "' 0.0 0 QJ ·-z O..CI) ..... U'l ~~: .. -'ell
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, D D ~ D that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for D D ~ D the purposes of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
a & b) Less than Significant Impact. The project is expected to generate GHG emissions in the short-
term as a result of construction emissions and in the long-term as a result of automobile trips and
energy consumption. The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) published a
white paper with a suggested significance screening threshold criteria of 900 metric tons of GHGs.
While the proposed project is expected to generate some short-term and long-term GHG emissions that
could contribute directly and indirectly to the environment, the total GHG emissions generated by the
project (748.8097 metric tons), combined with the state and federal reduction measures are not
considered significant. Therefore, impacts from GHG emissions on the environment are considered to
be less than significant.
.... ,, .... u u "' cu "' Q. ..c: •• Q. .... ,. E "§: l5 .§
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS >:;:; +' Cl. .... .... = c c 1: 1 .. c c u "' "' 1 -~ !~ "' "' "' -...:::; u ..c .!::! Q.
Cti= +"' ..... --.... -.§ QJ ·-II) ·c ,..i "'·c .... c
Would the project: 0 .!!!' II) b.O .... "' 0.0 0 Q.J ·--=:; QJ ·-z O..CI) ..... U") -=--'ell
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous D D D ~
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the D D D ~
release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile D D D ~
of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section D D D ~ 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or environment?
e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan
has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public D D D ~ use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
June 2013 -13-Initial Study
Project Name: Cascada Verde
Project No: CT 15-01/PUD 15-03/SDP 15-02/HDP 15-02
'tl ·c ... u Ill Ql Ill a. .£: .... a. .... Ill E -~ 5 .5
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS >:; .... a. .... 'tl = c c c .. c c ~ fJ (Q ~ 8 Ill Ill Ill £~ a. Cti: -.s !E .5 .5 ! "2 ~ ~ :~ "''2
Would the project: 0 .!!!l "' ... 0 ~iii:;: Ql ·-z "-Ill .... Ill
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in D D D ~
the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted D D D ~ emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are D D D ~ adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
a-h) No Impact. The proposed project is multi-family residential, which does not involve the
transport of storage of hazardous materials. The site is not listed as a hazardous materials site. The
proposed units are designed with fire rated construction and sprinklers to reduce the risk of loss, injury
or death resulting from wildland fires. The project site, which is approximately 2.75 miles southeast of
the McClellan-Palomar Airport and well outside of the Airport Influence Area, will not expose people to
airport safety hazards. No impact assessed.
.... ·o .... u Ql u Ill Ill a. .£: .... a. .... Ill E -~ 5 .5
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY >:; .... a. .... .... = c c c .. c c u ~ ~ ~ .~ § Ill Ill Ill
.J: -~ a. Cii: ..., '+-·-.... -.5 Ql ·-~ -~ :~ rn '2 .... c
Would the project: 0 .!!!l "' ... 0 ~iii:~ Ql ·-z "-Ill .... Ill
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge D D ~ D requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be
a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground D D D ~ water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,
in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation D D ~ D
on-or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,
or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of D D ~ D
surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on-or
off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide D D ~ D
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
June 2013 -14-Initial Study
IX.
Project Name: Cascada Verde
Project No: CT 15-01/PUD 15-03/SDP 15-02/HDP 15-02
... -o ... u u "' ..c! "' c. .... ''" c. E "i :o .5
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY >:;::; ... a. ... t:l = c ; ; ~ c c ·~ ~ "' "' "' .&. .2 ~ £~ c. ctj:; +J ..... ·-.5 (11 ·-II) ·c -~..: V) "2 ... c
Would the project: 0 .!!9 m .!@ ~; "' 0.0 0
D.V> ..;;I c.n -=-~v; z
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? D D IZl D
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a
Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or D D D IZl
other flood delineation map?
h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would D D D IZl impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure D D D IZl
of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? D D IZl D
a) Less than Significant Impact. The subject property is required to comply with all federal, state and
local water quality regulations, including the Clean Water Act (California Administrative Code Title 23).
The project will comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements.
The project will implement specific erosion control measures and Storm Water Management techniques
to protect the downstream water quality of the Batiquitos Lagoon. These include the use of
bioretention areas. The storm water management plan will ensure acceptable water quality standards
will be maintained both during the construction phase as well as post-development.
b) No Impact. This project does not propose to directly draw any groundwater. The project will be
served via existing public water distribution lines that are adjacent to the site. No impact assessed.
c-e)Less Than Significant Impact. An un.named drainage course within the site flows in a southerly
direction and connects to an existing 72 inch culvert under Alicante Road at the southerly end of the
site. The culvert discharges on the south side of the Alicante Road into a concrete-lim~d channel within
the La Costa South Golf Course. The channel continues in a southwesterly to southerly direction and
ultimately converges with the San Marcos Creek main channel within the South Course. The existing 72
inch culvert cannot convey the 100 year flow rate of 628 cfs as indicated in the prelliminary drainage
report prepared by Chang Consultants on March 8, 2015. The applicant is proposing to increase the
culvert size to 96 inches which will reduce the potential for water overtopping Alicante Road and will not
impact downstream residences. The culvert increase will also not have an impact on the existing golf
course since it is already in the San Marcos Creek floodplain. The project will increase 100 year flow
rates, but the increases will be minor and can be mitigated by the proposed bio-retention basins.
f) Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project improvements will comply with
all federal, state and local water quality agency regulations, including the Clean Water Act and
associated NPDES regulations. A grading permit is required for the project prior to commencement of
grading, which requires review and approval of an erosion control plan. The erosion control plan will
employ grading construction BMP's which will reduce temporary impacts on water quality. In addition, a
storm water management plan (SWMP) was prepared for the project by Chang Consultants, dated
August 4, 2015. Through implementation of the recommended site design and source control BMP's,
June 2013 -15-Initial Study
Project Name: Cascada Verde
Project No: CT 15-01/PUD 15-03/SDP 15-02/HDP 15-02
post construction impacts to water quality will be mitigated. Therefore, the project will not result in
permanent or long term degradation of water quality and impacts are considered to be less than
significant.
g-i} No Impact. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to the
Flood Insurance Rate Map, Map No. 06073C1035G, May 2012. Therefore, the proposed project will not
result in the placement of housing or structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. According to the
City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992, the project site is
not located within any dam failure inundation area. No impact assessed.
j} Less Than Significant Impact. According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and
Mapping Study, November 1992, and based on historical events, and the generally accepted and
favorable geologic and seismic conditions along the San Diego County Coastline, the potential for
damage to the project site caused by tsunamis or seiches is considered to be low.
.... -o .... u OJ u "' .J: .... "' c. ..... "' c. E "§: 5 .§
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING >:;:; .... c. .... .... = c c c ... c c u ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ "' "' "' =~ c. Cti= ~ ...... ~-.§ QJ ·-~ ·c ..; "' "2 .... c
Would the project: 0 .!!." "' QO ·-"' 0.0 0 D.. VI ~iii:2: ~Vi z
a) Physically divide an established community? D D D ~
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or D D D ~
zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural D D D ~ community .conservation plan?
a-c}No Impact. The proposed project is a multi-family development consistent with the surrounding
land uses. The site does not physically divide an established community. The proposed project does not
conflict with any existing or proposed land use plans or policies of the City of Carlsbad. The project is
consistent with both the City of Carlsbad General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use
designations. The General Plan Land Use designation is RMH (Residential Medium High Density). RMH
anticipates two-family and multiple-family dwellings at 8 to 15 dwelling units per acre. The applicant is
proposing a multi-family development consisting of 35 dwelling units at a density of 11.54 dwelling units
per acre, and therefore is consistent with the RMH land use designation. The project is consistent with
the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan and does not conflict with any applicable plans or
policies. No impact assessed.
June 2013 -16-Initial Study
Project Name: Cascada Verde
Project No: CT 15-01/PUD 15-03/SDP 15-02/HDP 15-02
.... ·o .... u u "' OJ "' a. ..c:: -~ a. .... "' .§ ";i: 0 .§
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES > .... .... a. .... t) = c: ~ fij 0 c: c: "' "' "' "' "' ·g ~ -s ~ _g ..c.~ a.
OJ ·-...... l;t: .§ .... c: ~ ~ :~ Vl c:
Would the project: 0 -~ Vl bD 0 ~ Vi :~ OJ ·-z O..V") ....IV)
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that
would be of future value to the region and the residents of the D D D 0
State?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific D D D 0
plan, or other land use plan?
a-b) No Impact. Carlsbad is devoid of non-renewable energy resources. Mineral resources within
the City are no longer being utilized and extracted as exploitable natural resources. Therefore, no
mineral resource impacts will occur as a result of any project. (MEIR 93-01, page 5.13-1}
.... ·c .... u OJ u "' .c .... "' a. .... "' a. E ·~ 0 .§
XII. NOISE >= .... a. .... .... = c c c ... c c u .!! ra ~ -~ ~ "' "' "' 1:~ ..s::: .!:! a.
+' !!:: ·-.... -.§ OJ ·-"'·c .... c ~ So:~ Would the project result in: 0 .~ Vl bD 0 0..111 s iii:~ ~Vi z
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance D D D 0
or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne D D 0 D vibration or groundbourne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the D D D 0 project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels D D 0 D in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or D D D 0 public use airport, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to D D D 0
excessive noise levels?
a, c, e & f) No Impact. The project consists of a multi-family development with 35 units, which is
consistent in use and intensity with the surrounding development. The City of Carlsbad mandates that
required outdoor usable areas of residential projects are protected from noise levels exceeding 60 CNEL.
An Acoustical Analysis Report was prepared by Eilar Associates Inc., and traffic from surrounding
roadways was identified as the primary contributor to exterior noise levels. Future traffic noise levels
were calculated for the site and were shown to be 60 CNEL or less at all potential usable spaces, meeting
City of Carlsbad noise requirements. The City of Carlsbad and the State of California require interior
noise levels to not exceed 45 CNEL in residential habitable space. Interior noise levels are expected to
June 2013 -17-Initial Study
Project NamE~: Cascada Verde
Project No: CT 15-01/PUD 15-03/SDP 15-02/HDP 15-02
comply with the 45 CNEL requirement with typical building construction, and no detailed interior noise
analysis would be required for the proposed project prior to building permit issuance. No impact
assessed.
b & d) Less than significant Impact. The anticipated grading operation associated with the proposed
multi-family development will result in temporary and a minor increase in groundbourne vibration and
ambient noise levels. Following the commencement of grading, the ambient noise level and vibrations
are expected to return to pre-existing levels.
... "tl 't u '" ..r. ~~ '" c. ... ., c. E ·!i: ci .§
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING >:;::: +' Cl. ... ..... = c c c To .. c c u .!! res ra ~ 8 '" '" '" ~~ -s~ c.
Ill·--.s 5 .!:: "'·c .§ ... c 11!1 c .~
Would the project: 0 .!!!1 ~ .~ ~; "' ... 0 Cl.lll ..... t.n .:::: .. ~v; z
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, D D D lZI
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the D D D lZI construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the D D D lZI construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
a-c)No Impact. The proposed 35 unit multi-family development is consistent with the surrounding land
uses. The area surrounding the proposed development is designated for residential development and
was analyzed in the city's Growth Management Plan accordingly. The density of the proposed
development is consistent with the City of Carlsbad's General Plan. No impact assessed.
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES
June 2013
Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need
for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?
-18-
't '" c.
E >:;::: = c ·~ ~ ctt= Ill·-... c 0 .!!!1 Cl.lll
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
't '" c. .§
0 z
Initial Study
Project Name: Cascada Verde
Project No: CT 15-01/PUD 15-03/SDP 15-02/HDP 15-02
a & b) No Impact. The project's size of 35 dwelling units is consistent with the General Plan and
surrounding land uses, and therefore will not effect the provision and availability of public facilities (fire
protection, police protection, schools, parks, libraries, etc.). The proposed project shall be subject to the
conditions and facility service level requirements within the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone
6. Therefore, no significant public service impacts will occur as a result of this project. No impact
assessed.
.... "CI .... u a• u "' "' a.. .c ... a.. .... 01 E ·;: ~; .E
XV. RECREATION >:;:: .... '~ .... .... = 1: C 1:: L. 1: 1: u ~ ~ ra ~ 8 "' "' "' .J: .!:! a.. c:'i= .c ·-c: .E ...., '+--· .... -cv ·-"' ·c ... i ln "2 .... 1: 0 .!!!' VI bD ..... "' 1>.0 0 CLI ·-.:::::; cv ·-z 0..111 ...... ""Ill:. -'Ill
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial D D D [g]
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might D D D [g]
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
a & b) No Impact. The proposed 35 unit development will not result in the deterioration of existing
neighborhood or regional parks or cause such parks to be expanded. Therefore, no adverse physical
effect on the environment will occur as a result of this project.
.... , ... u u "' ,s;;$ "' a.. ... "' a.. E ·;: 0 .E
XVI.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC >:;:: ... a.. .... .... = 1: ; ; 0 1: 1: u ~ ~ "' "' "' -s~.E .J: -~ a.. c~ ....,~ .E ~ "2 "' ·c .,..; "' 1: Would the project: 0 .!!!' VI bO ·-"' 1>.0 0 ~;;;:!: cv ·-z 0..111 ..... Ill
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation
system, taking into account all modes of transportation including
mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of D D [g] D
the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections,
streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel D D D [g] demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase
in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial D D D [g]
safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm D D D [g]
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? D D D [g]
June 2013 -19-Initial Study
Project Name: Cascada Verde
Project No: CT 15-01/PUD 15-03/SDP 15-02/HDP 15-02
t: "'0 .... u "' ~2 "' Q. .... "' Q.
E -~ 5 .§
XVI.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC >:;::; .... Q. .... .... = c ; ; (; c c u .!!! n:s "' "' "' 1:~ ..c -~ g ..c: .!::! Q. ... --.... -.§ ., ·-~ -~ -~' VI'£: .... c
Would the project: 0 .!!!! "' 00 0 ~iii~ ., ·-z D.. VI .... Ill
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public
transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the D D D ~
performance or safety of such facilities?
a) Less than Significant Impact. The project will generate 280 Average Daily Trips (ADT) which is not
substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. While the increase in
traffic from the proposed project may be slightly noticeable, the street system has been designed and
sized to accommodate traffic from the project and cumulative development in the City of Carlsbad. The
proposed project will not cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system. Project associated impacts are therefore considered less than
significant.
b) No Impact. In 2009 the congestion management agency (SANDAG) employed an ((opt out" option
defined in Assembly Bill (AB) 2419. The congestion management program is no longer relevant to
development in the City of Carlsbad.
c) No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. It would not,
therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact
assessed.
d) No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards;
and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City's
General Plan and zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No
impact assessed.
e) No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the
Fire and Police Departments. No impact assessed.
f) No Impact. The project site is not served by or not located in an area conducive to public
transportation. No impact assessed.
.... "'0 .... u u "' ~2 "' Q. .... "' Q. .§ -~ :s .§
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS > .... .... Q. .... = c ; 5i 5 c c ~ B "' "' 'E~~ ..s:::: .!::! ct;::::: .... -.2! '2 U) '2 ..... II) '2
Would the project: 0 .!!.0 VI b.()·-"' 00 ~iii2 ., ·-D.. VI .... Ill
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable D D D Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the D D D construction of which would cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of D D D
which could cause significant environmental effects?
... u "' Q.
.§
0 z
~
~
~
June 2013 -20-Initial Study
Project Name: Cascada Verde
Project No: CT 15-01/PUD 15-03/SDP 15-02/HDP 15-02
tl "C ....
..c! ..,
"' "' Q. .... "' Q.
E -~ 5 .§
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS >-;; ... Q. ... tl = <: <: <: .... <: <: ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ "' "' "' £~ Q. c~ ... --.§ .! ·c ~·c...; ""·c
Would the project: i.~ VJ a.o ·-"' OD 0 ~;;;~ ~iii z
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded D D D IZl
entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider,
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity D D D IZl to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to D D D IZl accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations D D D IZl related to solid waste?
a-g)No Impact. The proposed residential development will be required to comply with all Regional
Water Quality Control Board Requirements. In addition, the Zone 6 LFMP anticipated that the project
site would be developed with a residential use and wastewater treatment facilities were planned and
designed to accommodate future residential uses on the site. All public facilities, including water
facilities, wastewater treatment facilities and drainage facilities have been planned and designed to
accommodate the growth projections for the city at build out. The proposed development on the site
will increase the demand for these facilities. However, the proposed density is less than originally
anticipated for this site and will not result in an overall increase in the city's growth projection in the
southeast quadrant. Therefore, the project does not create development that will result in a significant
need to expand or construct new water facilities/supplies, wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage facilities. No impact assessed.
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
June 2013
Would the project:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects?)
-21-
tl "' Q.
..§
> ... = <: ~ ~ ct;::: "' ·-.... <: 0 .!!!> O.Vl
D
D
D
D
tl "' Q.
..§
0 z
D
D
Initial Study
XVIII.
c)
Project Name: Cascada Verde
Project No: CT 15-01/PUD 15-03/SDP 15-02/HDP 15-02
... "'C ... u u "' .s:::.l!! "' Q. ... "' Q.
E -~ s .§
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE >:;::; ... Q. ... ... = c: c: c: .... c: c: u ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ "' "' "' .s:::. .!::! Q. c:tt: .... --..... -.§ Qj ·-U) "2 ~i V) "2 ... c: Would the project: 0 .!!!' ~ b.O ·-: "' 110 0 ll.lll ~iii~: ~iii z
Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or 0 0 ~ 0
indirectly?
a) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project's mitigation, as
outlined in the Biological Resources section of this study, will preclude any possible degrading of the
environment or substantial reductions of habitat and wildlife species. The site is identified as a
developed area in the HMP and proposed mitigation measures will ensure consistency with the city's
HMP. The mitigation for these impacts include the payment of mitigation fees and the creation,
restoration, and enhancement of habitat areas on-site as well as off-site. With these mitigation
measures, the project is consistent with the MHCP guidelines and the HMP regional pllanning efforts in
the City of Carlsbad. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts to wetlands, jurisdictional areas, and
plant and wildlife species. Furthermore, the project's required condition as mentione!d in the Cultural
Resources section of this report will preclude any elimination of important examples of major periods of
California history or prehistory, thus reducing impacts to less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant. The San Diego Association of Governments {SANDAG) projects regional
growth for the greater San Diego area, and local General Plan land use policies are incorporated into
SANDAG projections. Based upon those projections, region-wide standards, including storm water
quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation, congestion management standards, etc. are
established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the region. All of the city's
development standards and regulations are consistent with the region wide standards. The city's
standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage standards, traffic
standards, habitat and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that
development within the city will not result in a significantly cumulatively considerable impact.
There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a
cumulatively considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. As described
above, air quality would essentially be the same whether or not the development is constructed.
Furthermore, the project does not have a significant impact on regional circulation as a multi-family
development of 35 units is not a regional destination. The roads serving the proposed development are
operating at an 11A'' service level. Therefore, the projected 280 ADT's do not have an impact on the road
system.
With regard to any other potential impacts associated with the project, city standards and regulations
will ensure that development of the site will not result in any significant cumulatively considerable
impacts.
c) No Impact. Based upon the residential nature of the project and that future development of the
site will comply with city standards, the project will not result in any direct or indirect substantial
adverse environmental effects on human beings. No impact assessed.
June 2013 -22-Initial Study
Project Name: Cascada Verde
Project No: CT 15-01/PUD 15-03/SDP 15-02/HDP 15-02
XIX. LIST OF MITIGATION MEASURES (if applicable)
1. The following biological resource mitigation measures shall be implemented:
June 2013
a) Prior to issuance of a grading permit mitigation for impacts to 1.11 acres of riparian
woodland and .33 acres of native grassland shall be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1 and shall be
satisfied with the purchase of off-site mitigation bank credits or other mitigation satisfactory
to the City of Carlsbad.
b) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, mitigation impacts for .28 acres of unoccupied coastal
sage scrub, .29 acres of nonnative grassland, .57 acres of eucalyptus woodland, .42 acres of
landscape/ornamental, and .22 acres of disturbed land shall be mitigated by payment of an
in-lieu mitigation fee.
c) The contractor shall install orange construction fencing (or similar) along the perimeter of
the project impact area.
d) A biological monitor shall be present during all vegetation clearing and initial BMP
installation.
e) If vegetation clearing must occur during the bird breeding season (February 1 through
September 15}, a qualified biologist shall survey for the presence of nesting birds within the
immediate project vicinity no more than 48 hours prior to vegetation clearing. If clearing
does not occur within 48 hours of the nesting bird survey, then the area shall be resurveyed.
If nesting birds are found, then the qualified biologist shall establish an adequate buffer
zone (on a species by species, case by case basis) in which construction activities are
prohibited until the nest is no longer active. If the species is federally or State-listed as
threatened or endangered, then consultation with the USFWS and CDFW are required for
direction on appropriate buffer zone radius; however, if the species is not federally or State-
listed as threatened or endangered, then the size of the buffer zone is determined by the
biological monitor based on the amount, intensity, and duration of construction, and can be
altered based on site conditions. The permitting agencies may impose additional conditions
regarding the protection of nesting birds.
f) All vehicles, equipment, tools, and supplies shall stay within the limits of the project impact
footprint. Vegetation and potentially jurisdictional features located outside of the proposed
impact areas are not to be disturbed during access or construction.
g) BMP features (e.g., silt fencing, straw waddles, and gravel bags) shall be installed at the
project impact areas adjacent to potentially jurisdictional areas to prevent off-site
sedimentation.
h) Long-term storage of equipment, vehicles, tools, and supplies shall occur only within the
impact areas within the project footprint and designated staging areas. Vegetation and
potentially jurisdictional areas located outside of the proposed impact areas are not to be
used for storage.
-23-Initial Study
Project Name: Cascada Verde
Project No: CT 15-01/PUD 15-03/SDP 15-02/HDP 15-02
EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within
the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on
the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the
project.
EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad
Planning Division located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01),
City of Carlsbad Planning Division, March 1994.
2. Carlsbad General Plan, City of Carlsbad Planning Division, dated March 1994, as updated.
3. City of Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC}, Title 21 Zoning, City of Carlsbad Planning Division, as
updated.
4. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad (HMP},. City of Carlsbad
Planning Division, final approval dated November 2004.
5. San Diego Regional Airport Authority/San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission. McClellan-
Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP}. Amended December 1, 2011.
6. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Map No. 06073C1035G, May 2012.
7. Biological Resources Technical Report, LSA Associates, August 2015.
8. Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan, Chang Consultants, August 4, 2015
9. Preliminary Drainage Report for Cascada Verde, Chang Consultants, August 4, 2015.
10. Geotechnical Feasibility Evaluation, Geotek, March 4, 2015.
11. Acoustical Analysis Report for Altisma Way Condominiums, Eilar Associates, Inc., October 15, 2014.
June 2013 -24-Initial Study
ADDENDUM TO THE
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR
CASCADA VERDE
CT 15-01/PUD 15-03/SDP 15-02/HDP 15-02-CASCADA VERDE
EXHIBIT "ADDM"
The purpose of the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration is to describe revisions to the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program associated with the Cascada Verde proj1:!ct, and to state
the determination that this revision does not create any new significant environmental effects, that
none of the conditions contained in Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
have occurred, and that a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration is not required.
The revisions contained in this addendum establish Mitigation Measures for CUL-01 to the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program. The following are to be included into mitigation measures CUL-01:
a) Prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activities, the project developer shall
enter into a Pre-Excavation Agreement, otherwise known as a Tribal Culltural Resources
Treatment and Tribal Monitoring Agreement, with the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians. This
agreement will contain provisions to address the proper treatment of any cultural resources or
Luiseno Native American human remains inadvertently uncovered during the course of the
project. The agreement will outline the roles and powers of the Luiseno Native American
monitors and the archaeologist.
b) Any and all uncovered artifacts of Luiseno Native American cultural importance should be
returned to the tribe, and/or the most likely descendant and not be curated.
c) Native American monitors and archaeological monitors should have joint authority to
temporarily divert and/or halt construction activities. If cultural resources are discovered during
construction, all earth moving activity within and around the immediate discovery area must be
diverted until the Luiseno Native American monitor and the archaeologist can assess the nature
and significance of the find.
d) The Luiseno Native American monitor shall be present at the project's preconstruction meeting
to consult with grading and excavation contractors concerning excavation schedules and safety
issues, as well as consult with the principal archaeologist concerning the proposed archaeologist
techniques and/or strategies for the project.
e) If a significant cultural resource and/or unique archaeological resource are unearthed during
ground disturbing activities for this project, the tribe respectfully requests that they by notified
and consulted with in regards to the respectful and dignified treatment of those resources.
Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred
method of preservation for archaeological and cultural resources. If however,. the applicant is
able to demonstrate that avoidance of a significant and/or unique cultural resources is infeasible
and a data recovery plan is authorized by the City of Carlsbad as the lead agency, the San Luis
Rey Band of Mission Indians shall be consulted regarding the drafting and finalization of any
such recovery.
f) When cultural resources are discovered during the project, if the archaeologist collects such
resources, a Luiseno Native American monitor must be present during any testing or cataloging
of those resources. If the archaeologist does not collect the cultural resources that are
unearthed during the ground disturbing activities, the Luiseno Native American monitor, may in
their discretion, collect said resources and provide them to the tribe and respectful and dignified
treatment in accordance with the tribe's cultural and spiritual traditions.
g) If suspected Native American human remains are encountered, California Health and Safety
Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the San Diego County
Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to California Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until
a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. Suspected Native American
remains shall be examined in the field and kept in a secure location at the site. A Luiseno Native
American monitor shall be present during the analysis of the remains. If the San Diego County
Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC) must be contacted within 24 hours. The NAHC must then immediately
notify the "Most Likely Descendant" of receiving notification of the discovery. The Most Likely
Descendant shall then make recommendations within 48 hours, and engage in consultation
concerning treatment of remains as provided in Public Resources Code 5097.98.
h) In the event that fill is imported into the project area, the fill shall be clean of cultural resources
and documented as such. If fill material is to be utilized and/or exported from areas within the
project site, then that fill will need to be analyzed and confirmed by an archeologist and Luiseno
Native American monitor that such fill material does not contain cultural resources.
These clarifications/revisions to the Mitigation Measures are not considered substantial! or significant as
it relates to the environmental effects associated with the project, or the conditions contained in
Section 15162 of CEQA, and a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration is not required.
3-2'-/ -/G
Date: Don Neu
City Planer
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
PROJECT NAME: Cascada Verde
PROJECT NO: CT 15-01/SDP 15-02/PUD 15-03/HDP 15-02
APPROVAL DATE/RESOLUTION NUMBER($):
The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified
environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for .each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure
has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code
Section 21081.6).
MITIGATION MEASURE
810-1 a) Prior to issuance of a grading permit mitigation for impacts to 1.11
acres of riparian woodland and .33 acres of native grassland shall be
mitigated at a ratio of 3:1 and shall be satisfied with the purchase of
off-site mitigation bank credits or other mitigation satisfactory to the
City of Carlsbad.
b) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, mitigation impacts for .28 acres
of unoccupied coastal sage scrub, .29 acres of nonnative grassland,
i .57 acres of eucalyptus woodland, .42 acres of landscape/ornamental,
I and .22 acres of disturbed land shall be mitigated by payment of an
in-lieu mitigation fee.
c) The contractor shall install orange construction fencing (or similar)
along the perimeter of the project impact area.
d) A biological monitor shall be present during all vegetation clearing
and initial BMP installation.
Explanation of Headings
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept.= Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure.
Shown on Plans= When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated.
Verified Implementation= When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated.
Remarks= Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information.
Project
Ql ., c 1:1. c .2 ~ "' ... ... a: .19 110 IIOC c c Ql c c
5 ·;:: E 0 -g ~ "' .... ... .St: c ...
"2 ·c: a. 3: ~~ "' 0 0 <II 0 E ..c <~~ E Qj :iE :iEc <II >-0:::
PLN
Legend
PLN Planning Division
ENG Land Development Engineering Division
BlDG Building Division
Page 1 of 5
r---
MITIGATION MEASURE
I e) If vegetation clearing must occur during the bird breeding season
I (February 1 through September 15), qualified biologist shall survey for
the presence of nesting birds within the immediate project vicinity no
more than 48 hours prior to vegetation clearing. If clearing does not
occur within 48 hours of the nesting bird survey, then the area shall
. be resurveyed. If nesting birds are found, then the qualified biologist
I should establish an adequate buffer zone (on a species by species,
case by case basis) in which construction activities are prohibited until
the nest is no longer active. If the species is federally or State-listed
as threatened or endangered, then consultation with the USFWS and
CDFW are required for direction on appropriate buffer zone radius;
however, if the species is not federally or State-listed as threatened or
endangered, then the size of the buffer zone is determined by the
I biological monitor based on the amount, intensity, and duration of
I
construction, and can be altered based on site conditions. The
permitting agencies may impose additional conditions regarding the
I I f}
protection of nesting birds.
All vehicles, equipment, tools, and supplies shall stay within the limits
of the project impact footprint. Vegetation and potentially
jurisdictional features located outside of the proposed impact areas
are not to be disturbed during access or construction.
g) BMP features (e.g., silt fencing, straw waddles, and gravel bags)
should be installed at the project impact areas adjacent to potentially I jurisdictional areas to prevent off-site sedimentation.
h \ I-........... ,....,...,_ .... +-.,. ... ~n -.f l"'\n••in.r'V1~...,+ uehiriL"'C" +nniC" ~nrl C11nnlioc ch-::::~~11 I"' L.VII5-lCIIII ;)lU105C VI C'-!UitJIIIClll, v "'""'"""' 'VVI-'>J "'"" ........................... u ..
occur only within the impact areas within the project footprint and
designated staging areas. Vegetation and potentially jurisdictional
areas located outside of the proposed impact areas are not to be
used for storage.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
PROJECT NAME: Cascada Verde
PROJECT NUMBER: CT 15-01/SDP 15-02/PUD 15-03/HDP 15-02
--~-~ Gl "' . c t:l. c 0 I ~ tO -.;:.; .... a: "' 0.0 ""c .... e ;;: Gl c c ·;:: ·;:: E 0 Gl • "' 0 St: al E .:.!. ..... c ...
"i: ·-"' ~ <i:J.! "' 0 ga. 0 ~.:-c. E
:2: :2:~ .c Gl E Gl <II >-a:
I
Page 2 ofS
MITIGATION MEASURE
-CUL-01 a) .Prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activities, the
I project developer shall enter into a Pre-Excavation Agreement,
otherwise known as a Tribal Cultural Resources Treatment and Tribal
Monitoring Agreement, with the San Luis Rey Band of Mission
Indians. This agreement will contain provisions to address the proper
treatment of any cultural resources or Luiseno Native American
human remains inadvertently uncovered during the course of the
project. The agreement will outline the roles and powers of the
Luiseno Native American monitors and the archaeologist.
. b) Any and all uncovered artifacts of Luiseno Native American cultural
I
importance should be returned to the tribe, and/or the most likely
descendant and not be curated.
I I c) Native American monitors and archaeological monitors should have
I
I
joint authority to temporarily divert and/or halt construction
I .. activities. If cultural resources are discovered during construction, all I
earth moving activity within and around the immediate discovery
area must be diverted until the Luiseno Native American monitor and
the archaeologist can assess the nature and significance of the find.
d) The Luiseno Native American monitor shall be present at the project's
preconstruction meeting to consult with grading and excavation
contractors concerning excavation schedules and safety issues, as
'vvell as consult with the principal archaeologist concerning the
proposed archaeologist techniques and/or strategies for the project.
e) If a significant cultural resource and/or unique archaeological
resource are unearthed during ground disturbing activities for this
I project, the tribe respectfully requests that they by notified and
consulted with in regards to the respectful and dignified treatment of
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
I
PROJECT NAME: Cascada Verde
PROJECT NUMBER: CT 15-01/SDP 15-02/PUD 15-03/HDP 15-02
Ql "' c .· !:I. c ~ ~ ... ... a: ... tli) aoc ... c c Ql c: c -.:: ·;: E 0 -o Ql .,
"" 0 s~ c <~> E ... • '!:
l ·-.. ill 00:: Cll ... c c a. 0. '"i: a. E 0 0 41 .J:; ~.5 Ql ::! ~0 <II ex;
I PLN Project
I !
I
I
I
Page 3 of 5
I I I
MITIGATION MEASURE I
those resources. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section
21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for
archaeological and cultural resources. If however, the applicant is
able to demonstrate that avoidance of a significant and/or unique
I
cultural resources is infeasible and a data recovery plan is authorized
by the City of Carlsbad as the lead agency, the San Luis Rey Band of
Mission Indians shall be consulted regarding the drafting and
I
finalization of any such recovery.
I f) When cultural resources are discovered during the project, if the
I archaeologist collects such resources, a Luisef\o Native American
I
monitor must be present during any testing or cataloging of those
resources. If the archaeologist does not collect the cultural resources
that are unearthed during the ground disturbing activities, the
Luisef\o Native American monitor, may in their discretion, collect said
. · resources and provide them to the tribe and respectful and dignified
I
treatment in accordance with ~he tribe's cultural and spiritual
traditions.
g) If suspected Native American human remains are encountered,
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no
further disturbance shall occur until the San Diego County Coroner
has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to
California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be
left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the
treatment and disposition has been made. Suspected Native
American remains shall be examined in the field and kept in a secure
l location at the site. A Luisef\o Native American monitor shall be
i present during the analysis ofthe remains. If the San Diego County
Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Native
I American Heritage Commission (NAHC) must be contac!ed within 24
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
PROJECT NAME: Cascada Verde
PROJECT NUMBER: CT 15-01/SDP 15-02/PUD 15-03/HDP 15-02
41 I ~ ~ I Cl) c a. c .9 ~ "' ... I a: "' i>O ... c ·E ~ I ::: c -g 0 -g ·~· "' ... .9 ~ c ... ... 3: "" 41 "' <.: ·-"' 0 5g. . 0 t:ii e . .:::· <II e QJ, :!!! :i!!c "' >-c:
I
I
Page4 of 5
MITIGATION MEASURE
i hours. The NAHC must then immediately notify the "Most Likely
Descendant" of receiving notification of the discovery. The Most
Likely Descendant shall then make recommendations within 48 hours,
and engage in consultation concerning treatment of remains as
provided in Public Resources Code 5097.98.
i) In the event that fill is imported into the project area, the fill shall be
clean of cultural resources and documented as such. If fill material is
to be utilized and/or exported from areas within the project site, then
that fill will need to be analyzed and confirmed by an archeologist
and Luiseno Native American monitor that such fill material does not I contain cultural resources.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
PROJECT NAME: Cascada Verde
PROJECT NUMBER: CT 15~01/SDP 15-02/PUD 15-03/HDP 15-02
~-
j Cll ., c !J. c ·~ ~ ... .. a: ... M <>lit: .... I c c Ql c: c:
1i ·c f 0 -g e "' 0 -""' c: ~ I .... I .... ;: u:.!! ... c I ·;:! ·0. ·z: a. E 0 I 0 Ql• .s::. -w E ~ ~ I :'Eo <II >-
I
I I
Page 5 of 5