HomeMy WebLinkAboutPE 2.88.30; KELLY TRUST; Engineering ApplicationIN-
014~ 4w,
Y-7-0?
Building Permit Plan Check No.
Application for Grading Permit
CITY OF CARLSBAD
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
2075 Las Palmas Drive
438-3550
- 0-A,
PE NO.
Z4 2- -t5 4 6-13SAr
Validation by Finance
Department
06/19/89 0001 01 05
FOR APPLICANT TO FILL IN
Sile $d&7 . ~~, Z;, ,.3/- VV, /_ ? . . .,— Surety Company Bond No. 9 71; (p 4 1.5 I W"PI*5 I1J1rJ MN Ck 'Co- R, &~~ 1756*0.3 1
Le I Description .pa
r A
Map No. Surety Addres s
Po 3*3, 40#00*11 CA ')2863 (7109f7-4
Subdivision Name' F Date Filed Recd by a te
I I . Ll lot Al awme-5
s
0 it
Owner Phone 923' //NF0__ L Cash dep 'si 'Rec'd by Date filed
$ V5 0 A 69,99440 APP41- Z 78
Owner's Adfi(ress
Molan- ff—la--s 12&q -Pl4a6lzO)k .04,
The followilng'doQ41nents are required and shall become a part
of the grading permit wh-en-tTe-y-ar-e-ap—pr—ov-e-cr)- &PrAO. ?YJ
X Grading plans Specif ications
?c Soil report Geologic Report
X Draina
I
ge structures Other
-->(- Compaction report
Plans by Civil Engineer R.C.E.
7DAL /
A~ddr.ess Phone
/,32 ALI&All614- NAVArzrlO ~A - V94 SAIM-d ~oil Engineer R.C;E. Phone
,:5 , 'I-) - >,EOT -c- , q
Gr8d;V' Contractor
7-74--
PhQrje
YYO- 2Z_7SC_)
SPECIAL CONDITIONS WHICH ARE MADE
A PART OF THIS PERMIT
Address
6 A, T li~_4_e4,-MAI
Authorized hours of operation:
7:00 AM to Sunset, Mondall - Friday. y Party r ble for overall s Wrvisi6n
OKV WAk-D 2. Haul routes are to be approved by City Engineer.
~P3.
Proposed use of grade site
Ad equate provisions shall be made for erosion and siltation
control,. Number of cubic yards
Cut Fill ogow? Import 4KA6 Waste
4. All slopes shall be planted per City Code.
0
I / 6 Z I cccc/ Go
W-0~ 0 —
All fills to be compacted to at least 90% of7optimum Proposed Schedule of Finish
Operations (dates) density unless noted otherwise.
I hereby acknowledge that I have read the application and state that
the information I have provided is correct and agree to comply with
all City ordinances and State laws regulating excavating and grading, Under City Code Sec. 11.06 170 this grading is:
and the provisions and conditi permit issued pursuant to El REGULAR GRADING - City inspector will make, inspections
oz~
this application. listed below.
0 CONTROLLED GRADING - Private grading engineer shall
Signature of Permittee observe work, coordinate tests, make reports.
INSP ECTION DATE INSP. SIGNATURE
Owner or authorized agent
Initial - site prep.
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE -
rl Date Roug h - prior to drains
EIA Log No. Final - slopes planted /0// At By
Grading permit fee Plan Veck Le6~ Compaction reports rec'd.
Per
Tq &T Wrivate engr. cert. rec'd.
by t Date Copies: White-Office; Green-Building;
Permit Expiration Date Yellow-inspector; Pink-Permittee; Goldenrod- F i nance
RsVocff4), -re?
THIS FORM WHEN PROPERLY VALIDATED IS.A PERMIT TO DO THE WORK DESCRIBED
THIS PERMIT I&VALID FOR A SIX (6) MONTH PERIOD
Mail to; State Clearinghouse, 1400 ienth~Stree,t, Rm,. 121, Sacramento, CA 958o+ -- 916/445-0613
*OTICE'DF COMPLETION AND ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FORK See NOTE Below:
SCHI#
1~. Project Title KELLY TRUST STOCKPILE PERMIT
2. Lead Agency- CITY OF CARLSBAD 3. Contact Person: NANCY ROLLMAN
3a. Street Address: 2075 LAS PALMAS 3b. City: CARLSBAD
3c. County: SAN DIEGO 3d. Zip: 92009 3e. Phone: (619) 438-1161
PROJECT LOCATION 4. County: SAN.DIEGO —.4a. Clity/Co,mmunity: CARLSBAD
4b.(optionaL) Assessorls Parcel No. 4c. Section: Twp.
HIDDEN For Rural,
5a. Cross Streets: PALOMAR AIRPORT RD/VALLEY 5b. Nearest Community:
6. Wfthfn 2 mites of: a. State Hwy No. 1-5 b. Airports Palomar c
Range
Waterways Pacific Ocean
7. DOCUMENT TYPE
CEQA
01 NOP
02 Early Cons
03 -X Neg Dec
04 Draft EIR
05' Supplement/
Subsequent EIR
(if so, prior SCH #
NEPA
06 Notice of Intent
07 Envir. Assessment/
FONSI
8. LOCAL ACTION TYPE 10. DEVELOPMENT TYPE
01 — General Plan Update 01 — Residential: Un its Acres
02 — New Element 02 — Office: Sq. Ft.
03 — General Plan Amendment Acres Employees
04 03 — Shopping/Commercial: Sq.Ft.
05 —
Master Plan
Annexation Acres Employees
06 _ Specific Plan 04 _ Industrial: Sq. Ft.
07 Redevelopment Acres Employees
08 Rezone 05 Sewer: MGD
09 Land Division 06 —,.Water: MGD
(Subdivision, Parcel Map.
Tract Map, etc.) 07 Transportation: Type _
10 Use Permit 08 Mineral Extraction: Mineral
08 — Draft EIS 11 — Cancel Ag Preserve 09 — Power Generation: Wattage
OTHER T2 X Other StockpiLe Permit Type:
09 — Information Only 10 X other: StockpiLie Permit
10'— FinaL'Document 9 TOTAL ACRES: 22
11 Other:
11. PROJECT ISSUES DI,SCUSSED IN DOCUMENT
01 X Aesthetic/VisuaL 08 Geologic/Seismic. 15 — Sewer Capacity 22 _ Water Supply
02 — Agricultural Land, 09 Jobs/Housing Balance 16 — Soft Erosion 23 X Wet,land/Riparian
03 X Air Quality 10 Minerals 17 — Solid Waste 24 — Wildlife
04 x ArchaeoLogica,L/Historical/ 11 X Noise. 18 — Toxic/Hazardous 25 — Growth Inducing
Paleontological 12 Public Services 19 X Traffic/CircuLatfon 26 — Incompatible Landuse
05 Coastal 13 Schools 20 X Vegetation 27 Cumulative Effects
06 Fire Hazard 14 Septic Systems 21 — Water Quality 28 Other
07 X FLooding/Drainage
12 FUNDING (approx.) Federa'L $- State S — Total, $
13 PRESENT LAND USE AND ZONING: VACANT, P-M-Q (PLANNED INDUSTRIAL)
14 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: STOCKPILE PERMIT TO IMPORT 300,000 CUBIC YARDS OF DIRT ONTO APPROXIMATELY 20 ACRE PARCEL.
IMPORT IS FROM PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD WIDENING TO WHICH PROPERTY IS ADJACENT.
15. SIGNATURE OF LEAD AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE: Date: 9-15-88
NOTE: Clearinghouse wilt assign identification numbers for all new projects If a SCH Number already exists for a
project (e.g. from a Notice of Preparation or previous draft document) please fill it in. 4
ENVIRO10LJTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT F01;L- - PART II
(TO.BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. EIA 88-3
DATE: September 1, 1988
I- BACKGROUND
APPLICANT: Kellv Trust
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 635 Morro Hills Road
Fallbrook, California 9,2028 (72,3-4880)
DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: July 1" 1988
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written
under Section III - Discussion of Environmental Evaluation)
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth - Will theproposal
have significant results in:
a. Unstable earth conditions
or in changes in geologic
substructures? X
,b. Disruptions, displacements,
compaction or overcovering
of the soil? ..X
Change in topography or ground
. surface relief features? X
The destruction, covering of
modification of any unique
geologic or physical features? X
Any increase in wind or water
erosion of soils, either on or
off the site? X
Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel or a.
river or stream or the bed of-the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X
0
YES MAYBE NO
2. Air - Will the proposal.have
significant results in:
a.. Air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality?
The creation of objectionable
odors?
Alteration of air movement,
moisture or temperature, or any
change in climate, either locally
or regionally?
3. Water
' -
Will the proposal have
significant results in.:
Changes in currents, or the course
or direction of water movements,
in either marine or fresh waters?
Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patters, or the rate and
amount of surface water runoff?
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
Discharge into surface waters,
or 'in any alteration of surface
water quality, including but not
limited to, temperature, dissolved
oxyg4!~n or turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or
rate of'flow of ground waters?
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct
additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
Reduction in the amount of water
otherwise available for public
water supplies?
-2-
x
— x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
YES MAYBE NO
4. Plant Life - Will the proposal
have significant results in:
a. Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of plants
(including trees, shrubs, grass,
cropst microflora and aquatic plants)? X
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of plants? X
c. Introduction of new species of plants
into an~area, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species? X
d'. Reduction in acreage of any
agricultural crop? X
S. Animal Life - Will the proposal.have
significant results in:
Changes in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including reptiles,
fish and shellfish,, benthic organisms,
insects or microfauna)? X
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals? X
Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier
to the migration or movement of
animals? X
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
Noise - Will the proposal significantly
increaseexisting noise levels? X
Light and Glare - Will the proposal sig-
nificantly produce new light or glare? X
Land Use - Will the proposal have
significant results in the alteration of
the present or planned land use of an
area? X
-3-
YES MAYBE NO
9. Natural Resources - Will the proposal.
have significant results in,:
a,. Increase in the rate of use of any
natural resources? X
b. De
'
pletion of any nonrenewable
natural resource?
110. Risk of Upset - Does the proposal
involve a sign
-
ifica
"
nt risk of an
explosIon-or the release of hazardous
substances (Ancluding, but not limited
to, oil, pesticides,, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident
or upset conditions? X
Por)ulation - 'Will the proposal s-icjriif-.
icantly alter the location, distribu-
tion, density, or growth rate of-the
human population.of an area? X
Housing - Will the proposal signif-
icantly affect existing housing, or
create a demand for additional housing? X
Transportation/Circulation -Vill the
proposal have significant results in:
ai, Generation of additional vehicular
movement? X
b-. Effects. onexisting parking facili-
ties, or demand for newparking? X
c. Impact upon existing transportation
systems?
di Alterations to present patterns of,
circulation ormovementof people
and/,or goods? X.
e. Alterations to waterborne, rallor
air traffic? X
f.,Increase in traffic hazards to
motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians?
= I
X
-4-
i
0 0
YES MAYBE NO
14. Public Servi*ces - Will the proposal have
a significant effect upon, or have signif-
icant results in the need for new or
altered governmental services in any of
the following areas:
a.. Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks or other recreational
facilities?
Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
other governmental services?
15.- Energy - Will the proposal have
significant results in:
a.. Use- of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy?
b. Demand upon.existing sources of
energy, or require the development
of new sources of energy?
16. Utilities - Will the proposal have
significant results in the need for new
systems, or alterations to the following
utilities:
ai Power or natural gas?
Communications systems?
Water?
Sewer or septic tanks?
Storm water drainage?
Solid waste and disposal?.
17. Human Health - Will the proposal have
significant results in thecreation of
any health hazard or potential health
hazard (excluding mental health)?
x
x
x
-5-
E 11
YES MAYBE NO
18. Aesthetics - Will the proposal have
significant results in the obstruction
of any scenic vista or view open to the
publici or will the proposal result in
creation of an aesthetically offensive
public view? X
190 Recreation - Will the proposal have
significant results in the impact upon
the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? X
Archeological/Hi*storical/Paleontological
- Will the proposal have significant
.results in the alteration of a significant
archeological, paleontological or
historical site,' structure, object or
building? X
Analyze viable alternatives to the proposed Rroject such as:
a) Phased,development of theproject, b) alternate site designs,
c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the site.,
e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter-
nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative.
a)Not applicable.
Please see discussion under next section on aesthetics.
It is highly probable that less material will be available.
because the grading for Palomar Airport Road is currently
underway and dirt is already being exported to other locations.
Site is disturbed unused agriculture on which the stockpile
will not preclude future development.
Not applicable.
Alternate sites exist; however, this site is immediately
adjacent'to Palomar airport Road and would reduce truck trips
out of the area.
No project alternative is feasible but would disregard project
benefits - truck trips and associated impacts ~on traffic, air
quality, health and safety, wear and tear on roadways.
MC
0
YES MAYBE NO
22. Mandatory findincfs of sicFnificance "
a. Does the project have the Potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, or curtail the diversity
in the environment? _X
~b. Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the dis-
advantage of long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definitive period of
time while long-term impacts will
endure well into the future,.) — x
Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? (A
project may*impact on two or more
separate resources where the impact
on each resource is relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment is
significant.) x
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? x
III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The numbered items below refer to the initial study checklist.
1. Earth - The project proposes to import fill from earthwork
related to the construction of Palomar Airport Road, adjacent
to the site. The site is relatively flat, a relic agricultural
field. As such, placement of the f . ill will not create unstable
earth Conditions or destroy any unique geologic features. The
topography will be changed, up to 20 feet
'
(fill) in some
places. Unless proper erosion control measures are in place,
there could be soil erosion impacts from 300,000 cubic.yards of
stockpile, and sedimentation impacts to a riparian creek.
Mitigation measures are listed in the next.section to alleviate
these potential impacts.
-7-
,. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
Air - A beneficial impact of this project is the decrease in
the number of truck trips - (up to 30,000) necessary to export
the dirt somewhere else.
Water - This temporary stockpile will not affect groundwater,
water movements, or surface waters.. It is important to control
the runoff from the stockpile so that impacts do not occur to
the riparian creek. see mitigation section.
Plant Life - Thesite is a disturbed agricultural field', except
for the riparian creek which will not be included in the
stockpile area and which mitigation measures have been added to
protect it from indirect impact.
Animal Life - As noted above, site is disturbed.
Noise - A stockpile is not very noisy. The process to create.
the stockpile will occur as part of Palomar Airport Road
construction, so no additional noise will, be incurred. Truck
trips will be reduced, and thus associated ,noise.
Light and Glare - Not applicable.
8.- Land Use - The stockpile will not preclude tuture planned land
uses from occurring.
Natural Resources Not applicable.
Risk of Uvset - Not applicable.
Population Not applicable.
Housing - Not applicable.
Transportation/Circulation - The benefit of the permit would be
-to alleviate up to.10,00.0 truck trips on local roads.to remove
excess fill, since the site is adjacent to Palomar Airport
Road. However, the stockpile request could be for more
material than is available from Palomar Airport Road
construction; therefore, the project will be conditioned to
only accept Palomar Airport Road fill. Fill from anywhere else
would require an amendment because traffic,impacts could occur.
Based on the project description., all the other CEQA related
concerns, are not applicable.
Public Services and Energy- As noted previously, the benefit of
and reduced truck traffic will decrease impacts to surrounding roads
15i. as well as reduce energy consumption.
-8-
0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
Utilities - Not applicable.
Human Health - Not applicable.
Aesthetics - Palomar Airport Road is a scenic corridor. The
proposed stockpile could be unsightly; therefore, to mitigate
potential visual impacts, the permit is conditioned to undulate
slopes and to provide landscaping throughout.
Recreation - Not applicable..
Archaeolocf ical /Historical - This proposal will not do any
cutting -- the fill will act as a "cap" over any historic
sites. Prior to.p1acing the fill on the site, a reconnaissance
will be required to locate any potential sites.
21.1. Findings of Significance - As noted, the site is a disturbed
agricultural field. The stockpile as conditioned, will not
impact sensitive resources, and does not preclude achievement
of 'long-term and environmental goals. Some of the cumulative
impacts are beneficial, i.e., air quality and public
facilities.
IV. DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
—I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on
the environment, and a*.NEGATIVE DECLARATION:will be prepared.
X —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 the mitigation measures described on an :attached
sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative
Declaration will be proposed.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT*is required,i
Date
Date
s igriature
Plahning,Dir,ector
J~
cm
I V. MITIGATING MEASURES (If Applicable)
1.- No grading will occur during the, rainy season (October 1 to
April 7) .
All graded areas shall be landscaped prior to October ist of
each year with either temporary or permanent landscaping
materials to reduce erosion potential. Such landscaping shall
be maintained and replanted if not well-established by December p
ist following the initial planting.
A runoff control plan shall be prepared by 4 licensed~engineer
qualified in hydrology and hydraulics; such approved plans
shall assure that there would be not increase inpeak discharge
velocities from the right-of-way or velocities shall not exceed
six feet per second. If predicted runoff velocities exceed
six feet per second then runoff 'control may be accomplished by
a variety of measures, including, but not limited to, onsite
catchment basins, detention basins, siltation traps, and energy
dissipators, and shall not be concentrated in one area.
All permanent runoff-control and erosion-control devices shall
be developed and installed prior to or concurrent with any
onsite grading activities.
The southerly slope of the stockpile shall be set back a
minimum of 50 feet from the edge of the stream channel, except
for that area where a levee currently exists.. Barricades,
i.e., haybales, or some other device, shall be placed- 'to
prevent sediment from the stockpile entering the stream.
Prior to grading, the buffer area near the stream shall be flagged
and no equipment shall be allowed there or stored there.
The fill used in the stockpile shall only be generated from
Palomar Airport Road Construction. Any other fill source shall
require an amendment to the stockpile permit and separate
environmental review.
The -western, northern, and eastern slopes of each stockpile
shall be undulated to include both 3:1 and 2:1 slopes-.
Hydroseed shall be used on the slopes as well as the top, flat
portion of the stockpile, for aesthetic purposes.
Prior to placing the fill on the site, an archaeology
reconnaissance shall be done to identify any sites.
_10-
I 'If. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES
AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
1.7
Date- ature
-11-