The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCT 00-02; Calavera Hills Stockpile; Tentative Map (CT)224033 0?:>-13-03, Project Applicant Name: -~"'"'-7-J-=---.:..!.-..:.--'---___\._'-'L!...:....!..!!><=-.L:....:.----:--4!.1ft----hz.rr;..,-----! ------=3 Project Applicant Address: _1-r-=--~.:.....:..!l..;...f"j....:__,_:o..=.:L:..--=---==-'-----'-'-.....:..::.~-._,'------'><-..:..---,<+---'",P.,."------'--'-...!.-.::::........------ Project Applicant (check appropriate box): CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: ( ) Environmental Impact Report ( ) Negative Declaration Local Public Agency 0 State Agency ( ) Application Fee Water Diversion (State Water Resources Control Board Only) ( ) Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs ( ) County Administrative Fee <P('l Project that is exempt from fees $850.00 $ ___ _,i __ $1,250.00 $850.00 $850.00 $25.00 $ ______ _ $ _____ _ $ ______ _ $-,....------$~ ~~ . AJ~~~-TO-TALRECEIVED Signature and title of person receiving payment: ---L~-v-.;...._ ____ 1;U __ t _________________ _ WHITE-PROJECT APPLICANT YELLOW·DFG/FASB PINK-LEAD AGENCY GOLDENROD-STATE AGENCY OF FILING ·------------··-·····-···-~---·---~·-- , Notice ofDeterQnation To: D Office of Planning and Research P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812 I:8J County Clerk County of San Diego Mailstop A4 PO Box 121750 San Diego, CA 92112-1750 0 From: Project No: DWG 390-9E Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Calavera Stockpile Project Title N/A City of Carlsbad, Eric Munoz (760) 602-4608 State Clearinghouse No. Lead Agency, Contact Person Telephone Number West of future intersection of College Blvd/Cannon Road, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County. Project Locations (include County) Name of Applicant: McMillin Companies Applicant's Address: 2727 Hoover St. National City, CA 91950 Applicant's Telephone Number: 619. 336.3673 Project Description: Stockpile covering approximately 12.1 acres, with a maximum height of ~ · 25 feet and maximum volume of280,000 cubic yards. This is to advise that the City of Carlsbad has approved the above described project on March 6, 2003, and has made the following determination regarding the above described project. 1. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment 2. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions ofCEQA. 3. Mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval ofthe project. 4. A statement of Overriding Considerations was not adopted for this project. 5. Findings were made pursuant to the provisions ofCEQA. Date received for filing at OPR: Revised December 200 I CASE NAME: CASE NO: 0 011642 0 City of Carlsbad I@L''''''·'·'•*4•t•••l·''''' MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Calavera Stockpile Grading Plan for DWG #390-9E PROJECT LOCATION: West ofFuture Intersection of College Blvd/Cannon Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Stockpile covering approximately 12.1 acres with a maximum height of 25 feet and maximum volume of 280,000 cubic yards adjacent to, and west of, the future intersection of College Blvd and Cannon Road. 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 (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: [gl 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. D The proposed project MAY have "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 on attached sheets. (Mitigated Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed). D 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, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Mitigated Negative Declaration is on file in the Engineering Department under DWG# 390-9E (Grading Plan) at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. ADOPTED: MARCH 6, 2003, pursuant to Administrative Approval by Planning Director. ATTEST: Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us 0 0 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME PO BOX 944209 SACRAMENTO CA 94244-2090 CERTIFICATION OF FEE EXEMPTION De Minimis Impact Finding Project Title/Location (Include County): 011642 Calavera Stockpile: west of future intersection of College Blvd/Cannon Road in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego. Name and Address of Applicant: McMillin Companies, 2727 Hoover Street, National City, CA 91950 Project Description: Stockpile covering approximately 12.1 acres, with a maximum height of 25 feet and maximum volume of280,000 cubic yards. Findings of Exemption (attach as necessary): 1. The City of Carlsbad Planning Department has completed an Environmental Initial Study for the above referenced property, including evaluation of the proposed project's potential for adverse environmental impacts on fish and wildlife resources. 2. Based on the complete Environmental Initial Study, the City of Carlsbad Planning Department finds that the proposed project will not encroach upon wildlife habitat area, will have no potential adverse individual or cumulative effects on wildlife resources, and requires no mitigation measures to be incorporated into the proposed project which would affect fish or wildlife. Certification: I hereby certify that the public agency has made the above finding and that the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 ofthe Fish and Game Code. Planning Director Lead Agency: CITY OF CARLSBAD MJH:EM:mh FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK Date: _ ___,?I::.L...:....III/_D~J ______ _ MAR 1 S 2003 s ,\N DIEGO COUN,lX ON '1M3 . . MAR 1 ~ mw [) APR 1 4 t.uu l~l')STEI) REl'v10VE 1 ' ' APR 1 4 2003 RETURNED TO AGENCYdd~ Section 711.4, Fish and Game Code OEPUTYoFG 1/91 1927 Fifth Avenue San Diego, CA 92101-2358 P 619.308.9333 F 619.308.9334 www. recon~us.com RECON May 21,2003 Mr. Eric Munoz Senior Planner City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Reference: Calavera Hills Phase II, Village X and Village W Simultaneous Crushing Operations (RECON Number 3225E) Dear Mr. Munoz: As you know, rock-crushing operations within the Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II project were addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR 98-02). The FEIR assessed noise impacts to nearby residential receivers from rock-crushing facilities at Villages K, W, and X. At the time the EIR was prepared, it was not anticipated that the crushing facilities at Villages W and X would operate simultaneously. The text in the FEIR (page 129) indicated that the rock crushers at Villages Wand X would not operate simultaneously. This assumption was based on the anticipated rock-processing schedule at the time and there was not a mitigation requirement to avoid simultaneous crushing operations in the FEIR. However, the noise modeling and resulting graphic showing noise contours (Figure 30-3) in the FEIR were based on all three crushers (Villages K, W, and X) operating at the same time. As such, the proposed simultaneous operation was previously analyzed in the FEIR and no significant impacts were identified under this scenario. The mitigation measures for the crushing and processing operations outlined in the FEIR (pages 165-166) would continue to be applicable to the simultaneous crushers, and no additional measures would be required. A copy of the noise contour map from the FEIR showing the simultaneous operations at Villages X and W is attached for your review. Please call me with any questions. Sincerely, Principal LAS:sh Attachment cc/att: Brian Milich, McMillin Companies Paul Klukas, Planning Systems ~ fm ~ 0 Materials processing center ["?Rl ---75 dB(A) Leq contour ~ • 0~~-----65 dB (A) Leq contour ~ I ' Feet 700 M:ljobsl3~25olgisleirfigs.aprlfig3D-3 -final 01/2~/01 FIGURE 3D-3 Materials Processing Centers and Potential Noise Impact Areas 7/';ROOF OF PUBLI TION (2010 & 2011 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above- entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of North County Times Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, for the City of Oceanside and the City of Escondido, Court Decree number 171349, for the County of San Diego, that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpariel), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjmy that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at SAN MARCOS California This 12th Day of August, 2003 Signature NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising This space is he County Clerk's Filing Stamp Proof of Publication of CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT AN ADDENDUM TO AN APPROVED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: Calavera Stockpile and Rock Crusher CASE NO: Grading Plan for DWG 11390-9E . PROJECT LOCATION: West of Future Intersection of College Blvd/Cannon Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Addendum to existing ap- 1 proved Mitigated Negative Declaration. The approved MND allows a stockpile for the subject location. This Ad- dendum proposes to add a rock crushing operation on top of the stockpile. Given the location of the pro1ect and temporary nature of the rock crushing operation there will be no significant environmental impacts. The Adden-dum re-states the existing mitigation measures associat- ed with the approved stockpile and adds mitigation mea- sures relative to the rock crushing operation, 1nclud1ng timing for removal. PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above-de-~ scribed project pursuant to the Guidelines for lmplemen- Y tation of the California Environmental Ouali~J Act and the I· Environmental Protect1on Ordinance of the C1ty of Carls-bad. As a result of said review. the initial study (EIA Part 1. 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environ-v. ment, but (1) revisions in the pro1ect plans or proposals '· made by or agreed to by, the applicant before the pro-posed negatllle declaration and imtial study are ,released ;;-for public review would avo1d the eff~cts or m1t1gate the effects to a point where clearly no s1gmflcan! eflect on the environment would occur, and (2) there IS no sub- stantial evidence in liilht of the whole record befml! the City that the project ' as revised" may have a s1gmf1cant effect on the environment. Therefore) an Addendum to the approved Mitigated Negative Decla~ation for the rock crushing operatiOn 1n comb1nat1on w1th the approved stockpile w111 be approved by the City of Carlsbad Plan-ning Director alter the public review period for this Ad- dendum is completed. . A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting rea-sons to support the proposed Mitigated Negative Decla-ration are on .file in the Planning Department. 1635 fara- 1 day Avenue, Carlsbad California 92008. Comments from the public arc invited. Please ~ubm1t comments 1n wnt1ng to the Planning Department w1th1n 21 days of the date of this notice. . If you have .any questions, please call Eric Munoz 1n the Planning Department at (760) 602-4608. PUBLIC REVIEW PE~IOO AUGUST 12, 2003 TO SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 PUBLISH DATE AUGUST 12, 2003 NCT1532262 CALAV{RA ··HillS PHASE!! ·. ·'RAflCHO CARLSBAD. MOBIL£ HOM£ PARK College/Cannon -Temporary Rock Crusher Calavera Hills, LLC "WORST-CASE" NOISE IMPACTS / " / -ft' .,. RECEIVED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM-PAR1J~C 1 2 2002 (TOBECOMPLETEDBYTHEAPPLICANT) CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPT. CASE NO:_--r---+-----=- DATE: "Y \ l~ \~ J BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Calavera Hills/Robertson Ranch Soils Remediation and Stockpile 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad; 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Don Mitchell; (619) 336-3673 4. PROJECT LOCATION: _!:R~o~b~ert~s:!.!::o~n_!:R~an~c~h~E:::a:::::!s~t R~an=c~h ____________ _ 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Calavera Hills II, LLC, c/o McMillin Companies; 2727 Hoover Ave.; National City, CA 91950 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: _;,RL=M"'--------------------- 7. ZONING:~L~-C~--------------------------- 8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, fmancing approval or participation agreements): """'N""'I_:_A=--------------------- 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING USES: The proposed project involves two activites. (l) The placement of a maximum of 280.000 cubic yards of soil in one location on property owned by Calavera Hills II, LLC, otherwise known as Robertson Ranch (East Ranch) The stockpile area will cover a total of 12.1 acres. and will not exceed 25-feet in height. The soil is being excavated from the Calavera Hills Phase II development, which has received all CEQA clearances. (2) In advance of the placement of the stockpile soil, the existing topsoil in the area of the stockpile, and in several small surrounding adjacent areas will be scraped off to a level of approximately one foot. and the affected soil deposited within the deep fills of under-construction College Blvd. Reach B. This proposed scraping of existing soils is necessarv in order to remediate toxaphene pesticide residue which has contaminated the areas as a result of historical agricultural operations. The affected areas involve a single 6.8 ac. area north of College Blvd., and one large and five small areas (total 13.9 acres) south of College Blvd. The total area to be remediated pursuant to this CEQA analysis is 20.7 acres. 1 Rev. 07/26/02 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 [2J Geology/Soils 0Noise D Agricultural Resources D Hazards/Hazardous Materials D Population and Housing D Air Quality [2J Hydrology/Water Quality D Public Services D Biological Resources D Land Use and Planning D Recreation ~ Cultural Resources D Mineral Resources D Transportation/Circulation D Mandatory Findings of D Utilities & Service Systems Significance 2 Rev. 07/26/02 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited 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. A ''No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. • "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. • "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. • "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly adverse. • Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but all potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required. • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. • A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment. • If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. 3 Rev. 07/03/02 • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant. 4 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) I. AESTHETICS-Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The subject soils remediation and stockpile project will be visible from future College Blvd. and Cannon Rd. but will not significantly impact aesthetics and views of the subject area inasmuch as it will be a maximum of 25 feet in height, and will be hydroseeded. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? No significant scenic resources, rock outcroppings or historical buildings will be impacted by the proposed soils remediation and stockpile project. The subject area is totally agricultural farming area to be converted to stockpile. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? The aesthetic impacts associated with the soils remediation and stockpile project will not be significant due to the relatively low profile of the proposed project, and the lack of substantial visual character. d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No light or glare will result from the proposed soils remediation or stockpile, inasmuch as neither of the subject operations will be a permanent or light-producing development. IT. AGRICUL TRAL RESOURCES -(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.) Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Although the subject soils remediation and soil stockpile operation does involve a change from agricultural uses on the subject site, the property does not possess prime agricultural soils or farmland. 5 Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D D D D Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? The property is not encumbered by a Williamson Act contract. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? Although the subject soils remediation and soil stockpile operation does involve a change from agricultural uses on the subject site, the property has been planned for conversion for a long period of time. The City General Plan indicates that although agricultural use is a temporary use, the ultimate use for this site will not be agricultural. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. III. AIR QUALITY -(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.) Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The subject soils work does not impede or affect in any way any applicable air quality plan. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? The subject project will not produce air quality impacts since no development is proposed, and thus will not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 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 (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? The soils remediation and stockpile project will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of air pollutants of any kind, and therefore no significant impact will result. 6 Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D Less Than Significant Impact D D D D No Impact [gJ D Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No sensitive receptors are within the vicinity of the subject project. The closest receptor is several miles away to the northwest. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? The soils remediation and stockpile will not create objectionable odors which will affect a substantial number of people. While a relatively insignificant population of people lives to the north and west of the site, no significant odors are projected from the project. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES-Would the project: 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 regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The subject soils remediation and stockpile will not affect sensitive or native vegetation. The area affected by the work involves only areas that have been recently and historically farmed for agricultural production. The CDFG does not have any plans for connectivity or biological preservation of the affected areas. This information is provided in the Biological Constraints Report for the Robertson Ranch Report, prepared by Merkel & Associates, Inc., August 21, 2002. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The subject project is adjacent to an existing narrow riparian corridor of Calavera Creek. Much of this corridor will be impacted by approved College Blvd. and Cannon Road, which will intersect directly adjacent to the area impacted by the proposed project. All necessary CEQA clearances and permits have already been received for the impacts to the creek from that project. The subject project for which this EIA is being prepared avoids all impacts to wetlands. No impacts to wetlands will result from the proposed soils remediation and stockpile project. 7 Potentially Significant Impact D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D Less Than Significant Impact D D No Impact ~ D D Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? The proposed project will not directly affect any federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404. Impacts to wetlands on the adjacent creek are allowed through a separate project (College Blvd./Cannon Rd.) and associated permit clearances. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? The subject soils remediation and stockpile will occur totally on areas of non-native vegetation (farmed agricultural lands), and therefore will not interfere with the movement of fish or wildlife species with established habitat corridors. Native habitat corridors are located to the north and east of the subject project. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? The proposed soils work will not conflict with any local or City policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. No impact whatsoever will result from the project to native habitats. No impact to California gnatcatchers is anticipated. The subject project will not impact any trees, and thus is not subject to a tree preservation policy or notice. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? The subject soils work will not impact the adopted NCCP plan or the draft HMP plan because all work will take place within areas identified in these plans as development areas. No preservation of the subject properties is required by the conservation plans. g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? The affected site for the soils remediation and the soils stockpile is not environmentally sensitive, nor are these areas directly tributary to environmentally sensitive areas. Agua Hedionda Lagoon is over one mile downstream from the subject area, and subject to hydrological conditions, should not be negatively impacted by the subject project. 8 Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D Less Than Significant Impact D D D D D No Impact ~ Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) V. CULTURAL RESOURCES-Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defmed in §15064.5? The only known historical feature is the vicinity is a historic structure P-37-024329 which will not be impacted by the proposed project. The location of this historic structure is identified in the report by Brian F. Smith Associates, Cultural Resources Survey for the Robertson Ranch Project, June 17, 2002. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Archaeological sites SDI -10,611, which has been identified by Brian F. Smith Associates, Cultural Resources Survey for the Robertson Ranch Project, June 17, 2002, could be impacted by the soils remediation and mitigation, including archaeologist observation of the soil scraping in the vicinity of this archaeological site, will be necessary. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi- cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? The proposed project is located within an area which could contain paleontological resources, however, the scraping of a maximum of one foot will not significantly impact such resources. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No known human remains are located in the area of the proposed project, as indicated in the Cultural Resources Survey for the Robertson Ranch Project, by Brian F. Smith, Associates, June 17, 2002. 9 Potentially Significant Impact D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D Less Than Significant Impact D D D D No Impact D Rev. 07/03/02 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: 1. 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. The subject project is not located near any active or potentially active earthquake faults. No structures will be placed on the stockpile. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? The proposed project does not involve any permanent development and will involve no construction of structures. As a result, no significant impacts will result from seismic ground shaking. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? The proposed project does not involve any permanent development, and will not involve the construction of structures or public infrastructures. As a result, no impacts from seismic- related ground failure will result. iv. Landslides? The subject remediation and soils stockpile area is not in an area ofknown landslides. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? The proposed soil stockpile will be unstable and may cause erosion unless proper erosion control is implemented. 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 on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? The subject site is not located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the stockpile. It is not anticipated that the project will result in landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. 10 D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Rev. 07/03/02 d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? The subject soils are alluvial in nature, and thus are subject to some level of shrink, and are not expansive. No structures are proposed as a result of the project, and thus the quality of the soil is not an environmental issue. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? The subject project will not involve any use that requires sewers or septic systems. Vll. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS- Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? The proposed soils remediation and stockpile project does not involve provision of any significant hazard to the public however it will involve the transport of toxaphene-contaminated soil for permanent burying in a deep fill in College Blvd. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? The proposed project will bury the toxaphene-contaminated soil in a deep fill in College Blvd., and will thus not involve the 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 of an existing or proposed school? The subject toxaphene-contaminated soil will be buried within the deep fill of College Blvd., which is located within one- quarter mile of a future high school site. However the fact that it will be buried several feet below the surface of the road will render it non-hazardous to future students and employees of the school. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? The subject project is the remediation of hazardous materials, and thus will not increase or create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. 11 D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Rev. 07/03/02 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 use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? The subject site is located within two miles of McClellan Palomar Airport, however since no development is proposed, it would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. 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 the project area? The subject site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The subject soils remediation and soils stockpile will not impair implementation or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or emergency evacuation plan, because it does not interfere with any public rights of way or infrastructure. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? There are no known existing potential health hazards in the vicinity with the exception of the soil to be remediated through implementation of the subject project. VITI. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY-Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? The subject project will not violate any water quality or waste discharge requirements as the stockpile will be installed in conformance with City of Carlsbad requirements for erosion control and water quality measures. 12 D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Rev. 07/03/02 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 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)? The subject project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with ground water recharge as all work will be conducted within one foot of existing surface elevation. b) Impacts to groundwater quality? The subject project will not involve a withdrawal or addition of water into the groundwater and thus will not impact groundwater quality. 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 on-or off- site? A change to the existing drainage pattern of the subject area will occur as a result of the project. No alteration of streamcourse or river will result. Erosion control measures in accordance with City policies will be implemented. 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 surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on-or off- site? The existing drainage pattern of the stockpile area will be modified however this would not be considered a significant impact. No impacts to the adjacent Calavera Creek or downstream waters will result if the project implements standard erosion control practices. e) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? No impacts to runoff waters will result if the project implements standard erosion control practices. The project will not result in additional sources of polluted runoff. t) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? The proposed soils remediation and stockpile plan will not substantially degrade water quality if standard City erosion control measures are implemented. 13 D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Rev. 07/03/02 g) Place housing within a 1 00-year flood hazard area as D D D mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? The project does not propose any housing or other development. h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, D D D which would impede or redirect flood flows? The proposed project does not involve the construction of any structures. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of D D D loss injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? The proposed soils work will not expose people to significant risk of loss, injury or death from flooding. No structures are proposed. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? D D D The subject project will not involve any development inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow. k) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface D D D waters. The soil stockpile does have the opportunity for increased erosion and downstream sediment into receiving surface waters of Calavera Creek, however this impact can be mitigation if standard erosion control measures are implemented. 1) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, D D D pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? The subject soils work does not involve the discharge of pollutants. Toxaphene-contaminated soils will be buried in the deep fills of College Blvd., and capped by the roadway bed. No significant impact from such pollutants are anticipated. m) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? D D D No significant changes to downstream receiving waters will occur if standard erosion control methods are implemented. These. erosion controls are required by City of Carlsbad policy. n) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired D D D water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? The subject project, as conditioned, will have only insignificant impacts on downstream Agua Hedionda Lagoon. 14 Rev. 07/03/02 o) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? The proposed project will not discharge directly into surface or groundwater in an uncontrolled manner and will not result in the alteration or degradation of beneficial uses of downstream waters. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING-Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? Existing urban development occurs to the south of the proposed project (Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park), however the proposed soils remediation and stockpile project will not divide the physical arrangement Of this established community. No other established community is located within the vicinity of the project. 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 zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The subject soils remediation and stockpile is allowable pursuant to City policies and will not conflict with the general plan or zoning. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? The subject remediation and stockpile project does not affect any sensitive biological resources and does not interfere with biological connectivity or other environmental policies, nor does it conflict with the Draft HMP document. All impacts proposed will occur within agricultural areas. X. MINERAL RESOURCES-Would the project: 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 State? The subject project will not result in the loss of availability of any known mineral resources. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? The subject project will not result in the loss of availability of any known important mineral resource recoveries. XI. NOISE-Would the project result in: 15 D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Rev. 07/03/02 a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? The subject project will involve short-term construction noise only, which should not be considered to be a significant impact. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundboume noise levels? The subject soils work will involve short-term construction vibration only, which should not be considered to be a significant impact. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No permanent noise levels will increase from implementation of the proposed project. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? The subject project will involve short-term construction noise only, which should not be considered to be a significant impact. 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 public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The subject project will not involve the location of people residing or working in the area. The project involves only soils remediation and stockpile. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No private airstrip is in the vicinity of the subject project. Xll. POPULATION AND HOUSING-Would the project: a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? The subject soils work does not affect growth in any significant way. No extensions of major infrastructure are proposed through implementation of the subject project. No housing or other land uses are proposed. 16 D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Rev. 07/03/02 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The subject site is presently undeveloped and no existing housing will be displaced. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The subject property is presently undeveloped, and thus, no people will be displaced. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project 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? No development is proposed by the project. ii) Police protection? No development is proposed by the project. iii) Schools? No development is proposed by the project. iv) Parks? No development is proposed by the project. v) Other public facilities? No development is proposed by the project. XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? The proposed soils remediation and stockpile does not involve the development of the subject project, and thus no permanent use is proposed at this time. The project would thus not increase the use of neighborhood or regional parks and recreational facilities. 17 D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Rev. 07/03/02 b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The subject project does not propose any development of the property, and thus will not create demand for recreational facilities. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC-Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? The subject project does not propose development of the property, and thus will not create any increase in traffic. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? The proposed soils work does not involve development which generates any traffic trips, and therefore no level of service standards will be affected by the project. 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 safety risks? No impact to air traffic patterns or traffic levels will occur as a result of the proposed soils work. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The subject project does not involve the design of any roadways, and thus will not result in increased hazards from roadway design. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? The soils remediation and stockpile will not affect emergency access inasmuch as they do not impact any public streets or rights ofway. f) Result in insufficient parking capacity? The proposed project will not affect parking or require any parking in any way. 18 D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Rev. 07/03/02 g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn- outs, bicycle racks)? The subject project does not conflict with transportation policies, plans or programs, and will not affect bus or bicycle operations. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS-Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? The subject project does not proposed development of the property, and thus will not create demand for wastewater treatment facilities. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? The subject project does not proposed development of the property, and thus will not create demand for any water or wastewater treatment facilities, nor will it result in the need for expansion of existing facilities. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? The subject project does not proposed development of the property, and thus will not create demand for new storm drain facilities. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No development is proposed through implementation of the subject project, and no demand for water will result from the soils remediation and stockpile work. e) Result m a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand m addition to the provider's existing commitments? The subject project does not proposed development of the property, and thus will not create demand for wastewater treatment. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? The subject project does not proposed development of the property, and thus will not create demand for solid waste disposal. 19 D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Rev. 07/03/02 g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? The subject project does not proposed development of the property, and thus will not create demand for solid waste disposal, and is not affected by federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. XVll. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 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? The subject project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment below self-sustaining levels. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumula- tively 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?) The proposed project does not have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The project does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. XVlll. EARLIER ANALYSES D D D D D D D D D D D D 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. 20 Rev. 07/03/02 .. jc • DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AIR QUALITY-Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non-attainment area for ozone (03), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10). 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). A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state- mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9th through lOth in 1994, and was forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996. 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(B) of the State of California Environment 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 of the City's General Plan and the RAQS. Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is in the City of Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and 2001) and one day in 2001 for the federal 8-hour average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour state standard for suspended particulates in 1996. No violations of any other air quality standards have been recorded recently. If there is grading associated with the project, the project would involve minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and construction. Such emissions would be minimized through standard construction measures such as the use of properly tuned equipment and watering the site for dust control. 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 neither 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) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? 21 Rev. 07/03/02 ' ,, . Less Than Significant Impact. The Air Basin is currently in a 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 15130 (a)(4), the proposed project's contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. CULTURAL RESOURCES Will the project: e) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to§ 15064.5? Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Archaeological sites SDI-10,611, which has been identified by Brian F. Smith Associates, Cultural Resources Survey for the Robertson Ranch Project, June 17, 2002, could be impacted by the soils remediation, which includes scraping of the topsoil up to one foot deep. As a result, mitigation, including archaeologist observation of the soil scraping in the vicinity of this archaeological site, will be necessary. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would the project: Will the project: t) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed soil stockpile will be unstable and may cause erosion unless proper erosion control is implemented. The project proponent shall implement best management practices over graded areas, including the soil stockpile in order to minimize the potential for erosion. Such best management practices may include the installation of temporary desiltation basins and hydro seeding. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY-Would the project: o) 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 on-or off-site? A change to the existing drainage pattern of the subject area will occur as a result of the project. No alteration of streamcourse or river will result. Erosion control measures in accordance with City policies shall be implemented in order to avoid significant impacts to drainage in the area. The project proponent shall implement best management practices over graded areas, including the soil stockpile in order to minimize the potential for erosion. Such best management practices may include the installation of temporary desiltation basins and hydroseeding of the area. 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 Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008. I. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. 2. Biological Constraints Report for the Robertson Ranch Report, prepared by Merkel & Associates, Inc., August 21,2002. 3. Cultural Resources Survey for the Robertson Ranch Project, by Brian F. Smith, Associates, June 17, 2002. 22 Rev. 07/03/02 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 1. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Prior to any scraping or soils remediation in the vicinity of SDI-10,611, a qualified archaeologist/cultural resource specialist shall be retained to observe the work in the area and, if necessary, salvage and document any prehistoric resources found. 2. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. The soil stockpile shall be stabilized as required by the City of Carlsbad. The project proponent shall implement best management practices over graded areas, including the soil stockpile in order to minimize the potential for soil erosion. Such best management practices may include the installation of temporary desiltation basins and hydroseeding, as directed by the City of Carlsbad .. 3. HYDROLOGY. The proposed project shall be required to comply with the NPDES permit regulations as promulgated by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, including implementation of an erosion control plan to mitigation potential water quality impacts. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) 23 Rev. 07/03/02 PROOF OF PUBLIC ON (2010 & 2011 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of North County Times Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, for the County of San Diego, that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpariel), has been published in each regular and entire issue of sai d newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: FEBRUARY 13,2003 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at ____ SAN JVIARCOS, __ California this 13TH day ------------------------------------- of _____ FEBRUARY, 2003 ___ _ Signature NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising This space is £ fM 'le County Clerk's Filing Stamp Proof of Publication of CITY OF CARLIIIAD "-ANNNG DI!MR1'MENT N01'ICE OF INT!NT10 ADOPT A IIITIQA1m .. GATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME:c.Javera ~ CASE NO.: Gradlna Pwmlt tor. DWG 390-9E PROJECT LOCA"f.ION: West of Future Intersection of College Blvd/Cannon Rd PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Stockpile covering approld· mately 12.1 acres, with a maximum height of 25 feet and maximum volume of 280,000 cubic yarCI adjacent to the future intersection of College Blvd. and Cannon Road. PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review ol the above de- scribed project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implemen- tation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance or the City of Carls- bad. As a resu~ of said review, the in~ial study (EIA Part 2) did not identify any potentially significant 1mpacts on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed ne_gative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or miti-gate the effects to a point where clearly no significant ef-fect 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 signiji-cant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Director. A copy ofthe in~ial study (EIA Part 2) documenting rea- sons to support the proposed Mitigated Negative Decla- ration are on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Fara- day Avenue, Carlsbad Califorma 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submH comments in wming to the Planning Department within 20 days of the date ol this notice. The proposed project and Negative Declaration are sub-ject to review and approvaVacfoption bv the City of Carls-bad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any question~ please call Eric Munoz, Senior Planner in the Planning uepartment at (760) 602-4608. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: FEBRUARY f3, 2003 TO MARCH 5 2003 PUBLISH DATE: FEBRUARY 13,2003 NCT1459839 City of Carlsbad l@(§i.Jblei•i•A§•fJIIIei§eJI NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: Calavera Stockpile CASE NO: Grading Permit for DWG 390-9E PROJECT LOCATION: West ofFuture Intersection of College Blvd/Cannon Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Stockpile covering approximately 12.1 acres, with a maximum height of 25 feet and maximum volume of 280,000 cubic yard adjacent to the future intersection of College Blvd and Cannon Road. 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 and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) 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 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 Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Director. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration are on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of the date of this notice. If you have any questions, please call Eric Munoz, Senior Planner, in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4608. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD FEBRUARY 13, 2003 TO MARCH 5, 2003 PUBLISH DATE FEBRUARY 13, 2003 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ~ January 30, 2003 \:I Cit of MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: Calavera Stockpile CASE NO: Grading Plan for DWG #390-9E PROJECT LOCATION: West ofFuture Intersection of College Blvd/Cannon Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Stockpile covering approximately 12.1 acres with a maximum height of 25 feet and maximum volume of 280,000 cubic yards adjacent to, and west of, the future intersection of College Blvd and Cannon Road. 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 (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: [8J 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. 0 The proposed project MAY have "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 on attached sheets. (Mitigated Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed). 0 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, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Mitigated Negative Declaration is on file in the Engineering Department under DWG# 390-9E (Grading Plan) at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. ADOPTED: MARCH 6. 2003, pursuant to Administrative Approval by Planning Director. ATTEST: Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us April 30, 2003 Mr. Brian Milich McMillin Companies 2727 Hoover A venue National City, CA 91950 Reference: Calavera Hills P_hase II, College and Cannon Disposal Site (RECON Number 3225N) Dear Mr. Milich: This letter describes the results of the assessment of potential noise impacts to residences from the proposed rock crushing facility to be located northwest of the intersection of future College Boulevard and Cannon Road in Calavera Hills in the city of Carlsbad, California. Figure 1 shows the regional location of the project. Figure 2 shows the proposed rock crusher location. Average noise levels at the residential properties to the south due to operation of the crushing plant are projected to be less than 75 dB(A) l.eq (I) (hourly equivalent noise level). Compliance with the City of Carlsbad's noise ordinance which limits the hours of construction will ensure that impacts to residential receivers are less than significant. Requirements The section of the City of Carlsbad's noise ordinance that addresses construction activities (Section 8.48.010) does not set a noise level standard but simply limits the hours of construction. The City does not currently have a noise level standard for construction noise. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II (EIR 98-02) indicated that the significance of construction noise produced during project development must comply with the County of San Diego Noise Ordinance. San Diego County Noise Ordinance Section 36.410 states that construction noise shall not exceed 75 dB for more than 8 hours during any 24-hour period. The City of Carlsbad does impose time constraints on grading and construction operations in the Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 8.48.010. This section specifies that no construction shall occur during the following times: 1. After sunset on any day, and before 7:00a.m., Monday through Friday, and before 8:00a.m. on Saturday; 2. All day on Sunday, New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day. The Noise Technical Report for Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II (RECON 2000) assessed noise impacts to residential receivers from three rock crushing facility locations under these standards. Construction noise impacts to the residential properties adjacent to the proposed crushing operation site are also assessed in accordance with these policies. As shown in Figure 2, there is one residence to the west, the Robertson Ranch House, and a group of residences located to the south, the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park, of the proposed rock crushing facility. Mr. Brian Milich Page2 April 30, 2003 Site Description Figure 2 shows the proposed crushing operations area and the location of adjacent residential properties. The rock crushing equipment would be located on a graded pad to the northwest of the future College/Cannon intersection. The precise location of the equipment on the pad is shown in Figure 3. As illustrated in this figure the crushing operations would be located on the northern portion of the soil disposal site and the stockpiled material would be placed south of the crusher. Trucks will access the crushing pad to drop off raw material, and will enter by traveling south on future College Boulevard and west on future Cannon Road to enter by the southwest of the crushing pad. Analysis and Recommendations The Noise Technical Report for the Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II (RECON 2000) discussed noise levels for rock crushing and screening plants and assessed impacts based on a noise level of 88 A-weighted decibels average equivalent level [dB( A) L.,q] at 50 feet from the source. The Robertson Ranch House is located approximately 260 feet to the west of the crusher pad. The Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park is a minimum of 300 feet to the south of the crusher pad. Noise measurements performed by RECON for the Calavera Hills Village KRock Crusher (RECON 2003) determined that trucks delivering raw material to the crushing site contributed intermittent noise to the overall noise environment. The noise level due to the trucks was measured to be 78.8 dB( A) L.,q(l) at 30 feet from the source. These trucks would access the new crushing pad by traveling south on College Boulevard and along Cannon Road adjacent to the residences to the south. The center of the truck noise source from activity along Cannon Road would be the centerline of the road, which is 220 feet from the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park. There is also the potential that the trucks will take a path on the new crusher pad that passes along the edge nearest to the Robertson Ranch House. This would locate the truck noise source 260 feet from the Robertson Ranch House. Because the trucks generally are widely spaced, noise from the crushing operations and trucks can be treated as point sources. To calculate noise reduction due to distance, soft site conditions were assumed. For this assessment, flat site conditions with no intervening topography were also assumed. Actual noise levels may be lower than those projected in this analysis due to the varying topography in the area. Robertson Ranch House Under a worst case scenario, if the noise source center of the crushing machinery were located at the western pad boundary, the noise level at the Robertson Ranch House due to crushing operations would be 70.1 dB( A) L.,q(l). Noise at the Robertson Ranch House due to truck noise along the western pad boundary would be 55.4 dB(A) Leq(l)· The combination of these two noise sources would result in an overall noise level of 70.2 dB(A) L.,q(l) due to crushing operations. Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park Likewise under a worst case scenario, if the noise source center of the crushing machinery were located at the southern pad boundary, the noise level at the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park due to crushing operations would be 68.5 dB( A) Leq<O· Noise at the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park due to truck noise along Cannon Road would be 57.2 dB(A) L.,q<l>· The combination of these two nois~ sources would result in an overall noise level at the nearest mobile home residence of 68.8 dB(A) L.,q<l> due to crushing operations. As noted above, the crushing operations would be located on the northern portion of the soil disposal site and the stockpiled material would be placed south of the crusher. These operational parameters would reduce the projected noise levels associated with the crushing operations. Mr. Brian Milich Page3 April 30, 2003 The applicable standard for the adjacent residential receivers as described in the Final EIR for Calavera Hills Phase II, states that construction noise shall not exceed 75 dB for more than 8 hours during any 24-hour period. Since the average hourly noise level due to all operations associated with this crushing facility is projected to be less than 75 dB(A) at the adjacent receivers assuming the worst case equipment locations, the crushing facility is not limited to operating only 8 hours during any 24-hour period. Limiting the hours of operation to those stated in the city of Carlsbad noise ordinance will ensure that the crushing facility does not result in significant noise impacts to residences. If you should have any questions regarding this noise assessment, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Cheryl K. Johnson Acoustical Analyst CKJ:sh References Cited RECON 2000 2003 Noise Technical Report for Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II and Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4, City of Carlsbad, California. December 18. Calavera Hills Phase II, Village KRock Crusher Noise Measurements. April9. LEGEND ~ -- I I - II II II II II I STOCKPILE AREA DIEGAN COASTAL SAGE SCRUB (CSS) DISTURBED I DEVELOPED CHAMISE CHAPARRAL RIPARIAN EUCALYPTUS WOODLAND EXOTIC CISMOTANE ALKALI MARSH PROPOSED G v ~ SOUTHERN WILLOW SCRUB EMERGENT WETLAND CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHER LEAST BELL'S VIREO SOIL REMEDIATION AREAS (NOT COVERED IN EIR) SOIL REMEDIATION AREAS (PREVIOUSLY COVERED IN CALAVERA HILLS EIR) Proposed re-location of toxaphene affected soil in deep fill Riparian corridor impacts for College Blvd. and Cannon Rd . permitted pursuant to USACE section 404 permit no. 2001 00215-RLK. SOIL REMEDIATION I STOCKPILE AREA CALAVERA HILLS, CARLSBAD, CA -- r ! -I -.,__j ----------- 5i00 Pollteur Court CMI EnglnMrlnQ Suit• 100 Planning Corlebod, Calffomlo 921J01!, Procenlng 760-931-noo Surveylnv Fox; 7&0-931-BMO www.ocioywMUitantl.com / #991146 November 12, 2002 II';,~ I '•II 1&30 JI'ARADAY AVENUE. Stm'E 100, CARLSBAD, CA. 02008 (?10} 8:!11-0'180 f'.AX (?80) est-674-4 Stockpile2-121202.dwg /