HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 72-38; SEA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS; FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION; 1975-01-06• • •. /'
•
• ••• • .. •• ~.~:' -~ . • ;.
•~. . i
.,' . .",
.. ".',-,nu .... Engineers
11585 SORRENTO VALLEY ROAD, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121
Mr. Stephen Q. Abbey
1111 Via Las Cumbres
Son Diego, Col iforn ia 92111
January 6, 1975
S 134-1, S826
Jo.HN V.Lo.WNEY, C. E.
PETER KALDVEER, C. E .
Ro.BERT R. PRATER, C. E.
Do.NALD H. HILLEBRANDT. C. E.
714/453-5605
RE: FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION
SEA VIEW' CONDOMINIUMS. : Cr'72.";s ;-:. ..
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA:·. ..... . :',
. ' .
Dear M'r" Abbey: -" • I \-~:, '-~ ~ "'" -: :,' • ,t ' .. "
In accordance with your request, we have performed a foundation investigation .for the .
subject project. The accompanying report presents the results of our field inve~tigQtion,. .
I'aboratory tests, and engineering analysis. The soil·and foundation conditions aj-e discussed
and recommendations for the foundation engineering aspects of the project are presented.·
We refer you t~ the text of the report for detailed recommendations'. . ' ..
. , I
I.f you have any questions concerning our findings, please calL
..
Very truly yours,
LDVEER ASSOCIA rES,
Robert Prater
RP:rcs
·Copies: Addressee (2)
Rick Enginee'ring Company, San Diego
Attn: Mr. Dick Elliot (2)
. Rick Engineering Company, Carlsbad
Attn: Mr. Bob Ladwig (1)
Coneer Engineering
Attn: Mr. Ibrahim K. Salameh (1)
PALO ALTO. / o.AKLAND / Mo.NTEREY / SAN DIEGO.: . ~'1(j./"
.' . .. . ' .~ ;~. ~ ...
.. j
~._ _ _ .................. ~_--.. ... "'"';' 1:: ......... .."...,_ ....... _ •• "" _ • __ • __ • ___ .... ~ • __ ~ ____ "'---~ 1 _____ ,." ... "~_-...,,. ........... -..... ... _"--.,. .. ~ ........ ____ .~I __ --...., ___ ........... __ .... -...-_ ........ ~ ....... _____ ..... ~ ... _ ~
• . l'
• • • .: .' • •• • • ., .,.
" ,e
a"
a'
• • ,.
• •
l
FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION.
For
SEA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS'
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
To
MR. STEPHEN Q. ABBEY
1111 Via Las Cumbres
San Diego, California 92111
January 1975
, .'
" ,.
" ,
'. '.'
• • • -e • • .-
• • .-
I'
I
,I:'
.'
I'
I,
, ,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
TITLE PAGE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
SCOPE
SITE INVESTIGATION
A. Surface
B~ Subsurface
C. Groundwater
D. Seismicity
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENTATIONS
A. EARTHWORK
1. Excavation
2-. Permanent Slopes
3. Recompaction of Loose Surface Soils
4. Material for Fill
5. Compaction
6' , . Trench Backfill
7. Construction Observation
B. FOUNDATIONS
'1. Footings
2. Floor Slabs
3. Retaining Walls
4. lateral' Loads
FIGURE 1 -SITE PLAN
APPENDIX A -FIELD INVESTIGATION
Figure A-l -Key to Exploratory Boring Logs
Exploratory Boring Logs
APPENDIX B -LABORATORY INVESTIGA TJON
Figure B-1 -Gradation Test Data ,
Table B-1 -Summary of Direct Shear .Tests of Undisturbed Samples'
, -Page No.,
' 1
1.
1
1
'2
2
2.
2
-3 '" 3
3",-
3
4
4
4_
4
4
,4
'5
5
6
A~t ..
B-1
• .-•' [, ,
•
I ,. ,-
•• • • I'
I
•
. ,
, INTRODUCTION
FOUNDATION INVESTIGAT'ION
FOR
SEA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS·
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
In this report we present the results of our foundation investigation for'a p.roposed 24-unit
condominium project to be constructed on .the northeast side of Carlsbad' BouJevara, south'
of Tamarack Avenue in Carlsbad, California. The purpose of this inv.estigaliCm was' tao ,.
evaluate the foundation materials·and to provide recommendations concerning-.the soil and-
foundation engineering aspects of the project. .
The proposed development will be constructed on two lots separated by the presently exiSting
Sequoia Avenue as shown on the attached Site Plan, Figure 1. ' Each of the.structures along . "-
the northeast portions of the two lots will consist of a parking garage covered'with a rein-~ ,
I forced concrete deck with three stories of wood-frame construction above., The wans of the, '.
parking garage wi II be of masonry block construction. The bui·ldii1gs along, Carlsbad 800Ie-'' :
vard wHI be two-story, wood-frame structures. In the parking garages, maximum cO'lumn
and wall loads will be approximately 120 kips and 20 kips per lineal foot~ respectively.,
In the two-story structures, maximum wall loads will be approximately 2 kips' per HneaJ',·foot.,
. ,
Site grading will consist primarily of excavation to fower the'site grades dbwn to' an average '
elevation of about Elev. +44 within the area of the proposed buifdings'. This. win req~ire·
excavation depths of up to about 10 feet. The wolfs of the parking garages along the north-
east boundary of the site will therefore act as retaining wall-s. . ..
SCOPE
The scope of work performed for this investigation included a site reconnaissanc~ri. subsurface
exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analyses of the field and laboratory. da.to and
the preparation of this report. The data obtained and the analyses.per.formed were' for the
purpose of providing design and construction criteria for site earthwork, building foundations, .
and retaining walls. . .
SITE INVESTIGATION
A sl,Ibsurface investigation was performed at the site on December 18, 1974, using a t.ruck-
mounted' bucket auger to investigate and sample the subsurface soi Is. Two exploratory borings
were drilled to a maximum depth of 20 feet at the approximate locations shown on the SHe,
Plan, Figure 1. logs of the'borings and d~tails regarding the field investigation ore included
in Appendix A. laboratory test results ar~ presented in Appendix 8'.
A. Surface,
Most of the area of the proposed buildings is presently occupied by residential structures .
,and appurtenances including trees, shrubs, fences, asphalt drives, 'concrete srabs,' efc. ·The
b,wnly-Holdvur· Ru.dam·
••
I· . .
,e
I
I
I
I' . e
"
f . :
~ " .
~...... • ...,""-.............. ...-_______ ._...,.......' __ ~-ilii~.-'-"""'''Y'''''"...,.\i'¢''''''J5"",' .......... .;,i .... ' """".""'''IrU!i~rik ... 'b''''tU'''''d_V.-!Y ... ¢1tI;il>:ll~ .... 1tb.,.tS""l6t\rilllli%AA~;;.r ... ""1tN~f~~.\)11;~, ,_
·e , ,
S 134-1, Page 2
. natural ground surface elevation varies from a low of about flev. +41 ~t the southern
extremity of the site to a high of about Elev. +52 in the northern portion of the si,te.
B. Sl,lbsurface
The soils encountered in the' exploratory borings consisted predominantly of siltY sands
from the ground surface to the maximum depths of the borings. The sandy soils are generally
in a loose condition near the surface becoming medium 'dense to dense below an average
depth of 3 feet. No expansive soi Is wefe encountered at the site. ..
The attached boring logs and related information depict subsurface conditions oniy at these
.specific locations and at the particular dates indicated. Soil conditions at o.ther locations
may differ from conditions occurring at these locations. Also, the passage of time may result·
in a change in the soil conditions at these locations due to ~nvironmental changes~ ,
C. Groundwater
Free 'groundwater was not encountered in any 'of the ~xploratory 'borings drilled at the ~ite.·.
It must be noted however that fluctuations in groundwater levels'are possible· due to variations
, i~(raj,nfall, temperature, and other factors not evident at the time our measurements were .made·
and reported herein. '
D. Seismicity
Based on available published information there are no faults known'to exist at the site and
the nearest known major active faults are the Elsinore and San Jacinto Fau'lt Zones located'
approximately 24 and 48 miles northeast of the site, respectively'. .
Although research on earthquake prediction has greatly increased in recent years, seismologists
, have not yet reached the point where, they can predict when and where an earthquake will
occur. Nevertheless, on the basis of current technology, it is reasonable to assume that the .
proposedbuildingswill be subjected to at least one moderate earthquake during their design.
life. During such an earthquake, the danger from fault offset·through the site is remote 'but
strong 'shaking of the site is likely to occur. .
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
From a soil and foundation engineering standpoint, the site is ,suitable for the .. proposed·, . ,
development provided the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are incor-
porated into the design and construction of the project. The opinions, conclusions and .
recommendations presented in this report are confingent upon Lowney/Kaldveer' Associates"
being retained to review the final plans and specifications and to observe .the site earthwork
and installation of foundations. "
The primary feature of concern at the site is the loose condition of the upper three feet of
sandy surface soils. Buildings founded directly on these compressible soils could be subject
• :
I {I'
I ' 1 L ~.: 3; I , .'
S 1'34-1, Page 3
to excessive total and differential settlements. This would be especially true for those
bui'dings founded partially on the loose surface soils and partially on the I'ess compressible
underlying denser sands. Based on the presently proposed buifding pad'elevations (Ele".
+43.7 and Elev. +44.0) the loose surface:soils will be removed over much: of .the site' by'
the required excavations. In some areas bowever " portions of the structures woulct'be.' .
founded partially on the compressible loose surface soils and parfially on the mpre competent
underlying medium dense to dense sandy soils. In our opinion, the:most economicaf means
by which to provide uniform foundation support is to remove and recompact the loose: surface'
~below the foundation bearing level on those building sites, where the 10Qse soils are
not removed by the required excavations' •. Detailed recommendations aree'presented in the ..
following paragraphs.
A. EARTHWORK
1. Excavation
Excavation of the on-site' soils cQn be accomplished using standard: earth~ving equipment •.
The' contractor should be made responsible for the stability and .. na;ntenanc~'otany temporary
construction slopes that he may utilize during construction of the parking garage retaining';
walls. Due to the cohesionless nature of the sandy soirs that will be·:encountered·in, the base-. '
ment excavation, it is our opinion that temporary construction slopes-·win not stand. safely :
at an inclination steeper than about 1.0 horizontal to 1.0 verHcal, •.
2 •. __ Per!!!gr,l~Qt.:_S~~pe~ /1."''nt,..($:9'5 ..... "
2 '/ ~ 6 G-n-I<Y' . ' , ., '. '. '. , ' .
Based o'n the resu'lts of our stability analy;es, we recommend that the ·proposed. cut-slope~ . (and· .
any fi I slopes) be constructed to an inclination not steeeer than 1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical ..... . !b}~ ... !:.~m~.en.c;I.ation..appli es,~to,.,.all, p~rmanent,.sJope$»up..t(Y'"'1-5--feet'h'fg~. ". . .~ , '
. .
The on-site sandy soils are quite susceptible to erosion. Therefore~ the·pro.jectplcinsand.
specifications should contain all necessary design features· and construction requirements to
prevent erosion of the on-site .soils both during and after construction. This. is particularly
important on those slopes where the foundations of buildings will be instaHed near the tops
of slopes. Slopes should be appropriately planted with a protective ground cover.. .'
3. Recompaction of Loose Surface Soils
Footings supporting the proposed buildings should not be founded over or within the 3-foot
thickness of loose sandy soi I that overl ies the site. On those building pads where the loose
surface soils are not removed by the required site excavations, we· recomr'nef,ld that the loos~ .
soils be. excavated to a depth of 3 feet below the original ground surface e'levation'and ."
repl'aced as compacted structural fill up to the design finish grade. Where the layer of loose
surface soil is only partially removed by the required site excavations·and where the huildi.ng .
foundations wi II extend below the zone of loose soil, excavatio.n .and recompaction of the loose
soils will not be necessary. . ..
lDwnl~DIdvI~ Rumaln .
S 134-1, Page 4 ..
4.' . Material for Fill
. .
Al I existing on-site soils obtained from the required site excavations having an 'organic
content of less than 3 percent by volume are suitable for reuse as fill and/or backfjlf as
required. Existing on-site materials for use as fiJI should not, however, contain rocks,"
cobbles, or lumps over 6 inches in greatest dimension with no more than 15 percent larger
than 2.5 inches.
5. Compaction
All structural fill should be compacted to a minimum degree of compaction of 90 percent
based upon ASTM Test Designation 01557-70. Fill should be compacted by mechanical
means only in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in uncompacted thickness. .
6. Trench Backfill
Pipeline trenches should be backfilled with compacted structural fjlf. Backfill material
should be placed by mechanical means only in lift thicknesses appropric;tte to the type of
compaction equipment utilized. Trench backfill should' be compacted to a minimum degree-
of compaction of .85 percent. In building and pavement areas, the upper 3 feet of trench'
b9ckfiIJ should be compacted to a m.inimum degree of compaction of 90 percent. The on-
site sandy soils are suitable for use as backfill.
7. Construction Observation
Var.iations in subsurface conditions are possible and may be ~ncountered du~'in9 construction.
In order to permit s;orrelation between the preliminary subsurface data and the actuai sub-:
surface conditions encountered during construction and to assure conformance with the plans _
and specifications, it is essential that we be retained to observe the site excav~tion work, "
foundation excavations, selection of satisfactory fiff materials, and placement qnd compacti.on'
of fi lIs and backfi I Is. .
B. FOUNDATIONS
1. Footings
, ,
We recommend that the buildings be supported on conventional continuous and/or iso'lated
spread footi~gs. Footings may be founded in undisturbed ~aturql soil (and/or recompacted
surface soils where applicable). Footings for the parking garage should be founded at least
18 inches below rough pad grade or 22 inches below the lowest adjacent finish grade, , '
whichever is deeper. Footings for the lighter two-story ,buildings should be founded at least
12 inches below rough pad grade or 16 inches below lowest adjacent finish-grade, which-
ever is deeper. Footings located adjacent to the tops of slopes should be founded sufficiently
deep so as 1'0 provide at least 5 feet of horizontal cover'between the footing and the sfope
face at the footing bearing level. Footings located adjacent to uti! ity' trenches should have,
their bearing surfaces situated below an imaginary 1.5 to 1 plane projected upward from
the bottom edge of the adjacent utility trench.
'.' , . , ,
. "
'.:
'.' ;
~ 4 7"-
~. ;
, .• l: =. :
;;;' :'
~ , . . "
-' • <
S 134-T" Pose 5 ,
Footings founded at the above recommended depths may be designed for allowable bearing
pressures of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) due to dead loads, 4,000 psf due to combined
dead and live loads, and 5,500 psf due to all loads, including wind or seismic. Aft con-
tinuous footings should, however I have a minimum width of 12 inches and contain top and
bottom reinforcement to provide structural continuity, and to permit spanning of local'
irregularities. To assure that footings are founded in material of sufficient bearing capacity,
it is essential that we inspect the footing excavations prior to p'lacing reinforcing steel or'
concrete.
Settlements under buitding loads are expected to be within tolerable limits for the proposed "
'structures. We estimate that total settlements should not exceed approximately 1 inch and
post-construction differential settlements across anyone building should not exceed 1/2 inch.
2., Floor Slabs
Building floor slabs may be supported directly on undisturbed natural soil (and/or reompacted--~' ,"
surface sOil where applicable). However, in areas where moisture-sensitive floor coverings
are to b«?,used and in other areas where floor wetness would be undesirqble, 4 inches of free,
'draining., rounded gravel such as 3/B-inch, pea gravel should be placed beneath floor slabs ,
to serve as a capillary barrier between the subgrade soil and the slab. In order to minimize, '
vapor transmission, an impermeable membrane should be placed over the gravel,. The mem-
brane should be covered with 2 inches of sand to protect it during' construction. ' The sand
, should be lightly moistened just prior to placing the concrete.
3. Retaining Walls
Retaining walls in the parking garages must be designed to resist both laterdl earth pressures
and any additional pressures caused by surcharge loads on the adjoining ground surface. We
recommend that unrestrained {free to rotate} walls with a level backHII be designed to resist,'
an e,quivalent fluid pressure of 30 pounds per cubic foot. We recommend that restrained walls
be designed to resist an equivalent fluid pressure of 30 pounds per ,cubic foot plus an additional
uniform lateral pressure of 5H pounds per square foot where H = height of backfill above the
top of the wall footing in feet.
Wherever walls will be subjected to surcharge loads, they should be des.igned for ali addi.tional
uniform lateral pressure equal to one-third or one-half the anticipated sur.~harge, load depending,
on whether the wall is unrestrained or restrained.
The recommended pressures assume that adequate drainage will, b~ provided at the ground surface'
to prevent, the bui Id-up of hydrostatic pressures from surface water infil.tration. In order to "
prevent,wetness of the walls due to any minor infiltration of water into the backfilrbehind the
wans, we recommend that consideration be given to waterproofing the walls prior to placing
backfill.
Backfi II placed behind the walls should be compacted to a minimum' degr~e of compaction of
90 percent using I ight compaction equipme,nt. If heavy compaction equipment is used, ,the walls
, lDwnl!v·MDfdvt!!!r RmKMm : -"
'I" t ,
II . ,
e'
e,
- ----. ---_ O_C:::::C:!WI_ =_ .xc __ =, ' =-
5'134-1,' Page 6 '
should be appropriately temporarily braced. If the void space remaining between the fhiished
wall and the excavation is insufficient to allow compaction of the backfill by mechanicqJ
, "means, then we recommend that the space be backfilled with lean concrete or '3/4-inch
crushed rock. '
Retaining walls should be supported"on spread footing fo'unqations designed in 'accordance
with the recommendations presented previously under Item B.l." IIFootings ll • lateral load
resistance for the walls can be developed in accordance with the recommendations presented
immedia'tely below under Item B.4., "lateral loads". '
4. lateral loads
latera) load resistance for the proposed buildings may be developed in friction between the
, bose of the foundations and the supporting subgrade. An allowable friction coeffident of
0.30 is recommended for use in design. '
Additional lateral load resistance .mqy' be developed in passive pressures actingdgainst the
footings. A passive resistance, equal to on equivalent fluid weighing 300 pounds per cubic'
foot may be used in design provided the footings are poured neat against undisturbed soil.
I l f
I, I, .
a
(
m
OJ
.J
0:
Approximate Scale, (Fe'et)
LEGEND
ES':-l.' Indi'cafes' bpproximate,
, . . . loca.tion' of. explore-·
tory ~r.ins '
, Yellow indicates'
'location of prC?Posed:
structures
Base: A topographic survey prepared bl. Rick Engineering
Company, latest revision 12/18//4.
lowDev-Holdueer AS50dutes
Foundttllon I Soli I Geological Engineel.
Silt PLAN
SEA VIEW CONDOMINIUM
Carlsbad, Ca'lifornia
P/10JECT NO,
5134-1 January 1Y/~ Figure 1
,
f I
, ,
II , " : f
; '1
I r I
~. , ,
I, '
• . .
A-l
APPENDIX A -FIELD INVESTIGATION
The field investigation consisted of a surface reconnaissance and a subsurface exploration
program using a truck-mounted, 24-inch diameter bucket auger. Three exploratory borings
were drilled a't the site on December 18, 1974 to a maximum depth of 20 f~et at the approxi-
mate locations shown on the Site Plan, Figure 1. The soils in the borings were continuously
fogged in the field by our representative and described in accordance with the Unified Soil
Classification System (ASTM D2487). The logs of the borings as well as a key for soil dossi-,
fication are included as part of this appendix. The approximate ground surface 'elevations
noted on the boring logs were taken from a preliminary print 'of a topographic ,survey prepared
by Rick Engineering Company, latest revision December 18" 1974. '
Representative jar and.-relatively undisturbed samples were obtained from the exploratory
borings at selected depths appropriate to the investigation. All samples were returned to our
laboratory for evaluation and appropriate testing. Standard penetration resistance blow '.;
'counts were obtained in the borings by dropping a 140-pound hamme.r through a 30-inch free'
fal.l. A 2-inch O.D. split spoon sampler was driven to a maximum depth of 18 inches and, ,',
the number of blows recorded for each 6-inch penetratIon interval. The blows per fo.ot-
recorded on the boring log represent the accu-~ulated number of flows that were required
to drive the ,last 12 inches. Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained by driving a 2 .5~
inch I.D; sampler 18 inches into the soil using the 140-pound hammer. Boring log notations
for the standard split spoon ~nd 2.5-inch I.D. s~mp'ers are as indicated below:
Standard Split Spoon Sampler ~ 2.S-lnch I. D. Sampl~r
The boring logs show our interpretation of the subsurface conditions'at the dates and location$
indicated, and it is not warranted that they are representative of subsurface conditions at other'
locations and times.
I I
f , I
i
I
[
I f I' , I
i I 'I I
I
I
I,
~.
" I,' ,
j " "
• .or ~'
'It lil,
:' I~ . ,
,
.-
"
PRfMARY ONS GROUP ECONDARY ,DIVISIONS SYMBOL
GRAVELS CLEAN GW Wel~ graded gravels;,gravel-s'!nd mixtures, little, or no
..J GRAVELS fines . «
CJ) 0:0 MORE THAN HALF <LESS THAN PoorJy ~raded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures. little or
..J Wo 5% FINES) GP no flOes., ' ,(5 !;eN OF COARSE
(J) ~ . FRACTION IS GRAVEL ,GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt ~ixtures., non-plastic fineS. 0
Q u.Z W LARGER THAN WITH w Oz N FINES GC Clayey gravels. gravel-sand-c1ay mixtures, plastic fines. Z u.« Vi NO.4 SIEVE '~ ..J:X: «t-W ,CLEAN > SANDS SW Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. (!) :x: ~ SANDS 0:: ,
W ZW (I) MORE THAN HALF (LESS THAN (f) «t:J SP Poorly graded ,sands or gravelly sands, little,or no fines. :x: 0:: 5% FINES) 0:: t-« OF COARSE 8 ..J W FRACTION IS SANDS SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines. 0::(1) 0-SMALLER THAN WITH ~ NO.4 SIEVE FINES SC Cillyey sands, sand-clay' mixtures, plastic fines. '
, ,
II 'v~T;Y~~ ~ilts :a~~~~y c;t~~~ s~n~s..vf?~~Ii~g~~ . s~l.t,'Lor W SILTS AND CLAYS ML (f) N flOe Its I"""U''','Y ..J u. 0:: Vi 0 W li'v~l;~~~ ;~~~ I~~g~s~' nl"c:ti,.ih, gravelly 5 ..J CL ..J W LIQUID LIMIT IS (f) u. « >' clays, silly ·Iean-ci'ays. ..J « ~ W LESS THAN 50% Q' J: (I) Vi OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity. w Z Z ~ 0
~ « 0 MH IIIVI~w;~rs~il~~' eiasilc si{fs.or c)iatomaceous fine sandy or J: ..J N SILTS AND CLAYS t-« 0 t!) wO: o::W Z LIQUID LIMIT IS CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. w o!;e Z Z ~ ~ « GREATER THAN 50% " u: J: OH OrganiC ,clays of medium to high plasticity, orgllnic silts. t-
" HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pt Peat arid other ~ighly organicr soils.
• DEFINITION OF TERMS
"
~./,
u. S. STANDARD SERIES SIEVE CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENINGS
200 40 10 4 3/411 311 ' 12"
SAND GRAVEL
SILTS AND CLAYS J J I COARSE
COBBLES BOULDERS
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE
. GRAIN SIZES
SANDS,GRAVELS AND BLOWS/FOOT t CLAYS AND STRENGTH t , BLOWS/FOOT t NON-PLASTIC SILTS PLASTIC SILTS
VERY LOOSE 0-4 VERY SOFT o -1/4 ,0.-2
LOOSE 4 -10 SOFT ' 1/4 .., in 2 - 4
FIRM 112 - 1 4 -~ MEDIUM DENSE 10 -30 STIFF 1 - 2 ' ,8 -16
DENSE ~-50 VERY STIFF 2 -'4 16 -32
VERY DENSE OVER 50 HARD -OVER 4 'OVER 32 , '
RELATIVE DENSITY CONSISTENCY "
tNumber of blows of 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches to drive'a 2 inct'! 0.0.'(1-3/8 inch 1.0'> ,
split spoon (ASTM D-1586}. ,',
*Unconfilled compressive strength in Ions/sq. ft. as d~termined by laboratory' testing or approximateQ
by the stalldard penetration lest (ASTM 0-1586), pocket penetrometer, tor vane. or. visual observation.
KEY TO EXPLORATORY. BORING LOGS,
Unified Soil Clnssification§ys1~!~lc CASTM 0-2487)
loumev-Rafdueer ~55Ddate5 StA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS
Carlsbad, Cal iforn ia
Foundation I Soil I Gcological Engincers PflOJECT NO. DATE
S 1:~t1-1 .1\1111 Imy 1975 Figure, A-l
,
I
I
J
1,:,"""
t
} .•
.DRILL RIG Bucket Auge SURFACE ELEVATION +51'(Approx) LOGGED BY
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER None A TD BORING DIAMETER 24 Inches DATE DRILLED
DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION ~ ____________________________ ~~-T ______ ~ ______ ~ __ ~DEPTH
DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
SILTY SAND
i~6~' COLOR
brown
light
brown
light
brown
to gray
(FEET) CONSIST. SOIL TYPE
loose SM ~' -
medium
dense
I-1-
I--
I-2 -1-.-
-
,I-3 -
:... -f-~
- 4 ,-
~ _.
~ 5 -l-....-l
!--
i-6 -
-", -1--"-
-'1 -
i-,-,
I-8 -
!--
,-' 9 ---
-10-
~' -
!-11 -
I--'
8 3.7
is 5.6
!--23 I-12 -v~
!-13 -
I--F--'
~, 14 .,..
i--
I--:-15 -
i--
I-16 -
1-' '-
~ 17 -
~. -
I-18 -
!-" -1--.-
I-19 -
I--25 3.7
DPS
12/18/74
-"~ -~-'---='-"-'-'l:;:)-::-r'-"':'r:-~====I==t===0::1====:;\::::==+-20 --l.--=i===i===:I===I===l ;~6tto", (>i i)ori"q LIJ I ~d
light
brown
1'-'--,-'--,---
lowDey-Hofdu22r Rssociates
Foundation I Soil I Geological Engineers
EXPLORA TORY BOHING LOG
',SEA VIE:\V CONDO/\\lNIUMS
Cadsbt~d, Ct1rik)l'I~ia
t-_P_R_O_JE_-C_T_N_O_'_-t ___ D_A_T_E __ -l BORING
S 134 -J lOlwllry 1975 NO. [B-1
I
!
I I
~ I
I
DRILL RIG Bucket Auger SURFACE ELEVATION+48.51(Approx) .I_0GGED BY
DEP·TH TO GROUNDWATER None A TD BORING DIAMETER 24 Inches DATE DRll,LED
DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION II:
I----------------.--,----,------r--j" DEPTH ~'
DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS . SYM-COLOR BOL CONSIST, SOIL TYPE
. 0..
(FEET) ~ rn
brown loose SILTY SAND SM' 1-' -
.'
Bottom of Boring = 11.5 Feet
FDundation 1 Soil 1 Geological Engineers
light
brown
loose to
medium
dense'
medium
dense
dense
..
I-1 -1-. .....
I--
I-2 -
I-_1-'-1.-. "' .. -..
I-3 -I-.....
\ I-. -
..
.'
10· 1.9
'1-4 -21-2.;8
I-' . ..:~!-..
',1-5-
1-. -
i-'" 6 ..,.1--.-
I--
I-7 -:
I--
I-'.-
I--10··-4....,...-/
I-.-.
I-1"1, -
I-.12· -.
~. -
I-13 -
j..,." -
I-.14 -
I-_ 0
1-1!?:-_
I-.-
r.-16 -
I-'.-
1-'17 -
I--
I I-18 -
I--..
r.-19 -
I--
1-2q-
37.' '4.0
34: .4.2
EXPLORATORY BORING I-OG
SEA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS
Carlsbad, California
DPS
12/18/74
J-_P_RO_J_E_C_T_N_O_._+ ___ D_A_T_E __ -I BORING
5134-1 •. I\:muary'1975 NO. EB-2
..... _---___ ,_"~"'~~4~....!-'J......--J._ ••• __ _ .. , ....... _.-----.--.. --.,---... -.~"---~
:li j
" i t
i f
'!"
DRILL RIG Bucket Auge SURFACE ELEVATIOI~ +46 .5'(Approx LOGGED BY DPS
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER None ATD So'RING DIAMETER 24 'Inches DATE DRILLED 12/18/74
Z'ur-,. ~~t 0' cr: 0:-
DEPTH w ~~'(;) wI-DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
-' ... Z a. i=(I)$: «w
SOIL (FEET) ;:;: ~iilg 3:~ « CONSIST, TYPE CIl LU' LU lD 0 a.cr:_ (.) DE!?CRJPTION AND REMARKS I~'S~{-COLOR
SILTY SAND
.'
with some clay below 5 feet
brown loose
medium
dense
dense
medium
dense
SM I--
roo 1 ,-
I--
I-2 -r-r-
--
-3 -
---!-
-4 -
f--
!SM-f--5 V Isc ,.. -
i-6 --_r....-
i-7 -
,---,8 -'---
l-S -
roo -
SM l--
I
i-.11 -
i--f-:-'-
i-12 -
i--
f-13 -
.1--
I-14 -
1--
. ,
r--15 -+-...-1
I-...,
I-16 -
I-.-1-1-
i-'17 -
I--
1-' 18 -
i-19 -
~ '-
6 6.4'
20 5.3
'37 7.5
42 5.7 '
•
19 1.6
F~~tm=)m=o~'f7Bo=r'i~j~9~2~~O~F=e!e==t==~=F==~~==~~~-FbF~F==F==~~
EXPLORATORY BORING' LOG
lawney .. Haldu2er R5~DIiDte5' SEA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS
Carlsbad, California
foundation I Soil I Geological Engineers
I-_P_RO_J_E_C_T_N_O_, --:+ __ D_A_T_E_':'--J BORING EB~3
5134-1 January 1975 NO, .. ~ ________________________________ ~ ____________ ~ ____ ~ ______ L-__________ ~~
,',
r
" 'e 'I
',"I' , '
.~ ,
:'It,
. J,
,oJ, ,
"'"
. ! .
.. -----,----------._--• ' ,-B-1
APPENDIX B LABPRATORY INVESTIGATION
The ~atural water content was determined on selected samples and is recordedo~ the boring
logs at the appropriate sampJe depths.
, ...
Two laboratory gradation tests were performed on selected samples of the materiais encountere,d
in the borings ,as an aid to classification. The results of these tests are presented on Figure B-1.
, ,
A direct shear test was perforl"{led on a relatively undisturbed sample of the on-site ~~ndy soils.
The sample was sheared at a constant rate under various surcharge pressures'. Failure was"
taken at the peak shear stress. The results of the direct shear test are summarized in Table
B-1. . .'
'" . ;.'
, ,
~neyoflaldvllr ADaliatu "
I
'. , .. I
I,
i .
r' I
-,'
('
I
J II
e
" -.'-UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM -
(ASTM 0 422-72)
u. S. STANOARO SIEVE SIZE;S
lOa 1 6 3 2 t 31,4 1/1 114 • ! 10 16 10 30 .0 SO 60 ao 100 200 325
90
~
70
" z : ~ « a..
,,~, SO
III U a: :40
30
2C
10 -
0
100 50 10.0 S.O 1.0 0.5 0.1 .05 .01 .OOS
PARTI~l.lO: SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
GRAVEL S .... ND
'CaSal-ES t----...,..----+---r------r------i 'SH.T AND CLAY
COARSt:
KEY' BORING
SYMBOl; NO.
'e' • 1
......... -.. ,3
FINE
SAMPLE
DEPTH
(feet)
12
5
COARSE
ELEV.
~Ieel)
Foundation I Soli I Geologica' Engineers
ME01UM
UNIFIED
SOIL
CLASSIFICATION
SYMBOL
SM
SM-SC
FINE
SAMPLE DESCRIPTIO"!-
Brown, SILTY SAND
Brown, SILTY SAND with some
clay binder -'.,
, GRADATION TEST DATA
SEA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS
Carlsbad/, CaHfo~nio ,
PROJECT NO. DATE
,
Jonuo!.y 1975 Figure' B-1
. ,
0
10
211
JQ
.0
SO
60
70
$0 '
9()
roo .cot
",
Q
"' % :(
I-UI 0:, .... :z:
UI u a: ... Q.
• I
, I
'F "
I 5 . I
Ii· I
L I ~ I
I
f.
j
1
~
I:
I
I
e I ,
J
: r,
r '
f'
l'
I'
i
I I
• l.o I ~ .. .'
TABLE B-1,
a " .'
SUMMARY OF DIRECT SHEAR TEST OF UNDISTURBED SAMPLE
Sample Dry Water Apparent" ,Angle ot,
Exploratory Depth Density Cont~nt Cohesion Internal Friction-
Boring No. (Feet) (pcf) , (%) , (psf) (degre'esJ
EB-3 5-6 104.7 5.4 250 35' "
, .,
:' 'j
'.>J
j
':j
j
TABLE B ... j
'SUMMARY OF DIRECT SHEAR TEST OF UNDISTURBED SAMPLE
Sample Dry Water Apparent An'gle of
Exploratory Depth Density Conh;mt Cohesion Internal Friction
Boring No. (Feet) (pcf) (%) (psf) (degrees)
EB-3 5-6 104.7 5.4 250 35
" .
lDwnly·Haldul!!l!r ISladatl1
D
.----~--. ---
.-
: 0 I ,
I
, .. ()
\
l
r-I
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
l
REPORT
l.
l
l.
I l '
t
I' I
l
! l.
r-
/
\; [,
i '
l.
~~~
G ~, .. ,.' .
• I ,If
~
:0
[j RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY
n San Diego. Cal ifornia
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
. July 3, 1973
•
TIM FLANAGAN
ENGINEERING DIVISID0N
•
.-
1 ELEPHONE:
(714) 729·1181
Enclosed for your review is a copy of the draft environmental
i mpa c t re po rt fo r SEAVIEW
Your comments would be greatly appreciated by July 11,1973
In the event that no comments are received by the aforementioned
date, we wi'll assume you are in cO'n·CUTT-e"n-ce 'w·i-<rt-h ~t'h'e ·re'P0r't.
Thank you for your consideration.
Since~ely,
PAUL A. WILLIAMS.
Planning Department
f
....... ;: .... t:" .,. -----
I' -.------=--------~-__ ~ ____ ;J
",I
,I
·~·I'"
,:1':
,I·
".J
"
"'I
~ 'I'
'I' ."p
~"
::::1, "
"'.:1 " .. . '.
"
:1
': 'I'
,'I'
'I ' '
, , , ,
" • e,
TABLE OF CONTENTS,
A. The Environment Impact of the Proposec;:l Action
1. ' Proj ect Description
2. Environmental Setting Without the Proj ect
(a) Topography
(b) Land Use
(c) Biology
(d) Geology, -. ,',
-,
(e) Archeology
(f) History
, 3. Environmental Impacts
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
Land Use
Grading
Biologv
Archeology,
History
: :. ~ ... ~ .'
, ,
. . ~ -', . . . . ~ -,
-.':;.
, ,(h)
(i)
(j )
(k)
Drainage, -: ,Water Quali~y
Traffic
Noise,'
" Air. Quality , '
, Utilities
Community Services .
, , '
, ',.B. 'Any'Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot
" Be' .Avoided Should the Proposal Be Implemented
C. Mitigation Measures Proposed to Minimize the
Impact ",.
" , D. Alternatives to the Proposed Action
• .r"
, E. The Relationshj.p~':Between LOcal Short-Term Uses,
of Manl s Environment and the Ma.inten~nce~and ... -
Enhancement of Long-TenD. Environmental:
Productivity ,
-'. ~
F. Any Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would ' ,
Be Involved in the Proposed' Action Should It Be
Implemented '
, '
, 1
, 1
" 4
"4 ::'5
'. :,5
'6'
" , " " 6
, ,6:,
,'6 ' :
"6 '
, ";:~7
"., ".7 ..
7
, ,,8'
:,'g
" g'
10 ,:
10 )
';
.. II
12,
13
15
16
' ..
• I' ~'. ". .. . . ~ ~ .
' .. -,";.,
','
; ......
. ." ~.. ... . . _. , ,
'--'>--_ ........ _--~.-... ---~---.~~-----~--'--~-----------------~---~_. __________ -'-_____ ~ __ ... ¥_~_ ._ ... _____ .~ ... ,._ ..... , ... ~ ___ .. 0_'.-_'." ..
<.... .,
I
·1·
·1
: I.
I'
<I
:":'1
·,1 .. ··
" •
Page No.
G. The Growth Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Activity
Upon the Neigllborhood and/or Community '1.7 "
H. The Boundaries C?f the Are,a Which MaY,Be Significantly
Affected by the Proposed Activity 18
I. Certification of Accuracy and Qualifications of
Individuals Preparing Draft Environmental Impact
Report . _ 19.
, J • List of all Agencies I Organizations I or Individuals
Consulted'20
. ", :., :~;.'~ ,
.. ' .... -.: .
...
, ,
, ..
. " ~ ".
I
..~.
. _." .. "._ ...... " ..... -_ .. '~'--~'-'=' =='=--=".="=""'=--'="''-'-' .=.. .. ,
I·
I
'1'
'I'
.1'
'I,
1'<
.1'
·1"
'··1
I,
,I
.'1'·
,I'
:1·
" I
A.
1.
/
. e·.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION,
The proposed project, Seaview, is the construction of 51 condom-
inium units in the City of Carlsbad. The 1. 2.6 acre site is bounded
on the west by Carlsbad Boulevard and on the north 'by :.
Tamarack Avenue.
The existing zoning under Title 21, City of Carlsbad Zoning Ordin-
.,~ ",
ance is R-2 and R-3. A zone change to RD-M, will be requested. The '.'" ~ -\ '
proposed use is in conformance with the Cit¥ of. Cadsbad General Plan,
Amendment to the Iand Use Element ,No: 1. By combining the eXisting ...-.--="
1 'It' I 'd t" 1 d 1 t 'd ' , d d' " ;t.JO / '\ e evenmu Ip e-reSl en la zone . 0 s an-exce~s street" e lcatlOn,. . . . . .. , . '. \" , '. . 'Ey.cJ6~S·
greater flexibil!ty and:imagina.tive design'will pe,rmit the development of •
, .
Project Description
The development of Seaview requires the removal of t.he 'four ' existing
single family residential structures on the site.
, Grading of the site will be kept'to a minimum as the site, was previously
graded for the developme,nt of the existing residential structures. The
entire project site will be landscaped as a part of the project.
Parking spaces will be provided· in accordance with the Carlsbad zoning . '
", . .
Ordinance. Parking will be beneath the ,condominlum units.
A swimming pool and recreation area will be constructed in conjunction
with the project. All common areas and lands'caped areas will be main-.
tained by a homeowner's association to insure. their good appearance.
The Carlsbad General Plan Amendment No. 1 designates fhe area for
". '.
"
96
.~ ..
(:")
'7'
~\~~~
\ .:
\: '.: ... \:.
-.. ~-J .. ' ".
1
1
1
I
I
1
" '
medium density residential development l with an allowable density
of up to 50 dwelling units per acre. The tentative map for the project
shows a planned density I 40 dwelling 'units per acre, which is below
the allowable density.
A street dedication and vacation are proposed in conjunctioA yvJlli . ) , / 4-"2" 1Z-6Qc//~ ..
the project.L ~wenty-one fe;;)'ill be dedicated on the north boundary
I .tJo
,I
of the site to allow future widening of Tamarack Avenue., A fourteen
i;Jk (.'oot street vacation on the east side of Carlsbad Boutevar: i~ being
<
applied for in conjunction with the filing of the tentative map. •
"'1-
1
:.'1
I
1
,I
1
Carlsbad Boulevard has an existing 116 foot right of way adjacent to
the proposed project site. One block south of the project site Carlsbad
,
Fkl111Avrlrn nrlrrnw~ t() i'l 1 f)O-fnnt ricrnt ()f wrlY,
1\ /.: Access t~ the site will be from Sequoia Avenue and Tamarack Avenue.
I \~t Driveways will connect the parking areas to the .streets; 110 'internai'~:l:
~. .,..,,'" streets: are required· .... ;AlL.parking is.: p'lanneq, tOll;?e.located beneath the
~I . condominium units.
Utility services are currentty avaiiable in Tamarack Avenue I Sequoia
Avenue I 'and Carlsbad Boulevard. Adequate capacity is available to serve
the new condominium units. All utilities. will be pl.aced,'underground
to eliminate their visual impact. ---.
2. Environmental'Setting , .
-, The proposed-project, Seaview " is located east of Carlsbad Boulevard
a,nd south of Tamarack Avenue. The Carlsbad State Beach and Pacific
.3
I
-I
I
-I
I
':1
I-
I
I
I
:1
-I
_-I
~-I
I
' ..
Ocean are l<Jcated west 'of Carlsbad Boulev'ard. ',-The"-site is 10cate& I
within the permit area of the coastal zone. -The project was
Cie»igned to conform-with fhe-C~asta.1 Zone Cons-ervation Act of 1972.
The project:·wiU-n-ot fnterfere-with publi~ be'ach areas or:~~-ean~Itorif"-
views. 0
a. Topography
L'he property rises abruptly to a height of 10 to 15 above the level
of Carlsbad Boulevard-, Tamarack Avenue and Sequoia Avenue. The
site itself is a plane surface sloping gently from east to west. The
elevation at the eastern boundary of the site is 55 feet above sea
-level while the elevation at the western boundary is 45 feet above
sea level. The site drains toward Carlsbad Boulevard I and then into
the Agua Hedionda Lagoon.
b. Land Use
--Four 6f the eleven-existing lots are improved with single family
homes (zoned R-3). Single and multiple family residential structures
surround the proposed project site on the northl east and south. __ -
-Two and three story; high_density apartment units already-exist on
_ Carlsbad Boulevard. The 1970 Amendment to the Land Use Element No. 1
of.the City of Carlsbad,-General Plan designates the project area for
medium density development. Prior to this amendment.the project
4
I ·e
'1
site was designed for high density development on the General Plan.
I The adjacent properties 'are zoned R-2, R-3, and C-l. The Pacific Ocean
I is located across Carlsbad Boulevard to the west of the property. The
Agua Hedionda Lagoon is located one-quarter mile south of the site.
·1 .. c. Biology
:1 Because of the highly modified and disturbed nature of the site,
the biological resources on the site were minimal.·
I Four of the existing eleven lots are landscaped with a few exotic
:1 plant species and some ground cover. The northwestern corner of
. .
the property has recently been graded leaving the raw earth exposed.
I. No plant life exists in this are a.
I
-be expected to occur on the site would be typical c5fthat occuring
I in a residential 'neighborhood , primarily small rodents and birds.
·1 No endangered species of plant or animal were observed on the
project site and none are known to be dependent upon the area.
I' d. Geology
·:1" There are no adverse geological conditions within the proj ect
I-area which would preclude development of the propos'ed project.
The soils on the site generally consist of lightly cemented, brown
I silty sands. Much of the site has previously been graded to
I· . -. .....
I·'
5 .. ' .--... ~ ..... ----.-~-~--~ --------~ -, --~-~------._., ... -,-.-~.------.-.--.-.--.------.,..------.. ~ -~.-~ .. ---.-........... -------~.-:.,.-"~ .. --, .. ----. --_ .. -------_.'. _.
I " '
I accommodate the existing or proposed structures.
I A soils report will be prepared prior to completion of the project.
I e . Archeology
Any archeological sites which may have been present on the site
I have been disturbed by previous grading and development of the site.
I. f. History
It has been determined that no historical sites are located on the
I proposed development site.
I 3. Environmental Impacts
a. Land Use
I The proposed project, Seaview I will allo familie s to move into
I
Carlsbad. The density of the proposed project is consistent with
I" and less than the allowable densities indicated by the Carlsbad General
I' Plan and existing zoning. The General Plan allows 'a maximum of 50
dwelling units per acre I or a total of 63 units for the site of the proposed
I; project. Seaview is only planned for 51 units.
I b. Geology -Grading:
Ther~ are no adverse geologic conditions within. the project area
·1· which would preclude development of the project.
I No adverse effects should result from grading· of the site in accordance
with accepted engineering practices. The visual impact of the ,earth
I .' ;.
I
I 6
I •
I exposed by grading is temporary I and will re-main only -until the
I
condominium units are constructed and landscaping is co~plete.
c. Biology
I . Development of the project will require the complete removal of all
I
vegetatio'n from the site. Because of the highly modified -and disturbed
nature of the project site I the biological impact of the proposed
I development on the proj ect site will be insignificant.
I New species of plants will be introduced into the area through
landscaping of the project site.
I No endangered species of plants or animals will be affected by
.1 the proposed project.
d. Archeology
I, Because of the hi~j.hly modified and disturbed nature of the site " it
I,' has been determined that no archeologic sites exist I thus there will be no
archeological impact resulting from the development of the site.
I e. History
,I: It has beep determined that the· project will not have an impact
on a historical resource.
I -f. Drainage -Water Quality
I-The drainage on the site will not change as a result of the project.
The site I as now developed I drains -naturally downslope onto Carlsbad
I Boulevard, and then into the Agua Hedionda L~goon. As most of the s.ite
,I-is presently highly disturbed and only minimal regrading of the site is
I:
I 7 , , , ..... " -, ' . ~. f".,... "", -'-.', .•. ~ . -'>"">.. .... % -..... -~.....---~~~ ............
f' --I " ' •
I involved, erosion of the site will be minimal. Also, the extensive
I landscaping of the project will have the effect of reducing the 'runoff
I from the completed project.
The water quality associated with the runoff from the project site
I should remain at its present level because of the developed nature _
I of the project site. The construction of underground parking facilities
will reduce the effects of the project on water quality, since the
I parking areas will not be flushed by storm runoff every time it rains.
,
I g. Traffic
There will be a minimal increase in traffic associated with the
I project. Capacitie s are adequate on the surrounding streets to handle
I any increase that miaht occur.
I
Current traffic volumes on Carlsbad Boulevard in the vicinity of the
, -,~70D _'
proposed project an~vehicles per day as counted in January 1972.
I Using an average of eight trips per unit per day, it is estimated _
that traffic will increase by 408 trips per day. This represents a_ \
I nine percent increase over the existing traffic volume. Ultimate
I traffic capacity on Carlsbad Boulevard is estimated to be 15 1000 to
20, 000 trips per day.
I Tamarack Avenue will serve as the major east-west route for
-I residents of the project, providing the major route to Interstate' 5.
This road is presently a two-land road I but it is planned for
-I-improvement to four lanes. M~D(,lfjt/
I
~~I
"
I () ~ l R-!wo;Vl-t{
_~t/A/C-/ll5c,~ (S
8:
",' ,
" ~ -:.,~ ..... ~~""! ,~~ --." ~~ . .,.. -"""..... .... ,""-'-'" ~ .. " -~ .
I' { .. , ,e
I h. Noise
I The existing noise level in the area is low. Traffic on Carlsbad
1 Boulevard and Tamarack Avenue are the predominate noise source s for
the project I but because of their low traffic volume the noise impact
I' on the proposed development will be inSignificant. The Pacific Ocean
'I also contributes to the ambient noise level in the area.
Aircraft overflight noise will occur occasionally I but it is not
'I considered to be a Significant factor. The development is outside
I, , normal de parture and landing paths for any eXisting or planned airport.
Noise from the contractor's equipment and other construction noises
I cannot be eliminated. This noise will be of a temporary nature I lasting
I' only until the proiect is completed.
i. . Air Quality
,I The increase, in air pollution resulting from this project will be
I minimal.' The main source of air pollution created by the project.will
be from motor vehicles. In comparison with the total emissions in
I", the Carlsbad area I auto emissions and the resulting pollutants from
I this project will be insignificant because of the small number of
'" vehicles involved. The quality of emissions from yehicles cannot
I be controlled by the developer I but are regulated by State and
'I Federal Standards.
Pollutants from the exhaust of the contractor's equipment will be
I " within existing emission standards and will be of a temporary nature.
,I
'I '
e
I
I
I
I
I
'·1
·1
I
'1
·1
I
.1
·1
'1
I
:1
I
. 1
'I
j . Utilitie s
All utilities exist in the streets surrounding the project site',
Tamarack Avenue, Sequoia Avenue and Carlsbad Boulevard. Gas
and electric service is provided by San Diego Gas and Electric
Company. All utilities will be placed underground to eliminate
their visual impact.
Water is to be supplied by the City of Carlsbad. S~fficient
capacity is available to provide water to the proposed project .
. ' Sewer service is also provided by the City of Carlsbad. The
existing sewers have adequate capacities to handle any minimal
increase created by the proposed development.
k. QOJPn]..unity ~~rv.iC!E3 ~ ,
Seaview is located within the Carlsbad Unified School District.
According to th~ estimate chart designed by the Carlsbad Unified .7
School District, the project will only generate two elementary age
children, two junior high age children, and four high school .age
children. These children will attend the Jefferson School ,~for grades
K-3, the Pine School for grades 4-6, Valley Junior High School and
CarlsbaEl High School.
The City of Carlsbad Police Department services all areas within
the corporate limits of the City of Carlsbad.
The Gity of Carlsbad Fire Department will serve the proposed
project. There is a fire station located 1.5 miles northeast of the site .
10·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I-
I
I
-I
I
I
I
-I
I
I
:1
" '
B.
•
ANY ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED
SHOULD THE PROPOSAL BE IMPLEMENTED
The unavoidable adverse environmental effects resulting from the
development of Seaview are negligible because of the nature of the
project.
The adverse environmental effects of Seaview will be.:
1. A slight traffic increase on Carlsbad Boulevard I Tamarack
Avenue I and other area roads.
2. A minimal increase in air and noise pollution associated with
the increased traffic.
3. A temporary increase in noise associated with construction
of the proj ect.
4. A minimal increase in demand for public u~ilities and services.
Beneficial envtronment<3J effectf; resllltinl]" fmm th"" deve10!Jmpt1t: -' .
of the proposed proj ect will be:
1. To provide 51 hom~s for families in the City .of Carlsbad.
2. 'An increased tax base in the City of Carlsbad.
3. An overall increase in vegetation on the proj ect site. resulting
in reduced erosion and runoff on the project site.
r
MITIGATING MEASURES PROPOSED ,TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT
Various measures will be taken to minimize the minimal environmental
effects \of the proposed development. The entire area will be landscaped
and maintained by a homeowner's association. This will not only, ...
improve the appearance of the property which is now characterized by
'Overgrown vacant lots I but will reduce the amount 0-£ runoff from the
site.
Parking for the proposed project will be placed beneath the
condominium units. This will remove them from sight and minimize the
visual impact of the parked cars.
A swimming pool and recreation area will be coristructed on the
site. This will provide recreational facilities for residents of the'
development I thus minimizing the effects of the development on
. offsite recreation areas.
Twenty-one feet on the north boundary of the site is being dedicated
to the City of Carlsbad for future widening of Tamarack Avenue. , I/Lr,f
I " ' •
I D. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
I Many alternatives are always available regarding land use
I decisions. The determination of the density of dwelling units and
their relationship to transportation facilities t utilitie·s t community
I. services, and other land uses involves an infinite number of variables.
I One alternative which is always available is to leave the property
under private ownership in its present condition. Property on Carlsbad
I Boulevard presently has a market value of $6 a square foot which would
I result in a very high unit cost for a low density development.
•
None of the environmental impacts discussed in this report would
I occur if the "no-project" alternative is selected. However I other
I impacts would occur to the site such as continued erosiondll.e to
the lack of ground cover on the vacant lots.
I Any other form of residential development would have impacts
I similar to the proposed project. A conventional apartment building
would appear to have more adverse effects with less amenities. An
I .ppartment building would probably be' constructed at a higher density
I without underground parking, landscaping or other condominium
improvements. Development at a higher 'density would place a greater
I demand on utilities and public services I and more traffic would be
I generated. Development at a lower density would require less utilities
and public services, and generate less traffic.
I
'1
I 13
I
'I
'I
I
,I
·,'1
: ~I
'~I
'I
I
·1
',:'1
. 'I
'I
·,1
~I
I·
I
;1
" t
' ~
~;
•
Commercial or industrial development of the project site would
not be consistent with the planned land use set forth by the City
of Carlsbad.
;' . t
14
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
1
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
'I
I
,I '
E.
•
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S
ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF
LONG-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCTNITY
The basic long-term effect of the proposed project on the
environment is the continued commitment ofBa2r~ ?Of land to
residential use.
The land is currently committed to residential use, although
developed at a very low density. The project will permit 51
families to move into a modern, well landscaped condominium
development in a desirable area. The planned density of 40 dwelling
units per acre is considerably lower than the allowable 50 units per acre
designated by the Carlsbad General Plan. The probable growth of the
entire San Diego County area requires further residential development.
Until growth of the population can be controlled I either expansion
or congestion must occur.
, I
I
, ..
15
1
1
1
I
'I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
,·1
I
I
I
I'
., (
F.
----... -~ .....
•
ANY IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES WHICH WOULD BE
INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED
Since the project is the replacement of one type of residential
dwelling with another type of dwelling I the major environmental
effect would be the consumption of building materials and related
natural resources. There will also be a minimal increase in demand
for public services and utilities associated with the development of
the proposed proj ect.
•
. I
I
! ;
I ., r
I
I
I'
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
",
W", ___ • _ ..... ,'_
G.
•
THE GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY UPON
THE NEIG HBORHOOD AND/OR COMM'UNITY
Seaview will have a very limited growth inducing impact on the
surrounding area. The properties surrounding the project site have
already been developed I and other properties in the area are
presently redeveloping or planned for redevelopment at a higher
d.ensity. The growth inducing impa.ct of the c.onstrucUon .of 51
condominium townhouse units in this area will be negligible.
.,', -:. . ,
..
17
---,' _ -.---~ -·.I·~~·-",_"""""" .,.-,' ~ ... -~~' -.. ~ .. ~ .... ,..-oM ,-..~~.,. • .,.-,... ...... v·
I
I
:1
I
I
I
I
I
-I
,I
;1
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
H,; THE BOUNDARIES OF THE AREA WHICH MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY
The effects of the proj ect on the biological component of the
environment will generally be limited to the immediate vicinity
of the project site. The area effected by the changed visual
appearance of the proj ect site will be limited because of surrounding
development, the proximity of the Pacific Ocean, and the slope
of the land.
,18 '
'I
'I
1
'I
I
I
1
'I
'I,
,:1
'I,
I
:1
',I
,I
I"
I
I'
,I
'. <
I.
,<
•
CERTIFICATION OF ACCURACY AND QUALIFICATION OF INDIVIDUALS
PREPARING DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The information contained within this analysis Is certified to be
accurate and correct to the best of my knowledge and belieC and
relfects the environmental impacts associated with Seaview.
This report was prepared by Jeffrey Roy Lundstrom I Environmental
Consultant for Rick Engineering Company, consultant to the appltcant,
Seaview, a partnership.
J ' , -,
19
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
-I
-I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. . .
J •
• .'
LIST OF ALL AGENCIES I ORGANIZATIONS I OR INDIVIDUALS CONSULTED
Rick Engineering Company I Planning Consultants and Civil Engineers
Carlsbad Unified School District
City of Carlsbad
Traffic Department
Planning Department
Fire Department
Police Department
Water Department
Sewer Department
County of San Diego -'7
Traffic Department
•
'r'
... '"
20