HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-05-03; City Council; 9409; Carltas-Uncontrolled Stockpile AgreementMTG. 543-88 AGREEMENT WITH CARLTAS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY FOR UNCONTROLLED STOCKPILE DEPT.ENG.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff is recommending that the City Council ADOPT the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and ADOPT Resolution No. BB-140 approving agreement with Carltas Development Company for an uncontrolled stockpile.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
The Carltas Company is requesting City Council approval of an agreement for an uncontrolled stockpile located north of Palomar Airport Road as shown on the attached location map. Section 11.06.105 of Carlsbad's Excavation and Grading Ordinance requires City Council approval of agreements for uncontrolled stockpiles. This export grading will be located on approximately 10 acres of vacant land. A portion of this site is being
utilized for agriculture; a portion is vacant while the remainder is covered
with heavily disturbed native vegetation. This stock pile site is within
I the portion of the Carltas property covered by the Williamson Act
Agricultural Preserve. Topsoil will be placed over this uncontrolled
stockpile, and it will be used for agriculture.
The purpose of this agreement is to hold the City harmless from liability for the stockpile and to have the applicant acknowledge that the uncontrolled stockpile is unbuildable unless special soils analysis and foundation design are submitted. More details on this are included in the attached Agreement for an Uncontrolled Stockpile and in Section 11.06.105 of
the Carlsbad Excavation and Grading Ordinance.
This uncontrolled stockpile will be created by approximately 176,000 cubic yards of export required for the expansion of Car Country. A condition placed on the tentative map for the Car Country Expansion requires that this export be deposited at an approved site somewhere on the Carltas property north of Palomar Airport Road. The condition also requires environmental analysis, plan check, erosion control, and a haul route that does not cross improved public roadways. The proposed grading complies with all of these requirements. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the Agreement for an uncontrolled stockpile on the Carltas property.
The developer has filed securities with the City in the form of a bond and a cash deposit to insure the maintenance of the stockpile and the desilting
facility to be provided as part of the project, as well as for future removal in order to make the site suitable for development.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:’
The Planning Director has found that the proposed uncontrolled stockpile will not have any significant impacts on the environment and issued a negative declaration on March 4, 1988. The negative declaration and environmental information that enabled the Planning Director to issue the negative declaration are attached,
PAGE 2 OF AB# ??O?
FISCAL IMPACT:
The applicant will pay grading fees that will cover the costs of the City's review of plans and monitoring of the proposed grading.
EXHIBITS:
1. Location Map
2. City Council Resolution Approving Stockpile Agreement
3. Agreement for Uncontrolled Stockpile
4. Section 11.06.105 of Carlsbad's Excavation and Grading Ordinance
5. Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact.
,. .. .
‘- A.
. .
. - ’ ,‘. LOCATION MAP ‘,. “. ,.. .] > .:,
. # .,’ 11 ‘. I* .
‘, . . *,
.
.
HtDlONO.4 LAGOON
PROJECT NAME CARLTAS PROJ. EXHIBI NO.
STOCKPILE GRADING CL 2;8753 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 88-140
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR UNCONTROLLED STOCKPILE WITH CARLTAS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
WHEREAS, Carltas Development Company has submitted a request for
approval of an agreement for uncontrolled stockpile of excess materi al
generated by the grading of the Car Country Expansion Project (CT 87-3); and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad has determined it
to be in the public interest to approve said agreement;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the agreement for uncontrolled stockpile with Carltas
Development Company which is on file with the City Clerk and is incorporated
by this reference is approved.
3. That the City Manager is authorized to execute agreement and the
City Clerk is hereby authorized to cause the original agreement to be
recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, State of
California.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad
City Council held on the 3rd day of May , 1988 by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Pettine, Mamaux and Larson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
,
. 2. : RECORDING REQUEFT,. RY AND) : - bi ,. WHEN RECORDED Md l-0:: 1
1’ ’ ’ City of Carlebad
1200 Elm Avenue ; Carlebad, California 92008)
Space above thre line for Recorder’s use .
Documentary transfer tax: S No fee
Signature of declarant determining tax-
firm name
City of Carlsbad
Parcel No. Zll-021-p, 21 -
AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER, DEVFLOPER
AND THE CITY OF CARLSRAD FOR.
AN UNCONTROLLED STOCKPILE “I
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this 6 ZL day of
19&, by and between
CARLTAS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
‘(Name of Developer)
,
a A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
(Corporation, partnership, etc.)
,
hereinafter referred to a8 “Developer” whose address is
44Od.MancHesfek Asend&
(Street)
Encinitas, California 92024
(City, state, zip code)
and CARLTAS COMPANY .
(Name of Legal Owner)
A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
(Corporation, etc. 1
hereinafter referred to as “Owner” whose address ia
4401 Manchester Avenue
(Street)
,
Encinitas, California 92024
(City, state, zip code)
,
AND
the CITY OF CARLSRAD, a municipal corporation of the State of
California, hereinafter referred to a8 “CITY,” whose address is
1200 Elm Avenue, Carlebad, California 92008.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, C)wner is the owner of the real property deecribed on
Exhibit “A”, attached to and made a part of this agreement, and
hereinafter referred to a8 “Property”; and
WHEREAS, the property lies within the boundaries of City; and
WHEREAS, Developer wi8hes to stockpile 176,000 cubic
yard8 on Owner8 property (Exhibit A); and
WHEREAS, Owner acknowledge8 that a8 an uncontrolled 8tOCkpile
the site is not eligi’ble for a building pertiit unle88 special soils
analysis and foundation design are submitted and approved; and
WHEREAS, Developer acknowledge8 that the grading shall be done
and maintained in a eafe and sanitary manner at the sole co8t, risk
and re8pOnBibility of Developer or hi8 8ucce88or8 in interest; and
WHEREAS, the grading or etockpiling ehall be constructed in
accordance with plan8 approved by the City Engineer.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recital8 and the cove-
nante contained herein, the parties agree a8 follows:
1. Developer and Owner promise to indemnify and to hold the
City of Csrlsbad and any of it8 agenciee or employee8 harmle88
from liability for injuries to pereons, or damage to or taking of
property, directly or indirectly caused by the diversion of
water8, the blockage or alteration of the normal flow of surface
2.
.
, k-0 I
-
s ” , ” 1
water8 or drain.age; or by the enc’roachment of any etockpile on
neighboring property; or by any action or grading operation u8ed
in placing or removing the uncontrolled etockpile.
2. This agreement shall be approved by the City Council and
recorded by the City Clerk in the Office of the County Recorder a8
an obligation upon land involved.
3. This notice shall remain in effect until a release of
this agreement ie filed by the City Engineer.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement is executed in San Diego
County, California a8 of the date first written.
OWNER: DEVELOPER:
a Limiteg Partnership fglzt Company
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ; ss. COUNTY OF San Diego 1
On March 28, 1988 before me, the undersigned, a
Notary Public in and for said Staie, personally appeared Cmonher C. Calkins
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person that executed the within instrument Bs General partner(s), on behalf of tas mt a California Limited Partnership, the partnersh-
therein named and acknowledged to me that the partnership executed it.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature&% p& e J-&&)
0
. . * e. . 8 ,** .
I. 1. ,
. water8 or drainage; or by t e encroachment of any etockpile on h
neighboring property; or by any action or grading operation used
in placing or removing the 4ncontrolled etockpile.
2. Thir agreement 8ha 1 be approved by the City Council and 1
recorded by the City Clerk in the Office of the County Recorder a8
an obligation upon land,invalved.
3. Thir notice ehall tiemain in effect until a release of
thir agreement is filed by dhe City Engineer.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement ie executed in San Diego
County, California a8 of the date first written.
OWNER: DEVELOPER:
BY ///////////////////////
Title ////////////////////////
ATTEST: CITY OF CARLSBAD, a municipal
corporation of the State of
al acknowledgement execution by DEVELOPER and OWNER must
be attached.)
3.
.\
,-- .-
.a .
water8 or drainage; or by the enc’roachment of any etockpile on
neighboring property; .or by atiy action or grading.operation used
in placing or removing the uncontrolled 8tockpile.
2. This agreement ehall be approved by the City Council and
recorded by the City Clerk in the Office of the County Recorder as
an obligation upon land involved.
3. This notice shall remain in effect Until a release of
this agreement ie filed by the City Engineer.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, thie agreement ie executed in San Diego
County, California as of the date
OWNER:
Carltas CorggapJ! B CsLjfornia
Limited Partnership
Tit& Manager
first written,
DEVELOPER:
Carltas Development Company
1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA } ss. COUNTY OF 1
On this 28th day of March in the year 1988 , before me the undersigned, a Notary Ijublic in and for said State, personally appeared . rint r C. QJJgJls personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis 0; satisfactory evidence) to be the person who executed the within instrument as president (or secretary) or on behalf of the corporation therein named and acknowledged to me that the corporation executed it.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature i‘ f+-f41 I"--r;, i$, i~)Gl,CLW b
EXHIBIT “A”
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A portion of Lot "H" of Ranch0 Agua Hedionda, in the City of Carlsbad County of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof No. 823, filed in the
office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 16, 1896. Being a
portion of document recorded December 18, 1986 as file page 86-597265.
,
11.06.1OS Agreement for uncontrolled
stockpile.
Applications for grading permits invoiving
uncontrolled stockpiles shall be accompanied by
an agreement signed by the property owner. The
’ agreement shall be prepared’by the city engineer
and shall contain the following provisions and
such other provisions as may in the opinion of .
the city engineer afford protection to the prop-
erty owner and the city: : .
(a) The grading or stockpiling shall be desig-
nated as uncontrolled stockpiling and shall be
constructed in accordance with plans approved
by the city engineer. .
(b) The owner acknowledges that as an
uncontroiied stockpile the site is not eligible for a
building permit unless special soils analysis and
foundation design are submitted.
(c) The grading shall be done and maintained
in a safe and sanitary manner at the sole cost, risk
and responsibility of the owner and his suc-
cessors in interest. who shall hold the city
harmless with respect thereto.
The agreement for uncontrolled stockpiling
shall be approved by the city council and
recorded by the city clerk in the office of the
county recorder as an obligation upon the land
involved. The notice shah remain in effect until
release of the agreement is filed by the city
engineer. @rd. 8095 $3, 1981)
,’
.-
,’
. . .
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
-.
2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859
(619) 438-l 161
aitp of UCarI$bsb
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: North of Palomar Airport Road, approximately 3500 feet east of Paseo de1 Norte.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Approximately 176,000 cubic yards of export grading from Carlsbad Tract 87-3. The fill will be located in a slight valley and eventually be utilized for agricultural purposes.
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, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declarationwith supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within ten (10) days of date of issuance.
DATED: March 4, 1988
CASE NO: EIA 88-l MICHAEL J. H&!ZMItiR Planning Director
APPLICANT: Carltas Company
PUBLISH DATE: March 4, 1988
EXHIBIT 5
EXHIBIT 5
DATE: APRIL 20, 1988
TO: RAY PATCHETT, CITY MANAGER
FROM: MIKE HOWES, SENIOR PLANNER
SUWECT: ENVIRONMENT ALREVIEWFORCARLTASDNCONTROIJ.XD STOCKPILE
A Negative Declaration for the above mentioned project was approved by the Planning Director on March 4, 1988. The justification for the issuance of this Negative Declaration is discussed on pages 7 and 8 of Part II of the attached Environmental Impact Assessment form. Copies of the Biological, Archeological, and Soils Studies submitted by the applicant have been included.
Since this project is located within the Coastal Zone, staff sent the Negative Declaration to the State Clearinghouse for a 30 day review. The State Clearinghouse submitted the Negative Declaration to other agencies that might be affected by this project. During this period, one letter was received from the California Department of Fish and Game. They stated that they had no objection to the project as long as it did not impact approximately .5 acres of arroyo willow riparian wetland in the drainage bordering the property on the east. This project will not impact this area, and no other letters were received therefore, the Planning Director feels comfortable in recommending City Council approval of the Negative Declaration.
MH:dm
p~ll to: St&u ;:r~r,,lq~use. 1X0 Yen9 jtreet. i-2. iz;. Sacramento. CA 35diJ -- 3l5/44a-&i3 \ ZH)TIC'-- COUPL~ICN AN0 ENVIROH(EKlAL OQCIJHE~(T FOPJ4 - \,,.,I
1. project 1itla: Car Country Export Grading Permit EIA 88-1
2. Lead Agency: City of Carlsbad 3. Cork+ Person: Mike Howes
3a. street Address: 2075 Las Palmas Drive 38. city: Carlsbad
3c. county: San Dieao 3d. Zfp: 92009 3~. Phone: (619) 438-1161
PROJECT LOCAT:::!4 1. COUntY: San Dieqo k. Cfty/comnunfty: Carlsbad
4b.(OpfioMl) r(SSeSSOr'S Part.1 NO. 4c. Section hp. Rang.
Palomar Airport Road For Rural. 51. Cross Strsrcs: 5b* Nearest Comnunfty:
6. Uithin 2 miles of: a. State Huy No. b. Airports c. Waterways
7. DOCUMENT TYPE a. LCCAL ACTIO:t TYPE OEVELOPMEHT TYPE '_ __ _ 10.
a. 01 Central Plan Update 01 ~Rtsidentfal: Units Acres
01 - MOP 02‘ - New Eltment 02 Offtct: Sq.Ft.
02 Early Cons 03 tenera Plan Amendment Acres Wloy-
03 &Nq DC 04Yaster Plan 03 ~hopplq/Cannerctal: Sq.Ft.
04 Draft EfR 05 Annexation Acres Employ-
05 Supplement/ 06 04 -subsequent EIR
>pecfflc Plan Industrial: Sq.Ft.
(if so, prior SCH t 07 Jedevtloprmt A-.$ EmplOY-.
1 08 Rezone 05 ~seuef: UGO
$PJ 09 Land Olvision 06 Later: UGO
06 MOtlCt Of iIlt8flt o7 ~Transpertatlon: Type
07 Envir. Assessment/ FONSI
08 Draft EIS
B--
09 Jnfrlnnatton Only
10 - Fill Docment
10 >st Ptnit 08 - MIneral Extraction: Hlneral
11 Cancel Ag Preserve 09 - Power Generatlon: Uattage
12 X other CradinG Permit Type:
10 Xothtr: Gradinq Permit
9. TOTAL ACRES: 10
11 Other
11. PR(lJECT ISSUES OISUJSSEO IN OOCWENT
01 ~Aathttic/Yisual 08 ~GeolqWSeisaic 15 Sewer Capacl ty 22 Later S*ly
02 - X Agricultural Land 09 - Jobs/Housing Balance I6 -&Sol1 Eroston 23 Uetland/Riparlan --
03 - Afr Qualfty 10 Jinerals I7 Solid waste 24 - Ufldlift‘
04 ~Archatologfcal/Hfstorical 11 Jofse . 18 - Toxic/Hazardous 25 Growth Inducing
05 Coastal 12 - Public Servicer 19 TrafficKfrculatfon 26 -1ncompatiblt Landust
cm- Fire Hazard 13 --Schools 27 - Cumulative Effects
07 ~Flooding/Oralnagt 14 Septic Systems 21 Water Quality 2a Other
12. NHOING(approx.) Federal 5 State S Total 5
13. PRESENT LAN0 USE AN0 ZONIffi: .
Presently, the land is vacent and partially eroded. It is zoned E-A, Exclusive-
Agriculture and has a General Plan Designation of NRR, Non-Residential Reserve.
14. PROJECT DESCAIViON: Approximately 176,000 cubic yards of export grading from Carlsbad Tract 87-3.
The fill will be located in a slight valley that has some highly disturbed native
vegetation. Topsoil will be placed on top of the fill, and it will be used for
agricultural purposes.
15. SIWATURE CF LEA0 XCi!ltY REPRESENTATIVE:
E: Clearingnouse vi11 assign identification numbers for 311 nw projects. If a SCY Number already exists for d qraject
(e.g. from a Notice of Preoaratlon or previous draft doc*went) pieast fill ft in.
STATE pF cAcKoIIN4A-ofFIcE of THE GovEka..JR GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Chwmr
OFFICE Of PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1400 TENTH STREi3
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
Mike Howes
City of Carlsbad
2075 LAS Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
c; “$3
~;g;$@ :,Q,, ,f i;/. &.. ‘~.‘.:,.?,* “< ,“> . . ,
April 6, 1988
Subject:
.
Dear Mr*
Car Country Export Grading Permit EIA 88-1 SCH# 88030905
Howes:
The State Clearinghouse isulkitted the above named environmen tal document to
selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and none of the state agencies have caxnents. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
Please call Keith Lee at 916/4454613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. when contacting the Qearillghouse in this matter, please use the eight-digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond prcmpt1y.
Sincerely,
a&-/? . Chief Office of Permit Assistance
*. .
. . 4.
, STAti OF CAUFORNIA--QFFlCE OF THE GOVERNOR GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Gowmor
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1400 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
Mike Howes
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
April 7, 1988
Subject:Car Country Export Grading Permit EIA 88-l
SCH# 88030905
I&YU- Mr. Howes:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named proposed Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review, The review period is closed and the comments of the individual agency(ies) is(are) enclosed. Also, on the enclosed Notice of Cbmpletion, the Clearinghouse has checked which agencies have carmented. Please review the Notice of Completion to ensure that your comment package is complete. If the package is not in "
order, please notify the State Clearinghouse inrnediatelg. Your eight-digit ,, State Clearinghouse number should be used sothatwemay respond promptly,
Please note that recent legislation requires that a responsible agency or other public agency shall only make substantive cuunents on a project which are within the area of the agency's expertise or which relate to activities -which that agency must carry out or approve. (AB 2583, Q. 1514, Stats.
1984.)
These comments are forwarded for your use in adopting your Negative Declaration, If you need more information or clarification, we suggest you contact the canxenting agency at your earliest convenience.
Please contact Keith Ice at 916/445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process,
Sincerely,
yjiLp!Lu
Oavid C. Nunenkamp Chief Office of Permit Assistance
cc; Resources Agency
Enclosures
Y-6
The Resources Agency State of Colifornio
Memorandum
1. To : Projects Coordinator Resources Agency Date : March 30, 1988
2. City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009
From : Department d Fish and Gome
Negative Declaration: Car Country Export Grading Permit, San
Subject : Diego County - SCH 88030905
We have reviewed the Negative Declaration for the Car Country Export Grading Permit for discharge of 176,000 cubic yards of export grading from Carlsbad Tract 87-3 onto a slight valley north of Palomar Airport Road and east of Paseo de1 Norte in the City of Carlsbad.
The Department of Fish and Game has no objection to this project if the fill is placed on the 2.5 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub as described in the botanical survey. However, no fill
should be placed in the 0.5 acre of arroyo willow dominated riparian wetland in the drainage bordering the property on the east. It is the policy of the Department that there should be no
net loss of either wetland acreage or wetland habitat value due to development, and we are pleased to find that the Negative Declaration is sensitive to the need to avoid wetland impacts.
We also recommend that the 12 acres in the northeast corner of the property be left in natural open space. In the words of the
consulting botanist, it “is worthy of preservation because of its
size, composition, and location. II
Thank you for the opportunity project. If you have any que Regional Hanager of Region 5, Beach, CA 90802-4467 or by te
to review and comment on this stions, please contact Fred Wo at 245 W. Broadway, Suite 350 lephone at (213) 590-5113.
Director
rt .hley,
I Long
GENERAL PLAN
RISIDINTIAL RL LOW DENSITY (0-1.3 1 RLM LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY (O-4 ) B.M MEDICM DENSITY (4-B) RMH MEDIUM HIGH DENSIlT (&IS) RH HIGH DENSITYt 15.23) CONNIWIAL RIU INTENSlVE BBGIONM BETAIL (c~ F-IazaOmillo Real) IUIE EXTENSlV?Z REGIONAL RETAIL (c~ Car COWIIIY Cadsbad) RS REGlONhL SERVICE c COMMUNITY COMMEKW N NEIGHBORHOOD COMMEKXAL l-S TIIAVTL SERVICES COMMERCIAL 0 PROFESSIONAL B.EIATFL.4 CBD CENTRAL BLSINW DISTIUCT PI PLANNED lNDUSlRIM G GOVEBNMEN’T FACILITIES C PfBUCCTILlTIES RC BECREATION COMMERCIAL
scnoou E ELEMENTARY J JUNIOR HIGH H HIGHSCHOOL P PRIVATE
OS OPEN SPACE NIU NON RESIDENTIAL RESEllYE
ZONINQ
uslMNwAL P-C PUNNED COMhIuNnY ZONE &A RESIDENTIAL &BKLTllXAL ZONE R-E RLlLU WIDENTLU ESTATE ZONE R-1 0NE.FAMII.Y RBSIDENTIAL ZOM I.2 TWO-PA.WILY RESIDENTAL LONE R. 3 .WLlTIPLE FAMILY WIDEN-TIM ZONE II.3. LIMITED MLlTI.FAMILY WIDBNllAL ZONE RDH RESIDENIML DBNSITKML~TIPLE ZONE RDH RESDEN-IIM DENSIN.IiIGIi ZONE MIiP RESDEhTIAL YOBILE HOME F’ARK ZOM I&P nESIDmTL4L FlmFuSIoNAL ZONE RT RBSIDENllN.TOL-BlSTZONE RW MSWEhTM WATERWAY Z0h-E
CONNmclAL 0 OFFICEZONE C. I NXKiHBOEHOOD COMMBRCIAL ZONB C-2 CENTIIAL COMMEXIN ZOM c.7 co-.ToLwT ZOhT GM HILWY COMMBKIAL~LIMITED lNDl,L’sTRIAL ZONE M INDLSlNALZONE Pal FLANNTDlNDLsIMzoNE
OTNm F-P FLOODPlAJN tX’ERL4Y ZONX L.C LnumDcoN-mwL OS OPeNsRIcE P-U PLnuc ITnlJTY ZONE
City of tartsbad
CARLTAS CO. EIA 88-1
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. EIA 88-1
DATE: December 27, 1987
I. BACKGROUND
1. APPLICANT: Carltas ComDanv
2. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 4401 Manchester Avenue,
Suite 206. Encinitas, California 92024 (6191 944-4090
3. DATE CHECK LIST SUBMITTED: December 15, 1987
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all Affirmative Answers are to be written under Section III - Discussion of Envirbnmental Evaluation)
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures?
Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil?
Change in topography or ground surface relief features?
The destruction, covering of modification of any unique geologic or physical features?
Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site?
Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel or a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
X
X
X
X
X
2. Air - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally?
3. Water - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patters, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff?
c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body?
MAYBE NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X
g- Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X
h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies?
-2-
4. Plant Life - Will the proposal have significant results in:
NO
a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? X
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? X
C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species?
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
X
X
5. Animal Life - Will the proposal have significant results in:
a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? X
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? X
C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat?
6. Noise - Will the proposal significantly increase existing noise levels? X
7. Liaht and Glare - Will the proposal sig- nificantly produce new light or glare? X
8. Land Use - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X
-3-
9.
a.
b.
10.
11.
12.
13.
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
Natural Resources - Will the proposal have significant results in:
Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources?
Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource?
Risk of Unset - Does the proposal involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions?
Polsulation - Will the proposal signif- icantly alter the location, distribu- tion, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area?
Housinq - Will the proposal signif- icantly affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing?
TransDortation/Circulation - Will the proposal have significant results in:
Generation of additional vehicular movement?
Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking?
Impact upon existing transportation systems?
Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods?
Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
X
X
X
-4-
MAYBE NO
14.
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
15.
a.
b.
16.
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
17.
Public Services - Will the proposal have a significant effect upon, or have signif- icant results in the need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks or other recreational facilities?
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
Other governmental services?
Enersv - Will the proposal have significant results in:
Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
Demand upon existing sources of
en-3yr or require the development of new sources of energy?
Utilities - Will the proposal have significant results in the need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas?
Communications systems?
Water?
Sewer or septic tanks?
Storm water drainage?
Solid waste and disposal?
Human Health - Will the proposal have significant results in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)?
X
X
X
-5-
18.
19.
20.
21.
d)
f)
9)
Aesthetics - Will the proposal have significant results in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in creation of an aesthetically offensive public view?
Recreation - Will the proposal have significant results in the impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities?
Archeolosical/Historical - Will the proposal have significant results in the alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building?
MAYBE NO
X
X
X
Analyze viable alternatives to the proposed proiect such as:
a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site designs, c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the site, e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter- nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative.
Alternate uses for the site - The proposed fill grading will permit this site to be used for agricultural purposes. Any other type of use would require an amendment to the Local Coastal Plan and the Williamson Act Contract on this property.
Alternate sites for the proposal - There are a number of other locations on the Ecke property that could accommodate the proposed export fill from the expansion of Car Country. The proposed fill site is presently not being used for agriculture due to the topography and is suffering from erosion. The proposed fill would allow this site to be used for agriculture and should help to reduce erosion problems.
No project alternative - The proposed fill is required to allow for the previously approved expansion of Car Country. If the export is not taken to this site, it will have to be placed somewhere else on the property or taken offsite. If this site is not used as a fill site, it will remain in its national state and the onsite erosion will continue. Placing the fill at this site will probably have less environmental impacts than locating it anywhere else on the property.
-6-
22.
a.
b.
C.
d.
_-
YES MAYBE NO
-
Mandatory findinss of sisnificance -
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, or curtail the diversity in the environment? X
Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis- advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) X
Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) X
Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X
III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The proposed project consists of approximately 176,000 cubic yards of export grading from Carlsbad Tract 87-3. The fill will be located in a slight valley that has some disturbed native vegetation while the remainder of the site is barren. A field survey of the site by a biologist on January 17, 1987, revealed that there were not endangered species on the site and that the existing vegetation on the site had little habitat value due to its sparseness and limited area. The site is somewhat hidden from view and only partially visible for a short time to motorists on Palomar Airport Road. The visual impacts of this grading will be mitigated by the required landscaping of this site. Special attention will be paid to the landscaping of the portion of this site visible from Palomar Airport Road. Top soil will be placed on top of the fill and this area will be used for agriculture similar to the surrounding properties. A detailed soils study was completed on January 29, 1988, by San Diego Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. If the fill is placed, compacted, and landscaped in accordance with the recommendations of this study, the proposed fill should not slip or fail, nor should there be any
-7-
-
' DISkJSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
erosion problems. As a part of the grading plan required for this project, the applicant will be required to submit a detailed landscape plan. This plan will protect the site from erosion as well as providing an adequate visual buffer.
The proposed fill will have no impact on any historical or archaeological sites. Although there are archaeological sites in the vicinity, they will not be disturbed by the proposed fill.
The proposed fill and agricultural use on top of it will be consistent with surrounding land uses. In addition, this site is designated for agricultural use by the Local Coastal Plan and is involved in a Williamson Act Contract.
The proposed fill will have no impact on drainage or the flow of floodwaters. If anything, it should improve the existing drainage of this site. All of the transportation of earth will occur on private property utilizing existing farm roads. Therefore, it will have no impact on Carlsbad's circulation system.
The proposed fill operation should have no impact whatsoever on air, noise, population, housing, public services, energy, utilities, human health, or natural resources.
IV. DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
X I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
E7w4 1, /)vg
Date' Signature
-8-
,. _’
T *
.em . .‘-
7”
RBR #1265
CARLSBAD RANCH VEGETATION
_-, _ _. -. ___._ --__- On Friday, 16 January, 1987, a botanical survey was made of
the two srmall areas of natural vegetation remaining on the
Carlsbad Ranch,
The largest of the two areas is located at the northeast
corner,of the property on a steep east-facing slope. It embraces
+20 acres of which 7.2 acres is Coastal Mixed Chaparral (CMC), 2.8
acres is Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS), and 2.0 acres is disturbed
CSS, weeds and grasses. The CMC is composed chiefly of evergreen
shrubs, n&ably Lemonadeberry [Rhus inteqrifolia], Toyon
[Heteromeleq arbutifolia], Black Sage [Salvia mellifera], Chamise, T
[AdenostoHa fasciculatum], Coast Encelia [Encelia californica] and“:'
l
.- Red Bush mnkey-Flower [Mimulus puncieus], The CSS is dominated
by Coastal Sagebrush [Artemisia californica] and California
Buckwheat [Erioqonum fasciculatum], but also present are several
species cammon in the CMC. In the disturbed CSS, the shrub cover
is quite open with non-native annual grasses and weedy herbs
filling mos,t of the interspaces.
Off the.property to the east and north, the vegetation just
described joins additional natural cover which adds materially to
its worth as open space. Of special value is a small one-half
acre grove of Arroyo Willow [Salix lasiolepis] in the mesic
drainage bordering the property on the east.
The second area examined, located near the southeast corner
Page 1
-..e - _--.- -.__ __._. . ._ ---...-.---
A.
of the property, is f2.5 acres in extent. Its cover is a CSS
dominated by Coast Sagebrush with small areas of naturally barren
soil.
No rare and endangered plant species were found. Of some 16
sensitive species listed by the California Native Plant Society
(CNPS) as sf possible occurence in the locality, suitable habitat
is lacking for all but four. Those four are California Adolphia
[Adolphia californica], CNPS R.E.D. Code 1-2-1; Wart-Stemmed
Ceanothus [Ceanothus verrucosus], 1-2-1; Palmer's Grappling-Hook
[HarpoqoneXla palmeri], 1-2-1; and Summerholly [Comarostaphylos
diversifolia], 1-2-Z. None of the four are important enough to
require mitigation if specimens were later discovered on the
property.
The 2,5-acre CSS is of little value as-natural open space .-
because of its small size 'and isolation, The 12-acre area, on the
contrary, is worthy of preservation because of its size, composi-
tion and lczcation. If possible, it should be joined with the
sensitive zzesic habit to the east.
Attached: plant list and map.
Prepared for RBR & Asociates, Inc.
By:
Jack L.Reveal, Consulting Botanist
Sarr Diego, California
17 January, 1987
_.-.-,-* -._.. ___ ____- -.-.. -
=4 Cl Vd&a~
r
Qt ‘3-I.9
\ \
\
\ 1 f
i 1
\ =% I 1 \ \ \ I .; 1 v \ . I
I
i
\\,--: \ -----.-----. ~~- Ida ,.,
_ _ ___-.---
. . . --,
‘.
. . .
;’ -$-& --/
-.k. / --__ .. ----i --__.
L L . : ‘. ‘- .: - _ : 2
.&?&zwv~’ .- ‘. JyP 4bzL-9 J4
f .p
\ 0. .
?A DlSw& ‘*.
&far5 J d-a5 \
: I
r I I1 ci
Mr Christopher Calkins Page Three
January 22, 1987 b
during the San Dieguito (circa 10,000 - 7500 years ago) at-d La Jolla II (5500 -. 4000 years ago) periods. He noted that granitic grinding slabs an3. handstones were c-n at the site. He also noted hananerstones, stone tools, flakes, and hearths, but no shell or darkmidden soil. On our field check, the site was
observed to be a light to moderate density scatter of artifacts and.shell,
which had suffered a great deal of disturbance from Flowing and road grading.
Artifacts seen include manos (handstones), scrapers, flakes, and many core hammers. One stone tool was made of chert, a valued material which is not found naturally in this area. Chione sp. and Aequipecten sp. were the shell species noted, and large mzmrnal bones were found. We also observed dark soil indicative of habitation. This site may contain undisturbed cultural deposits below the plow zone , and should contribute valuable information about the prehistory of the Aqua Hedionda region.
-129 3
SDM-W-129 is located on a low ridge in the eastern half of the property. The site lies between the ridge containing SDM-W-116 and the ridge on which SDM-W- 117 and SDM-W-118 are located. Malcolm Rogers recorded the site as a highland camp used during La Jolla II (5500 - 4000 years ago) and Yuman III (post - 1500 A.D.) times. He noted cobble hearths, cermnic sherds, grinding slabs, shell, and charcoal. Rogers also recorded a number of circular and semi-circular stone structures, which he thought to be sweathouses. Many similar stone enclosures throughout San Diego County have proved to be prehistoric dwellings; some are thought to have been stone forts. SDM-W-129 has been heavily disturbed by agricultural uses, but it retains a potential for contributing important information to the study of this area.
To surmarize the results of the archaeological reconnaisance, five sites are known to exist on the subject property.' All of these.sites have been heavily disturbed by agricultural activities, especially plowing. Whereas all of these
sites retain the potential to be "important sites" as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act, none of the sites visited appears to be so important as to cause a significant unmitigable.impact that would cause problems in further development. There is a possibility that there may be undisturbed archaeological material below the plow zone at these sites, but the presence of such deposits can be determined only through testing. To meet the requirements of CEQA and of the City of Carlsbad itwill be necessary to do an intensive
survey of the property and to test the sites to determine significance.
Testing will also be necessary to determine what measures may be necessary to mitigate the loss of these sites. Based on the site records, our field evaluation, and the past agricultural disturbance of the entire area, it is our opinion that any required mitigation could be performed for a sm of money lesg
than the liability of any potential project under currentCE.QA regulations.
Burials have been recovered from at least one of the sites, and there is the ptential for the recovery of human burials at all of the sites (particularly W-118, W-125, and W-129). Native American graves receive special protection under the law, and if any are encountered they may cause some additional expense and construction delays.
6,
II
0
k
1
1
[
3
3
I[
f
1
1
I-
I
I
I
I
I
\
.
:’
I
c
: I
*.
? it .I
?
* .
I. ‘I
‘\ .I
1. ,.
\
/ .’ II I .‘. \’ 1;
( *escrvoif
:
i " ' b i/P'
\I2 ‘. 1 SITE Y K. l \ ‘\ : i;/ \ . i ..
,/, ‘- .r,
.
-- 1, y,fi’s CORI ^I-_-_ $‘;--Ty;‘- a
-‘I ‘$ ,,/ “.> (
\
I ‘. ., \.
4 \
,‘/
i c_ 1
8,
-.
I : 3 \ ‘,,!, \ i j!,’ ‘,;I i I,
I I *i
\ ; i, ( -L-i..\L.l t”..-G;_,ii&. “, . * ,
ADAPTED FROM U.S.Q.S. 7.5’ ENCINITAS FEET AND SAN LUIS REY QUADRANGLES (1076)
08 NO.:
LOCATION MAP
JANUARY 1988
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PORTION OF LOT "H"
RANCH0 AGUA HEDIONDA
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
CARLTAS COMPANY
C/O NOLTE AND ASSOCIATES
9755 CLAIREMONT MESA BOULEVARD
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92124
PREPARED BY
SAN DIEGO GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
6455 NANCY RIDGE DRIVE, SUITE 200
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121
JANUARY 29, 1988
JOB NO. 05-7379-002-00-00
LOG NO. 8-1092
a-
SAN DIEGO GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
January 29, 1988 SOIL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
Carltas Company c/o Nolte and Associates 9755 Clairemont Mesa Boulevard San Diego, California 92124
Job No. 05-7379-002-00-00 Log No. 8-1092
Attention: Mr. Charlie Kahr
SUBJECT: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Portion of Lot "H" Ranch0 Agua Hedionda Carlsbad, California
Gentlemen:
We have completed our Geotechnical Investigation of the subject site in Ranch0 Agua Hedionda. This report presents the results of our investigation, and conclusions with recommendations regarding grading of the project. The major geotechnical consideration pertaining to the site is the presence of compressible alluvial and colluvial soils, and trash and debris in an undocumented landfill.
Two alternatives for treatment of compressible soil are included in our recommendations. If settlement of the fill can be tolerated and or complete removal of alluvium is hindered by groundwater conditions, surcharging the alluvium may be monitored with settlement monuments. If construction is necessary immediately upon completion of import placement, then compressible soils should be removed to bedrock.
This report presents recommendations for mitigating the geotechnical concerns. The proposed construction is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the appropriate geotechnical engineering recommendations contained herein are implemented during grading.
This opportunity to be of service is appreciated. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
SAN DIEqO GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
W. Lee Vanderhurst Vice President
WLV/pb
6455 NANCY RIDGE DRIVE l SUITE 200 l SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 l (619) 587-0250
--
TABLE OF CONTENTS
-
I
1 .o
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
INTRODUCTION .............................................. 1
1.1 Authorization ........................................ 1
1.2 Scope of Services .................................... 1
SITE DESCRIPTION .......................................... 2
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...................................... 3
SITE INVESTIGATION ........................................ 4
4.1 General .............................................. 4
4.2 Field Exploration .................................... 4
4.3 Laboratory Testing ................................... 5
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ..................................... 5
5.1 Geologic Setting ..................................... 5
5.2 Geologic Units ....................................... 6
5.2.1 Santiago Formation (Tsb) ................... ...6
5.2.2 Alluvium (Qal) ................................ 7
5.2.3 Topsoil/Colluvium ............................. 8
5.2.4 Fill (FILL) ................................... 8
5.3 Groundwater .......................................... 9
5.4 Geologic Structure ................................... 9
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS..............1 0
6.1 General ............................................. 10'
6.2 Site Grading and Earthwork .......................... 10
6.2.1 General ...................................... 10
6.2.2 Geotechnical Observation.....................1 1
6.2.3 Removal of Loose/Soft Surficial Soils........1 1
6.2.4 Fill Materials ............................... 12
6.2.5 Fill Compaction .............................. 13
6.2.6 Shrinkage and Bulking........................1 3
6.3 Slope Stability ..................................... 13
6.3.1 Fill Slopes .................................. 13
6.3.2 Slope Protection ............................. 13
6.4 Settlement Considerations ........................... 14
6.4.1 General ...................................... 14
6.4.2 Settlement Instrumentation....................1 5
6.5 Subsurface Drainage ................................. 16
6.6 Plan Review ......................................... 17
7.0 LIMITATION OF INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
i
Figures
1 Location Map
2 Deep Settlement Monument Detail
Appendices
A
B
C
D
Plates
l&2
3
ATTACHMENTS
References
Field Exploration Program,
Boring Logs, Figures B-2 through B-13
Test Pits, Figures B-14 through B-17
Laboratory Test Results
Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects
Geotechnical Maps
Cross Sections
ii
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PORTION OF LOT "H" RANCH0 AGUA HEDTONDA CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
-.
1 .O INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our geotechnical
investigation of a portion of Lot "H", of Ranch0 Agua
Hedionda in Carlsbad, California. The purpose of our
investigation is to evaluate the surface and subsurface
soils and geologic conditions at the site and, based on
those conditions, make recommendations for remedial grading
and other geotechnical aspects of site development. The
conclusions and recommendations in this report are based on
analysis of the data obtained from our field exploration,
laboratory tests, and experience with similar soils and
geologic conditions in the area.
1.1
1.2
Authorization
The scope of services performed for this investigation
was generally consistent with that outlined in our
Proposal No. SDP7-4792, dated December 10, 1987.
Scope,of Services
The scope. of services for this investigation included:
a. Review of previous geologic, soils engineering, and
seismological reports pertinent to the project
area;
Carltas Company January 29, 1988
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
h.
Job No. 05-7379-002-00-00 Log No. 8-1092 Page 2
Analysis of stereographic aerial photographs to
evaluate the topography and geologic structure of
the area;
Subsurface investigation consisting of test pit
excavations, 8-inch diameter drill holes, and
24iinch diameter drill holes;
Geologically logging and sampling the test pits and
drill holes;
Laboratory testing of relatively undisturbed
samples typical of those observed during the field
investigation;
Geologic and soils engineering analysis of field
and laboratory data, which provides the basis for
our conclusions and recommendations concerning the
project;
Assessment of stability and groundwater problems,
with recommendations for their avoidance or
mitigation;
Preparation of this report and appropriate maps
presenting our findings, conclusions and
recommendations for the remedial grading.
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is an irregularly shaped parcel of roughly 10
acres. .The approximate location is shown on the attached
Location Map, Figure 1. The site is situated northeast of
the Paseo De1 Norte and Palomar Airport Road intersection in
a predominately agricultural area.
-
I -
I
\ \ \ \ \ \ s I 1 ‘\
78
!\ ‘\ 4,
,1 .:: ‘3 PC
ADAPTED FROM U.S.G.S. 7.5’ ENCINITAS ’ AND SAN LUIS REV QUADRANGLES (1075)
IOB NO.:
LOCATION MAP
JANUARY1988
-
Carltas Company January 29, 1988 Job No. 05-7379-002-00-00 Log No. 8-1092 Page 3
Topographically, the site is characterized by a roughly
northwest to southeast trending canyon with gently to
moderately sloping flanks. Smaller draws empty into the
main canyon from the east. Elevations on the subject site
range from f97 to fl69 feet above mean sea level.
The western part of the canyon is covered with grasses and
low brush. The eastern part is currently used for
agriculture and had been recently tilled at the time of our
field investigation. A warehouse-type structure and
temporary shelters are scattered about the northern end of
the project site.
3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The proposed grading for the project consists of placing
imported soils in the canyon. The finished grading will
result in a nearly level pad and a south-facing slope with a
maximum height of approximately 40 feet. The slope will be
constructed to a ratio of 4:l (horizontal:vertical).
Although the constructed fill is considered a stockpile, it
will be placed as compacted structural fill. The site will
be prepared as for structural fill prior to the importation
of material, and the fill will be tested and documented as
it is placed andacompacted.
A set of 40-scale Grading Plans for the project, undated,
were prepared by Nolte and Associates. These plans are the
basis of our Geotechnical Maps, Plates 1 and 2.
I .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Carltas Company January 29, 1988
4.0 SITE INVESTIGATION
4.1 General
Job No. 05-7379-002-00-00 Log No. 8-1092 Page 4
Prior to beginning the field exploration, we reviewed
stereographic aerial photographs and published
information pertinent to the project. This
information, together with our field investigation,
laboratory testing results, and previous experience in
the area, forms the basis for the conclusions and
recommendations presented in this report.
4.2 Field Exploration
Field work took place between January 5 and 12, 1988.
The investigation consisted of geologic mapping and
subsurface exploration by our geotechnical personnel.
The subsurface exploration included eight test pit
excavations, seven hollow stem auger borings, and three
bucket auger borings. The test pits were excavated to
investigate the amount of topsoil or colluvium on the
canyon flanks. The test pits were excavated with a
rubber-tired backhoe, were roughly 24 inches wide, and
dug to a maximum depth of 15.5 feet. An all-terrain-
vehicle mounted, 8-inch diameter, hollow stem auger was
used to investigate depths of the alluvium in the
canyon, and depths of undocumented fill on the western
canyon slope. These borings were drilled to determine
the depth to the bedrock, the deepest of which was 46.5
feet. A truck-mounted, 24-inch diameter, bucket auger
rig was used to investigate two sites in the project
area that were suspected of being landslides. The
deepest of these borings was 50 feet.
--
II
I
I a
I .
I
Carltas Company January 29, 1988 Job No. 05-7379-002-00-00 Log No. 8-1092 Page 5
Relatively undisturbed samples were collected from the
borings. A 2.5-inch inside diameter, modified
California sampler was used in the bucket auger
borings; and a standard split spoon sampler, Shelby
tubes, and the modified California sampler were used in
the hollow stem borings. Bulk samples were collected
from the test pit excavations.
The borings and test pits were logged and then back-
filled. The logs are included in Appendix B. Slotted
PVC pipe was buried in two of the borings to monitor
groundwater levels. The locations of the borings and
test pits are shown on the attached Geotechnical Maps,
Plates 1 and 2. The mapped locations were estimated
using the site topographic maps.
4.3 Laboratory Testing
The samples collected during the field investigation
were evaluated in the laboratory for their in-place
density and moisture, and were tested by direct shear
and consolidation. Tests were performed in accordance
with ASTM test methods or other accepted standards.
Appendix C contains descriptions of the test methods
and summaries of the results.
5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
5.1 Geologic Settinq
The project area is within the Peninsular Ranges
geomorphic province of California. In general, this
province consists of rugged mountains underlain by
I - I a Carltas Company January 29, 1988
Job No. 05-7379-002-00-00 Log No. 8-1092 Page 6
Mesozoic metamorphic and crystalline rock to the east,
and a coastal plain underlain by Cenozoic marine and
non-marine sediments. The subject site lies within the
coastal plain section. In this section, low hills are
eroded from marine sediments of Eocene age, with valley
bottoms filled by Quaternary alluvium.
The geologic materials found at this site are the
marine sedimentary rocks, alluvium, colluvium and
topsoil. A fill of dumped trash and debris is also
situated on the site. This investigation did not
identify any existing landslides, active or suspected
active faults, or other major geologic .hazards in the
project area or its immediate vicinity.
5.2 Geologic Units
5.2.1 Santiago Formation (Tsb)
The Eocene age Santiago Formation underlies the
entire site. As observed on site, this bedrock
generally consists of light olive to light
yellowish gray, silty fine to coarse-grained
sandstone. The sandstone is typically massive
with intraclasts of olive green clayey silt-
stone. These intraclasts can be as much as 20
feet in diameter.
The sandstone is moderately friable and exhibits
a low to non-expansive potential. The clayey
siltstone may exhibit moderate to high
expansiveness. The bedrock is considered
relatively incompressible under the anticipated
loads to be imposed by this project.
.“.
Carltas Company January 29, 1988
1
I
I
1
d
d
Job No. 05-7379-002-00-00 Log No. 8-1092 Page 7
Conventional grading equipment should be able to
excavate most of the bedrock with light to
moderate ripping. Santiago Formation materials
are suitable for compacted fills and to support
fill or structural loads.
5.2.2 Alluvium (Qal)
Alluvial deposits are found in the canyon and
beneath part of the fill. The alluvium consists
of greenish gray and orange brown, clayey and
silty fine to medium-grained sands. These soils
are generally loose to medium dense and normally
consolidated. The maximum depth of alluvium
encountered during our field investigation was
approximately 23 feet below the overlying fill
materials. Slightly deeper deposits may exist
due to changing geometry of the alluvial
channels. Groundwater was encountered in the
alluvium at varying depths.
The alluvial soils are compressible and will
consolidate upon loading unless they are removed
and recompacted. The extent of removals will
depend on the magnitude of tolerable settlement.
When recompacted, alluvium increases in shear
strength and provides suitable material for fill
on pads and slopes. Alluvial soils are the most
cohesive on the site and should be utilized in
fill slopes to reduce the potential for erosion
and provide favorable stability.
Carltas Company January 29, 1988
5.2.3 Topsoil/Colluvium
Job No. 05-7379-002-00-00 Log No. 8-1092 Page 8
The eastern and northern parts of the site are
mantled by a variable thickness of topsoil and
colluvium. Colluvial deposits are accumulated
by slopewash of weathered bedrock and topsoil
creep. These materials on-site range from silty
or clayey sands to silty clay, and are generally
loose/soft to medium dense. The topsoil is
generally up to 2 feet thi.ck. Some earthwork
associated with farming, such as tilling, has
disturbed much of the topsoil. The colluvium
was observed to be as much as 16 feet thick in
Boring No. 10, but is generally on the order of
4 feet thick or less. The topsoil and colluvium
are compressible but can be used for fill.
Topsoil and colluvium are not shown on the
Geotechnical Maps.
5.2.4 Fill (FILL)
The western flank of the canyon is mostly
composed of undocumented landfill. The
materials in the fill consist of silty, clayey
sands and trash, plastic sheeting, wood, tires,
concrete, and decaying organic matter. The
greatest depth of fill encountered during this
investigation was 20 feet, in boring No. 7.
Cross section A-A' depicts our estimate of the
subsurface geometry of the fill. To the north
and south of the section, the fill gradually
thins to the mapped limits shown on Plate 1.
Carltas Company Job No. 05-7379-002-00-00 January 29, 1988 Log No. 8-1092 Page 9
The materials found in the fill are unsuitable
for use in structural fills, and should be
completely removed.
5.3 Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered during the subsurface
investigation, as well as a small creek coursing down
the canyon. Groundwater was encountered as shallow as
12 feet below the surface in Test Pit No. 7. Ground- . water appears to be perched on relatively impervious
strata within the alluvium and bedrock. As a result,
prediction of groundwater elevations is difficult.
Groundwater levels may fluctuate during and after
periods of rainfall and/or drought. Shallow ground-
water may affect grading operations.
5.4 Geologic Structure
Generally, the structure of the site consists of gently
dipping sedimentary bedrock. Measured attitudes range
from 3 to 23 degrees, and mostly dip to the southwest.
Faulting was not detected during this investigation.
It is possible that systems of small faults exist on or
near the site, however no credible evidence exists for
geologically recent faulting in this area.
-
l _ Carltas Company Job No. 35-7379-002-00-00 January 29, 1988 Log No. 8-1092 Page 10
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 General
Our investigation indicates that the site is suitable
for the proposed use. Significant amounts of soft
topsoil, colluvium, alluvium and undocumented fill were
encountered on the site. We recommend that all of the
topsoil, colluvium, dry alluvium and undocumented fill
be removed and recompacted. These soils have a ten-
dency to collapse when they become wet causing erratic
settlements. Some of the undocumented fill contains
debris and organic material that are not suitable for
reuse as structural fill. The moist to wet alluvium is
not subject to collapse, and in our opinion may be left
in place. As a stockpile fill, it can be assumed that
construction of permanent structures on the fill will
not take place for some time thus allowing ample time
for settlement to finish. However, additional fill
placed at a later date will result in additional
settlement and may cause construction delays while the
additional settlement occurs. A discussion of
settlement can be found in Section 6.4.
If settlement cannot be tolerated over the short-term,
we recommend complete removal of compressible soi.ls.
6.2 Site Grading and Earthwork
6.2.1 General c
All earthwork and grading for site development
should be accomplished in accordance with the
applicable portions of the attached Standard
Guidelines for Grading Projects, Appendix D, and
--
. - Carltas Company January 29, 1988 Job No. 05-7379-002-00-00 Log No. 8-1092 Page 11
Chapter 70 of the UBC. All special site
preparation recommendations presented in the
following paragraphs will supersede those in the
attached Standard Guidelines for Grading
Projects.
6.2.2 Geotechnical Observation
Continuous observation by the geotechnical
consultant is considered essential during
grading to confirm that conditions are as
anticipated in this investigation and to
determine that grading proceeds in general
accordance with the recommendations contained
herein.
6.2.3 Removal of Loose/Soft Surficial Soils
Removal of compressible soil will depend on the
method of treatment previously described. If
only limited settlements can be tolerated,
removals should be made to bedrock-or
n ’
groundwater. We estimate that removals of this
type will be on the order of 20 feet deep.
Topsoil, colluvium, alluvium and undocumented
fill would be included.
If minimal removals are selected as treatment,
topsoil, colluvium, and any alluvium should be
removed and recompacted. Undocumented fill
should be removed but may not be reused as a
structural fill unless free of deleterious
material. Topsoil/colluvium and undocumented
fill are estimated.to be approximately 20 feet
deep:
. Carltas Company January 29, 1988
. 6.2.4 Fill Materials
Job No. 05-7379-002-00-00 Log No. 8-1092 Page 12
8 :” ; y ;: Materials for compacted fill should consist of
any soil imported or excavated from the cut
areas that, in the opinion of the geotechnical
consultant, is suitable for use in constructing
fills. Fi.11 material should be free of trash,
debris and organic material. It also should not
contain rocks larger than 12 inches in maximum
dimension. For disposal of rocks greater than
12 inches see Appendix D.
Soil placed within 3-feet of finish grade should
be select material that contains no rocks or
hard lumps greater than 6-inches in maximum
dimension and that has an Expansion Index of 20
or less when tested in accordance with UBC
Standard 29-2.
Representative samples of materials to be used
for soil fill should be tested in the laboratory
by the geotechnical consultant in order to
evaluate the maximum density, optimum moisture
content and, where appropriate, shear strength
and expansion characteristics of the soil.
During grading operations, soil types other than
those analyzed in the report'of the soils
investigation may be encountered by the
Contractor. The geotechnlcal consultant should
be consulted to evaluate the suitability of
these soils for'use as fill and as finish grade
soils.
Carltas Company January 29, 1988
6.2.5 Fill Compaction
Job No. 05-7379-002-00-00 Log No. S-1092 Page 13
Fill should be placed in accordance with the
Standard Guidelines in Appendix D, except where
superseded by recommendations in the body of
this report. The minimum recommended
compaction for fills is 90 percent of maximum
density based on ASTM D1557.
6.2.6 Shrinkage and Bulking
Shrinkage of the surficial alluvial deposits
and other surffcial cut materials of approx-
imately 5 to 10 percent can be expected, after
excavation and recompaction.
6.3 Slope Stability
6.3.1 Fill Slopes
.
The proposed 40 foot fill slope should be
stable, with a factor of safety greater than
1.5, at the proposed slope angle of 4:l
(horizontal:vertical). Fill slope construction
should be performed in accordance with local
grading ordinances and with applicable sections
of.Appendix D.
6.3.2 Slope Protection
'In order to maintain favorable performance of
slopes, these areas should be landscaped at the
completion of grading. Plants should consist
of deep-rooted varieti.es adapted to semi-a'rid '.
Carltas Company January 29, 1988 Job No. 05-7379-002-00-00 Log No. S-1092 Page 14
of deep-rooted varieties adapted to semi-arid
environments. A landscape architect should be
consulted regarding actual types of plants and
planting configuration. The irrigation system
should be anchored on the slope face, not
placed in excavated$trenches. If automatic
timing devices are utilized in conjunction with
irrigation systems, provisions should be made
for interrupting normal watering during and
following periods of rainfall. Homeowners
and/or maintenance personnel should be made
aware that improper slope maintenance, altering
site drainage, over-watering, and burrowing
. animals can be detrimental to slope stability.
6.4 Settlement Considerations
6.4.1 General
In areas where the alluvium is not completely
removed, either by choice or where groundwater
makes removals impractical, significant
settlement may occur due to the weight of the
overlying fill. The amount of settlement of
the alluvium under 40 feet of fill can be
expected to be equal to 4 to 5 percent of the
thickness of the remaining alluvium. This
would result in 2 to 3 inches of settlement for
every 5 feet of fill left in place. Ninety
percent of estimated total settlement should
occur within 6 months of completion of grading. ,
In the event that additional fill is'added in
the future, additional settlement of about .5
I .
Carltas Company Januarv 29. 1988
@k;,, ”
,;
ir,-,,
) -L’ . .
.:$@;:~ ”
ir, ‘i ,, :,. ; .! , I
ik
1 ..: ” 6.7. :;.; 1 ,,
Iii
1 I, ,-’ : 1, ,;
1 (q&i:’
Ilk
I . b!l _: ,. ‘r:, .n >.I. ii ;I1 ., ._,. !? ,* . 1 in j ‘;(-% *;: ; 1
-.
Job No. 05-7379-002-00-00 Log No. S-1092 Page 15
percent of the alluvium thickness for every 5
feet of fill can be expected. This settlement
will also take approximately 6 months to
complete.
If more than 5 feet of alluvium is left in
'place, we recommend that the settlement be
monitored after the completion of grading..
6.4.2 Settlement Instrumentation
We recommend that a settlement monitoring
program be established for settlement
evaluation in the areas where alluvium is not
completely removed. We recommend that the
monitoring program be initiated prior to the
start of fill placement. Fine grading and
foundation construction should not proceed
until settlement monument readings indicate
that primary consolidation is essentially
complete.
.- Specific locations for settlement monuments
j should be provided by the Geotechnical
Consultant prior to the commencement of
grading. A remote benchmark should be
established well outside the zone of influence
of the fill, preferably in a bedrock area. We
recommend that the settlement'monitoring
program consist of deep settlement monuments
.(settlement plates).
The plates should be placed at the bottom of
the proposed fill prior to placing fill. '.
I - . .
.&. - 1 - Carltas Company Job No. 05-7379-002-00-00 January 29, 1988 Log No. S-1092 Page 16
Settlement readings should be made every week -
for the first month and every two weeks after
that until primary consolidation has occurred.
Settlement monitoring data should be made
available to the geotechnical consultant for
evaluation on an ongoing, regular basis. A
detail of deep settlement monuments is provided
in Figure 2. .
6.5 Subsurface Drainage
Subdrains should be placed under all fills located in
drainage courses at identified or potential seepage
areas. Their specific locations will be evaluated in
the field during grading. General subdrain locations
should be indicated on the approved grading plan. The
subdrain installation should be reviewed by the
Geotechnical Consultant prior to fill placement.
Subdrains consisting of perforated PVC pipe should be
sized according to the length of the run as follows:
Total Length PVC Pipe
of Run Diameter Ftlter Rock
E. 1. .
0’ - 400' 4"
400' - 800' 6"
800' + 8"
9 cu. ft./lineal ft. II II
I, II
Filter rock should consist of open graded 1" to g/2'
rock with a geofabric blanket surrounding the rock.
Typical subdrain details are presented in Appendix D,
"Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects". Subdrain
pipe may be coated metal, P.V.C., or approved
equivalent for the weight of the proposed fill height.
.
/-
PIPE CAP
13-4 INCHES
3/S’ CRUSHED ROCK-
SUITABLE SPACER FORT CENTERINQ PIPE IN CASTINQ
STANDARD 314’ PIPE CONNECTORs+.?;.j:I 1
WEIQHT (EXAMPLE-POWDER- PUFF) STYLE EQUIPMENT
,-STANDARD 3/4’STEEL PIPE v-.0.- .* .*. ,’ . 0.” * .** - . r . a.*.: ,l .‘,‘I * ‘rO . ..’
l en.. .
Q.INSTALL AS INDICATED AT LOCATIONS RECOMMENDED B.Y &TECHNICAL CON8ULTANT. DO NOT INaTALL WITHIN 20-28 FEET OF SLOPES
Q PIPE BROUQHT UP WITH FILL IN S FOOT SECTIONS _-- -_ -..--. __.______
l A-FTER 24-H&k &JRvEY LOCATIONS AND EiEVATlONS TO O.&/FOOT
Q SURVEY VERTICAL ELEVATIONS PER soiLS ENQINEER’S RECOMMENDATION
0 8URVEY~~HoRlZONTAL LOCATION EVERY MONTH TO 0.01 FOOT
. VARIATION IN THE ABOVE RECOMMENDATIONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE QEOTECHNICAL CUNSULTANT
DEEP SETTLEMENT MONUMENT DETAIL
OB NO.: 05-7379-002-00-00 JANUARY 1988 .-
Carltas Company January 29, 1988 Job No. 05-7379-002-00-00 Log No. 8-1092 Page 17
Subdrains should be placed at the bottom of removals.
They need not be trenched into remaining alluvium below
the water table.
6.6 Plan Review
As grading plans are completed, they should be
forwarded to the geotechnical consultant for review for
conformance with the intentions of the recommendations.
7.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION
Our investigation was performed using the degree of care and
skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by
reputable Soils Engineers and Geologists practicing in this
or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or
implied, is made as to.the conclusions and professional
advice included in this report.
The samples taken and used for testing and the observations
made are believed representative of the entire project;
however, soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly
between borings.
As in most major projects, conditions revealed by excavation
may be at variance with preliminary findings. If this
occurs, the changed conditions must be evaluated by the
Project Soils Engineer and Geologist and designs adjusted as
required or alternate designs recommended.
This report is issued wi.th the understanding that it is the
responsibility of the owner, or of his representative, to
ensure that the information and recommendations contained
herein are brought to the attention of the architect and
*
I, . -- - * . I. -
Carltas Company Job No. 05-7379-002-00-00 January 29, 1988 Log No. 8-1092 Page 18
engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans,
and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor
and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the
field.
This firm does not practice or consult in the field of
safety engineering. We do not direct the contractor's
operations, and we cannot be responsible for other than our
own personnel on the site; therefore, the safety of others
is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor
should notify the owner if he considers any of the
recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe.
The findings of this report are valid as of the present
date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can
occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to
natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent
properties. In addition, changes in applicable or
appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from
legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly,
the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or
partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this
report is subject to review and should not be relied upon
after a period of three years.
***
Carltas Company January 29, 1988
Job No. 05-7379-002-00-00 Log No. 8-1092 Page 19
SAN DIEGO GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
4 Robert M. Pintner Staff Ekgineer
W. Lee Vanderhurst C.E.G. 1125 Registration Expires: 6-30-88 Chief Geologist Principal Engineer