HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 02-02; Kent Jessee Office Building; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (3)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT)
CASENO:_ RPOL-OZ^
DATE RECEIVED: Inlo
(To be completed by staff)
BACKGROUND
1. CASENAME: l^JtKv4 Jch^iU ^ff^'^^^ hoildlh^ •
2. APPLICANT: lA/. ^hni Jhh^iL f Af^9d6i^ir/A
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: d "1 G CdT^fjC (^0\ Ho^^
4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: f.(S r\^4^U (y^\({V\ /]I 1(4 ^ ^-^f/Vt^
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
Please check any of the environmental factors listed below that would be potentially affected by this
project. This would be any environmental factor that has at least one impact checked "Potentially
Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" in the checklist
on the following pages.
I I Land Use and Planning
I I Population and Housing
I I Geological Problems
• Water
I I Air Quality
I I Transportation/Circulation Q Public Services
I I Biological Resources |^ Utilities & Service Systems
I I Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics
I I Hazards Cultural Resources
I I Noise 1^ Recreation
I I Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Secfion 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
• A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
"No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
• "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
• "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a
"Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
• "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
• Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the enviroiiment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated
Negative Declarafion, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
• When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of
Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
• A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the. proj ect or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the enviroimient.
Rev. 03/28/96
• If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated"
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
• An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
Rev. 03/28/96
II.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
(Source #(s):(\/j{|a^ 4, fl<?^(/r Plc^)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? ( V H P )
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(\fMf )
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (^Xf^/HiJ buT/
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (^^ f^'ng jf
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ( VMp )
b) Induce substantia! growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)?
(VMP )
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( )
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? ( )
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( )
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
( )
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
( )
Landslides or mudflows? ( ) e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
( )
Subsidence of the land? ( )
Expansive soils? ( )
Unique geologic or physical features?
( ) i
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? ( )
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? ( )
Potentially Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant Significan
Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
• • • 0"
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • • &-
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • • 0^
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? ( )
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? ( )
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? ( )
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? ( )
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
( )
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( )
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
( )
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
( )
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
( )
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? ( )
d) Create objectionable odors? ( )
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
( )
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? ( )
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
( )
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
( ; )
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
( )
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting altemative
transportation (e.g. bus tumouts, bicycle racks)?
( ' )
g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts?
( )
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
Potentially Less Than
Significant Significan
Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
• 0 •
• • • 0"
• • • 0^
• • •
• • •
• • • 0"
• • • 0"
• • • 0^
• • •
• • • 0-
• • • 0-
• • o
• • • 0"
• • • 0*
• • o
• • •
• • • 0"
• • • 0^
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? {^in <>//Vti^ l/trf^
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
( )
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( )
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vemal pool)?
( )
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
( )
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
( )
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( )
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? ( )
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? ( )
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? ( )
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? ( - )
d) Exposure of people to existing soufces of potential
health hazards? ( )
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable bmsh,
grass, or trees? ( )
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( )
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
( )
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemment
services in any of the following areas:
Fire protection? ( )
Potentially Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant Significan
Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
Police protection? (
Schools? (
)
• • • 0"
• • •
• • •
• • • 0^
• • 0"
• • • 0^
• • 0"
• • • 0"
• • 0"
• • • 0"
• • 0^
• • • 0"
• •
• • 0
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • • 0^
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documenls may be referred to and attached)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
( )
e) Other govemmental services? ( )
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas? ( ) a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
Communications systems? ( )
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? ( )
Sewer or septic tanks? ( )
Storm water drainage? ( )
Solid waste disposal? ( )
Local or regional water supplies? ( )
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
( )
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect?
( )
c) Create light or glare? ( )
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paieontological resources? ( )
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( )
c) Affect historical resources? ( )
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
( )
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? ( )
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities?
( )
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
( ) i
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
•
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
• 0"
• • • 0-
• • • 0-
o • o 0-
o • o 0^
o • 0^
• • o o • • 0"
o • 0"
• • •
• • • 0"
• • • 0-
• - • • 0"
• • o 0^
• o 0"
• • • 0"
• • •
o • 0-
o • • 0^
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of Califomia history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable fiiture projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
•
•
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significan Impact
Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
•
•
•
• 0^
•
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refmed from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Please use this area to discuss any of the environmental factors that were checked "No impact"
yet lack any information citations and any factors that were checked "Potentially Significant
Impacf or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigafion Incorporated." The City has
adopted a "Statement of Overriding Consideration" with regard to air quality and circulation
impacts resulting from the normal buildout according to the General Plan. The following sample
text is intended to guide your discussion of the impacts to these environmental factors.
AIR OUALITY:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the
San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips tiirough the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage altemative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a "non-attainment basin",- therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked
"Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air
quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
CIRCULATION:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdicfional control. These
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersecfions along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
9 Rev. 03/28/96
?2
EAST courmr soit CONSTJLTATION
AND EKGESEERING, INC
10525 HARTUey ROAD, SUITE **P
SAKTOEj CALIFORNIA 92071
(619)258^7901
Fax25S^7902
February 13^ 2001
w. Kent Jesse
C/o ppC Designs^ inc,
5245 Avenida Encinas, Suite ^^B''
Carlsbad, California 92008
Subject: Project Mo. 01-1106E5
Limited Site Investigation
Propcsed Commercial Building Site
2815 Jefferson Street
City of Carlsbad, California»
les/ (5ent37emei
In accordance with your request, we have performed a limited
investigation of the soil condition9 at the subject site. The
investigation was undertaken to provide the soil eTigiiieering
criteria for site grading and recommend an appropriate foundation
system for the proposed commercial development.
Our investigation found that the site is underlain by formational
soils classified as Terrace Deposits (Qti) to the maximum explored
depth of 11 feet.
These soils generally consist of tan, damp to moist, medium dense,
silty sand with a very low expansion potential and a moderate
compressibility.
It is our opinion that the proposed developraent is feasible
provi<3ed the recommendations herein are implemented during
construction.
Respectfully submitted.
Mamadou Saliou Diallo, P.E
RCE 54071
'«IVIMK. t). IIJUJ- y. \ /toO^KUtL Dn-Z^/-/5UJ WKENTJE5S££ n\J.\j\}\ r. j/ i o ^3
m KENT JESSBFROJBCTNO. OJ-IJ06ES
This is to present the findings and conclusions of a soil
investigation for a two-story commercial structure to be located
on the west side of Jefferson Street, in the City of Carlsbad,
California.
The objectives of the investigation were to determine the existing
soils conditions and provide recommendations for site development.
In order to accomplish these o}:>jectives, five (5) exploratory-
holes were excavated to a maximum depth of 11*0 feet; undisturbed
and loose bag samples were obtained, and laboratory tests were
performed.
SITS DSSCRtPTtOlf JIZO PROPOSED CQirsXEffCTION
The subject site is located on the west side of Jefferson Street,
in the City of Carlsbad, California. It is presently occupied by a
-fiow^t -^hop—ad^a^^t to Jeffej&sen—Street and—a floweir/—vegetab3:e-
garden on the remainder of the site. The site is relatively level
with gentle slopes to the west. The proposed improvements include
the construction of a two-story, wood-framed, commercial structure
over a parking garage. The structure will be founded on continuous
and spread footings with a slab-on-grade floor system*
riEXP INVBStlGATtOXr
Two (2) exploratory trenches were excavated to a maximum dept^ of
11 feet by a Case 580E Backhoe on January 17, 2001. In addition,
three exploratory holes were excavated with a shovel and a hand
auger on January 19, 20Q1 at the approximate locations shown on
the attached Plate No- 1, entitled "Location of Exploratory
Holes**. A continuous log of the soils encountered was recorded at
the time of excavation and is shown on Plates No. 2 and 3 entitled
"Summary Sheet".
The soils were visually and texturally classified according to the
filed identification procedures set forth 6n the attached Plate
Mo. 4 entitled ''Uniform Soil Classification Chart.
I'Ml 7S0KUtL t}]i-a!-n\)5 WKENTJESSEE H/ I 0 04
W. KENTJESSS PROJECTm. Ol-imES
SURSTiCE CONDXTXCSfS
The surface soils encountered during the course of our
investigation vere topsoils to a depth of one foot. The topsoils
were underlain by formational s<jil5 classified as Terrace Deposits
(Otl) . These soils consist of light to dark brown, damp to moist,
medium dense, silt;y sand (SH) .
EXPAHrSTVS soxts
An expansion test was performed on a subgrade soil sample to
determine volumetric change characteristics vith change in
moisture content. An expansion index of zero indicates a very low
expansion potential.
Ground water was not encountered during the course of our
investigation. Groundwater is anticipated at a depth greater than
-10^—feet^—5fe—do- --not--expect-aground"-wster" ~ affecf"the proposed
development.
tSEOliOGXC B^ZHPHS
A review of tbe available geological literature pertaining to the
site indicates the existence of the Rose Canyon/ Newport-Englewood
Fault ?one approximately 7,5 Km to the west. Ground shaking from
this fault or one of the ma;] or active, faults in the region is the
most likely happening to affect the site. With respect to this
hazard, the site is comparable to others in the general area.
The proposed residential structure should be designed in
accordance with seismic design requirements of the 1^9^ Dniform
Building Code or the Structural Engineers Association of
California using the following seismic design parameters:
PAKAMETER VALUE XJBC REFERENCE
Sdsmio Zone Factor. Z 0.40 Table 16-1
Soil Ptofile Type SD Table 16.J
Seismic CoefEicient, Ca 0.44 Table 16-Q
Seismic Coeflicient, Cv 0.70 Table 16.-R
Near-Source Factor, 1.0 Table 16-S
Near-Source Factor, Nv 1.1 Table 16-T
Seismic Source B Table 16-U
* lAK. ^.'IWl- 'i-Vl^^ 76a"KUtL DIV-2y/-/5llj WKENTJESSEE I f. D/JQ
m •
r. KENT JESSE PROJECT Na 0I-1206E5
Based on the absence of shallow ground water and the consistency
of the subgrade soils, it is our opinion that the potential for
liq[uefaction is low.
coNCLusiosfs mD PEccmsinsiTxo^^s
The following conclusions and recommendations are based upon the
analysis of the data and information obtained from our soil
investigation. This inciudes visual inspection; field
investigation; laboratory testing and our general knowledge of the
soils native to the site. The site is suitable for the proposed
commercial development provided the recommendations set forth are
ito.plemented during construction.
Site grading should begin with clearing and grubbing,, e.g. the
removal of topsoils, vegetation and deleterious materials. The
subgrade soils extending to a minimtim depth of foUr (4) feet below
-finish, ^ad—g^ade—and- -a-^ni-mum-of- -fi-ver -fST-^eer "feey^fid "perimeter
footings should be overexcavated, moisture conditioned to near
optimum and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative
.density. The actual depth and extent of removal should be
evaluated in the field at the time of excavation by a
representative of'this firm. Grading should be done in accordance
with the attached appendix A.
FOUm^TIQir Am SLUB
a. -Continuous and spread footings are suitable for the proposed
commercial structure. Continuous footings should extend a minimum
of 24 inches into the properly compacted fill soils. The footings
should be at least 15 inches wide and reinforced with four #4
steel bars; two bars placed near the top of the footings and the
other two bars placed near the bottom of the footings. These
recommendations are minimum amounts and must be verified by the
project structural engineer.
b. Concrete floor slabs for the driveway and parking Should be a
minimum € inches thick. Reinforcement should consist of #3 bars
placed 18 inches on center each way. Slab reinforcement should
be placed within the middle third of the slab by supporting the
steel on chairs or concrete blocks "dobies". The slab should be
underlain by 2 inches of clean sand over a 6-mil visqueen moisture
barrier. The effect of concrete shrinkage will result in cracks in
virtually all concrete slabs.
KENTJBSSE PROJECT NO. OUimES
ll Tt'^l^ ""^^ Z?^.''*' shrinkage, the concrete should be placed
Tr.^\TfT^ °^ ^ ^"i^ ^^^P- minimum steel recommended L not . intended to prevent shrinkage cracks.
ll.J^'Till ^f^^^^^^f^^ftive floor coverings are anticipated over
the Slab, the 6-inil plastic moisture barrier should be underlain
by a capillary break at least 4 inches thick, consisting of sand,
gravel or crushed rock not exceeding 3/4 inch in size with no more
than 5 percent passing the #200 sieve.
d. An allowable soil bearing value of 2500 pounds per square foot
may be used for the design of continuous and spread footings
foun<Jed a rnxniiuum of 12 inches into the compacted fill soils This
value may be increased by 750 psf for each additional fopt of
depth and by 350 psf for each additional foot of width to a
maximum value of 6000 lb/ft2.
e. Lateral resistance to horizontal movement may be provided by
the soil passive pressure and the friction of concrete to soil. An
-allowabl-e-^as^e--presstJre-of--lrSe-^^^ -per-square-'foo"t~pii" fob't '~
of depth may be used, A coefficient of friction of 0.25 is
recommended. The soils passive pressure as well as the bearing
value may be increased by 1/3 for wind and seismic loading.
Unrestrained, cantilevered retaining walls with a level backfill
may be designed to resist an active equivalent fluid pressure of
35 pounds per cubic foot. This pressure is based on the backfill
soils being free draining and non-expansive. Backfill materials
must be approved by the soils engineer prior to use*
Restrained walls, such as basement walls, that are not free to
rotate shduld be designed to resist an active equivalent fluid
pressure of 55 pounds per cubic foot.
SETTSEtSEifT
Settlement of contacted fill soils is normal and should be
anticipated. Based on the consolidation test results, a total
settlement up to 0.50 inches across the structural span and a
correspohding differential settlement up to 0.25 inehes need to be
considered in the structural design.
6. 20D2.' 'J:Ti.™ 7&0!KUbL t)1^2V/-/^U4 WKENTJESSEE i^^-l^OI r. //IQ
KENT JESSE PROJECTNO. 0I'JI06E5
PBELXUEERPX PAVEMENT RETCaMMENnaZ^TONS
Based on an estimated R-value of 20, we recommend the fallowing
preliminary pavement sections:
Traffic Index Pavement Sections Location
4.5 3" AC on 4,0" Class II Base Driveway and Parking
Prior to placing ths aggregate base material, the subgrade should
be moisture conditioned to near optimum and compacted to at least
95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557J within the upper 12
inches. All Class IX Base materials should be compacted to a
minimum of 95 percent relative compaction.
VTILXTt TSESiCE EXChVAXJONS
Excavations for on-site utility trenches may be made vertically
for shallow depths and must be either shored or sloped at IH; iv
-for-^epths- greater- -than- feet-.-tJtiliries"sHburdr "be" ^b^dded^nTT
backfilled with clean sand or approved granular soil to a depth of
at least one foot over the pipe, This backfill shall be uniformly
watered and compacted to a firm condition for pipe support. The
remainder of the backfill shall be on-site soils or non-expansive
imported soils, which shall be placed in thin lifts, moisture
conditioned and compacted to at least 90 % relative compaction.
lypAnnAiSE
Adequate measures shall be undertaken to properly finish grade the
site after the structures and other improvements are in place,
such that the drainage water within the site and adjacent
properties is directed away from the foundations, footings, floor
slabs and the tops of slopes via surface swales and subsurface
drains towards the natural drainage for this area. Proper surface
and subsurface drainage will be required to minimize the potential
of water seeking the level of the bearing soils under the
foundations, footings and floor slabs, which may otherwise result
in undermining and differential settlement of tshe structures and
other improvements.
, 5. 2002 ' "J:14P1V! 760<KUhL 5iy-2y/-/!?U"j WKENTJESSEE I r. X>/V^
W. KENT JESSE PROJECT NO. Ol-imES
ilHtSrS or X^I^STlGATXOl/t
The recommendations provided in this report pertain only to the
site investigated and based upon the assumption that the gpii
conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the trenches. If
any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during
construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from
that planned at the present time. East County Soil Consultation
and Engineering, Inc. should be notified so that supplemental
recommendations can be provided.
Plates No. 1 through 4, &ages L-1 through L-3, References, and
Appendix A are parts of this report.
Respectfully submitted.
Mamadou Saliou Diallo
-RCE-54D71-
MSD/md
b.'iwi im^ti oir2vr/5Uj
- ^—
WKENTJESSEE r. 10
I S
CAST COUNTY SOIL CONSULTATTON
& BNGINEERING. INC
lOMS HARTUy RD.. SUHE I. ^hfTEE. CA 92071
50IU-FOUNDATIONS
1
^.2002 j:14FM /60KU1:L f)iy''/y/-/::)Uj WKENTJESSEE I ^'.I'i'iJ^ia
m KENT JESSE PROJECT NO. Ol-UOm
PLATE NO, 2
SUMMARY SHEEt NO. 1
TRENCH NO. 1
DEPTH Soil* UE^CEIPXION M
114,7 4.6
111.4 6.2
Surface TERRACE DEPOSITS (Oti)
brown, moist, loose to medium dense.
fine grained silty sand (SM)
1.0' reddish brown, moist, medium dense,
fine grained silty sand (SM)
2'°' " U2.2 5.1
4.5' "* "'^
5,0' gray brown, moist, niedium dense,
poorly graded sand vith silt (SP-SM)
6.0' V V \\ w
9,0' gray, moist, medium dense, poorly
graded sand with silt (SP-SM)
11 rC bpttom pf trench
trench backfilled 1-17-01
TKENCH NO, 2
DEPTH SOIL DESCRIPTION Y M
Surface TSftRACE DEPOSITS (Oti)
brown, moist, lodse to medium dense,
fine grained silty sand (SM)
2-0' reddish brown, moist, loose to medium
dense, fine grained silty sand (SM)
5.0' reddish brown, moist, medium dense,
fine grained silty sand (SM)
5.5' bottom of trench
trench backfilled 1-17-Di
iK. 5. 2002 ; j: 750!KUtL 0 I rZ!^/-/5U:) WKENTJESSEE nv. vy i ^ • , liij ^ n
}V, KENTJESSEPROJECTNO. Ol-IIO^ES
PLATE NO. 3
SDMMRRY SHEET NO. 2
HOLE NO. 3
DEPTH SOIL DESCRIPTION M
Surface TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qtx)
brown, moist, loose to medium dense,
fine grained silty sand (SMJ
1.0' reddish brown, moist, loose to medium
dense, fine grained silty sand (SM)
2-5' - - - - 109.8 6.2
4.5' reddish brown, moist, medium dense^
fine grained silty sand (SM)
5,0^ bottom of hole
hole backfilled 1-19-01
HOLE NO. 4
DEPTH SOIL DESCRIPTION Y W
• -Surface TERRSCKT3EP0SITS" TQti)
brown, moist, loose to medium dense,
fine grained silty sand (SM)
1.5' reddish brdwn, mPist, loose to medium
dense, fine grained silty sand (SM)
3.5' reddish brown, moist, medium dense,
fine grained silty sand (SKE)
4.5" bottom^ of hole
hole backfilled 1-17-01
HOLE NO. 5
DEPTH SOIL OESCRtPttON Y «
Surface TERRACE DEPOSITS {QtJ
brown, moist, loose to medium dense,
fine grained silty sand (SM)
1.0' reddish brown, moist, medium
dense, fine grained silty sand (SM)
3.0' reddish brown, moist, medium dense,
fine grained Silty sand (SM)
4,5' bottom of hole
hole backfilled 1~19-01
5.2002 7&0KUhL 5iy-2V/^/l?0'j WKENTJESSEE Y. vi/y 12
MAJOR DmSION$^ SYMBOL BB35CRIPTION
COARSE
ORAIJIED SOILS
(MORE TOAN % or SOIL >
MO.200ST£VES{ZE>
GRAVELS
tMORETHAHVi
OFCOARSE
RtACmON
>Na4SlEVE
SIZE)
CW W15U.GKADE0 GRAVELS OR.CtlAVEU SAND
MIXTURES. UTTLEOft NO FINE$
COARSE
ORAIJIED SOILS
(MORE TOAN % or SOIL >
MO.200ST£VES{ZE>
GRAVELS
tMORETHAHVi
OFCOARSE
RtACmON
>Na4SlEVE
SIZE)
GP POORLY ORADEDQRAVgtS 0* dRAVEL*5ANO
MmURES. imit OK NO PINES
COARSE
ORAIJIED SOILS
(MORE TOAN % or SOIL >
MO.200ST£VES{ZE>
GRAVELS
tMORETHAHVi
OFCOARSE
RtACmON
>Na4SlEVE
SIZE)
GM SLTtGRAVEI^,GRAVEL.SANt5.5lLTMt3crUR£5
COARSE
ORAIJIED SOILS
(MORE TOAN % or SOIL >
MO.200ST£VES{ZE>
GRAVELS
tMORETHAHVi
OFCOARSE
RtACmON
>Na4SlEVE
SIZE) GC CLAYEY ORAVELS. QRAVEL-SANOCWSY MIXTURES COARSE
ORAIJIED SOILS
(MORE TOAN % or SOIL >
MO.200ST£VES{ZE>
SANDS
(MORE THAN Vi
OFCOARSE
fUACnON
<N0.4SJEVE
StZE)
SW mL GRADED SANDS OR CRAVEaV SANOS.
LmiEORNOFINES
COARSE
ORAIJIED SOILS
(MORE TOAN % or SOIL >
MO.200ST£VES{ZE>
SANDS
(MORE THAN Vi
OFCOARSE
fUACnON
<N0.4SJEVE
StZE)
S? POORLY GRADED SANDS OR ORAVEILY SANDS,
LnrLEORNOFWES
COARSE
ORAIJIED SOILS
(MORE TOAN % or SOIL >
MO.200ST£VES{ZE>
SANDS
(MORE THAN Vi
OFCOARSE
fUACnON
<N0.4SJEVE
StZE)
SM • $a.TY SANDS, SILT^AND MIXTURES
COARSE
ORAIJIED SOILS
(MORE TOAN % or SOIL >
MO.200ST£VES{ZE>
SANDS
(MORE THAN Vi
OFCOARSE
fUACnON
<N0.4SJEVE
StZE) SC CLAYEY SANDS. SANTJ.CUY MIxniFES
(MORE THAU OF SOIL <
NO. 250 SIEVE SEB)
SILTS&
CLAYS
UQUlPtiMrr
ML INORGANIC SiLtS AND VERY FINE SANOS. ROCK
FLOUR. SILTY OR ClAYFif FINE SANOS OR CLAYEY
. SILTS WtlHSUGKTPLASTKmY
(MORE THAU OF SOIL <
NO. 250 SIEVE SEB)
SILTS&
CLAYS
UQUlPtiMrr
CL INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOWTO iVlEDrUM
PLASTCCrtY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CUYS»
Stt-TY CWY5, LEAK CLAYS
(MORE THAU OF SOIL <
NO. 250 SIEVE SEB)
SILTS&
CLAYS
UQUlPtiMrr
OL-ORGANIC StLTS AND ORCANtC SH^TYClAYS OF
IjOWPLAStrOtY
(MORE THAU OF SOIL <
NO. 250 SIEVE SEB) SILTS 4^
CLAYS
UQUIDLlMrr
^IH INORGANIC StLTSvMlCACEOLi£ OR DtATO^CACEOUS
FINS SANDY OR SILTY SOfllS. ELASTIC SILTS
(MORE THAU OF SOIL <
NO. 250 SIEVE SEB) SILTS 4^
CLAYS
UQUIDLlMrr
CH INORGANIC OAYS OFHIGK PLASTICnY. FAT
OAYS
(MORE THAU OF SOIL <
NO. 250 SIEVE SEB) SILTS 4^
CLAYS
UQUIDLlMrr
OH ORGANIC CLAYS OFMEDtVMTO HKJK PLASnCTTY,
ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS, ORGANIC SILTS
HlGjaLY ORGANIC SOILS F* PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY OKGANIC SOltS
CLASSIFICATION CHART (UNIFIED SOIL CXASSIFICATlON SYSTli^
CIASSIFICATION RANGE OF GRAIN SIZES
U.SySTANaiRD GRAIN SIZE IN
SI£V£$]ZC MILUMETtfiS
BOIULDCRS Above IZbKhcs Above SOS
CQftRLES I2lRch<$T«3IiKhes 305To76i
CRAVIL SftcKcstoNo.i 76.2 w 4.76
Cowte t$.iva t?.l
Fine 19.1»4.T6
SAND No. 4X0 No. 200 4.76 to 0.0^4
Come No.4»No.V0 4.76 » 2,00
Nal0{oN5».4O 2,00 to 0.420
Fine No. AO (0 No. 200 0,420 CO 0.074
SILT AMD CLAY Below ^/o. ZOO Bdow 0.074
2 ta
Q.
I
Ml,* tt. > 1 1 1 1
ORAXNStJCECSART
n i/t to 49 ifl 70 u
PLASTiarY CHART
EAST CQ VNTY SOIL CONSULTATIOlS
ANB ENGINEEIWNG, JNC.
i«^2S HARTLEY ROAD, SUITE T
SANTEE, CALIFORNU nm
SOIL CLASSIFiCATION
KENT JESSE PROJECT
PROJECT NO. 01-1106E5
FEBRUARY 13, 2001
PLATE NO- A
WKENTJESSEE
KENTJESSEPROJECTNO. OI-imES
PACE L-1
Ttie mteimum diy densities and optlnium moisture conti^ts ofthe fUJ materials as dctezzamed by
ASTM DI557-91, Procedtue A and B which uses %S blo^vs of a 10 pound slide harpmer Ming
from a height of IS inches on each of 5 equal layers ia a 4 inch diameter 1/30 cuWc foot
compacitipn cylinder and Procedure C which uses 56 blows of a pound sKdc hammer ^ling
from a height of 18 inches en eadi of 5 eqxial byers in a 6 inch diameter 1/13,3 cubic foot
compactioa cylinder are presented a? jbliows:
SOItrYPE/PRQCgDimF
TRHNCH NO. 2 @ 1.0' TO 5,0'
I/A REDDISH BROWN, FINE GRAINED
SILTYSAND
OPTIMUM
MAXIMUM MOISTURE
DRYDENSHY COmrni
.LB/CU.FT. % DRYWT.
130.5 9,0
At cjcpansion test in conformance with UBC 18-2 was performed on a representative sample of on-
site soils to determine volumetric change characteristics with charge in moisture content The
recorded expansion of ^ sample is presented as follows:
MOISTURE
CONTENT%
SATURATED
MOISTURE
CbNTENT^
IMllALDRY
DENSITY
LBycu.fT.
EXPANSION
INDEX
7,5 14.5 120.9 ZERO TRENCH NO. 2
@L0*TO5.0*
WKENTJESSEE 14
DtRECT SHEAR SUIV!MARY
LL
m
'<
X
t/>
1
NORMAL STRESS, KSF (2 SAMPLE)
SAMPLS DESCKFTTON
REMOLDED TO 90Z
KAX. DENSITY* 130.5
OPT. 110ISTURE= 902
INTEaMAL
COH£StON'
(PSF;
BROWN SILTI SAND (SK> 42* 200
EAST COUNTY SOIL CONSULTATION
&EyOlNEERINO.INC
10925 HARTLEY RD, SUITE I, SANTEE. CA 92071
SOILS, TOUNOATIONS
W. KENT JESSE PROJECT
JOe WJftRSH: 01-1106E5
Zi.r^: 2-14-01
PAGE L*2
MAR, 5.2002 3:1 6PM ^seROEL 619-297-?503 WKEKTJESSEE m.%\ p. 15/18T7
1
2
3
V
a
O ^
P
Q 7
13
O
O
10
1t
12
^3
14
15
0.1
-• -
/VATER D V /VATER D
•
•
-
•
•
— -— -- --
•
-
•
f
• •
I
f
... •
0.5 1.0
LOAD (kip/sq.ft.)
5.0 10.0
Sample remolded to 90%, optimum moisture content and maximum diy dersity values
provided by client (moisture cantent ^ 9.0 and y = 130,5 pcf)
JSCs, SOUTHERN CAUFORNIA
| SOrL& TESTING, rNC.
W. KENT JESSE PROJECT JSCs, SOUTHERN CAUFORNIA
| SOrL& TESTING, rNC. BY: DBA/KMS DATfe: 02/07/01
JSCs, SOUTHERN CAUFORNIA
| SOrL& TESTING, rNC.
JOBNUMBER:OI-11U6B5 ; PAGE 1-3
b.'mi'^ .7&m\)ti b]rBhf^^5 WKEKTJESSEE N^-w^i ^-.m^^ie
W. KENT JE^E PROJECT NO. 0UimE5
REFERENCES
1- "1997 Edition, Uniform Building Code, Volume 2, Structural
Bngineering and Design Provisions''.
2. "Ma^ts of Known Active Fault N«ar-5aurce Zones in California: and
Adjacent Portions of Nevada", Page 0-36, used with the 19S7
Edition of the Uniform Building Code, Published by Intemationai
Conference of Building Officials.
3. ''Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diegd County,
California. Plate No. 2, Geologic Maps of the Encinitas and Rancho
santa Fe 7.5'^ Quadrangies", by Siang s. Tan and Michael P.
Kennedy, 1996.
10
b.'mi •'•'"KUbL ()l^2y/-/i)l):j WKENTJESSEE Nao5i P. 1//J^^i7
EAST COUNTY SOIL CONSULTATION
AND ENGIPnEERlNGs INC,
10925HARTLEY RQAD, SUITEI
SANTEE, CALIFORNIA 92071
(fil9> 258-7901
APPENDIX A
RECOMMENDED EARTHWORK SPECIHCATIONS
L General DescripUon
The intent of these specifications is to obtain uaifonmt^ and adequate strength in jelled ground so
that the proposed stmctures may be sajfely supported. The pnxidures include the clearing and
preparation ofthe bnd to be filled, processir^ ibis M seals, the spreading, and compaction ofthe
filled areas to confonn ^vith the tines and grades as shown on the approved plans.
The owner shall retain a Civil Engineer qualified in soil mechanics fterdln refened to as engineer)
to insi^ct and test ear^work in accordance with tisese ^jedficaitions. Ilie engineer shaH advise the
o^wT. and"pading"wntS^ rromcdiately if any~imsifislac^n^~CTO
and shall have the authority to reject the compacted filled ground tintO sueh dme that corteetive
measures are taken, necessary to eomply 'with the specifications, It shall be the sole responsibility
ofthe grading contractor to achieve tiie specified degree of con^)iiction-
2. Preparing Areas to be Filled
(a) All brush, vegetation and any biodegradable refuse shall be i<^oved or otherwise
disposed of so as to leave tbe areas to be filled free of vegetation zrni debris. Any wcwnpajcted
filled grotmd or loose compressible natural ground shall be removed unless the report recommends
otherwise. Any buried tanks or other stractures shall be removed and ^e depression backj&Ued to
the satisfaction of the engineer.
<b) The natural ground which is determined to be satisfectoiy for the support of the 0IIed
ground ^I then be plowed or scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches (12").
(c) A^r the natural ground hss been prepared. It sh^ ^en be bron^t to the proper
moisture content and compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density in accordance
withASTMDl557^L
<d) Where fills are made on slopes greats* than 20 percent, horizontal benches shall be cut
into the natural ground. Hie initial bench at the toe ofthe fOl shall be at least 15 f^et in width
on firm undisturbed natural gromd. The width of all succeeding benches shall he at least 6 feet.
iR. 6. 2002 • 'i:l/PM '^^mi WKENTJESSEE NU. Utjl r. \m^2.B
m #
APPENDDCA 2
3. Fill Materials
All material shall be proved by the engineer and shall consist of materials fiee fi»m vc^tablc
matter, and other lumps greater than 6 inches in diameter. If; during gmding opetations, soils are
found which were not encountered and tested in the preliminary investigadon, tests on these soils
shall be performed to determine their physical characteristics, AJ^ special tteatment recoimnended
m the preliminary or subsequent soils leports not covered herein shaH become to addendum to
these spcciScstions,
4. Placing and Compacting Fill Materials
(a) When &e moisture content of tbe fill material is below that specified, water diall be
added undl the moisture content is near optimum to ^ure uniform mixing and ^ective
compaction.
iJ^^ ^ nioisture content of the fill materials is above that specified, the fill material
shall be aer^ed hy blading and scarii^ or other satisfectory methods undl the moisture content is
near opttmum as specified.
^^j^ -j^j, ^-^^^-g-^^-^^g^- ^ait^ii^ placed" in "layaaT whidi, wtex
compa^ shall not exceed six inches (6"). Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be
thoroughly mixed during the spreading insure uniformity of materials and moisture in each layer.
(d) After each layer has been placed, mixed and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly
compacted to not less than the density set forth in paragraph 2 (c) above. Compaction shaU be
accomplished with app^val types of compaction eqmpment RoHfeg shall be accomplished while
the fill material is at the specified moisture content. In place density tests shall be perfonmed in
accoidance with ASTM Dl 556-90.
(e) The surfeces ofthe fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other
suitable equipment Compacting operations shall be continued until the slopes are stable and imtil
there is no a^j^eciable amount of loose soil en ttie slopes.
5. Inspection
Sufficient inspeedon by our firni or the Soil's Engineer of record and/or his/her representative shall
be maintained during the filling and compacting operadons so that he/she can vwify that the fill
was constmcted m accordance with the accepted specifications.
6. Seasonal Limits
No fill material shall be placed, spread, or rolled if weather condidons incfease the aioistuie
content above permissible limits. When thc work is inteirupted by rain, fill operadons shall not be
resumed until the moisture content and density of fill are as previously Reified.
All recommendations presented in the attached report are a part of these spedficadous.