The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCT 72-14; PROPOSED 30 UNIT CONDOMINIUM; SOILS INVESTIGATION; 1972-05-04FOUNDATIONS • SOILS • ENGINEERING • TESTING 4488 PACIFIC WAY LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90023 (213) 261· 4129 May 4, 1972 Mre' Jose Canedo, Building Designer 6730 Florence Avenue Bell Gardens p California '" Subject' Soils Investigation Report, ,I South Termination of ,Park Ave. < Carlsbad,: California '''', " OUR JOB NO. 2172 Dear Mr. Canedo. ',,1, In compliance with your request we have visually investigated ,the soils" conditions on the subject site o The main purpose of the investigation !, , ,I " < .. was to d~termine the depth of artificial fill underlying the ~ubjeqt '", . site and its relationship with the ground water table on the site. FIELD INVESTIGATION ',.< t i, " I , , , " ,', Five tests pits were made on the subject site at the approximate' locations shown on Plate A. The soils uncovered by the test pits are logged as follows. 'l~' i ' Test Pit No. 1 (12.0 ft. deep) 5 • 0 .;.. 12.0 ft. '\' , Filla Sandy Clay, brown, slightly firm, very moist. . _ iJ·}: . Natural Soil: Silty Fine Sand, dark, very moist to saturated, slightly firm. Slightly organic, with some seashells.', ',i: .,f " 1 ,1 ,i , , " Jest Pit No, 2 (12.0 ft. deep) 3.5 -10,0 ft. < I Filll Sandy Clay, multi~colored, moist. firm,. ,,4- concrete slab at 3.0'. Fill& Silty Clay, dark, slightly firm to f~rm,. very ",' 'I' , , ;' . , ; moist. Softer below 8 0 ; organic. -:--/' 10.0 -12.0 ft. Natural Soila Dark, saturated, slightly firm, I slightly organic. ' ' " , , , , L ~. " I, ~ , _. , • Soils Invel,gation RepBrt' " South Term lation of Park Ave. Carlsbad, California Test Pit No.3 (12.0 ft. deep) 0.0 -7.0 ft. FilII Clayey Sand, brown, fi-pin, moist, with some . , • ~j) , ,II reddish soils. ,-_ / . "'( , 7,,0 -12,,0 ft" Natural Soila Silty Fine Sand,----dark, saturated, ,slightly II firm, slightly organic, with some seashells. " ~ t 1 Test Pit No.4 (12.0 ft. deep) 0 0 0 -6.0 ft. 6.0 -120 0 ft e , , Filla Medium Clay, dark brown, very' moist,' 'sli~tly firm~ 't ,!' J Natural Soill Silty Clay, dark, slightly firm, slightly organic, nearly saturated. Test Pit No.5 (10.0 ft. deep) r,\' 0.0 -4,,0 ft. Fills Clayey Sand, dull brown, firm, moist. ' ! , ' , Natural Soil: Clayey Sand, dull brown, fir~,very' moist. i- Slightly Clayey Silty Sanda Reddish brown~ very moist, ' firm. ' r ! ,\ .~' II -' , 8,,0 -10.0 fto Clayey Sanda Gray, well cemented, very firm, very'moist o slightly organic. -,-I : CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS I 1 , . r ' I' " 10 4.0 to 10.0 fto of artificial fill was! uncovered on the subject site.:, The fill consists pril'J!.arily of ~andy clay and silty clay. , J1 The lower portion of the fill is in a very moist condi~ion. I : tl!, II No ground water was encountered to the maximum depth e;plored (12')-. i , I I iI' Natural soil underlying the fill are predominantly old,'+agoon , ,I" deposits of silty clay and silty fine sando These soils are' saturated and appear to be relatively compressible. We'do not know at this time whether or not the natural soils coulq'support grading equipment if the filIon the site is to be remove~ and recompacted. But this can be easily tested in the field with a CHANG & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING FOUNDATION ENGINEERS 2 1 • , I, , . • heavy tractor. Soils Investi~ion Report: I South Termina_n of Park Ave~ Calsbad, California I· Itj \ 1 , "r" I !, " ' , . ' 'I 4. If the ·natural soils will support grading equipment, it would' then' " -, , appear that the existing filIon the site can be removed·and,recom- ,,' "II' pacted. The proposed structures may be supported on compa~t~d fill . , , 1 1,1"", ground in lieu of driven piles which have been recomm~nded by the 1, :i" .'-' original project soils engineer. " , .. 5. The required depth of compacted fill cushion under the proposed I . , structures will depend to a great extent on the consolid~tion 'charac""!';' I , , " teristics of the underlying natural soils, especially the 10 ,to 15 ft. of the soils immediately below the fill. Unfortunately, the:only , , consolidation test data we could find in the original so~ls ,report', .. '; were related to soils obtained from a depth of 35.0 ft.or-deeper -I. '{:, , below the surface. We suggest that you approach the original,project', . . " soils engineer and request that several consolidation te~ts be made "': on the silty clay soils encountered between the depths of 5.0 ft. and 20 ft 0 below ground surface,. • " ' f 6. In the event consolidation test 'data could not be obta~ned.from the original soils engineer, several new test borings may have to be drilled in order to obtain the information required for the new' foundation system. -:3 - Respectfully sUbm'i t~ed, . c~~tt' AS CIATES :. " czic'/, /{ u~ s. C. ang .. /", f .. : Civil Engineer li52~1 I I .. CHANG '& ASSOCIATES CONSULTING FOUND~:TION ENGINEERS I .... ", .' • r,- ~./1" ~ 4- • "I ·'1 : " , h' , , " !, , " .. \\ ~ 0;;:)_ , , , ",' , 2172.', Job, Nq. ,f", : Pla+e No. A, :', " , : OC IA TES , , CHANG & ASS ON ENGINEERS, UNDATI ' ULTING FO CONS I, " , , " ' , (. ~" .. ;. '.' ENVIRONMENTAL iMPACT STATEMENT . ·CT .17...-1",· City of Carlsbad County of San Diego -\ ,l7(13 '3 Prepa red For: Robert Sievers 4237t Tweedy Boulevard South Gate, CA 90~80 PROPOSED 30 UNIT CONDOMINIUM Prepared By Anacal Engineering Co. 222'E. Lincoln Avenue Anahe'im, Cal ifornia ' December'19, 1972 , ; " -; ... ,'., " .. ' . "',;:: ,~-, , , ',' '" . :." ~ 111 ,f, '." ,A. THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION D}:: " \' , SilO J' .. ' '" f:'~ , ~, .. " , fi}:' ",:, j':I'-: ' ~F" ",' L,. i'~' ~ ... ' {" ": I· !{.~~ f/.: j,.. I::,;' , ~.,. " . 1 :, l-> ,~ " . ", I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project proposes to construct a 30 uni't condominium on a por- tiOD of Lot No. 72 of Shelter Cove Subdi~ision Map No. 5162. All improvements were installed with said Shelter Cove Development, with subsequent reconstruction'by the Janss Corporation, including channel dredging, slope reventment, storm drai,n cons~ruction and other work. The proposed development intends tq,utilize the exist- ing pad area and not alter the existing land form in anyway, 'o~her ~han by construction of units. , ,Proposed R~cr'eationa,l Amenities will include the fo11'9wing: Workshop, Swimming Pool ~ 18 1 x 361 Cabana , W h i r I poo I ( S pa ) Saunas, (2) Rec rea t i on Room Playground (jncluding shuffleboard area) Boat S lips (25) Landscaping costs in excess of $10,000 ' 2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING WITHOUT THE PROJECT The building 'portion of the lot is basically flat with a slope from elevation 11.00 at the northerly portion o,f the pad area at Marina Drive southerly and westerly to an elevation of approxfmately 8.0, at the southerly and westerly perimeter of the ,pad. 'The southerly portion of the lot ex,tenps into the Lagoon. The, top of pad above the southerlyriprap is located from 35 to 45 feet north of the southerly I ine of subject property. The property is, bounded' on the westerly by a samll boat channel. Top of bank is located, in close proximity to the lot I ine with top of riprap located westerly of ,property line. Located within, ?nd adjacent to'said ·westerly pro- perty line; is a 60-inch storm drain emptying into lagoon at the south westerly corner of'subject property. Nort,herly,,'and easterly of subject site, is vacant land;,at <;Ipproximately the. same elevation • The lot was developed for the purpose of residential ~onstruction, and has been vacant and uriproductive since installation of subdivi- sion improvements. Soil Investigation Report prepared by Chang and,Associates,'dated' May 4, 1972, indicated that 4 to 10 feet of 'fi 1 I ,material eXist on subject property. The report further' states that ,it may be possi- ble to remove the fill and recompact, providing the underlying soils will support the grading equipment. This would eliminate the nece- ssity of driving piles. (Soil~' Investigatio'n Report Enclosed) ...... ........ " ; '~ J ' 3. "e, All necessary factors for deve,lopment have been provided in the sub- division dev'elopment 'including street and wtility improvements. IDENTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Approval of subject project will involve approximately 300 vehicular trips daily to the site. Howev~r, street improvements are suffici.- cent ,to accommodate, additional traffic. Pollutants wi,ll'be added t,o the atmosphere largely due to the vehicular traffic. The pollution added as a result of this development will be, very min9r and would not caUSe an increase which would exceed present accepted standards as established by the State of 'California Air Quality, Board. ' This development will not caus~' any alteration of land form or dis- rupt community services in any way. All necessary major improve- ments are existing. No wild life or plant life exist on subject ~ite, therefore there'will be no disruption involved. B. ,ANY ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED SHOULD THE PROPOSAL BE I HPLEMENTED C. D. The lot wa's developed for the purpose of res,idential construction. Development of subject land would cause a loss of open space. ,Air pollution would result as stated in Section 3, but would not cause an increase beyond acceptable,limits. No loss to the communities environment wou'ld develop as a result of development. Use' of this property is not now enjoyed by the general public. Development,would create a pleas~nt 'environment of 30 resi- dences. MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT Care will be taken during construction against di.sturbing the exist- ing banks. The building will be attractively des'igned'and pleasant in appearance. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION None of the natura 1 features wi 11 b,e altered. to the proposed action would be 'other types of 1 ess' dens i ty. With open a rea on tow sides and provided, the proposed density would appear to good planning. ' " -2- , ' Th~ only alternatives residential use or recreat i on fad 1 j ties be in conformance with "'" , , ,. , , " .' E. THE RELAT!ONSH! P BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MANIS ENVI.RONMENT AND THE MA I NTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LO'NG-TERM ENVI RONMENTAL PRODUCT! VI TY The development wi 11 have no ,long term effect on resour~es'o' The' bU i I d i n9 . pad had previously been approved for residential construction.and will . be· put to that use. As stated earli.er, no land forms or 'environmental feat'ures wi 1,1 be effected. ' . F.' ANY IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES'vJHICH'WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED . The i rrevers i b 1 e env i ronmenta 1 cha'nges wou 1 d, be the, remova 1, of' open space '", and the added demand on utilities,a~d 'public services. All services are, , availabl~ to serve subject project. , THE GROWTH I NDUC I NG I MPACTS OF T'HE PROPOSED ACTI V ITY UPON' THE NEI GHBOR- HOOD AND/OR COMMUNITY 'Total impact on the community as a result of this dev~lopment would be " ,benefic,ial. The development p'rovides recreation .faci.1 ities ,and a plea- sant1 iving envi ronment. The type of home buyers woul,d be an 'asset to the community from the standpoint of economics. (Purchasing, power) H. THE BOUNDARIES OF THE AREA WHICH MAy BE SIGNIFICANTLY· AFFECTED BY THE, PROPOSED ACTIVITY ,j' ',The impact would be limited to the 'immediate"area. No significant im- pact would result beyond the immediate surrounding area or the visual sightin'g from nearby 'properties.' ' -3-