The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1896 RUTHERFORD RD; ; CB960868; PermitCl<-=rt 1.oos· B U I L l) I N G 08/08/96 14:47 · ;.P_age 1 of 1 .Job Address: 1896 RUTHERFORD RD · Fermi t Type:. INDUSTRIAL BUILDING. Parcel No: 212-120-30-00 Valuation: 1,21a1 9oo P E, .R M I T ··suite: .. ·.Lo.t#:· ·Permit No.: CB960868 Project No: A.9601210 Development· No: 8-;r;:. ··;. :.., .r~~./;~ \r-~~~.t. ~-.i v:.: Occupancy Group: · Reference#: Description: 47428 SF TILT UP-SHELD,1 STORY : WITH MEZZANINE struction li!Jr~,, ~.z.~-t-~{¾;'= · *..: ...,-,.t i ~v~ ..... -_ Status: ISSUED . Apptied: 05/13/96 Apr/Issue: 08/08/96 Entered By: RMA 619-449-7881 APPROVAL . lNSP. -p.' *3-----.--. DATE-z'P~Az·' ,·CLEARANCE -----------.;...._......,. CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 µt$ Palrnas Dr., Catlsbad,-CA 92009 (6.19) .438-1161 City of Carlsbad Building Department 2075 Las Palmas Dr., Carlsbad, CA 92009 (619) 438-1161 i. PiltMlT lYPE Fr<;>m List 1 (see back) give code of Permit-Type: __ c._<> ___ -~o __ , __ ,._'-_-'\-'--__ :t:N'-'-~~;;,i/J"-- For Residential Projects Only: From Llst 2 (see back) give Code of Structure-Type: -...,...,,---,-------------,,---,-------,-7505 05/13/% 0001 01. 02 2578a(}0 C··l'Rl"iT Net Loss/Gain of Dwelling Units--,--------'----------- 2. PROJECT INFORMATION FOR OFFICE USE ONLY CI1Y STAIB ZIP CODE DAY. IB=NE . NAME (lastnamefirst)PfJ~7/f(t;Pffk,p£~/£,$ ADDRESS l'770 bll.~le!::,,£7(/!-. WA'( SUIT~: to/ 6,,,'fu~~~!:f ,_J . .STAIB CA-ZIP CODE C/ZO'UJ DAY IBLEPHONE 44;(-1 ~8 J #-I 0 C:4'l'MfE (last name first) r-l,or )l·,;;;r-~/ ~f!:O ADDRESS 1--:;z-7-0 6,.--r /fes?ttt:... ~ . G &-_r7,;,~,s,--f.:rz-e_ ~,-,,'s,~d~I } . < CI1Y . STATE ZIP CO~,-, DAY IBLEPHONE { 6 / "7 ;:!/Lj 9-~7 S-z./ v I c,~•p=·r? ~ <1 ":-::1. ,...:,;;L ~ ·1 '? ~ STAIB m;:. # :&/& T LICENSE c~s ~ CI1Y BUSINESS LIC. # I Z..0 c..J CV ertI 1cate o xemptlon: cert1 at m t e pe ormance o e wor or w 1c 1s permit 1s issue , s a -·not:emp oy any persc;m m any manner so as to become subject to the Workers' Compensation Laws of California. SIGNATURE DAIB s. oWNE.R-BOIIDEll DECI.ARATION 0wner-Bu1iaer Declaration: I hereby affirm that I am exempt from the Contractor's License Law for the foliowmg reason: 0 I, as owner of the property or iny employees with wages as their sole compensation, will do the work and the structure is not intended or offered for sale (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and who does such work himself or through his own employees, provided that such improvements are not intended or offered for sale. If, however, the building or improvement is sold within one year of completion, the owner-builder will have the burden of proving that he did not buiJd or improve for the purpose of sale.). 0 I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with li<:::ensed contractors to construct the project (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not.apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and contracts for such projects with contractcir(s) licensed pursuant to the·Contractor's License La:w). 0 I am exempt under Section --------,-Business and Professions Code for this reason: (Sec. 7031.5 Business and Professions Code: Any City or County which requires a permit to construct, alter, improve, demolish, or repair any structure, prior to its issuance, also requires the applicant for such permit to file a signed statement that he is licensed pursuant to the provisions of the Contractor's license Law (Chapter 9, commencing with Section 700() of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code) or that he is exempt therefrom, and the basis for the alleged-exemption. Any violation of Section 7031.5 by any applicant for a permit subjects the applicant to a civil penalty of not more than five hundred dollars [$500]). SIGNATURE DATE COMPLETE tHts·sECTION FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL BVIillING PERMITS ONLY: Is-the applicant or future building occupant required to submit a business plan, acutely hazardous materials registration form or risk management and prevention program under Sections 25505, 25533 or 25534 of the Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act? 0 YES D NO Is the applicant or future building ·occupant required to obq1in a permit from the air pollution control district or ~ir quality management district? 0 YES ONO Is the facility to be constructed within 1,000 feet of the outer boundary of a school site? 0 YES ONO IF ANY OF TIIE AN~ ARE YFS, A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY MAY NOf BE~ AFIER JULY 1, 1989 UNLFSS TIIE APPUCANT HAS MET OR IS MEETING TIIE REQUJREMENTS OF TIIE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND TIIE AIR POIJ.UTION OON1ROL DISIRICT. 9. WNSIROCIION Lf:NDING AGENCY. . . . I hereby afhrm iliat iliere 1s a construction lendmg agency for the performance of i:fie work for which this permit 1s issued (Sec 3097(1) CiVll Code). LENDER'S NAME LENDER'S ADDRESS lo. APPUCAN I CER:IIFICAliON I certify that I ha-ve read the application and state that tije above mformatlon IS _correct. I agree .to comply With all City ordmance_s and State laws relating to building construction. I hereby authorize representatives of the City of-Carlsbad to enter upon the above mentioned property foi;-inspection purposes. I AI.ID AGREE TO SAVE INDEMNIFY~ KEEP~ TIIE Cl1Y OF CARLSBAD AGAINSf ALLllABIUTIF.S, JUDGMENTS, OOSI'S. AND EXPENSFS WHICH MAY IN ANY WAY ACCR!IE AGAINSf SAID Cl1Y IN OONSEQUENCE OF TIIE GRANTING-OF TIIIS PERMIT. OSHA: An OSHA permit is required for excavations over 5'0" deep and demolition or construction of structures over 3 stories in height. Expiration. Ev~ry _permit iss building or work authorize y c such permit is suspended _r ab APPLICANT'S SIGNA .08/08/96 :t.4:37 Page 1 of 1 Permit No: SE960060 .B.Ldg Planck#: t~960868 · Job Address~. 1896 RUTHERFORD RD Permit Type: SEWER -OFFICE/WAREHOUSE Parcel No: 212-120-30-00 Suite: 8990. 08/()8/96 . 0001 01. . ,'02 Description: 4716i SF TILT UP-SHELL,1 .STORY : WJTH MEZZANINE .. , Permitee: DIVERSIFIED PROPERTIES -619--44$-7881 . , 1770 GitLESPIE WY, STE 101· · EL CAJON CA 92020 · CITY OF CARL$BAD . · · 2075 Las Palmas Dr., CaJ:lsbad, CA ·92009 _:(61~)· 438~1161 .. 'C-PRMT . . 25320 .. 00 Status: ISSUED. Applied: 05/30/96 Apr/Issue:, 08/08/96 .. Expired: Prepared By: MAM ... CITY OF CARLSBAD INSPECTION-REQUEST PERMIT# CB960868 FOR 03/10/97 DESCRIPTION: 47428 SF TILT t1P-SHELL,1 STORY WITH MEZ,ZANINE TYPE: INDUST STE: INSPECTOR AREA TP PLANCK# CB960868 OCC GRP CONSTR. TYPE VN LOT: JOB ADDRESS: 1896 RUTHERFORD RD APPLICANT: DIVERSIFIED PROPERTIES CONT.RACTOR: PHONE: 619-449-7881 OWNER: REMARKS: ~S/JACK/904-7825 *A.M.* SPECIAL INSTRUCT: TOTAL TIME: --RELATED PERMITS--PERMIT# GR960014 SE960060 WM960002 WM960003 FS9l;,0018 AS960072 CB962317 SE970002 AS970003 FA970002 CB962363 RW960233 TYPE GAADING swow WMETER WMETER FIXSYS ASC ITI swow ASC FALARM PLUM ROW PHONE: PHONE: STATUS ISSUED ISSUED ISSUED I~SUED ISSUED ISSUED ISSUED ISSUED ISSUED ISSUED ISSUED ISSUED CD LVL DESCRIPTION ACT COMMENTS 19 ~T Final Structural 29 PL Final Plumbing 39 EL Final Electrical 49 ME Final Mechanical ----------'--'----------------------------~-~ ***** INSPECTION HISTORY***** DATE 021397 011397 011097 011097 010697 112196 111996 111596 111396 111396 111396 111296 110596 110496 102596 DESCRIPTION Final Combo Final Electrical Final Electrical Final Electrical Fincil Electrical Interior Lath/Drywall Frame/Steel/Bolting/Welding Frame/Steel/Bolting/Welding Underground/Conduit-Wiring Underground/Under Floor Ftg/Foundation/Piers Ftg/Foundation/Piers Frame/Steel/Bolting/Welding Frame/Steel/Bolting/Welding Roof/Rero6f ACT co AP AP co co AP CA AP AP AP AP AP AP NR AP INSP TP PK PK TP TP TP PD TP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP COMMENTS DEPT.APR.,PRKING,ROOF DRAINS OK TO RELEASE OK TO RELEASE NOT COMPLETE & BONDING ND MAIN REV 1/B ELECT RM,SOFFIT@ EXT. PER PD ELECT RM WALLS U/G COND/PK LOT LITES/SMP PMP SLUMP PUMP WELL & U/G PLMG POUR STRIP,POUR GROUT CLMN BS LITE POLE BASE FTNS MEZZ SHTING ENG CHG FOR STRP DETAIL REC ,.,,. . . ,. CITY OF CARL$BAD INSPECTION REQUEST PERMIT# CB9608€?8 FOR 03/10/97 DESCRIPTION: 47428 SF TILT UP-SHELL,1 STORY WITH MEZZANINE TYPE: INDUST JOB ADDRESS: 1896 RUTHE:RFORD RD STE: INSPECTOR AREA TP PLANCK# CB960868 OCC GRP CONSTR. TYPE VN LOT: ***** INSPECTION HISTORY***** DATE 102496 102496 102396 102396 091996 091796 091696 .091696 091696 09'1296 082796 082696 082096 081996 081696 081596 081396 081396 081396 081396 080996 DESCRIPTION Ftg/Foundation/Piers Roof/Reroof Sewer/Water Service Roof/Reroof Shear Panels/HD's Shear Panels/HD's Rough Electric Rough Electric Shear Panels/HD's Frame/Steel/Bolting/Welding Ftg/Foundation/Piers Ftg/Foundation/Piers sewer/Water Service Sewer/Water Service sewer/Water Service Underground/Under Floor Ftg/Foundation/Piers Underground/Under Floor Underground/Under Floor Gas/Test/Repairs Ftg/Foundation/Piers ACT AP co co NR AP CA AP AP AP NR PI AP AP NR AP AP AP AP AP AP AP INSP TP T.P TP TP PY PY PD PK PK TP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP COMMENTS POUR STRIP SEE JOB CARD/STRP NAILING POUR STRIP PNLS COMP+ 5 CLMN CAGES PANELS 2-19.33.34 PANELS 2-19.33.34 SEE NOTES PNLS INC INSP SLAB POUR SLAB WATER LINE MAIN NOT COMPLETE EXT TIE IN 411 LAT N/INCL 40' TO TIE IN COMP U/G CHILL LINE FTN TO EQP YRD U/G TO EQPT YRD F.D. (EXT) U/G GAS LINE (EXT) FTNS G-L,1-9& INT PIER & G.B. FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION DEPT: BUILDING ENGINEERING ' PLAN CHECK#: CB960868 ' DATE: 02/19/97 PERMIT#: CB960868 / 1-. ____ PERMIT TYPE: INDUST PROJECT NAME:· 47428 SF TILT UP-SHELL, 1 STORY '1 -.. WITH MEZZANINE / ' FE/) 2 I '~7 I ADDRESS: rrs·9o, RU.T~E_._._R ____ .F_·O~D ____ R ___ D_ :, .. ~.-,/,; 9 et.#. i l___ -··· .. . ~ -. l f:"p.,. l'll~---/ II ~~-,v;1p,, .... ~ v,-f""'\·,-::7""·~ 1" CONTACT PERSON/p.HONE~--. JACK/PG 904-7825 -~.::,;:i\,,,."'.-:,,L,··r:;·;-..,__; .,,. -~'i.l !J;:-,./:··:~·,D SEWER DIST: CA WATER DIST: CA -~~ ~~~PECTED (jj,~ INSPECTED BY: INSPECTED BY: DATE / Jr~ INSPECTED: ~ ~IJ1 APPROVED~ DATE INSPECTED: DATE INSPECTEIJ: APPROVED ---- APPROVED DISAPPROVED DISAPPROVED DISAPPROVED COMMENTS: . ----------------------------------------------- FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION DEPT: BUILDING ;ENGINEERING FIRE PLANNING U/M WATER PLAN CHECK#: CB960868 PERMIT#: CB960868 PROJECT NAME: 47428 SF TILT UP-SHELL,1 STORY WITH MEZZANINE ADDRESS: ,;):8'9'6 RUTHERFORD RD CONTACT PERSON/PHONE#: JACK/PG 904-7825 SEWER DIST: ·CA WATER DIST: CA IN~PECTED /,.o/ BY. d,l-. -~ INSPECTED BY: INSPECTED BY: COMMENTS: DATE INSPECTED: DATE INSPECTED: DISAPPROVED ·APPROVED DISAPPROVED APPROVED DISAPPROVED FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION DEPT: BUILDING ENGINEERING FIRE PLANNING U/M WATER PLAN CHECK#: CB960868 PERMIT#: CB960868 PROJECT NAME: 47428 SF TILT UP-SHELL,l STORY WITH MEZZANINE ADDRESS: 1896 RUTHERFORD RD · CONTACT PERSON/PHONE#: JACK/PG 904-7825 SEWER DIST: CA WATER DIST: CA Lot# DATE: 02/19/97 PERMIT TYPE: INDUST DATE . _,,.,::..--4,,;;.._~...;;::,,,.,--'""'-""-""""'""";;......,;;;-.,,..-' ,_-NSPECTED: 2,-:-2.JJ:/7 APPROVED DISAPPROVED ~·-'---T'I.T~~ECTED: 2.r-2-.€-C/? APPROVED ~ISAPPROVED ~~.,........a-=---------=---,c. ' - INS B:Y: COMMENTS: APPROVED DISAPPROVED '? ,·,, ' -, . -.. _ '. , .FINAL BUILDING :i;NSPjCTION DEPT: BUILDING ENGINEERING \::F..l~ .. ·; PLANNING U/M WATER PLAN CHECK#: CB960868 PERMIT#: CB960868 PROJECT NAME: 47428 SF TILT UP-SHELL,1 STORY WITH MEZZANINE ADDRESS : 'Q'.':£3:9 6, RUTHERFORD RD, . _'. DATE: 02/13/97 PERMIT TYPE: INDUST ~rE(C~ij\W~~ CONTACT PERSON/PijONE#: RS/JACK/603-8388 A.M. PLEASE ~ FEB 1 3 1997 ~ SEWER DIST: CA WATER DIST: CA INSPECTED BY: INSPECTED BY: ...._,----'--------------- COMMENTS: DATE INSPECTED: DATE / INSPECTED: ,5 \ 7 DATE INSPECTE.D: . By APPROVED/ APPROVED_ APPROVED DISAPPROVED DISAPPROVED DISAPPROVED CoNSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. SAN DIEGO, CA • RIVERSIDE, CA • 2414 Vineyard Ave. 490 E. Princeland Ct. Suite G Suite 7 Escondido, CA 92029 Corona, CA 91719 (619) 746-4955 (909) 371-1890 (619) 746-98o6 FAX (909) 371-2168 FAX VENTURA, CA • 1645 Pacific Ave. Suite 105 Oxnard, CA 93033 (805) 486-6475 (805) 486-9016 FAX MODESTO, CA • LANCASTER, CA • LAS VEGAS, NV • SEAITLE, WA 3540 Oakdale Rd 4215610th St W. 4560 S. Valley View 235 S.W. 41stSt Suite A2 Unit K Suite A-3 Renton, WA 98055 Modesto, CA 95357 Lancaster, CA 93534 Las Vegas, NV 89103 (2o6) 656-1266 (209) 551-2271 (805) 726-9676 (702) 795-2278 (2o6) 656-1265 FAX (209) 551·3593 FAX (805) 726-9676 FAX (702) 726-4485 FAX February 13, 1997 CTE Job No. 10-1537 City Of Carlsbad Building Inspection Department 2075 Las Palinas Carlsbad, CA 92009 SUBJECT: SATISFACTORY COMPLETION OF WORK REQUIRING SPECIAL -INSPECTION P$RFO~P UND~R PE~IT NO. BUILDING PERMIT NO.: 96-0868 ADDRESS: 1896 Rutherford Ave. Director of Building Inspection: To the best of my knowledge all work requ1.rJ.ng special inspection,testing,Field Weld,High Strength Bolts,Reinforced Concrete,construction observation or off-site fabrication for the structure constructed under the subject permit is in ·conformance with the approved plans and specifications and the applicable workmanship provisions of the Uniform Building Code. Print/Type Name: Thomas A. Gaeto Title: Civil Engineer Signature, J1-a2t. GEOTECHNICAL AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPECTION CoNSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. SAN DIEGO, CA • RIVERSIDE, (:.A • VENTURA, CA • MODESfO, CA • LANCASTER, CA • LAS VEGAS, NV • SEA1TLE, WA 2414 Vineyard Ave. 49(rE. Princeland Ct. 1645 P2cificAve 3540 Oakdale Rd. 42156 10th St W. 4560 S. V2lleyView 235 S.W. 41stSt Suite G Suite 7 Suite 105 Suite A2 Unit K Suite A-3 Renton, WA 98055 ~ondido, CA 92029 Coro112, CA 91719 Oxnard, CA 93033 Modesto, CA 95357 Lancaster, CA 93534 w Vega.5, NV 89103 (206) 656-1266 (619) 746-4955 (909) 371·1890 (805) 486-6475 (209) 551-2271 (805) 726-9676 (702) 795-2278 (206) 656-1265 FAX ENGINEERING, INC. (619) 746-9806 FAX (9Q2)371-2168 FAX __{_80~ 486-9016 FAX f209J 551-lli.3 FAX (805) 726-9676 FAX (702) 726-4485 FAX REPORT OF COMPRESSION TESTS PROJECT: ISIS PHARMACEUTICAL PROJECT NO.: 10-2063 \ 1896 RU'I'HERFO@ROAD PROJECT ADDRESS: CARLSBAD, CA CONTRACTOR: HARRISON CO. TO BE BILLED: HARRISON CO. ARCHITECT/ENG.: CORNERSTONE BUILDING PERMIT NO.: 96-2363. PLAN FILE NO. SAMPLE DATA REPORT OF:.X.. CONCRETE _ MORTAR _ GROUT _ OTHER SUPPLIER: NORTH COUNTY MATERIALS MIX DESCRIPTION: 3000 PSI, 1" RK 5.25 (SK) MIX NUMBER: 3033000 SLUMP: 3¾" TYPE CEMENT: II CONCRETETEMP: 74° AMB. TEMP. PLACEMENT DATE: TICKET NUMBER: TIME IN MIXER: ADMIXTURE: AIR CONTENT: DESIGN STRENGTH: LOCATION OF PLACEMENT: COLUMN PIERS INSIDE N/E CORNER OF BLDG. SPECIAL TEST INSTRUCTION/REMARKS: 1@7, 2@28, 1 HOLD REQUIRED STRENGTH (F'C): 3000 PSI AT 28 DAYS 2/1/97 102472 3000 psi SAMPLES MADE BY: M.M. DATE REC'D IN LAB: 2/3/97 LABORATORY DATA LAB DATE DIMENSIONS TEST AREA MAXLOAD COMPRESSIVE AGE CNTRLNO. TESTED IN INCHES SQ. INCHES POUl'.'DS STRENGTH PSI 2A 2/10/97 6X 12 28.27 101,500 3,590 2B 3/03/97 6X 12 28.27 113,000 4,000 2C 3/03/97 6X 12 28.27 115,000 4,070 HOLD 2D REVIEWED BY: ~OfA DATE: 3-27-·17 All sampling ind testing conducted in iccord,mce with ASTM Stand.trd Designitions C31-91, C39-86, Cl38-92, CHJ-90, C172-90,Cl73-93, C23!-91B, C-170-93A, CS 11-92. C617-87, C1077-92, C1231, E-1-93. Et71-87 CONFOR.vlS: ...!_ YES NO DISTRIBUTION: 1) HARRISON CO. 1) DPR CONSTRUCTION 1) CITY OF CARLSBAD 1) FILE· C:\PROJECTS\102063\LAB\02.WPD GEOTECHNICAL AND CONSTRUCTION ENGIN:f;ERING TESTING AND INSPECTION CoNSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. SAN DIEGO, CA • RIVERSIDE, CA • VENTURA, CA. • MODFSl'O, CA • LANCASTER, CA • LAS VEGAS, NV • SEArn.E, WA 2414 Vineyard Ave. 490 E. Princeland Ct. 1645PacilicAve. ' 3540 Oakdale Rd. 42156 10th St W. 4560 S. Valley View 235 S.W. 41st St Suite G Suite 7 Suite 105 Suite A2 Unit K Suite A-3 Renton, WA 98055 ~ondido, CA 92029 Corona, CA 91719 Oxnard, CA 93033 Modesto, CA 95357 Lancaster, CA 93534 Las Vegas, NV 89103 (206) 656-1266 (619) 746-4955 (909) 371-1890 (805) 486-6475 (209) 551-2271 (805) 726-9676 (702) 795-2278 (206) 656-1265 FAX (619) 746-9806 FAX <90U,7iJ>56Nf of~5~:ifEsgro~Pi9E§ts805) 726-9676 FAX (702) 726-4485 FAX ENGINEERING, INC. PROJECT: ISIS PHARMACEUTICAL PROJECT NO.: 10-2063 1896 RUTHERFORD ROAD PROJECT ADDRESS: CARLSBAD, CA CONTRACTOR: HARRISON CO. To BE BILLED: HARRISON CO. ARCHITECT /ENG.: CORNERSTONE/R 2H BUILDING PERMIT NO.: 96-2317 PLAN FILE NO. SAMPLE DATA REPORTOF:-4-CONCRETE _ MORTAR _ GROUT _ OTHER SUPPLIER: NORTH COUNTY MATERIALS MIX DESCRIPTION: 3000 PSI, 1" RK 5.25 (SK) MIX NUMBER: 3033000 SLUMP: TYPE CEMENT: II CONCRETE TEMP: AMB. TEMP. PLACEMENT DATE: TICKET NUMBER: TIME IN MIXER: ADMIXTURE: AIR CONTENT: DESIGN STRENGTH: LOCATION OF PLACEMENT: TOPING SLAB FOR MEZZANINE FOOTINGS SPECIAL TEST INSTRUCTION/REMARKS: 1@7, 2@28 REQUIRED STRENGTH (F' c): 3000 PSI AT 28 DAYS 2/12/97 105840 3000 psi SAMPLES MADE BY: P.S. DATE REC'D IN LAB: -2/13/97 LABORATORY DATA LAB DATE DIMENSIONS TEST AREA MAXLOAD COMPRESSNE AGE CNTRLNO. TESTED IN INCHES SQ.INCHES POUN"DS STRENGTH PSI 3A 2/19/97 6X 12 28.27 99,000 3,500 3B 3/12/97 6X 12 28.27 122,000 4,320 3C 3/12/97 6X 12 28.27 119,000 4,210 REVIEWED BY:~ /)Ar.A DATE: 3-J,7 :3 l ..., All s.unplmg .md testing conducted in lccord,mce wuh ASTM Sundlrd Design.iions CJ!-91, C39-86, Cl38-92, C143-90, C!72-9C,Cli3-93, Cl3!-918, C4i0-93A, C511-92, C617-87, CI077-92. C123i, E+.93, El71-87 CONFORMS: .t_ YES NO DISTRIBUTION: 1) HARRISON CO. 1) DPR CONSTRUCTION 1) CITY OF CARLSBAD 1) FILE C:\PROJECTS\102063\LAB\03.WPD GEOTECHNICAL AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPECTION CoNSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. ESCONDIDO• MODESTO• CORONA• OXNARD• RENO• SEATfLE • LAS VEGAS INSPECTION REPORT CTEJOB# PAGE tll)OFI 10-1~ - <t PROJECT NAME: ~ a ?~/- ADDRESS:-<'~~ .. -~ .. ··- REPORT# _______ _ ARCHITECT: _____ ~------- ENGINEER: ______________ _ CONTRACTOR: --"':rte:a.·....,24----=~,....._ _________ _ INSPECTION DATE: ___,,/c._..-~7,_-_,7"--L7 _____ _ PLANFILE: _____________ _ BLDGPERMIT: ____ ~-------- OTHER: ______________ _ Material Sampling ( ) CONCRETE ( ) MORTAR ( ) GROUT ( ) FIREPROOFING ( ) MASONRY BLOCK ( ) REBAR ( ) STRUCTURAL STEEL ( ) BOLTS NAME: (PRINT) 6'°~6 /if~,..,~ SIGNATURE: __,~=~,.:v.~--z'-1-_ -\.-L--5'~====--- CERTIFICATION NO.: ~,,A::::,.~_s. .... / GEOTECHNICAL & co?s'TRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING & INSP~CTION 2414 V}J'J~YARD AVENVE ~UITE G ESCONDIDO, CA 92029 (619) 746-4955 FAX (619) 746-9806 FEB-05-~1 18•39 FROM•T"E HARR1SON COMPANY '·.' .. • .. ·.· .. ID,8197533301 PAGE 4.401 Manchsst~r ,Aven·ue: Suite.205 ~ ·n c fn it as·:' C ii' Ii f.o r n·i a· 9 ~ 0·2.~ ~ 4 9 3 3 6.'1°~.:. 75f • 2824. FAX 6 1 s· • i 5 3 •.' a·:, O 1 · 1/1. ... . .. . ' E.-M;; I:. n a'r r IS .o ~·@·,;· ! ;~;:;-m . · .. . ·: . ', . . '• . ~ . ' ... ·, .·. • .. ... ·.T .. N 5· ·.·. ·, •, .::z: .... 0 .. · .. ·; .-TiniP~ip-~, . ~-.. ~uilding I~spector· ., _-~(-. City·of Carls~d .. · ·.,. · .. -. 2075 ~ Pahnas P.;riye -',?'-Carlsbad. CA 92009~1.~16 ,•, .. ' ·S:ubj~: Lot 46 Carlsba,d Research .Center· . : nearr· .-. · -~ ' ,: . . : . .· The 'sheil buil~ing at Lot 46 ~ CarlsbaifRe~ch Center m~et~ with DPR c~~~ction · . . . · . ~d·The Hatriseq ·compapf s expectajions·aoo is adequate .for the t~ improvements · td be co~cted.: · ·· · · . ,,,' Sin'?ere~y • . <:: 0.M PAN\' . ··THif~SON COMP ANY .... ·· ... ~~··· . ·Stey~·Harrison:· . · . . · Ccmstruotion Manager. : · ...... , .... · .. · . . . .. ' .. . . Cc: , Rob·T~~z . ·· .. : ·:· J~~k-WilUams · ~. . . •, .. . , . . . .. •' ··,._., ,,; ... · ·; . .. : • C O N • S . T ·. l'i IS c; . . ;_._ l· 0 .,'lj . 0 E: I/ . · E L O • P M. . E II · 1 M A N .·~; G. ~ M E. M T · ... ·. :• I . ·, GERAD C. GRIFFITH REGISTERED SPECIAL INSPECTOR 3962 ECOCHEE AVENUE SAN DIEGO, CA 92117 Phone (619)274-8379 /Fax (619)274-8380 SPECIAL INSPECTOR'S REPORT Covering work perfomied which requires approval by the special inspector of: SHOP WELDING =======· =-============='======================================================================== PROJECT: Lot 46 FILE: R6J25 ADDRESSI 1896 Rutherford Ro~, C8-rlsbad REPORT DATE: 10/25/96 PERMIT NUMBER: CB960868 PROJECT NUMBER: A9601210 ======--.--===---===============-=======================-===-=--===-----------======-=========== Material Type, Grade, Source: A36, A53 and A307 Steel; E71T-11 Electrode. INSPECTION DATE 10/25/96 REPORT Performed Shop Welding Inspection @ Cork.y's Welding, 3463-B Harris Street, Lemon Grove Individual component~ inspected for compliance with shop and approved drawings include: -Fillet welded connections of cap plates and baseplates to pipe columns designated 7 A -2 units, 78 and 7C -2 units. -Fillet welded connections of studs and stiffeners to beams designated 9A, 9B, 9C, 9D, 9E, 10A, 10B, 10C, 11A, 11B, 11C, 110, 11E-2 units, 11F, 11G, 12A, 12B, 12C, 12D, 13A, 1'3B, 13C, 13D, 13E and 14A. -Fillet welded connection of wide flange shapes to baseplates for stub columns designated 6B-2 units. * * * Work inspected conforms with approved plans and specifications * * * Inspection performed by:Gerad C. Griffith cc: Corky's Welding (2) City of Carlsbad File 279 Certification # OCT-24-96 THU 11:11 DXVERSXFXD PROP. P. 0 1 FACSIMILE COVER SHEET ( JOB SITE) CORNERSTONE CONSTRUCTION 1770 GIiiespie Way, Suite 103 El Cajon, CA 92020 Phone (619)603-8388 Fax (619)603-8389 SENIJ T0:-~-=~~-:----:------:---7··· From: Oat,: 0 Vr,enll D Roply At;API 0 Please Con,metrtl D P/Oi:1$9 Rev/WI/ Totli pagelJ. lncfudlng c1;1ver $hfff: COMMENT$: IF YOU 010 NOT RECl:IVE ALL PAGES FAXED OR YOU ARE ABLE TO READ THI$ TRANSMISSION, PLEASE CONTACT CORN!RSTONE OONSTRUCTION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. QR~EJllEt:fffAL INE-QRMATtoN THE MATERIALS ENCLOSED WITR THIS rACSIMILE ARE PRIVATE AND OONFICENTIAL AND ARE THE PROPSRTY OF THE SENDER. IF You RECEIVED THIS FAOSIMILI! IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY VS BV TE!LGPHONE. . OCT-24-96 THU 11:12 DIVERSIF.ID PROP. P.02 10/24/11~6 11;01 6196738418 R2H ENGINEERING R2H Engineering, Inc. Date~ To: company: Fax No.: From: FAX TRANSMITTAL COVER LETIER (c{3:J.JfR2-.>+tPNfe {p~ f . Ck¼,,';{GAtl 1'111 vt11Nb J&.ec '=:tJ?2 J a.~ Project ·Naxnc ~d Number: · ~l. Af-e Mr~ 9 . .i..:V:r....Jo.110.-Cl..:111W:...· -....... ----- ·rncluding this page, there are __ 1~-_ pages to transmit. Message: i 2 f?tt:oUZ IN uk µ vml'z.~d,,e h!A:"x14 b::c ~I:. fE.H:"2 e:e: ~ "~ ...... k\.:it_.~a .s.c~ ::n:'tse A!yunu..1 l\b6 ·tsc.t:"l10cJ CAteM1\bL. o.~ 1'\s: \ fc~. - . am:A:e , '.Cr:1t\re. :i;1~ 0eate , :r;t .~ :tH4 s-r,~~ 12 .. , 2--- -·~ a,, WC:'121:J:lS(l, :tktd:'.Y :cu-;, t-! It l,c(,,, I ::l:kH¥:$--E*~~-- If you have not received the entire transmission, please call -------· at the above number. Thank you. C,:,r,.sulting $truC:t1't,d Engin~~a 11S3 W"t B11m11rdo (:(.l\lrt1 witc 300 • S•n Oiqo, CA 92127 (~1!>) 6'3•SQ16 • 'FAXr (61~.) 673•8418 1455 E11,t Ttopkano Avm\li:r, Si.ut, 4$0 • LH Vcg111, NV 89119 (702) 1,e-8~08 " PAX: (i'02) 798-3797 GERAD C. GRIFFIT·H· REGISTERED SPECIAL INSPECTOR 3962 ECOCHEE AVENUE SAN DIEGO, CA 92117 Phone (619)274-8379 / Fax (619)274-8380 · SPECIAL INSPECTOR'S REPORT Covering work performed which requires approv~I by the sµ,eciarinspectorof; SH()P WELDING =====#===~~===========================~==========~=====~=================================~====== PRO~ECT~p_t.A,p_· _. __ _ ADDRES$.-H~96-Ruthert:ord,Roaa, Carl$bad FILE: R6J11 REPORT :DATE: 09/06/96 PERMIT.NUMBER: CB960868 PROJEqT NUMBER: A9601210 ====~==============~===~==========~======================#===~=======~==================~~====== Matelial Type, Gracie, Source: A36, A53, A500 and A-307 Steel; E71 T-11 Electrode. JN*iPECTION' DATE 09/04/96 REPQRI Performed ·shop Welding Inspection @ Cork.y's Welding, 3463-B Harris Street, Lemon Grove lndividual components inspected for compliance with shop and approved drawings include: -Fillet welded connections of baseplates and cap plates to pipe columns designated 1A, 1 B -2 units, 1 C, 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B -2 .units, 3C, 4A, 4B, 4C and SA. -Fillet welded connections of baseplates and cap plates to TS columns designated 5B, SC -2 units and 6A. -Fillet welded connections of studs, stiffeners and shear plates to wide-flange beams designated14E, 15A and 158. * * * Work inspected conforms with approved plans and specifications * * * lns~ctlo~ performed by:Gerad C. Gctffith cc: Corl<y's Welding (2) City ofCsrlsbad File 279 Certific.ation # ·- TURPIT ARCHITECTS Il'lC. , 4497886 N0.291 [il03 6196738418 R2H gNGIN~ERr~0 ··t;i,,) -..·:.: R2H Engineering, Inc. JOB N0 .. -:1.(.o.OQ.lz __ ...... . PROJl:CT ...C:~ .. .Li!!!t!:~----"~-· ..... _.... .. sv ___ .Lh__ _ -· SUBJECT ~ t-JJ~':1 ... ~f::-.\,1 l'LE;i,2.."'".__. ............... . OAT!~ 4.:-.::1.~-... _,_ .. __ , SHEfEf.214:.:...~. Of..,._ ... , .. ·-'-' :ftfV(-'. r:1.r 1/ ' f_ tr, JI :;Io IJ i · ~ C. r-fA-,Jt/3 5 lr7 ! / ! f 6 /./ r11rr;e./f;;t1J -. ,---------~------l-------- -v4V·~·< . . . . . I • ··, '1 ' • ' ' . ~ P,J\1.JeL, At.JO ,. r..;f'\ \ I""!,,_ I ~· : t.JI-~./ L ~ l 1f 11 i? G.,y 41\ o/1.~ -f L IJ½-1,,1 i Ur;~ j.J 11 ~ t.'·U'ft:;:.,l I) E:. FA?~ Of PA~EL.-· _.,, :%, · !19/15/95 21: 2 TURPIT ARCHITECTS INC. ~ 4497885 5196736416 69/6)/19~5 i7:28 el%73EJ,~ . .' R2H ENGINE~RI~.,..-·'\ \,._ .. :/ R2H Engineering, Inc. BY . j.,!:2~- PROJECT SUBJ~CT. 6~ .. l,z ~ •wn=---~- !2A1J t'::t..--: ~-1_,~ _ __,_,t:,....,,.e.t ..... '1..__ __ ,........ __ ., - NO.291 [;102 PAGE 01 9" ,.,. ,JOB NO VJ0yVl .. ~- OAre___EL~.--- SHEETGkl-... L 0~ .,..,_._ • ., ,..__....,_.,..__,_,_, ..... ;,.~:.-, """:•• -----,.--, ~,· ._..,,.,......,i"l_,. __ -. __ r-1'¢_;_•1\i .... V'f-P"' --r----•~Mt-• -~-:;r,..__._..,,, ----------~_.,...., . ' . I ~ •• :• •' • ' • • I • i t i .. , ' : ',' .. ,:, ·:· J I ; ' : i ",•• ... . ·r ·: ... ~ ... · --~~·---~,·-· ·------·--·-... ---~·-"""""t ' I :·' : t ! •• 0 ! T I ;.J,•' ·t . ,·'. :: : .· ...... . ' . . i : J ! , • ' I l -j · ... ,. ..... ,. I • ; . . l I ; "• : . .. · .. i· ...... ·. ' . ' -I I •• _' ,,s..,•Y",!'• • : • t ' I ~ • ' ' ·, . .. ~ . . ' . : : :. ,:. ,·' i . ' . ; . ~. ~ . . : ' .. ,, ", : , ., _ ..... ,! J. ... : ... 91-~r .. · ··i , .. ,, . .. . .-)'_ .! Al:>I) 1 L, 8· M-~ !$~ ' r-F'C-!e: ~-_;_::_:~t:..-:··.._. _ _._-.:..., __ . ~; _: _L_.,.: ·:.· ... · ... : ... , .· .. :· .. ~ --~-:-~~Tfr.? .. .•..• : ·.~.: .• : :·~~~1.,~*j ~~Y.!~.§2 .. i '..(~~~; ~,~rr. S~b: P"iO.~. f;;,f-~ArJCS: CJf PAN~ l... ~1-~F\'} ·1 ,, ... : ·• -. t • ( ''l . . . 1• •• ' '~, ' I To b\. 'rb~· CeJO,spt. . -: ' . . . : -------=-1 ~ ., ...... ) ¥ 'tttd't)UW~f'ir,,.......... )'P$'.OV;;·r,»~m 'l'e-nl-+,--q M:l'dll!XUC';"h)Tl',f 1 u1,r 1 J Nr;....,ni IC:"-''~ -, ~.L:, "-!"-1-::i (tltlb -08/28/19% 14:06 t 9e;p3sa10: ~ ~ . . . ! R2H Engine.; ing, Inc. ' P~OJ, CT-+- SY _______ SUBJ CT ...... ~J;,t:,11J. ,";) ~'..?H E:NGlNEEPlNG LOl-, 4:_/2__ ........ . I< .;t 5..2. ______ _ OATC .. S~lE:L'. NU. lbt.1 l,lk:l'( ::-•. J •11:, ,. ' -:i~' ~·· ,' ,.., .. ···-··-··---. OF",-?, __ _ ,-.-----------+---"----------------------·4-~-...... ~··· ........ · _,. _ _....,_ __ , ..... __ _ .r~ I 4 6 ' i : , 2-:tt, Ai0€f . ..;.e". ONi:; / ' . -...__ -~ !!~ r.;~AMIN~ #E, E.F .JAMB BAR$ BAi<. -E~::-;-, -----··-· !;··· ..... _ ... _____ _._ ______ ~---------,--...;._--~ ...... .~ .. ., ) ; .... ,• ~ .,,. J •• . GERAD ·c. G:RI.FFJTH REGISTERED SPECIAL INSPECTOR 3962 ECOCHEE AVENUE SAN DIEGO, CA 92117 Phone (619)274-8379 / Fax (619)~74-8380 SPECIAL INSPECTOR'S· REPORT Covering work performed which requires approval by the special inspector of: SHOP WELDING =========================· ======== ·============================================================= PROJECT: l;.ot 46 ADDRESS: ~98~utfierfortfRoi@,, Carlsbad ,--------~ FILE: R6106 REPORTDATE: 09/06/96 PERMIT NUMBER: CB960868' PROJECT NUIYIBER: A9601210 ==== -=================-==-====~-------==-===.=====--============== '============================ Material Type, Grade, Source: A36, A706 and A 108 Steel; E71 T-'11 Electrode. INSPECTION.DATE -09/04/96 .REPORT Performed Shop Welding Inspection @Corky's ·Welding, 3463-B Harris Street, Lemon Grove Individual components inspected for compliance with shop and approved drawings include: 1 purlin angle per detail 4a/S13 · 1 purl in angle per detait 4b/S13 40 purlin angles per detail: 5/S1'3 2 .tube steel-drag embeds per details 11 and 13/S 14 3-girder seat asseml:>lies per detail 1/S13- 4 wide flange embeds per detail 16/S11 2· beam seat embeds per detail 1 OLS-12 2 lintel to wide flange connections per detail 9/S12 1 beam seat per detail 7 /S-12 1 drag assembly per detail 5/S14 1 beam seat per detail 14/$1-2 2 girder seats per detail 1/S13 5 lintel connections per detail' 8/15 * * * Work inspected conforms with approved plans and specifications * * * Inspection pem rmed by:.Gerad C. Griffith cc: Corky'.s Welding (2) City of Carlsbad · File 279 Certification # G.ERAD C.-G,Rl:FFITH REGISTERED SPEC-IAL -INSPECTOR 3962 ECOCHEE AVENUE SAN DIEGO, .CA :92117 Phone (619)274-8379'/ Fax (6'19)274-8380 SPECIAL INSPECTOR'S .REPORT Covering .work,performed·which requires approvat by the speciaHnspector of: SHOP-WELDING· ~=--===~==="=============================~===========================================-======== PROJECT: lot 45; ADDRES~_;__J~~-BY._tt)~lfo.rdJioadi Carlsbad FILE: R6H16- :REPORT·DATE; ·08/16/96 PERMIT-NUMBER: CB960868• .PROJECT :NUMBER: A8601210--==============-==------=======~======~=--======================================================= Materiat Ty_pe, =Grade, -Source: A36-Steel; .E11T-11 Electrode-. JNSPECTION'DATI: 08/07/96- ·08/08/96 Perforrned-Sflop Weld_ing Inspection·@, Col'J(y!s, Weldi'ng; 3463-B Harris Street, Lemon Grove -lndividual components· inspected -for compliance with -$hop-and approved drawings include: .. Fit -up and, backing, welds, to, a~emble: 24-foundation hold down assemblies. Performed ·Shop Welding -lnspectiQn @ Corky's :Welding, -3463-B Harris Street, Lemon Grove rndividuai: compooents· inspected for compliance' with· shop, and: approved, drawings include: -·Groove-welds-to :assemble .24 HD;assembli'es. * * * Work inspected conforms· with approvedi plans and' specifications * * * =Inspection ·performed ·by:Gerad C. Griffith Sig~~ cc: Corkys Welding:(2) City,of'Carlsbad File- 279' Certification# January 28, 1997 DIVERSIFIED PROPERTIES 1770 GILLESPIE WAY• SUITE 101 • EL CAJON CALIFORNIA 92020 (FAX) 449-7886 (619) 449-7881 CITY OF CARLSBAD Building Department 2075 Las Palm.as Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009 Attn: Tim Phillips Tim: At the request of our job superintendent, Jack Williams, I am writing you to communicate our understanding of the scope of work remaining to obtain a final on our building shell. During the construction of the building shell we were fortunate to lease the entire building to Isis Pharmaceuticals, therefore we are currently in the process of completing our building' while the tenant is proceeding with their tenant improvements. The following items remain incomplete due to this overlap of work and it would be our request to have these items inspected prior to tenant occupancy which would in tum allow us to obtain our final on the building shell at this time: (i) Installation of the storefront doors; (ii) The striping of the parking lot and (iii) The planting of the landscape materials. I understand that the landscape inspection is not under your jurisdiction and have therefore made a similar request to the plamring department. Your cooperation on these items would be greatly appreciated as it will allow us to complete our responsibilities with our construction lender. Sincerely, ~~ Robert Tschantz DATE: July 16, 1996 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 96-868 EsGil Corporation Professiona{ Pfan !R.f-view 'Engineers SET: III PROJECT ADDRESS: 1896 Rutherford Rd. D APPLICANT ~ DFIRE D PLAN REVIEWER D FILE PROJECT NAME: Diversified Properties Shell Building Lot 46 · r:g] The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. D The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's ********** codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and c~ecked by ~uilding department staff. D The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. D The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. , D The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. D The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: r:g] Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. D Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Date contacted: (by: ) Telephone #: ~ REMARKS: The special inspection program included with the plans should be reviewed by City staff. By: Kurt Culver Esgil Corporation D GA D CM D EJ D GP D PC log Enclosures: trnsmtLdot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 + San Diego, California 92123 + (619) 560-1468 + Fax (619) 560-1576 EsGil Corporation Professiona[ PCan !l{evieui 'Engineers DATE: July 3, 1996 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 96-868 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1896 Rutherford Rd. PROJECT NAME: Diversified Properties SETjl:' Shell Building CJ APPLICANT ~ CJ FIRE CJ PLAN REVIEWER CJ FILE Lot46 D The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's *********** codes. D The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's ********** codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. D The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. ~ The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. D The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. ~. The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: Turpit Architects 6305 Lusk Blvd., Suite 200 San Diego 92121 · ~ Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. D Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Date contacted: D REMARKS: By: Kurt Culver Esgil Corporation (by: D GA D CM D EJ D GP D PC ) Telephone #: Enclosures: 6/26/96 trnsmtl.dot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 + San Diego, California 92123 + (619) 560-1468 + Fax (619) 560-1576 '"'I I: l I I' ! Carlsbad 96-868 I July 3, 1996 RECHECK PLAN CORRECTION LIST JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PROJECT ADDRESS: 1896 Rutherford Rd. . DATE PLAN RECEIVED BY ESGIL CORPORATION: 6/26/96 REVIEWED BY: Kurt Culver FOREWORD (PLEASE READ): PLAN CHECK NO.: 96-868 SET; I DATE RECHECK COMPLETED: July 3, 1996 This plan review i~ limited to the technical requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electrical Code and state laws regulating energy conservation, noise attenuation and disabled access. This plan review is based on regulations enforced by the Building Department. You may have other corrections based on laws and ordinances enforced by the Planning Department, Engineering Department or other departments. The following items listed need clarification, modification or change. All items must be satisfied before tile plans will be in conformance with the cited codes and regulations. Per Sec. 106.4.3, 1994 Uniform Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the violation of any state, county or city law. A. Please make all corrections on the original tracings and submit two new sets of prints to: ESGIL CORPORATION. B. To facilitate rechecking, please identify, next to each item, the sheet of the plans upon which each correction on this sheet has been made and return this sheet with the revised plans. C. The following items have not been resolved from the previous plan reviews. The original correction number has been given for your reference. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding these items. D. Please indicate here if any changes have been made to the plans that are not a result of corrections from this list. If there are other changes, please briefly describe them and where they are located on the plans. 'Have changes been made not resulting from this list? DYes DNo Carlsbad 96-868 I July 3, 1996 2. The plans must still be signed. 3. The "Project Data" shows a floor area that conflicts with the "Building Code Data." 12. The special inspection program should be submitted to City staff. 15. From the referenced list: 4. Sbmeone inked-in the O" curb. Please show it on the originals. 5. The truncated domes aren't on the plans. Also, the warning strip was inked-in. Please show it on the originals. 17. Please show where in the calculations the 2-½" deep reveal was considered in the tilt-up design. 30. You indicated that changes have been made to the plans (not resulting from the correction list), but you failed to describe each of those changes. If you have any questions, please contact Kurt Culver of Esgil Corporation at (619) 560-1468. Thank you. EsGil Corporation Professiona{ P{an !R,f.view 'Engineers DATE: May 30, 19_96 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 96-868 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1896 Rutherford Rd. PROJECT NAME: Diversified Properties SET:I Shell Building D APPLICANT ~ DFIRE REVIEWER D FILE Lot46 D The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's*********** codes. D The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's ********** codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. D The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. ~ The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. D The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. ~ The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: Turpit Architects 6305 Lusk Blvd. Suite 200 San Diego 92.121 ~ Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. D Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Date contacted: (by: ) Telephone #: D REMARKS: By: Kurt Culver Enclosures: Esgil Corporation D GA DCM D EJ D GP D PC 5/16/96 trnsmtl.dot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 + San Diego, California 92123 + (619) 560-1468 + Fax (619) 560-1576 Carlsbad 96-868 May 30, 1996 PLAN REVIEW CORRECTION LIST COMMERCIAL PLAN CHECK NO.: 96-868 OCCUPANCY: B/Fl/S1 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: V-N, spr. ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA: 64000 SPRINKLERS?: Yes REMARKS: DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY JURISDICTION: 5/13/96 DArE INITIAL PLAN REVIEW COMPLETED: May 30, 1996 FOREWORD (PLEASE READ): JURISDICTION: Carlsbad USE: Office/Manuf./Warehouse ACTUALAREA: 47428 STORIES: 2 HEIGHT: .... 32' OCCUPANT LOAD: "shell" DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY ESGIL CORPORATION: 5/16/96 PLAN REVIEWER: Kurt Culver This plan review is limited to the technical requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electrical Code and state laws regulating enelgy conservation, noise attenuation and access for the disabled. This plan review is based on regulations enforced by the Building Department. You may have other corrections based on laws and ordinances enforced by the Planning Department, Engineering Department, Fire Department or other departments .. Clearance from those departments may be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Code sections cited are based on the 1994 USC. The following items listed need clarification, modification or change. All items must be satisfied before the plans will be in conformance with the cited codes and regulations. Per Sec. 106.4.3, 1994 Uniform Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the violation of any state, county or city law. To speed up the recheck process, please note on this list (or a copy) where each correction item has been addressed, Le., plan sheet number, specification section, etc. Be sure to enclose the marked up list when you submit the revised plans. LIST NO. 22, GENERAL COMMERCIAL WITHOUT ENERGY OR POLICY SUPPLEMENTS (1994 UBC ) comforw.dot Carlsbad 96-868 May 30, 1996 • GENERAL 1. Please make all corrections on the original tracings and submit two new sets of prints, to: Esgil Corporation, 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, California 92123", (619) 560-1468. • PLANS 2. All sheets of the plans and the first sheet of the calculations are required to be signed by the California licensed architect or engineer responsible for the plan preparation. Please include the California license number, seal, date of license expiration and the date the plans are signed. Business and Professions Code. 3. Provide a Building Code Data Legend on the Title Sheet. Include the following code information for each building proposed: + Occupancy Group (Show this as "B/F1/S1") + Floor Area (Correct the Project Data to show 47,428) • STAIRWAYS 4. Stairway width must be at least 44 inches when serving 50 or more occupants; 36 inches when less than 50. Section 1006.2. 5. Stairway riser must be 4 inches minimum and 7 inches maximum and minimum run shall be 11 inches. Section 1006.3 6. A..rninimum headroom clearance of 6'-8" for stairways should be indicated on the plans. Section 1006.15. Note that this is from a plane tangent to the stairway tread nosing. 7. Stairway handrails should not project more than 3-1/2 inches into the required width. Trim and stringers may not project more than 1-1/2 inches. Section 1006.2. 8. Handrails: a) Handrails are requited on each side of stairways b) Handrails and extensions shall be 34" to 38" above nosing of treads and be continuous. c) All stairs shall have handrails terminating in a newel or safety post. Section 1006.9. Carlsbad 96-868 May 30, 1996 • GLASS AND GLAZING 9. Glazing in the following locations should be of safety glazing material in accordance with Section 2406.4 (see exceptions): a) Fixed and sliding panels of sliding door assemblies and panels in swinging doors other than wardrobe doors. b) Fixed or operable panels adjacent to a door where the nearest exposed edge of the glazing is within a 24-inch arc of either vertical edge of the door in a closed position and where the bottom exposed edge of the glazing is less than 60 inches above the walking surface. c) Individual fixed or operable panels, other than those locations. described above, that rneet all of the following conditions: i) Exposed area of an individual pane is greater than 9 square feet, and: ii) Exposed bottom edge is less than 18 inches above the floor, and: iii) Exposed top edge is greater than 36 inches above the floor, and: iv) One or more walking surfaces are within 36 inches horizontally of the plane of the glaziog. • FOUNDATION 10. Pn)Vide a letter from the soils engineer confirming that the foundation plan, grading plan and specifications have been reviewed and that it has been determined that the recommendations in the soil report are properly incorporated into the plans. (When required by the soil report). 11. The foundation plan does not comply with the following soil report recommendation(s) for this project: Show on the plans the slab-on-grade recommendations from the report. • FRAMING 12. When special inspection is required, the architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program which shall be submitted to the building official for approval prior to issuance of the building permit. Please review Section 106.3.5. Carlsbad 96-868 May 30, 1996 13. On the cover sheet of the plans, specify any items that will have a deferred submittal (floor/roof trusses, along with the Unistrut referenced on sheet A-5). Additional/y,provide the following note on the plans, per Sec. 106.3.4.2: "Submittal documents for deferred submittal items shall be submitted to the architect or engineer of record, who shall review them and forward them to the building official with a notation indicating that the deferred submittal documents have been reviewed and that they have been found to be in general conformance with the design of the building. The deferred submittal items shall NOT be installed until their design and submittal documents have been approved by the building official." . • MISCELLANEOUS 14. Guardrails (Section 509.1): a) Shall be installed at _all unenclosed floor and roof openings. b) Shall be installed at open and glazed sides of stairs and ramps. c) Shall have a height of 42". d) Shall be detailed showing adequacy of connections to resist the horizontal force prescribed in Table 16-B. e) Openings between railings shall be less than 4". The triangular openings formed by the riser, tread and bottom element of a guardrail at a stair shall be less than 6". • TITLE 24 DISABLED ACCES.S 15. Provide note and details on the plans to show compliance with the enclosed Disabled Access Review List. Disabled access requirements may be more restrictive than the UBC. • ADDITIONAL 16. Fill in the many empty reference bubbles. A complete plan review cannot be performed until complete plans are submitted. 17. Will the reveal at detail 3/A-6 really be 2-½" deep, as shown? . 18. At detail 20/A-7, show that the½" max. dimension is measure from the top of the threshold to the low sidewalk side. 19. On sheet S-3, please clarify if the beam on line C is cantilevered, or if it is supported by the wall on line 8. l ' Carlsbad 96-868 May 30, 1996 20. The spandrel panels on line 8 of sheet S-3 will require a large drag connection into the diaphragm further down the line. Please provide a calculations·for this condition. Additionally, check the floor diaphragm as it tries to transfer this load (plus other seismic loads) into the wall on line 9. 21. Please recheck all detail references on the structural plans. For example, 8/S11 (referenced on sheet S-3 on line A) is not appropriate there. Additionally, check 2/S12 (as referenced on sheet S-3 oh line 4). THERE ARE OTHERS. 22. The cross-hatching shown in the diaphragm schedule on sheet S-4 is too faint to read. Submit darker prints. 23. Detail 1/S-11 calls for the PAI straps to be "per plan," yet the framing plan doesn't provide additional information. 24. The "ST" strap referenced at detail 9/S-12 doesn't have an end bend, so the development into the concrete is questionable. Please investigate. 25. Specify the ties at 9/S-12. See also 7/S-12. 26. Complete detail 5/S-14. 27. Regarding the structural calculations: a) Supplement sheet 36 by providing a similar design for the floor level. b) Sheet S-3 shows a large hole in the floor diaphragm (oddly, the architectural plans don't show it). Please consider that hole in the diaphragm analysis of the lateral load section. c) Check chord and drag forces in the lateral analysis of the FLOOR. 28. See the attached for PME corrections. 29. To speed up the review process, note on this list (or a copy) where each correction item has been addressed, i.e,, plan sheet, note or detail number, calculation page, etc. Carlsbad 96-868 May 30, 1996 30. Please indicate here if any changes have been made to the plans that are not a result of corrections from this list. If there are other changes, please briefly describe them and where they are located in the plans. Have changes been made to the plans not resulting from this correction list? Please indicate: D Yes D No 31. The jurisdiction has contracted with Esgil Corporation located at 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, California 92123; telephone number of 619/560-1468, to perform the plan review for your project. If you have any questions regarding these plan review items, please contact Kurt Culver at Esgil Corporation. Thank you. + PLUMBING, MECHANICAL AND ENERGY CORRECTIONS + PLAN REVIEWER: Glen Adamek 1. Each sheet of the plans must be signed by the licensed designer. • PLUMBING (1994 UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE) 2. Provide complete water line sizing calculations, including the water pressure, pressure losses, water demands, and developed pipe lengths. UPC Section 610.0 3. Provide gas line plans and calculations, showing pipe lengths and gas demands. Uf.?.C Section 1217.0 4. Show main roof drainage sizing and overflow roof drainage sizing as per USC, Section 1506, and UPC, Appendix 'D'. Roof drainage piping sizes and routes are not shown. • ENERGY CONSERVATION . 5. Clearly note on the plans 'Shell building only no energy design provided for the shell building permit.' Note: If you have any questioris regarding this plan review list please contact Glen Adamek at (619) 560-1468. To speed the review process, note on this list (or a copy) where the corrected items have been addressed on the plans. Carlsbad 96-868 May 30, 1996 + ELECTRICAL PLAN REVIEW + PLAN REVIEWER: Eric Jensen . 6. Show the available fault current ( lsc ) from the serving utility company and at the equipment where lsc exceeds 10,000 amps. Show the minimum AIC rating of the service equipment and the feeder overcurrent devices. 1. Note: If you have any questions regarding this electrical plan review list please contact the plan reviewer listed above at (619) 560-1468. To speed the review process, note on this list ( or a copy) where the corrected items have been addressed on the plans. DEPARTMENT OF STATE ARCHITECT NON RESIDENTIAL TITLE 24 DISABLED ACCESS REQUIREMENTS • SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS Show that an accessible route of travel is to be provided to all portions of the building, to accessible building entrances and between the building and the public way, per Section 11148.1.2. • DISABLED ACCESS PARKING SPACES 2. Show or note on the plans that the accessible parking spaces are to be identified by a reflectorized sign, permanently posted immediately adjacent to and visible from each space, consisting of: at-A profile vie•.v of a wheelchair with occupant in •1.1hite on dark blue background. b) The sign shall ~70 in2 in area. c) When in the path of travel, they shall be posted ~80" from the bottom of the sign to parking space finished grade. d) Signs may also be centered on the wall of the interior end of the parking space ~36" from the parking space finished grade, ground or sidewalk. e) Spaces complying with Section 11298.4.2 shall have an additional sign "Van-Accessible" mounted below the symbol of accessibility per Section 11298.5. Carlsbad 96-868 May 30, 1996 3. Show, or note, that an additional sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place at each entrance to off street parking facilities, or immediately adjacent to and visible from each stall or space. The sign shall be ?::17" x 22" with lettering not ~1" in height. Per Section 11298.5 required wording is as follows. "Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at ______ or by telephoning ______ " • CURB RAMPS 4. Revise plans to show that curb ramps shall be constructed at the disabled access parking stalls, per Section 11278.5.1. • SPECIAL HAZARDS 5. Plans show that walk crosses, or adjoins, a vehicular way and walking surfaces are not separated by curbs or other elements. Revise plans to show that the boundary is defined, per Section 1133B.8.4, by a continuous detectable warning which is: a) ?::36" in width. b) The surface is to consist of raised truncated domes in a staggered pattern with: i) A diameter of nominal 0.9" at the base. ii) Tapering to 0.45" at the top. iii) Height of 0.2". iv) Nominal o.c. spacing of 2.35". • STAIRWAYS AND HANDRAILS 6. Revise plans to show that handrails are provided on each side of the stairs, per Section 11338.4.1. 7. Show that handrails extend a ?::12" beyond top nosing, and ?::12"-plus-tread-width beyond the bottom nosing, per Section 11338.4.2.2. Carlsbad 96-868 May 30, 1996 8. Per Section 11338.4.2.6, please provide details, Sections or notes to show that handgrip portions of handrails are: a) :2:1¼" and ~1½" in cross Section~! dimension. b) The shape may provide an equivalent gripping surface. c) The handgrip portion shall have a smooth surface, without any sharp corners. 9. Show that handrails are designed to provide a grasping surface (such that to help a person avoid a fall) and: a) The spacing of brackets shall be ~8'0". b) The attachment is capable of withstanding :2:200# applied in any direction, at any point on the rail. 10. Show or note that interior stair treads are marked at the upper approach and the lower tread of each stair, by a strip of clearly contrasting color, per Section 11338.4.4, as follows: a) At least 2" wide. b) Placed parallel to and not more than 1" from the nose of the step or landing. c) The strip shall be as slip resistant as the other treads of the stair. 11. Note that all tread surfaces comply with Section 11338.4.4 as follows: a) Be slip resistant. b) Have smooth, rounded or chamfered exposed edges. c) Have no abrupt edges at the nosing. d) Nosing shall not project :2:1 ½" past the face of the riser above. e). Risers shall be sufficiently solid to prevent the passage of objects :2:½" (i.e. open risers are not permitted). 12. Show that handrail which project from a wall shall have a space of 1 ½" between the wall and the rail. Handrails may be located in a recess (~3" deep) extending :2:18" above the top of the rail, per Section 11338.5.5. End Carlsbad 96-868 May 30, 1996 VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 96-868 PREPARED BY: Kurt Culver DATE: May 30, 1996 BUILDING ADDRESS: 1896 Rutherford Rd. BUILDING OCCUPANCY: B/Fl/S1 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: V-N BUILDING PORTION BUILDING AREA VALUATION VALUE (ft.2) MULTIPLIER ($) Commercial Shell 47428 24 1,138,272 Air Conditioning Fire Sprinklers 47428 1.7 80,628 TOTAL VALUE 1,218,900 IX] 1991 UBC . .Building Permit Fee D Bldg. Permit Fee by ordinance: $ 3977.50 IX] 1991 UBC Plan Check Fee D Plan Check Fee by ordinance: $ 2585.38 Type of Review: IX] Complete Review D Structural Only D Hourly D Repetitive Fee Applicable D ·other: Esgil Plan Review Fee: $ 2068.30 Comments: Fire Services Review: D Complete Review D Other: D Suppression System D Fire Alarm Esgil Fire Services Review Fee: $ Comments: Sheet 1 of 1 macvalue.doc 5196 ~l '. .,v City of Carlsbad M#ih·iih44iih·l•l4·Shii,t4UI BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST DATE: 5-30 -t:t&, . . _. . " . . PLANCHECK NO.-=C'-='-B__.'2...;::;ro;__cJ_g'_ftJ_f_ BUILDING ADDRESS: Lo±1:G. _;,_f!)'~-th~-;...{brc,I __ { ....... &1-+-=-b ______ _ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Neu1 ±iidus+r-rO.:. l · ·'.:5 C.{ t lc/1 vi9 ASSE_SSOR's PARCEL NUMBER: .J..l a-1 :l.o -~Q . EST. VALUE ____ _ ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL The item you have submitted for review has been approved. The approval is based on plans, information and/or specifications provided in your submittal; therefore any changes to these items after this date, including field modifications, must be reviewed by this office to insure continued conformance with applicable codes, Please review carefully all comments attached, a~ failure to comply with instructions in this report can result in suspension of permit to build. D A Right-of-Way permit is required prior to construction of the following improvements: DENIAL Pleas~ the attached report of deficiencies marked with ~ Make necessary corrections to plans or specifications for compliance with applicable codes and standards. Submit corrected plans and/or specificatio s to this office for review. Date: 5/3c/ 7 ~ Date: .½~?Go, By: ____________ Date: ___ _ ATTACHMENTS ENGINEERING DEPT .. CONTACT PERSON D Dedication Application D Dedication Checklist D Improvement Application D Improvement Checklist D Future Improvement Agreement D Grading Permit Application D Grading Submittal Checklist D Right of Way Permit Application D Right of Way Permit Submittal Checklist and Information Sheet D Sewer Fee, Information Sheet NAME~~~ City of Carlsbad ADDRESS: 2075 Las Palmas Dr .• Carlsbad. CA 92009 PHONE: (619) 438-1161. Ext. 1-3 I .:S A-4 P:\DOCS\CHKLsnBP00b1 .FRM REY 04/30/96 2075 Las Palmas Dr.• Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-0894 .. BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST SITE PLAN 1 s~ndv' 3rdv' li2f D D 1. Provide a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale. Show: lito D D ~D D A. North Arrow D. Property Lines Easements B. Existing & Proposed Structures E. Easements C. Existing Street Improvements F. Right-of-Way Width & Adjacent Streets 2. Show on site plan: A. Drainage Patterns C. Existing Topography B. Existing & Proposed Slopes 3. Include note: "Surface water to be directed away from the building foundation at a 2% gradient for no less than 5' or 2/3 the distance to the property line (whichever is less).• [Per 1985 UBC 2907(d)5]. · .on graded sites, the top of any exterior foundation shall extend above the elevation of the street gutter at point of. discharge or the inlet of an approved drainage device a minimum of 12 inches plus two percent• (per 1990 UBC 2907(d)5.). 4. Include on title sheet· A. Site address B·. Assessor's. Parcel Number C. Legal Description For commercial/industrial buildings and tenant improvement projects, include: Total building square footage with the square footage for each different use, existing sewer permits showing square footage of different uses (manufacturing, warehouse, office, etc.) previously approved .. EXISTING PERMIT NUMBER DESCRIPTION P:\DOCS\CHKI.Sl\BP0001.FFM Page 1 of 4 BUILDING PL-ANCHECK CHECKLIST DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL COMPLiANCE 3rdV 5. Project does not comply with the following Engineering Conditions of approval for Project No. -------.....----------------------------- Conditions were complied with by: ______ _ Date: -------- D.EDICATION REQUIREMENTS D D _ D 6. Dedication for all street Rights-of-Way adjacent to the building site and any storm drain or utility easements Qn the building site is required for all new buildings and for remodels with a value at or exceeding $ _ -pursuant to Code Section 18.40.030. Dedication required as follows: __________________ _ Dedication required. Please have a registered Civil Engineer or Land Surveyor prepare the appropriate legal description together with an 8-1 /2" x 11" plat map and submit with a title report. All easement documents must be approved and signed by owner(s) prior to issuanc;:e Qf Building Permit. Attached please find an application form and submittal checklist for the dedication process. Provide the completed application form and the requirements on the checklist at the time of resubmittal. Dedication completed by----,------------ IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS Date: ----- D D D 7a. All needed public improvements upon and adjacent to the building site must be constructed at time of building construction whenever the value of the construction exceeds $ -pursuant to Code Section 18.40.040. Public improvements required as follows: ________________ _ Please have a registered Civil Engineer prepare appropriate improvement plans and submit them together with the requirements on the attached checklist for a separate plancheck process through the Engineering Department. Improvement plans must be approved, appropriate s.ecurities posted and fees paid prior to issuance of permit. Attached please find an application form and submittal checklist for the public improvements requirements. Provide the completed application form and the requirements on the checklist at the time of resubmittal. Improvement Plans signed by: _____________ _ Date: __ _ P:\DOCS\CHKLSnBP0001.FRM Page 2 of 4 REV 04/30/96 1 stv' 2nd/ 3rd/ DD D BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST 7b. Construction of the public improvements may be deferred pursuant to code Section 1 S.40. Please submit a recent property title report or current grant deed on the property and processing fee of $ _________ so we may prepare the necessary Future Improvement Agreement. This agreement must be signed, notarized and approved by the City prior to issuance of a Building Permit. Future public improvements required as follows: _____________ _ Improvement Plans signed by: ____________ Date: ____ _ D D. D 7c. Enclosed please find your Future Improvement Agreement. Please return signed and notarized Agreement to the Engineering Department. efo Future Improvement Agreement completed by: ____________ _ Date: ___ ___,-------- o· 1d. GRADING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS The conditions that invoke the need for a grading permit are found in Section 11.06.030 of the Mu_nicipal Code. 0 · D D Sa. Inadequate information available on Site Plan to make a determination on grading requirements. Include accurate grading quantities (cut, fill import, export). Sb. Grading Permit required. A . separate grading plan prepared by a registered Civil Engineer must be Submitted together with the completed application form attached. NOTE: The Gradin Permit must be issued and rou h radin a roval obtained rior to· issuance of a Building Permit. 3 4 t:, -Cf. Grading Inspector sign off by: --------- 0· D D Sc. No Grading Permit required. P:\OOCS\CHKI.Sl\Bf'0001.FPM Page 3 of4 Date: ----- REV 04/30/96 BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS -!}tv' 2ndv' 3rdv' · · )2SL O O 9. A RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT is required to do work in City Right-of-Way and/or private work adjacent to the public Right-of-Way. Types of work include, but are not limited to: street improvements, trees, driveways, tieing into public storm drain, sewer and water utilities. Right-of-Way permit required for ________________ _ A separate Right-of-Way permit issued by the Engineering Department is required for the fc/.ll°c/~~r:f-..-..L ' ~~ k ~ t,,(<A,z: J ~ -:1:-j~~ 1 O. A SEWER PERMIT is required concurrent with the building permit issuance. The fee -is noted iri the fees section on the following page. 11. INDUSTRIAL WASTE PERMIT is required. Applicant must complete Industrial Waste Permit Application Form and submit for City approval prior to ,.issuance of a Permit. Industrial waste permit accepted by:.,.... _______ Date: ___ _ P:\DOCS\CHK1.SneP0001,FPM Page 4 of 4 REV 04/30/96 ' . -~ --~~*··--------------------------------------... .. .. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING REVIEW SECTION FEE CALCULATION WORKSHEET D Estimate based on unconfirmed information from applicant. ig Calculation based on building plancheck plan submittal. Address:l-.ot 4{o ~u.+he. r..fo..-d Bldg. Permit No. C <f> q fo O ~ la ~ Prepared by: bJA ~ Date: ~a/ 9l;. Checkeq by: . Date: ______ _ ~DU CALCULATIONS: List types and square footages for all l!ses. · ,..,( ~sroo 3 Types of Use:Neu) rndus+rro,, / Sq. Ft./l:-Jnns-:41, ,~ / ~. EDU's:_Cf...__t>_4-____ _ Tot.al EDU's: __ j..i.....;..• _4-;..__3 ___ _ ACT CALCULATIONS: List types and square footages for all uses. Types of Use:l.Je..w rrtdu~+rco-.1 ,Sq. Ft./1:lniti:4-]1 lie/ fl{' itco ADT's:_..i.2'~3~ .. fe;.__ __ _ Total ADT's d ,3 /o FEES REQUIRED: PUBLIC FACILITIE~E REQUIRED O YES O NO (See B_uilding Department for amount) WITHIN CFO: 129-YES (no bridge & thoroughfare fee, D NO reduced Traffic Impact Fee) . ij] ~RK-IN~LIEU FEE PARK AREA:_-,--_ FEE/UNIT:. ______ ___ u;r;, TRAFFIC IMPACT Fl;E ADT's/UNITS: d. 3 l, WeRIDGE AND THOROUGHFARE FEE AOT's/UNITS: ____ . __ ~FACILITIES MANAGEMENT FEE SQ.FT.:47, l!o I ~SEWER FEE . PERMIT No. S /? 1 ftJCJ(pC) X · NO. UNITS:._--,-_ X FEE/ADT: d d-- X FEE/ADT:. ___ _ ZONE: 5 ---=------- X i=EE/SQ.FT.: EDU's: 9 ., 4-3 X FEE/EDU: l g O(o BENEFIT AREA: f=: DRAINAGE BASIN: 5 /?::, EDU's: q & + 3 X FEE/ED.U: 2 l j P~RAINAGE FEES PLDA ....... ---HIGH ___ /LOW __ _ ACRES:_____ X FEE/AC:._...,...._ ~¼ERLA~%f? ,Ni;&= 1,,~ , 1.11 s. WATER FEE • ~~= / il . EDU's: . X FEE/Eb!,J: &4 a) =$ -er- =$ s;J9a... =$ -a- =$ l~~<i?lo4- =$ 17 1 o~ I =$ 2S)d\'8q =$ -B =$ -d-- TOTAL OF ABOVE FEES*: $ 7 ;/ J {)0 g *NOTE: Thia calculation aheet la NOT a complete (lat of all feM which may be due. Dedications and Im rovements ma also be required with Building Permits. P:\DOCS\MISFORMS\BP0002,FRM REV 01/04/95 TO: FROM: City of Carlsbad . M #1 h•ii ,t44 A• ,t·I •24·ki ii, ,t4,i I DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING SERVICES ENGINEERING INSPECTION DIVISION DATE: J"" I j 3 0 J 91{, ROUGH GRADING APPROVAL FOR PROJECT NO. 6 R 16 0 0 ,1:· (P.E. OR TRACi #) l.:ot' #!oJ~~fuE ,AJrffitfs) RY>+btt .. of Rd, · We have inspected the grading, for Lo~ · 41,. /II~ e I 1610 or Phase ----- of the above mentioned p~ect. In_ addition, we havireceitred rough grading certification from UQ'll'tSfry4f,'q'1~f.1, f-~C· Ca,, the _Soils Engineer, dated -:::; /29 ~'/6 and from .J p e~;~.Plv::~ I the Supervision Grading'EngiAeer, dated 7/::i.,r/Jb I a~ are satis 18d that the rough grading has _been completed in accordance with City Standards. Based on these certifications and our observation, we take no-exception to the issuance of a building permit for Lo~4 {z . M4t I I Bl O or Phase -of project 6 R f6 () 0 ,4 . ., fro a grading standpoint. This release, however, is not intended to certify the project from other engineering concerns including site development, water or sewer availability, or final grading. · We will need tb be advised prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy so that we can verify that final grading and landscaping has been completed in accordance with the approved plans for the project. APPROVED: ~~GINSPECT H:\LIBRARY\DPS\WPDATA\INSPECT\ROUGGRAD.FOR SR. CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR 2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 ENGINEERING July 25, 1996 Engineering Department City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Pahnas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 Re: Lot.46 Carlsbad: Tract No: 85;.24, Unit No. 3, Map No. 11810 Grading· Permit No. GR 960014 File: 429-95· . Gentlemen: 4849 RONSON COURT, SUITE I 05, SAN DIEGO. CA 921 I I (619) 569-7377 Fax [6 I 9/ ~69-0830 The finished grading has been completed for.the building pad within the above referenced project in conformance with the approved grading plans and the City of Carlsbad Grading Ordinance. Sincerely, JP Engineering, Inc. Jorge H. Palacios, RCE Chief Engineer JHP/jw ' • --~-• ., --.-. ••f'i"IT"11,·1,~ " I ._ ~ •-u;:, •. .&. -•••• t, " • , ~ l ,· t. ;r J *' ii ' cc: Rob Tschantz, Diversified Properties ,ii --~ -~ lctter/429-95 PLANNING DEPARTMENT . BUILDING PLAN CHECK REVIEW CHECKLIST Plan Check No. CB C/b -f{ZC/ Address ,~qh £J-fhPrsfr>rcA cl_ Planner David Rick Phone (619) 438-1161 ext. 4328 (Name)· APN: ~ lJ -1:)0 -k(Jo pl\ [ C/S--4 z._ Ip~ if 9e,,. ~ . , I Type of Project and Use: New LI\JJy-\f>, \ 131½ ,... Lot lf6 Zone: C/1 Facilities Management Zone: S {7 CFO @out) # . . . . . -------- circle (If property in, complete SPECIAL TAX CALCULATION WORKSHEET provided by Building Department) Legend ~ Item Complete (g Item Incomplete -Needs your action Environmental Review Required: YES NO /TYPE __ _ DATE OF COMPLETION:----------------- Compliance with conditions of approval? If not, state conditions which require action. Conditions of Approval--------------------- Q/tj O -Discretionary Action .Required: YES NO _L TYPE --.a.......a...- t 1; \ ~\ \, • ,, 'APPROVAL/RESO, NO.:_-'--....__ __ DATE______ -.Ji PROJECT NO. · ; OTHER RELATE--.D-,-.. --,-CA---. S_E_S_: -·} ·' -----,-----,---_,,....,.---,-----,----------;-{ -,, .Complianct? ,with cor:tditions or apptovaJ?, ·If· not; state cortditions wt.lien ,req.uire_action. Coriditlons of Approval · · · · · · · ·. · ,.. · · · .. · · California Coastal Commission Permit Required: YES DATE OF APPROVAL:---'---------,-------....., NO~ San Diego Coast District, 31.11 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92108 (619) 521-8036 Compliance with conditions of approval? If not, state conditions which require action. Conditions of Approval ----------------------------- ~DD ~D D ~ D tfiJYD D {j) D t lnclusionary Housing Fee required: YES __ NO · ~ (Effective date of lnclusionary Housing Ordinance -May 21, 1993). Site Plan: t. Provide a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale. Show: North arrow, property · lines·, · easements, existing and proposed structures-, streets, existir:tg street improvements, right-of-way width, dimensioned setbacks and existing topographical lines. 2. Provide legal description of property, and assessor's parcel number. Zoning: 1. Setbacks: Front: Required *, ... Shown ~ Int. Side: Required Jo.II Shown to' • Street Side: Required ]_o' Shown '}c> I Rear: Required [O I Shown Io' 2. Lot Coverage: Required 11A-x Sofe, Shown '311., 3. Height: Required 3S-' Shown 32( 4. Parking: /41 zr?o K:\ADMIN\COUNTER\PLANCK.FRM 1-17-96 City of Carlsbac;I. . : . . 96055 , Fire Department • Bureau of Prevention Plan Review: Requirements Category: Building Plan Check Date of Report: Friday, May 24, 1996 Contact Name Turpit & Partners Address 6305 Lusk Bl Ste 200 City, State San Diego CA 92121 Bldg. Dept. No. 96-868 Planning No. ' Reviewed by: M~ ~ Job Name Lot 46 CRC -------~--------'-~--i J--~ ft Job Address J@::Rutherford Ste. or Bldg. No. ____ _ ~ Approved -The item you have submitted for review has been approved. The approval is based on plans; information and/or specifications provided in your submittal; therefore any changes to the$e items after this date, including field modifica- tions, must be reviewed by this offk:e to insure continued conformance with applicable codes. Please review carefully all comments attact)ed, as failure , to comply with instructions in this report can result in suspension of permit to construct or install improvements. D Disapproved -Please see the attached report of deficiencies. Please make corrections to plans or specifications necessary to indicate compliance with applicable codes and standards. Submit corrected plans and/or specifications to this office for review. For Fite Deparlment Use Oniy Review · 1st.__ ____ ~ 2nd. __ _ 3rd __ _ Other Agency ID CFD Job# . 96055 File# ___ _ 2560 Orion Way • Carlsbad, California 92008 • (619) 931-2121 FILE No. 343 02/14 '97 14:58 ID:CTE ESCONDIDO 619 746 9495 PAGE 2 CoNSTRUCTION TEsTING & ENGINEERING, INC. SAN Dll!Go, CA • RMRSIDE, f.A • VENTVRA, f.A • MODESTO, CA • IMCASJ'l!R, CA • LAS VEGAS, NV · SMTJ'LB, WA Z4I4Vine)•atd Ave, 490 E, Prinrel21id Cl. l64S l'acilic Ave. l5400ilkd2le Rd. 1~156 IOth SL W. 4560 S. Y.iley Vb m S.J', -41stS~ S11ile G Suitt 7 SUI.le IDS Sul!(! A2 Unit K Sulk: A·.5 R~nlOn, WA 980SS f.soondidll. CA 920Z9 Conma, CA 91719 Oxnanl, CA 95033 MOilesta, CA 95357 Lancuttr, CA 93>34 ~ Vepi, NV 89!03 (206) 656-1266 (619) 7~955 (909) 371-1890 (805) 486,47S (209) SSJ,2271 (SOS) 726-9676 (702) 79HZ78 (206) 616-1265 FAX ENGINEERING, fNC. (619) 7'16-9806 ,.u (909) ;m168 r~ (SOS) 186-9016 FAX (209) S5J-359HAX (8<>5) 726-9676FAl! (702) 7Z6-4485tu REPORT OF TESTING OF COMPACTED FILL FOR DRIVEWAY, UTILITY TRENCH, AND RETAINING WALL BACKFILL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOT 46, CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: MR. NED BANNING DIVERSIFIED PROPERTIES 1770 GILLESPIE WAY, SUITE 101 EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA 92020 PR:EPARED BY: CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. 2414 VINEYARD A VENUE, SUITE G ESCONDIDO, CA 92029 CTE JOB NO. 10-1537 FEBRUARY 11, 1997 GEOTECHNICAL ANP CONSTRUCTION ENGINEJ!;RING TESTING AND INSPECTlON FILE No. 343 02/14 '97 14:58 ID:CTE ESCONDIDO 619 746 9495 PAGE 3 (CTB Project No. 10-1537) TABLf Of CONTENTS SECTIQM 1.0 DESCRlPTION ........ , . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1 2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page l 3.0 FILL PLACEMENT .........•............................. Page I 4. 0 TESTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... -Page 2 5.0 LIMITATIONS ............................................ Page 3 TABLES Table 1 Table 2 FIGURES Figure 1 Compaction Test Summary Laboratory Test Data Compaction Test Location Map FI LE No . 343 02/14 '97 14 : 58 ID: CTE ESCONDIDO 619 746 9495 Report of Testing of Compacted Fill for Driveway, Utility Trench, and Retaining Wall Backfill Lot 46, Carlsbad Research Center. Carlsbad, California february 11, 1997 LO DESCRIPTION Pagel CTE Job No. 10-1537 The site is at the northeast corner of the intersection of Faraday A venue and Rutherford Court, in the Carlsbad Research Center, Carlsbad, California. Rough grading of the area occurred in the July _1986 and November 1988. The size of the site is approximately 2.88 acres. An approximately 15-foot high ascending slope forms the eastern boundary of the site. Benned landscaped areas form the southern and western boundades of the site. Lot 4:5, an undeveloped parcel, fonns the northern boundary of the site. Z,O PEYEU)PMENT The development consists of an approximately 42,500 square foot, concrete tilt-up structure with associated parking, drive areas, utility trenches, and retaining walls. 3 .o FILL PLACEMEN.I Recent excavation and fil.l placement was conducted between August 14 and December 4, 1996. During this period Construction Testing and Engineering (CTE) perfonned periodic observations and field testing. Observed fill placement was performed in lifts of unifonn depth. Fill material was derived from on-sire sources. Placement and compaction of fills were performed following local grading PAGE 4 FILE N9 • 343 02/14 '97 14:59 ID:CTE ESCONDIDO 619,746 9495 PAGE 5 Report of Testing of Compacted Fill for Driveway, Utility Trench, Page 2 · and· Retaining Wall Backfill Lot 46, Carlsbad Research Center. Carlsbad, California February 11, 1997 CTE Job No. 10-1537 ordinances under the observation and testing of the geotechnical consultant. 4,0 TESTING Field and laboratory ~esting were performed throughout the site earthwork activities. Testing was done to supplement field observations, to promote compliance with the applicable project requirements, and to verify that geotechnical recommendations presented in the .referenced report were implemented. Recent fill compaction for the driveway, utility trench, and retaining wall areas was perfonned between August 14 and December 4, 1996. Field testing of the compacted fill materials was conducted according to ASTM D2922 and D3017 (nuclear method). Field-testing results show that observed and tested fill materials were compacted to a minimum 90 or 95 percent (depending on the project specifications for the area undergoing compaction) of the laboratory maximum dry density and near optimum mo~sture content as determined by test method ASTM D-1557 Tabulated results of the field compaction testing performed are provided in the attached Table I, "Compaction Test Summary.'' Laboratory determinaeion of the reference compaction values for the fill materials are provided in Table II, "Laboratory Test Results." Figure 1, "Compaction Test Location Map," graphically depicts the approximate locations where field density tests were performed. FILE No. 343 02/14 '97 14:59 ID:CTE ESCONDIDO 619 746 9495 Report of Testing of Compacted Fill for Driveway, Utility Trench, and Retaining Wall Backfill Lot 46, Carlsbad Research Center, Carlsbad, California February 11, 1997 5,0 LIMITATIQ~S PAGE 6 Page 3 CTE Job No. 10-1537 As limited by the scope of the services that we agreed to perfonn, our opinions presented herein are based on our observations, test results, and understanding of the site development. Our .service was performed according to the currently accepted standard of practice and in a·way that provides a reasonable measure of the compliance of the grading operations with the job requirements. No warranty, express or implied, is given or intended with respect to the performance of the project in any respect. Sµbmittal of this report should not be construed as relieving the grading contractor of his responsibility to comply with the prqject requirements. The opporrunity ro be of service is appreciated. If you have any questions regarding testing conducted, observations made during construction or recommendations presented herein, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Respectfully submitted, CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. Rodney D. Ballard, GE #2173 Geotechnical Engineering Manager Jay Lynch. CEG # I 890 Senk>r Engineering Geologist \pmJccr~l l 0-1537\crrpO:Z, WpLI Jonathan Goodmacber, RG #6143 Project Geologist FILE No. 343 02/14 '97 14:59 ID:CTE ESCONDIDO 619 746 9495 Report of Testing of Compacted Fill for Driveway, Utility Trench, and Reraining Wall Backfill Lot 46, Carlsbad Research Center, Carlsbad, California February 11. 1997 5 O LIMCIATIQNS PAGE 7 Page 3 CTE Job No. 10~1537 As limited by the scope of the services that we agreed to perfonn, our opinions presented herein are based on our observations, test results, and understanding of the site development. Our service was performed according to the currently accepted standard of practice and in a way that provides a reasonable measure of the compliance of the grading op~rarions with . th~ job requirements. No warranty, express or implied, is given or intended with respect to the performance of the project in arty respect. Submittal·-of this report should not be construed as relieving the grading contractor of his responsibility to comply with the project requirements. The opporrunity to be of service is appreciated. lf you have any questions regarding testing conducted, observations made during construction or recommendatiops presented herein, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Respectfully submitted, \proJ~crs\ ! 0-l 5'.l7\cll1)02. wpd FILE No. 343 02/14 '97 14:59 ID:CTE ESCONDIDO 619 746 9495 Job Name: Job Address: Date 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 1112196 7/12/96 7/J2/96. 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/12/96 7/q/96 .. 7/12/96 7/15/96 7115196 7/15/96 7/15/96 7/15/90 . 7115196 7/15/96 7115196 . 7/lf,/96 7/16/96 7/16/96 7/.16/96 7117/96 7/17/96 7/18/96 7/18/96 7/l 8/96 7/19/96 7/22/96 7/25/96 7125196 7/25/96 8/14/96 8/14/96 8/14/% 8/16/96 8/16/96 TABLE l COMPACTION TEST SUMMARY LOT 46, RUTHERFORD AND FARAJ?A Y Job No. CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Date: Test Location Elevation Density No. (See map) Feet pcf I BLDG PAD STRIP I -2.5 112.6 2 BLDG PAD STRIP ! -2 . .5 (09.4 3 BLDG PAD STRIP I -2.5 105.7 4 BLDG PAD STRIP I •2,S 104.1 5 BLDG PA,D STRIP I ,2.0 105,8 6 BLDG PAD STRIP l -2.0 105.3 7 BLDG PAD STRIP 1 -2.0 !08.0 8 BLDG PAD STRIP I -2.0 107.7 9 BLDG PAD ST.RIP I -1.5 )06.9 10 BLDG PAD STRIP 1 -1.5 105.9 11 BLDG PAD STRJP I Ml.5 l 12.0 12 BLDG PAD STRIP I -1.5 103,5 13 BLDG PAD STRJP I • 1 .o 109.2 14 BLDG PAD STRIP I -1.0 103.8 15 BLDG PAD STRIP I -1.0 108.7 16 BLDG PAD STRIP I -LO 107.4 17 BLDG PAD STRIP I -0.5 107,1 18 BLDG PAD STRIP I -0.5 1.04.8 19 Bt..DG PAD STRIP l -0.S 106.2 20 BLDG PAD STRIP I -0.5 103.I 21 BLDG PAD STRIP 2 •2.5 104.6 22 BLDO PAD STRIP 2 -2.5 103.7 23 BLDG PAD STRJP 2 -2.S 103.5 24 Bl-PG PAD STRJP 2 ~2'.5 103,9 25 BLDG PAO STRTP 2 -1.5 111.8 .. 26 BLDG PAD STRIP 2 -1.0 104.4 27 Bt..DG PAD STRIP 2 -2.0 105.5 28 BLDG PAD STRJP 2 ·1.5 108.1 29 BLDG PAD STRIP 3 -1.0 110.8 30 BLDG PAD STR[P3 -l.5 103,7 31 BLDG PAD STR1P4 ·2.0 I 12.3 ~., :,_ BLDG PAD SJ'RIP 4 -1.0 108.9 33 BLDG PAD STRIP 4 ·I.O 108.1 34 BLDG PAD STR1P 4 -1.0 104.9 35 BLDG PAO FINISH FSCJ 111.9 .36 Bl.PG PAD FlNISH FSG 110.0 37 BLOG PAD FINISH FSG 109.7 J8 Bl.DG PAD FINISH FSG lll.l 39 TRENCH BACKFTCL FSG 104.3 40 TRENCH BACKFILL FSG 109.4 41 TRENCH BACKFILL FSG 112.3 42 'fRENCI-I BA~KFILL .. -2.0 103.6 43 TRcNCH BACKFILL FSG 104.0· n TE.ST PAIi.ED, SB£( RETEST 10-1537 2/10/97 Moisture Content %Dry Weight 15.4 14.7 14.9 16.8 17.2 17.4 15.2 18.5 18.0 17.S 16.9 18.5 17.6 15.5 15.6 17.5 17.7 15.2 15.6 17.0 12.9 13.5 18.0 · 16.4 I 1.2 13.6 14.9 16.3 15.8 JS.2 15.9 14.6 17.5 15.0 13.2 12.9 15.8 11.9 16.7 [5.4 15.8 17.0 18. I PAGE 8 Relative Soil Compaction. Type % 98¾ I 9So/o I 92% I 91% 1 92% I 92% I 94% I 94% I 93% l 92¾ I 97% I 90% l 95% .. I 90% I 95% I 93% I 93% I 91% I 94% l 90% I 91% I 90% I 90% I 90% I 97¾ I 91% I 92% I 94% I 96% l 90¾ I 98% l 95% I 94% I 91¾ I 97% I 96% I 95% I 97% I 91% I 95% l 98% I 90% I 90% I FILE No. 343 02/14 '97 15:00 ID:CTE ESCONDIDO 619 746 9495 Job Name: Job Add~ess: Date 8/16/96 8/19/96 8(19/96 8/19/96 8/20/96 W/2I/96 I 0/21/96 10/22/96 10/22/96 10/22/96 10/22/96 10/23/96 '10/23/96 10/23/96 10/23/96 10/23(96 10/23/96 !0/24/96 10/24/96 10/24/96 10/24/96 10/24/96 i0/24/96 11/26/96 11/26/96 1 (/26/96 I l/26/96 11/26/96 11/27/97 11/27/97 l l/27/97 11/27/97 11/27/97 l,2/4/96 12/4/96 !2/4/96 12/4/96 12/4/96 12/4/96 12/4/96 12/4/96 12/4/96 12/4/96 TABl,,E I COMPACTION TEST SUMMA~Y LOT 46, RUTHERFORD AND FARADAY Job No. CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Date; Test Location Elevation Density No. (See map) Feet pcf 44 TRENCH BACKFILi.. -1.5 105.I 45 TRENCH BACKFILL -1.0 105.9 46 TRENCH BACKFILL -1.0 105.0 47 TRENCH BACKFTLL -1.0 103.9 48 TRENCH BACKFILL -1.0 106.2 -- 49 8.ETAINJNG WALL BACKFILL FSO 105.2 so R,ETA!NINO WALL BACKFILL FSG 107.4 51 PARKING AND DRIVE AREA FSG 104.9 52 PARKING AND DRIVE AREA FSG 106.9 53 PARKING AND DRIVE A.tlEA FSG 107.1 S4 PARK[NG AND DRIVE AREA FSG ll0.6 55 PARKING AND DRIVE AREA FSG 108,J 56 PARKING AND DRlVB AREA FSG 1095 51 PARK ING AND DRIVE AREA FSG 106,6 58 PAR.KING AND PRIVE AREA PSG !08.$ S9 TRENCH BACKFILL FSG 104.2 60 PARKING ANO DRIVE AREA FSG LOS.S 6( PARKING AND DRIVE AREA . FSG 104.6 62 PAR.J<[NG AND I;>RJVE AREA FSG 107.9 63 PARKING AND DR{VE ARE~ FSO 106.9 64 .PARKING AND DRIVE AREA FSG [09.7 65 PARKING AND DRJyE AREA FSG 110.1 66 PARKING AND DRIVE ARl:!A FSG 109.0 67 PARKING AND DRIVE AREA F'SG 109,7 68 PARKING AND DRIVE AREA PSG 109,0 69 PARKING AND DRIVE AREA FSG 109.3 70. PARKING ANO DRIVE AREA FSO I l0,6 71 PARKING AND DRIVE AREA FSG 109.6 72 PARKING AND DRIVE AREA FSG 111.5 73 PAR.KING AND DRJVEAREA FSG 110,9 74 PARKING AND DRIVE AREA f'SG 109.2 75 PARKING AND DRIVE AREA FSG 109.4 76 PARKING ANO DRIVE AREA FSG I 10.J 77 CLASS II BASE FSG 133.3 78 RETEST #_77 FSG 134.8 79 CLASS II BASE FSG 134.0 SQ CLASS f! BASE. FSG 129,0 81 CLASS II BASE FSG 136,9 82 CLASS II BASE FSc.'i 135.8 83 RETEST#80 FSG 134.6 84 CLASS JI BASE FSO 134.9 85 CLASS II BASE FSO 136.5 86 CLASS II BASE FSO 135, 7 «,tt TEST FAILED. $EE RETEST 2 I0-1537 2/10/97 Moisture Content o/o Dry Weight 18.5 18.2 17.8 17.2 17. I 17 . .5 17.l 16.2 13.6 15.2 14.l !3.7 16.1 14.4 15.3 17.1 . 13.7 13.2 13.6 14.I 15.0 15.6 14.8 18.2 17.5 16,9 18.1 17. l 15.4 16.5 18.0 17.S 16.! 3.5** 5.2 5.4 .3.2 ... 6.8 .5.5 4.4 .5.4 5.2 5.9 PAGE 9 Relative Soil Compaction Type o/o 91% I 92% I 91% I 90% I 92% I 91% I 93¾ I 91% 1 93% 1 93% 1 96% l 94% I 95% I 93% I 94% ! 91% l 92% I 91% 1 94% I 9:3% 1 95% I 96% I 95% I 95% I 95% I 95% l 96% I 95% I 97% I 96% I 95% I 95% I 96% I 94% 2 95% 2 95% 2 91% 2 97% 2 96% 2 95% 2 95% ') 96% 2 96% 2 FILE No. 343 02/14 '97 15:00 ID:CTE ESCONDIDO 619 746 9495 Job Name: 'Job Address: Date 12/4/96 12/4/96 12/4/96 12/4/96 TABLE I COMPACTJON TEST SUMMARY LOT 46, RUTHERFORD AND FARADAY Job No. CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA _ Date: Test Location Elevation Density No. (See map) Feet pcf 87 CLASS II BASE FSG 135.1 88 CLASS II BASE FSG 134.3 89 CLASS II BASE FSG 135.6 90 C_LASS II BASE f'SG 134.6 '. u TEST Fl\lLED, SEE RETEST J 10~1537 2/l0/97 Moisture Content %Dry Weight 5.5 6.4 5.8 5.8 PAGE 10 Relative· Soil Compaction Type % 95% 2 95% 2 96% 2 95% 2 FILE No. 343 02/14 '97 15:01 ID:CTE ESCONDIDO 619 746 9495 Job Name: Job Address: Sample No. 2 TABLE II LABORATORY TEST DATA LOT 46, RUTHERF.ORD AND FARADAY ., ...... , ... ' .... , ... . CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Maximum .. ' Dry Dc.n~ity pcf. 115.0 141.5 Opti.nrnm Moisture Content o/owt 14.0 7.0 ··. Jol>"No,. 10.1537 ., :,t .,:~{'... '-~. 2/6197 .. :i'.Oite ···~?:. ;:~~t~·. .. -.. Soil: Description Dark gray sandy SILT Class Ii Base PAGE 11 if?,i ' .-;. :.1.~ ' .. ,. .... ,., FILE No. 343 02/14 '97 15:01 ID:·CTE ESCONDIDO , / / I , ® ® / , I ® I ' ® FROPOS£1l (el IIIJII.OING ® 619 746 9495 ® ® ® ® ® 0 <"AR1~~1..1r>, c,\Llroa,14 PAGE 12 APPROXIMATE CO~f PACTI0:-1 msr LOCATION BUILDING 01/Tl!NE PA Vli.MENT !.IMITS " . .,, . --~ CoN~1'RUCTION ThsTING & ENGINEERING, INC. ESCONDIDO • MODESTO • CORONA • OXNARD • RENO • SEArl'LE 2-114 VINEYARD. SIC G 3540 OAKDALE RU Sic A2 490 E. PRINCELAND C[ #7 16-IS PA<.:IAC AVE #105 32 GLEN CARRAN CR. 309 S. CI.OYERDAl.E-030 ESCONl>IOO,CA92029 MOOESTO,CA953'5 CORONA,CA91719 OXNARD,CA93033 SPARKS,NV89431 SEAffiE. WA98108 (619) 746-4955 (2ffl) 551-2271 (90')) 371-1890 (805) 486-6475 (702) 331-0503 (206) 767-1820 FAX (619) 746-91Kl6 F.i.X (209) 551-3593 rAX ('Xl'J) 371-2168 FAX (!KJS) 486-9016 FAX (702) 331-2667 FAX (206) 762-8751 November 22, 1995 Mr. Ned Banning Diversified Properties 1770 Gillespie Way, Suite 101 El Cajon, CA 92020 Telefax: 449-7886 Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation and Recommendations Proposed Commercial Development Lot 46~ Carlsbad Research Center Carlsbad, California CTE Job No. 101537 Mr. Banning: At your request, we have performed an evaluation of the site to provide geotechnical recommendations for the proposed development. Our recommendations are based on site reconnaissance, limited site exploration, reference review, and proposed site usage. TI1e opportunity to be of service is appreciated. If you have any questions regarding our recommendations, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Respectfully submitted, ~f ~~ Rodney D. Ballard, G~ #2173 Geotechnical Engineering Manager . RDB:jg cc: File/Copy/101537 .REP Qo1~ JaJF. Lyn:h, CEG #1890 Engineering Geologist GEOTECHNICAL AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPECTION ,-- CoNs·rRUCTION '",fEsTING & ENGINEERING, INC. ESCONDIDO • MODESTO • CORONA • OXNARD • RENO • SEA 1'TLE 2414 VINEY ARD. Sic O 35400AKDALE RD Sic A2 490 E. PRINCELAND CT. #7 1645 PAClflC A VE. IIOS 32 GLEN CARRAN CR. 30'J S. CI.OVEROALE-030 ESCONDIDO,CA92029 MOOfSIO.CA9S35S CORONA.CA9l7l9 OXNARO,CA93033 SPARKS,NV89431 SEATILE. WA98108 1619> 746-49.s.s (211!1> ss1:2211 (90')> 311-1890 <sos> 486-641s 1102> 331-0SOJ <206> 161-1820 FAX (619) 746-9116 FAX (211!1) SSl-3593 FAX (90'}) 371-2168 FAX (MIS) 486-9016 FAX (702) 331-2667 FAX (206) 762-8751 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION.AND RECOMMENDATIONS PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOT 46, CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: MR. NED BANNING DIVERSIFIED PROPERTIES 1770 GILLESPIE WAY, SUITE 101 EL CAJON, CA 92020 PREPARED BY: CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC . .2414 VINEYARD AVENUE, SUITE G ESCONDiDO, CA 92029 CTE JOB NO. 101537 November 22, 1995 GEOTECHNICA,l, AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPECTION (Job No. 101537) SECTION 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Background ................. , . . . . . . . . . 1 Scope of Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Site Description . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Proposed Development . . . . . . . . . . · . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Site Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . 2 As-Graded Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Laboratory Testing Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Geologic Hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 11.0 Existing Slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 12.0 Foundation Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 13.0 Recommended Pavement Sections . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . 14 14.0 Subgrade Subbase and Aggregate Base . . . . . . . . . . . 16 15.0 Retaining Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 16.0 Limitations of Investigation ... · . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TWO FIGURES: FIGURE 1 -SITE INDEX MAP FIGURE 2 -PROPOSED SITE STRUCTURES AND BORING LOCATIONS APPENDICES: APPENDIX A -REFERENCES APPENDIX B -FIELD INVESTIGATION APPENDIX C -LABORATORY RESULTS \. Geotechnical Evaluation and Recommendations Proposed Commercial Development Lot 46'. Carlsbad Research Center Page 1 November 2i, 1995 CTE Job No. 101537 1.0 BACKGROUND The site consists of a mass-graded, roughly rectangular, lot at the northeast corner of the intersection of Faraday A venue and Rutherford Court within the Carlsbad Research Center, Carlsbad, California. Figure 1 is a map showing the location of the site. According to San Diego Technical Consultants, Inc. (1988), rough grading of the site area occurred between July 1986 and November 1988. Appendix A is a list of references used in generating this report. 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of services provided for in this investigation included: • Subsurface exploration including excavation and field logging of four shallow exploratory borings; • Geologic and soils engineering analysis of field data and laboratory data; • A review of the geotechnical and geologic reports pertinent to the project site; • A review of grading plans pertinent to past site_ grading operations; • Prepara_tion of this report presenting our findings~ conclusions, and recommendations pertaining to the soil engineering aspects of the proposed site developments. 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION Topographically, the 2.88-acre site is generally flatly graded with a slight uphill gradient to the northeast. According to the provided as-graded topographic site elevation, the elevations vary from approximately 260 to 264 feet above sea level. An approximately 15 foot high ascending .,, · Geotechnical Evaluation and Recommendations Proposed Commercial Development Lot 46, Carlsbad Research Center November 22, l995 Page 2 CTE Job No. 101537 slope forms the eastern boundary of the site. Faraday Avenue, Rutherford Court and the undeveloped Lot 45 form the southern, western and northern boundaries of the site. 4.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed development is to consist of a 42,500 square foot, single-story concrete tilt-up structure with associated parking/drive.area and utilities. 5.0 SITE INVESTIGATION The site investigation was conducted by a Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. (CTE) staff geologist on November 9, 1995. The investigation consisted of a surficial reconnaissance and subsurface exploration. Four borings were excavated using a truck-mounted, hollow-stem auger drill rig to evaluate the shallow subsurface geology. Boring logs (Figures Bl through B4 in Appendix B) contain geologic descriptions of materials logged by our personnel. Figure 2 (Boring Location and Proposed Site Plan) depicts the approximate boring locations. Disturbed and relatively undisturbed samples of the subsurface soils were obtained for laboratory analysis. Relatively undisturbed ~amples of the subsurface soils were obtai!}ed using split-spoon and modified-California samplers driven through the hollow-stem augers 1-Yith a 140-lb. weight. The number of blows required to drive the samplers were recorded on the boring logs. Samples Geotechnical Evaluation and Recommendations Proposed Commercial Development Lot 46 •. Carlsbad Research Center November 22, 1995 Page 3 CTE Job No. 101537 were described in the field using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and samples were retained and carefully sealed for shipment to the CTE laboratory. 6.0 AS-GRADED CONDITIONS Site exploration and review of the reference rough· grading plan indicate that the site is a cut building pad. Based on historical topographic data, up to approximately 30 feet of soil was - removed from the site to create the current topography. According to S~n Diego Geotechnical Consultants (1988) the grading was accomplished with conventional techniques. 7.0 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM Laboratory tests were conducted on representative samples for the purpose of classification, and determination of soil physical properties and engineering characteristics. The testing program included maximum density/ optimum moisture content, expansion potential, R-Value, particle size analysis, and Atterberg limits.. Appendix C contains descriptions of the test methods and summaries of the results. Field descriptions of the soits were modified, as needed, based on the laboratory results. 8.0 GEOLOGY 8 .1 General Setting The site, at an approximate elevation of 260 feet above mean sea level, lies within the coastal portion of the San Diego area. Coastal San Diego is characterized by a series of uplifted marine Geotechnical Evaluation and Recommendations Proposed Commercial Development Lot 46, Carlsbad Research Center November 22, 1995 Page 4 CTE Job No. 101537 terraces locally incised by streams. These streams incised a number of subsidiary and. main canyons into the terraces. Geomorphically, the site appears to lie near the crest of one of the uplifted marine terraces and immediately north of one of the former subsidiary canyons. 8.2 Geologic Conditions Based on geologic observation and previous geologfo mapping by San Diego Geotechnical Consultants (1988) the site is underlain by siltstone units of the Cretaceous Point Loma Fom1ation. Field observations indicate the siltstone is very dense with numerous concretions (cemented block$). 8.3 Groundwater Conditions No groundwater was encountered to the maximum explored depth of 12.5 fbg. Groundwater is not expected to impact the improvements if proper surface drainage is maintained. 9.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 9.1 Fauldng and Seismicity Based on site reconnaissance, information from our exploratory borings, and a review of pertinent geologic literature, it is our opinion that the site is not located on any active fault traces. The Rose Canyon Fault, located approximately 7 -~ miles west of .the site is the closest active fault. An active fault is defined by the California Division of Mines and Geology Geotechrtical Evaluation and Recommendations Proposed Commercial Development Lot 46, Carlsbad Research Center November 22, 1995 Page 5 CTE Job No. 101537 · (CDMG) as a fault with evidence of activity during the Holocene (approximately the last 11,000 years). Other nearby active faults are the San Clemente Fault Zone (approximately 55 miles to the southwest); · the Elsinore and San Jacinto Faults (approximately 22 and 45 miles to the n~rtheast); and the San Andreas Fault (approximately 65 miles to the east-northeast). Table 1 below is a summary of the principal regional faults considered most likely to rupture and possibly induce strong ground shaking at the site during the useful life of the proposed construction. Included in the Table is a summary of each fault's seismic characteristics. TABLE 1 SEISMICITY FOR MAJOR FAULTS FAULT ZONE ESTIMATED ESTIMATED PEAK BEDROCK DISTANCE AND PROBABLE ACCELERATION DIRECTION FROM EARTHQUAKE (in G-forccs)(2) SITE (miles) MAGNITUDE (1) Rose 7.5W 7.0 0.43 Canyon San Jacinto 45 NE 7.5 0.12 San Andreas 65 NE 8.3 0.09 San 55 SW 6.7 0.05 Clemente Elsinore 22 NE 7.5 0.27 1. Seismic Safety Study, City of San Diego (1974) & Bonilla (1970) 2; .Ploessel and Slosson (1974) '• REPEATABLE HIGH GROUND ACCELERATION (in G-forccs)(2) 0.28 0.12 0.09 0.05 0.27 Geotechnical Evaluation and Recommendations Proposed Commercial Development Lot 46, Carlsbad Research Center November 22, 1995 Page 6 CTE Job No. 101537 We have analyzed the possible bedrock accelerations at the site. For the intended use, it is ·our opinion that the most significant seismic event would be a 7. 0 moment magnitude earthquake on the Rose Canyon Fault Zone. This event could produce estimated peak bedrock accelerations of 0.43g and repeatable high ground accelerations of 0.28g. '9.2 Liguefaction Evaluation Liquefaction occurs when saturated fine-grained sands, clays, or silts lose their physical strengths during earthquake induced shaking and behave as a liquid. This is due to loss of point-to-point grain contact and transfer of nonnal stress to the pore water. Liquefaction potential is a function of water level, soil type, material gradation, relative density, and probable intensity and duration of ground shaking. Because of the very dense nature of onsite materials and the anticipated lack of shallow groundwater the potential for liquefaction at the site should be considered very low. 9.3. Seismic Settlement Evaluation Seismic settlement occurs when loose to medium dense granular soils densify during seismic events. The native Point Loma Fonnation materials were found to be very dense with significant fine grained binder materials (silts and clays) and are not considered likely to experience significant seismic settlement. We believe the potential for seismic settlement resulting in structural damage should be considered low. Qeotechnical Evaluation and Recommendations Proposed Commercial Development Lot 46, Carlsbad Research Center November 22, 1995 9 .4 Tsunamis and Seiche Evaluation Page 7 CTE Job No. 101537 The site is located approximately 4 miles . east of the Pacific Ocean at an elevation of approximately 260 feet and is therefore most lil~ely not subject to tsunami related damage. No significant bodies of water are located in the immediate site vicinity which could induce seiche damage. 9. 5 Landsli~ing Potential site specific deep-seated landsliding hazards were mitigated during the mass grading operations. Landsliding is therefore not considered a significant hazard within or immediately adjacent to the proposed building area. · 9 '. 6 Compressible Soils Based on geologic observation and laboratory testing, the Point Loma Formation materials exhibit low compressibility characteristics and are considered suitable for structure support. 9. 7 Expansive Soils Soils encountered during the subsurface investigation were generally found to consist of very dense siltstone exhibiting moderate expansion potential. Disturbed surface soils exhibited signs of shrink-swell stresses (the rocks tended to disaggregate into thick flakes). Recommendations for earthwork and foundation construction are presented in Sections 10.0 and 12.0 of this report. Geotechnical Evaluation and Recommendations Proposed Commercial Development Lot 46, Carlsbad Research Center November 22, 1995 Page 8 CTE Job No. 101537 10.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our geotechnical investigation, it is our opinion that the proposed development is f eaSible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the following recommendations are incorporated into the design and construction of the subject project. The following sections discuss the principal geotechnical concerns affecting proposed development, grading, and foundation design recommendations which should be implemented during site construction. 10.l Site Preparation Prior to grading, the site should be cleared of loose soil, debris, and vegetation. Vegetation and debris should be disposed of off site. 10.2 Compacted Fills Areas to receive fill and/or other surface improvements should be scarified to a depth of approximately li inches, brought to near optimum moisture content, and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM D 1557). Fill placement should be perfonned in lifts .of unifonn depth. The optimum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in unifonn compacted lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. Fill soils should be placed at a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557) at a water content between optimum and optimum plus 4 percent. Placement Geotechnical Evaluation and Recommendations Proposed Commercial Development Lot 46, Carlsbad Research Center November 22, 1995 Page 9 CTE Job No. 101537 . and compaction of fill should be performed in accordance with local grading ordinances under -t.he observation and testing of the geotechnical consultant. Fill soils (imported and on-site) should be granular with 100 percent of the material less than 6 inches in maximum dimension. Fill soils placed Within 3 feet of finish grade should have an expansion index less than or equal to 50 (per UBC 29-2). 10.3 Trench Excavation and Backfill The on-site soils may generally be &uitable as trench. backfill provided they are screened of material over 6 inches in diameter and organic matter. Trench backfill should be compacted in uniform lifts (not exceeding 8 inches in compacted thickness) by mechanical means to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557). 10.4 Temporai:y Construction Slopes Provided below are sloping ·recommendations for unshored temporary excavations. The recommended slopes should be relatively stable against deep seated failure, but may experience localized sloughing. The recommended slopes are based on the assumption that excavation side walls will be comprised of moderately cemented silty sandstone or previously disturbed cohesive soils. Natural siltstone exposure~ are considered to be Type A and previously disturbed cohesive soils are considered to be Type B as defined by Cal-OSHA. Sloping of Type A and B soils are set forth in the following Table 2. Geotechnical Evaluation and Recommendations Proposed Commercial Development Page 10 Lot 46, Carlsbad Research Center November 22, 1995 CTE Job No. 101537 I TABLE 2 I RECOMMENDED SLOPE RATIOS SOIL TYPE SLOPE RATIO MAXIMUM ( Horizontal: V crtical) HEIGHT ; .. A 3/4: 1 (MAX.) 20FT B 1:1 (MAX.) 20 FT Actual field conditions and soil type designations must be verified by a "competent person" in accordance with Cal-OSHA regulations. Also, the aboye sloping recommendations do not allow for surcharge loading at the top of slopes by equipment or materials. Appropriate surcharge setback must be maintained from tbe top of all unshored slopes. 11.0 EXISTING SLOPES .Existing site -slopes were examined and evaluated based on observed soil conditions and grading methods described in the as-built report. Presently, existin~ site slopes consist of approximately 2: 1 (horizontal:vertical) cut slopes along the eastern boundary of the site. We recommend that all permanent slopes, cut and fill, be graded at a maximum slope of 2: 1. Evaluation using the Janbu method and conservative estimated soil parameters of cf, = 30° and C = 200 psf indicate a factor of safety in e~ces~ of 1.5 for the e,xisting slopes. Geotechnical Evaluation and Reco1mnendations Proposed Commercial Development Lot 46, Carlsbad Research Center November 22, 1995 Page 11 CTE Job No. 101537 Although graded and existing slopes on this site should be grossly stable, the soils will· be somewhat erodible .. Therefore, runoff water should not be permitted to drain over the edges of slopes unless that water is confined to properly designed and constructed drainage facilities. Additionally, slopes should be planted and maintained with erosion resistant vegetation. 12.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS 12. l General The following recommendations are for preliminary planning purposes only. Additional fine grading as recommended herein is anticipated prior to site development. Foundation recommendations should be reviewed after compl~tion of earthwork and review of laboratory testing of near surface soils when grading is complete. Specific structural information was not available at the time of this report. However, based on our experience, it is anticipated that stru.ctural loads will be on the order of 125 kips maximum loads.for columns and 5.0 kips per lineal foot for walls. ·In the event the above assumptions are not correct, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless reviewed and modified. Geotechnical Evaluation and Recommendations Proposed Comn1ercial Development Lot 46, Carlsbad Research Center November 22, 1995 12.2 Foundations -Spread Footings Page 12 CTE Job No. 101537 We have provided design parameters for spread footings bearing entirely on formational material or entirely on compacted fill. No footing should straddle a cut/fill interface. Preliminary design parameters are outlined in the following Table 3: ,, " TABLE 3 ', PRELIMINARY DESIGN PARAMETERS ,. '" ··. :, ·.· Minimum Vertical Coefficient Passive Footing Depth Bearing of Friction E;~~h.', ,: ':: of Footing (psO Pressure-/,.= lnches ,, · , <P~6).:::...i·. Formation Compacted.Fill " : :·.:·_-:::/{: ;-< ·· .. Continuous 18 3500 2500 0.35 300 Isolated 18 3500 2500 0.35 300 The minimum width recommended for all footings is 18 inches. All continuous footings should be .reinforced with a minimum of two No. 5 reinforcing bats, top and bottom. All footing depths should be measured from the· lowest adjacent ground surface or pad grade, whichever is lowest. The bearing values indicated above are for the total of dead plus live loads and may be increased by a maximum of one third for short duration loading such as the effects of wind or seismic forces. When combining passive pressure and friction for lateral resistance, the passive component should be reduced by one third. Geotechnical Evaluation and Recommendations Proposed Commercial Development Lot 46, Carlsbad Research Center November 22, 1995 12.3 Treatment of Cut/Fill Transition Page 13 CTE Job No. 101537 Based on the relatively flat site topography, we anticipate shallow cut and fill will be required to create the level building pad. To mitigate the adverse effects due to the suspected underlying transition condition all footings should be embedded entirely in competent fonnational materials or entirely in compacted fill. Where foundations are embedded entirely in competent formational materials, we recommend the upper 1.0 foot of the cut pad area be overexcavated and replaced as properly compacted fill. Where foundations are embedded entirely in compacted fill, the entire building area should be overexcavated to provide a minimum .of 1..5 feet of compacted fill beneath all foundations, including deepened loading dock footings. 12.4 Foundation Settlement The potential for foundation settlement should be analyzed once foundation loads are known. In general, for anticipated stated column and wall loads founded on entirely formational material, the maximum total and differential settlement is expected to be less than 1/4 inch. 12.5 Concrete Slab-Qn.,.Grade Concrete slabs-on-grade should be at least 4 inches thick for light industrial loads. As a minimum, concrete slabs should be reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars on 18 inch centers. All slab reinforcement should be properly supported to ensure placement near mid-height of the Geotechnkal Evaluation and Recommendations Proposed Commercial Development Lot 46, Carlsbad Research Center November 22, 1995 Page 14 CTE Job No. 101537 concrete. All slab areas should be underlain by a minimum of two inches of clean sand (Sand Equivalent > 30). Special design consideration should be given to the type of business, and the building intended use. Heavy ma~hinery or vehicular loads may require thicker slab and increased reinforcement. In moisture sensitive floor areas, slabs should be underlain by a vapor barrier consisting of a minimum of six mil polyethylene sheeting or equivalent membrane with all laps sealed. This membrane should be placed over an inch of clean sand and covered with a minimum of one inch of,sand to protect the sheeting during concrete placement operations. 12.6 Foundation Setback Based on the proposed building orientation, it is our understanding that the building's foundation will not be constructed within 10 feet of any downward trending slopes. Footings for buildings should be designed such that the minimum hodzon~al distance from the top of adjacent slope to the outer edge of the footing is one-half of the slope height to a maximum value of 15 feet. 13.0 RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT SECTIONS Preliminary pavement sections presented below are based on representative area "R" Value data. The pavement design is based on California Department of Transportation Highway Manual and on traffic indexes as indicated in Table 4 below. Geotedmical Evaluation and Recommendations Proposed Commercial Development Lot 46, Carlsbad Research Center Noveanber 22, 1995 TABLE 4 '[ ASPHALT PAVEMENT DESIGN .. .· Traffic Area Traffic Subgrade AC· : Index nR" Value Thickness .. (inches):. . :.· ... ··,• Truck Drive/Loading Areas 6.0 23 3.5 ' Auto Parking Areas 4.5 23 2.5 13 .1 Portland Cement Concrete Pavements Page 15 CTE Job No. 101537 : I .. . · ·. Class "ii·, ·Aggr~gate" Ba_se . th~c~~$s ... :1 ..• · . .. ...... : (!~~h~-~l.:,,.:::: ::·-:_.: .. ; 9 7 We understand that parking and drive areas may be paved with concrete pavement. The . concrete pavement for drive areas has been designed assuming single axle loads of 15 kips, 10 repetitions per day. The above assumed values reflect light industrial traffic loads. The corresponding pavement design may not -be adequate for larger axle loads and traffic volume. .. ·.· .. . .. •, -~-·-.: .. : TABLE 5 ·. CONCRETE PAVEMENT DESIGN Traffic Area S1,1bgrade R-Value PCC Thickness (inches) Truck Drive/ 23 6.5 Loading Areas Auto Parking Areas 23 5.5 Geotechnical Evaluation and Recommendations Proposed Commercial Development Lot 46, Carlsbad Research Center November 22, 1995 Page 16 CTE Job No. 101537 Concrete used for pavement areas should possess a minimum 600 psi modulus of rupture. Pavements should be constructed in accordance with industry standards. Confirmatory R-Value testing should be performed upon completion of pavement subgrade areas. 14.0 SUBGRADE SUBBASE AND AGGREGATE BASE All aggregate base materials and subgrade materials where asphalt or concrete pavements are to be placed on grade should be compacted to a minim_um relative compaction of 95 percent of the laboratory standard. Where light, distress-sensitive, hardscape improvements are proposed, we recommend removal of all loose surficial soil. At a minimum, these areas should be scarified to a minimum depth of 12 inches and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. 15.0 RETAINING WALLS Should retaining walls be constructed at the site, the following guidelines shall be employed. Retaining walls that are unrestrained (free to move at the top), should be designed using the active earth pressure. For restrained walls (the top braced to prevent movement) the at-rest earth pressure should be used. These pressures can be taken as the equiyalent fluid pressures, in pounds per cubic foot, given below: Geotechnical Evaluation and Recommendations Proposed Commercial Development Lot 46, Carlsbad Research Center November 22, 1995 Backfill Type and Condition Native Soil, Level Backfill Native Soil, 2: 1 Backfill Gr~nular Soil, Level Backfill Granular Soil, 2: 1 Backfill Active 65 pcf 85 pcf 38 pcf 58 pcf Page 17 CTE Job No. 101537 At-Rest 80 pcf 115 pcf 60 pcf 95 pcf These pressures depend on the assumption that the soil behind the wall is compacted to 90% of maximum dry density at the optimum moisture content. They also require that no free groundwater be present and that significant surcharge loads not exist within a zone defined by a one-to-one plane projected back from the base of the wall. In all cases, adequate drains should be placed behind the walls to relieve hydrostatic pressures. Walls subject to loads should be designed for the equivalent fluid pressures above, plus an additional uniformly distributed pressure caused by the load. Clayey soils with an Expansion Index of 50 or more should not be used. as backfill. Project plans should clearly state that use of granular backfill is required where that option has bee_n selected. We should be contacted for specific reconupendations if retaining· walls on this site do not conform to the assumptions stated In addition, we recommend that only light, hand-oper&ted equipment be used to compact backfill behipd walls. The backfill should not be over-compacted, as excessive compaction loads will increase earth pressures above the values given above. Geqtechnical Evaluation and Recommendations Proposed Commercial Development Lot 46, Carlsbad Research Center November 22, 1995 16.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION Page 18 CTE Job No. 101537 Our investigation was perfonned using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similai;-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 co~ditions can vary significantly between boreholes and surface exposures. As in most major projects, conditions revealed by excavation may be in 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 with 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 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. Geotechnical Evaluation and Recommendations Proposed Commercial Development Lot 46, Carlsbad Research Center November 22, 1995 Page 19 CTE Job No. 101537 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 be updated after a period of three years. 16.1 Uniformity of Conditions The recommendations and opinions expressed in this report reflect our best estimate of the project requirements based on an evaluation of the subsurface soil conditions encountered at the subsurface exploration locations and the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate appreciably from those encountered. It should be recognized that the performance of the foundations and/or cut and fill slopes may be influenced by undisclosed or unforeseen variations in the soil conditions, that may occur in the intermediate and unexplored areas. Geotechnical Evaluation and Recommendations Proposed Commercial Development Lot 4-6, Carlsbad Research Center November 22, 1995 Page 20 CTE Job No. 101537 Any unusual condjtions not covered in this report that may be encountered during Site development should be brought-to the attention of the soils engineer so that he may make modifications if necessary. The opportunity to be of service is appreciated. If you have any questions regarding testing conducted, observations made during construction or recommendations presented herein, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Respectfully submitted, \ . ~ 1J'·.\l l L l ,()'--~ · t 1ect Geologist 'O l-e?: ~}_:-> JCJ Rodney D. Ballard, GE #2173 Geotechnical Engineering Manager RDB:lm cc: File/Copy/101537.-REP 6 0 CONSTRUCTION TESTING --------,.,. .... ....... \ I I ----,-.......... .,/ -.......... __ ,, ---- l-" .... ll -n 1/4 1/2 1320 2640 MILES 5280 FEE;T & ENGINEEIUNG, INC. .•. :.ii-4~,:., ·,,_ ) \ I , I ·, ___ . --x / ', _J.... ' ,.... .... ..... ,,-' ,,..," / ,/ "' ,, _, p . ., ... .,,,.----..... . ," ..... - ,,,/ ...... SITE INDEX MAP LOT 46, RUTHERFORD ROAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA SOURCE: THc:»AAS BROTHERS MAPS 1995 SAN DIEGO EDITION JOB NUMBER: 10-1537 DATE: 11/95 FIGURE: 1 APPENDIX A REFERENCES 1 (Job No. 101537) APPENDIX A REFERENCES 1. Bowles, J.E., 1982, "Foundation Analysis and Design," McGraw Hill. 2. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1975. "Character and Recency of Faulting, San Diego Metropolitan Area, California", Special Report 123 3. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1992-Revised. "Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California," Special Publication 42. 4. Coduto, D.P., 1994, "Foundation Design", Prentice Hall. 5. Das, B.M., 1983, "Advanced Soil Mechanics", Hemisphere Publishing Corporation. 6. Department of the Navy, 1982, "Soil Mechanics Design Manual", Naval Facilities Engineering Command. 7. Gastil, G. Higley, R., 1977. "Guide to San Diego Area Stratigraphy, "The· Edwin C. Allison Center, San Diego State University. 8. Greensfelder, R.W., 1974. "Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from Earthquakes in California, "Map Sheet 23. 9. Holtz, R.D., 1981," "An.Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering", Prentice Hall. 10. Kennedy, M.P., 1975. "Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, California, "California Division of Mines and. Geology, Bulletin 200. 11. Peck, R.B., 1974, "Foundation Engineering", John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 12. San Diego Geotechnical Consultants,_ Inc., 1988, "As-Graded Geotechnical Reports, Carlsbad Research Center, Phases II, IV and V, Carlsbad, California" (Consultant Report) prepared for The Koll Company,' 7730 Engineer Road, San Diego, California 92111 .APPENDIX B FIELD INVESTIGATION C oNsT~mcrmN TES TING & ENGINEERING, INC. DEFINITION OF TERMS PRIMARY DMSIONS GRAVELS ~ MORE THAN i C> ~ w HALF OF u, o: !::! COARSE u. w en FRACTION IS CLEAN GRAVELS <5%FINES GRAVELS WITH FINES fa ~ i ~ LARGER THAN 'i 5 -NO. 4SIEVE m ~:'---S_A_N_D_S_-4 ____ ~ ' Q ·w w _, N MORE THAN a~~~ HALF OF 02 S:: COARSE U i· FRACTION IS SMALLER THAN NO. 4 SIEVE SANDS WITH FINES 12· 3• 3/4" CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENING . SECONDARY DIVISIONS WELL GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES . POORLY GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-SILT MIXTURES, NON- . PLASTIC FINES CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES, PLASTIC FINES WELL GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES POORLY GRADED SANDS OR GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES Sil TY SANDS, SAND-Sil T MIXTURES, NON PLASTIC FINES CLAYEY SANDS, SANO-CLAY MIXTURES, PLASTIC FINES GRAIN SIZES ADDITIONAL TESTS (OTHER THAN BORING LOG COLUMN HEADINGS) MAX-Maximum Dry Density GS-Grain Size .Distribution SE-Sand Equivalent El-Expansion Index CHM-Sulfate and Chloride Content, pH, Resistivity C IFIOURESIBORNOLOS\GEOTLOQA ~vs PM-P~rmeability SG-Specific Gravity HA-Hydrometer Analysis AL-Atterberg Limits RV-RValue CN-Consolidation · PP-Pocket Penetrometer WA-Wash Analysis OS-Direct Shear UC-Unconfined Compression MD-Moisture/Density SC-Swell/Compression FIGURE: BL1 . ' ! CONSTR( OON TESTING AND ENGINEERINC:., ·. IC. . TEST BORING· RECORD SHEET: of CLIENT/PROJECT: DRILLING DATE: ELEVATION: CTE JOB NUMBER: DRILLING METHOD: LOGGED BY: DRILLER: • fl t:;' ..,. I u at • (0 ... I!:. -t ~ I t 1 • ~ C C • • I • ·s & ·o :, · .. m ~ :I mo 0 B ! f :c _____________________ __, l e CD d BORING LEGEND . DESCRIPTION -o -~~ -i:1----1~__,..--+--.---f-_Block or Chunk Sample ---- -j ~ - B------1----+---+--t----+ Bulk Sample - -5- --.... ~~1----+--+--+---+ Thin Walled Army C-orp. of Engineers Sampler -- " -.- --.J' --. -+---+--...-t--+--+ Standard Penetration Test --... -10-i.- I -----.... 14---+--_.,_.-+---+--+ Modified Split-Barrel Drive Sampler (Cal Sampler) --- .. ---. \ ---. --~-1----11----'---1----. Hand Driven Thin Walled Sampler - . -15- --_I_ -----4--+--+Groundwater Table --- ---•"-----~--------------- -- -20- -Formation Change (Approximate boundary between soil types) NR ... ::~-+-----+---1---t-Blow Counts Not Recorded C IFIOURESIBORNGLOSIGEOTLOGB CVS ii C • 0 .... ·-. ~ . ,, t- :¥ ., CONSTR~ OON TESTING AND ENGINEERJN( ,c . JEST BORING RECORD SHEET: 1 OF 1 ... ~-------------....------......... --------------------;.;,;;;,;;;;..;..;;...;...;;;.;...~_,a PROJECT: LOT 46 DRILLING DATE: 11/9/95 -260' JOB NUMBER: 10-1537 ELEVATION: 7"HSA LOGGED BY: J. GOODMACHE;R DRILLING METHOD: DRIVE SAMPLING DRILLER: TRI-COUNTY/ GEORGE AND CREW .p • • ~ fj 0. ! H) -- -- --- -.., ~s- ... - -- -- -- -10- -- -- .... - -. - -15- -- -- -.... -- -20- • f; G:' ~ c., ·I!:-. cat-I&. ~ -J • C C t .f • m Q ~ mo Q -/ 86/ 2" - ·rz >50/ 3" 50/ at' .8 -E I > (0 .a ~ • ·o c., ::E co ::, ML J . !! .c ft ~ BORING: B-1 DESCRIPTION Dry to moist, gray to dark gray, SILTSTONE with minor .shell fragments Very dense, moist, gray to dark gray, SILTSTONE, finely laminated with minor shell, organic debris Cuttings -as above, some concretions coming up. Drill pressure-8,000 lbs. Very dense, dry, as above, concretion (1") Reduce drill pressure -6,000 lbs. t7 3" J.--1tc-1--=---t--+---l~-+---n Cuttings: as above -- Very dense, gray, as above Refusal to sampler l@ 12.5'. Total depth= 12.5' Boring backfilled with cuttings, tamped down. "ii C • 0 .... ·-. ~ II I ... SPT SPT C V:IGURES\10.15371LOGB-1a.CVS jFIGURE: B-1 I CONSTR''""'TKJN TESTING AND ENGINEERIN( 'IC. TEST BORING RECORD SHEET: 1 OF 1 -s, .....,_ ___________________________________ """""""' __ ....,;........,....;,,_--4 T PROJECT: LOT 46 DRILLING DATE: JOB NUMBER: 10-1537 . ELEVATION: LOGGED BY: J. GOODMACHER DRILLING METHOD: DRILLER: TRI-COUNTY/ GEORGE AND CRJ:W • t· i "'! 1 t •l l & ::,.· .. m mo BORING: B-2 DESCRIPTION 11/9/95 -260'. 7" HSA DRIVE SAMPLING ii C • 0 ... ·-. ~ . -0 t-:¥ -o•·--+-+-+--t---+---+---+--t----------------~----1 Loose, dry, grayish brown, SILTSTONE fragments, some oversize concretions ML -- -- --Becoming; dark gray, as above. -- -5-17 !~' Very dense, dark. gray, SILTSTONE with shell 1--li--1-..__-1----1~-"'---+-.---h and organic fragments ---------------------4 Total depth= 5.5' OS --Boring backfilled with cuttings, tamped down. -- -- -10- -- -- -- -- -15- -- -- -- -- -20- C 'AGURESl10-15371LOG~I.CVS lflG~RE: B-2 .1 ! CONSlR_,,.....,'TK>N TESTING AND ENGINEERJN( -NC. TEST BORING RECORD SHEET: 1 OF 1 PROJECT: LOT46 · DRILLING DATE: 11/9/95 JOB NUMBER: 10-1537 ELEVATION: -260' LOGGED BY: J. GOODMACHER DRILLING METHOD: 7" HSA DRILLER: TRI-COUNTY/ GE_ORGE AND CREW DRIVE SAMPLING .. fl G:' .B BORING: B-3 4:1' I u t ] I ~ E ii (0 ... I > C • ~ ~ co . 2 0 .... 1 .a ·-. ~ • U! .I: :t:: • C: C • f "O I- Q. 1-1 • ·s C-1 :¥ • C DESCRIPTION C m ~ :I U! C!) ·m 0 C ::, --U' ML Loose, dry to moist,. grayish brown, SILTSTONE --with organic & shell fragments El =46 --Grinding on concretion --Becoming gray to dark gray . --35/ • On rock. Refusal to sampler. 5<: <1" ML Very dense, dry, dark gray SILTSTONE GS=ML -5 with minor organic fragments AL --Total depth = 5' Boring backfilled with .cuttings, tamped down. ' -- -- -- -10- -- --.. -- -- -15-:- ... - I ' -- ' -·- -- :-20- ·--' jFIGURE: 8-3 I --. t CONSTR TION TESTING AND ENGINEERJN( ~c . TEST BORING RECORD SHEET: 1 OF 1 ~ PROJECT: LOT46 DRILLING DATE: 11/9/95 JOB NUMBER: 10-1537 ELEVATION: -260'. LOGGED BY: J. GOODMACHER DRILLING METHOD: 7" HSA DRILLER.: TRl-COUNTY/ GEORGE AND CREW DRIVE SAMPLING i· G:' :s BORING: B-4 C> ! ~ u ii' J I e:, -e "ii I· ~ C • I!:, It. ~ . 2 0 .... 1 .a ·-. fi • '° .c :t: • C: C: • t I t-0. • I • ·o CJ & 0 DESCRIPTION :, · ... m 2 '° (!) mo ?:-=i 0 --u ML Loose, dry to moist, grayish brown, SILTSTONE ---with organic & shell fragments RV(= 31 -- .. ~ -Becoming gray to dark gray : -.. -5 7 50 Very dense, dry, gray to dark gray SILTSTONE \ with concretions. --Total depth = 5' Boring backfilled with cuttings, tamped down. ' -- -- -- . -10- --- :... -.. -- -- -15- -- --. --- -- -20-' C IFIGURES\1.0. 153711.0GB-ta.C'(S !FIGURE: B-4 I APPENDIX C LABORATORY RESULTS (, CoN81.'RUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INc. U. S. Sl'ANDARD SIEVE SIZE • • • • § 8 • "'! • ~ ~ !! ,c 0 0 N --"'· -"' ..,. • -"' .,, N 100 -;:__,. -·------~ --,-. ---r- """' r--r-,.... r--,......,_ 90 -r, .... ...... r---,, ~ IO r-,,...,,._ --~"'II 70 - ' t,:, 60 z -~ :: so ... z ~ u = .. i:.;i 40 A, 30 20 10 0 100 10 I 0.1 0.01 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE (ma) BORING NO. SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) SYMBOL LIQUID LIMIT(%) PLASTICITY INDEX CLASSIFICATION B-3 5' • 50.6 29.4 CL --• ---10-1537 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS FIGURE: C-1 • C0Nsruucr10N TESTING & ENGINEEIUNG, INc. 8000 5000 I '• «x)0 l I ., 3000 I 2000 I II ~ tQOO .. 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) BorNo. Oepth (ft) I Cohesion I Aogle of Friction ,f Sample Description B-2 5' _ I 1594. I au !SILTY CLAY/ CLAYEY SILT JOB NO.: 10-15a1 I SHEAR STRENGTH TEST I FIGURE: C-2 CoNsrnucrmN TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. LOCATION B-3 LOCATION DEPTH B-3 2FEET C IFIOORES\10-1537\1.ABRSl TS CVS R-VALUE DEPTH RESULT 0-2 FEET 31 EXPANSION INDEX UBC 29-:-2 RESULT EXPANSION POTENTIAL ' 46 LOW SUMMARY OF OTHER LABORATORY RES UL TS LOT 46, RUTHERFORD ROAD CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA ' JOB NUMBER: 10-1537 DATE: 11/951 FIGURE: C-3 I _,_. ... ,.. NON-RESIDENTIAL CERTIFICATE: Non-Residential Land Owner, please read this option camh11ty and he sure you throughly understand the options before signing. The option you choose will affect your payment or tt1e developed Special Tax aMessed on your property. TI1is option Is available only at the time of the first bt.ilding permit is.-~uance Property owner slgnawre is required before a building permit will btt issued. Your $ignature j9 confirming the accuracy of all parcel and ownership Information shown. £!.!=_rsi f ied Carlsbad, 46, LLC, Namo of Owner 1770 Gillespie Way, Suite 101 Addrer.s El Cajon, CA 92020 City State 30 ·z;pCOde 7-\ 1..... \ 1...0 ... ~ (!)0 (619) 449-7881 Telephone l <aj'=> ~..,~& ~ Project Address Carlsbad CA City state· AtJsessor's Parcel Number, or APN and Lot Number if not yet subdivided. Building Permit Number Zip Code A.c; med by Ordinance No. NS-155 and adopted by the City Council of the City of Carfsbad, California. the City i! author11.ed to levy a special Tax in Community Facilities district No. 1. All non-residential property, upon the issuance of the first btilding permit, shall have the option to (1) pay the SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT TAX ONE- TIME or (2) a.~ume the ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX -DEVELOPED PROPl:RlY for a period not to exceed twenty- five (?.5) yE'nt1J. Ple:lll~e indicate your choice by initialing the appropriate line below: OPTION (1): I elect to p3y the SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT TAX ONE-TIME_ifW, as a one-time payment. Amount of One-Time Special Tax: $ Lo] <:\ t.( ~. • Owner's Initials ____ . t OPTION (2)· I elect to pay the SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT TAX ANNUALLY fgr a Reriod fOt to exceed twentyf~""· Maximum Annual Special Tax:$ ( '-11 ~!, I , °' . OWner Initials . . I 00 HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENAL TY OF PERJURY TI1AT THE UNDERSIGNED IS THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ANO THAT I UNDERSTAND AND WILL COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS AS STATED ABOVE. Di~ersified Carlsbad, 46, LLC, a ali ·a. limited liability ccirrip;any ~--eri . P_ rt · · r· Manager Title William P. Tschantz Print Name Date The City of Carlsb;:1d h~ not lnder.,ender1tly verifi~d the information shown above. Therefore, we accept no re~r,nn~bility :u: to the accuracy or completeness of this-Information. NON-RESIDENTIAL CERTIFICATE ZO'd v6808£ v 'ON x~ .:I IG:v1 a3M 96-1£-inr CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CITY OF CARLSBAD Plan Check No. C..& \.' -8 b 8 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2075 LAS PALMAS DR., CARLSBAD, CA 92009 (619) 438-1161 This form shall be used to determine the amount of school foes for a project and to verify that the project applicant has complied with the school fee requirements. No building permits for the projects shall be issued until the certification rs signed by the appropriate school di$trict and returned to the City of Carlsbad Building Department. SCHOOL DISTRICT: ~ Carlsbad Unified 801 Pine Avenue Carlsbad CA 92009 (434-0661) Encinitas Union 101 South Rancho Santa Fe Rd. Encinitas CA 92024 (944-4300) San Marcos Unified 1290 West San Marcos Blvd. San Marcos CA 92024 (744-4776) __ San Oieguito Union High School 710 Encinitas Boulevard !:ncinitas CA 92024 (753-6491} Project Applicant: _c_·-~_r-_~+--~R_cr_\_~_r __ .....,.... _________ APN: -Z.\t -&--G z ~ec> Project Address: ___.\u.;ifl~b==---~~v¼-'--'-'~~1-'t'-=ci._,. ~_,__ _ __._V-e_.o.--'C>aa--____________ _ RESIDENTIAL: SQ. FT. of living area _____ number of dwelling units ______ _ SQ. FT. of covered area ____ _ SQ. FT. of garage area ______ _ C0MMEROAUINDUF'f.lAL: ~REA '-{ ]i Prepared by ~ ~-~ Date~).....,_/ __,_S( _/ q-=--6 __ _ FEE CERTIFICATION / (To be completed by the School District) V Applicant has complied with fee requirement under Government Coch~ 53080 Project is subject to an existing fee agreement --'--- --Pro_ject is exempt from Government Code 53080 --Final Map approval and construction started before September 1, 1986. (other school fees paid) Other ---· ------~---------------------- 90 'd cG:vI a3n 96-I£-1nr I CITY OF CARLSBAD -COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 1 SPECIAL TAX CALCULATION WORKSHEE·r FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ,.,. PLEASE PRINT .,. ONE PER EACH BUILDING PERMIT ,.,.,. BUILDING INITIALS: ENGINEERING INITIALS: ~/?2~,_,_A~;r--_______________ _ FINANCE INITIALS: FINAL,-------------------PLANNING INITIALS:----------~ DRAFT: __________ _ REQUIRED INFORMATION: BUILDING: A) PL.AN CHECK NUMBER ANO/OR BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER: B) f>ROPERTY OWNER(S) AS LISTED ON TITLE: C) ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER (S) OR APN ANO LOT NO'S FROM RECORDED FINAL MAP: 2/2-/20 -,)CJ oi oEscRIPTION 01= waRK, N~.J 1":.11J,/ r},,,'... 1 V PLANNING: 5-7-'7/ E) DATE OF INITIAL PARTICIPATION IN CFO: F) GENERAL PLAN OESIGNATION(S): (BOXES PROVIDE FOR THREE DIFFERENT USES, EXPAND AS REQUIRED.) I F1) Pr-IF2) ' I F3) G) NET OEVELOPABLE ACREAGE THAT Will REMAIN BY GENERAL PLAN· USE AFTER THE STRUCTURE($) IS BUil T: IG1) 0 AdG2) AdG3) H) TYPE OF LANO USE CREATED BY THE ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT: (FROM SPECIAL TAX TABLE) I H 1)Tl\d•,JJ-r:' i; ) tJ,_,,o.c,\ I l?"f. f~J H 2 > ENGINEERING: I) SQUARE FEET OF BUILDING PER USE INDICATED IN·(H) ABOVE: 1 111 4 7, J (o I JZ( SQF~ I2 ) J) IMPROVEMENT AREA (CHECK ONE): 1 / WITHIN THE BTO -IMPROVEMENT AREA I cX) l H3) jl3) saF-rl OUTSIDE THE BTO -IMPROVEMENT AREA II ( K) LEGAL OESCRIPTIO'N: (REQUIREp ONLY WHEN G ABOVE 1Sf':IQ(9J,) PARCEL ,@yc1RCLE ONE) '4:!,Q ___ OF PARCEL MAP (2) __ -_t_U __ IN THE C!JY OF CARLSBAD, cp_.4.NTY OF A~..C,IEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN TH.E OFFICE OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDER ON JJ_ltlV _________ l'-:f_ __ , _ Lv!,_'?f_...J.. __ . (IF THE ABOVE IS NOT ADEQUATE A FOLL LEGAL DESCRIPTION MUST BE ATTACHED.) BUILOING:.FINANCIAL PORTION TO BE FILLED OUT B.Y MIKE PETERSON OR FAX TO BARBARA HALE 298-3783 FINANCE: L) SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT TAX -ONE-TIME, RATE PER SQUARE FOOT:(FRO.M SPECIAL TAX TABLE.) I ~1) I L2) s . ,~3) M)SPECIAL TAX -ONE-TIME (Ix L): 1:1) 1:21 1:3) OBLIGATION FOR UPCOMING YEAR: IF THE PARCEL IS ISSUED A BUILDING PERMIT BETWEEN MARCH 2ND ANO JUl\!E 30TH, AN OBLIGATION FOR THE UPCOMING YEAR IS CREATED ANO WILL BE LEVIED IN THE FOLLOWING FISCAL YEAR . ·TOTAL PAYOFF OPTION 1:. ... : llsuM OF (M) ABOVE. THE SPECIAL TAX LIEN ON THIS PROPERTY, WHEN Cl-jOSING OPTION 1, WILL BE RELEASED WHEN ALL OUTSTANDING OBLIGATIONS'HAVE BEEN PAID IN FULL. IF THERE IS A OBLIGATION FOR THE UPCOMl,NG YEAR, UNDEVELOPED SPECIAL TAX WILL BE LEVIED IN THE UPCOMING FISCAL YEAR, AFTER PAYMENT OF WHICH THE LIEN WILL BE RELEASED. IF THERE IS ONLY THE CURRENT YEAR'S OBLIGATION OUTSTANDING, THE LIEN IS RELEASED WHEN BOTH INSTALL·MENTS HAVE BEEN PAIC>. II<:>PTION 1: S DISTRIBUTION OF PAYOFF: ACCOUNT NO. 430-1110-1340-11032 . ./ PASS THAU· OPTION·2: ·.=.=: .,:,-·:··: ... llsuM OF (Ml ABOVE tIMEs 13.s1 "'· THE AMOUNT SHOWN IS THE MAXIMUM ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX LEVIED FOR A PERICO OF TWENTY-FIVE (2!5) YEARS. IF THERE IS AN OBLIGATION FOR THE l:JNPCOMING YEAR, THE AC SC.Fl I UPCOMING YEAR'S TAXES WILL REFLECT THE OBLIGATION OF UNCEVELOPEO LANO TAX. THE TWENTY-FIVE YEAR ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX WOULD BEGIN IN THE FOLLOWING FISCAL YEAR. OISTRIBU-TION: A COPY OF: FINAL CALCULATION SHEET, BUILDING PERMIT, ANO SIGNED CERTIFiCATE A COPY OF: FINAL CALCULATION SHEET, BUILDING PERMIT, ANO SIGNED CERTIFICATE A COPY Of\: FINAL CALCULATION SHEET, ANO SIGNED CERTlf'ICA-TE ALL ORlaGINALS FEBRUARY 10, 1994 IIOPTION 2: S CFO NO. 1 INCOMING BOX FINANCE (HELGA) PROPERTY OWNER BUILDING PERMIT FILE VALID UNTIL ___________ _ I • if: : I\ t·. l .. I ! : ; ,' .... ------ '_a..-