Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1930 PALOMAR POINT WAY; ; CB051044; Permit
City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008 04-12-2005 Retaining Wall. Permit Permit No: CB051 044 Building Inspection Request Line (760) 602-2725 Job Address: Permit Type: RETAIN 1130 l0Cj//fli21 Olilt'h217 . Status: ISSUED Parcel No: 2121203300 Lot #: 0 . Applied: 03/28/2005 Valuation: . $74,400.00 Construction Type: NEW Entered By: SB Reference #: Plan Approved: 04/12/2005 Issued: 04/12/2005 Project Title: PALOMAR POINT Plan Check#: 4650 SF CRIB BLOCK RETAINING WALL Inspect Area: Applicant: Owner: JIM HENRY CONSTRUCTION INC JETT T LAWRENCE 721 LA QUEBRADA P 0 BOX 455 ENCINITAS CA 92024 SANTA YNEZ CA 93460 6197536031 .1 ..4 Building Permit p \ $450 31 Add 'I Building Permit Fee $0.00 Plan Check / '$292.'70 AddI Plan Check Fee I $000 Strong Motion Fee '$7.44; Renewal Fee $000 Add '1 Renewal Fee A$0 00 Other Building Fee $6.66, Additional Fees '-$000 TOTAL PERMIT FEES ' - I $75045 1' Total Fees $756.45 Total Payments To Date $292 70 .Bance Due $457.75 / / , 5839 04/12/05 0002 01 02 CGF FlNALAPFROVAL InsDëctor: . Date: Clearance: NOTICE: Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the 'Imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as "fees/exactions." You have 90 days from the date this permit was issued loprotëst imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follOw that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. S. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewerconnection fees and capacity changes, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application pocessing or service fees in connection with this project. NOR DOES IT APPLY to any 457-75 \"P iTION CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008 S . FOR OFFICE USE QiUY ,..- PLAN CHECK.NO.(/5S_.tot__r,UJ EST, VAL. 7 '-i, Do Plan Ck. Deposit L Validated By__________________________ Date Address (include Bldg/Suite #) I yc,c Ii ç /ç,4 ,4 Business Name (at this 02 01 02 Lot No. Subdivision Name/Number Unit No.-- Phase Ne. # of ur2.70 Assessor's Parcel # Existing Use Proposed Use I -. Desc I tion of Work SQ. FT. I/of Stories # of Bedrooms # of Bathrooms FICONTACTJERSO (if different rom ap licant) A1ta4(9—A;r Name . Address - - City State/Zip Telephe # - Fax # 3. APPLICANT ptr~ctor_U Agent for Contractor 0 Owner 0 Aifor owner__________________________________________________ Name . Address . City State/Zip Telephone # OERT :1=111 Name Address' . City S.tate/Zip Telephone# NAME - 1 (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 Iamptiron, commending with Section 7000 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code) or that he is exempt therefrom, and the basis for the alleged .Anyviolation of Secti 7031.5 by any applicant for a permit subjects the applicant t a civilpenalty of not more than five hpndred dollars [$5001). Ai j1 I 6i (-A p& 5 M4& 4 1Z (76c) '/7/ -?5 Name - Address . City State/Zip TIeph ne # State License #A 99 &3 6' CA't(k. License Class________________ ____ $i City Business License # 1._o Lz', )A-1 •'-' Ii t.' j 525 q3 () Q—ZSZr I \ Designer Name Address City State/Zip Telephone )r's State License 4''.,34' &,... Workers' Compensation Declaration: I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarations: 0 I have and will maintain a certificate of consent to self-insure for workers' compensation as provided by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. 0' I have and will maintain workers' compensation, as required by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. My worker's compensation insurance carrier and policy number are: / J Insurance Company '574 N 0 - Policy No. I 1'/g t, L11 OCf Expiration Date " 6' f (THIS SECTION NEED NOT BE COMPLETED IF THE PERMIT IS FOR ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS [$100'1 OR LESS) 0 CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION: I certify that in the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. I shall not employ any person in any manner so as to become subject to the Workers' Compensation Laws of California. WARNING: Failure to secure workers' compensation coverage is unlawful, and shall subject an employer to criminal penalties and civil fines up to one hundred thousand dollar s4l1p0,009 i addition to the cost of compensation, damages as provided for in Section 3706 of the Labor code, interest and attorney's fees. \ SIGNATURE 4'Lt... (!éA_ '- . . . DATE ' L7 flWIdDDI III flDFf'i'ATI,M - affirm that I am exempt from the Contractor's License Law for the following reason: 0 I, as owner of the property or my 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 build or improve for the purpose of sale). - - 0 I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed 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 contractor(s) licensed pursuant to the Contractor's License Law). 0 I am exempt under Section Business and Professions Code for this reason: I personally plan to provide the major labor and materials for construction of the proposed property improvement. 0 YES - ONO - I (have I have not) signed an application for a building permit for the proposed work. I have contracted with the following person (firm) to provide the proposed construction (include name / address / phone number / contractors license number): I plan to provide portions of the work, but I have hired the following person to coordinate, supervise and provide the major work (include name / address / phone number / contractors license number): I will provide some of the work, but I have contracted (hired) the following persons to provide the work indicated (include name / address / phone number / type of work): - - - PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE DATE 1COMPLETETHISSE6TION FNON-RESIOENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS ONLY 1 Is the applicant or future building occupant required to submit a business plan, acutely hazardous materials registration form or risk managementand prevention program under Sections 25505, 25533 or 25534 of the Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act?— 0 YES 0 NO Is the applicant or future building occupant required to obtain a permit from the air pollution control district or air duality management district? 0 YES 0 NO Is the facility to be constructed within 1,000 feet of the outer boundary of a school site? 0 YES 0 NO - IF ANY OF THE ANSWERS ARE YES, A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY MAY NOT BE ISSUED UNLESS THE APPLICANT HAS MET OR IS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT. [äNSTRUCTION LENDING AGENCY I hereby affirm that there is a Construction lending agency for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued (Sec. 3097(i) Civil Code). LENDER'S NAME LENDER'S ADDRESS__________________________________________________________ APPLICANTCERTIFICATION 1, I certify that I have read the application and state that the above information is correct and that the information on the plans is accurate.' I agree to comply with all City ordinances and State laws relating to building construction. I hereby authorize representatives of the Cit, of Carlsbad to enter upon the above mentioned property for inspection purposes. I ALSO AGREE TO SAVE, INDEMNIFY AND KEEP HARMLESS THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AGAINST ALL LIABILITIES, JUDGMENTS, COSTS AND EXPENSES WHICH MAY IN ANY WAY ACCRUE AGAINST SAID CITY IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT. OSHA: An OSHA permit is required for excavations over 5'0" deep and demolition or construction of structures over 3 stories in height. 1 EXPIRATION: Every permit issued by the building Official under the provisions of this Code shall expire by limitation and become null and void if the building or work authorized by such permit is not commenced within 180 days from the date of such permit or if the building or work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned at any time after the work is corn nc d forferiod of 180 days (Section 106.4.4 Uniform Building Code). / - APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE p ( Y, , ' DATE (( ( r V ' - WHITE: File YELLOW: Applicant PINK: Finance City of Carlsbad Bldg Inspection Request For 028T/2006 Permit# CB051044 Inspector Assignment: TP Title: PALOMAR POINT : Description 4650 SF CRIB BLOCK RETAINING WALL Type: RETAIN Sub Type: Phone: 7604972834 Job Address: Suite: Lot. 0 Location: - inspector: APPLICANT JIM HENRY CONSTRUCTION INC. Owner: Remarks: : Total Time: Requested By: PAT Entered By: CHRISTINE - CD. Description - • Act Comment -;. • ,4 69- Final Masonry. • - Comments/Notices/Hold Asöciated. PCRs/CVs Original PC# - Inspéctiob History - • Date Description •. - Act insp comments 02/02/2006 •69'Final Masonry • NR TP NEED REPORTS & SUM LETTER - • : EsGil Corporation In Partnership with Government for BuiCIing Safety DATE: April 6, 2005 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 051044 PROJECT ADDRESS: Aston Ave. PROJECT NAME: Retaining Wall CANT JIJRIS U PLAN REVIEWER 0 FILE SET:I The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved andchecked by building department staff. The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should, be corrected and resubmitted fora 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. 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 checklist has been sent to: Esgil Corporation staff 'did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: ' ' Telephone #: Date contacted: (by: ) Fax #: Mail Telephone Fax in Person III REMARKS: By: 'Kurt Culver Enclosures: Esgil 'Corporation El GA El MB El EJ El PC 3/29/05 ' trnsmtLdot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 • San Diego, California 92123 • (858) 560-1468 • Fax (858) 560-1576 C'aElsbad 051044 April 6, 2005 VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 051044 PREPARED BY: Kurt Culver BUILDING ADDRESS: Aston Ave. BUILDING OCCUPANCY: Wall DATE: April 6,2005 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: Conc. BUILDING PORTION AREA (Sq. Ft.) Valuation Multiplier Reg. Mod. VALUE ($) Ret. Wall . 74,400 Air. Conditioning Fire Sprinklers TOTAL VALUE . . . 74,400 Junsdiction Code Icb By Ordinance I Bldg. Permit Fee by Ordinance V $441.31 1 Plan Check Fee by Ordinance Type of Review: F41 Complete Review EJ Structural Only E Other E Repetitive Fee Repeats Hourly . I Hour* Esgil Plan Review Fee I $247.13 Comments: Sheet 1 of 1 macvalue.doc of Carlsbad BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST RETAINING WALL BUILDING PLANCHECK NUMBER: CB (.13/U7 7 BUILDING ADDRESS: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Retaining Wall ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 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, as failure to comply with instructions in this report can result in susp ion of permit to build. By: _____________ Date: DENIAL Please see the ached report of deficiencies marked with . Make necessary corrections to plans or sp cifications for compliance with applicable code and standards. Submit corrected plans and/or specifications to this office for review. Date: Date: By: Date: ATTACHMENTS Right-of-Way Permit Application ENGINEERING DEPT. CONTACT PERSON NAME: JOANNE JUCHNIEWICZ City of Carlsbad ADDRESS: 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 602-2775 H\WRflflfl(qWHXl enRMAW WII R1in0 Pr* 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 .(760) 602-2720 • FAX (760) 60278562 BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST RETAINING WALLS 1ST/ 2ND/ 3RD/ ci ci ci ci ci ci. ci U 1. Provide a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale. Show: North Arrow D. Easements Existing & Proposed Structures E. Retaining Wall (dimensioned from street) (location and height) Property Lines 2. . Show on site plan: Drainage Patterns Existing& Proposed Slopes Existing Topography S çjt y ç 3. Include on title sheet: A. Site Address Assessor's Parcel Number Legal Description Grading Quantities Cut Fill Import/Export (Grading Permit and Haul Route Permit may be required). ci ci ci 4. Project does not comply with the following Engineering Conditions of approval for Project No. Conditions were complied with by: Date: MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS . ci ci ci 5. 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. A separate Right-of-Way issued by the Engineering Department is required for the following: . Please obtain an application for Right-of-Way permit from the Engineering Department. Page 1 IXLASPALMAS\SYSXUBRARY\ENG%WORDXDOCSXCHKLSTXRetaining Wail Building Plancheck Cklst Form JJ.doc Rev. 6/2698 PLANNING/ENGINEERING APPROVALS PERMIT NUMBER CB 6 S Lb '1( DATE 4 J -710S ADDRESS' RESIDENTIAL '. TENANT IMPROVEMENT RESIDENTIALtADDITION:MINOR PLAZA CAMINO 'REAL (<$1OOOO.00) CARLSBAD COMPANY STORES VILLAGE FAIRE COMPLETE OFFICE BUILDING OTHER C/lA 10 H ' PLANNER - DATE ENGINEER DATE Docs/MIsformsfPannIng Engineering Approvals NorCal Engineering Soils and Geotechnical Consultants 10641 Humbolt Street Los Alamitos, CA 90720 (562) 799-9469 Fax (562) 799-9459 October 18, 2004 Project Number 9623-01 Lanikai Management Corporation P.O. Box 455 Santa Ynez, California 93460 Attn: Larry Jett RE: Update to Geotechnical Engineering Investigation - Proposed Palomar Point Development - Located at East of 1817 Aston Avenue, in the City of Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Jett: Pursuant to your request, this firm has provided a site reconnaissance to update recommendations of our previous geotechnical report at the above referenced project. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether the current geotechnical conditions of the subject site conform to the recommendations stated in our "Geotechnical Engineering Investigation" report dated November 5, 2001 for the proposed development. Overall, the geotechnical conditions of the subject site are currently representative of the conditions described in our previous referenced geotechnical report. It is our opinion that the planned construction will be geotechnicaily feasible provided that all of the recommendations presented in the referenced geotèchniôa[ report are implemented. This firm should have the opportunity to review finalized building plans when they are made available to verify that rall recommendations are incorporated and if additional information or revisions will be required. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, NORCAL ENGINEERIN Keith D. Tucker Project Engineer R.G.E.841 NO. t$41 Exp. 12/31/08 .rr Troy D. D. Norrell President NorCal Engineering Soils and Geotechnical Consultants 10641 Humbolt Street Los Alamitos, CA 90720 (562) 799-9469 Fax (562) 799-9459 October 18, 2004 Project Number 9623-01 Lanikai Management Corporation P.O. Box 455 Santa Ynez, California 93460 Attn: Larry Jett RE: Update to Geotechnical Engineering Investigation - Proposed Palomar Point Development - Located at East of 1817 Aston Avenue, in the City of Carlsbad, California. Dear Mr. Jell: . Pursuant to your request, this firm has provided a site reconnaissance to update recommendations of our previous geotechnical report at the above referenced project. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether the current geotechnical conditions of the subject site conform to the recommendations stated in our "Geotechnical Engineering Investigation", report dated November 5, 2001 forthe proposed development. Overall, the geotechnical conditions of the subject site are currently representative of the conditions described in our previous referenced geotechnical report. It is our opinion that the planned construction will be geotechnically feasible provided that all of the' recommendations presented in the referenced geotechnical report are implemented. This firm should have the opportunity to review finalized building plans when they are made available to verify that all recommendations are incorporated and if additional information or revisions will be required. We appreciate this opportunity to be ,of.service to you. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted NORCAL ENGlNEERlNE,0 co rr Keith D. Tucker k\ Exp. 12/31/08 Project Engineer \\ *0. * R.G.E. 841 0tEc4 ) y— Troy D. Norrell President NorCal Engineering Soils and Geotechnical Consultants 10641 Humbolt Street Los Alamitos, CA 90720 (562) 799-9469 Fax (562) 799-9459 February 8, 2006 Project Number 9623-01 Lanikai Management Corporation P.O. Box 455 Santa Ynez, California 93460 Attn: Larry Jett • RE: Geotechnical Report - Observation and Testing of Crib Wall Backfill Operations - Proposed Palomar Point Development (Buildings A, B and C) - Located at 1930 Palomar Point Way, in the City of Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Jett: Pursuant to your request, this firm has provided this geotechnical report to summarize the observation and testing performed during backfill operations for three (3) crib 'walls at the above referenced project. The geotechnical aspects of the' backfill were conducted in accordance with our report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Investigation", dated November 5, 2001, Project Number 9623-01. Our; geotechnical services pertaining to the backfill are summarized in the subsequent sections of this report. Wall Backfill Prior to construction of the crib walls all vegetation and demolition debris was stripped and removed to competent material. The exposed surfaces were scarified, moisture conditioned and then recompacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. A drain system consisting of 4-inch perforated PVC pipe and 3/4 inch diameter gravel wrapped in filter fabric was placed, behind the base of each wall.' Fill soils were then placed as the walls were constructed and compacted to a minimum 90% of the laboratory, standard in lifts not in excess of eight inches in thickness. The maximum depth of fill soils placed was approximately 9 feet. Hand operated compation equipment was utilized for compaction control. A water hose provided moisture control. • February 8, 2006 Project Number 9623-01 Page '2 Laboratory/Field Testing . The relative compaction was determined by Sand Cone Method (ASTM D1556-00) and by the Drive Tube Method (ASTM: D2937-00). The maximum density of the fill soils was obtained by the laboratory standard (ASTM: D1557-00) and results are shown on Table I Tests were performed 'a minimum of every 500 cubic yards placed and every two feet in-depth of fill placed A summary of the compaction tests of the backfill operations are described in Appendix 'B with locations shown on the accompanying plan. • Limitations It should be noted that our work does not warrant or guarantee that the contractor responsible for each phase of the project has performed his work in accordance with the project specifications. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned • Respectfully submitted, NORCAL ENGINE ERIN Keith D Tucker Exp. 12/31/08 ,' Walter K Mott Project Engineer * * Project Manager R.G.E. 841 PCAOf • NorCal Engineering T • "February 8 2006 Project Number 9623-01 Page • .TABLE i MAXIMUM DENSITY TESTS (ASTM D1557-00) Optimum Maximum Dry Sample Classification Moisture Density (lbs /cu ft) Silty SAND 110 1205 II Silty.-SAND 105 1230 ;IlI Silty SAND 110 1280 IV Silty SAND 10 .0 , 130 .0 , • . 'V Silty SAND 12.5 122.0 - • • I • . . . .. .- • • . • - - • -- . .-•, ... .•• t - NorCal Engineering February 8, 2006 Project Number 9623-01 Page SUMMARY OF COMPACTION TEST RESULTS • Date of Test Percent UnitWt. Relative Soil Test Test No Location Elevations Moisture lbs/cuff. Compaction Type S/D 4/25/05 101 Wall Backfill 307.0 8.5 105.1 .. 87 I D 4/25/05, 101A** Wall Backfill 307.0 10.1 108.9 90 I D 4/25/05 102 Wall Backfill 308.0 10.0 111.8 93 I D • 4/25/05 103 Wall Backfill 307.0 10.5 112.8 94 I S 4/25/05 104 Wall Backfill 304.0 10.7 109.3 91 I D 4/26/05 105 Wall Backfill 309.0 10.1 111.7 93 I D 4/26/05 106 Wall Backfill 308.0 10.4 112.3 91 II 0 4/26/05 107 Wall Backfill 305.0 10.2 114.2 93 II S 4/26/05 108 Wall Backfill 313.0 9.8 117.4 95 II D 4/27/05 109 Wall Backfill 309.5 108 . 114.4 95 I S 4/27/05 110 Wall Backfill 310.0 11.2 113.3 92 II D 4/27/05 111 Wall Backfill 313.0 9.4 116.0 . . 94 II D 4/27/05 112 Wall Backfill 312.5 . 10.8 112.8 94 I D 5/2/05 113 Wall Backfill 314.0 11.2 1-11.1 90 II S 5/2/05 114 Wall Backfill 316.0 10.9 116.3 91 III D 5/2/05 115 Wall Backfill 310.5 9.8 116.6 91 III D 5/2/05 116 Wall Backfill 316.0 10.7 107.5 87 II D 5/2/05 116A** Wall Backfill 316.0 10.5 112.2 91 II D • 5/2/05 117 WallBackfill 315.0 10.7 111.4 91 II S 5/2/05 118 Wall Backfill 317.0 11.2 113.3 92 II D 5/3/05 119 Wall Backfill 318.0 10.4 112.3 91 II D 5/3/05 120 Wall Backfill 319.0 11.2 115.2 90, III D 5/3/05 121 Wall Backfill 317.0 10.8 108.8 .90 I S • 5/4/05 122 Wall Backfill 319.0 9.9 112.8 94 I D 5/4/05 123 Wall Backfill 320.0 10.8 110.1 91 I D 5/4/05 124 Wall Backfill 320.5 . 10.4 111.4 91 II D 5/4/05 125 Wall Backfill 310.0 .9.5 115.5 94 II S 5/4/05 126 Wall Backfill 307.5 10.6 111.2 90 II D • 5/5/05 127 Wall Backfill 316.0 7.2 104.6 85 II D 5/5/05 127A** Wall Backfill 316.0 10.5 112.2 91 II D 5/5/05 128 Wall Backfill 322.0 10.8 111.0 90 II D 5/5/05 129 Wall Backfill 321.5 . 11.2 109.2 91 .1 5 • **Retest of failing tests after area reworked S= Sand Cone MethOd D= Drive Tube Method. NorCal Engineering I Soil Test IY2 LQ II D .11 IV S II D IV S II . D II D II D ,IV S II D IV S II D II D II D II D II S II S II II D II S D II D II S II D V D V S V D II D IV S II D II D February 8, 2006 Project, Number 9623-01 Page SUMMARY OF COMPACTION TEST RESULTS• Date of Test Percent Unit Wt. Relative Test No. Location Elevations Moisture lbs./cu.ft. Compaction 5/6/05 - - 130 Wall Backfill 323.5 9.9 111.0 90 5/6/05 131 Wall Backfill 324.0 10.2 112.5 91 5/6/05 132 Wall Backfill 325.0 9.5 122.1 94 5/6/05 133 Wall Backfill 325.0 10.2 111.6 91 5/9/05 134 Wall Backfill 326.0 10.5 119.2 92 5/9/05 135 Wall Backfill 321.0 10.0 107.2 87 5/9/05 135A** Wall Backfill 321.0 10.3 112.4 91 5/9/05 136 Wall Backfill 327.0 9.8 112.0 . 91 5/9/05 137 Wall Backfill .3260 10.9 118.5 91 5/9/05 138 Wall Backfill 323.0 10.8 111.9 91 5/9/05 139 Wall Backfill 326.0 10.1 121.6 . 94 5/9/05 140 Wall Backfill 325.5 95 114.2 93 5/10/05 141 Wall Backfill 328.0 13.9 108.4 88 5/10/05 141A** Wall Backfill 328.0. 10.9 112.7 92 5/10/05 142 Wall Backfill 329.0 10.6 112.1 91 5/10/05 143 Wall Backfill 328.0 11.1 108.2 '88 5/10/05 143A** Wall Backfill 328.0 10.8 117.4 95 5/10/05 144 Wall Backfill 330.0 10.7 112.9 92 5/10/05 145 Wall Backfill 329.0 10.3 110.8 90 5/11/05 146 Wall Backfill 331.0 10.8 114:5 93 5/11/05 147 Wall Backfill 329.0 10.5 108.5 90 5/11/05 148 Wall Backfill 328.0 11.1 110.7 90 5/11/05 149 Wall Backfill 331.0 10.7 112.9 92 5/12/05 150 Wall Backfill 328.0 10.3 114.2 93 5/12/05 151 Wall Backfill 268.0 12.6 110.1 90 5/12/05 152 Wall Backfill 274.0 12.9 111.7 92 5/12/05 153 Wall Backfill 271.0 12.4 110.3 90 5/13/05 154 Wall Backfill 275.0 10.0 113.6 . 92 5/13/05 155. Wall Backfill 276.0 10.6 120.1 92 5/16/05 156 Wall Backfill 310.0 10.9 111.0 90 5/16/05 157 Wall Backfill 320.0 10.3 . 112.3 91 **Retest of failing tests after area reworked S= Sand Cone Method- D= Drive Tube Method . NorCal Engineering S S S NTS / NorCal Engineering SOILS AND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS LANIKAI PROJECT 9623-01 I DATE FEBRUARY 2006 SITE PLAN SFff -'--. 'N\,3I4:i w 324.75 -- y _2,45B FL—HP ll~ W 324.55 5 - 324.58 4. NorCal Engineering SOILS AND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS LANIKAI PPJCT 9623-01 J TE FEBRUARY 2006 LOCATION OF COMPACTION TESTS SHEET 2 \ 112 20 3 /_dl; __ __ MAP ND. il8li EX TYP~11` 3X .85 ml APN 212-120-1 RETAINING WALL pERm BY-OTHERS 1 19 ST 04105 1-03 109 1 ; 5 156 OX E 322 30 ONC. PIPE COLLAR - -GIL 021 25 - -. - 11 4 , / - 123-- \ a7- __________________________ 15' 2f85~ 372 .7J05 632 32r6 324129A 3 3247' O.L3:% 57. MELLO 0 23.75%. .rEAcO \ / 4Q5% _\4%oI422 /0.5% 324 es' ____ o-9 / \__ \ -\-324.39 T02 J/ t 7 °fL / J!rA1L;1 325.8 PAU jjj LOT LINE-" TO ANODFSCAPIAREA—. HOL LEAVE 3-3DIA. I cp 1II jN CURB V FOMNAGE f 46/ ENED 32 FO FOO SEE DETAIL NAFII11! 1 _____rf---. EELNHNA I I324.3A,J4..,A 32.55 I I I -K I fl3&25 N SHEET NO.3 iii. I ii J- 11I 18 PVC cq ' / BUILING C I BUI,D(4B 4 JTYPECB SIDEWALK UNDERORAIN / FF=r25.20 ED Ltli ' I'SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN ARId S324.20TG SEE DETAIL IN SHEET DRSDD-29 PIPES PER SDRS D-27 V\ *pAD , 3245o /"-24.95 324.7i24.7i \\ 3244J J EER?NQ *PAD325. Q :IW .10c JIt U Ii r- 15" 61.2% ) 12 C—i RPD i 15* PVC •\ —L / 32 C7W'AjRMAIW,, \J1 LJ 0' CURB LAJ CURB 25.78 L_L \ ' ' 32 .40 - 2 40 \ 42 32 .40 .42 32 .42 324.9 HOLES IN _RtT24 gd- .26 32 26 ~~( W L 9a R.9; GY 3) 323 S 1"=40' 73 325.26 Zr 7- Q2 1,.2~1 323 325,88 32 20 75. J, I 5. 540 RIDGE 11 t/ ER L TERAL (P 325.01 PVC 324.95 3 Z5 •1 GO 80 32' \,_.ci.3 4.56i :72 r ." 324.4.0 324.43 325,04 "- 26.QQ,' I '1rt(1 1r4I 24.'1 Y I 325 FL HP ' \J j1J_%f-rq-'\j 0.57 324. 0 32406 32.09 ~ 324. 9 / . 4 326 50 . FL 325.26 __- CU Oufl.Er-1'f 3248 137 l314 46 3 30.50 p - 2' ry 325.70 3 .30 LANDSCAPE ARCH.1 BIO-FILTER PER Fill '' • o - / 0 ' ... BOT.=,323.6 it 324 J JE 3.9O % '13Q\ 32 I il' ROW DITCH ING w RS 4W , ___-•-\ 5,,, D-75 TYPE, PERMIT • . \\ A. Li T%EN, - I --~_ C \141 RUS F EITHER SIDE OF D-75 E POIflON OF"RETAININC • 14 0, / WALL ALONG,HEJIO IlL BA IN / I / FL ( ) 5' 133 / 1 5. .7 c, .• 142 3 Ofly /Al \J\ CUR LUThEr \PDRSD,Dr25 -, 3 36 / . / -----'I "i •0 / LOT LINE 7-. -. S••,,,•,••, ' --• 5 . / / OP0SE N 4 . 1 -2 / - / 14 REF1JING WAIl . 323.22 - ' PERM0Th PUBLIC 1 40 35 D 12 8 SD PER IMPROVEM • 315.7 PLAN 422-9 '-s, ft .5, . •% Z ) / - D-75 TYPE D 3 5.64 MODW D=6 - - - _- Li - 16. - - - - .• 3164N - - - \' 1 "=40' 21 2 WATER SERVICE-7' SILOPE .326.60 =327.30 326.50 26.80 5.. 8.3% MAX FL FL BUILDING A LOT UNE F :: 0*pAD_326 J 32 00 1 1/2k METER 71 = = LOT UNE \ 327.20 FL-HP DEEPEN FL HP 327 6' STEJMWALL UNDERWALK UN / FOO11NG-. 3-3 SIDEWALK I '..LOT PIPES PER SORS D-27 326.43 - FL SLOPE 27.JMJtf. 5.2 - 326.80, AWAY FROM BID LDI 65 i MAP NO i SD PER IMPROVE1 PLAN 422-9 APN 212-12011 LETTER OF pERWSSION TO GRADE BY. HIP (I) DATED. _12-07-04 PUBLIC WATER // ff PROPOSED NING WALL / By OS L_/------------ )/\\ Cb _ -- - _- -- - .-- --w-- •-- --- - J- 10foo./ 153 as)15 15 1 154 / I I / 1n •—.---.i_\ VV 84 7 60 ç PLAN 22-9 ROVE 7" 0 7. oxr FL BRO %<- : / /7 A 7Th/ <_-_ --- mu As AER 290 NA ix P 11-acs/ 300 DFQNS- FUTU ORSE (TO 0 IF THE GOLF Po IMP OMOPED FIRST.) 1 "=40' PA~, GOLF COURSE Ll TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 Project Description .............................................................. 2 2.0 Site Description ........................... . ....................................... 2 3.0 Site Exploration..................................................................2 4.0 Laboratory Tests • 4.1 Field Moisture Content ............................................................ .3 4.2 Maximum Density Tests..........................................................3 4.3 Expansion Index Tests ................ ...........................................4 4.4 Atterberg Limits......................................................................4 4.5 Sulfate Tests.........................................................................4 • 4.6 Direct Shear Tests ................................................................. 4 4.7 Consolidation Tests .......... . ...................................................... 4 5.0 Seismicity Evaluation ........................................................... 4 6.0 Liquefaction Evaluation ................................................ ........ 5 7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 0 7.1 Site Grading Recommendations..............................................6 7.1.1 Removal and Recompaction Recommendations ........................ 6 7.1.2 Fill Blanket Recommendations ............................................... 7 7.2 Shrinkage and Subsidence....................................................8 7.3 Temporary Excavations.........................................................8 7.4 Foundation Design ................................ ................................. 8 • 7.5 Settlement Analysis .... ...........................................................9 7.6 Lateral Resistance.................................................................9 7.7 Retaining Wall Design Parameters...........................................10 7.8 Slab Design ......................................................................... 10 7.9 Pavement Section Design ...................................................... 11 • 7.10 Utility Trench and Excavation Backfill. ......................................... 12 7.11 Corrosion Design Criteria ......................................................... 12 8.0 Closure ................................................................................ 12 • U NorCal Engineering Soils and Geotechnical Consultants 10641 Humbolt Street Los Alamitos, CA 90720 (562) 799-9469 Fax (562) 799-9459 November 5, 2001 Project Number 9623-01 U Lanikai Management Corporation 1815 Aston, Suite 106 Carlsbad, California 92008 Attn.: Mr. Larry Jett RE: Geotechnical Engineering Investigation - Proposed Office Development (±14 Acre Parcel) - Located East of 1815 Aston Avenue, in the City of Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Jett: Pursuant to your request, this firm has performed a Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the proposed commercial development at the above referenced project. The purpose of this investigation is to evaluate the subsurface conditions of the subject site and to provide recommendations for the proposed self storage development. The scope of work included the following: 1) site reconnaissance; 2) subsurface geotechnical exploration and sampling; 3) laboratory testing; 4) engineering analysis of field and laboratory data; and 5) preparation of a geotechnical engineering report. It is the opinion of this firm that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided that the recommendations presented in this report are followed in the design and construction of the project. U November 5, 2001 Project Number 9623-01 Page 1.0 Project Description It is proposed to construct an office development as shown on the site plan. Other improvements will consist of property line screen walls, concrete and asphaltic pavement and landscaping. The buildings will be supported by a conventional slab-on- grade foundation system with perimeter-spread footings and isolated interior footings. It is assumed that the proposed grading for the development will include minor cut and fill procedures. Final building plans shall be reviewed by this firm prior to submittal for city approval to determine the need for any additional study and revised recommendations pertinent to the proposed development, if necessary. 2.0 Site Description The approximately 14 acre subject site consists of an irregular shaped parcel located easterly .of College Avenue and southerly of Aston Avenue, in the city of Carlsbad. The parcel is elongated in a east to west direction with topography of the property descending from west to east. The property is currently undeveloped land which contains minor scattered debris and small stockpiles of fill, concrete and debris in the southeasterly portion. Outcroppings of bedrock are located throughout the site. Moderate to heavy vegetation was noted throughout the parcel. S 3.0 Site Exploration The investigation consisted of the placement of seven (7) subsurface exploratory trenches, by a backhoe to a maximum depth of 9 feet below current ground elevations. The explorations were visually classified and logged by a field engineer and geologist with locations of the subsurface explorations shown on the attached Site Plan. The depth of the excavation was limited due to the hardness of the bedrock. The exploratory trenches revealed the existing earth materials to consist of a disturbed top soil/fill and natural soil/bedrock. A detailed description of the subsurface conditions are listed on the excavation logs in Appendix A. NorCal Engineering November 5, 2001 Page 3 Project Number 9623-01 Disturbed Top/Fill Soils: A disturbed/fill soil classifying as a brown, silty CLAY to S clayey SAND was encountered across the site to a depth of 6 inches. These soils were noted to be firm to medium dense and dry due to past weathering. Natural: An undisturbed native soil classifying as a brown, silty CLAY bedrock material was encountered beneath the upper surface soils. These native soils were observed to be stiff to very hard and dry to moist. The high density of these soils limited the depths of our excavations. The overall engineering characteristics of the earth material were relatively uniform with each excavation. No groundwater was encountered to the depth of our trenches and no caving -occurred; however, the soils in portions of the site have contained water in the upper +2 feet during the rainy season. 4.0 Laboratory Tests Relatively undisturbed samples of the subsurface soils were obtained to perform laboratory testing and analysis for direct shear, consolidation tests, and to determine in- place moisture/densities. These relatively undisturbed ring samples were obtained by driving a thin-walled steel sampler lined with one inch long brass rings with an inside diameter of 2.42 inches into the undisturbed soils. Bulk bag samples were obtained in the upper soils for expansion index tests and maximum density tests. Wall loadings on the order of 4,000 lbs./lin.ft. and maximum compression loads on the order of 100 kips were utilized for testing and design purposes. All test resuitsare included in Appendix B, unless otherwise noted. 4.1 Fi40 eld moisture content (ASTM:D 2216) and the dry density of the ring samples were determined in the laboratory. This data is listed on the logs of explorations. 4.2 Maximum density tests (ASTM: D-1557-00) were performed on typical samples of the - upper soils. Results of these tests are shown on Table I. S NorCal Engineering H) November 5, 2001 Project Number 9623-01 Page 4.3 Expansion index tests in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Standard No. 29- S 2 were performed on remolded samples of the upper soils. Results of these tests are provided on Table II. 4.4 Atterberg Limits (ASTM: D 4318-84) consisting of liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity index were performed on representative soil samples. Results are shown on Table Ill. 4.5 Sulfate,tests to determine the potential corrosive effects of soils on concrete were performed in the laboratory. Test results are provided on Table IV. 4.6 Direct shear tests (ASTM: D-3080) were performed on undisturbed and disturbed samples of the subsurface soils. The test is performed under saturated conditions at S loads of 500 lbs./sq.ft., 1,000 lbs./sq.ft., and 2,000 lbs./sq.ft. with results shown on Plate A. 4.7 Consolidation tests (ASTM: D-2435) were performed on undisturbed samples to determine the differential and total settlement which may be anticipated based upon the proposed loads. Water was added to the samples at a surcharge of one KSF and the settlement curves are plotted on Plate B. S 5.0 Seismicity Evaluation There are no known active or potentially active faults trending toward or through the site. The proposed development lies outside of any Alquist Priolo Special Studies Zone and the potential for damage due to direct, fault rupture is considered very remote. The site is located in an area of high regional seismicity and a maximum credible horizontaj ground acceleration of 0.43g may occur from a Maghitüde 6.9 earthquake along the Rose Canyon fault zone, which is located approximately 6 miles away. Ground shaking originating from earthquakes along other active faults in the region is expected to induce lower horizontal accelerations due to smaller anticipated S earthquakes and/or greater distances to other faults. NorCal Engineering November 5,'2001 PrOject Number 9623-01 Page The following earthquake design parameters are based upon the 1997 Uniform Building S Code (UBC) for a Seismic Zone 4 with a Zfactor of 0.40 and a Soil Profile Type of SD, a stiff soil profile Earthquake Fault Rose Canyon • Distance to Fault 10 km Seismic Source Type B 3 Seismic Coefficient = Ca (0 44) Na - 4. SeismicCoefficient = Cv (0.64) Nv - 5. Near-Source Facto Na 6. Near-Source Factor Nv -1.0 6.'0 Liquefaction Evaluation The site is expected to experience ground shaking and earthquake activity that is typical of Southern California area It is during severe ground shaking that loose granular soils below the groundwater table can liquefy Our analysis indicates the potential for liquefaction at this site is considered to be very low due to-the near'-surface bedrock conditions at the subject site Thus the design of the proposed construction in conformance with the latest Building Code provisions for earthquake design is expected to provide mitigation of ground shaking hazards that are typical to Southern California. 7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations - - Based upon our evaluations the proposed development is acceptable fron a geotechnical engineering standpoint By following the recommendations and guidelines set forth in our report the structures will be safe from excessive settlements under the anticipated design loadings and conditions The proposed development shall meet all requirements of the City Building Ordinance and will not impose any adverse effect on existing adjacent structures NorCa1 Engineering . --:' ) November 5, 2001 Project Number 9623-01 Page The following recommendations are based upon geotechnical conditions encountered in our field investigation and laboratory data. Therefore, these surface and subsurface conditions could vary across the site. Variations in these conditions may not become evident until the commencement of grading operations and any unusual conditions which may be encountered in the course of the project development may require the need for additional study and revised recommendations. It is recommended that site inspections be performed by a representative of this firm during all grading and construction of the development to verify the findings and recommendations documented in this report. The following sections present a discussion of geotechnical related requirements for specific design recommendations of different aspects of the project. • 7.1 Site Grading Recommendations Any vegetation shall be removed and hauled from proposed grading areas prior to the start of grading operations. Existing vegetation shall not be mixed or disced into the soils. Any removed soils may be reutilized as compacted fill once any deleterious material or oversized materials (in excess of eight inches) is removed. Grading operations shall be performed in accordance with the attached "Specifications for Placement of Compacted Fill". 7.1.1 Removal and Recompaction Recommendations All disturbed/low density soils (6 inches) shall be removed to competent native material, the exposed surface scarified to a depth of 12 inches, brought to within 2% of optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90% of the laboratory standard (ASTM: D-1557-00) prior to placement of any additional compacted fill soils, foundations, slabs-on-grade and pavement. Grading shall extend a minimum of five horizontal feet outside the edges.of foundations or equidistant to the depth of fill placed, whichever is greater. Wet soil conditions may be encountered of the grading operations commerce during or immediately after the rainy season. Stabilization of wet areas may be necessary which may include the use of gravel, filter fabrics and track mounted equipment. NorCal Engineering 0 ) November 5, 2001 Project Number 9623-01 Page It is possible that isolated areas of undiscovered fill not described in this report are present on site. If found, these areas should be treated as discussed earlier. A diligent search shall also be conducted during grading operations in an effort to uncover any underground structures, irrigation or utility lines. If encountered, these structures and lines shall be either removed or properly abandoned prior to the proposed construction. Any imported fill material should be preferably soil similar to the upper soils encountered at the subject site. All soils shall be approved by, this firm prior to importing at the site and will be subjected to additional laboratory testing to assure concurrence with the recommendations stated in this report. Care should be taken to provide or maintain adequate lateral support for all adjacent improvements and structures at all times during the grading operations and construction phase. Adequate drainage away from the structures, pavement and slopes should be provided at all times. If placement of slabs-on-grade and pavement is not completed immediately upon completion of grading operations, additional testing and grading of the areas may be necessary prior to continuation of construction operations. Likewise, if adverse weather conditions occur which may damage the subgrade soils, additional assessment by the geotechnical engineer as to the suitability of the supporting soils may be needed. 7.1.2 Fill Blanket Recommendations Due to the potential for differential settlement of foundations placed on compacted fill and the underlying bedrock, it is recommended that all foundations be underlain by a uniform compacted fill blanket at least three feet in thickness. This fill blanket shall extend a minimum of five horizontal feet outside the edges of foundations or equidistant to the depth of fill placed, whichever is greater. Some difficulty in the excavations of the bedrock may occur and ripping maybe required prior to the use of scrapers for transporting these soils. A seismic refraction study may be necessary to be performed by others to determine these conditions. NorCal Engineering November 5, 2001 Project Number 9623-01 Page 7.2 Shrinkage and Subsidence Results of our in-place density tests reveal that the soil shrinkage will be on the order of 5 to 10% due to excavation and recompaction, based upon the assumption that the fill is compacted to 92% of the maximum dry density per ASTM standards. Subsidence should be less than 0.1 feet due to earthwork operations. The volume change does not include any allowance for vegetation or organic stripping, removal of subsurface improvements or topographic approximations. Although these values are only approximate, they represent our best estimate of lost yardage which will likely occur during grading. If more accurate shrinkage and subsidence factors are needed, it is recommended that field testing using the actual equipment and grading techniques should be conducted. 7.3 Temporary Excavations Temporary unsurcharged excavations in the existing site materials less than 4 feet high may be made at a vertical gradient unless cohesionless soils are encountered. Temporary unsurcharged excavations from 4 to 6 feet high may be trimmed at a I to 1 (horizontal to vertical) gradient. In areas where soils with little or no binder are encountered, where adverse geological conditions are exposed, or where excavations are adjacent to existing structures, shoring, slot-cutting, or flatter excavations may be required. The temporary cut slope gradients given do not preclude local raveling and sloughing. All excavations shall be made in accordance with the requirements of CAL- OSHA and other public agencies having jurisdiction. Care should be taken to provide or maintain adequate lateral support for all adjacent improvements and structures at all times during the grading operations and construction phase. 7.4 Foundation Design All foundations may be designed utilizing the following safe bearing capacities for an embedded depth of 24 inches, into approved fill materials with the corresponding widths: NorCal Engineering 'T) November 5, 2001 Project Number 9623-01 Page 9 Allowable Safe Bearing Capacity (psf) Continuous Isolated Width (ft) Foundation Foundation 1.5 - 2000 2500 2.0 2075 2575 4.0 2375 2875 The bearing value may be increased by 500 psf for each additional foot of depth in excess of the 24 inch minimum depth, upto a maximum of 4,000 psf. A one third increase may be used when considering short term loading and seismic forces. Any foundations located along the property lines or where lateral overexcavation is not possible may utilize a safe bearing capacity of 1,500 psf. A representative of this firm shall inspect all foundation excavations prior to pouring concrete. All foundations shall be reinforced with a minimum of one No. 5 bar, top and bottom. These recommendations may change after the grading operations due to the amount of grading to be performed. Additional laboratory testing will be performed at that time. • 7.5 Settlement Analysis Resultant pressure curves for the consolidation tests are shown on Plate B. Computations utilizing these curves and the recommended safe bearing capacities reveal that the foundations will experience settlements on the order 'of 3/4 inch and differential settlements of less than 1/4 inch. - 7.6 Lateral Resistance The following values may be utilized in resisting lateral loads imposed on the structure. Requirements of the Uniform Building Code should be adhered to when the coefficient of friction and passive pressures are combined. Coefficient of Friction - 0.35 Equivalent Passive Fluid Pressure = 200 lbs./cu.ft. Maximum Passive Pressure = 2,000 lbs./cu.ft. The passive pressure recommendations are valid only for approved compacted fill soils. NorCal Engineering November 5, 2001 PrOject Number 9623-01 Page 10 7.7 Retaining Wall Design Parameters fl Active earth pressures against retaining wall will be equal to the pressures developed by the following fluid densities. These values are for granular backfill material placed behind the walls at various ground slopes above the walls. fl Surface Slope of Retained Materials Equivalent Fluid (Horizontal to Vertical) Density (lb./cu.ft) Level 30 5tol 35 4tol 38 3tol 0 40 2t01 45 Any applicable short-term construction surcharges and seismic forces should be added to the above lateral pressure values. A backfill zone of non-expansive material shall consist of a wedge beginning a minimum of one horizontal foot from the base of the wall extending upward at an inclination no less than 1/4 to 1 (horizontal to vertical). All walls shall be waterproofed as needed and protected from hydrostatic pressure by a reliable permanent subdrain system. 7.8 Slab Design All concrete slabs-on-grade shall be at least five inches in thickness and placed on approved subgrade soils compacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction in the upper one foot. Reinforcement requirements' and an increase in thickness of the slabs- on-grade may be necessary based upon proposed loading conditions in the structures. A vapor barrier overlain by a two inch thick sand layer should be utilized in areas which would be sensitive to the infiltration of moisture. All concrete slab areas to receive floor coverings should be moisture tested to meet all manufacturer requirements prior to placement. All slabs-on-grade shall be reinforced with a minimum of No. 3 bars at 18 inches on-center in both directions positioned in the center of the slab. The upper 18 inches of the subgrade soils shall be moistured to 130% of the optimum moisture content prior to pouring concrete. NorCal Engineering November 5, 2001 Project Number 9623-01 Page 11 7.9 Pavement Section Design The table below provides a preliminary pavement design based upon an R-Value of 17 for the proposed pavement areas. Final pavement design may need to be based on R- Value testing of the subgrade soils near the conclusion of rough grading to assure that these soils are consistent with those assumed in this preliminary design. Traffic Asphaltic Base Type of Traffic Index Concrete (in) Material (in) Automobile Parking Stalls 4.0 3.0 5.0 Automobile 5.0 3.0 8.0 Circulation Areas Medium Truck Access Areas 6.0 3.5 10.5 (GVW <42,000 Ibs; 3 axle) All concrete slabs to be utilized for pavement shall be a minimum of six inches in thickness and placed on approved subgrade soils. Final pavement section designs for pavement areas may need to be determined by additional testing of the subgrade near the conclusion of grading operations. In addition, the above recommendations are based upon estimated traffic loads. Client should submit anticipated traffic loadings, when available, so that pavement sections may be reviewed to determine adequacy to support these loads. Any approved base -material shall consist of a Class II aggregate or equivalent and should be compacted to a minimum of 95% relative compaction. All pavement materials shall conform to the requirements set forth by the City of Carlsbad. The base material and asphaltic concrete should be tested prior to delivery to the site and during placement to determine conformance with the project specifications. A pavement engineer shall designate the specific asphalt mix design to meet the required project specifications. NorCal Engineering November 5, 2001 PrOject Number 9623-01 Page 12 7.10 Utility Trench and Excavation Backfill Trenches from installation of utility lines and other excavations may be backfilled with on-site soils or approved imported soils compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. All utility lines shall be properly bedded with clean sand having a sand equivalency rating of 30 (SE > 30) or more. This bedding material shall be thoroughly water jetted around the pipe structure prior to placement of compacted backfill soils. 7.11 CorrosiOn Design Criteria Representative samples of the surficial soils, typical of the subgrade soils expected to be encountered within foundation excavations and underground utilities were tested for corrosion potential. The minimum resistivity value obtained for the samples tested is representative of an environment that may be corrosive to metals. The soil pH value was considered mildly alkaline, and shall not have a significant effect on soil corrosivity. Consideration should be given to corrosion protection systems for buried metal such as protective coatings, wrappings or the use of PVC where permitted by local building codes. According to the latest 'Uniform Building Code (UBC) Table 19-A-3 - Requirements for Concrete Exposed to Sulfate-Containing Solutions', these contents revealed negligible levels of sulfate exposure. Therefore, a Type II cement according to latest UBC specifications may be utilized for building foundations at this time. Additional sulfate tests shall be performed at the completion of site grading to assure that these soils are consistent with the recommendations stated in this design Sulfate test results may be found on the attached Table IV. 8.0 Closure The recommendations and conclusions contained in this report are based upon the soil conditions uncovered in our test excavations. No warranty of the soil condition between our excavations is implied. NorCal Engineering should be notified for possible further recommendations if unexpected to unfavorable conditions are encountered during construction phase. NorCal Engineering November 5, 2001 Project Number 9623-01 Page 13 It is the responsibility of the owner to ensure that all information within this report is submitted to the Architect and appropriate Engineers for the project. This firm should have the opportunity to review the final plans to verify that all our recommendations are incorporated. This report and all conclusions are subject to the review of the controlling authorities for the project. A preconstruction conference should be held between the developer, general contractor, grading contractor, city inspector, architect, and soil engineer to clarify any, questions relating to the grading operations and subsequent construction. Our representative should be present during the grading operations and construction phase to certify that such recommendations are complied within the field. This geotechnical investigation has been conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill exercised by members of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the Southern California area. No other warranty, expressed or • implied is made. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, NORCAL ENGINEERIt frtuLT Keith D. Tucker * Project Engineer R.G.E. 841 OP * Troy D. Norrell President [1 /LJ Gail S. Hunt Project Geologist C.E.G. 384 NorCal Engineering November 5, 2001 Project Number 9623-01 Page 14 SPECIFICATIONS FOR PLACEMENT OF COMPACTED FILL Excavation . Any existing low density soils and/or saturated soils shall be removed to competent natural soil under the inspection of the Soils Engineering Firm. After the exposed surface has been cleansed of debris and/or vegetation, it shall be scarified, until it-is uniform in consistency, brought to the proper moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction (in. accordance with ASTM: D-1557-00). •0 I In any area where a transition between fill and native soil or between bedrock and soil 0 are encountered, additional excavation beneath foundations and slabs will be necessary in order to provide uniform support and avoid differential settlement of the structure. Material For Fill The on-site soils or approved import soils may be utilized for the compacted fill provided they are free of any deleterious materials and shall not contain any rocks, brick, asphaltic concrete, concrete or other hard. materials greater Than eight inches in maximum dimensions. Any import soil must be approved by the Soils Engineering firm a minimum of 24 hours prior to importation of site. • Placement of Compacted Fill Soils The approved fill soils shall be placed in layers not excess of sixinches in thickness: Each liftshall be uniform in thickness and thoroughly blended. The fill soils shall be brought to within 15% of the optimum moisture content, unless, otherwise specified by the Soils Engineering firm Each lift shall be compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction (in accordance with ASTM: D-1557-00) and approved prior to the placement of the next layer of soil: Compaction tests shall be obtained at the discretion of the Soils Engineering firm but to a minimum of one test for every 500 cubic. yards placed and/or for every 2 feet of compacted fill placed. Ll . NorCal Engineering IT November 5, 2001 PrOject Number 9623-01 Page 15 The minimum relative compaction shall be obtained in accordance with accepted methods in the construction industry The final grade of the structural areas shall be in a dense and smooth condition prior to placement of slabs-on-grade or pavement areas. No fill soils shall be placed, spread or compacted during unfavorable weather conditions. When the grading is interrupted by heavy rains, compaction operations shall not be resumed until approved by the Soils Engineering firm. Grading Observations The controlling governmental agencies should be notified prior to commencement of any grading operations. This firm recommends that the grading operations be conducted under the observation of a Soils Engineering firm as deemed necessary. A 24 hour notice must be provided to this firm prior to the time of our initial inspection. Observation shall include the clearing and grubbing operations to assure that all unsuitable materials have been properly removed; approve the exposed subgrade in areas to receive fill and in areas where excavation has resulted in the desired finished grade and designate areas of overexcavation; and perform field compaction tests to determine relative compaction achieved during fill placement. In addition, all foundation excavations shall be observed by the Soils Engineering firm to confirm that appropriate bearing materials are present at the design grades and recommend any modifications to construct footings. NorCal Engineering Ll Mfuls fSVU$• B: r rrri / %4vsr. 106,300 1. two story 2 bfflce .9p. P. S04009 OW _ so —2. T A. I Palomar Airport 31,000 -otfice sf. . story \ coo two - TEE—b , Go W-10 log' TE-6 - I vfl :1 1~01 VP, it—i. -\ ilo' \ . ;O' - VP'-4 vi'a 6iW -- - -- - NorCal Engineering SOILS AN!) GEOThCHNJCAL CONSULTANTS LOCATION OF FIELD EXPLORATIONS LANKAI PROJECT _9623-01 1_ DATE NOVRVB1 _2001 1 List of Appendices (in order of appearance) • Appendix A - Log of Excavations Log of Test Excavations TE-1 to TE-7 Appendix B - Laboratory Tests Table I - Maximum Dry Density Table II - Expansion Index Tests Table Ill —Sulfate Tests • Table IV — pH Tests Table V - Resistivity Tests Table VI - Chloride Tests • Plate A - Direct Shear Plate B - Consolidation Appendix C - Report by Gail S Hunt MAJOR DIVISION GRAPHIC LETTER TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS SVMROI AYMM o 0 <> GW WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL. GRAVEL CLEAN GRAVELS SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES AND (LITTLE OR NO 4 ft GRAVELLY FINES) SOILS • GP POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE COARSE II I. OR NO FINES GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN GRAVELS t Ri GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND- 50% OF WITH FINES SILT MIXTURES COARSE FRACTION (APPRECIABLE RETAINED ON AMOUNT OF GC CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND- NO. 4 SIEVE FINES1 CLAY MIXTURES . • s' .' .••%• SW WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SAND CLEAN SAND .5.. ..,.. i.•i.•.t. SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES AND (LITTLE OR NO MORE THAN SANDY SOILS FINES) . •.•• POORLY-GRADED SANDS, GRAVEL- 50% OF SP LY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES MATERIAL IS LARGER THAN NO. MORE THAN SM SILTY SANDS, SAND-SILT 200 SIEVE 50% OF SANDS WITH MIXTURES SIZE COARSE FINE FRACTION (APPRECIABLE i PASSING ON NO. 4 SIEVE AMOUNT OF FINES) SC CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-CLAY MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE ML SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO FINE SILTS LIQUID LIMIT CL MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY GRAINED AND I THAt'J ç CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY SOILS CLAYS CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC — — — OL SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY 111110 MH INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR MORE THAN SILTY SOILS 50% OF MATERIAL IS SMALLER SILTS LIQUID LIMIT loori CH INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH THAN NO. AND GREATER THAN PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS 200 SIEVE CLAYS 50 '>4'> ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO SIZE OH HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS _______________________________ F. F. .. _________ HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS ____________________________________ PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH PT HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS 5 NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Ll . fl Ll S 9 NorCal Engineering Ll KEY: Indicates 2.5-inch Inside Diameter. Ring Sample. Indicates 2-inch OD Split Spoon Sample (SPT). Indicates Shelby Tube Sample. EU Indicates No Recovery. E Indicates SPT with 140# Hammer 30 in. Drop. Indicates Bulk Sample. Indicates Small Bag Sample. S Indicates Non-Standard I Indicates Core Run. COMPONENT PROPORTIONS 10 COMPONENT DEFINITIONS COMPONENT SIZE RANGE Boulders Larger than 12 in Cobbles 3 in to 12 in Gravel 3 in to No 4 (4.5mm Coarse gravel 3 in to 3/4 in Fine gravel 3/4 in to No 4 (4.5mm) Sand No. 4 (4.5mm ) to No. 200 ( 0.074mm) Coarse sand No. 4(4.5mm to No. 10(2.0mm) Medium sand No. 10 ( 2.0 mm ) to No. 40 (0.42 mm) Fine sand No. 40 ( 0.42 mm ) to No. 200 ( 0.074 mm) Silt and Clay Smaller than No. 200 (0.074 mm) DESCRIPTIVE TERMS RANGE OF PROPORTION Trace 1-5% Few 5-10% Little 10-20% Some 20 -35% And 35 -50% MOISTURE CONTENT DRY Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch. DAMP Some perceptible moisture; below optimum MOIST No visible water; near optimum moisture content WET Visible free water, usually soil is below water table. :5 RELATIVE DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY VERSUS SPT N -VALUE COHESIONLESS SOILS COHESIVE SOILS Density N (blows/ft) Consistency N (blows/ft) Approximate Undrained Shear Strength (psf) Very Loose 0 to 4 Very Soft 0 to 2 <250 Loose 4 to 10 Soft 2 to 4 250-500 Medium Dense 10 to 30 Medium Stiff 4 to 8 500-1000 Dense 30 to 50 Stiff 8 to 15 1000-2000 Very Dense over 50 Very Stiff 15 to 30 2000-4000 Hard over 30 >4000 NorCal Engineering Log of Test Excavation TE-1 Project: Lanikai/Carlsbad _______________ Date of Drilling: 10/9/01 Groundwater Depth: None Encountered Drilling Method: Extension Backhoé Hammer Weight: Drop: Depth - Samples Laboratory (feet) Geotechnical Description Lh- ology CL >. .2 O o o . .E . Surface Elevation: Not Measured —0 - 6" DISTURBED TOP SOILS - - - ty CLAY / \~Firm, M 3.6 dry . / I 216 1047 - NATURAL SOILS K SiltyCLAY \\Brown, stiff to very stiff, moist . /1 21.7 105.9 Weathered Shale Bedrock - - \Light brown, dry . - Boring completed at depth of 4' —10 —15 . . —20 —25. —30 35 - . 0 NorCal Engineering Project No. 9623.01 Log of Test Excavation TE-2 Project: Lanikai/Carlsbad _________________ Date of Drilling: 10/9/01 Groundwater Depth: None Encountered Drilling Method: Extension Backhoe Hammer Weight: Drop: Depth Samples Laboratory .-- (feet) Geotechnical Description Lith- ology >, 2 c a .57 Surface Elevation: Not Measured LL - o 0 — 6" DISTURBED TOP SOILS - Silty CLAY / M 18.1 104.6 - NATURAL SOILS - \SiltyCLAY / \Brown, stiff with occasional shale fragments, moist / - 5 Weathered Shale Bedrock - '.Jight brown, hard, damp .-. 14.1 101.6 - Shale Bedrock with large cobbles Light brown, very hard . • 16.8 108.1 Boring completed at depth of 9' -10 —15 —20 —25 —30 —35 - NorCal Engineering Project No. 962301 2 Log of Test Excavation TE-3 Project: Lanikai/Carlsbad ______ _______________ Date of Drilling: 10/9/01 Groundwater Depth: None Encountered Drilling Method: Extension Backhoe Hammer Weight: Drop: Depth - Samples Laboratory .C. (feet) Geotechnical Description Lith- ology >. 2 M 0 0 LL a .E Surface Elevation: Not Measured 6" DISTURBED TOP SOILS - - \SiltyCLAY / - \n,dry / \ NATURAL SOILS / \ Silty CLAY - 5 \Brown, stiff, damp / U 14.6 108.7 Claystone Bedrock - Grey, very hard, damp to moist - Boring completed at depth of 7' —10 —15 —20 —25 —30 —35 NorCal Engineering Project No. 962301 Log of Test Excavatipn TE-4 Project: Lanikai/Carlsbad _________________ Date of Drilling: 10/9/01 Groundwater Depth: None Encountered Drilling Method: Extension Backhoe Hammer Weight: Drop: Depth - - _Samples _LaboratorL......... E (feet) Geotechnical Description Lush- ology CL > 2 c . j a .E. LL Surface Elevation: Not Measured 0 _____ 6" DISTURBED TOP SOILS - \ Clayey SAND with large amounts of gravel, rock and cobbles - \ \pense, damp - \ Conglomerate - \ Extremely dense \çould not penetrate Boring completed at depth of 1' —10 —15 —20 --25 ' —30 —35 • NorCal Engineering Project No. 962301 , 2 Log of Test Excavation TE-5 Project: Lanikai/Carlsbad Date of Drilling: 10/9/01 Groundwater Depth: None Encountered Drilling Method: Extension Backhoe Hammer Weight: Drop: Depth - - ._amples Laboratory a (feet) Geotechnical Description Lfth- ology > .2 . a . S'S . Surface Elevation: Not Measured - U LL - 6" DISTURBED TOP SOILS - f'Clayey SAND with gravel, rock and cobbles . Conglomerate - \Could not penetrate Boring completed at depth of 2 —5 —10 - • —15 —20 —25 ,• —30 —35 NorCal Engineering Project .1' Log of Test Excavation TE6 Project: Lanikai/Carlsbad _________________ Date of Drilling: 10/9/01 Groundwater Depth: None Encountered Drilling Method: Extension Backhoe Hammer Weight: Drop: Depth - amples Laboratory (feet) Geotechnical Description - Lith CL ology >. .2 3 . a .E. LL - Surface Elevation: Not Measured 6 DISTURBED TOP SOILS - '-CIayey SAND with large amounts of gravel, rock and cobbles - Conglomerate / - \V~ n:otpenetrate - \C / - Boring completed at depth of 2 —10 —15 . —20 —25 —30 —35 NorCal Engineering - °. 6 Log of Test Excavation TE.7 Project: Lanikai/Carlsbad __________________ Date of Drilling: 10/9/01 Groundwater Depth: None Encountered Drilling Method: Extension Backhoe Hammer Weight: Drop: - - Depth Samples - Laboratory E (feet) Geotechnical Description Lith-CL ology >. 2 . a -LL Surface Elevation: Not Measured —0 o 6" DISTURBED TOP SOILS - 'ty CLAY with occasional gravel, firm, dry .- • 7.4 105.9 - Silt" CLAY / - \Brown, stiff, damp / - Claystone Bedrock \ Very stiff \çpuld not penetrate Boring completed at depth of 4 —10 —15 —20 —25 —30 35 . NorCal Engineering Project No. 962301 November 5, 2001 Project Number 9623-01 Page 18 Appendix B S S S NorCal Engineering November 5, 2001 Project Number 9623-01 Page 20 TABLE I MAXIMUM DENSITY TESTS (ASTM: D-1557-00) Optimum Maximum Dry Sample Classification Moisture Density (lbs Icu ft) TEl @1-3 Silty CLAY 14.0 116.0 TABLE 11 EXPANSION INDEX TESTS (U.B.C. STD. 29-2) Expansion Soil Type Classification - Index TEl @ 1-3' - Silty CLAY 83 TABLE III SULFATETESTS Sample Sulfate (%) TEl @ 1-3 0.040 ND denotes not detected - % by weight TABLE IV • November 5, 2001 Project Number 9623-01 Page 21 TABLE RESISTIVITY TESTS • (CA 643) Sample Resistivity (ohm-cm) TE1©1-3' 600 • TABLE VI CHLORIDE TESTS • (CA 420.1)) Sample Concentration (pDm) TE1@1-3' 40 • 1 fl 0 1500 I' 11 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 N0L STRESS (PSF) NOTE: TESTS PERFORMED ON SATURATED SAMPLES UNLESS SHOWN BELOW. (FM) FIELD MOISTURE TESTS PERFORMED ON UNDISTURBED SAMPLES UNLESS SHOWN BELOW. (R) SAMPLES REMOLDED AT 90% OF MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY NorCal Engineering I SOILS AND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS( 1_DATE DIRECT SHEAR TEST Plate A RESULTS PROJECT 9623-01 2r" MIU - . .. L . .......... ._ . .. . t - r .... .. i I-. .. .. 2000-- - ... -4.. ...............- . -... .. . . ... . . ..- .... . . ...--..... . I ... U!! ::: JTj- - .- ....... 500- 1 - . . ... . . _..L..... ........ -. .. .4 .... ..........._. ............. rsioi BORIN6 NIJIBER DEPTh 1 (FEET) J(DEGREES F (PSF) DENSITY (pcF) DRY )MoISfl1 ( CONTENT I (%) X 2 2.5 19 500 104.6 18.1 o 3 4.0 24 625 108.7 14.6 7 2.0 14 575 105.9 7.4 0 ) :t 'ii Plate B PROJECT *iII I1l S L S S S I j UDIE: 1U XID,AT UML i - - tz I _ - - - - - - - - .- - -.- a BMING DEPTH I I DRY I MOISTURE LIQUID PLASTICITY *JSE1 (FEET) DENSITY I Ciwiti LIMIT INDEX I (PCF) M [ () S (Z) F 2 5 101.6 14.1 1 o 2 9 108.1 16.8 I A 3 4 108.7 14.6 l ot I _________________ • LI Gail Hunt Consultant Geologist P. 0. Box 684 Santa Margarita, CA 93453 Tel: 805 438 4889 October 22, 2001 Subject: Carlsbad Airport, Summit Project PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION The site is being developed as an industrial complex off College Drive and adjacent to Palomar Airport. The plans call for three buildings; two, two story buildings and one single story building. The buildings range between 26 thousand and 31 thousand square feet. Development will require grading of the higher elevations and some filled areas on the east side of the property. Grading will also require cutting a new access road to College Blvd. GEOLOGIC SETTING The site is located on a Pleistocene age, marine cut terrace surface with a thin veneer of older colluvium in the lower areas on the east side of the property. The underlying bedrock was massive white to gray claystone in Test Pits 3 and 7. The bedding was indistinct but there were some red veins that had a slight dip to the east. The apparent bedding is shown on Figure 1. Bedding in the five other test pits was a very hard sandstone and conglomerate with a softer, weathered zone that varied in depth to several feet or more. The hardest materials were in the center of the site at Test Pits 4 and 5 and along the access road at TP 7. The claystone bedrock is believed to be part of the Point Loma formation of Cretaceous age. Clay pit excavations are shown in the area. The harder sandstone and conglomerate are believed to be part of the Santiago formation of Eocene age. The Tertiary rocks appear to overlay the claystone at elevations of about 315 to 320 feet. The contact between the clay and sandstone/conglomerate was not mapped and Figure 1 .shows the entire site as being underlain by the hard, Tertiary sandstone and conglomerate sediments. Further mapping may be required. The elevation of the property varies between about 250 feet in the Northwest corner to slightly over 330 feet near the center of the property. The pad will vary between elevation 336 to 322. This grading will remove the upper most terrace surface and fill the lower areas that are covered with a veneer of colluvium. The sandstone and conglomerate bedrock was difficult to excavate with a backhoe and could be difficult to excavate even by ripping with heavy equipment. Published references indicate no significant faults projecting towards the site. The site is not within a Fault Rupture Hazard Zone as defined by the California Division of Mines and Geology. FIELD INVESTIGATIONS Seven backhoe pits were excavated on the property as shown on the geology map Figure 1. The pits were logged by me and sampled by you. The pits ranged in depth to about 9 feet below the ground surface. The location of the pits are shown on Figure 1. Test pits 4 and 5 were terminated at 1 foot depth because the cemented sandstone and conglomerate was difficult to excavate with the backhoe. The bedrock, underlying the disturbed surface materials, is mostly massive sandstone, however claystone was found in Test pits 3 and 7. As discussed above, two geologic formations are exposed on the site. GROUNDWATER There was no evidence of groundwater on the site and future naturally occurring groundwater is not expected. EARTHQUAKES AND SEISMICITY No mapped active faults cross or project towards the site and the potential for active faulting across the site, within the lifetime of the structure, is. considered remote. Following are nearby faults with estimated magnitude and peak accelerations which could be expected to cause strong shaking at the site within the lifetime of the structure. These accelerations are computed from EQFAULT using attenuation relationships from Boore et al. (1997). Fault Distance (miles) Richter Magnitude Peak Acceleration Rose Canyon 6 6.9 0.32 Newport-Inglewood . 9 6.9 0.24 (Ofshore) Coronado Bank 22 - 7.4 0.16 Elsinore-Julian 24 7.1 0.13 Other faults at greater distances my cause strong shaking but should not exceed the accelerations values listed above. The seismic risk here is similar to many sites in Southern California. The location of the site on competent bedrock is considered to be a favorable condition for building response to earthquake shaking at the site. Severe damage is possible but collapse and structural failure of the wood frame structure is unlikely. 0 1 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The site is considered feasible from a geologic standpoint and the dip of the bedding does not appear to be an adverse geologic condition. The sandstone is massive and major slope failures are unlikely. The claystone may be expansive and may have unfavorable strength characteristics. Separate footing types may be necessary based upon the results of the soils tests. Ripping or even blasting may be required on the hard surface of the Santiago formation sandstone and conglomerate. If the two bedrock types require different treatment, additional exploration may be required. For preliminary, design assume everything above elevation 315 is in the hard sandstone/conglomerate. The footings for the buildings and walls should be in competent bedrock or as directed by the soils engineer. Footings in bedrock should be inspected and approved by an engineering geologist. Project Name (AtLSAP Job No. Equipment 51,1.#r Logged By Gb' TEST Elevation 3ZZ_ PIT Location NO. ENGINEERING PROPERTIES ? . M x 0 .\TILTL:DES DATE 0 (q (al DESCRIPTION UNITS 0— ' Co/lu vi W41 : VEP_'/ P6iXE S/L7' — 7/ CZ-AL/ e /7' r 7A $L 7OtUJ SCALE __________ WALL SHOWN - GRAPHICS SURFACE SLOPE ______ TREND llel III! itI.IIH 1rFl-Ii w Project Name Logged By Job No. Elevation Equipment Location ____________ _C TEST PIT NO. 2_ ENGINEERING PROPERTIES u Z — • t ?.g ;;' C -i • x 0 .\1IITUUES ____________________________________________________ DATE j ô / i ( o j DESCRIPTION ______ UNITS >-3oLL.VVIU'—l: -Y (19A1I4EL7 io': i-i LA.y j7/t JIJTti Tsc tQ C- 013JLE ,tO SCALE _________ WALL SHOWN _______ GRAPHICS SURFACESLOPE ______ TRENE) liii -flu LIII Hit I1H I1H 1111 13111 hIt ItH Project Name A2A7 Job N. • Equipment ffr/7 Logged By .# TEST Elevation PIT Location NO. 3 ENGINEERING PROPERTIES 0 3 . UNITS • • C) -. c (D1 '< r ' .-• x 0 - . in .\TT[TLJUES DATE j /9 DESCRIPTION ij, C SArP0 2 • IJ -rô J1i2 A,, LAy7O)-' 'p f2 .SCALE SCALE WALL SHOWN GRAPHICS S SURFACE SLOPE TREND. I i is I i I I I I i II I I I F ; i i i I t i I i ii i it it -4 (11 LA -4 0 —4 -4 z 0 hA Project 4a me 2Al2-L.I4D 5'f 'r Logged By _GS TEST S ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Job N. E9uIpmeflt Elevation Location PIT NO. 1z 0)• 03 V n & " omi '< LA :< x 0 LA .\TFLIUDES DATE jo Ii 9 DESCRIPTION UNITS 0- I D0— R T Ar cL 012 L / -7 SCALE _________ WALL SHOWN - GRAPHICS S SURFACE SLOPE ______ TRENLJ HiI r ± ,- . Prt'jecc Name /Ji/ Logged By 14 ENGINEERING-PROPERTIES TEST jt No . Elevation '•'1 PIT -NO. • .4ULpmfleflC -- . Yo Location S 0; • (/ • ,•< 0 -p... ______ — -. \1IIILL)E.S DATE DESCRIPTiON UNITS /> r • c o (J L ,&-' z r X C\ (2 7/ SCALE WALL SHOWN GRApHtCS SURFACE SLOPE _____ TRENU T • Project Name Jon No . E4upmnc 4° S"11H17 Logged By Elevation ZL9 1-(O- Location TEST PIT NO. 6 ENGINEERING PROPERTIES zg M UNITS c • • oj '< n in x o LA C 1I11ULJES DATE 10) DESCRIPTION — £ A—'i7W - COL2LI7 /A SAA'DX7O'-' ,E/Av s,-r SCALE __________ WALL SHOWN - GRAPHICS SURFACE SLOPE ______ TRENU lelle lilt I-)-F }tl ItH-II-I 11lltI1tF ______ 49 0 I Pruject Name Legged By c- Job N. _________________ Elevation 37S - LquLpmen Locac ton - TEST PIT NO. 7 ENGINEERING PROPERTIES 03 M — Ln c ma C) m • -. z 0 ry ____________________________________________________ DATE JO/cl/ri! DESCRIPTION ______ UNITS — 4 /i Y 7O C.y5Tci Tt Q/-'6 C (icp. SCALE __________ WALL SHOWN GRAPHICS SURFACE SLOPE ______ TRENLi ii F I I I I— I I I I I I It I I I I I I I I II 14 F I i1 It